Same for the poor Maus. Even more big turret, 2 loaders and need 23.6 seconds for load a 9.85 Kg shell.
Meanwhile the IS-6 loading a 25 kg shell in 2 parts only with 1 loader in and small cramped turret only 16 seconds…
1 Like
One of the loaders on the Maus is for the coaxial 75 mm cannon if I’m not mistaken. As well as the reload being made for the 128 mm rounds, not the 128/88.
The IS-6 I’ve read has a load assist device of some kind on top of being a premium tank.
2 Likes
Maus and Jagdtiger use 2 loaders and same loading process so the second loader can assist the main gun or load the secondary.
I know, but looks like for Gaijin is “extremly difficult” just add a separate loading times…
Maus suffer the same love than another German tanks like the oversized colision model for completely useless S-minen launchers can block the Tiger 1 gun or the useless night vision device in Panther 2 only is there for block the main gun and made the tank more visible.
1 Like
Especially the long American 90mms that have an absurdly long reload because its 2 piece ammo. Definitely not good enough to warrant a 17 second reload
Those reloads are by far the worst part of those vehicles. Does anyone really think the T-26E1-1 would be OP at 6.7 if it had the same reload as a KT? Similar mobility, much worse armor… five seconds longer reload time.
Good point and even some of the other 6.7 reloads are also way too long. T26E1-1 or all IS-2s. The Super Pershing wouldn’t be too good even with a shorter reload as long as the hull armor is underperforming massively. If it had a similar hull with a similar gun and a trollier turret that has the downside of more weakspots it would be much better.
9kg is only the weight of the shell itself but when you consider the weight of the proppelant and the sabot it’s weight is similar to the full caliber 128mm.
Here you have the weights.
1 Like
Are you sure those numbers are correct? I don’t doubt it weighs less but thats quite a huge difference and info about this round is not always verifiable. Changing the reload based on the round used would be a nice feature for the Maus and it’s the same mechanic they use on some tanks that can fire ATGMs.
Personally i think yes. For example, PzG. 43 weight match with we have ingame so looks like Gaijin think this table is accurate.
1 Like
The more funny is this feature is already in the game. The BMP-3 gun reload speed change when you select ATGM or HE.
But for Gaijin Germans tanks dont care a sh-t.
1 Like
Personally i think yes. For example, PzG. 43 weight match with we have ingame so looks like Gaijin think this table is accurate.
Seems to be accurate enough for them to add it if they consider manufacturer information as real.
The more funny is this feature is already in the game. The BMP-3 gun reload speed change when you select ATGM or HE.
Thats what I ment with the barrel launched ATGMs.
But for Gaijin Germans tanks dont care a sh-t.
StuG 4 when?
1 Like
its still a very good heavy i dont see why people struggle
Exactly. and ofc people will stilll say “wEll tHe 90 iS bEttEr bEcAuSe iT hAs mOrE eXpLoSiVe fiLLeR” its not that OP, it has less pen and double reload time
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say that the long 90 mm is better than the long 88…
Only not because of reload, but ive seen people say its fair because the filler is good.
It’s only worse due to the reload if it was faster I think it would be better or at least equal to the long 88. I prefer the long 90mm as the angle pen seems a lot more consistent and the HE is nice to have too but as long as the L71 reloads twice as fast it’s no contest.
Long 88 has more pen at all angles at all distances. The 2 extra mm of diameter that the long 90 mm has over the long 88 do not provide any meaningful performance advantage against angled armor.
Better filler on the APCBC is nice to have, yes, but the long 88 still has very nice explosive filler on the APCBC round.
Even if the reload were identical, I’d still rather have the long 88 due to better penetration and accuracy with the drawback of worse but still very good damage.
From my experience especially when shooting soviet side armor at an angle the 90mm goes through much easier than the 88mm. The reload difference is still massive and the 88mm is the better gun overall.
No disrespect but your experience is meaningless to me.
I’ve had discussions with people saying that the German 75 mm KwK40 with PzGr 39 APCBC has worse slope effects than the US 75 mm M3 cannon with M61 APCBC, because of their experience. In reality, these two projectiles use the exact same slope effect table (capped AP round) and have the exact same caliber, therefore they have the exact same slope effects.
Relying on experience alone can reinforce a belief that was already there even if untrue. The game is run by math, and the long 88 and long 90 are so close in caliber that they have extremely close slope effects, with the long 90 having slightly better ones, but that simply doesn’t compensate for the better penetration of the long 88.
Testing slope performance
Using a T-54 (1949) for ease of testing.
Using datamined slope effects for capped AP rounds against the 100 mm upper glacis of the T-54, at 60° the long 88 and the long 90 mm end up with slope multipliers of 3.1916 and 3.168 respectively.
Using protection analysis to test this confirms it, as with the long 88 it ends up with 319 mm effective armor (100 × 3.1916 = 319), and with the long 90 it ends up at 317 mm effective armor (100 × 3.168 = 317) due to rounding.
Does the long 90 mm get slightly better slope effects? Yes.
Is it at all meaningful? No, not at all. Keep in mind I picked this test plate specifically to show the difference in effectiveness. Against plates of armor that the cannons can actually penetrate, the difference is smaller, and even with this 2 mm effectiveness change the long 88 more than compensates by just having 11-13 mm more penetration.
1 Like