Typical Ralin post, always believe he’s the right one.
You do you but don’t assume everyone agrees with your claims.
I was talking about the top tier.
You don’t need the ATGM, as it’s much worse than the APFSDS. You don’t need the HEAT shell. You can carry one or two HE shells, but that’s more of a hindrance than a benefit.
It’s logical that it’s a useful projectile because it does something better than the APFSDS.
If the T series had one, then yes, it would be worth using.
The funniest one for me was a M1A1 AIM that didn’t think he needed to hide his turret from my Type 16 while reloading… 105mm HESH to the gunners optic taught him the error of his ways.
1 Like
T-Series has HE shell that can basically do the same job.
That’s why I always carry at least 5 HE round in my BVM/90M.
i dont think so
I’m not against it, but the vast majority don’t use it.
People here greatly exaggerate the importance of rotating the magazine for loading other shells. It won’t affect the vehicle’s effectiveness in any way. And once they realize this, they’ll start complaining again about a new feature, which, if fixed, will definitely nerf their tanks.
Magazine rotating isn’t needed considering any other tank can pull magically different types of ammunition from their ready rack.
As for the Russian HE it works wonderful against almost anything.
It’s true, but globally simulating this won’t change the balance in any way. Instead of a small number of players using a few projectiles, no one will use them at all.
Essentially, it’ll worsen gameplay.
…
Russuan tanks shiuld just get their turret baskets as well.
That will disable them even more.
Either they explode viontly from an ammo hit or the turret drive gets disabled and they are stuck
They don’t have it.
The cage around the autoloader and the eletronicd mechanics for the tirret traverse still counts as turret basket, which should disable the t series if hit.
1 Like
No, because it doesn’t touch anything inside the tank and essentially hangs from the turret.
This isn’t like the basket on the Leopard or Abrams. Because they have it installed on the floor using a rotating contact device.
The T-72, for example, has nothing at all.
So he’s already in the game.
Tank reloads are supposed to be averages.
And it’s particular clear in WT, considering the reload is always the same time, regardless of a vehicles turret position or being on the move or not.
An Abrams top notch loader would be able to reload even faster than 5s, so 5s is already an average for all ammo and all conditions.
So there’s simply no way that the average load time for Russian tanks is suddenly now the same as their ideal fast reload.
As long as manually loaded tanks don’t start to reload in 3s while stationary, and a lot slower on the move, carousel autoloader shouldn’t have perfect reload conditions for every shell they load.
In fact they should never have it because it makes no sense.
And ATGMs being magically reloaded and AA MGs firing at targets with the commanders will power is simply how it works for every vehicle.
It really should as long as manually loaded tanks down to 2 crew reload much faster than they should and break laws of physics while at it.
Where have you read this ?
They get their reloads tinkered with for balancing, which is why M1s and some Arietes/Merkavas started loading a second faster all of a sudden.
Gaijin stated it in the past.
The reload rate is a rate that can be expected for loading and firing all the ammunition in a row.
So basically the vehicles general RoF.
But then at one point where like:
Oh damn, PT-76 has such a horrible RoF for a post-war vehicle firing HEAT-FS.
New idea: RoF is now a balance factor
Otherwise they would have needed to put it at like 3.0 to make it any viable.
Of course thats only the case because HEAT-FS doesn’t remotely compete in killing power to APHE for WW2 BRs.
Well, thats just how it is, as long as Gaijin insist that tanks can still be operated with a driver and one guy in the turret.
If it was for me, crews would bail after a penetration that injures most of the crews or damages internal components.
And we could recover tanks or capture vehicles for some extra points or something.
Instead those arcade gameplay mechanics.
I think it’s theoretically possible but gunner would need to constantly switch between his and loader’s seats. That would be quiet harsh on some vehicles and I understand why it isn’t in the game.
1 Like
Yeah, it’s possible. But implement into the game it would be so much of a handicap that you might as well just J out.
We’re talking almost no spacial awareness, no visibility while reloading, several seconds to switch from binocular to gunner view etc.
Basically sim camera but only from the vehicle itself.
Because crew kills are like 90% the cause for destruction in WT, shell damage is also artificially buffed to the extreme, especially APHE.
While it should not make a difference whether I penetrate with APHE thats not going to fuze 80% of the time or just solid shot.
1 Like
The auto loader is connected yes, otherwise that’d be a terrible design.
Plenty of clips show loading happening in all directions of the gun pointing in front, to the side, etc.
1 Like
AFAIK they’re all mounted on the turret as if they are the “basket”
I’m not even talking about removing 3rd person camera, just the reload speed increase that would be very substantial and the fact your turret wouldn’t be able to turn as, well, there’s no one there to turn it while your tank is reloading.
At that point, playing with only 2 crew remaining would become really frustrating, which is why I’m not really supportive of that, even if it might be realistic change. Some things are better left untouched.