Leopards’ turret battery blocking the turret’s traverse tho it has an internal battery, the one in the turret is pretty much auxiliar:
Again, the issue is not realism but consistency. If they all have parts attached to their turret basket (yes, the autoloader is part of a turret basket) which are critical to actuation, they should all be affected by it. Otherwise, if the bar is the basket itself being critical, none should be affected. Placing a double standard in this way is indicative of a clear bias intentional or not.
1 Like
I really hope I don’t have to explain this one.
Brother, Gaijin models the turret baskets so that even the turret basket floor is a “working part” of the horizontal drive. On most tanks it is literally a plate for the crew to stand on, and it should absolutely not be part of the horizontal drive damage model.
If this is the standard they think is OK, then it should also apply to T-series tanks. The cassette autoloader is also made of sheet steel and is attached to the turret in a similar way as a basket.
7 Likes
Then there is 2s38 still which is just tech demonstrator that didnt enter service iirc. By devs logic, that one shell in crewless turret shouldnt explode with 90% chance.
Crewless turret belts almost do not explode, same should apply to 2s38 as well then. Following devs logic.
“External portion of the belt” = Ammo belt in the turret
Ingame yeah, you die by ammo racks from fatal shots inside the hull, but to the turret, no.
BMPT shouldnt even be external ammo, because BMPT nor ingame or IRL has to reload or a small delay after using all the “external belts”
This is my point exactly by specifying continuous belt. It is continuous. There is no separation. That ammunition will chain detonate.
1 Like
as i said, the autoloader should limit the russian tanks’ turret traverse, not block it.
things like the battery of the Leopards shouldn’t block it too. even more, it should allow the Leopards to turn off their engines and have unlimited battery power/twice the normal battery power that other tanks have due to them having 2.
Abrams are well modelled.
yeah u should.
1 Like
The autoloader on T-64/72/80/90 protrudes beneath the turret in the exact same way the basket in western tanks does. It is made of similar materials and connected in a similar way. If damaged, it should have the same effect.
i dont think a minor structural damage in the turret basket makes it to get stuck in a fixed position, at least with APFSDS rounds. Sabot rounds does not deform structural components in a significant way.
as u can’t see, it doesn’t touch the horizontal drive
the only russian tanks that “touch” the horizontal drive are the T-64/80 series, 72 and 90 don’t.
if u want to claim for that tanks not having it’s turret traverse blocked, go on, i agree.
??? It’s still attached to the horizontal drive by being attached to the turret
1 Like
in that case, same solution: limit it’s turret traverse comparable to no battery power.
Leopards wouldn’t have that issue since they have a battery inside the turret.
Famously batteries are the best known solution to major structural damage
??? it’s attached to the breech
the T-64/80 series is the one which is attached to the turret technically
and it’s still not related to making the turret capable of turning, it’s not comparable to a turret basket.
Objectively false lol, the breech actuates vertically which the autoloader does not do on account of the hull being in the way.
It is actually not only comparable but equivalent.
Kfir C.10s will be eating good this update