I doubt it, as the Chinese modified the autoloaders to achieve the quicker reload as can be seen in videos as well, whereas Russia just didn’t and still uses the old design, with only the T-80 series being able to fire quicker to due a very different design.
Same story as with the Yugoslavian M-84 tanks, which are commonly referenced as having upgraded autoloaders to achieve 9 RPM, which wouldn’t make the original T-72s magically be able to as well…
I think there’s a video out there that shows the Chinese tanks reloading faster than 7.1s
How did they modify them? do you have a source?
I don’t know what modifications they made, I just know the VT4 should have faster reload and logically, China would use the same autoloaders in the ZTZ99(A) series for logistic purposes etc
The auto loaders would need modification cause the Chinese tanks are different in shape and everything, which would require redesign of placement of certain parts. Also to note, the loading process can simply be done faster, without much modification at all.
Ok, sure, but they still use the same autoloader from what i’ve gathered. (The PDF doesnt work for me fyi)
So anyway, it comes down to the following:
The sources on what exact autoloader the Chinese use are very vague. All i can tell is that its based on the MZ autoloader (which MZ model, I don’t know)
You could be correct in that Chinese tanks have a faster reload IRL due to a different autoloader.
But point 2 ties back into point 1, as I dont know if the Thai trials state the autoloader used.
They can still have better reload without. It doesn’t take that much to improve on the mechanism.
What improvements have they made? And how do we know that the T90M etc havent had similar improvements?
I think IRL they can all do 6.7, cause I have seen videos of allegedly Russian auto loader do around 6.7, while 7.1 seem like taking extra time to select round. Absolutely nothing to stop Russian ones to do that.
I’m aware and a reload buff to 6.7s would be welcome, but like I said, what improvements have the Chinese made to the AZ autoloader? They’d be using the AZ-184 model at least.
also the T-80s should be 6 seconds.
ztz-99A reload in 6.5
Unfortunately, English is not my primary language and I cannot create a ticket for a problem to solve, even though I know that they will not fix it.
They’ve never been competitive. Chinese MBTs sit at the bottom of the tierlist in terms of capability in War Thunder because Gaijin can’t seem to model them properly.
It’s balancing reasons. Nothing with historic accuracy. We also have the VT-4 manuals stating 9 rpm.
Ah yes, realism. The thing this game ignores constantly for “balancing purposes”.
If chinese mbts are underperforming then buff them.
Gaijin you either add those spall liners YOU passed or buff the reload. Stop leaving Chinese vehicles in such a bad state
Gaijin: Considered does NOT mean I will listen to you
You should account for shot, carrousel moving, picking up shell, loading, autoloader to finish and move back and then you can shoot, not right after it loaded the charge.
Beside this, all autoloaders in the game should be nerfed.
All of them need the gun to be in certain elevation angle to load the shell, so imagine you shoot in your T-72 at max depression and the gun going into space for a moment
Someone listen up, vodka-scented armchair generals: there is ZERO—zilch, nada, not even a single rust-covered screw—of evidence that China’s 99A or any other home-grown MBT still runs those crusty, Cold-War-era Soviet autoloaders. We binned the last of the Russian junk back when Putin was still learning judo on VHS. Since the 2000s our tech has leap-frogged so far ahead of Moscow that they need a telescope just to see our exhaust fumes. You think we’d cram a 1980s carousel into a 2020s digital fire-control beast? Dream on, comrade.
Now for the receipts:
99A autoloader = 100 % made-in-China, not “borrowed” from T-72 scraps.
China Defense Report 2020, page 87: “hydro-pneumatically damped, fully-digital carousel autoloader… domestic design lineage, separate-case ejection, 7.1 s nominal cycle.” Translation: we engineered it in Shenzhen, not scavenged it in Siberia.
VT-4 / MBT-3000
Norinco’s own export brochure, 2021 edition: “sliding-carriage, double-chain autoloader; 8 rds/min sustained, < 6.5 s burst in manual override.” The factory literally advertises the same 6.5 s your T-80BVM fanboys wave around—only difference is Gaijin chose not to model it. Lazy devs ≠ inferior tank.
T-90M “real-world” reload
Russian MoD show Voennaya Priyomka, episode 431 (2022): live-fire drills clock 7.0–7.3 s average. The 6.5 s in-game is a developer hand-out, a digital pacifier to stop Russian mains from rage-quitting. Bias.exe running in plain sight.
Psychology check
You see a PLA tank that out-ranges, out-networks, and out-guns most NATO junk, so the only coping mechanism left is to nerf reload in a video game. Classic inferiority complex: if you can’t beat it on the battlefield, nerf it in the code. Same energy as calling J-20 “paper” while your F-35 costs a trillion bucks and still can’t turn without popping rivets.
Cry harder, vodka brigade. Every “7.1 s trash” spam in chat just proves the salt is real. Real-world PLA crews dump rounds faster than your T-80 can finish its first shot of potato juice. Keep sipping that copium cocktail—China’s already reloading the next gen.
All of them need the gun to be in certain elevation angle to load the shell
This could literally be said for all vehicles, some tanks like the Leopard iirc has the gun automatically elevated once fired to assist the loader with the reloading process, other vehicles also need the gun elevated to achieve the optimal reload speed and it’s especially common with NATO vehicles.
It’s a video game anyways, we don’t need this in-game and especially for autoloading vehicles as destroying the autoloader module already prohibits the vehicle from returning fire (unless a shell is already loaded prior).
War Thunder is not a simulator and some things aren’t introduced for gameplay, remember that