“When a cartridge is placed on it, the two tray parts are then clamped around the round to hold it tightly. The cartridge must stay precisely at the intended position when the cartridge holder rotates down behind the gun breech for the cartridge to be rammed in. As modelled in game the rounds would just fall down on the floor when the cartridge holder rotates.”
“Very similar tray systems were used with few other Japanese guns: Type 5 10cm Anti-Tank Cannon (Ho-Ri’s gun), Type 3 12cm Anti-Aircraft gun and 10cm 65 Type 98 Naval Gun. All of these had a tray for a single round.”
Thanks for playing.
We have the loading time breakdown. This cannon was derived from a AAA gun, which emphasized reload speed.
Also, this is pointless. Gaijin has long established that reload time is a balancing factor and only loosely tied to real performance. We know this cannon can reload very quickly, so in-game it is better than other un-assisted cannons of the same era.
This has not been implemeted… the game still operates that it hold 2 rounds not one, so the reload could easily change… so his estimations still doesnt hold, as well as how it is currently implemeted as a pseudo autoloader
they still doesnt say that is the actuall reload of the gun, just the time to complete those actions, nowhere does it claim that they could reload every 6s inside of the tank that keeps being an guesstimation
The xray model is meaningless. The reload time has been corrected from the old one (3.3s for 3 shells, 1 in breech and 2 in loading device) to a continous feed of 18 shells from the rack in the back of the turret.
The bug report is correcting the existence of two shells on the loading device, which is impossible.
I’ve been playing it to see what all the fuss is about. After I spade it I don’t think I’ll play it again. I really hate how it flies. Has no acceleration no turning no top speed. I’d rather just fly the Kikka, J6K, or J7W.
The Ho-Ri’s transmission cover is 120mm of flat armor. At 7.3 everyone can go through the flat 200mm casemate.
Pretty sure that’s the same for the Ferdinand in edition you didn’t answer my question regarding the porche hull and it’s 80mm thick angled side weak-spot is that going to get addressed?
I think we both know your statement here:
is not factual.
Ho-Ri while being made from wood ingame offers Superior armor compared to the Ferdinand now yes the fire power is inferior the armor is superior it doesn’t have the Porche hull weakspot, it has superior super structure armor and better heat protection in the lower area and can be angled more effectively.
You already know the hull shoulder weakspot exists. But even then:
190mm is a whole lot more than 120mm.
What would you know about it?
We can play the stat checking game both ways. You are a level 5 player, who hasn’t even reached rank 3.
But of course you probably got banned from the game or forum, and this is your alt.
Superior armor… Where? The entire casemate front of the Ferdinand is 200mm sloped back to ~225-230mm effective. That’s as much as the thickest part of the Ho-Ri’s casemate. The sides of that one are 200mm flat.
The Ferdinand hull is mostly 205mm flat, with the sides ~180-190mm depending on range. The Ho-Ri’s front plate is an auto ricochet (which often goes right into the gun and takes it out), but the transmission cover is 120mm efective.
They both die if you’re angling and the enemy can aim. The Ho-Ri has hull shoulder weakspots too.
So yes, the Ferdinand has better armor. In any case, armor is not why the Ho-Ri Production is 7.3. Neither is the gun.
Same loading mechanism as the Chi-Ri. Two-stage autoloader (Do not take this terminology as to how it’s used in other tanks; I’m using it in a more literal sense.)
I listen when there is something worth listening to.
However none of the complainers have actually played the L-39 or put any effort into countering it. One claims he has it, but has not played.
And the same cope has been posted about the Ho-Ri for years. At 7.3 it’s more than fair.
If i were a T58 enjoyer and i went to a forum thread talking about how the T58 is OP i would be biased since i love my 3 second HESH machine and argue that it’s not OP, Is that example enough to cogitate that this person has no actual interest to be honest to the point?
Yes big number is better generally, just as like 200mm is better then 225mm just like that upper angled plate you didn’t mention.
Sorry officer i didn’t finish War thunder university
I don’t have attachment issues or suffer from Sunk cost fallacy why would i waste my time colluding in a platform full of irrational actors? Any chance of not attempting a pure ad hominem attack?
You’re comparing the strongest armor on the Ho-Ri’s casemate to the Ferdi’s, rather than the weakpoints that everyone should be aiming for. Which seems unfair, unless you’d also claim the Ferdinand has incredible hull armor and point to the 200mm sections, while ignoring the hull corners.
If you compare the 200mm plates, the Ho-Ri has it sloped back at 5 degrees, where it’s sloped at 20 on the Ferdi. This does make a difference, especially at range.
And the Ho-Ri’s toe plate is a sizable weakspot that is for some reason rarely targeted. Given the Ho-Ri’s terrible gun arc, all you have to do is shoot the toe plate and drive a couple meters to either side, and the Ho-Ri is effectively doomed.
Of course, the Ferdi’s hull corners means it’s overall less well armored as an overall package, since it needs to protect far more of it’s hull to be protected. But that (And the mobility) are why it’s so much lower in BR.
And, strictly speaking, if we’re comparing both tanks in their ideal engagement scenario (At range, with their hull covered), the Ferdinand is better armoured. As an example, at 500m, the long 88 can pen the weaker areas of the Ho-Ri’s casemate, while the Ferdinand is 100% immune.
Gaijin modeled it incorrectly because they assumed each half of the try was a separate “ready rack” thus giving it 2 fast reloads then slowing down.
That was bug reported and corrected to a faster sustained rate of fire, but they never bothered to correct the internal model.
Also bear in mind that modeling of autoloaders and mechanized ammo racks is a relatively new feature and many older vehicles do not have them, so making assumptions based on what is and isn’t modeled is pointless.
For example here is the mechanized ammo rack for the ST-A3:
You can occasionally see the opposite too. The ARL-44, for instance, has it’s assisted loading mechanism as part of it’s 3D model, but it’s not implemented in game.
The round on the rack is just the first part of the 24 round first stage ammo storage, and the ARL is left with a worse reload than the Tiger II despite similar ammo stowage and a mechanically assisted loading mechanism.
If the rammer reloads it in 3 seconds then I don’t think it would be strange for a reload to take 6 to 8 seconds for the reload in a tank, as one you would likely always load a round back into the rammer before or during the firing of the shell as the rammer would have to move out from behind the breach for it to fire, and two it wouldn’t take much more than a second or two to flip a 105 round onto that rammer as it is for tank standards decently roomy. So I would Say if its reloading at 3 seconds outside a tank it probably would be well within the capabilities of the tank to fire within 7 seconds inside a tank.
Also talking about the shell being grabbed from different places would be a bad faith argument as in war thunder reloads often ignore that mechanic entirely for example Soviet T-series tanks are always reloading with the best reload time possible for the autoloader even though the IRL time depends on where the next round its loading is sitting within the autoloader.
Then don’t be shot ! You are bringing a medium tank with a already bad canon at his BR in a full uptier. Of course tanks will pen him, especially a TD.
The problem is that for you, anyone who played a tank will do anything tmake it better.
But what I see is that you only faced it and never played it; this would make you biased (it killed me, so it’s good/cancer/pay-to-win).
In fact, the people who played it are way more suitable to give a feedback about the BR.
And you are comparing a 6.7 heavy TD against a 7.3 heavy TD.
And yes the Ferdinand armor is actually more angled than the Ho-Ri, maiking those 200mm of armor better than the Japanese 205mm armor. Plus you can count the 120mm LFP of the Ho-Ri production.
In term of cm², I think that the LFP of the Ho-Ri is bigger than frontally the view of the 2 plates of the ferdinand. Plus, the longer the range, the slower the shell get, and so can less pen at high angle, just like those. And at long range, 2 little plates on 2 opposite of the tank is better than a big one. Easier to aim for.
