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.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Kfir C.10s will be eating good this update
I was wrong then, apologies. I was under the impression that the autoloader was connected to the turret in some way, as logically they’d have to turn in the same direction to load shells. If the autoloader can rotate independently and still line up with turret orientation then I suppose it doesn’t need to be physically attached. Then it also follows that the blockage of one doesn’t neccesarily cause the blockage of the other, unless it is so catastrophic that the loader arm somehow gets jammed into the turret.
Regarding the traditional turret baskets however I still believe that the turret basket floor should not be counted as part of the horizontal drive.
It can’t. The autoloader’s own actuator can only do (commanded)* rotation in one direction. It would be physically impossible for it to be separate as the turret would be unable to rotate counterclockwise.
(it can use the motor to brake)*
So it’s possible the turret and autoloader are connected to each other via some kind of linkage? One that is meant to transfer horizontal movement but not neccesarily hold the two together structurally? I assume it has to be disconnectable so that the turret can be removed without the autoloader coming along.
No he’s just lying be it intentional or not. The autoloader is attached to the turret and moves with it on all of T-64/72/80/90. The seats on which the turret crew sit are literally connected directly to the autoloader.
It is no different than a turret basket.
4 Likes
Well that seals the deal then. Just goes to show how little I know about the soviet autoloaders.
2 Likes
with comparable i meant that the autoloader’s job is not the same as the NATO’s turret baskets.
No but it’s the same structurally and should have the same effect when destroyed with the bonus issue of losing the ability to reload.
It’s important to remember that the turret basket on NATO tanks serves literally no purpose aside for housing electronics (which would be there anyways) and preventing the crew from crushing their legs on things in the hull
3 Likes
I leave the forums for 5 hours and the amount of comments here has more then doubled lol.
Also, I don’t know how this conversation turned to the turret basket discussion, but given what happened to the KH-38MT thread, might want to create a separate thread for that and keep this one about the Pantsir. Not judging, just want to precaution.
7 Likes
i never said it could move independently.
the autoloader is a piece of crap made to feed the beast’s mouth with random 12.5cm pieces of tungsten and DU.
what i meant is that the autoloader’s job isn’t making the turret turn, which means it actually isn’t capable of “blocking” the turret like NATO tanks are capable of.
it shouldn’t, russian tanks are overrated and suck.
they should, as much, reduce the degrees the turret can turn (from 34º to, for example, 12º or 8º).
And you said talking to me was a brick wall…
Sounds like you’ve decided your view long before starting the argument.
I’ve presented my point with photographic evidence and you continue to deny on the basis of nothing. I am considering this over.
But it does move, right? If it moves and it doesn’t do so by itself then it follows that the turret is the one providing the movement, which also means they must be connected in some way?
And if the autoloader and turret is connected then a blockage to one could prevent the movement of the other, yes?
1 Like
it is.
u can’t say russian tanks should block their turrets when the autoloader gets damaged cuz the autoloader doesn’t do the goddamn job of the turret basket. it’s like saying a R-77-1 is an anti-tank weapon cuz u can use it to destroy tanks too, sure it’s a missile like Kh-38 or Brimstone, but that doesn’t mean it should or is used for that.
looks like u discarded my photographic evidence too, lol.
u shouldn’t even started it atp, we went from talking about missiles and Pantsir to talk about autoloaders and turret baskets.
I am once again not surprised, thank god I’ve stopped playing ground.
2 Likes
Refer to what Apollo said.