100% and it just proves it was designed as a NATO nerf and Gaijin had no intention adding it to “Russian” tanks.
5 Likes
This is very much the case.
2 Likes
British Challengers don’t have a basket as far as pictures and info goes
Merkavas also do not have this, they have a separate system in the rear of the turret relating to this.
As far as I’m aware, tanks that got the basket have components physically within the basket that affects it’s operations if struck and damaged.
Some tanks have turret baskets but don’t contain modules that directly affect it’s operation in any way shape or form. The most they would do is just generate more spall.
Here is the Challengers turret lifted by the way
Here is the T90m turret being swapped
underside view with t-90m autoloader
Compared tot he design of the Leo 2a4s turret for example, everything is seated within the basket, with much more parts within
This is all by design and shouldn’t be something ignored, as before all of this. All tanks had virtually empty spaces within their hulls and players at the time always complained about rounds overpenning or missing entirely because there would be systems in those space that didn’t exist.
For example, the whole debate with the T-90/72 not having an autoloader center mass where the ammo is.
The same is applied to select western MBTS that have different setups of their turret baskets.
I’m not sure why everyone is expecting that every MBT uses the same kind of turret basket that would be the same through very tank in the game, this more seems to be a lack of knowledge that not everything is created equally.
@Arctic-Fox
1 Like
Heres the thing youre ignoring
These parts have nothing to do with the turret drive. Theyre attached to the turret, not the race ring, meaning shooting them wouldnt damage the turret drive. If anything, its just an alluminum spall shield, that should actually be even more protection for the crew. But no, it avtually not only generates extra spall, but even catches fire when hit on the abrams (???)
On the other hand, russian magical autoloaders can apparently tank a shell like nothing and generate zero spall. Its blatantly biased, theres no denying it.
3 Likes
Not to mention the actual 3-4 failsafes nato tanks have for electrical & hydraulic lines being hit.
Especially the abrams sense it also has a manual hand crank as well.
Which begs the question, how come these aren’t modeled and why is basically the whole turret basket a weak spot on these tanks?
(I know its only part of turret basket with the rest being visual, but when 1 piece of spall can disable the whole bloody thing, it doesn’t matter)
3 Likes
Because that would require actual work and force them to admit that they completely fked up this implementation…
7 Likes
The funny part is the manual backups are, go into test drive, turn you engine off and let the battery run down… you can still use your gun/autoloader at slower speeds with the manual systems, but if the power system is destroyed the manual system is also disabled for some reason
6 Likes
Yet all turret baskets act the same, damage the basket tank cannot turn the turret.
It gets batter when you see Leopard 2A8 has switched to direct drive electrical motors removing the hydraulic pumps.
It is a blatant tool to rebalance some NATO tanks.
4 Likes
Actually they switched to electric motors with 2A5 iirc.
3 Likes
But they didn’t forget to add it on the m10 booker lol. Which begs the question does it even have one IRL?
For me it looks like they have basket-like structure, too. It just got detached from the turret before its lifted up. A basket is just neccessary to prevent injuries to the crew when the turret is traversing. In these images it just remains inside the tank, while the turret is lifted.
WW2 T-34 had no baskets. It lead to grave injuries among tank crews. Broken limps, lethal head injuries and everything else you might imagine when a turret rotates without protection mechanism.
And thats how it really looks like.
Where are the hydraulic/Electric lines for T series tanks?