For thr T80U the round was pitiful considering at the same BR there are round which blow it out the water, even L27A1 is better than 3bm46, so the 6 second reloads fine as a buff.
Id rather it get a 6 secojd reload, half a second difference…
Than go down in BR.
As for the T80BVM its relaods effectively unchanged.
6.4 vs 6.5 seconds.
The T80UD now could move up easily to 10.7.
The T80B I’ve not taken out yet but reckon its fine as it’s armours been irrelevant for a long time now, but maybe it 6 seconds for it will push it to 11.0
As for the T64BV it could easily be 10.3 now as a side grade to the 72B .
Worse armour, comparable mobility, substantially better optics and reload.
Thank you for these!; I’ll try to find more sources myself if these aren’t them all.
Seems like for a historical buff a million of documents are necessary and in every possible language so that we would have a minuscule chance if them getting past. :)
Doesn’t need a historical buff because it’s good at what a light tank on wheels should be good at? Interesting analogy.
Besides, the 11.0/11.3 argument doesn’t fit, as the M10 Booker has 5 seconds with an aced crew (6.5 stock crew) and it’s still 10.7 with the same shell, some okaish armor against autocannons and it’s more maneuverable than the truck the Stryker is (only because they did not fix the turn radius without the SLAT armor, remained the same).
Don’t mention that the Stryker can “hull down” and be unaffected by shells or be “un-kill-able”, because most spots, if not all made for it, were so or so removed, so that advantage is worthless 80% of cases.
I would find it acceptable making it 10.7/11.0 would still be good, if (not when), it receives the historical reload buff.
It’s not though. It might take 6 seconds if we assume the carousel doesn’t have to move or has to move barely and there is no round to eject.
Like the evidence is on my side, 1 cyclogram doesn’t discredit every other reputable source giving a higher number, and much the same is true for documented evidence never showing such a reload either.
If we use unique scorpions bug report as an example, he reference tankograd and a t80b manual. He then makes the point that both of them reference a 6 second reload time, tankograd however reference the same cyclogram from the t80b manual, that’s 1 source,
Most Relevant section(there is more stuff talking about loading cut out but it doesn’t really reference anything of value for the conversation at hand), there is a clear assumption here that the rounds per minute include an average aiming time, an assumption which they don’t use any source as a base, they see a source giving a larger number (combat rate of fire) than cyclogram and assume that it’s precludes aiming time in the equation, as it’s literally written “it may be how the 8 rpm figure is obtained” (IRC the manual states 6-8 rpm) it’s third party speculation, you will never find a source stating a 10 rpm capability for the t80s or t64. Nor video evidence, https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1mh3pkp/t64t80_autoloader/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button (this being the absolute best video possible) timed from when you can hear the autoloader move to when the arm is lowered it’s between 6.3. 6.4 seconds.
Clearly a well maintained tank loading the same shell side by side.
Edit: important to mention for Soviet manuals is that afaik despite autoloaders doctrine wasn’t to instantly load as soon as possible and going by the book they need to wait for a command.
Because if Leopards, and other Western tanks for that matter, can achieve a 5-second reload (or even sub 5 second like there is video evidence showing they can), then they should get said reload.
Smin literally said: “Autoloaders have always been source based.”
And that’s exactly what annoys me here: Russian tanks get a faster reload that looks questionable at best, yet it’s not presented as a balance decision — it’s presented as “we have sources,” as if that automatically makes the result historically correct.
Meanwhile, Western vehicles keep eating nerfs and inconsistencies, often without the same standard of transparency. At some point it feels like Gaijin is breaking its own “source-based” rule in practice, and nobody in charge addresses it.
No clear statement from @Smin1080p_WT or @Stona_WT, no clear breakdown of what exact primary source justifies the specific in-game value, and no explanation of why contradictory values are ignored.
If this is done for balance, fine — that’s a different discussion. But then say it plainly: “Balance reasons.”
Don’t hide it behind vague “sources” and expect the community to just swallow it.
