Unless you provide a proof, i will remain skeptical.
Smaller ready rack isnt an advantage, and neither is having rest of the ammo stowage in the hull without blowout panels.
Right, base M1A2 being outrun by 2A7V.
Turret cant be penned by KE anyway and I personally find Abrams UFP much better than that of non-MEXAS beak Leo2s.
Wouldn’t say paper as it’s still 450mm CE protection and roughly 300-400mm KE on the hull
Compared to like the Strv 105 lol (bad example in terms of comparison but it is like 170mm hull only)
Come on now, before detailed modules were a thing some tank hulls had nothing except power train and the driver in it. Surely realistic.
Just how other tanks got their BR increase after reload buffs ?
Yep. I think it’s pure skill issue too. I think Gaijin now has two options.
so, any plans to buff manually loaded tanks by removing the crew ace’d requirement for better reload?
Honestly? Much more realistic then it is now, yes.
Also, it makes sense for you to reload without your gun having to reset to loading position? Or how ammo didn’t explode half the damn time on T-Series tanks?
Tis for thee but not of me right here.
Yes. Yes they did. So yes, yes they should be upped in BR. Not the Chinese tanks though. They suck. Just the Russian tanks.
Oh, a lot of Chinese vehicles are butchered for sure.
I don’t know hardly anything about Chinese tanks tbh, but the br system would normally be used to balance it. That or fixing their armour issues to justify their br placement.
Either way they’ve been done dirty in a lot of ways.
Now that they buffed those tank with better armor, can we expect to have the correct late ammunition for all the NATO tank?
Technically they already do, but again it’s much different because the T series tanks have zero space for their crew. It’s a known that the T-series tanks are smaller, and pay for the decreased size by being more compact. It’s not fair to treat the NATO tanks like T-series tanks while having them be practically twice the height and significantly wider. It just makes them easier targets.
Turret can be penned by KE and chemical on the abrams, mantlet is smaller on the leo, massive turret ring on the abrams, abrams UFP is a guaranteed one shot, aswell as the LFO being a guaranteed turret ring+ engine at minimum, making the tank a useless brick.
Yes it is? Its less likely to be hit post pen, and much harder to intentionally destroy
Again, smaller to hit, meaning it wont detonate, shoot anywhere in the back of the abrams and youll hit the blowout door, killing the tank
Yeah? And the M1A2 is lighter than the SEP / SEP V2, imagine how clunky those feel
Ok I was half wrong. After scrolling/searching for 20+ minutes (please kill me) I found it, but they don’t fully list documents. This is what they typed:
“but as a first change, we’re going to increase the rate of fire of first-stage ammo from 6 to 5 seconds per shot on an Ace level crew, which’ll make the Abrams more effective against all opponents. This rate of fire is possible considering the size and weight of most shells for 105 mm guns are comparable to shells for a 120 mm gun. This is due to the fact that the 120 mm cartridge case is partially combustible, while the 105 mm case is metal. For example, a 105 mm shell with an M900 projectile has a length of 1003 mm and a weight of 18.5 kg, and a 120 mm M829A2 has a length of 982 mm and a weight of 20.3 kg.”
At the time I thought this as well. Along the same mindset of “if it’s a balance change than why are you trying to justify it being realistically possible”.
I humbly think this would be the correct approach. Gaijin is not certainly known for removing stuff they spent time modelling.
Plus, they already are in the works for more modules on the Leclerc, Merkava and Ariete series.
The blowout panels on my Abrams have been working more than fine.
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
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
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.