Yes, without the gunner modeled and allowing machine guns to make impossible angles while moving faster than real life. Hence the reason this thread was created to draw attention to this issue.
We’ve covered this. The modeled gunner doesn’t matter. It isn’t an issue and hasn’t been for 10 years.
You are wrong about the impossible angles and aiming speed. You know nothing about how they operate in real life, and cannot for some reason, accept the fact you are wrong about the real life use of these weapons. If only someone with experience in real life machine guns explained this to you… Oh wait, here it is:
It clearly does.
You can’t aim while the machine gun is pointed 90 degrees up.
Elbow grease.
You can aim it when it is at a high angle.
Stop trying to give a buff to CAS.
You can’t lay flat on the top of the tank to aim 90 degrees up.
You don’t usually use the gun’s sights, you walk in the fire using the tracers. You can see tracers regardless of the angle that you point the gun. Again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Then why, in 10 years haven’t they done it? Because it doesn’t matter.
As promised:
So let me start at the easiest thing first.
Modeled crewmembers for rooftop machine guns is not going to happen. Too much complicated mess for basically no reward. It just isn’t a feature that wouldn’t add to the game because there is virtually no demand for it.
They move faster than in real life and the angles. This one is a bit harder because of different mounting styles, but lets go anyway because I like challenges.
The vehicles with a post style mount have the MG mounted on a post atop the tank. That means that if a crewmember was using the gun, it would move as fast as the gunner could twist it around that center point. The MGs are heavy, but post mounts make them quite balanced, so swinging the gun around would not be difficult and could be done quite quickly. They also do not use a full cradle for the gun, so extreme angles of elevation and depression are possible.
The vehicles with ring style sliding mounts, such as the loader’s M240B mount on the M1 Abrams have a slide ring that sits around the cupola/hatch for the loader. When properly maintained, the bearings allow the mount to slide smoothly around the slider and the loaders position in the turret would allow them to move it at a moderate pace considering the weight of the weapon. This mount seems to usually use a full cradle to hold the weapon in place, so angle of fire is restricted.
Cupola mounted guns are the worst mounts by far. Tanks like the M60 use them, and they are basically a turret for the commander. They are heavy and restrict angle of fire. They are the slowest and most restricted mounts, but have protection for the commander.
Cupola ring mounts, as seen on the M1 Abrams and IS 2 (1944) are 360 degree versions of the ring style slider mounts. The IS2 has basically a 360 degree slider that allows the commander to spin the gun with realtive ease . The gun is not mounted in a full cradle, so it can be operated at the more extreme firing angles. The M1 Abrams has a cupola ring mount that moves the entire commanders cupola electronically, and the gun is monted on a post attached to the cupola. Being an electrically driven system, it can move very quickly. This gun mount uses a full cradle for the weapon and this limits angle of fire.
So as you can see, alot of the mounts can be used to shift fields of fire very quickly, and depending on if the mount uses a gun cradle or not, can fire at very sharp angles. You can look at the mount on each vehicle in preview and see how it is mounted and then imagine how that mount would interact for firing angles. The mounts seembto be modeled quite well as the cradle of the M1 looks very similar to the tripod cradles for the M2, minus the recoil damening system. The operation of the weapons in game is not outside of what is possible in real life other than the fact most of them do not have operators modeled for them.
My experience with this information comes from my time served in the US Army where I utilized the M2 in different style mounts ranging from ground tripods to HMMWV ring style turret mounts. The M2s we had used pintles and gun cradles to attach to the tripods and turret rings. I also trained soldiers on the proper use of these weapon systems.
Why in 10 years has Gaijin not added modern tank sights?
Why haven’t they added IFVs to every tree?
You’re asking the wrong person.
You are being incredibly stubborn.
You are being told you are wrong, and then you just ignore the evidence.
Please stop talking in this thread, you are trolling at this point.
1 Like
Define modern tank sights. They have vehicles with 3rd gen thermals and high zoom levels. They also have commanders positions with thermal optics too.
IFVs like the M3 Bradley (USA), the BMPs (Russia, Germany), M113A1 (China, Italy), VBCI-2 (France), Strf 9040 (Sweden), the Merkavas (Israel), Type 89 IFV (Japan), and the Warrior (Britain). You’re wrong again.
As promised:
So let me start at the easiest thing first.
Modeled crewmembers for rooftop machine guns is not going to happen. Too much complicated mess for basically no reward. It just isn’t a feature that wouldn’t add to the game because there is virtually no demand for it.
They move faster than in real life and the angles. This one is a bit harder because of different mounting styles, but lets go anyway because I like challenges.
The vehicles with a post style mount have the MG mounted on a post atop the tank. That means that if a crewmember was using the gun, it would move as fast as the gunner could twist it around that center point. The MGs are heavy, but post mounts make them quite balanced, so swinging the gun around would not be difficult and could be done quite quickly. They also do not use a full cradle for the gun, so extreme angles of elevation and depression are possible.
The vehicles with ring style sliding mounts, such as the loader’s M240B mount on the M1 Abrams have a slide ring that sits around the cupola/hatch for the loader. When properly maintained, the bearings allow the mount to slide smoothly around the slider and the loaders position in the turret would allow them to move it at a moderate pace considering the weight of the weapon. This mount seems to usually use a full cradle to hold the weapon in place, so angle of fire is restricted.
Cupola mounted guns are the worst mounts by far. Tanks like the M60 use them, and they are basically a turret for the commander. They are heavy and restrict angle of fire. They are the slowest and most restricted mounts, but have protection for the commander.
Cupola ring mounts, as seen on the M1 Abrams and IS 2 (1944) are 360 degree versions of the ring style slider mounts. The IS2 has basically a 360 degree slider that allows the commander to spin the gun with realtive ease . The gun is not mounted in a full cradle, so it can be operated at the more extreme firing angles. The M1 Abrams has a cupola ring mount that moves the entire commanders cupola electronically, and the gun is monted on a post attached to the cupola. Being an electrically driven system, it can move very quickly. This gun mount uses a full cradle for the weapon and this limits angle of fire.
So as you can see, alot of the mounts can be used to shift fields of fire very quickly, and depending on if the mount uses a gun cradle or not, can fire at very sharp angles. You can look at the mount on each vehicle in preview and see how it is mounted and then imagine how that mount would interact for firing angles. The mounts seembto be modeled quite well as the cradle of the M1 looks very similar to the tripod cradles for the M2, minus the recoil damening system. The operation of the weapons in game is not outside of what is possible in real life other than the fact most of them do not have operators modeled for them.
My experience with this information comes from my time served in the US Army where I utilized the M2 in different style mounts ranging from ground tripods to HMMWV ring style turret mounts. The M2s we had used pintles and gun cradles to attach to the tripods and turret rings. I also trained soldiers on the proper use of these weapon systems.
Being told that you can change how the game currently is because it’s how it’s always been done isn’t “evidence”.
Machine gun angles / rotation are not logical. On top of this, there is no risk to operating said machine gun. This provides a disadvantage towards low flying helicopters that I believe should be fixed.
So let me start at the easiest thing first.
Modeled crewmembers for rooftop machine guns is not going to happen. Too much complicated mess for basically no reward. It just isn’t a feature that wouldn’t add to the game because there is virtually no demand for it.
They move faster than in real life and the angles. This one is a bit harder because of different mounting styles, but lets go anyway because I like challenges.
The vehicles with a post style mount have the MG mounted on a post atop the tank. That means that if a crewmember was using the gun, it would move as fast as the gunner could twist it around that center point. The MGs are heavy, but post mounts make them quite balanced, so swinging the gun around would not be difficult and could be done quite quickly. They also do not use a full cradle for the gun, so extreme angles of elevation and depression are possible.
The vehicles with ring style sliding mounts, such as the loader’s M240B mount on the M1 Abrams have a slide ring that sits around the cupola/hatch for the loader. When properly maintained, the bearings allow the mount to slide smoothly around the slider and the loaders position in the turret would allow them to move it at a moderate pace considering the weight of the weapon. This mount seems to usually use a full cradle to hold the weapon in place, so angle of fire is restricted.
Cupola mounted guns are the worst mounts by far. Tanks like the M60 use them, and they are basically a turret for the commander. They are heavy and restrict angle of fire. They are the slowest and most restricted mounts, but have protection for the commander.
Cupola ring mounts, as seen on the M1 Abrams and IS 2 (1944) are 360 degree versions of the ring style slider mounts. The IS2 has basically a 360 degree slider that allows the commander to spin the gun with realtive ease . The gun is not mounted in a full cradle, so it can be operated at the more extreme firing angles. The M1 Abrams has a cupola ring mount that moves the entire commanders cupola electronically, and the gun is monted on a post attached to the cupola. Being an electrically driven system, it can move very quickly. This gun mount uses a full cradle for the weapon and this limits angle of fire.
So as you can see, alot of the mounts can be used to shift fields of fire very quickly, and depending on if the mount uses a gun cradle or not, can fire at very sharp angles. You can look at the mount on each vehicle in preview and see how it is mounted and then imagine how that mount would interact for firing angles. The mounts seembto be modeled quite well as the cradle of the M1 looks very similar to the tripod cradles for the M2, minus the recoil damening system. The operation of the weapons in game is not outside of what is possible in real life other than the fact most of them do not have operators modeled for them.
My experience with this information comes from my time served in the US Army where I utilized the M2 in different style mounts ranging from ground tripods to HMMWV ring style turret mounts. The M2s we had used pintles and gun cradles to attach to the tripods and turret rings. I also trained soldiers on the proper use of these weapon systems.
You have been told numerous times that they are infact logical.
This is not a hardcore sim, there shouldn’t be.
This is a good thing, there needs to be a counter that isn’t spaa to low flying planes and helicopters.
Yea, looks fancy. Maybe see if there is a custom tank sight like that. Has that option all the time to use a custom tank sight.
Then the rate at which rooftop machine guns needs to reflect the unrealistic advantage.
There are many custom sights for War Thunder’s vehicles. That is a community effort. The community should not need to be relied on for gameplay features.
So what would be the nerf to CAS to reflect the unrealistic advantage of mouse aim?
All vehicles have mouse aim I don’t understand your logic.
The addition of custom sights is the feature…
So let me start at the easiest thing first.
Modeled crewmembers for rooftop machine guns is not going to happen. Too much complicated mess for basically no reward. It just isn’t a feature that wouldn’t add to the game because there is virtually no demand for it.
They move faster than in real life and the angles. This one is a bit harder because of different mounting styles, but lets go anyway because I like challenges.
The vehicles with a post style mount have the MG mounted on a post atop the tank. That means that if a crewmember was using the gun, it would move as fast as the gunner could twist it around that center point. The MGs are heavy, but post mounts make them quite balanced, so swinging the gun around would not be difficult and could be done quite quickly. They also do not use a full cradle for the gun, so extreme angles of elevation and depression are possible.
The vehicles with ring style sliding mounts, such as the loader’s M240B mount on the M1 Abrams have a slide ring that sits around the cupola/hatch for the loader. When properly maintained, the bearings allow the mount to slide smoothly around the slider and the loaders position in the turret would allow them to move it at a moderate pace considering the weight of the weapon. This mount seems to usually use a full cradle to hold the weapon in place, so angle of fire is restricted.
Cupola mounted guns are the worst mounts by far. Tanks like the M60 use them, and they are basically a turret for the commander. They are heavy and restrict angle of fire. They are the slowest and most restricted mounts, but have protection for the commander.
Cupola ring mounts, as seen on the M1 Abrams and IS 2 (1944) are 360 degree versions of the ring style slider mounts. The IS2 has basically a 360 degree slider that allows the commander to spin the gun with realtive ease . The gun is not mounted in a full cradle, so it can be operated at the more extreme firing angles. The M1 Abrams has a cupola ring mount that moves the entire commanders cupola electronically, and the gun is monted on a post attached to the cupola. Being an electrically driven system, it can move very quickly. This gun mount uses a full cradle for the weapon and this limits angle of fire.
So as you can see, alot of the mounts can be used to shift fields of fire very quickly, and depending on if the mount uses a gun cradle or not, can fire at very sharp angles. You can look at the mount on each vehicle in preview and see how it is mounted and then imagine how that mount would interact for firing angles. The mounts seembto be modeled quite well as the cradle of the M1 looks very similar to the tripod cradles for the M2, minus the recoil damening system. The operation of the weapons in game is not outside of what is possible in real life other than the fact most of them do not have operators modeled for them.
My experience with this information comes from my time served in the US Army where I utilized the M2 in different style mounts ranging from ground tripods to HMMWV ring style turret mounts. The M2s we had used pintles and gun cradles to attach to the tripods and turret rings. I also trained soldiers on the proper use of these weapon systems