Funny how its Thai too, and we don’t have a Thai VT-4
4 Likes
It’s 1.5 seconds, which is one of the intended reload rates for the platform.
It’s also the fastest at 12.0.
@Focking_Wulf_190
They already know the Leopard 2s can reload faster. They already accepted those NATO documents.
Reloads, especially for manual loaders, is a balance.
As long as the reload isn’t faster than possible, it’s realistic.
It’s just a matter of lobbying for a reload that’s slower than peak, but faster than current.
Which is what 5 seconds in Leopard 2 does.
It’s slower than the peak of 3.8, and faster than what it is currently.
3 Likes
I have a question, though;
Shouldn’t WZ1001 have the same rate of fire as ZTZ99A? Isn’t it the same autoloader?
2 Likes
The ZTZ99s and VT4 absolutely needed something.
To imply that the Leo 2s need a buff more than these tanks is a bit of a joke.
21 Likes
stand corrected, yeah im thinking of something else then
As far as I know they’re both using the final specified reload-rates currently;
0.875s for RDF/LT and 1.0s for HSTV-L (the latter had higher fire rates tested but issues with the FCS limited it to the final RoF of 1.0s)
After all, that is the reason for changing the doctrine to 3 crew members and not needing a charger for the Leclerc/Type 90/10 and Chinese/Russian tanks
Yeah, I don’t know what’s going on here.
The Leopards are the very best combination of firepower, mobility, handling dynamics, protection and survivability in the entire game.
People talk about improving their reload “to bring them in-line with everybody else”… when they are better than everybody else in EVERY way except rate of fire xD
10 Likes
RIP Leo2s, we had a good run.
2 Likes
The absolute least you could do is fix other tanks issues with ready racks and reload rates as well.
Let’s start with the challenger 2 - the current ready rack is factually wrong and there are outstanding bug reports.
I also find the selective realism interesting. Reload rates have always been used as a balancing factor but they’re suddenly not? If this is a new thing, then we can expect reload rate fixes for ships and various tanks, right? We wouldn’t want a double standard after all.
6 Likes
This should also include the premium ZTZ96A (p), right?
4 Likes
What the hell Gaijin? Where did your usual “reload speed is a balancing factor” go?
28 Likes
I guess gaijin take it more like older ZTZ-99 as it’s a prototype partly based on old ZTZ-99.
but now, what I was worrying about when Abrams is buffed is happening, a unlimited buff of loading times
next time Leos? and we are running into a future of brain storm game
VT-4 needed it, since the base VT-4 is a higher BR than the M1A2
1 Like
If gaijin can choose whatever documents they want with no restrictions, that literally explains so so much about the big reporting processes.
Anyways I support this buff, but it is disappointing that the ZTZs don’t really get a reload buff.
3 Likes
I am sure the tanks with best firepower, extraordinary mobility, best gun and turret handling dynamics, best protection and best survivability will remain to do just fine without also having the best rate of fire.
12 Likes
Oh hello @Stona_WT is the isn’t the the Indian T-90 meant to be T-90S Bhishma not what was written?
2 Likes
2A7Vs sure, thinking the non-uparmored variants should be kept at 6s reload is vastly more of a joke, not to mention it does appear Gaijin is slowly but surely dropping the “reload for balance”, so at this point, give every Leopard 2 a 5s reload
Also, in case ya forgor, Leo 2s have only been getting nerfed across the board so lmao
3 Likes
They do whatever they like- including making up the kh-38MT so don’t expect consistency from them.
1 Like
Rare time me and you have been on the same page lol
2 Likes