also the first clearly shows the loader taking the shell out of the ready rack
1 Like
And I did specifically mention “if you add a second or so” for the blast door…
It’s a ~3s reload so add the blast door and it’s still comfortably sub-5.
Your “nu uh” argument isn’t going to work here.
Going through calling the tank, range, etc. yes. The cyclogram data literally says 6 secs.
A sub 5 reload of a staged video, if I sent an video of an auto loader half way through its reload and called it a 2.5 sec load, that would be disingenuous, which is what you currently are being.
The videos you sent literally are already 2/3 or 1/3 the way through the reload process.
- Didn’t twist your words
- I’m not advocating for a 3.76 sec reload on the MZ loader, I’m merely stating as fast as it can truly reload. The only reason they lock it to 6.0 secs is to ensure total reliability which is typically 3,000 rounds.
Concept isn’t the true fruition. Soviets completed it in full. Would have to give it to them.
Again, you provide no evidence, and meekly say false as if anyone is going to buy that.
Боевая скорострельность, выстр./мин — 7—8
Combat rate of fire, rounds per minute — 7–8
From your own source.
He starts with the shell in the ready rack. I would like any actual evidence it’s partway through the reload.
Sure as hell did, because I never referred to “gaijin’s own crew”
7 Likes
I did watch it, he literally had the shell in his hands, mid slamming it into the breech.
Please continue the falsehoods.
So did the US, they just decided that the cons outweighed the pros after testing it
literally one google search away, but you cant do that because it contradicts your narrative that soviet scientists were gods guided by the voice of stalin or whatever
3 Likes
If you actually watched it then you’d be aware that the “3-5 seconds” I said was referring to the man they’re interviewing saying a loader is going to achieve a 3-5 second reload, and not the tiny excerpt of a clip halfway through.
I’m not the one disagreeing with my own source and trying to act like I’m in the right while doing so lol
Oh yeah, and claiming anything that disagrees is “staged”, whatever that means for footage of someone reloading a 120.
1 Like
[quote=“Metaltank1990, post:1675, topic:269410, full:true”]l
I’m not the one disagreeing with my own source and trying to act like I’m in the right while doing so lol
Oh yeah, and claiming anything that disagrees is “staged”, whatever that means for footage of someone reloading a 120.
[/quote]
That’s actually what your doing is disagreeing with yourself
Bait. I’m not engaging further without you backing your own side.
1 Like
Lmao I have, your argument is “nu uh”
I disputed the evidence you provided, and have shown videos and documents to prove my side. This is why nobody likes the USA mains when they try to have a discussion
I don’t even play the US and your documents say 8 rounds per minute. End of.
The cyclogram data from that exact document states the loader loads as fast at 6 secs, since you cannot see, I have highlighted it.
Yes, end of discussion, because you have no credible evidence nor does Alpharius, nor do you have any skills in debate, instead you continue to say “nu uh” instead of having a redeeming conversation on the matter. I have provided evidence for my claims, unlike your cherry picked, flawed video “evidence”.
What would you even accept as credible for the M1’s reload? if videos can be sped up, the firewall door might not be closed, they might be in CBRN gear, the loader might screw up, or skip a step (close ammo bunker door), it might be a 120 or 105mm variant, they might do some things in parallel.
It’s not like a cyclogram exists for the M1 anyway, and using the minimum standard of 7 seconds (~8.6 RPM) on an aced crew sound wrong to enforce as it is the slowest you can go to get a rating for the position and go on to see combat.
And anyway, say the reload for whatever reason was corrected to 7 seconds aced, what would the M1 even have to its advantage?, it’s got issues with the armor, module placement, has (arbitrarily) sub-standard ammo, a short gun and not so great sights. With the inclusion of a poor Rate of fire.
What exactly would you suggest todo to keep things balanced?
9 Likes
its kinda hard to do anything else when the person who you are correcting is so incredibly wrong and their claims are outright false as may of yours have been, because that isnt a debate, that is correcting a false statement which is a very different thing
1 Like
No need to even wonder. The Merkava Mk.4 used to have 6.7 seconds reload with an ace crew and it was rated as one of the worst top tier tanks back then for a good reason.
Arguing that missile’s existence is just a waste of time since the vehicle itself is dogcrap anyways.
First of all, if you’re comparing that to Russia, you Grossly over exaggerating. The over-exaggeration of Russian technology compared to US technology in the game right now—I’ll give you that. When it comes to air defense, Russia is better than, let’s say, America; however, that doesn’t mean that America is lagging behind by a huge margin. But when it comes to the ground-pounding ordnance, I’m sorry, America is on par with Russia. Just take a look, for example, at the F-16. The F-16 can carry 6 Mavericks plus 2 guided bombs plus 4 air-to-air weapons, while the Russian MiG-29, for example, in its best configuration, can carry two guided Kh-29TD, can carry two TV-guided bombs, and can carry two air-to-air missiles. That’s it. With that example I can say, “Oh, America is overperforming. Why is that? It’s not balanced.”
1 Like
Still have the n829a2 , great mobility, servicable armour.
Though it would be pretty silly, personally Though i believe all the mbts could do with a reload nerf to slow the pace of ghe game down abain.
Or activity make all of them equal in some way.
2 Likes
The Merkava Mk.4 at that time also had a similar round, similar mobility and when the LIC was added also had servicable armor (added bonus was that it was more survivable than the abrams). Still didn’t save it.
Don’t get me wrong, the Abrams with a 7 second reload wouldn’t be the worst top tier MBT (the T-72B3A and VT-4s still beat it to that title), but why would you ever play it over litterally any other NATO tank except maybe the Ariete and CR2?
But yeah A global reload reduction for MBTs from all nations (that also includes the Russian MBTs to some degree) would be good if that also means that Gaijin will start correcting the inaccuracies of said MBTs. (and they should still add appropriate counterparts to the 2A7s and Strv 122s of course)
2 Likes