Yeah no You confused it cuz i keep looking at manuals and it’s the average 8-9; rounds per minute https://youtu.be/HO2HoWW-ULc
That link isn’t the tank manual.
I fail to see how that video is relevant.
Training school conditions, with the blast doors permanently kept open and a stationary ‘‘vehicle’’ without the gun ever moving.
Here’s videos which are far more representative of combat conditions:
Oh, and by that same metric the T-34 could achieve a maximum of 20 rds/min rate of fire, obviously that’s not representative of combat conditions either and obviously isn’t modelled in War Thunder either.
1 Like
That shits classified lmao, and im pretty sure the same goes for the German manual. The best way is for you to provide whatever manual you’ve found, cause as the other guy said, it’s prob the leo1 manual.
And when did I claim that m829A2 is nerfed? That’s about as relevant to the discussion as saying the f16 has aim120s thus the t80bvm should have no armor 😭
The nerfing is that they don’t allow the SEPv2 to use a better round, i.e. nerfing it from what would be historically accurate since that’d be too strong.
Not really sure how you compiled this data? The website shows a whole different picture
It’s confusing, but these lines give us an accurate understanding which also follows the balance changes.
The red is soviet domination, the blue is swedish.
best source is the warthunder wiki, wich also lines up with the t80ud’s production date, and the introduction of 3BM46.
Again gaijin normally dosent count stuff such as movement of the tank or blast door opening and the same goes for testing done in the video i linked they start counting when the guy grab the ammo, a Lot of reloads would be different if this was the case
It is not.
In fact, another user previously linked me to the online version of the Swedish Strv 121 tank manual to highlight something in a conversation.
Sigh…
As Gaijin and others have already stated,m M829A3 wouldn’t offer any signficant improvement over M829A2 in War Thunder.
M829A4 wasn’t available during the SEP v2’s introduction.
As I’ve said numerous times now, the reload rate is buffed above feasible levels, if anything, the M1’s are overperforming compared to their competition when it comes to firepower. (Understandably, as Gaijin did it in an effort to help the M1A1 premium spam)
Surely I’m being trolled by this point. War Thunder Wiki is a source?! A 4 year old’s attempt at drawing mountains?
I’ll just ignore your posts from here on, because we’re going round in circles, you’re not providing historical sources of your own to back up the claims you’ve made, and now you’re resorting to lying about the data which you’ve provided.
They clearly do. Gaijin roughly models the average sustained rate of fire of a particular vehicle, with some margin to account for vehicle balancing.
Also, then why doesn’t the T-34 have a 20 rds/min rate of fire?
1 Like
lol That’s like saying M1A1 HC would be 11.7.
@Alexanderussss
SEP V2 fires the best round in the game penning exactly what it does IRL [due to using Lanz-Odermatt fairness method] 2nd to none, using the 2nd best gun in War Thunder.
Soviets fire the 2nd or 3rd “worst” round at top BR.
Abrams has its correct 5 second reload with the blast door switched open permanently.
All NATO tanks fire faster than the fastest reloading T-series tank: T-80BVM, which is also their least armored above 10.3.
War Thunder needs balance, and begging for NATO to be OP in War Thunder is identical to Russians wanting T-14 with Vacuum without NATO additions.
would call that more realistic tbf. In a panicked situation where you wanna get your shots of as fast as possible, you’ll keep the blast door open while showing them into the gun as fast as possible, instead of taking it chill, and moving slow in a training scenario like the video you gave. These are two different trainings, one to simulate a real firefight, and a panicked situation while the other one is taking it chill, i.e the one you gave.
Wasn’t that exactly what I proved you did with the win rates? What a hypocrite you are lmfao 🤣
“2A1” 🤣, so your basing your “facts” on a completely different vehicle that’s around 40 years older than the tank were discussing?
Wasn’t available during introduction ≠ wasn’t used
“I got caught in a lie, and my facts wich are about a different veichle 40yrs older have been disproven. And the data I falsified was proved to be completley different from the source, and I’m too much of a scared cat to admit i’m wrong!” 🤣🤣🤣
alvis please read the discussion, this has nothing to do about what we want for nato to have in warthunder, this is about what it would be if they were historically accurate, and the nerf balances werent in place.
Ammo not being present isn’t a nerf.
Changes in the negative direction are nerfs, for which only happened with spalling on Leopard 2s recently.
Because that’s how it is in real life? maybe next time think about the horizontal and fire power other than sticking ERA all over the tank and expect to do a great job?
1 Like
It’s underperforming massively compared to what it could be;
- Upper Plate not ricocheting APFSDS thus making it a weakspot to APFSDS with >550mm of penetration.
- Mantlet/breech missing ~70% of its armour (or is this one not being as capable if it could be also “not a significant difference in terms of gameplay performance”?)
- arc protection of the turret against both KE & CE; right now you can defeat most of them with potent enough KEP (>550mm) and most of the high-end ATGMs (>900mm) at more unfavourable angles… which normally you wouldn’t be able to, if Gaijin had modelled the protection in accordance with the Swedish Trials
- arc protection of the hull (~700mm KE within ± 15 degree arc, do I need to say more?)
Feel free to look up the reload rate in the Swedish Leopard 2 tank manual, I’m sure it’ll state the same thing.
I’ve looked at the Polish 2A5 manual and it states 9rds/min.
3 Likes
I wonder what causes that, because the critical ricochet angle should be universal.
The M1’s UFP has no problems causing an automatical ricochet to any and all APFSDS, I wonder if the composite material on the Leopard 2A7V messes with the ricochet mechanics.
What I said is that it makes little difference in terms of gameplay performance. The majority of hits you take or hits you score against a target at top-tier are side shots, and the shots taken against the front are usually aimed for the weakspots.
People would still be aiming for the same spots with a correctly implemented Leopard 2A7V, and the importance of armour is often overrated by players.
The T-90A has quite significant armour for a 10.7 tank, and it’s still a terrible machine.
That being said, you’ve probably seen me bug report issues on the Leopard 2 family of vehicles so I’m clearly aware of the shortcomings.
This one I’m somewhat skeptical about.
I’d like to know what the process was that led to their findings on that particular arc of protection.
Keep in mind that the roughly 400mm LoS thickness composite armour array of a M1A2’s turret side only manages around 480mm RHAe vs KE @ 20°.
Meanwhile the Leopard 2 with a <200mm(?) LoS composite block and 35mm RHA side armour achieves 700mm+?
That’s more than what the turret side armour provides at 20° angle of attack, and the turret side armour features significantly greater LoS thickness (not counting air gaps).
Does it clarify whether it’s maximum RoF or sustained RoF?
Mine clarifies it’s average sustained RoF.
I’m also not aware of any changes between the models that would allow for a significantly higher RoF.
1 Like
Practical sustained RoF.
I wonder what causes that, because the critical ricochet angle should be universal.
Per Smin, a coding & model issue. The same armour on the 2A4M CAN isn’t suffering from this for example.
What I said is that it makes little difference in terms of gameplay performance. The majority of hits you take or hits you score against a target at top-tier are side shots, and the shots taken against the front are usually aimed for the weakspots.
I haven’t seen any statistics supporting the “bla bla majority are side shots” and certainlly I never will (nor do I feel like the majority of my kills or deaths have been to side-shots), regardless of that, arc protection of the turret does tie into side-protection as well, since it includes the sides of the turret at an angle. Improving the arc protection forces on Gaijin to increase the KE & CE modifiers. That way we’re killing two birds with one stone.
This one I’m somewhat skeptical about.
- Slightly lower angle (17.5 - > ~500mm LoS)
- much newer material (D-technology versus BRL-2[?])
You’re pitying bog a bog-standard NERA array from 1984(?) against an armour created based on the latest ceramic developments at the time (~1993).
Well technically it could be argued that it’s nerfed because it is forced to take TUSK II without an option to uninstall it.
Russian tanks start losing their armor advantage around 11.3, at 11.7 with things like 2A7 which can just cleave through ufp.
Without that ufp armor being effective its hard to want to take out something with bad reverse, depression and gun handling.
T80 at 10.0 is fun, but you are still relying on people shitting their pants and being bad instead of just going for your breech.
The T-80s are still considerably more armored than pretty much every other 11.3 vehicles though.
The Arietes are…well… Arietes, the Merkavas can have their turrets penned by 120mm DM23, Challenger 2s have the absolutely massive LFP, the 2PL/2A4M are still 2A4 hulls and the Abrams has the massive lfp and turret ring.
Theres basically Russian tanks and NATO tanks at top tier. NATO tanks handle better but don’t have reliable armor outside turret cheeks, and russian tanks have worse handling but the addition of working UFP armor. In that sort of meta the leopards are leading NATO obviously, but they aren’t played any different than the others, russian tanks play a lot differently.
Russian tank UFP armor stops working reliably at 11.7, granted they get some mobility back, but still shit gun depression etc.
The abrams turret trap will never be fixed though will it? Even if they get the buff to the ring that whole layout is just bad.
I think that this is true for 11.3, but this line really blurs at 11.7, where you have heavily armored NATO tanks like the 2A7/Strv 122 and Russian tanks with seriously improved gun handling.