Dude some people think the abrams can be loaded in 2 secs lol.
I think the manual loaded tanks are rather balanced.
But things like the KV-220 with two loaders, has the same ROF as a tiger with one loader (in game). Which makes little sense.
1 Like
Sorry that it’s a true fact?
You’re missing a lot of info here.
-
The hstvl never underperformed, they buffed it because it was undeniable about its ROF since its auto loaded.
-
Your goal post shifting now, you won’t admit the T64s and so have been around much longer than the hstvl. And have been incorrect for a much longer span of time
-
Auto loaders aren’t loaded like that. Ask anyone who isn’t a Russian main like myself @_Renzo @MotorolaCRO the auto loaders are usually loaded every other round like: APDSFS, HE, APDSFS, HEAT-FS, etc. btw the MZ loader only takes 0.23 secs to pass over one shell, and the gunner manually selects what shell he wants next and then computer reads the data of what shell is placed where, then gets it ready for loading, therefore when you fire its ready to be loaded.
1 Like
Please remind me who has lost 2000+ tanks in under 4 years.
Not all autoloaders have a set fire rate, they may operate at multiple fire rates. The idea of there being one set fire rate for an autoloader isn’t true.
In gaijins eyes, autoloader reloads may be SLOWER than their maximum fire rate, but they can never EXCEED their maximum fire rate.
To my knowledge the Stryker has a 7.5 second reload, while this could be faster in real life (6), but they haven’t changed this for balance reasons despite the vehicle being ingame for 5 years.
I dont really see your point about the T64, I have said that reload rates are balancing factors and this includes autoloaders. If you are just crying because it wasn’t fixed for a while, then Russian mains are certainly not alone in that regard.
The T64 is not unique just because it was added a long time ago, the Cheiftains were added at the same time as the T64 and they STILL have a reload longer than real life.
1 Like
There is a pretty infamous video online that is older of a MZ loader, doing a full load in 3.84 secs~ so yes auto loaders could be even faster.
Also, politics are against ToS btw.
So, instead of admitting your shifting goal posts, or the undeniable fact that the T-64s and so on have been incorrect far longer than the newer added tanks, you instead double down, and try to insult me by saying Russian mains are crying about it?
and you said:
There’s a whole lot of irony… because I do actually like some British tanks thanks for asking, but I also admit they aren’t great tanks by any means.
1 Like
You stated the “Brits make crap tanks” which is obviously political.
I stated a simple fact in response, you are in no position to cry about this.
I never said that Russian mains were crying, I said you specifically were crying.
The Russian main comment was seperate, saying that inaccuracies in reloads are not specific to Russian tanks.
As I have already said, the Cheiftain and T64 were added at the same time. The T64 had an inaccurately long reload, which is now fixed. The Cheiftain has had an inaccurately long reload since then, which is still not fixed.
The fact one is autoloaded and one isn’t does not matter in this regard, as the reload times are for balance and not realism. However, if you want to claim this is something specific to the T64 being artifically nerfed, then the Chieftain would be the same.
I don’t care what you think you can stop adding opinions.
1 Like
Not gonna lie I tend to take 2 HE for russian tanks, and 2 Hesh for british , othe rnations it depends, for example in the VT4A1 I’ll take 2 he 2 proxy and then 16 Darts.
What i’m not gonna do but is roll around and act as if those rounds are used more than the darts .
the darts are the primary round used at those BRs and anyone arguing that they aren’t is just daft.
Did he really say the british make crap tanks?
I was simply saying that if the HE shell’s position in the ammo rack and loading process were to be simulated, or if it slowed down the APFSDS reloading process, everyone would simply stop using the HE shells.
This would have virtually no impact on the vehicle’s effectiveness. Such shells would simply become completely useless.
1 Like
I guess so, he must be jealous that Britain left the 3 kph reverse speed in WW2 while Russia still hasn’t fixed it to this day.
2 Likes
hardly a true fact ? What tank has the British made which is crap?
Centurion? world changing tank.
Chieftain? as well changed doctrine for most western nations and led to most of them using 120MM cannons.
Challanger? the Chobhamn armour was used in abrams once they modified it slightly to suit them:
CR2 has been one of the most prominant tanks in the world for it’s survivability and capability.
Longest range tank on tank kill?
British challanger 1 ?
So by what metric are they crap?
2 Likes
100 percent agreed.
Lol aye I see what you mean
Except the part that the gunner takes orders from the commander what to load.
And what to load next depends entirely on the situation.
Also generally they carry like 10 AP, 10 HE and 2 HEAT in the carousel, which means switching to HEAT-FS could take up to 2.5s, and you can also sprinkle 1-2 missiles into the mix.
Only when you fire a shell and know you going to fire the same shell again would you end up with the best possible reload.
So this scenario where the entire carousel is reloaded in the best possible reload time, makes simply no sense.
1 Like
English
Русский
This simply isnt the case, Russia are trying to justify horrendous tank losses. By downplaying the efficacy of AT weapons against Russian tanks.
Top attack weapons like Javelin and NLAW systems will penetrate to the carousel.
Russian doctrine may have changed, fewer destroyed tanks is more down to Ukraines shortage of Javelins and ATGMs instead depending on FPV drones.
Yes Challies and Leopards and M1s can and do explode but it’s far less likely. The CR2s in question allowed the crew to safely evacuate before the fire detonated the ammo.
T series tanks have a massive design flaw, the design is from an era of when the chance of hitting a fast moving low profile tank was greatly reduced.
Now that low profile design is a weakness.
3 Likes
Eeeeexcept there have been numerous cases where they’ve failed to do so. In fact, someone tested it against a BMP-1 and uh, they didn’t work…
Yes weapon systems can fail.
Do you think Javelin a bad system?
1 Like
I’d also like to add that the Ukrainians have been storing HESH ammunition in the turret bustle of their Challenger 2’s, which is not standard procedure and is extremely unsafe.
We have video evidence of them doing this, and it creates an explosion risk which shouldn’t be present in the Challenger 2, making them more likely to be destroyed.
3 Likes
I have watched the video you are talking about, he fired the javelin (an IR guided weapon) at a stationary shell of a BMP1 which didn’t even have an engine.
No wonder it didnt work as intended, he also had no training with the weapon. Even against the BMP 1 shell, the Javelin still worked most of the time.
1 Like
Gaijin:
Replaced all ammo in the turret of the Challenger 2 to be modeled as if HESH, even if no HESH equipped
3 Likes
Churchill was a pretty miserable tank, except the black prince.
The Avenger, challenger (the 5.3 one), Cromwell, valentines, Achilles, crusaders, vickers mk.1… etc.
Yes their chieftan / challys are pretty good.
Their ratio of good to bad is like 20% good to 80% bad