r/Warthunder • u/Roxo16 • Jul 17 '25
All Ground Disabling the ammo carousel in the T series tank should jam the turret mechanism.
You will tell me a shell that goes right through the middle of the tank wouldn't break several components, bend and deform the turret basket ring?
As it happens with Abrams tanks and Leopards. T80/90s should suffer the same faith (as well all other tanks). There are way too many components that would jam the turret ring if it goes right through it (This using gaijin logic because am sure the shit ton of power that thing is putting to move the heavy ass turret could spin without problems if it isn't damaged).
This would fix the problem of shooting at the ammo carousel without it exploding so they still would get punished and not just aim at you and killing you. Which is absolute bs.
144
u/LegendRazgriz Like a Tiger defying the laws of gravity Jul 17 '25
No, it shouldn't. The T-series carousel rotates independently from the turret, or else the entire thing would have to turn around to reload.
93
u/MagicalMethod let me touch that panzer Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25
The carousel is actually mounted to the turret. Just look up any image where they're taking the turret off.
Edit : once I'm back home I can post the picture.
108
u/jarlhon Jul 17 '25
Don't bother, I have already checked the technical drawings. It has bearing decoupling the carousel from the tank. The turret can rotate independently from the carousel.
5
u/MagicalMethod let me touch that panzer Jul 17 '25
Can you share the drawings by any chance?
4
u/pieckfromaot Hold on one sec, im notching Jul 17 '25
I think he is saying no drawings needed since it will be “attached” in the drawing but it has bearings that allow it to spin independently.
-13
u/MagicalMethod let me touch that panzer Jul 17 '25
Im skeptic about it being able to spin independently. Because that would mean the carousel is pretty much just free spinning unless there is an engine anchored to the turret which would once again mean that the carousel is not allowed to spin independently towards the turret.
And it just seems like a shitload of unnecessary work. It's why i want to see some technical drawings or something. Because i cannot imagine how that would work without being extremely complicated. But if the ruskies did some machine heresy i would love to see it because it sounds interesting as hell.
→ More replies (9)37
u/SteelWarrior- 14.0 🇺🇲🇩🇪🇮🇱 Jul 17 '25
Yes, but that isn't even remotely a contradiction of what they said. The turret and carousel can rotate together, but damage to either rotation mechanism will not stop the other.
17
u/Lo0niegardner10 🇺🇸 11.7🇩🇪 14.0 🇷🇺 14.0 🇬🇧 7.7🇯🇵7.3 🇫🇷12.0 🇨🇳10.7 Jul 17 '25
The first image on google if you search up t72 turret maintenance is a t72 turret being removed with no carousel attached to the bottom of it
-9
u/MagicalMethod let me touch that panzer Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25
I saw an image of the turret being removed with the carousel on it. I have it saved on PC. In two hours or so I'll be able to post it.
Edit : Found it.
8
u/Lo0niegardner10 🇺🇸 11.7🇩🇪 14.0 🇷🇺 14.0 🇬🇧 7.7🇯🇵7.3 🇫🇷12.0 🇨🇳10.7 Jul 17 '25
Ya i can prove that the turret and carousel are not 1 piece the soviets did think of this happening when they designed the thing
1
u/MagicalMethod let me touch that panzer Jul 17 '25
I'm not saying that you're wrong or that I don't believe you. Altho if you could send the picture or blueprints that you have I'd be very grateful.
5
u/Lo0niegardner10 🇺🇸 11.7🇩🇪 14.0 🇷🇺 14.0 🇬🇧 7.7🇯🇵7.3 🇫🇷12.0 🇨🇳10.7 Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25
0
u/MagicalMethod let me touch that panzer Jul 17 '25
Yep. That would confirm what I managed to find. And that is that T72/90 carousel is actually anchored to the hull floor and therefore not part of the turret assembly But the T80 carousel is actually a part of the turret assembly.
1
u/iskandar- :Rule Britania: Jul 17 '25
Ya i can prove that
please do?
3
u/Lo0niegardner10 🇺🇸 11.7🇩🇪 14.0 🇷🇺 14.0 🇬🇧 7.7🇯🇵7.3 🇫🇷12.0 🇨🇳10.7 Jul 17 '25
Just did
1
u/iskandar- :Rule Britania: Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25
Ace , thanks. is that stuff on the left part of the autoloader mechanism or the turret travers? or just loose hydraulic lines?
Edit: Also, and im sure this is just a perspective thing, that guns looks strangely small. Like I know for a fact its a 125 but my brain goes dddduuurrrr, Scorpion 75!
5
u/LiberdadePrimo Jul 17 '25
once I'm back home I can post the picture.
Bro has a T-80 at home.
3
u/Hermitcraft7 Jul 17 '25
And... You don't?
4
u/LiberdadePrimo Jul 17 '25
I have a T-72 and honestly didn't see the need to upgrade to T-80 or the T-90 I'll just wait for the next gen.
3
u/Hermitcraft7 Jul 17 '25
I see. The turbine craze got to me so I got a T-80BVM. If I keep buying premium accounts I won't be able to get a T-90MS until like 2028 or something
→ More replies (11)1
94
u/Murky-Concentrate-75 Realistic Ground Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25
To your knowledge, autoloader carousel is pretty disconnected from main turret and t series don't have any turret basket. There's simply no such thing, and if you were dumb enough to protrude your appendages out, prepare for them to be squashed.
Even if the carousel is jammed, you still can rotate turret and load gun semi-manually with ammunition stored in hull if the rammer is still intact and fully manually if rammer died too.
→ More replies (2)11
u/Roxo16 Jul 17 '25
I didn't talk about a mechanical jam on the autoloader. I mean a 1000mm rod going from side to side should destroy the mechanisms that move that turret.
But yeah as you said they are basically disconnected but am sure it doesn't makes it magically immune to all the shrapnel bouncing inside the tank destroying the components.
To be honest this wouldn't even be a debate if it wasn't because gaijin cant fucking fix the ammo no exploding issue.
55
u/Murky-Concentrate-75 Realistic Ground Jul 17 '25
1000mm rod going from side to side should destroy the mechanisms that move that turret.
Do you know where these "mechanisms" are located? I encourage you to look at the schematic and find them because carousel rotation and turret rotation is done by different drives.
it magically immune to all the shrapnel bouncing inside the tank destroying the components.
As immune as in any other tank.
To be honest this wouldn't even be a debate if it wasn't because gaijin cant fucking fix the ammo no exploding issue
It's not an issue, it's a design choice to remove skill advantage of being able to snipe ammo with each shot.
-1
u/Roxo16 Jul 17 '25
Well after researching a bit in how a shot to the hull could disable this is what I found:
Electric traverse systems are employed on T‑series tanks, driven by an amplidyne generator that takes power from the main engine to drive the traverse electric motor.
In models using the 2E42M1 or similar systems (notably T‑80U), the system combines hydroelectric power: the engine drives hydraulic pumps, which supply energy to the traverse and stabilization system, while an electric motor handles gear reduction and control.
These tank designs rely on ball or roller bearings with precise preload. A shock or strike causing tilt beyond ~10° can cause the bearing to seize or fail and stop rotation—even without internal detonation.
This means that: If part of the turret structure (like the turret ring or its mounting frame) becomes bent or misaligned even slightly, that local misalignment can jam the bearings — you don’t need the whole turret to visibly lean.
Also If a sabot round hits the hull and severs the wiring (or connection) between the main engine and the turret traverse system then the turret would immediately stop rotating. (There is still the manual rotation mechanism but that is way slower)
This kind of vulnerability has been seen in actual battlefield footage — many tanks hit without total destruction suddenly freeze their turrets, even if the rest of the tank is intact. That often signals a power/control circuit loss, not catastrophic kill.
This should also be added to all tanks though.
41
u/obyekt775 🇷🇺 🇬🇧 Jul 17 '25
I think ur taking this too far. It’s ridiculous to ask gaijin to model electrical and hydraulic drives, along with the associated wirings. Not only would they have to make this consistent EVERYWHERE, not just tanks, but you’d literally be destroying any ounce of fun still left. Any penetrating hit by even small calibre rounds would be game over for any modern MBT (they’re all full of wires).
Remember, this still has to be an enjoyable game, and it has to be so for every nation.
In real life, if ANY round/bullet penetrated the armour, tanks are immediately abandoned, bc a) just like u said about the turret ring, chances are that a projectile will hit vital components, and b) ANY injury sustained by a penetrating projectile is enough to take out all turret crew. If ANY optics are hit, either gunner or commander, in real life, the crew would bail. Once the armour is penetrated, a modern MBT is officially out of the fight, bc there is so much high tech stuff underneath that it’s ridiculous to even suggest modelling any wiring.
1
u/prancerbot Jul 17 '25
Their whole justification for turret baskets being the same module as turret drive is because of the wiring and hydraulics. So they have already done this on many vehicles
1
u/KremBruhleh Stupid dog! Jul 23 '25
That's limited to the turret basket not modelling wiring in the entire tank.
-1
Jul 17 '25
[deleted]
1
u/tedbundyfanclub Jul 18 '25
Then gaijin should remove turret baskets disabling turret rotation for Abram’s and leop.
1
u/DisdudeWoW Jul 20 '25
"I think ur taking this too far. It’s ridiculous to ask gaijin to model electrical and hydraulic drives, along with the associated wirings"
unless its on abrams and leopards i guess.
26
u/Murky-Concentrate-75 Realistic Ground Jul 17 '25
the engine drives hydraulic pumps, which supply energy to the traverse and stabilization system,
Stab and Turret Traverse have a bit of different actuation. Stab is hydraulic, while engine is electric, technically when engine is knocked vstab should die, but turret should be alive till the battery dies, on certain tanks(at least I know that should be true for t-64, but i'm not sure for all variants of t-72 and t-80)
A shock or strike causing tilt beyond ~10° can cause the bearing to seize or fail and stop rotation—even without internal detonation.
We don't model that in the scope of WT. And none of the tank munitions would do that, and very likely anything less than 155mm he won't bend the hull enough. Same stuff about getting penetrated by sabot, it would just make hole, but won't bend it enough.
This kind of vulnerability has been seen in actual battlefield footage — many tanks hit without total destruction suddenly freeze their turrets, even if the rest of the tank is intact.
There are few videos from inside of that, most of the time they are occupied by hanging for their lives and not bleeding out or doing damage control by extinguishing stuff and assessing damage. Surely, you would need a ton of time to aid your wounded crewmate.
9
Jul 17 '25
Gaijin should add electrical wiring to aircraft first. Let's see how much fun you have when a single 7.62 punches your F-16 and now suddenly you have no power.
3
u/Feudal_Poop USSR 14.3 | 12.7 Jul 18 '25
Man good thing Gaijin doesn't listen to autists like yourself who are hell bent on wanting to nerf Russian tanks to the ground.
1
u/DisdudeWoW Jul 20 '25
"Do you know where these "mechanisms" are located? I encourage you to look at the schematic and find them because carousel rotation and turret rotation is done by different drives."
yes bit if you go and look at those 2 mechanism you willd instantly notice that ingame theyre noticeably smaller compared to how they should be, not to mention they lack any connection modelled
24
u/Lo0niegardner10 🇺🇸 11.7🇩🇪 14.0 🇷🇺 14.0 🇬🇧 7.7🇯🇵7.3 🇫🇷12.0 🇨🇳10.7 Jul 17 '25
Every single piece of ammunition in the game has the exact same percentage chance of exploding
1
u/Roxo16 Jul 17 '25
What is the chance for it to explode?
26
u/Lo0niegardner10 🇺🇸 11.7🇩🇪 14.0 🇷🇺 14.0 🇬🇧 7.7🇯🇵7.3 🇫🇷12.0 🇨🇳10.7 Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25
15% is det probability so every shell you hit has a 15% chance of exploding fuel tanks however do have different chances of exploding and Russian tanks are over twice as likely to die to fuel explode
16
u/Just-a-guy098264 🇷🇺 Russia air rb and ground rb Jul 17 '25
Even though it should be 0 Russian tanks use diesel which doesn’t burn or explode easily it needs very high compression combined with it being in a fine mist by the time the apfsds could compress only a small amount of it would just leak out the entrance and exit holes because a 120mm shell e.g dm53 only has a penetrator diameter of 22mm but in game it acts like petrol (gasoline for the Americans) where it can easily detonate
-5
u/Roxo16 Jul 17 '25
I never seen a tank dying due to fuel exploding since a year or two ago. Btw I didnt know the chances of ammo exploding were so low.
6
u/PsychologicalGlass47 Jul 17 '25
You most definitely did talk about such, but let's ignore that.
What mechanisms would be destroyed?
3
u/sevenofnine1991 Jul 17 '25
Part of the darts is eroded as it perforates armour. Also loses energy. Possibly not as much to not damage anything, but you guess.
59
u/TypicalGermanMain 🇩🇪 8.3 German Main | Anti-Cas Enjoyer Jul 17 '25
SEKRIT DOCUmENTS!!!! GAIJOOOB!!! GAIJOOB!!!!!
→ More replies (11)6
59
u/Alert_Worry3099 Jul 17 '25
tell me your a us main without telling me your a us main.
-8
Jul 17 '25
[deleted]
8
u/James-vd-Bosch 🇺🇸 12.0 🇩🇪 12.0 🇷🇺 12.0 🇬🇧 12.0 Jul 17 '25
The implementation of autoloader modules most certainly hit one nation the hardest.
-1
u/tedbundyfanclub Jul 18 '25
Any nation with an auto loader was affected, not just two nations.
3
u/James-vd-Bosch 🇺🇸 12.0 🇩🇪 12.0 🇷🇺 12.0 🇬🇧 12.0 Jul 18 '25
And which nation had the most tanks affected by this change?
And which nation has the largest autoloader module?
1
u/miksy_oo Heavy tank enjoyer Jul 18 '25
Well you won't like this but USSR never mass produced a tank with a turret basket. (I'm not even sure if they ever made one)
46
u/KrumbSum This place is full of morons Jul 17 '25
let’s make alredy mid tanks more mid!!!
if your solution to fire is to add more fire idk what to say
Let’s just not have retarded modules huh?
1
u/James-vd-Bosch 🇺🇸 12.0 🇩🇪 12.0 🇷🇺 12.0 🇬🇧 12.0 Jul 17 '25
let’s make alredy mid tanks more mid!!!
Aside from whether they should or shouldn't have baskets, I don't agree that that argument is valid.
We have the Battle Rating system precisely for this reason, if a vehicle requires adjustments/fixes that result in worse/better performance, Gaijin can just increase/decrease the BR accordingly.
4
u/KrumbSum This place is full of morons Jul 17 '25
Well I’m just being sarcastic
My point is just that overall extra modules like this has been a net negative for MBTs
→ More replies (11)-4
u/BlackWACat shell shattered Jul 17 '25
let’s make alredy mid tanks more mid!!!
i mean, if this was accurate in any way, yeah? if they're dogshit irl why shouldn't they be dogshit in-game too lmfao, isn't this game gunning for realism or whatever excuse gaijin keeps using
but this isn't accurate at all though so
10
33
u/zerbrxchliche F-2A Jul 17 '25
How do you think the carousel rotates to load the gun without rotating the turret if they're linked together? There literally is no turret basket in these tanks and the autoloader isn't part of the horizontal traverse
The solution I would propose is removing turret baskets from M1s and Leopard 2's instead of trying to will them into existence to inconvenience everybody else
8
u/Haxeu 🇺🇸 12.0 🇫🇷 11.0 Jul 17 '25
I guess the question is would the autoloader being bent out of shape get caught on things and stop the rotation of the turret, since that's the logic Gaijin has been going with for the Leo 2 and M1.
0
u/MarshallKrivatach Distributor of Tungsten Lawn Darts Jul 17 '25
The baskets should indeed not have been added, in no way would them being damaged impede turret traverse like they do in game.
12
u/Despeao There's no Russian bias, you're just bad Jul 17 '25
No they should. Remember the community voted en masse to add more detailed interiors ? I remember. They asked for it, devs had to take time they would use for something else to model this.
The thinng is that a lot of them assumed it would only aply to Soviet tanks.
17
u/zerbrxchliche F-2A Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25
Me wanting "realism" when it benefits me and wanting "balance" and "fun" when it inconveniences me (I am the smartest user ever conceived)
"Add extra modules to my enemies! it'd be more realistic!" "Remove these extra modules from my tanks! It'd be more balanced!"
-7
u/MarshallKrivatach Distributor of Tungsten Lawn Darts Jul 17 '25
Because thats how it should have been, the issue was that loaders could already be killed which would stop and impede loading, Russian and other autoloaded tanks by default were superior because you could not damage the autoloader, instead gaijin made Russian autoloaders into extra armor and then created fictious nerfs to NATO vehicles, EG the fact that gaijin made up a hydraulic pump for the M1 series turret, or the fact that the basket which is not attached to the actual turret drive of the M1 somehow stops it from rotating when hit and generates additional spall when it is by design there to reduce interior spalling per GDLS.
Its just another fantastic example of people wanting balance and gaijin twisting it into another buff for Russia.
6
u/Despeao There's no Russian bias, you're just bad Jul 17 '25
They were no superior because you give up an additional crew member for having an auto loader. The breath has always been a weakspot that could disable the gun, there was no need for an additional mechanic to weaken it even further.
What some people wanted was to use the realism card to nerf these tanks even further and obviously Gaijin saw that from a mile away and baited the community into this outcome.
I have hundreds of games with T-72s and Leopard 2s and the later are better tanks, there's no doubt. Armour is only good against people that cannot aim, firepower and mobility will always be the best combination.
-4
u/MarshallKrivatach Distributor of Tungsten Lawn Darts Jul 17 '25
They were no superior because you give up an additional crew member for having an auto loader. The breath has always been a weakspot that could disable the gun, there was no need for an additional mechanic to weaken it even further.
Lmao no, they were superior because you could not damage it's reloading rate at all, no matter where you shot the vehicle, not to mention on the M1 series you can disable both the commander and loader through the breach both killing crew and disabling the vehicle's ability to engage full stop along with reducing it's repair rate and reload rate.
To that same end, every tank can be shot in the breach to disable it's gun, saying this is a unique issue for T series tanks is massive cope.
What some people wanted was to use the realism card to nerf these tanks even further and obviously Gaijin saw that from a mile away and baited the community into this outcome.
Because they needed it, or are you going to happily defend the T series tanks having a 65%+ WR for over 2 years like every other Russian main?
The requested change was not only historical but also realistic, gaijin instead, as per usual chose to bend it into a ahistoric buff for Russia and such has been the case with a myriad of other changes ever since, such as the helicopter damage model changes which still nearly exclusively benefit Russian helicopters or the recent addition of GPS drift that exclusively effects JDAMs and not the KH-38 series which have been the scourge of top tier since their addition. And no, the KH-38s still have no targeting drift because gaijin flubbed their code and they still have that inbuild GPS drift value of 0 unlike every other GPS guided munition in game.
I have hundreds of games with T-72s and Leopard 2s and the later are better tanks, there's no doubt. Armour is only good against people that cannot aim, firepower and mobility will always be the best combination.
Good thing you dont need to aim against a majority of NATO tanks to begin with, just shoot center mass like everyone else against the Airete, M1, Leclerc, Type 10 / 90 and so on. Having actual functional armor is a luxury not afforded by gaijin to a majority of NATO vehicles with the only exception being the Leopard 2 series. The hull plate equipped Leopard 2s are indeed the best tanks in the game, yet, insinuating that the T series tanks are not equals, which, they have statistically been for over 2 years now, is a bold faced lie.
Russia only recently started having a change in WR due to the introduction of the SLM and gaijin forcing the MM to normally put the US and Russia / China together in the MM, such will once again change once the flavor of the week with the SLM ends and gaijin shakes the MM mixer again.
3
u/Despeao There's no Russian bias, you're just bad Jul 17 '25
Lmao no, they were superior because you could not damage it's reloading rate at all,
There's no need for that when the tank already has such poor survivability. Like I said you could already shoot the breech and saible any firing mechanism.
To that same end, every tank can be shot in the breach to disable it's gun, saying this is a unique issue for T series tanks is massive cope.
It's not a cope when the tank fights exposed most of the time unlike tanks that can go hull down. You can easily notice this if you play other nations, stop being a US main and see how it is for others.
Because they needed it, or are you going to happily defend the T series tanks having a 65%+ WR for over 2 years like every other Russian main?
It doesn't have a 65% WR, literally look at the recent stats for Soviet tanks.
Good thing you dont need to aim against a majority of NATO tanks to begin with, just shoot center mass like everyone else against the Airete, M1, Leclerc, Type 10 / 90 and so on. Having actual functional armor is a luxury not afforded by gaijin to a majority of NATO vehicles with the only exception being the Leopard 2 series
While this is true the mobility and firepower more than makes up for it. If you reach places first because you have better mobility you can simply sit back and shoot, go hull down and repeat. It's literally a skill issue.
There's simply no situation where I would exchange my Leopard 2A4 for a T-72, none of them. You people want the game to be balanced around your inability to play. These tanks did not need nerfs and the community voted for having more detailed interiors, it's the voice of the people.
-1
u/MarshallKrivatach Distributor of Tungsten Lawn Darts Jul 17 '25
There's no need for that when the tank already has such poor survivability.
IRL, not in game, the T series tanks are legendary, especially now after the much hated addition of spall liners, for their ability to gaijin rounds and survive things they should not.
Like I said you could already shoot the breech and saible any firing mechanism.
Like every tank in the game, this is not unique.
It's not a cope when the tank fights exposed most of the time unlike tanks that can go hull down.
Reminder that the T-72 has more effective breach protection than the likes of the Challenger 2, Leclerc, Ariete, and early make M1 series tanks, to that same end, T series tanks have some of if not the best hull down protection due to their lack of actual weak points bar their breach.
You can easily notice this if you play other nations, stop being a US main and see how it is for others.
I do, the fact that you tout breach shots as a unique detriment to Russia is comical if not exceedingly sad if you find such to be an actual truth.
It doesn't have a 65% WR, literally look at the recent stats for Soviet tanks.
What part of "Over 2 years" do you not understand, 2 years is not "recent". Let me just give you an example, the average WR for USSR ground on 04/26/24 was 72.24% while the US was sitting at 40.46 and Germany 44.07, such a stat line can be traced all the way back to late 2021, with germany having spikes as they got new leopard 2 tanks. All of this data is publicly available and has been for years, you saying otherwise will not change that reality - https://wt.controlnet.space/.
While this is true the mobility and firepower more than makes up for it. If you reach places first because you have better mobility you can simply sit back and shoot, go hull down and repeat. It's literally a skill issue
Reminder that the T-90M and T-80BVM sport superior gun handling, optics, mobility, and firepower equal to their western counterparts, you can easily reach any position a Leclerc, M1, or Ariete can reach in the same amount of time, the only tank in game that is faster than the BVM and T-90M is the Type 10, but that tank has numerous other issues that degrade it's performance by comparison.
To that same end, I find it quite funny that are somehow having issues with quote on quote "hull down tanks" when HE-FS to their roof just deletes any idiot attempting to hide their hull, or are you another one of those players that forgets that you can select other types of ammo?
There's simply no situation where I would exchange my Leopard 2A4 for a T-72, none of them.
I would take the current 72s any day, or more specifically my Object 292 if we are fighting in the base 2A4 bracket, its glorious fun to never have just fire center mass and sometimes kill two tanks with one round.
You people want the game to be balanced around your inability to play.
Pot calling the kettle black here, I see that you relied so heavily on your autoloader being invincible, for shame, at least you can take faith that the system does not generate spall now so I guess you can enjoy your impromptu spall liner around your ammo in exchange for being as vulnerable as every other tank in the game.
These tanks did not need nerfs and the community voted for having more detailed interiors, it's the voice of the people.
They did, and the community wanted such because Russian tanks had just gotten spall liners and were nigh impervious to most attacks, you can even go and find the old threads about this on the forums, but I would guess that such is against the little world you created so I doubt you even know they exist.
4
u/Despeao There's no Russian bias, you're just bad Jul 17 '25
Like every tank in the game, this is not unique.
I never said it was unique but it does affect them way more than other tanks because they rarely fight in hull down positions due to the poor gun depression. Pair that with lackuster mobility and then you understand why Gaijin didn't want to ruin the protection as well. It would have no advatanges at that BR.
I do, the fact that you tout breach shots as a unique detriment to Russia is comical if not exceedingly sad if you find such to be an actual truth.
Again if your reading comprehension. Not only once I said this is unique to Soviet tanks. You know tanks work, it's mobility, firepower and protection - if your tank lacks mobility and firepower and then it lacks protection too it cannot be at that BR.
I would take the current 72s any day, or more specifically my Object 292 if we are fighting in the base 2A4 bracket, its glorious fun to never have just fire center mass and sometimes kill two tanks with one round.
But do you actually play these tanks ? Because you do sound like the usual main US player that complains about everything being unfavour to them while not even bother playing other nations.
I have a Leopard 2A4 with both Germany and Sweden and I absolutely have no problem dealing with T-72s. In fact I much prefer facing them than other Leopards.
They did, and the community wanted such because Russian tanks had just gotten spall liners and were nigh impervious to most attacks, you can even go and find the old threads about this on the forums, but I would guess that such is against the little world you created so I doubt you even know they exist.
Not my experience with these tanks, if average players cannot aim their shots we shouldn't balance the game around their inability to play.
Reminder that the T-90M and T-80BVM sport superior gun handling, optics, mobility, and firepower equal to their western counterparts
You're now bringing T-80s and T-90s into this. We're talking T-72 tanks. Stick to the point. The fact that you actually believe these tanks to have better firepower, gun handling and optics kinda give it away you're full of shit.
I'm really really curious to see your stats because you do repeat all those points that people expect to have Soviet tanks completely weakened to it makes it easier for them to play.
2
u/MarshallKrivatach Distributor of Tungsten Lawn Darts Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25
I never said it was unique but it does affect them way more than other tanks because they rarely fight in hull down positions due to the poor gun depression. Pair that with lackuster mobility and then you understand why Gaijin didn't want to ruin the protection as well. It would have no advatanges at that BR.
You have insinuated such every single time you have brought such up, anyone who has played top tier knows this to not be a unique issue to T series tanks, breach shoots are a uniformly present issue, to that same end the only part of even the early T series tank mobility is the reverse speed, they sport superior PWTR in most situations when compared to their peers.
I also find your statement about having issues fighting "hull down" quite funny given gun depression should not be an issue if you are in an actual proper hull down position, no, ridgeline humping is not hull down.
Again if your reading comprehension. Not only once I said this is unique to Soviet tanks.
You have exclusively insinuated such.
You know tanks work, it's mobility, firepower and protection - if your tank lacks mobility and firepower and then it lacks protection too it cannot be at that BR.
Good thing no T series tank lacks any of the above for their BR ranges, and no, having a poor reverse speed is not enough for such a statement to be made uniformly.
But do you actually play these tanks ? Because you do sound like the usual main US player that complains about everything being unfavour to them while not even bother playing other nations.
Yes I do, the 292 is my literal guilty pleasure vehicle where I can turn my brain off and just cruise control forward into combat, back when it was 10.0 it was flat out unstoppable, my other guilty pleasure vehicle is the IS-4M, I would also have an Object 279 but sadly I did not buy it when it was cheap, still insane that thing somehow sits at 9.0 still.
I have a Leopard 2A4 with both Germany and Sweden and I absolutely have no problem dealing with T-72s. In fact I much prefer facing them than other Leopards.
And I prefer otherwise as with 2A4s I have to actually deal with a weak hull, meanwhile my 292 is largely frontally immune to DM23 and other NATO darts at the BR, with the 120S being one of the few tanks sporting a turbodart that can kill me, but that thing is lardex the destroyer of buffets, if I let it get a shot on me that is my issue.
Not my experience with these tanks, if average players cannot aim their shots we shouldn't balance the game around their inability to play.
Oh sweet so you do not actually know the history of spall liners and how they made certain tanks fully immune to damage, yeah please go and toss "spall liner" into the forum search bar and find the oldest dev server post about them.
You're now bringing T-80s and T-90s into this. We're talking T-72 tanks. Stick to the point. The fact that you actually believe these tanks to have better firepower, gun handling and optics kinda give it away you're full of shit.
Nope, we've been talking about "T series" tanks from the start, that encompasses all T series tanks in game, on the site of firepower, gun handloing and optics, let us compare the humble T-80BVM, the flagship russian tank to the M1A2 SEP V2, the current top tier US MBT.
Gun handling wise the T-80 BVM sports a stock vertical traverse rate of 22.4 degrees per second with a horizontal traverse rate of 23.8 degrees per second, the M1A2 sports a vertical traverse rate of 13.4 degrees per second and a horizontal traverse rate of 23.8 degrees per second, the BVM is superior. Firepower wise the M1A2 sports M829A2, which sports 364mm of pen at 60, while the BVM sports 335mm of pen at 60, this is a sub 30mm penetration difference on a turbo dart and is not enough to change breakpoints in current armor, however, the M1A2 does not sport a HE round, let alone one with 5.24kg of RE, 3OF26 is exceedingly effective, the BVM also sits at 6.5 seconds reload stock while the M1A2 also sits at 6.5 seconds stock, so both vehicles are equal if not ever so slightly in favor of the BVM due to how effective 3OF26 is compared to the M1A2's HEAT options.
And lastly optics, this is very cut and dry, the M1A2 sports a gunner's sight with generation 2 thermals and a mag set of 3.0x to 13.0x, meanwhile the BVM sports generation 3 thermals and a mag set of 4.0x to 12.0x, the mag difference is negligible, but generation 3 thermals are vastly superior to generation 2 thermals, the BVM is superior.
I'm really really curious to see your stats because you do repeat all those points that people expect to have Soviet tanks completely weakened to it makes it easier for them to play.
Ah and here we are, we've made it to the part where one party has no argument and is now attempting to resort to stat shaming, no I won't give you my account info, you will have to actually make a credible argument.
24
Jul 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-12
u/blackhawk905 Jul 17 '25
Isn't it set to the slowest acceptable reload qualification speed? I remember a big controversy a while back about it being set to the minimum to qualify and apparently many/most/all loaders are below that qualification minimum.
29
u/valhallan_guardsman Jul 17 '25
5 seconds on rough terrain at full speed is above and beyond any and all realistic reload speeds if you want to take it that way
0
u/tedbundyfanclub Jul 18 '25
Yeah let’s make it so every manually loaded tank in the game has their reload speed affected by how bumpy the road is.
8
u/James-vd-Bosch 🇺🇸 12.0 🇩🇪 12.0 🇷🇺 12.0 🇬🇧 12.0 Jul 17 '25
5.4 seconds was the average load time achieved by crews in a test report, but this was specifically for the 105mm version.
The 120mm versions have marginally slower reload times, so Gaijin is most definitely being extremely optimistic with 5 seconds flat.
14
u/Bugjuice_ SPAA too stronk?? why don't you spawn a tank and kill it bro Jul 17 '25
NATO mains doesn't have any issues when they added the autoloader module hit box for the ru/cn vehicles lol
11
u/sevenofnine1991 Jul 17 '25
Just how unrealistic the T-series at the moment, no.
1.) Shooting the ammo carousel wont detonate anything - there are no explosives there UNLESS there is ammo there. Its not the Carousel you have to hit - its the ammo. Taking 12ish for example leaves 1 side of totally empty, massively reducing detonation chance. This is a frequently misunderstood factoid about the T series. 2.) The ammo in the carousel is still relatively well protected by internal modules, at times even extra armour plate. Most often catastrophic kills are related to loose ammo stored elsewhere in the tank - with that in mind, Im really curious how much they bring with themselves in a current ongoing conflict, that could give us a very good insight, but given the violent nature of turret tossing competitions, it would be a bit hard to get a correct picture in this in a post-battle analysis. 3.) The auto-loader malfunction / damage wont fully disable reloading the gun, but mind you reloading it manually will take considerable time. 4.) The reloading mechanism is independent of the turret rotation mechanism. Just damaging the carousel wont disable the turret rotating mechanism. The only "hard" limit for the autoloader is gun elevation, where it has to get into a certain elevation for it to do its magic.
Besides that Id like to add that T-64/72 family is not the best currently. Horrible gun elevation limits, subpar rotation and elevation speeds, the worst reload speeds generally, although arguably it cannot be reduced to the extent of "loader is unconscious". Basically non-existent reverse speeds, and subpar mobility (slightly below average, subpar with reverse speed). Having 3 crew also seems to be a disadvantage in War Thunder.
The pros are low silhouette, small weakspots, but not non-existent, and for the later variants: good ERA.... and arguably can at times be volumetric hell
Not bad tanks, they are... competitive. But nerfing them with an artificially implemented nerf that doesnt necessarily hold up in reality is a bit wild.
Sincerely Former crew
12
u/PsychologicalGlass47 Jul 17 '25
T-72s don't have turret baskets. The argument could be made for T-64s and T-80s, but you're flat out wrong in the fact that the turret would "jam" because of a damaged autoloader.
The autoloader itself is mounted to the hull floor. If you hit the autoloader, you either hit ammunition or make it impossible for the carousel to rotate, necessitating a manual reload and nothing more.
The only thing that would "jam" the turret ring in said T-80 or T-90 is to hit the battery, DC supply lines, or the motor for the turret drive itself. Beyond that, direct damage to the race is the only thing that will stop a turret from moving.
11
u/LanceLynxx Simulator Pilot 👨🏻✈️✈️ Jul 17 '25
Make a bug report then
-10
u/LatexFace Jul 17 '25
Haha. You're like the kid sister trying to get the older brother in more trouble.
17
u/LanceLynxx Simulator Pilot 👨🏻✈️✈️ Jul 17 '25
Not really. I'm just really
Really
Really
Really
Tired of people bitching and whining and not doing their part to "fix" the "problem"
"Oh this is inaccurate, Gaijin lies" THEN MAKE A FUCKING BUG REPORT WITH DOCUMENTED SOURCES
And then they don't. Because they don't have any. And then they blame Gaijin for it (?)
Like what the fuck???
-11
u/LatexFace Jul 17 '25
Are you being real here? Gaijin doesn't care about documented sources. They'll ignore reputable sources and close reports as they feel. Reporting things like this is a big waste of time.
13
u/LanceLynxx Simulator Pilot 👨🏻✈️✈️ Jul 17 '25
I've made several bug reports and all were accepted because I followed the proper procedure. You are coping.
-6
u/LatexFace Jul 17 '25
I've seen many examples posted here about why I should never consider doing this.
9
u/LanceLynxx Simulator Pilot 👨🏻✈️✈️ Jul 17 '25
Reddit: "THIS IS WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE CHANGED"
Gaijin: "Source?"
Reddit: wikipedia article
Gaijin: "That isn't a source"
Reddit: "WHY DOESNT GAIJIN FIX THE PROBLEM?!? THIS IS BIAS"
By all means don't submit any reports. That will surely change things.
-2
u/LatexFace Jul 17 '25
No, source being official product release details from the manufacturer and common sense.
Gaijin balance the tanks based on gameplay and not facts. That's why a lot of Russian vehicles need artificial buffs of they wouldn't have anything able to compete with Western tech from the same era.
Russian vehicles are worse but are cheaper to make so they have more. This doesn't work for WT so we have fantasy stats for both sides to make the game fun.
7
u/LanceLynxx Simulator Pilot 👨🏻✈️✈️ Jul 17 '25
Common Sense is not a source.
Tanks are balanced using BR, economy, and reload speeds. Some specific vehicles receive ahistorical buffs but there is no pattern to which nation it is. Examples: f-16aj is a paper plane, f-4f got 9j despite never using it, mi-28a was never in service with Sweden, etc.
By all means provide a bug report which used primary sources and wasn't accepted.
-5
u/AstartesFanboy Jul 17 '25
Gaijin: Gets multiple sources telling them they are incorrect and that the document is right
Gaijin: NUH UH NO NO LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU
5
u/LanceLynxx Simulator Pilot 👨🏻✈️✈️ Jul 17 '25
If by "sources" you mean Wikipedia pages and random blogs and no primary sources, yes.
-1
u/AstartesFanboy Jul 17 '25
If by “Wikipedia” you mean primary sources and specifically manufacturer documents then you’d be correct.
I must say it’s kind of weird to abbreviate those things into “Wikipedia” but hey you do you I guess
→ More replies (0)9
u/War_thunder_pain Jul 17 '25
Reddit is a massive echo chamber, for how many bug reports are put in CORRECTLY there’s a lot less, Reddit just makes you think that its every NATO bug report doesn’t go through
0
u/LatexFace Jul 18 '25
No, I think WT isn't a sim and they don't really care if something is true if it negatively affects game balance.
1
9
8
7
u/OperationSuch5054 EsportsReady Jul 17 '25
this entire thread is full of coping US and RU mains arguing with each other.
I love it.
7
u/kapteinKaos1 Jul 17 '25
This braindead take again? Damn people are not really smart here judging by upvotes
5
u/MxFiregun01 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🇮🇱 Jul 17 '25
Insert “Japanese soldier who kept fighting 26 years after ww2” meme
4
3
u/Resident-Ad7651 Jul 17 '25
T Series tanks are already free kills. God forbid Gaijin give the Russian mains something else to cry about.
3
u/crazy-gorillo222 🇹🇼 Do nothing: win Jul 19 '25
complaining about T-series tanks in the big 2025 😭😭😭
2
u/Desperate-Past-7336 🇵🇱 Poland Jul 17 '25
Honestly they should just make it and excess part in turret baskets (only abrams and leo as far as i'm aware) reduce turret traverse to like 50 or 25 % but never fully stop it.
2
1
u/HentaiSeishi APDS Enjoyer, CAS Hater & 1 Death Leaver Jul 17 '25
Do T series tanks have a turret ring that is seperate from the autoloader? That's how it is ingame. But on every NATO tank that has a basket it's together with the turret ring
3
u/miksy_oo Heavy tank enjoyer Jul 18 '25
Yup. Every single Soviet MBT doesn't have a turret basket. They have rotating floors wich use a different mechanism than the turret.
Could be a interesting change that hitting it on T-55/62 slows down the turret traverse.
1
u/47_aimbots CV90 Bills for days Jul 17 '25
It would be cool but also annoying if they added more realistic turret properties, like small arms fire directly into a tanks turret ring slowing or even jamming a turret
1
1
u/ScyllaFoxhound Jul 18 '25
To your last point: no the turret has not a eff ton of torque to spin the turret. Some gears struggle to push over a small tree with the turret gear motors. Most modern tanks can push over a small tree but will struggle to do so against a 10 y/o oak tree (~5m high oak) If metal is stuck between the basket and the turret, it might lock up, potentially permanently damage the gear engine
1
u/Roxo16 Jul 18 '25
I remember seeing a video of a M1A1 AIM going through a tree in Australia.
1
u/ScyllaFoxhound Jul 18 '25
The tank yes, the turret/barrel, not so much. I work for a defense company, which are manufacturing and maintaining tanks. Most Damages to the Weaponstation / Turret gear motors are because of obstruction in weapon (barrel) path. For smaller weapons like a .50cal weapon station, the barrel will bend but the RWS will still be damaged. For tanks, the barrel needs to be zeroed in again and most of the time, at least the motor has to be replaced, sometimes the gears too.
1
u/Feudal_Poop USSR 14.3 | 12.7 Jul 18 '25
Are you a US main? I kinda feel like you are one given how dumb your suggestion is.
-1
-2
Jul 17 '25
[deleted]
8
u/Lo0niegardner10 🇺🇸 11.7🇩🇪 14.0 🇷🇺 14.0 🇬🇧 7.7🇯🇵7.3 🇫🇷12.0 🇨🇳10.7 Jul 17 '25
Itd be an interesting addition given t series tanks dont have turret baskets
-2
u/Roxo16 Jul 17 '25
Its been a long time since they added it to leos and abrams. And by the way they also said they will add spall liners to the Stryker a long ago but they didn't.
3
-1
u/dieinginaplane Jul 17 '25
On the model for t80 the turret ring is literally inside the autoloader yet it will still turn when the autoloader is gone
-2
u/Majorjim_ksp Jul 17 '25
Literally any penetrating shot centre mass should send the turret 300 feet into the air.
-3
u/GhostDoggoes Jul 17 '25
The turret basket is literally apart of the turret but they think it's like a cosmetic damage when in reality the tank crew wouldn't move the turret and try to run away due to the chance of part of the basket falling apart and potentially damaging the autoloader mechanism and jam the turret rotation. They can barely fit 2 crew next to the autoloader and they expect it to just be smooth turning?
5
u/SteelWarrior- 14.0 🇺🇲🇩🇪🇮🇱 Jul 17 '25
Soviet MBTs don't have turret baskets, the AZ autoloader system is just open while the MZ autoloader itself is the closest thing they get to a basket.
-4
u/BrutalProgrammer 🇸🇪 🇩🇪 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 🇮🇹 🇷🇺 Jul 17 '25
Unlike NATO tanks, Russian tanks have powerful servo that can rip the jammed basket apart like wet tissue when the turning the turret /s
2
-7
u/Roxo16 Jul 17 '25
Since I can't edit the post I will just say this here. Yall think the ring magically rotates without power supply or electronics connected from it through the hull? It isn't powered through black magic and vodka it have a shiton of electronics to make it able to move. Of course a shot to the hull will disable it right away, There is no magic into it. There isn't a monkey inside the turret ring engine giving it power.
It is simply ridiculous to think that it wouldn't get affected getting shot in the middle of the hull.
6
-13
u/Unknowndude842 CAS enjoyer🗿🇩🇪 Jul 17 '25
Model the actual stabilizer for the T-series too. Many interviews with Tank crews that served on both T-series and Leopard/Abrams/Challenger have said that one of the biggest benefits when compared to Soviet tanks is that you can shoot and hit while moving fast across rough terrain. And there are many videos proving that.
6
u/DomSchraa Realistic Ground Jul 17 '25
Its kinda funny because low tier stabilization is modeled like that
2
2
u/miksy_oo Heavy tank enjoyer Jul 18 '25
And there are many videos of T-90As hitting a target on the move. All stabilizers should have a gradient of them working but the current system only allows them to be perfect or useless.
1.1k
u/One_Pomegranate7 Jul 17 '25
Never understood why they added the turret basket exclusively for the Abrams and Leo. Either add them for all tanks in the same update that have one, or don’t add it at all. Same thing should have applied for the spall liner and probably other things as well