Revising the Rate of Fire of the T-64, T-80, Т-72, ZTZ96, ZTZ99 Series and VT4, VT4A1 Tanks

[Cloudzy26160]

@Zannafrancy

The MZ cyclogram on the other hand is the one and only piece of evidence you will ever find on a 6 second reload time, every other piece of evidence will report an higher number.

I mean it’s in the operators manual for the tank, along with an explanation that the hydraulic motor that drives the autoloader has a valve that can be opened to achieve maximum reload speed.
From what I can gather from the manual, 6 seconds is likely the maximum possible speed, not the standard operating speed as running it like that would cause damage after a while.

[141_allen]

I mean in theory all chinese tanks should share the same autoloader so this change is completely made on Gaijin’s ‘balancing books’.

@OlympusMonss

The one that gets APS is ZTZ-99B, A2 is the unofficial designation for the 2024 version with a every so slightly reworked ERA and additional roof armor, which is already in game. I already made a post about this, you can check it out if you’re curious.

U got it the wrong way round. The B version seen in the parade back in September actually lacks APS, the one with APS is an unverified, we suspect is in service tank. We might call it 99A-2 but there is no known official designation.

@_AngelicDragon

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.

It’s not like NATO loaders won’t drop the ball at all, u are depicting a side that we do not want in the game. ALL systems will fail, not just the autoloader and I do not want an engine failure halfway through an ARB. Also repair times are… what? u mean it takes 40 s to repair the breech? It would take a new one IRL and that destroys the realism argument altogether.

@silent_requiem75

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.

I feel like Italy is worse than China since China does have the abrams and t84.

@Caernarvon02

Thai documentation to buff the chinese tank yet you wont add the thai vehicle because of Chinese players

The argument existed long ago and long before the Thai VT-4 sale. We’ve seen various proof the Chinese autoloaders can do 6.7 seconds.
Also why add the VT-4 anyway. Just making them suffer.

[KillMe2UnlockDLC]

Amazing the 64B and 80B is 7s reload they lied.

[Tank_Guy]

this comment remmember me my old times playing britain. I felt like a homeless begging for food.

[Tank_Guy]

We shouldnt let them buff russian reload rate without they modelling every T-series a turret basket.

[UniqueScorpions-live]

@Zannafrancy

Because it really isn’t an historical change, they just think it’s appropriate to buff them now. The cyclogram is easily found on the internet, as far as the t72 there is simply enough ambiguity that they can finagle a 7 second reload time.

The MZ cyclogram on the other hand is the one and only piece of evidence you will ever find on a 6 second reload time, every other piece of evidence will report an higher number. Not the mention all the concrete evidence on the matter it isn’t exactly hard to find videos from the fighting compartments of MZ tanks.

1. Leo’s are manually loaded, which means they vary widely, cyclograms down.
2. Leo’s are by far the best preforming tanks in the game for mbts.
3. There are videos of the MZ loader, loading as fast as 3.86~ secs. Push your luck.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

@RaiderTango-psn

So what we’re saying is that NATO tanks will not provide any benefit anymore other than a decent reverse gear?

Also this completely invalidates the abrams reload speed increase.

Every NATO tank except for the Leopards still reload a full second faster than the T-80s; and every NATO tank still reloads 1-2 seconds faster than the T-72s and T-90s, whose’s “buff” was to go from 7.1 seconds to 7 seconds.

What the HELL is even going on here?

[Nowel]

@Zannafrancy

The MZ cyclogram on the other hand is the one and only piece of evidence you will ever find on a 6 second reload time, every other piece of evidence will report an higher number. Not the mention all the concrete evidence on the matter it isn’t exactly hard to find videos from the fighting compartments of MZ tanks.

Well the cyclogram is a piece of evidence repeated on several manuals for MZ autoloaders which all are primary sources, aside from the 2 that they upload on the devblog i can provide another two for the object 434, the t80, the other evidence for the higher reload which is usually mentioned correlates with the “combat” fire rate present on the manuals, which uncludes the firing procedure not just the reload cycle .
Btw videos are not a “concrete” piece of evidence, it is quite rare to see a video without any cuts from the interior that shows a complete reload for a consecutive round on the autoloader, and for the MZ i have never seen one that fits this.

[Smin1080p_WT]

@Stona_WT

However, the longer modern APFSDS rounds used by the T-80 series tanks can’t be stored in adjacent autoloader trays due to their length. This reduces the rate of fire, as the carousel has to be indexed by two positions instead of one. Consequently, loading a 3BM60 in the T‑80BVM will take at least about 6.4 seconds, since the autoloader must rotate by an additional position during the cycle.

Hey guys. One new addition to the text today.

[Батончик]

This has been fixed in the latest version
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/1t1qJuRT5Z9B

[爱抓人的高木正雄同学]

In fact, what Chinese players dislike about the VT4 incident is that Gaijin did such a foolish thing on China Victory Day. We are not completely rejecting VT4 from joining other trees.

[digod]

it was a bug, they fixed it

[digod]

reload ur game

[AquaUselessGod]

@AquaUselessGod

Ok but how about the Leopard 2 family? They are the only 120mm cannons near top tier that has the old 6s aced reload while every others have 5s

Edit: I’ll be nice and add the Challenger 3 and Merkava Mk.3s in the list as well.

How about we address the elephant in the room here regarding other 120mm cannons? I don’t think “higher than normal performance stats” in game counts if we want to start bothering with realistic reloading speeds.

[Smin1080p_WT]

Reload rates remain a balancing factor for all tanks. This was about a historical correction for autoloaders, which are based on fixed value sources generally.

The Leopard 2s in question remain some of the best performing tanks in game at top tier. So they are not in need of a reload reduction currently. Naturally the changes this week will be monitored and followed across other vehicles too.

[Meincrab]

But what about Challenger 3TD reload and accepted reports about ready-rack size of CR1/CR2 tanks. It’s over 2 years since those reports were accepted .

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ojFgCJ6Jnos4
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/m22cZZxaNPXJ

[Smin1080p_WT]

These would be reviewed separately to these changes. As this update today was just to the T series of tanks.

[AquaUselessGod]

Feels a bit odd to choose one over another but fine, Leopard 2 aside, Merkava Mk.3 and Challenger 3 TD as brought up by others are kinda struggling as well, especially when the Challenger 3 TD, while overall being worse than a Leopard 2 in terms of vehicular performance, has the same reload.

Overall I just don’t think the current reasoning is sufficient; a couple of higher performing Leopard 2s (Strv 122 series and 2A7s) should not be dictating the weaker performing 2A5/6 family of Leos and it’s not like you guys have not artificially nerfed the 122B PLSS and 2A6 reload rate from way before (changing the reload from 6s aced to 7.8s aced) for balance. So my suggestion really is that the 122s and 2A7 series can retain the current reload but the weaker performing Leos can and should receive a reload buff to match.

[Beeschurger]

@Smin1080p_WT

This was about a historical correction for autoloaders, which are based on fixed value sources generally.

So we can definetively see some adjustments to type 10 and leclerc as well or are we already in the “all tanks are equall but some are more equall tha others” part of game? :^)

[Smin1080p_WT]

@Beeschurger

So we can definetively see some adjustments to type 10 and leclerc as well or are we already in the “all tanks are equall but some are more equall tha others” part of game? :^)

Leclerc was already corrected per its report: Community Bug Reporting System

Reports are welcome with evidence for the Type 10.