No, I’m talking about French autoloaders in general. The reloading times are way longer than for example Swedish Sav or Delat.
I think you should phrase this as ‘Ready Rack reload times for French Autoloaders’
Then it clears up how god damn LONG it takes to restock the Autoloader
6 Likes
It’s not a ready rack, though.
Still clears it up better
2 Likes
I think if you used “replenish”, the word used when talking about moving ammo from second to first stage rack, it would make it much clearer.
3 Likes
Your original post did not specify what you meant; You said “reload times”, which everyone here interprets as how long the autoloader takes to load the gun.
When speaking about how long it takes for an autoloader to refill, we say “replenish” or “restock”.
As for your original point, I’ve never had much of a problem with the drum replenishment time for the 6.7 / 7.7 autoloaders; they all have VERY competative reloads for their BR’s, and the speed at which you replenish your autoloader will get faster as you upgrade your loader’s skills.
Tanks like the AMX-M4, Lorraine 40T, and AMX-50 TOA100 are very mobile and thus able to rapidly change and exploit positions; as such you should use your down time while repositioning as a way to restock your autoloader between engagements.
I’m incredibly average, but my 7.7 lineup enjoys a solid 60%+ win rate and 2.3+ KD, so that should let you know that they are definetely good tanks even if having to pace your engagements so you can refill your autoloader is annoying.
1 Like
Do you mean the Strv m/42 DT, and the Bkan, and The Strv 103?
Strv 42 DT has a manual autoloader, its not automatic at all really.
Both the SAV and Strv m/42 DT are not automatic they just have a mechanism that helps the loader, So in reality its wrong to title them “autoloaders”
Delat Torn and the Chi-Ri II are some of the tanks with “Semi-Autoloader” systems that still haven’t been given a comprehensive model.
Gaijin just models them as a ready-rack with incredibly fast reload speed instead of an actual mechanism.
Both ARL-44 variants are still missing this despite such a mechanism being modeled into the gun breech just like DT and the Chi-Ri II.
One of such mechanisms on the Chi-Ri II.
3 Likes
I see. Yeah it’s pretty slow.
The swedish auto loaders are currently handled for balancing. The Str m42 has a reload as stated as fast as 2 seconds iirc on its documents, for balance its 3.0 as the round is more or less ready to be pushed into place after firing. Remember reload is a balancing factor
5 Likes
(as why the abrams and leopards doesent have Redbull teenager 3-4 seconds of reload lol
They aren’t.
Every nation in the game has its reload times artificially boosted because otherwise it would be annoyingly slow and effect gameplay.
*Or nerfed.
For some tanks it is nerfed, some tanks it is boosted.
“nerfed” reload rates assume stationary fire. Moving in War Thunder doesn’t impact reload time so I don’t really think there’s any with legitimate nerfs to their reload rates. Also assuming sustainable fire without barrel issues but I don’t know specifics for that.
Strv 103 would like to talk :3
(~2.5s reload rate go brr)
Can someone explaine me why the reload time of both ARL-44 are so long. The ACL1 has 7.5sec aced out. There´s no 7.5cm gun at 3.7 (AGB) that has such a slow reload time despite having a loading help. Same for ARL-44 at 5.3 (AGB) 10sec. aced out is crazy. It´s a 7.5cm gun not 10cm or more. The M26 has 7.5 aced, Panther, Tiger II same. The T-44-100 10.5sec aced.
By the way the M4A4 (SA50) has the same problem with 7.5sec aced while Firefly and M4 76 have 5.9sec aced out.
As has been mentioned before, reload time is used as a balancing mechanism (even though it often doesn’t make sense). I imagine that, due to the turret’s internal space, the M4 76 would fire the fastest, so its reload time in the game would be more or less correct. I think the M4 SA50 would also have a correct reload time, since it’s an elongated M4 75 turret, but with a fairly large barrel, and the magazine has to handle a bullet of the same size as the Panther’s. On the other hand, the Firefly should take longer to reload, since the magazine has to handle a bullet of a similar size to the Panther’s, but in the theoretical form of an M4 75 where only a little space has been added by removing the radio and putting it in an extension, so the Firefly should reload at the same speed or slightly slower than the M4 SA50.
Regarding the ARL and other French chargers with charging assistance, the developers don’t care. If they function minimally with that unrealistic charging time and omitting the systems they historically had, the developers aren’t going to make any changes.
You´re right balancing doesn´t make sense in these cases. Since they all shoot the inferioer steele slugs. So the M4 SA50 is the only long barreled M4 at 5.0 with that slow reload. None of the 3 is overpowered at all that they need to be balanced by the reload time.
This is the same bs with the reload time at some ships where they have insane long reload times for guns that are tiny.
Speaking of another issue that significantly affects French tanks, is it possible that the developers also use suspension roll as a factor in balancing the tanks? I ask because it seems to me that the suspension roll of the AMX-13 and AMX-30 is quite exaggerated for tanks that aren’t from 1930. Another one that also has a brutal suspension is the AMX-10M.