Now, I can believe that in a life or dead situation, this figure can double, for a short time, to 4 round/min, but in the game these tanks have 8 rounds/minute reload with aced crews!
If this is not russian bias, I don’t know what is. The reload speed of these tanks NEEDS to be nerfed to more realistic levels. You gotta teach the soviets that when you are building a tank, among the following: small size, big gun, and rate of fire, you get to pick only two. (unless you have an autoloader).
The same thing happens with the T-34/76, which having such an extremely narrow turret made reloading quite slow, which is not reflected in the game.
In any case, don’t expect them to change it, since as they said many times, the reload time is one of the ways they have to balance, although if you look closely, for the rubbish they do with the balancing they could well put the times real recharge.
It’s a general issue with Gaijin, where they take Russian vehicles and give them way too fast RoF allowing them to be much more competetive then they should be.
With the T-54 they had two options:
Buff APCR or move T-54 away from WW2 tanks. Gaijin basically chose the later and buffed RoF even more appart from buffing APCR of calibers above 90mm.
Same with the T-34 1941 which is now 4.0 while a M4A1 is 3.3 and a Pz IV H 3.7.
The T-34 1941 has no business being a more effective vehicle then these two.
Only possible due to vastly increased RoF than what should be possible in comparison to other vehicles.
I’m pretty confident that a M-51 would be more effective in RL in taking out T-54s then the other way around.
I would prefer that they try to make it as realistic as possible, with a ROF based on reality, realistic damage and penetrations, and then balance correctly depending on the performance of each vehicle. To me, putting tanks from the 50s and 60s with tanks of WW2 simply because they have decided to give the HEAT a ridiculous damage it seems horrible to me, I prefer a ratel 90 and 20 against a T-54 and T-55 than against a tiger 2, that is, with the real damage of the 90mm HEAT-FS.
Vehicles constantly change in BR but hardly ever get their RoF changed.
The M48 never had good performance stat wise and it’s because it had way too long reload time for the guns performance, yet it wasn’t changed in years and when they finally changed it it was a whooping 0.8s difference.
The M48 still hasn’t the RoF it should have and the T-54 was already overperming in RoF.
This argument is pretty meh, because it’s more like:
“RoF is how the devs want a vehicle to perform.”
And right now the Devs want T-54s to be equal to Leopards and M60s, even though they clearly never were.
Quite right.
Regarding the T-54 I already said it, realistic reloading, the 1947 and 1949 model with APBC and APCR in Br 7.3, the 1951 model with APCBC in 7.7 and adding the T-54A with HEAT-FS in 8.0. Of course improving the damage from all non-APHE bullets.
Regarding the T-34/75, they have several problems, one would be the one you have mentioned, their reloading time, the 1942 having to be a little faster due to its more spacious tower, but they would have to be given a lower Br also due to the fact that their armor should be less resistant, since they were made of hardened steel, which made them very resistant against 37 and 50mm bullets, but they gave less protection against 75mm bullets, which is why the KwK39 had no problems destroy a T-34. Another problem would be its survival, it should be relatively easy to destroy a T-34/76 when penetrated, since it was a very narrow tank so when penetrated the fragments would destroy the entire combat chamber.
I would have no problems using the M51 against the T-54, the problem is the ridiculous damage of the HEAT.
Including autoloaders on Russian, Chinese, French and Japanese tanks? autoloader wont change speed when you feel emergency or tired, and have clear documents record it’s time
2 round per minute is not rof as we use in game(how fast can loader get shell from ready rack, ram shell in breach and have the gun ready to go) It include commander yelling order, gunner finding target and laying gun, waiting for the dust and smoke to settle before they can see the target and do the whole thing again as well as restowing ready rack from less accessible rack.
Which is why I offered a more reasonable 4rpm rate of fire instead of 2rpm. Reloading 35kg 100mm shells in the cramped turret of a T-55, should not be close in speed to loading the 90mm gun in the large turret of an M48.
I mean I won’t argue that T-55 are supposed to be slower than roomy tank like m48/m60 but 4rpm is also far too slow for just loading when they somehow get 3RPM with all the extra timing for gun laying and turning the turret and other etc. while moving at that(I also have no idea how they manage to be faster in a moving tank than static test, like somehow they miss their MG target while just sitting still while nailing them like a champ while moving)
i have seen a video of an fsa t55 reloading in 10s, but he thinks that an aced crew could only do 4 rpm, and call it reasonable while using an invalid source that describes the complete firing process not just the reload
… actually no, lol. I don’t mind nerfing the reload speed of all vehicles in the game. The game is too fast paced as it is anyway, because the developers use maximum values for everything: speed, turret traverse rate, reload rate ect… because bigger is better, right?
About that gif video: that looks pretty fast, but I would’ve liked a longer video, to see how fast he can load several rounds in succession to get a better idea of the average speed.
Still, as others have pointed out: the rate of fire in this game is an abstraction of practical real life performance. It strives to capture into a simple single value the influence of many factors, actual mechanical reload speed being only one of them.
In a “real life”-like situation the gunner/TK would need to sense where the round hit first, apply the necessary adjustments to the gun based on the range to target before firing again. If you read the report, this is where the T-55s weakness is: the fire control systems. Even if it were technically possible to get a rate of fire of 8rpm using the ready rack in the turret, the actual rate of fire of this tank would obviously be much less than that in combat.
Yes that was the case but I would argue that was represented in game with the worse gun laying(especially t-54, it got pretty terrible traverse) and lack of rangefinder(tho the engagement range in wt is short enough that people would fire snap shot and not be disadvantage too much) in map that you can actually snipe from ＞＝1.2 km I found that optical rangefinder do give advantage.
Btw at least try to read your own sources becase, again, their test was against multiple different targets, and measured the aimed rate fire, not the reload rate by itself where like @kruznazop shared the bare minimum should is 4rpm but on a “aced” crew is much faster, specially on the t55 due to the rotating floor.
