Ok I’ve been living under a rock these past few months.
Still, on one hand you have the leopard, M1, and now other western vehicles which have turret rotation and elevation modules which when hit basically cripple their ability to shoot. Then you have light tanks which when their FCS is destroyed also are completely crippled. Meanwhile you have Russian MBT with only the FCS module, which when shoot, doesn’t act like light tanks and can still aim and fire, albeit with diminished capabilities. This still seems very lobsided
2 Likes
I’ve already said that I think the approach to the FCS functions is incorrect.
Disabling aiming and firing should only be possible for vehicles with a remote combat module or for vehicles that lack manual aiming handles (for example, the Leclerc or later Leopards). For all other vehicles, slow manual aiming and firing should be retained. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a light tank or a heavy tank. I hope this gets fixed.
They have a different design and that’s all.
1 Like
No, my point is, why does the Russian tanks still lack those power modules. The way only half of the modules are implemented to certain vehicles doesn’t make sense to me.
3 Likes
They have no power modules. The vertical and horizontal guidance drives are independently controlled.
They do not have a central power amplifier or hydraulic system.
1 Like
The drives are not hand cranked. They have to have delivery of an electrical system or hydraulic pump somewhere.
Just like the M1 has a massive pump modeled for its turret drive
2 Likes
The drives are hand cranked by Stalins Ghost himself comrade. No further questions allowed otherwise hes gonna hand crank you to Siberia.
The Leclerc was sad before, it is even more sad now
The Leclerc is far from sad, it is still a pretty solid top tier MBT, though in its current and previous state it is more of a 12.0.
1 Like
I’m aware that the T-series’ vertical guidance drive has its own “pump,” while the horizontal guidance drive has its own motor.
This isn’t a single module that can be considered “power electronics in the game,” as it doesn’t control both systems simultaneously.
1 Like
As far as I am aware, that is exactly how the Abrams are modeled tho. But more as independent « hydraulic systems » than anything else
As for the Leclerc, they seem to model some random modules here and there that potentially do power distribution from the engine alternator, which should exist on any other tank
They are willing to shove several fully independent and unrelated parts into the fcs module on leopard 2’s (gunner and commander each have their own independent stabilization, ballistics and fire control computers + equipment plus manual backup cranks on 2A4 and another fully separated independant backup system on 2A5/6/7).
They can also be modelled as part of the vertical drive or horizontal-drive respectively.
This is not a issue for implementation whatsoever.
6 Likes
I’m not ready to give you a definitive answer, but if the Abrams didn’t have a single hydraulic system, it would need two hydraulic fluid tanks. Does it have them? I think it has one.
Take the T-72A for example. I’ve circled everything that controls turret rotation. There’s no hydraulic pump or single power amplifier.
1 Like
This phrase doesn’t apply to the fire control system. In fact, it’s independent not only in the Leopard, but in most MBTs as well. The game apparently decided that this was unnecessary detail (it’s simply impossible to determine exactly which part of the fire control system is responsible for what in most cases).
Don’t make an invalid argument.
The Leopard’s vertical drive rotation handle is already designed as a horizontal one, which is a plus, as it reduces the vertical drive’s damage zone.
I was mistaking the Abrams and the leopard 2(A4) huge hydraulic pump in the back
It’s in this case more similar to the T72 picture you shared. I still stand on the fact that the addition of all those modules for the Leclerc power system seems more strict than the implementation of other vehicles (including the Abrams and Leopard), since they seem to model random modules in the turret basket that affect the entire horizontal and vertical drive, that I’m sure other vehicles should also possess in some capacity.
The leopard has a single module that powers both the horizontal and vertical drives.
Nothing in common. I showed you the part of the horizontal guidance drive that is not connected to the vertical one.
What is this assumption based on?
Likely because it is newer. Abrams basket hitbox actually looks like this:
Spoiler
Yet Type 10 looks like this:
Spoiler
I believe Leclerc shares a large hitbox like Type 10, but i’m not sure.
Leo and Abrams basket sometimes allow a round to “slip” through the hitbox, leaving your weapon drives intact.
1 Like
Spoiler
2 Likes
is not. only round plain shape on bottom
All other vehicles that I can see only have their motors/pumps modelled destroying them only disable the one module they care for. Instead of doing the same for the Leclerc, they are implementing "power systems"by picking random modules around the turret baskets that all link to the full vertical and horizontal drive, so that if one is destroyed, aiming is completely prevented
The rule that was given with the initial backlash of the implementation of turret baskets is that only by shooting the lower or upper ring of the turret basket would it be destroyed. I think it’s still the case for the leopard and Abrams, but it might not be the case for the type 10 then ?
Edit : just looks like spall is hitting the bottom part of the basket on the type 10 video, which would be why its damaged
We’re still waiting for russian MBTs to get their basket so the game starts the balance process