So uh, I’ve always loved the T-29. I’m actually a Germany main but jump between a number of countries, so my balancing takes are pretty moderate across the board. I end up examining and comparing the pros and cons of tank specifications from quite a few vehicles at the same battle ratings and in the same roles.
The recent updates have brought a wide variety of balancing changes, some good for the vehicles, some bad. Some perfectly understandable, and some, like the T-29’s case, a bit confusing for me. I’ll start with this: As a Germany main, I was saddened by the Tiger 2 engine nerf. HOWEVER, now that I have played with it a good bit now, I can say that it justifies keeping the vehicles at 6.7 in RB, whereas before I was starting to join the camp of people believing they should be moved to 7.0. I can admit that this nerf to one of the best performing heavy tanks in the game is both a historical win and a balancing one, even as a Germany main.
However, what I was not expecting to see in this update, was a nerf to the T-29. A tank that by Gaijin’s statistics probably overperforms for a 7.0 heavy tank, I wouldn’t doubt. It has very comparable armor for its battle rating, an incredible 105mm cannon that balances both penetrating power, explosive mass, and a manageable reload–wait, did I say a manageable reload? Let’s take a look!
Below are the reload rates of various cannons with two-piece ammunition at the range of 6.7 - 7.7:
T-29 (14.9 Second Aced Reload) [Two Loaders - 105mm] 7.0 RB Battle Rating
T-34 (14.9 Second Aced Reload) [Two Loaders - 120mm] 6.7 RB Battle Rating
Conqueror Mk 2 (14.9 Second Aced Reload) [One Loader - 120mm] 7.7 RB Battle Rating
IS-3 (20.0 Second Aced Reload) [One Loader - 122mm] 7.3 RB Battle Rating
M103 (14.9 Second Aced Reload) [Two Loaders - 120mm] 7.7 RB Battle Rating
AMX-50 Foch (14.9 Second Aced Reload) [One Loader - 120mm] 7.3 RB Battle Rating
Now that we are looking at all of these tanks at their various battle ratings, differing ammunition types, and all very large calibers, why do their reloads look so identical despite some very key differences I am about to point out?
Firstly, the last tank I listed is an obvious red herring. I said I was going to be listing two-part ammo tanks of large calibers. The AMX-50 Foch has one-piece ammunition, and one loader. Yet, for some reason, in order to move one large piece of ammunition stored directly behind him just a few feet into the cannon breach right next to him, it takes an identical amount of time to the Conqueror’s one loader to procure two pieces of ammunition and load them separately from the ready-rack right in front of him.
I am not arguing whether or not either of these tanks reloads are too fast or too slow, just that there is some inconsistency when compared to each other in-game, and to their real life recorded reload speeds.
The Conqueror’s reload rate reflects real life records, around 15 - 20 seconds, while the AMX-50 Foch has little record of its possible performance. So lets compare the T-29 and T-34 instead. They are almost virtually identical tanks in all but their cannon designs, the former 105mm and latter 120mm. The T-29, boasting a smaller caliber, has a real life record of a fastest 10 second reload. This was accomplished by utilizing two loaders, which both tanks employ. The T-34 is often cited as having a slightly slower reload of 12 seconds at its fastest.
The T-29 previously had a 12.5 second aced reload, compared to the T-34’s 14.9 second reload shared with a number of other 120mm heavies. The IS-3 and other 122mm Soviet heavies have their slower reload rates due to real life accounts of their single loaders being inhibited by cramped interior designs, records showing the IS-3’s ideal fastest reload would be around 18 seconds.
Now here’s the kicker, what if everything I told you, about the careful balancing of these vehicles with their complicated reload rates at different battle ratings, was meaningless?
I present to you, the Tiger II 10.5cm
This fictional fatty, unavailable to anyone who hadn’t researched it before its removal over 6 years ago, was completely immune from the realistic nerf to the Maybach’s horsepower. Not only this, but it has 2 loaders (which is a major part of its ‘unrealistic’ cramped design and reason for its removal) and two-piece ammunition with a 105mm cannon. Its reload speed? 12.5 seconds. This is the exact vehicle that I wanted when I bought the T-29. I started playing America mainly in part because I had an itch for a high caliber, APHE firing heavy tank that was more brawler than sniper, unlike the IS series of tanks. The T-29 filled that void that the Tiger II 10.5 left in me since I started playing in 2020 and not 2019.
I just want to hear everyone else’s opinions, and hope that I’m not going insane by the complicated situation with heavy tank balancing right now. I understand that 6.7 - 7.7 is the hardest area to balance in the entirety of ground vehicles, but it just feels like the heavy tanks specifically are getting uneven changes to their reloads and mobility in sort of half-measured ways. Like in the case of compared reload speeds, it doesn’t make much sense to me personally to nerf the reload speed of the T-29 to an unrealistic degree in the same update as lowering the Tiger II’s horsepower to a realistic degree. Wouldn’t it be better to just move the T-29 to 7.3 if its overperforming? They did the same thing with the IS-6, giving it a slightly faster reload, the better D-round for its 122, and then moving it up to 7.7 where it can perform at a balanced rate.
