This entire change is pain in the ass
no reason to be added, massive frustration
1 Like
Gaijin has a different way of thinking than we do
We need to stop them and fix them properly!!
1 Like
Indeed.
The new modules are great.
Turret baskets are great- IF implemented correctly; which is as thin aluminum plating made specifically to protect the crew from spall; NOT to generate more, and it should most definitely NOT be a part of the traverse mechanisms.
2 Likes
I agree. The dev server implementation of the turret basket makes no sense. Just because a round penetrates the turret basket does not mean that the turret will lose rotation.
1 Like
and they also add more fire sources but you only have 2 fire extinguishers
and restock on cap should also be able to restock your fire extinguishers but gaijin on their way to make top tier absolutely shit
FCS put you on fire, driver control put you on fire, turret ring fire, hydraulic fire, vertical drive put you on fire
FIRE EVERYWHERE(goes the same as leopard)
and they still havent correctly model hydraulic pump
1 Like
Also where are the rest of internal modules for T80s?
1 Like
что ты имеешь в виду?
-Gaijin
I have seen images of turrets being extracted on abrams online and there does seem to be components on the basket. As to what they do or are im not sure. I feel like obviously there may be components on the basket that can jam the turret if struck and damaged, but i feel like those pieces should be specifically localized on the basket in game. Hitting a random structural piece with no mechanical value shouldn’t disable the entire turret traverse whereas if you hit a hydrolic pump on the basket (if there is one) it should affect its performance. Likewise with the new vertical drive pieces as well. On the M1 it looks like a flat armor piece behind the mantle composite armor, but somehow if damaged it will jam the elevation mechanism. I’m assuming tanks, like military aircraft, are built with redundant performance systems in place, so if one system goes down another will still allow for operation. Like how tanks have back up powersystems that lend temporary power when the main engine stops producing power and electricity. I like that gaijin wants to model more internal pieces on tanks. It adds realism to the game, but adding them piece meal like this either heavily nerfs or can buff tanks. I think the entire internals that they want to add should be fully modeled and thought out in their entirety and added all out once. Im talking micro details specifically, because having a random piece of inconsequential metal being damaged count as a disabling shot seems dumb as hell, like the hullbreak mechanic in the past, where a light tank was taking stupid amounts of damage, but because one component wasn’t being criticaled the tank was alive, but then in another game a round could scrape that same tank and KO it.
1 Like
I asked a SepV2 TC and he said only the components on the front are turret hydraulics. I would be more ok with his change if they were consistent. If autoloaders don’t spall neither should turret baskets. Some turret baskets are already correct as well. This could really help the struggling M1 as frontal hull shots count almost have a spall liner for the turret crew. Along with the accepted turret ring buff the M1 would be quite good. Also Gaijin fix the damn turret ring, it should be close to 250mm protection, which is balanced as even low power sabots can pen that.
Please Gaijin don’t make this turret basket change!! I want to have fun and not be completely disabled anytime I’m looked at! This is terrible for gameplay!!!
1 Like
Stupid BVVD, stupid gaijin.Weakening the other systems like this will only hasten the game’s demise. I’ve unloaded War Thunder. If this is implemented, I will call on more people around me to unload War Thunder
3 Likes
Dividing the main battle tank into batches for in-game purchase by BVVD is undermining the game balance, and we don’t need realism to ruin the gameplay either.
A new victim has emerged: The VT5. The cruel gaijin has extended its sinister hands towards this 33-ton innocent tank.
What is even more shocking is that this modification further disregards factual evidence! According to information provided by Chinese netizens, this tank in reality does not possess a massive turret basket at all. As it utilizes a rear-mounted autoloader system, the two crew members within the turret ring only need to remain seated during operation, rendering a turret basket fundamentally unnecessary.
DEV：VT5 does not have a turret hanging basket // Gaijin.net // Issues
Of course, just like other bug reports, this submission with real vehicle photographic evidence was rejected, as moderators of the bug report section dismissed it as a “not a bug”.
1 Like
This is ZTQ-15’s turret. As you can see, no basket.
And this is the in-cabin shot of the VT-5. The front boundary of the floor suggests there’s still no turret basket.
1 Like
not a bug
Balance. You know how if you shoot center mass at an Abrams or Leopard and it ignores everything except the engine, yeah that’s not balanced. Welcome to Russian bias though.
Show me a replay where you shot at the bottom of an Abrams and it didn’t explode or ignited.
1 Like
If tanks from the former Soviet socialist republics do not have the same mechanics, this option should be omitted. Can be implemented later when it is also available for the T family tanks.
I just don’t understand why its coming in the first place. The majority feedback Gaijin got was against it. It wasn’t to change it into a new model that makes even less sense. It was to not go with it, full stop. The turret ring in the Abrams is already modelled incorrectly, this just makes it worse and Ive not seen a single dev or CM make it make sense. I have to imagine “majority” means something else in Europe at this point because this isn’t the first time they’ve gone against majority wishes/feedback.