The blowout panels on my Abrams have been working more than fine.
1 Like
turret and auto-loader do not interfere with each other tho
they are 2 different systems that work separately from each other
You’re on the nitpicking slippery slope.
Nah.
The Soviet increased the reload speed by 0.5 or 0.1 seconds, NATO is already whining that they are so clumsy that they can’t play with their eyes closed and requires a nerf. Distant noobs
5 Likes
So are you. Again, it makes more sense for a NATO tank to be mostly empty down their (except for the driver and power train) then it does for it to have a giant hydraulic system down there. We know the power to the turret rotation and turret traverse comes from the turret, not the basket- so why on EARTH does the turret basket, a series of mesh and small bits of metal, stop the traverse from working?
Yes. The HSTV-L being a prime example. Moved up after getting it’s Reload changed from 1.5 to 0.5.
Thai documentation to buff the chinese tank yet you wont add the thai vehicle because of Chinese players
16 Likes
You really expect me to answer this seriously???
That isn’t even comparable. Tell me how the increased hull armor influences the loaders job in any way?
No.
Your comment on the barrel position is the same as me saying that manually loaded tanks should take like 30s to reload with only two crew remaining, as gunner would need to move to loader’s position first and only then start reload.
I’m sure you wouldn’t be too hyped about this realistic change.
HSTV-L doesn’t have 0.5s reload speed.
Also, I wasn’t talking about HSTV-L, as many tanks (US included) received reload speed buffs without BR changes.
I mean nearly all ZTZ buffs have something to do with what they did with the T-series, such as the buffs on the survivability (and this time reload time) of the AZ/MZ autoloaders, a more detailed and (sometimed undestructible) main gun trunnions, and so on. But there are still too little evidence to show whether the 577mm darts for late ZTZ’s were accurate (because if it does, then I would eat it up even if it’s unbalanced). Yet, Chinese tanks do have weaker sides and potentially smaller coverage than the Soviets, making it more vulnerable against NATO/JPN/ISR firepower.
And at this stage they can neither do a hull-down like NATO do, nor could they play like soviets and charge ahead. The only way for me personally was to flank, flank, flank, to abuse its good maneuverability and (compared to NATO standards) still small enough profile, hoping my opponent could never see me.
As for NATOs they do need to buff Italy and GBR in a decisive manner in the future. Italy feels like China’s equivalent at this moment, and GBR… well, they are the Brit.
2 Likes
You have no clue how this game works and it shows.
Also the “distant noob” has 10-20% higher winrates and close to 3x as many KpS as you do, now isnt that odd?
1 Like
As far as i know, when it comes to autoloaders, reload rate is still a balance change but they don’t change it lower than the fastest possible for the mechanisms. Some documents as suggestion for changes are sometimes accepted in relation to that. So they still use reload rate as a balance tool for autoloaders but within the mechanisms possible speeds (at least as i have understood it and i could be wrong).
1 Like
And horrible gun elevation speed. And horrible max gun elevation. Worse gun traverse. Taking 2 seconds longer to fully turn from stop than a t80bvm (at least from my quick testing in test drive on both of my spaded and experted t80 and t10). Somehow losing more speed on the slightest turns while driving than any of the other top tier tanks i have.
1 Like
dont worry our buff is getting the arjun next year…
If you want your head to hurt from horrific tank design research the vehicle. Theres no armour behind the gunners sights and literal armour holes on the real vehicle all over the place
Any chance for the Ch2s to be given anything approaching this level of buff?
It use to be that their 5s reload was compensated for by the 4 rounds of 1st stage ammo. But its been more than a year of the Abrams getting 5s on ~30rnds of 1st stage ammo, now The T series are approaching the same reload speed on 100% of their ammo?
There have been plenty of documents posted in the Ch2 discussion threads about the 1st stage ammo count, and most recently the Chieftain 900 was added with its correct 28 rnds of 1st stage ammo, which should be the norm for the Ch1s and Ch2s.
2 Likes
The chance of jamming should be added to all tanks with an autoloader.
When firing a shell, there’s a 1/200 chance of getting stuck and damaging both the autoloader and the cannon breech.
This can happen anywhere and anytime, but the chances for the autoloader to jam is increased if the autoloader and breech has taken damage prior, lowering it from 1/200 to 1/100, and then 1/50 depending on how damaged the breech is.
The duration of the repair includes:
removing the stuck shell
repairing the autoloader
repairing the gun breech
which should in turn take 40 seconds in total.
This should serve as a form of nerf towards all autoloading vehicles (especially the Japanese, Chinese and Russians) and in turn balance out gameplay for those who still rely on a manual loader.
the M1A1 HC and up offer relatively the same protection against common KE as Leopard 2s, as in most common rounds wont go through either way. Once youre past certain treshold it doesnt matter whenever you have 700mm KE equivalent or 1000mm KE equivalent since no soviet round bar point blank obj 292 will pen anyway.
aight
aight
no it is not
issue not unique to the Abrams.
I dont know what is your agenda, but to claim larger ready rack + ammo stowage protected by blowout panels is inferior to Leo 2 ammo layout is …suspicious to say at least.
no proof ofAbrams ready rack not working, but nice try anyway.
Also implying under same conditions Leo2s ready rack wont detonate is outright dumb.
I dont think its tank related issue if you get outrun by way heavier tank. Check between chair and keyboard.
The US received a 5-second reload time instead of DU armor. This happened after players began asking why the new Abrams tanks didn’t receive DU armor.
@Stona_WT Gaijin, where’s the balance? Now there are hundreds of Russian players queuing up every single moment. Does this game only welcome Russian players now, or did the Russian government pay you again?
5 Likes
Russia has highest wr. Surely the Russian players are better than the Italian, French, and Japanese players
I wouldn’t be, you’re right. Just as I wasn’t hyped about turret baskets, an unrealistic change. So fix it. Because it’s silly to nerf a vehicle spontaneously like that, introduce a buff to other series that makes the nerf arguably unnecessary, and then not undo the nerf to the other vehicles.
Yes, for a couple reasons. One; you need to Ace these tanks to get that advantage (Acing takes several million SL and either Hours of your time or GE). While the T-series tanks you get this buff without having to grind for it.
Second, because they sucked, and it was one of like four advantages over the T-series tanks they had (Survivability, Gun Depression, and Reverse Speeds being the other three). Now, with both the Turret baskets and the reload buffs, the only serious advantages the Abrams has is reverse speed and gun depression, which don’t even matter on stuff like City Maps where you A. Can’t go hull down and B. Don’t have anywhere safe to reverse too. I’ve played both NATO tanks and Russian tanks. The Russian tanks time and time again are easier to use and already good tanks, and this reload buff only makes them easier and better.
Edit; also, the buffs came at a time when the vehicles and nations WR was doing very poorly. This is not currently the case for Russia. The WR is still fine. Making this buff even more unnecessary.
2 Likes