They tested the concept, which ultimately went no where. The Soviets were the ones to put great effort into the project, but even they got stalled until the 1960s
Similarly, composite armor arose around this time, the T-64 the first tank in the world to showcase composite armor, and later the T-64B to showcase Kontact-1 ERA
First of all: ignoring the fact that gaijin’s own crew interview stated sub-5 is pretty standard for a good loader as someone very kindly pointed out, there’s footage ranging down to sub-3. When you cherrypick your videos it does become real easy to be right all the time :)) I can play to the other extreme: https://youtu.be/En4qe8lLB0s?si=E3BcM1ciJ-h8_2kb
Add the second or so of opening the blast door and he’s still comfortably sub-5.
Plus:
https://youtu.be/e6xvEy_U0To?si=q2aGpFTdn9n8imIe 3-5 seconds
“Combat rate of fire (rounds per minute): 7–8”
First of all: not sure where you got 7-9, but:
I don’t think you wanna play that game. 60/8 is 7.5.
It can load as quick as 3.76secs~
On what basis?
USA tanks get to run free with quicker reloads without documentation
How exactly do you propose somebody documents a human loader rate in the same way as an autoloader? Gaijin has the freedom to implement any number 3~inf seconds, as any are plausible (although if my loader took infinite seconds I probably wouldn’t be happy.) documentation will only ever state the minimum rate of fire, which is 8 for just about every NATO tank.
Gaijins own crew? Lmao.
**Also both your videos are cherry picked, and by far the worst examples of videos. **
1. Both already had shells in their hands aka a lap load.
2. Both were entirely stationary
3. The blast door was open on the first video already.
4. The clips were cut and shortened
Please, go ahead and pick poorer examples to display, all you’ve sent is staged nonsense.
-
If you take off the factory lock setting of 6.0 secs, and have APFSDS next to APFSDS it can load as quick as 3.76 secs~
-
How to document a human loader? 10 reloads, 10 people. All start with a close bulkhead, and in the standing idle position as is in game. Then take the average per person, add them all, and divide by 10. Then you will have your average.
I’m merely saying it’s unfair nato tanks load too quickly, and Russian ones are gimped (in terms of the MZ loaders). Because it does put them at a pretty decent disadvantage
Not what I said. Gaijin’s own crew interview. Please don’t twist my words.
Staged? They’re loading the gun. Besides, any video you send showing a reload longer than 5 seconds proves nothing because as I said the reload can be 3~inf seconds inclusive. I have demonstrated a sub-5 reload is possible with a comfortable margin.
“If you take off the factory lock” I’m stopping you there. If step one is modifying the system so it’s no longer functioning correctly it does not count.
Then you’re free to find yourself an abrams, ten qualified loaders, and document it yourself :)
Still with no substantial evidence
Combat rate of 8 rounds per minute is what your own source says but okay.
Because a 1960s pattern autoloader loading two piece ammunition is, shockingly enough, slower than a person.
yes hence they invented the concept of ERA
and again false, composite armor was developed very early after the introduction of ironclad warships, but if you want it for tanks there is an easy example of shermans having been tested with an add on composite armor during WW2
Also sidenote this is hilarious because the second video is an interview and has no actual reload, which demonstrates you didn’t even watch it lol.
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