It should be like 15s, which is still twice the Panther and Tiger reload, which don’t even have ready racks.
1 Like
It is indeed historical. While IS-4M seems to be much bigger in outer, heavy armor inside of it makes it cramped than IS-3. It was why original IS-4 was criticized when compared to IS-6 in 1944 tests.
15 seconds and place IS-2 on 5.7 and IS-2(1944) on 6.0 or 6.3 like old days would make sense.
he is talking about both, and in both cases its nonsense.
3 Likes
panther and tiger are more ergonomic tanks(tiger is MUCH more ergonomic) with MUCH lighter shells, the Pzgr. 39/42 weighs less than half the br471d, and the Pzgr. 39/43 weighs half as much, both use single piece ammunition.
2 Likes
That’s simply not true. The IS-4M turret is so much larger compared to the IS-3.
Doesn’t matter that the turret has loads of armor all around. There’s a reason why the IS-4M weighs 60t afterall and not the typical 46-48t of Soviet heavy tanks.
And the IS-3 has ammunition all around the turret insides, unlike the IS-4M which has a similiar ammunition rack as the IS-2.
which is indeed not effective. IS-3’s ammorack was to ‘improve’ inadequate rack and position of loader.
IS-4 was indeed a very failure when it first appeared in 1944 in design. It was revived due to welding problem of IS-3’s hull, not because it is marvelous heavy tank compared to IS-6 or IS-3.
Not really.
The Panther turret is much more cramped than the IS-2 turret, which has the same turret ring diamter as the King Tiger with 1800mm and the Panther has no ready rack with all rounds stored somewhere in the hull.
The Tiger II might use single piece 88mm shells but they are 21-22kg each and are over one meter long.
The IS-2 shells weigh 25kg but the propellant cases are just around 16kg and much shorter than a single long 88mm cartridge.
Everytime the Tiger II fired the loader had to take the ejected case and throw it out the turret.
So if the Tiger II reload was done while the IS-2 only loaded the shell, the loader had to throw out two cases compared to one for the IS-2.
No reason why the IS-2 wouldn’t be able to fire at half the rate of a Tiger II.
4 Likes
At this point it’s not even important if it could or couldn’t reload faster in real life, as reload speed is a balancing measure.
Tiger has a great shell of it’s own, so seeing it reload almost 3x as fast is comical.
1 Like
I’ve always found the reload time of the 122mm guns to be extremely long. Obviously having separate loading and such heavy shells would make it take longer than a full round, but having the rounds spread out further apart makes it more manageable inside the turret. Anyway, one thing that gaijin hasn’t done that would be interesting, realistic and an improvement in the loader’s skill, would be to add loader fatigue. It could be made so that the first few shots (more or less depending on weight) would be loaded at the same time, while the following ones would be slower and slower, and the time would be recovered after a minute without reloading, as if the loader had been resting.
2 Likes
i didnt equate ergonomic to spacious(i specified the tiger being much more ergonomic exactly for said reason)
thats still almost double the weight of the pzg 39/43 and that is in a two piece package which DOES slow down the reload in this scenario and the lenght isnt a problem as the tiger 2 has plenty of space to accomodate for said lenght.
its trivial to do so.
sure but some people here genuinely think the is 2 should have a sub 10 sec reload.
Real reloads.
~5-6s T-34 85
10.5s Tiger 1&2
12s IS-2
1 Like
I’m not a fan but I imagine a T-34-85 with turret ready racks to reload faster than a Panther without them.
With the 3 person turret of the late T-34-85, that seems pretty plausible.
Panther and T-34-85 apparently have a similar turret ring diameter, 163 cm and 160 cm, except the T-34-85 has an available ready rack on the rear of the turret. Pzgr.39/42 complete round is 89.3 cm, and while I couldn’t find information on BR-365 directly, BR-365K is 82.5 cm, and doing pixel measurements on an image that shows BR-365K and 365 side by side, I got around 94.7 cm, which despite being longer than the Panther, it’s still got the ready rack on the turret while the Panther doesn’t.
With the 2 person turret the reload would go up though.
1 Like
Massively actually. Not only is it a two-man turret. It’s incredible cramped inside, with both commander and loader standing on ammunition boxes, where a Pz IV or Panther at least has them in hull sponsons.
They should have a reload like an IS-2.
I’m talking 2 man turret T-34-85, like the T-34-85 (D-5T) that is in game.
It still has the ready rack on the rear of the turret, but now the commander (I think, it might be the gunner) has the job of also reloading the gun.
119mm angle performance at 60 is crazy good, almost equals to object 279’s lol
Oh.
But T-34-76!!!
Most overperforming vehicle in the game!!
1 Like
In the 1941 trial, with the 1940 T-34, if you look into the drill details the average time between aimed shots while moving is ~8s with the fastest at 5.5s.
The 75mm Sherman could reload its 75mm gun with ready rack ammunition in a turret with more space than a T-34-85 in 3s.
And you’re going to tell me that, a 1941 T-34 with a two man turret, with no turret basket and ready racks, with the only way to look for targets is using rotatable perisocopes, is firing aimed round at 5.5s?
In which world? Have you considered that maybe Stalin wouldn’t be so amused when a report said that their new medium tank was firing 4-5 rounds per minute?
The Sherman could easily fire twice as fast as German tanks and Germans noted that they would be firing twice as fast as T-34s.
So there’s no way a 1941 T-34 with a two man turret is putting out aimed shots at 5.5-8s.
Call me biased but there’s like no way.
1 Like
Is this it?
It says the first 3 tasks were aimed fire from standstill, with different ammunition bins.
They all took an average of 15 seconds or higher to load and fire.
In fact you can see @KillaKiwi’s comment at the bottom from 4 years ago.
Edit: Maybe this isn’t it since it’s apparently testing experimental ammo racks?
But I couldn’t find much else online.
2 Likes