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.
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.
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
So, not just the Leclerc. This implementation of power electronics still seems very strict to me. And in those other vehicles, at least those modules are situated in a compact area. The leclerc has those modules all around the turret basket, meaning that if the crew doesn’t get one shot, and shot center of mass is still going to cripple him (from any aspect)
A considerable amount worse yes.
I think they should give 2 Leclercs a better round like F2 or Shard and put them at 12.3, and put 2 at 12.0.
The 12.0 Abrams could be 12.7 easily.
The modules chosen by Gaijin look very random. I’ve never seen any documents showing a layout that they have chosen for such systems.
And you are missing my point. I still think that whatever the vehicle, having these power systems modelled on a case by case basis tends to artificially buff/nerf certain vehicles compared to others.
All tanks have power systems at some point or another. Energy isn’t juste magically transmitted from the engine to the pumps/motors
I saw it. And what difference does that make? I think you’re basing your thoughts on assumptions and expectations, not on what you know.
All tanks with power electronics or a pump will receive it sooner or later (although this has essentially already been done for almost all except the Challenger 2 and Ariete (though one of the Ariete received new modules).
It will be considered as such if both drives depend on it, as otherwise it is simply part of a specific drive (vertical or horizontal).
This module disables both drives if both drives are not connected to it in real life; obviously, it shouldn’t be classified as such in the game.
The tank naturally has batteries, but in the game they’re classified as an electrical system. You can already see what it looks like in the BMPT-72. It’s an exact copy of any other T-64/72/80/90.
Power electronics refers to the power amplifier and hydraulic pump. It must supply power to both drives simultaneously.
I think we are turning in circles. We are just not talking about the same thing.
The book about Ferrard, linked to the picture you shared above, explicits that many of those systems in the turret baskets are used to store and convert energy, as well as some FCS module (digibus and other). The T series have the model of a battery, FCS and their drives. They certainly need to also use converters and amplifiers to run the electrical systems from the engine alternator to the batteries and the pump and motor. Those are not modelled.
