Do you know? :)
1 Like
The primary source states only that the traverse gear can be disengaged to allow free movement, it does not state the procedure for moving the turret (eg. from the inside, or from the outside), nor any indication of speed. Neither does the secondary, though from context it does appear to imply that the turret crew remain inside the turret.
It does however state “if necessary”, as disconnecting the drive clearly should not be considered a primary means of traversing but rather a reversionary means.
Finally I would also question the speed of 25°/s, which seems highly optimistic when considering that as described only one crewman is moving the turret while maintaining line of sight to a target engagement, while the loader continues to load the gun.
In short, there remains insufficient evidence in favour of pushing the turret around with a disconnected turret drive as the primary means of traverse for any vehicle. In my opinion the implementation of this traverse method versus using the normal turret traverse gear is a quality control failure.
3 Likes
Everything in game is optimistic from a certain point of view. Its a game after all. Also gaijin seems to agree with me and source material, conciddering that its not the first (nor will it be the last) vehicle with such implemented. And obviously 25° is a generalisation you cant put a solid number on such soft factors. Yes only 1 crewman would turn the hand crank, but all the crew (in the turret) can push the turret.
Look at T-34 aint nobody gonna load that gun at 45 km/h on bumpy driving while turning the turret. So what.
Somewhere you gotta draw a line, but this aint it. Its a possibility, that aids gameplay. A soft factor. Which gaijin took as such.
The T-34 reload speed is stupid but since it’s a balance factor it’s basically whatever Gaijin wants, even if makes no sense.
But the ability to traverse the turret by pushing the turret shouldn’t really have any relevance to the game, as it’s not how the vehicles would operate while in combat.
It doesn’t depict the vehicles actual combat effectivness.
By the same logic you could say that every light cannon is missing a ready rack of the loader already holding a shell in his hands, therefore the reload for this case should be 2s.
(Guess that one actually makes some sense. lol)
But because killing the loader would delete the ready rack and such a mechanic is way to complicated for Gaijin to implement, they wouldn’t do it anyway.
2 Likes
How is a lever switch to disengage the traverse different from disenganging the elevation gear for Elevation via shoulder stock?
Its basically the same but one for horizontal fast traverse on flat ground and the other for elevation fast and or for slow movement of the vehicle.
Well, for once, it’s quite a bit different to push a balanced gun up and down for elevation than to rotate a turret by pushing or pulling the gun.
It would be very simply to push the gun to the right and rotate the turret but pulling the gun isn’t as straight forward.
Both manual and power traverse allow the gunner to look through the optic to track a target or find one, while looking through an optic and then pushing or pulling the gun in any manner, that would be faster than using the handwheels, seems rather unlikely.
Most importantly it’s not even clear whether this really would speed up the traverse.
After all you’re not going to sit in your gunner seat but have to get up, push/pull the gun, sit down and look through the optic and then aim using the handwheel.
And any action that requires the help of the loader/commander is automatically preventing them from doing their job, thus decreasing crew efficency.
It all started with:
“This tank in WT can do that, that’s why this tank should also be able to do it.”
Without any question to the practicality.
I wouldn’t be against it, if there was some actual data to work with.
But right now it doesn’t make a difference whether it’s a 500kg or 1000kg turret, that is moved by hand.
It’s just: Vehicle X can have it’s traverse mechanism disengaged → Vertical traverse must be 25°/s
Yeah I’m all for mechanics that give more internal components, but massively bloated “fully disable X” modules aren’t the way to do it. Tanks are way too empty, and in some areas that makes them unrealistically survivable, but it also in many cases removes components that on the real tanks could help catch spall.
What I think we’d need is more modules with specific functions.
For example instead of all electric components being one module that disables a large part of the vehicle it could be batteries, APUs, generators (like on some SPAA), power generation for the engine and so on. This doesn’t even need to be 100% real power storage and generation, just a more logical distribution of game mechanics for electrical power into different parts with their own use.
Similarly for “FCS” this could instead be split into gunner controls, commander controls, manual backup modules that might be more resilient, while the sight parts could actually be sight modules and be tied to the functions of gunner and commander view. For the sights there can then also be backups that are switched to when the main ones are disabled.
I don’t even mind FCS computer systems as a module that disables the electrical parts at once, but this would then be a smaller part and let many tanks rely on manual backup sights and controls.
For the turret ring itself I actually do like the idea of having a basket module that when destroyed can slow, but not disable traverse. I’d still not want armored walls to be part of the damage model, but aside from that this actually seems like a good idea.
1 Like
Great perspective from you! Now all we can do is wait for snail to listen /s
1 Like
Best I could do would be to make a suggestion for it, but I don’t have the time to do that right now because this is a very complicated topic. I’m thinking of maybe just making a general discussion so other players can bring ideas and feedback first before a suggestion is made, but I don’t think I’ll get around to it this month.
2 Likes
im looking forward to it
1 Like
KV-1 (ZiS-5) feels way too strong after the latest update, especially at its current BR.
After the patch, the armor viewer shows extremely high effective protection on the turret, sometimes going over 700+ mm depending on the angle. This is far beyond what this tank should realistically have, and even higher than some late heavy tanks in certain situations.
Because of this, many shots that should penetrate the turret front or cheeks just bounce, even from guns that normally deal with heavy tanks at this BR without problems. It makes the KV-1 ZiS-5 much harder to destroy than other vehicles at the same battle rating.
The biggest issue is that after the update the tank can survive hits from angles where it really should not, sometimes even from the side or rear. This makes it feel like the armor calculation or volumetric system is not working correctly.
Right now KV-1 ZiS-5 performs noticeably better than most tanks at 4.7 and can dominate matches too easily, especially in downtiers. When the armor viewer shows values like 700+ mm on a WWII heavy tank, something is clearly wrong.
Please check the armor model for KV-1 ZiS-5 after the update, because the current protection values look incorrect and make the tank too strong for its BR.
It’s because the turret is 90mm all around.
At the edge you’re aiming at the overlap between the front and side plate. So there’s a lot of armor there because there’s nothing but armor behind the edge.
These new vehicle stats are a joke!!
I used to be able to see at a glance what armour and penetration values a vehicle had,
but now I have to trawl through two or three menus and spend half an hour figuring out how much armour I have where and how – depending on the angle of impact.
If you wanted more detail, you could already look at the damage analysis before, and the basic values were in the stats – it couldn’t get any more complicated than that, Gaijin???
Who on earth comes up with something like this…
5 Likes
Why you switch position of primary ammo and ammo for defensive guns in plane’s module table? Before patch, first were bombs/rockets, second primary (ofensive) guns and last gunner’s ammo. Now are bombs; gunner’s and last primary.
1 Like
Currently the new F16 Block 52 uses the incorrect HMD (JHMCS), where it’s meant to have the Thales Scorpion system, are there any plans to remedy this? It is also missing the map MFD page which can be found on other US planes.
1 Like
Then why does the same logic not work with Cobra King?
On Cobra King, whenever armor plates overlap or meet at an angle, those spots are usually easier to penetrate, not harder. Shots that hit the edges between front and side plates often go through without problems, even though there should also be overlapping armor there.
But with KV-1 (ZiS-5), the overlap between turret plates seems to create extremely high effective armor, sometimes showing 700+ mm in the viewer, which makes it almost impossible to penetrate from the front.
If overlapping plates are supposed to increase armor, it should work the same way for all tanks, not only for Soviet ones. Right now it feels inconsistent, because similar angles on other heavy tanks like Cobra King do not get this kind of protection.
That is why it looks like something is wrong with the armor calculation after the update.
There seems to be a problem with tank visibility in Arcade battles after the recent updates.
Sometimes enemy tanks do not appear until they are extremely close, even around 10 meters or less. In Arcade mode this feels very wrong, because the mode is supposed to have markers and easier spotting compared to Realistic.
There are situations where the enemy tank suddenly appears right in front of you, even though there was clear line of sight before. This makes reactions impossible and feels more like a bug than intended behavior.
If this is related to the recent spotting or rendering changes, it should be checked, because in Arcade battles tanks should not suddenly appear at such short distance.
Right now it feels inconsistent and happens too often to be normal.
