Sorry about nuking your thread btw.
Sorry guys for the thread off topic spam
All roads lead to Rome, and all threads lead to Abrams discussion
3 Likes
Like I said: ‘‘On average and in practical conditions’’.
If Gaijin would want to buff the reload rate, they should really implement a system where the player has to choose a layout of APFSDS - HE-F - HEAT-FS in the carousel, and then model it’s rotation accordingly.
T-80BVM manual states 8 seconds, not more than.
Cyclograms from technical manuals state 6 seconds at best, but additional time is needed for the gun to travel back to it’s original elevation as well as additiona time depending on carousel rotation required. Older systems also require the gunner to activate the reload cycle with the press of a button, if the gunner is slow to do so additional time is taken.
Almost all practical examples are closer to 8 seconds based on available footage.
The only fabric based spall liners used on MBTs are on Russian models. Everyone else uses a solid epoxy molding of kevlar at least in the form of form fit panels.
The Abrams has no spall liners as anything that might spall, if penetrated, would cause lethal harm to the crew regardless. It is not lightly armored like Russian tanks.
2 Likes
Thats battle reload, aka announcing each step, spotting and aiming taken into account, technical reload is cyclogram, aka what we should have in game for each vehicle.
But we dont, not for soviet vehicles, not even medium reload time for NATO MBTs now, 9 RPM as in Greek tender.
T-80UD (6EC43) states battle reload time of 7-9 RPM, with it’s cyclogram stating average technical reload time of 6 seconds. When you consider T-80U/D have more advanced and stabilised commander sights it does make sense how battle reload of T-80B/V/M is lower than of T-80U/D.
Cyclograms also arent best case but average case, and they take into account everything including getting gun up or down for reload which we dont have in game. They even consider pressing the button which is purely human based speed activity.
Even T-64A FCS trials show us reload of 6,4 sec.
2 Likes
And again, that doesn’t reduce spall. The only purpose it serves there is multi-hit capability.
2 Likes
It’s, also not even a liner, it’s just a part of the armor.
2 Likes
Reducing the loading time itself is a balanced means, and it will be meaningless if it does so.
Internet sprayers are everywhere. What I can’t understand is that so many of you are really trying to collect evidence and information to refute an ignorant person, and he did nothing but type. He won because he made fun of you.
I wouldn’t listen to this guy, he thinks the Apache’s chaingun can fire GAU-8 rounds because a single website from the 90s vaguely implies it.
3 Likes
the source that was on the website was removed. i told you this
crazy how you people keep saying this when gaijin already acknowledged it, and you’ve had abrams crew members flat out make videos telling you it does.
now that i remember someone on the old forums talked about the russian auto loader firing faster than what is in-game currently.
Yeah, integrated spall liners aren’t visible to the crew since they’re integrated into the armor.
I copy-pasted the bug report from one of Sartt’s earlier posts, him not bothering to do that was the only difference between us.
No, they don’t. A liner is a liner because it lines/backs something, which means it can be backing for literally anything, not just the inner-most layer of armor.
Except that it can through absorbing and reflecting the shockwave caused by a round penetrating the armor, which is the only way to actually reduce the amount of spall. The current curtain-style spall liner does virtually nothing to reduce the amount of spall, all it does is catch spall that is generated from the armor.
3 Likes
You’re wasting your time with these fools.
Funny when they use totally different size cartridges
1 Like
Wait what?
Technical data disagrees with you
Hey, there’s a guy who knows what he’s talking about. Didn’t know the T-80UD was the same way.