This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
furthermore i think turret baskets should just not be in the game period
oh these are definitely opinions and not based in the reality of the game and the way these modules function… they are in no way similar to how nato baskets behave in game
1 Like
it’s quite literally not in game though.
Which is the point, in game the autoloader sits substantially lower than the crew, it acts as a basket in absolutely no ways at all.
IRL it’s also not a basket the seats last I checked are not fixed to the carousel.
The way they’re adding a floor to CR2 arbitrarily yet avoiding making the turret basket influence turret rotation is a pretty poor choice on gaijins front. As goes for most of their decisions this patch.
As has been stated, since january the addition of strong SPAA; CAS as well as the BMPT fiasco has definitely lead to a sentiment of Russian bias, that’s not to not how top tier NAVAL has been destroyed by the Sveski or whatever it is.
1 Like
“Baskets” aren’t defined by how they act, they’re defined by their purpose of having a place for crew to be on.
Also the carousel is the entire apparatus, the frame & the internals.
Challenger 2s have floors IRL, calling them arbitrary is insinuating the manufacturer is lying & all photographs of being faked. Challenger 2 is also the last of the top of the MBTs to get this item, literally the last one.
T-series was the first.
@ElectedElit21372 is just copying my own takes, which is just agreeing with me.
Refer to my post that you two are clearly ignoring.
sounds like a whole lot of reframing, intentional misunderstanding, and semantic mumbo jumbo again from Alvis (paid by gaijin) Wisla. As if were arguing definitions of words rather than the actual behaviour of these systems in game. my god it never ends with you.
Also what? where am i copying your takes? your takes and opinions are some of the most braindead wrong and bad-faith ive ever encountered. You constantly say stuff like this, that doesnt even make sense to derail conversation.
4 Likes
The thing is, T-80 have a turret basket
Crew stations are attached to it, it is attached to the turret, protects the crew from harm, and it’d destruction can cause damage to sensitive parts, can harm the crew and can prevent rotation, in addition to damaging the autoloader
12 Likes
So anyone that criticizes the bad functionality of “baskets” in War Thunder are paid according to your post…
Yes, you are copying my takes 1:1.
Me: “T-series carousels do not act like Abrams turret ‘baskets’.”
You: Oh look, my take.
Me: “The incorrect nature of turret ‘baskets’ in War Thunder make T-series tanks over-perform, & Abrams under-perform.”
You: Oh hey, my take again.
Just cause you chose different synonym words doesn’t change the fact you repeated my takes & pretended I didn’t state them when they’re present in my posts.
@DevilO6
Cool, we’re in agreement.
That’s currently in-game BTW.
The armor isn’t shown in the x-ray, but it was present on the damage model last time people checked.
yeah this is the kind of thing i think needs to be implemented into the modeling of t-series tanks in game bc currently its totally unfair that only nato has to deal with turret baskets being an oppressive force of unfun gameplay.
That is not correct.
They have a thin wall of metal around the autoloader, between it and the hull, that does not exist irl.
What it should be is a basket inside an autoloader, so between it and the crew.
And that basket should have the same properties as other baskets.
Here you can see the effect of dart flying straight through that plate, you can check it yourself
You cant get the same effect when trying to shoot the inside of the autoloader, as there is no plate there, unlike like in real life
3 Likes
this is not something i have ever seen you acknowledge until this very moment… probably why you cant actually quote it in your response.
again never seen you say this until now, feel free to actually quote yourself in this thread…
Not something I have said in any iof my posts but i guess now that you mention it thats not the worst idea ever… it would be nice for abrams to have that so it can at least somewhat fight back. i havent ever copied this take before though… nor have i posted about it.
2 Likes
exactly… goes to show the selective realism of gaijin. Turret basket mechanics only for NATO but not precious russia even though they both have it IRL and arguably the T-series “turret basket” would be a way more catastrophic failure if penetrated IRL too.
1 Like
From your post…
I know I meant to type structural metal & not armor, & that’s my wording error for which I apologize for.
The front is open to allow emergency access for driver/turret crew in that direction.
You replied to one of the posts that contain that: Might not be worded the best for understanding, & I apologize if that’s the case. It’s still present though.
Refer to the above quotes.
“Important crew safety functions.” covers rotating floors, actual baskets, & autoloader containment apparatuses… & more similar systems, cause I’m not going to be calling rotating floors “baskets”, & apparently people really like calling the autoloader containment apparatus of T-series tanks “baskets” as well…
That part goes inside the autoloader. Things like Crew seats are attached to it, like here
Currently that plate is outside the autoloader, it does not exist there
You can see the basket here, the crew is inside of it, autoloader is rotating outside of it
4 Likes
In what world is saying their addition is arbitrary thr same as saying that…
You do realise what the word arbitrary / arbitrarily means right?
Arbitrary : not seeming to be based on a reason, system or plan and sometimes seeming unfair.
As per the oxford dictionary…
Which irl the auto loader for the russian tanks doesn’t hold rhe crew at all, the loader is below them, the seats are fixed to tbe turret ring last i checked into them.
As well as that, they have a plate to provide an area under the crew so as they are not literally in the carrousel.
Lastly, the CR2 plate in real life makes absolutely zero difference to turret traverse capabilities as has /had been proven.
Oh i read it. But you’re clearly trying to take this into one of those moments where it goes jn circles and you then make it out you were right.
By the standard of implementation, if the floor plat for CR prevents the turrst traversing, as should there be an additional model for the T series tanks which if damaged prevents the turrer from traversing as well.
A plate at the top of the carousel for example.
The fact now that they’ve unjustly added baskets to every single top tier mbt bar T series and the Chinese mbts is rather telling, telling of what,?
Well what the thread title says.
7 Likes
Thats just what he does.
He gets you frustrated to then do a 180 and change what he said.
3 Likes
yeah bias no exist the guy have 2 crew get side turret hitted where is whe guned but the spalling and ammo magically no hitted returned the fire and killed all crew and ammo with enormus spalling damage… merkawa hull frontal armor is sht same with nato mbts…
why my APS no work vs bmpt missile? is to close or what? hittem me aps with missile how is this posible?:D
2 Likes
Bipolar disoriented
3 Likes