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.
Lmao not an argument to be seen
Lots of game talk.
what does this even mean? lol
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.
Im aware of that T64 has a different autoloader I stated as much.
The T80 is based off of a T64 so it’s of course going to be similar.
Yes I know.
I’ve seen the sources, mind you I stated it’s not far off true being side by side rounds.
The 6 seconds is marginally too fast.
however it’s for balance as well mate as we have said a million times on the forums and gaijin ahve said a million times.
There’s no marginally with reload times anything more than half a tenth is valuable. AZ tanks got a 2 tenth decrease and it’s very noticeable.
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.
That’s not correct.
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.
aren’t Battle Rating a thing to balance? i don’t really want to engage 6s t-80ud in mbt-70
Teh same man has also stated they balance using reload even on autoloaders you realise that?
hence why the leclerc is 5 seconds and not the 4 it should be
pretty sure those are each tank specific, dont think there is much ambiguity
The max u can see are 4 BTW, when u get a full uptier there can only be 4 people a team a full BR above you.
6 sec should be
Dudes literally going ham on it as if there was no context or sources provided.
They are there, the issue the community has / should have is that they gave the T series realistic reloads yet left the likes of the leclerc and such nerfed.
||
||
\/
There are or at least was, old forum posts concering the leclerc it has the capabilities to at least fire 12 shots a minute at 5 second reloads under operator command. Im assuming though it’s used sparingly to prevent wear n tear, as well as the doctrine is to fire at 10 second intervals when on the move.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/R0xYIxujmb8M
Just linked u a bug report with multiple sources enough to make gaijin forward to the damn devs.
over 10 sources and even videos to show the reload can be 5 seconds under situations that require it.
Much the same as the type 10 can fire extremely quickly if needed as well.
i mean mate it’s the front cover, theres literally janes artillery and armour in there which aresome of the most credible sources you can find.
So pop off
