I would be alright with that, provided Gaijin does a halfway-decent job of implementing it (and doesn’t “forget” to also model breakable autoloaders).
EDIT: Now that I think about it, that would actually make for an interesting gameplay mechanic; manually loaded tanks can fire very quickly as long as they are stationary and their loaders aren’t knocked out; while autoloaded tanks fire more slowly and can have their autoloaders destroyed, but retain the same rate of fire while on the move.
They added the Ferdinand despite its major issues.
They are integrated with the gun breach in game.
This ,with 1000mm againist kinetic is too OP fir now
How many more times will that misconception still be regurgitated?
personally i don’t see why not. we have the challenger 3 already, why don’t we have the T-14?
“Due to having no access hatch for the turret and autoloader system, if the autoloader is damaged it takes an extremely long time to reload, and the cannon cannot be reloaded during that time.”
I think making auto-loaders as a destroyable module should be a priority to improve top tier gameplay.
I didn’t make that argument, and I also believe Russia should pick a single tank (T-80/90) and just produce that in huge numbers.
Well Barak has already replaced the 4M in production. Very little difference in overall logistics and training between the two.
That is exactly my argument.
Before the war - perhaps. But it’s been 2 years, some crash program could have produced some proper APS by now, especially knowing that Russia had at least several types of APS with some degree of maturity. The sheer number of tanks lost to all sources is more than enough incentive to put in the money and deploy it. Russia’s valuation of its MBTs is more than monetary.
Most lost to artillery and mines. Perhaps. I could not find any statistics on reason of AFV losses, but even if we were to say ATRs, ATGMs, and FPV drones account for 10% of all AFV losses - that would be 1,400 AFVs of all sorts including 270 MBTs (Source - Oryx, I included captured). That’s a significant amount.
FPV drones, by the way - are something an APS can rather easily intercept. They typically approach at shallow angles (shallow enough for most APS) and feature a forward-facing RPG warhead. While an APS might typically filter out slower moving targets such as FPV drones and grenade droppers, it’s more an issue of software configuration. And as far as top attack threats go - Russia’s reluctance to deal with that threat with the Afghanit (strangely built around direct approach projectiles) does not mean a top attack defense cannot be fitted rather easily. If that turns out to be more an obstacle than I thought - then again a single system does not need to cover everything. Drones managed to drop RPG warheads on Merkavas in Gaza and on the border with Lebanon, but that was only seen in the very early days of the war and was quickly countered by providing infantry with new weapon sights (SMASH).
All in all, I’m convinced an APS of some sort, even one that can only defeat Stugna, Javelin, and some RPGs, would be tremendously valuable for Russia. Therefore its absence can only indicate for me the lack of ability to implement such a solution.
Installation of APS is agnostic of whether the tank is upgraded or brand new. An APS that can only intercept ATGMs is still going to be cheaper than deploying MBTs without APS.
Russia also puts effort into recovering and repairing damaged AFVs.
The tests were hardly indicative of much. For the record I also object to the Iron Fist’s inclusion in game, as well as its ability to defeat KE. Yes, there is footage that proves it can defeat an APFSDS but if it’s not ready for deployment - it just isn’t.
But I do agree that if we go by the same parameters, Arena is viable, and even Afganit might be (although, again, only viable against CE). Sadly Gaijin does not have a single rulebook by which it decides what to add or remove from game. It just does it randomly and tries to justify it after the fact.
I hope the lab can fix her.
Other wise, the new engine from КАДВИ and new powerpack for them should be the option.
A hull is designed around a powerpack. It’s tailored for it. To change a powerpack is to redesign the hull. Principally it should not be an issue since the T-14 is not a mass produced vehicle so there isn’t the consideration of refurbishing a large amount of hulls. But if a different powerpack was something within reach for Russia, it would have been done already before the 2022 invasion renewal.
Russia’s MIC is commendable given the circumstances though.
Gaijin removed this post because it “violated them” or something, they never explained so I’m reposting it until they explain why they’re silencing me.
Testing an APS and deploying one are two very different things. Even in a full paced development the gap between the two can be several years.
As it stands, Russia is entering the 3rd year of a high intensity war in Ukraine and suffered tremendous losses to equipment, yet it has yet to deploy an APS. This is prime evidence of Russia’s inability to deploy a working APS.
Multiple projects since the 80’s including Drozd, Arena, and Afganit have all ended as complete failures.
E
Can’t we all just upvote it? like i always wanted the T-14, and i don’t see why anyone would not want it in game
he kinda has a point about them apparently not being good enough, if russia already developed 3 different aps systems but never actualy integrated them anywhere that means they where failures in their own eyes. And that is coming from russia which margins are a lot looser then those from the west
Afganit only exists on three different vehicles, T-14 Armata, T-15 Armata and Kurganets-25 which none are fielded yet officially, either way I don’t think this should effect it in game.
still a fact for the other 2 systems then
Arena-M has also been tested, so this again won’t affect its implementation. Drozd was the only mass produced APS the USSR ever created.
The 2S38 isn’t a fantasy vehicle. In fact, none of them are. But the Objects are basically prototypes. The 2S38 isn’t even a prototype or fantasy, though. Unlike the HSTV-L.
the game actually would been very better if there was no prototypes and only serial vehicles , like non 90% of in-game vehicles not serial produced but being in almost every battle
And why would this make anything better?
Same game, same pros, same cons, just a smaller and less intruiging selection of vehicles…