These were made to be ultra light scout tanks deployable via aircraft so there wasn’t spare weight for a full electrical turret system. The turrets themselves are quite light so it wasn’t too big of a deal.
Id say its more realistic at 40 deg/s but 30 isn’t unrealistic either, just doesn’t reflect how the crews are superhumans that eat 30mms for breakfast
Just waiting for the armour and speed.
Hopefully now that they are both worse than XM800t in every way they go down, or it proves XM800 needs to go up like it should
According to this source it was actually powered
https://weaponsystems.net/system/406-Fox
Not sure if that’s accurate or not but it contradicts the stated bug report.
Not accurate.
Still though for gaijin to have the vehicle in game that is not even able to withstand the round it was developed to withstand is a little lazy imo.
CVRT and CVRW turrets were available with power assisted turrets. the report is still technically right however the change to 30deg/s is excessive
oh? cool
I can’t think of anything to care less about than turret traverse with that stupid doof doof gun that you’re not SPAAing with. Won’t hurt them against ground, won’t stop them being the sneaky bois they are. If they had the gun and play style of the XM800T, such a nerf would be bad.
The report included the Fox manual as a primary source:
but unfortunately I don’t have the manual for it.
TBF, scimitar uses a completely different turret to the point they needed to create a brand new neck to put Fox turrets on the chassis for Sabre.
Shouldnt apply to the CVRT family really. As Kross said, he didnt have a CVRT manual.
For the Scimitar.
Fox was however included:
CVRTs also have manual turret traverse. Not electric.
What degrees per second are listed in that document?
Just curious over how the vertical and horizontal speeds are arrived at on manually traversed vehicles.
None, as written by the bug report. It didn’t contain any information regarding this.
The report only uses the user manual to say that the Fox used manual traverse and not powered, and that 60°/s would be too fast for manual traverse.
The new value is therefore completely made up, just like it was before.
I mean, let’s be honest 60 degrees is way too high.
At the end of the day, the value will be arbitrary like all
Manually traversed vehicles. It simply can’t be any other way without data of the average service man doing it on flat ground.
I don’t have an issue with the traverse being reduced at all, just find it a bit annoying for how little evidence is required for some changes and for others god, Jesus, the pope, the user of a vehicle, and it’s manufacturer could say something and it wouldn’t be enough.
Still salty over the challenger 2 debacle tbh.
Didnt say they didnt. More so pointing at the politicians syllogism issue.
All cats have four legs.
My dog has four legs.
Therefore, my dog is a cat.
Would have been a nice bit to have a small increase in traverse vs the fox on a balancing point. IE overall slower on the move with worse armour, but a slightly superior turret traverse. Oh wellz.
30 is a bit harsh for a light vehicle, id say for balancing ~38 sub 40 is good enough
But the manual did not include specific values. These were speculation on the reporter’s end. Well educated, yes, but speculation still.
However, when well educated reports are made for armors, they are rejected or left in a limbo for not having specific values stated by primary sources.
I’ve always advocated that well-educated estimations are the correct course of action when we know that something is off, but not exactly how much officially; it’s only natural that we won’t always have all the information we would hope for available- therefore, getting closer through well educated estimates based is better than doing nothing.
I just got triggered upon seeing this standard apply here, but not on many other topics that demanded specific values “and not estimations”. It can be argued that it’s different topics, but still.
Speaking of such reports, sorry for bothering you; but, since this is related to an issue you’ve addressed, I figured it was appropiate to ask you for this;
Would you mind forwarding and pumping up this report? It’s the second part of the double-report which had its first part acknowledged, but not the second.
Since you instructed to re-make the report only with the second part, that’s what I did here;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OKu3KDR8Sx85
One time I argued that the Ho-401s 57mm HE shell should have more explosve than the 250g value copied from tank gun, based on the drawing and in comparison to the 50mm Mineshell.
Which I estimated to be 290-300g.
But it wasn’t implemented.
Then, half a year later, a Japanese source revealed that the shell infact carried 310g. 🤷♂️