It heavily implies you do. Especially since in this reply and in the past you stated its not fair that autoloaders aren’t modeled indicating you believe they are only an advantage so you suggesting it being modelled isn’t exactly for the sake of accuracy. If it were you would agree with modelling everything in a tank.
Yes. Which is why no one ever shots them there.
Because you claim its really important and integral but it really isn’t. If it was for that you would be agreeing with what I am saying about modeling everything instead of saying ‘that’s so suspicious he claims he also wants nerfs to human loaders’ leaving out the part were I state every system should be modelled as well if autoloaders get modelled because every system is integral in a tank, as well as limits of those systems which includes crew.
Yes. Why are you shooting there? The hull is right there plus a little forward is the breech as well? This doesn’t seem like a problem. You can only destroy the autoloader and only the autoloader from the side on a small spot only if the M1128 is hull down and has its turret pointed 90 degrees from your tank. The amount of 'if’s to have this happen is incredibly unlikely. For the french tanks at lower brs with autoloaders the 'if’s only increase for something to destroy just the autoloader.
Also ‘somehow there is no ammo’? Gaijin doesn’t model rounds being physically move around inside a vehicle (not counting teleportation of rounds inside the vehicle). That same question applies to human loaders as well.
First of all I was talking about all auto loaders with no exemptions.
IMO it would be nefr, but why would argue with someone who claims it isn’t a nerf? Which is your previous statement.
I don’t get it, first the feature does not exist, and now you acknowledge it does ?
Interesting, but “damage model” of human loader is already there, while mechanical autoloaders damage model isn’t.
And I’m talking entire time only about damage model, not fatigue not performance or reliability.
Because target can be obscured? Or you simply miss the shot ?
I’ll mark a sarcasm next time… Anyhow that is fair no vehicles models transition of the round form the magazine into a breach, so no discrepancy here.
So to sum it up you only argument is that it would be redundant to model auto loader because when the auto loader is hit so the ammo, which should blow up and destroy the vehicle.
Well I find that argument invalid for already mentioned reasons, first the ammo does not always blow up and the ammo is not always present.
I always acknowledged it (autoloader damage model) never existed. I always said that its addition would be useless because the amount of ‘ifs’ for it to apply to tanks is too many or redundant.
Yes and I am talking about modelling the limitations of every system including systems that haven’t been modelled to gauge were exactly your stance is on this. Coming to my conclusions since you argue against them, its not for realism.
With its turret 90 degrees to you with the breach right there? That seems incredibly unlikely however I do understand what you are saying as the probability will always exist. I simply think that the probability is too small to be a problem.
Which would be solved by making ammo always blow up. Which is what I have been saying.
For one vehicle (I guess technically three with the prem M1128, tt M1128, and AGS) with too many unlikely ifs for it to happen making it imo non existent problem.
I’ll list them.
M1128 is completely hull down.
Turret has to be 90 degrees to you.
Vehicle has to be moving (to be able to reasonably miss its breach or barrel).
You have to miss the shot on its breech or barrel.
So to sum up my argument modelling autoloaders is redundant because ammo should be made to always explode instead and for the few niche vehicles that this doesn’t apply it is unlikely that the area were the autoloader is located is only hit. Its incredibly interesting to see what my fellow players think.
This seems to be the case only for T-64 (not sure) and T-80s. T-72 explode easily. Leopards/Abrams doesn’t explode when penned frontally (Through the blast shield) a lot of times as awell.
Engine fire on the Abrams cooks off the ammo because Gaijin has modeled the fire hitbox to ignore armor / protection. This is specific to the turret not the fire spreading for long enough to kill the crew / cook the ammo. It’s entirely illogical for this to occur while engine fires in Russian tanks which are in the same area do not cook off ammo.
Any APFSDS and HEAT going through the autoloader should be a 100% chance of catastrophic ammo cook off, as evidenced by the war in Ukraine. “Wet ammo stowage” is a complete made up fantasy. If not, then make the autoloader a damageable module for the sake of balance.
Yes, it should. But then, do not complain only about soviet MBTs having their ammo disappear instead of blowing up. Many, and i mean many tanks have this issue, not just autoloaders, and also, many of the western tanks.
It is a bug in the game, and not some kind of bias towards a specific nation/nations.
I believe the convo was about Russian tanks getting shot in the side - the auto loader would at the bare minimum get jammed…… but most definitely just explode instantly.
