ah, yes, the rotation of the turret does not rely on the turret basket of the soviet tanks. Not that it should as it alreasy deletes autoloader if tou ask me. But yes, i get what you mean now.
well leo 2s were and still are best tanks out there so they just nerfed them like that. But then the abramses? idk why gaijin added baskets to them before making new modules to all AFVs.
Neither does turret rotation of western tanks - only the top most and lowest part actually contain drive equipment, anything between is just protective steel with occasional pipe and wire.
But gaijin decides that hits to the steel part disable the rotation motors in the top most and lowest part so thats what were working with.
Every tank with turret basket should get to enjoy such wonderful mechanic no matter the nation.
On top of the “safety” gun depression limit, if gaijin stopped this charade of “were doing this to be historically accurate” and instead admitted they have no clue how to balance the Leo2s, id be less angry.
But since what were getting is “historically accurate”, EVERYONE should be treated the same.
thats lame for sure
i mean. Balance wise, the only reason they were added? I dont think so
agreed. The BVVD always says “historical accuracy” when its needed and forgets about it when its needed. His spectrum politics are ridiculous
But as we agreed that isnt the official driving reason behind their addition so everyone needs to get them.
Whilst insisting on modeling stuff that does not exist in the tanks they primarily want changed.
???
Just put bushes on the glacis plate of an M1 then?
This reeks of a US main thinking grass is always greener on the other side.
Apparently other nations can simply cover up weakspots with the use of bushes, but the US cannot for undisclosed reasons?
Sure, all (relevant) MBT’s should have their turret baskets modeled.
But the primary threat to M1’s are the Leo 2A7’s and Strv 122’s, those also have turret baskets modeled. Any other MBT is fairly easy to OHK anyways.
That’s not how that works.
You don’t just design some magical geometry that instantly shatters any and all APFSDS projectiles.
The glacis plate is currently overperforming by a significant degree already:
I’d say: Be careful what you wish for, because a proper rework of how APFSDS interacts with high levels of sloping could create a glacis plate of the M1 that’s easily penetrated by the vast majority of APFSDS rounds.
Regardless, the turret ring armour values are indeed too low, but if changed to their correct values they’d still be easily penetrated by every single APFSDS round fired by any of the MBT’s above 10.0 BR.
You’re not meant to rely on armour at top-tier and every MBT should be played as if they were made from glass.
I was mostly comparing it to the T series and the Leopard series.
Which Gaijin added and now they will implement to every or at least majority of new vehicles in-game even older ones (see BTR-82AT with additional modules which BTR-80A also has, even being a older vehicle), giving additional modules is a fair treatment regardless if it affects negatively. If you want a more realistic armor penetration logic, you’ll have to advocate for it against a whole community that wants a easy game to play.
Indeed, the armor penetration simulation tool never is accurate compared to a in-game situation, it doesn’t consider movements, connection quality and other factors, relying on it to enforce your argument is weak, which can be easily counterargumented with an actual in-game scenario.
I sure hope they rework that so I can blam soviet tanks through their roof armor and driver hatxh instead of bouncing half of my shots.
Would be a great change as it would block all the autocannon fire as it should.
If they do that and don’t model projectile deformation I’m going to laugh.
Those areas you are shooting are penned easily by HEAT-FS from tanks several BRs below causing catastrophic damage.
The rounds you are using is the issue, gaijin decided that 81 degrees is a 100% ricochet for 3BM60
That plate is angled at ~83 degrees. It becomes paper if you are shooting down at it like you are close up, above slightly or far away due to ballistic drop.
3 degrees from 83->80 degrees difference with 3BM60 btw.
We’ll see how much Abrams really suffers when it gets added to the Chinese tree. Is it an Abrams problem? Or is it the problem of those who play USA? Will be interesting to see.
Ignore him. It’s Necron. He is known for having a massive hate boner for the Abrams
98% of what’s fired at you is APFSDS or some kind of CAS.
Name me a single APFSDS round that will not ricochet at 83 degrees of sloping.
Goes for any vehicle:
That’s not how that works.
Also, bullet drop with APFSDS is virtually non-existent at the ranges we see in War Thunder.
doubt so. It only means that regular tanks would still survive much less than cardboard boxes which eliminates intended effect.
If we look balance wise ofcourse.
Right now i’d rather play the Merkavas than get handicapped by the smallest threat possible while playing the Abrams.
The abrams upper front hull plate is unchanged across all abrams starting at 10.7
Yes you will see HEAT-FS rounds
The Terminator destroys an Abrams with its autocannon. Try doing the same to a top-tier Soviet MBT.
Turret baskets, which disable any tank with just the slightest scratch, are a huge balancing factor. You can easily say tanks without are superior and tanks with basket modeled are just trash. Its usually 30-40 secs repair time for this. Its not possible to shot back anymore and every hit tank is almost always a total loss.
Russian tanks have no turret basked mechanic. Ofc. Every tank should have this, or none at all.
what 30cal? u mean the 50cal CROW system at the top of the tank? it does work. All 4 machine gun on the SEPv2 works
honestly everything goes thru the abram turret ring lol, theres like no armor there
