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.
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.
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
The part that annoys me the most is how posts like this are used. There is a sort of “just trust me bro” element to them in regards to what documentation is applied, how its applied, and in most cases, its not fair or balanced. When it comes to Russian or Soviet vehicles, its almost always to put their vehicles in favorable positions that seem questionable. But when it comes to Western or NATO vehicles, its to apply a nerf or deny them getting an improvment they should get.
Two great examples of this are the DU armor for the Abrams (and subsequently the M829A3) and the capability of Western MANPADS vs Soviet ones (I am sure there are folks here who can point to other examples, these are just the two I am nost familiar with). And to get any change or revisions to their stance, the community managers effectively always come back with something to the tune of “Well just forward us what is basically classified documents. But just an FYI, we will permanently ban you if you do”.
janes isn’t even a source. They’re being removed from the report.
I’ll repeat myself: I attached the official brochure above. That report included obscure magazines, including some unrelated to military equipment (a Russian magazine on plastic vehicle models).
I attached the official brochure and two books from recognized tank researchers and developers, Leclerc. Amateur magazines are nothing compared to them
