Now,All the NATO tanks(I think Ariete will get it later) were got their basket and power electronlc(or hydraulic pump).
Although these modules have generated considerable controversy after being added,ut today, the topic we are going to discuss is not about themselves.
I mean,Russian Tank have never obtained these modules.
Please check this issue https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4grVv1H4nIqZ
The manager said**:“Crew members need something to sit on, and that something moves with the turret. You could call it a basket or a moving floor; in one way or another, similar structures can be found in all modern MBTs. Challenger 2 is not exception.”** But why russian MBTs is an exception
Russian crew dont need a seat?
Their gun drive by echo power?
or,manager think T-72 T-80 T-90 not the “Modern MBT”?
A rotating floor not rigidly connected to the director but can affect the turret’s rotation, why do autoloaders not affect the turret’s rotation?
Why was there no power module(pump and power electronlc)for the gun control system in the Russian tanks?
I think this is an extremely unfair double standard
2S38 and Schützenpanzer PUMA were the first vehicles to recieve detailed modules, respectively of which one is Russian and the other is German, fair treatment, the community asked for such thing, Gaijin gave it to the vehicles that were requested and now is being added to current existing vehicles and new ones.
So isn’t T-80BVM an main battle tank or am I mistaken, I’ve purposely filtered T-80BVMs’ modules for you to see the turret autoloader, horizontal turret and vertical gun drives, alongside fire control system, radio and trunnions which, where’s the double standard? If you aren’t satisfied that T-80BVM doesn’t have the turret basket then suggest a more detailed module where only the autoloader module is the ammo sockets and elevators whereas everything else is counted as horizontal turret drive.
Literally every tank ever made (excepted casemates or ww1/interwar) has some degree of turret basket. Modern MBTS are in no way different. If NATO MBTS get their turret basket to count as turret rotation, then russian MBTs should too, instead of having the autoloader act like spall sponge which doesnt completely render the tank unusable. Quit defending the undefendable, we ALL know it’s wrong, and that’s coming from someone who used to be a russian main and has all russian MBTs unlocked.
According to the manager’s statement, all “seating areas”
T series tank’s Crews sit on a rotating seat on the autoloader,but why damage autoloader will not affect the rotation?
And,do u found and pump and power electronlc in T series tank?
They do lack some modules that other western vehicles have, for intance, the Amplidyne for the2E42M1, this would be like the powered electroncs on the leopard 2a7, since it is an Amplidyne, not sure if disable it would completely cut off the power for the horizotal and vertical or just slow it down tho
No seat is moduled in the horizontal turret drive, check by yourself. MZ and AZ autoloaders have its own axis to rotate while loading a new shell to the breech, that’s why it doesn’t disable the horizontal turret drive, my guess that’s realistic.
That would be a interesting addition to be fair. But should work just like the Hydraulic pump found in the M1 Abrams or Power electronics found in the Leopard 2. Joking on the situation would make Soviet players more aware than the “Hold W” tactic people say.
However, the rotating floor of the CR2 is not rigidly connected to the turret, and even when damaged, it still impedes the turret’s rotation.
What reason could there be to say that the damage to an autoloader rigidly connected to the turret,(especially the MZ which is directly suspended below the turret)would not affect the turret’s rotation?
If the rotating floor of CR2 can cause impact, why doesn’t the autoloader, which is more closely associated with the turret, can’t cause effect?Not to mention the autoloader part(AZ) that directly invades the turret space.
doesnt mean that a shell penetrating wont deform the physical structure enough to halt turret rotation (which is the exact same reasoning given to why turret baskets would halt turret rotation if damaged even though the physical structure itself isnt the turret drive)
turret baskets are practically modelled to be the turret drive. which is unrealistic. i wont even get into how the baskets themselves r modelled incorrectly.
Turret baskets have different damage model from their visual model, the devopers has shown it, it’s impossible to hover through the baskets’ supports arms indicating that area isn’t affected by spall. They are modelled correctly but isn’t affected accordingly which is a good thing for sake of gameplay:
T-series tanks were the first tanks to get their “turret basket” which is the autoloader system itself.
Which people demanded to be added to the game for all vehicles that have them.
Soviet MBTs were never given exception as they were the first to have them.
Except the autoloader system getting damaged doesn’t disable turret rotation, which is the unfair part. Why do the Soviets get a tiny ring (that is now protected by the damage model of the autoloader, mind you) where all western MBT’s get giant unmissable targets that instantly cripple the tank to almost certain defeat?
