Why does it seem like no one realizes that if a T-90M or any T-72 variant had its autoloader hit, it wouldn’t be able to turn its turret more than a degree or two? In-game and in reality, the elevator for the autoloader is directly connected to the mechanism; if that loader is hit and jammed, the physical obstruction should realistically lock the turret’s rotation. Yet, Gaijin continues to model NATO turret baskets as a single, massive hitbox that disables the tank if it’s breathed on wrong, despite the fact that only the hydraulic lines or the bearings—which aren’t even part of the basket—could actually cause a jam. It is simply not fair that an Abrams can be shot in the side and lose all ability to fight back because of a fragile basket, while a T-90M can take a hit to the loader and, as long as the ammo doesn’t cook off, immediately return fire with the round already in the breech. Even the T-80, where the autoloader and turret ring are so integrated they are basically one piece, is allowed to rotate freely in-game after taking internal damage. This inconsistency extends to armor as well; the M1A2 SEP V2 is 7.3 tons heavier than the base M1, yet the game models their hull protection as identical, essentially treating that massive weight increase as dead weight rather than the armor upgrades we know exist. If Gaijin wants a realistic game, the turret basket should act as a spall liner for the crew—as it was designed—rather than an artificial weak point, and autoloader damage should actually reflect the mechanical catastrophe it would cause to a tank’s horizontal drive.
This part is not correct. The actual damage model that causes the drive to lock is the circle on the bottom and the ring on top.
It should block spall. If it doesnt now, it should be changed.
The entire module of the turret basket if hit disables the turret drive and if im not mistaken spall is absorbed but the turret baskets are also missing their mesh that helps against spall
I’ve been over the details of the autoloaders several times in other threads on this so I will not repeat it here, I will just say the turret basket needs to be made less disabling, and the manual backups need to be enabled (same for autoloaders). Both also need their repair time reduced. spending almost a minute repairing from a single piece of spall clipping the autoloader/basket is not fun.
From what I have read online so far is that T-90M Turret drive and autoloader have separate drives which allow them to rotate independently from each other, so that should be realistic. Though NATO turret baskets are unrealistic and should be fixed
The t90m or any t72 series/type of autoloader has their hoist always inside the turret and connected directly to the autoloader in the hull and call me out if im wrong but if a 120mm round goes through the autoloader i don’t think itd be intact enough not to lock the hoist in place and to turn the turret itd grip that hoist stopping it from rotating itd have maybe a degree or 2 like a casemate
It isn’t
Visually yes it’s big
But the actual parts that stop traverse are the traverse itself and the floor of the basket
This applies exclusively for most MBTs with turret baskets, on light armor with turret baskets the entire visual model is also hitbox. See VBCI and Bardelas 60mm HVMS for examples.
The problem is the module hp is absolutely crap. Any real amount of spall will destroy the mechanism. I even took the Skink’s AP-T and where it can pen it turns the whole module orange. 30mm AP-I from the Kugelblitz turns it red, and the HVAP takes it out. The super low HP is why people associate the turret basket with being weak. The Basket also does nothing to eat spall.
Since they made turret baskets and horizontal drive 1 module, I think it’s only fair to merge horizontal drive and autoloader too.
Like I saw in this topic, if 1 spall to the turret basket can jam up Abram’s horizontal drive, why shouldn’t 1 spall to the autoloader also disable the horizontal drive?