~7.7 heavy tanks desperately need a reload buff

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
231

Hitting the right side of the mantlet with APHE that does not overpressure also damages the ready rack charges.
If you hit the mantlet with any APHE that overpressures, if it pens the mantlet, it nukes the crew (soviet 122mm, german 128mm and so on).

It should not go down for sure, but i’d give it a reload ot 9s at worst, but more likely 8 or 7.5s with expert crew, and also remove the ready rack. 8 shells wile both of them are unreliable is just not enough.
Shattering in one thing, but also dealing no damage and causing no shrapnels is just so bad.

After all, if the M103 can have no ready rack (so it’s reload does not change no matter how many imes you shoot), so why not this too?

1 Like
232

Another thing I see as increasingly necessary - undoing long-since redundant nerfing of the postpen for APCR, APDS, HEAT, HEATFS, smaller-sized APFSDS, and HESH.

If that means all those HEAT tanks go up in BR im fine with it.

233

That’s the idea - nerfs do not help anyone unless its a situation where a weapon actually is without a doubt overperforming.

HEAT should not be “APCR that pens slopes,” yet that is what it has been for too many years now. Ever since 1.67, in fact. It was made that way to ease crying of newbies from their then-new IS-6 being mauled by the M46 which only a week ago before said nerf hit had its HEATFS shell corrected to its real pen.

There is no excuse to keep HEAT in such an atrociously useless state when the reason for doing so no longer exists, and if I must be frank, has caused way more problems than it “helped.”

Not only does nerfing HEAT cause mass compression in the late-WWII/early-postwar range, it also created the obnoxiously low BRs for things like the SU-122, Ho-I, Sherman 105, Ikv 103, Sav m/43 (1946), short-barrel Panzer IVs, Panzer III N, StuG III A, Stumpwagen, Nebaufahrzeug, and quite a few others.

Nerfing APCR postpen likewise caused more problems than it solved. Same with APDS. Same with HESH.

No ammo type should be so worthless in postpen that people never carry it.

234

Another issue with the reloading is that losing a crew member is a percentage based penalty, meaning the already suffering long reloading tanks get a massive penalty on top, yet if they take out the crew of an enemy tank, that penalty is not nearly as severe due to their shorter reload.

1 Like
235

Usually, fast-reloading guns with HEATFS are pretty good, but when it takes 15 seconds or so to just knock-out one or two crew members, HEATFS becomes very frustrating, other than if you manage to hit ammunition.

1 Like
236

New thread

237

I understand what you said. The T32E1 rarely can play as a heavy because it lacks the armor or firepower to do so. It is better suited to play as a medium but is far less effective than the actual mediums at its BR.

The only objective strength of the T32E1 over other mediums at its BR is its mobility. The Maus has a superior main gun, a reliable secondary gun, significantly more armor and large internal volume that eats APHE, if you can pen it.

Yes, the larger caliber Russian guns get caught in volumetric but they also overmatch far more armor. There are trade offs.

238

The only objective strength of the T32E1 over other mediums at its BR is its mobility.

The gun depression is its biggest strength over the other 7.7s.

Yes, the larger caliber Russian guns get caught in volumetric but they also overmatch far more armor. There are trade offs.

In 9/10 times I’d rather have the 90mm with ⅔ the reload of the 122mm and smaller diameter.

239

Or you could take the 100mm with more pen, a faster reload and the slope modifiers.

240

No 7.7 heavy has the 100mm. There is an IS-4 with the 100mm but it’s not in the game.

241

If a vehicle has a reload rate of “x” it should be “x”.
Not changing it to make it more viable for people to use or to make it easier for other people to fight.

Sick of the game changing vehicle parameters to cater to peoples laziness or lack of willingness to learn a vehicle or overcome its weaknesses with its strengths etc etc or vehicles being changed because some people find it too hard because it doesnt have every advantage or any over its opponents.
It is the charm of the vehicle and extra kudos points for making it work despite the disadvantages.
Moreover it is also enjoyable to kill a superior vehicle.

“This guy can reload twice for my 1 shot, so i must make it count and shoot at the correct time with the right amount of lead etc”

No-one wants to take a vehicle because it has so many advantages in exchange for 1 big disadvantage, only to find out when you get in match that your biggest advantage (reload for arguments sake) has been nerfed to the point whereby it is not worth trading off (say armour) for it.

Rendering the vehicle in limbo at least by majority of peoples standards.

242

You have several issues with this.

First of all, the Sturmtiger. At best, it could fire 3x in a match. 4x, is like the absolute maximum for 99% of the matches.
The tank would be unplayable.

The german rocket launcher can reload 10 pieces of 15cm rockets in 18 seconds by a single crew member, even in move.

The Ontos can reload 6 pieces of recoilless rifles in 13s by a single crew member, even on the move.

French autoloaders in oscillating turrets can replenish their ready racks on move, while it was not possibe.

Aircrafts can fully reload their belts, fuel, bombs and rockets in 30s as well as get it completly repaired.

A crew member who just got himslef turn into a fine red mist by a 120mm shell can be magically revived in 20s into an uninjured state.

A crew member getting a headshot from a .50 cal still allows him to do his task, despite being barely alive (or dead if the game was realistic).

Do i need to continue?

Oh, then 3s reload for Leo 2 when?

1 Like
243

my point is, the vehicles should have the correct reload.
NOT changing them because people find it too hard.

want something with short reload? - advice: dont take something with a long reload.

244

Reload speed is such an incredibly variable number, even within a given tank, that it’s impossible to stick to a single figure.

Of course, every tank has a minimum required rate of fire for a loader to qualify, but individual loaders will each manage at different speeds. Add in techniques like lap loading, and fatigue, combat shock, and all sorts of other factors that influence loaders in battle, and that single number’s going to change a hell of a lot minute to minute.

You have tanks with different ammo rack locations, each of which would require a different amount of time to get a round from. Some even require the turret to be in a specific direction to fetch rounds from specific racks. That means memorizing 4+ possible reloads for every tank in the game.

Then you have tanks that, like in the comment above, cannot even be reloaded in specific conditions. Are you going to require tanks like the M56 and M50 stop and unload a crewmember just to reload?

Reload speed should be based on IRL speed as closely as possible, but ultimately it’s so variable that it can and should be used as a balancing factor. It is far preferable to do that instead of trying to buff/nerf tanks in other, less variable ways, like armor profile, speed, or other even less historical methods.

1 Like
245

If tank has 8.7 second reload, it should have 8.7 reload.

Imagine choosing a medium tank over a tank destroyer because it has a faster reload at the expense of damage.

Then you get in your medium tank and turns out that your reload is roughly the same as the tank destroyer you chose not to take - all because “balancing”

Well i just shot myself in the foot, may as well have taken the tank destroyer.

High damage, good armour but long reload?
or

Low damage, good armour and long reload still?

I think i will go for the first one. (if the second ones reload hadnt been “balanced” )- i would have chosen that.

You give one vehicle a buff, then it negates the advantages of other vehicles.

gimme a kv2 with 6 second reload, fast turret rotation and the armour.
It needs “balancing” so lets give it an artificial buff at the expense of other vehicles. . . . . .

If your using a “non-meta” vehicle (or a vehicle that is NOT the best at its br) then be aware of that, dont expect it to do what it does not do.

If i 1v1 an enemy abrahms in a bt-5 (that i chose myself) it would be crazy to expect success, especially ridiculous for the game to change my bt-5 stats to give it a better chance.

Where would it end?
Sherman not as tough as tiger - give sherman more armour.
Tiger says his armour is not as good in comparison to sherman like it used to be - result - increase tiger BR or give tiger more pen on round or increase armour.

It just doesnt end. Dont like the long reload? - dont take out something with long reload.

I dont understand the concept of having a game with so much variety etc but people wanting to minimalise this variety and just have duplicate performing vehicles but they just look different.

246

What is so hard to understand?

@Aegis270 and i explained it well. By your “logic”, a Leo 2 should have ~3s reload, which is HALF of what we have in game with aced reload.
And thiss can be more or less further halfed by lap loading!
Do you want a Leo 2 to fire like a bloody HSTV-L?

If it is autoloaded, then yes.

Is it human loaded? Not at all.

Let’s say a tank has a required reload of 8 seconds for a loader to qualify.
You can’t know if a loader is a newly trained weak-ish guy, or Arnold Schwazenegger os steroids.
You can’t know also, wether the loader is lap loading or not.

Loaders also get tired, so that has to be modelled by your “logic”.
And again, a bunch of autoloaders would be also unplayable because it took them to be stationary, and the crew outside the tank to reload the ready rack.

Do you think an Object 685 can replenish it’s autoloader with ammo behind the engine while going at 50 km/h?

This is just nonsense.

Nobody wants artificial buffs, especially for armor.

247

These comparison make zero sense. No-ones asking for the tanks in the OP to outreload conventional tanks. We’re simply advocating cutting their reload from cripplingly slow to simply very slow. Cutting three seconds from the T32’s reload isn’t going to make it superior to the Pattons, it’s just going to make them less awful to play.

The reloads for a lot of them were put in place to balancing their otherwise overwhelming advantages. Tanks like the T32s used to be complete monsters back in the relatively early days of WT Ground Forces, back when they were top dog BR wise and tanks relied on APHE and APCR. There was simply no way to kill them without flanking, so to balance their massive armor and/or firepower, their reloads were made very long to compensate.

Nowadays though, there’s no shortage of HEAT slingers to keep them in check, and uptiers are a constant threat. There is simply no reason to keep their reloads this long when their strengths have been degraded as much as they have been.

248

just artificial buffs for reload?

Ok

My kv2 has a long reload compared to the vehicles i am fighting.

Can we reduce the KV2 reload? someone has a faster one.

I was in a match earlier and someone reloaded faster than me, can i get a reload buff?

I also took out a really bad vehicle, then i got killed by better vehicles, - can i get an armour buff or reload buff or something?

I was in a match and there was this guy with an autoloader and thermals.

Can i get identical stats for my totally different vehicle?

I chose a sherman tank but it’s not a tiger, can i get a buff to my sherman to make it more like a tiger?

My bf109 only has 1 bomb, whereas the lancaster can carry 14 of them, can i get a buff?

Say you have 2 tanks. tank #1 has medium armour but has a massive gun with high damage and a long reload.
Tank #2 also has medium armour but only has a normal gun and a standard reload.
They are both the same BR.
I decide to choose tank #2 because i prefer to have a normal reload.

Then lets apply your suggestion: Tank #2 has a faster reload and because it’s not fair, something has to be done - so we buff the reload of tank #1.
So now - Tank #1 has medium armour, big gun/dmg and a normal reload.
Tank #2 still has medium armour, normal gun/dmg and a normal reload.

What is now the point of taking tank #2?
They were totally different vehicles with their own strengths/tradeoffs and at same BR.
Now - they are still totally different vehicles but they just perform alsmost identical now with one being arguably better.

Blurring lines between vehicle capabilities because you cant handle the stress and unfairness of someone having a reload 2 seconds faster while you have a gun2x bigger is NOT beneficial to anyone.
Think from an objective mindset.

It’s not fair for you, so lets give your vehicle a buff.
Then when you play the other vehicle, it is also not fair for you so we buff that vehicle.
Then you go back to the other vehicle and noww you dont have as much of an advantage as you did previously - so we buff it.
Then you switch back to the other vehicle, it’s not as good now - so we buff.
Then we go around and around.
Your thinking from the perspective of ONLY you in THAT particular vehicle.

1 Like
249

it has a massive gun. it is a great tank, it has the reload it has.

Then the germans complain

then we buff the germans.

then americans complain sdo we reduce the reload even more

then germans complain, so we buff germans

then americans complain.

Look, it would be absolutely fabulous to know that anytime you ever play warthunder you can rest assured that your handheld and that your guaranteed to be in the best vehicle in any given BR in any given match.

But you cant do that for everyone.

Here’s 5 coins, make sure all 10 of us get one.

guy running around with 2 second reload on a 155mm with heat-fs because 8 is too much for them.

And there is dumb fuck me, driving around in something with 8 second reload and a normal size gun…

If there is no tradeoff, then its a game i dont wanna play.

Just have 1 copy and paste vehicle at every br.

Reminds me of the time i ordered pasta at a restaurant and was absolutely shellshocked to see pasta on the plate rather than a steak and demanded they make the pasta like steak.

Then when i came back 2 weeks later i ordered a steak and was surprised it came out like pasta. so i ordered them to make it like steak.

If you cant deal with the vehicles, dont use them.

I aint asking for spitfires to have a radial engine or to be able to dive as fast as a 109. The vehicle is capable and needs to be played accordingly.
The issue is me, not the vehicle.
Imagine a boxer using same mentality - “opponent is half inch taller than me so either make him fight while crouched or i dont fight at all”

If that matters so much, the issue is you. not the game.

1 Like
250

M4A2 (76) IS 5.7 BR.
Tiger H1 is 5.7 BR.

M4A2 has 7.6 second reload - it has less armour - it has less effective gun.

Tiger H1 has 9.6 second reload - has much more armour - much more effective gun.

So we gonna say it’s not fair for the sherman? how about we give it a 5 second reload?

Or we gonna say Tiger needs a reload buff?

This is just 1 example, this can be applied throughout the entire tech tree for any given nation.

If certain vehicles are too difficult for you, dont use them, just rely on the ones that are easy to use, dont expect vehicles to have their stats changed on account of your inability to capitalise on the vehicles strengths.