Leopard 2 reload is way too longer than in real life (almost twice as long)

No amount of regulations or training will make a crew reload in 3-5 seconds if the tank is going max speed over bumpy ground.

I think Gaijin should add dynamic reload rates for manual loaders, stamina and different reloads for individual shell positions. Maybe even a physics based simulation for the crewperson doing the reloading.

I can also see why they wouldn’t do that, since you’d essentially have to punish manual loaders for being aggressive, these tanks wouldn’t get to use their mobility without paying a presumably unacceptable penalty to their otherwise stellar reloads.

War Thunder already has enough problems with “camper” gameplay, if stationary or low-speed was the only time that manual loaders got their full reloading speed, I believe we’d see an even more radical shift towards camping at every BR bracket.

All cannons should have to elevate their guns to acceptable reloading angles too, I see no reason to avoid modelling something like that.

I’m personally keen on putting as much realism into the game as the engine can possible handle, but that’s just me.

1 Like

Leopards and Abrams both allow the blast door to be open when firing.
Both are done via loader overrides.

I personally disagree with dynamic reload rates.
As much as I’d love auto-loaders out-right refusing to reload the gun at above 50kph, that wouldn’t be fun.
T-72’s loading time increasing to 12 seconds cause you’re going 20kph, and rolling over bumps.

Yeah, it’s not just manual loaded tanks that’d suffer, in-fact manual loaded tanks would be the ones least impacted.

The gun elevation animation wouldn’t change existing reload times in WT except for Leclerc BTW.

If you die in battle, your account gets deleted.


Gaijin drone goes to your house.



You have a source for this claim?

Thats false as well.

1 Like

That’s way too much, maybe just make them repurchase the vehicles that got destroyed in-game, like you just lost your T-72? well get new one bro spend 1 mil lions to buy another, and then spade it again. If you lost a premium tank? buy another one, lost a rare marketplace IS-7? buy another with $2000 bro lol

bro, we aim for realism and as such if crew dies, you should lose your account.


1 Like

its extremely bad that gaijin balances the game on reload times except if it has an autoloader. then again it may not be that bad or we may had a certain nation with a 2 second reload time.

The fact that Leopard 2A7V, compared to SEP or SEPv2, has twice as effective hull armor (being DM53-proof while every Abrams can be lolpenned by DM33), twice as small mantlet weakspot, no turret ring neck weakspot at all and, unlike any Abrams, has the crew compartment coated with spall liners may have something to do, right?

Or are we still in the “muh American players bad” nonsense bandwagon ignoring the fact that Leopard 2A7V is LIGHT YEARS more powerful than the Abrams in every way besides (now) reload?

1 Like

Two things can be true at once.

The average US top-tier main can be bad, and the Leopard 2 A7V can also be the current best MBT.

1 Like

In this case, I am convinced it’s largely a tank issue.

The best example is us players who play both vehicles yet have a drastic performance dissonance/gap netween both.

Here, my stats, for example:

I don’t magically become better when I play Germany, and I don’t magically become worse when I play U.S. I am literally the exact same player, with the exact same playstyle and performance… and the ONLY variable that changes here, is the vehicle.

68% WR vs 42% WR.
2,03 K/D vs 1,39 K/D.

And, I repeat: same player (myself). The ONLY variable that has changed here is the vehicle.
And my stats were far worse on the Abrams before the reload buff. The reload buff is the only thing making this vehicle worth playing at all compared to the Leopards, Strvs and others.

There are many people who, upon seeing those stats separately, they would immediately ramble about “haha how bad the U.S player is compared to the German player”… except both stats come from the very same player.

The difference is very simple; when I play Leopard 2A7V, I may withstand 3-4 shots before a 5th penetrates only to deal barely to no damage thanks to the spall liner… but when I play M1A2 SEPv2, I am either killed or mission-killed on the first shot because it has either killed my whole crew, or destroyed enough modules and crewmen to render myself unable to fight back before taking the second, finishing blow shot.

For the record, I don’t think Leopard 2A7V should be nerfed (not even its current armor nerfs), I just think the Abrams tanks are far beneath it and a rate of fire increase was the least they could have warranted to remain minimally relevant on this meta, and not that it’s a “skill issue matter” on the American players’ end.


I believe the reason why this difference is cause the 2A7V is a better tank of course, coupled with objectively better teammates, since people go to Germany and Sweden since they’re seen as the meta nations.

But yes, maybe Germany is doing “decently” if we do say so:


I still think STRV’s are objectively better than the former, but thats my opinion.

1 Like

While i agree with the general sentiment, theres one other variable at play, and that being team.

German nor sweden teams have to deal with lvl 20s in clickbait. You cant even escape those nowadays by taking F-16C, because they will just buy F-20 too.

Abrams turret ring situation kind of fked for life, even T-34-85 can frontally pen you there and kill you lol

1 Like

Abrams turret ring could get some improvements, additionally thats not the only tank with this issue, hopefully all the vehicles with this issue will get addressed sooner than later.

1 Like

Oh, interesting!

I prefer 2A7V over the 122s because of the 3rd Gen gunner thermals compared to 122s’ 1st Gen, but, when it comes to the bigger picture, I think Sweden has got it way better, since they got THREE Strv 122s, while 2A7V is the only German Leopard with 122-level protection.

Then there’s the “2A7V being modelled after a pre-2A5 1990s prototype” issue, but that isn’t as much of a gameplay issue as it is when it comes to quality control and game standards.

the problem is that there’s a big disparity between every Br11.7 vehicles, the performance of L2A7V, Strv122s and Arietes or ZTZs are not at the same level

1 Like

I’d say Sweden have a much better lienup if you look at it as a whole



Nevertheless they’re both good, but imho the former have the upper hand.

if its a tank issue why does the challenger 3 TD have the same reload as the leopard 2a7v?