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.
Due to last night’s update, it seems that the T80s in Tank Cemetery were repaired overnight. Yesterday, my game match was like the 1980s, with a continuous stream of steel from the Soviet Union.
Anyway, 99A and VT4 have finally received some strengthening
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.
I mean in theory all chinese tanks should share the same autoloader so this change is completely made on Gaijin’s ‘balancing books’.
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.
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.
I feel like Italy is worse than China since China does have the abrams and t84.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .