Once again, in the game, “power electronics” refers to something that controls both the vertical and horizontal guidance drives.
For the T-series, the “connecting” element is essentially the batteries, but they are classified as an electrical system, not power electronics.
Electricity has to be converted at some point or another.
Plus, even if we only speaks of the battery module itself, the fact that it’s simply classified as a battery instead of the broader "power modules"still allow the vehicle to aim as it will not completely disable the drives
I’ve already explained where you’re wrong. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t convert.
Well, actually, damaging the batteries makes it impossible to aim the gun and fire. Have you ever played on a vehicle with batteries?
With the VBCI2, losing the battery still allows me to aim and shoot
I think neither of us are going to agree on that, so I’ll stop clogging this thread further
cause it doesnt have it?
It’s not about compliance, but rather that in the T-series, there’s no single point where this happens. This works independently for the vertical and horizontal drives, meaning there can’t be a module that disables both parts at once.
VBCI tech tree actually, but I just checked and since last time I played it the batteries have been replaced with power systems. Actually thought they had rat some point copied the internal modules of the VBCI to the VBCI 2, apparently they didn’t fully since the 2 doesn’t feature those batteries transformed to power systems
We have different opinions on what those power systems are supposed to represent. Looking at Ferrar’s books those are a mix of FCS modules and batteries (accumulators) and power distribution systems from said accumulators to the electric motors. In the same page he also states that the main advantage of such systems is the volume gain, and somehow all those modules end up being bigger than other more conventional hydraulic systems.
Meanwhile, you say that the T series, among the other vehicles that don’t have power systems, don’t needs all that to power their systems. From the batteries to the other systems (and from the alternator to the batteries for that matter), you need some sort of power distribution. If you don’t model it for all vehicles, remove "power systems"and convert the remaining modules to batteries and FCS respectively. This way, you reduce the number of crippling modules since the power distribution are removed and the FCS modules still allow you to aim, albeit with reduced capabilities
This is not true. The batteries, as well as the equipment that operates them directly, are located within the tank’s hull.
Problem with the 12.0 Abrams going to 12.7 is that there are premium 12.0 Abrams and it would set another precedent on ‘top tier’ premium vehicles being available.
Ferrard themselves describe the turret motorisation system as being comprise of accumulators, which are basically high power batteries, a digibus, and the power is being transmitted from the accumulators to both motors.
You can still have external batteries with lower power output for bigger battery storage.
What else can those “power systems” be if they are not accumulators and power distribution systems ?
Essentially power amplifiers.
AKA accumulators, which are just glorified batteries. And those are used to bring the drives to their max speed/acceleration. It’s not stated that they are necessary for reduced power of the drives
The fact that they are capable of storing the energy from stopping the gun/turret assembly essentially proves that they are what I’m talking about
Edit : And to be clear, the very notion of “power amplifier” means that you have to store a bunch of power in a time t1, so that you can empty it out in a time t2 that is smaller than t1. It’s the only way to “amplify” power. Or you’d be creating free energy. This also means that those power amplifier will run out of this stored energy, so if the power amplifiers were absolutely needed for the gun to function, then the turret would not be able to turn indefinitely, which is quite obviously untrue
Yeah, that might be why they aren’t up tiered. Regardless, 12.3 minimum if gaijin plays this game.
Brother what
It’s all combined into a singular module in-game
thus if any part of it is hit and destroyed then the entire FCS (drives, control handles, displays, loading indicator etc.) will be destroyed.
Its a backup system that doesnt function as backup system currently. This is not a advantage.
Also there are two handles irl, one for the vertical- and the other for the horizontal drive.
(note: orientation of horizontal drive was inverted in this image)
There are also emergency cranks for the commander on earlier leo 2 versions but panzer-modell site shut down and I cant be bothered to spend an hour finding pictures of it.
As for Leopard 2A5;
The emergency control handle is missing entirely ingame (or just misplaced)
Just for the record, the loaders ready indicator would literally nuke the entire fcs if destroyed despite being entirely irrelevant for the weapons or drives operation.
Acting as if this is somehow too difficult to figure out is just major gaslighting.
Also should I pull out the russian mbts for comparsion when we talk about modules perhaps?
Clearly there is no basket whatsoevever and the 2mm (if even) of clearance towards the autoloader would surely not cause any issues whatsoever when perforated.
This is the sole part that would be moving independently;
The plate above (that the crew sits on) should be made part of the horizontal-drive module as gaijin does on every other tank receiving these demented modules.
I was saying that there’s no point in singling out Leopard. It works the same way for all MBTs.
That’s it. For many other tanks, manual elevation drives are the elevation drive. Thus, it increases the “area” or, more correctly, the volume of the vertical drive and the area where it is located, which increases the chance of damage.
T-series
Leopard 1
Of-40
etc
Probably forgotten, but what’s the point if this handle doesn’t allow you to rotate the turret manually if the turret drive is damaged?
This is the cabin, not the turret basket. This part doesn’t actually interact with anything else in the tank. It’s attached to the loading mechanism frame and doesn’t rotate independently.
Unfortunately, you don’t understand what a basket actually is and what its function is.
“This is frozen water, not ice” aah argument
Also how exactly is it going to reload then?
If they cant move independently from one another?
Surely none of these are important, right?
That rotary connector is clearly just there for decoration, right?
Do you think the crew members just float in mid air or what now?
or for example, in this image you can see the ring for the autoloader itself aswell as a the ring for the turret as a whole (a bit hidden in the background I suppose)
yet in-game it is not represented like this whatsoever, depicting the turret-ring (here horizontal drive module) to be within the autoloader structure.
The basket itself is not attached to the autoloader itself but the turret, so is the part of that autoloader that can be rotated separately for reloading.
The floor of the “cabin” as you called it thereby qualifies as a basket just as much as the floor of any other vehicles “basket” (from those that received it) as there is virtually no clearance towards any other component.
If you look at type 90 for example, even the spall shields were made part of the basket and as such drives module, despite not being related to it whatsover and having significantly more clearance towards any further components.
If the autoloader gets perforated and thereby the rotation jammed, then it’s just as reasonable to argue that it would prevent turning alltogether as it is with any other tank.
(not to mention that the autoloaders on ingame t-series tanks (all of them iirc, otherwise just T-64/80) already clip into the side platings in the dm… not that much clearance, is it?)
*Sorry for the longer edit but I believe that I might aswell explain it a bit better in this regard.
What I meant was that the cabin can’t move independently of the frame. The frame can rotate around it, but when the turret rotates, they move as a single unit.
Thank you for clarifiying.
I do still however stay with my opinion that the baskets (even if its a “cabin”) should be modelled as such if they’re on other mbts, due to the extremely low amount of clearance towards other components it can get stuck on (which is the sole reason why anyone would argue the floor of e.g. a leopard 2 to be a part of the drive and related to its functionality).
Imo, it should be either; do it for all or for none…
That aside, there still is a massive difference between how the modules function/behave;
Wheras the horizontal-drives (and as such baskets) create secondary spall, the autoloader modules do not (as far as I can tell, its caused by the latter having an insufficiently high ArmorThrough value of 1.0, wheras horizontal-drives have it at 15.0).
In this case, the lack of the “cabin” as a source of spall-creation in addition to hidden 2mm platings (T-64/80) around the autoloader (which also doesnt spall) does not appear to be a fair counterpart to the turret-baskets, which are in many cases oversized (e.g. leopard 2 baskets clipping into what would be the torsion bars) and feature parts in their dm that have absolutely no affiliation with the drives’ functionality whatsoever.
This (“detailed modules”) is one of those things that I would not mind nearly as much if it wasnt for further increasing the already extremely inconsistent post-penetration survivability of soviet/russian mbts, while vastly decreasing that of its’ ““counterparts””.
The jaguar GPS screen is also an integral part of the FCS for some reason as well.
Just randoms doodads considered as vital part of the FCS because why not
Only if 2A5 and 2A6 are 12.0 as well, since currently they’re pretty similar in performance.
Isn’t 2a5 already 12.3 ?
