Incert the good picture you had in the beginning of this post on the bug report and they will maybe not take it down
1 Like
Ok, Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind. I’m asking for more help in supporting my report.
1 Like
XD, it’s very interesting how Abrams used to “strongly” show himself. and how strongly the leopard showed itself after adding the angles of declination of the cannon from behind). But of course, the problem of the game was Abrams and leopard. but not in Pantsir, which was the best AA game for 1.5 years, and not in x38mt, which demolished randomness. Oh, those Abrams and the leopard 😀
Well that’s what happens when every non USA and german main complains about the abrams and leopard…A nerf.
I mean Abram are not bad. Leopard are the best tank you could ask for when it come to an MBT. Behind those leopard is the Abram, they got a more rounded packet if you actually want to have more option in a battle. The baskets are not that much of a problem, in fact it does absorb shot from time to time.
Damage to basket = damage to turret ring. The fabled NATO reverse redundancies XD
The baskets are part of the horizontal-drive module, which creates secondary-shatter (secondary-spalling, i.e. spall from both the rod and the plate penetrated).
Unless they cover a significant surface-area, they will not be a benefit to survivability, as any hit to them will create as much (or more) spall than penetrating a regular armour-plate.
In case of Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams, they do not have a very large surface that extends vertically, but only smaller parts (hydraulic systems for the drive) and horizontal surfaces (bottom of the basket e.g.), which essentially do the exact opposite and act as additional points of spall-creation, which in most cases ensures the death of the turret-crew.
Meanwhile, this for example is a hidden (you can only see it via CDK or Nvidia Ansel) 2mm structural-steel plate that does not create any spall (can be found on all T-64 and T-80 series tanks), but can absorb the majority of incoming spall (only “high-pen” fragments make it through, which are only a small portion of the total spall)
Examples of what I am trying to convey;
1 ) A turret-basket with a lot of vertical surface area (encasing-type)
Advantages:
All spall created prior to the penetration of the basket itself is absorbed, only the spall of the basket-wall itself remains (I will showcase how this is an advantage further below)
Disadvantage:
-Horizontal-Drive module is essentially guaranteed to be disabled upon penetration.
-Spall created by the penetration of the module itself will still create additional spall, though at a lower area of effect.
2 ) A turret-basket with barely any vertical-surface area but a lot of horizontal-surface area & small sections that are part of the damage-model.
Spoiler: Location of shot-placement
Round fired: 105mm DM 23, 500m
Initial plate-spall:
Additional-Spall creation by hitting the drive at a place that is part of the DM;
Here you can see the two spall-cones very clearly:
Advantages:
In very rare instances the horizontal-drive may not be destroyed (“if the stars align and the moon stands just right[…]” kinda odds)
Disadvantages:
-Almost none of the initial spall is absorbed, so it can still damage the crew/modules/etc.
-Additional Spall is created, with enough space available for the spall-cone to widen and damage modules/crew/etc. that are further away fromt he point of entry.
-Amount of created spall (by the module) is often higher than that of the plate penetrated prior
The following graphics are supposed to further depict how the baskets decrease survivability through additional spalling and how the type of basket (“encasing-type” and “low vert. surface area-type”) matter for how much the survivability is affected:
“Encasing-type” (e.g. RDF/LT or HSTV-L)
(essentially all of the Initial spall is absorbed by the module, new spall is created)
“Low-Vertical Surface Area-Type” (e.g. Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams)
(Initial spall is absorbed to a low-extend [dotted line], new spall is created by the module)
Second-example for low-vert. surface area-type: Rod hits the basket-floor:
(Initial spall is absorbed to a low-extend [dotted line], new spall is created by the module)
These graphics are purely for the purpose of conveying the concept, they may not translate to ingame-behaviour in an identical or consistent manner. No attention was paid to depicting the exactly accurate spall-cone-angles.
And on the contrary, autoloader modules do not create any spall and solely absorb any existing spall that hits them.
Do with this information what you will.
8 Likes
Sadly Gaijin doesnt care about that, they will say its accurate and for balancing and will not change it. It was supposed to be there for all tanks but only new ones, appart from the BMPT (I wonder why) , have them. Other main battle tanks dont have those after a year. I already posted a Gameplay Suggestion about this in september on how to balance the turret baskets, but its still pending and mods didnt answer(If I didnt something wrong and posted on the wrong place let me know). T-series tanks autoloaders eat all the spall and even the rounds most of the sometimes. Have a good day
2 Likes
We know the turret basket is not a part of horizontal drive, but gaijin added it to nerf western tank cuz our turret dont go to space when we get hit in the centre-mass.
I dont see this nerf as necessary at all cuz Leopard and Abrams are very easy to kill already. Turret basket are just the final nail for the coffin
1 Like
I thought about it and decided that it was useless to ask to cancel the basket, I will ask for changes to the bottom of the basket and try to prove that this is not a horizontal drive.
We keep hammering away
Turret Basket Abrams for leopard // Gaijin.net // Issues Community Bug Reporting System
Don’t spam reports, you can get banned form bug reporting site
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I just wanted to warn you.
this is a matter of principle. they don’t want to listen and completely ignore people. These users may violate the laws of many countries by changing the product after it is sold.
thanks
They don’t care about their player base. Anyways i wish you best and hope you succeed
unfortunately, I understand this, leopard and Abrams simply do not belong to the Russian branch, so they can be nerfed. I tried to come to terms with it, but I really don’t have the strength to see the broken drives and watch the Russian tanks calmly swallow shells. I think if you persevere, maybe something will work out.
They use stuff like this as a balancing “feature” but won’t admit it despite their claims of trying to be accurate.
The t series tanks got a huge buff a couple of updates ago to their gun mountings, specifically around their trunnions I believe, making the breech much harder to hit and damage frontally. Zero sign of any other tanks getting it. The turret basket modelling is a master class in dodgy modelling and absurdity, the bmpt missiles won’t take out the crew via overpressure - a change which was made deliberately after its release.
So yeah, it’s entirely deliberate sadly.
I do not deny that this was done intentionally, I want us to achieve the cancellation of this module. It’s really impossible to play. Every fight, some random hits knock out your drives. Western players should not suffer because of the curves of the Rashi miners
1 Like