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
Leopard loader reloading in 3.5 seconds. Abrams has a similar breech, similar ammo placement. Yes it’s also doable by an Abrams loader. Yes blast door stays open during these continuous reload. Yes that’s exactly how it works in War Thunder too since you get ammo racked during reload.
NATO tank reload slower than they should for balance. It should be around 3 seconds stationary, and 5 seconds on the move, for ace crew. Rookie crews should be 7 seconds. You literally need to reload in 7 seconds to pass BASIC loader qualification in NATO, and the units you later join with their own demands will more often than not ask you to do it in around 5 seconds or get some more training.
4 Likes
Cyclograms are wrong, according to actual tankman, who fights on those tanks.
Wrong. Israel first created ERA and deployed it before USSR in 1979, then used it in battle in 1982 :). K1 was first deployed in 1982. The very basic concept might have originated from the USSR but their own research into it stalled in the 60s, they couldn’t make it work properly and gave up. A German researcher developed modern ERA concept in the 70s and the IDF bought the patent.
1 Like
The document he posted is correct, but there’s a specific reason the in-game reload time is set to 6.5 seconds and why crews will give you another number. Gaijin actually addressed this years ago, and the explanation is straightforward: for every shell the autoloader has to skip over, about 0.5 seconds is added to the reload time.
In practice, you’ll almost never see a perfect 6-second reload. That would only happen if the autoloader was cycling through identical rounds in sequence — for example, AP-AP-AP, HEAT-HEAT-HEAT, or HE-HE-HE.
However, loading the carousel this way can create serious problems. Switching from AP to HE would take 15 seconds or more, and then back again to select AP, which is obviously impractical in combat. The standard loading pattern for these tanks is AP-HEAT-HE, then back to AP, to keep an acceptable reload no matter the shell you need which does push the reload to around ~7 seconds or ~8.5RPM
To reflect this, Gaijin added an extra 0.5 seconds to the factory 6-second reload, simulating the time the autoloader spends skipping over one shell.
su34 can use it and there is only 1 pic of kh38mt on the su34. rest are questionable. the only other aircraft that can use kh38 is the su35.
There is a vid of Spookston unloading the new event vehicle into the side of a Russian tank hitting the ammo carousel time and time again. Yet it didn’t cause an ammo explosion, he had to actually take out the crew.
VT4A1? is bad?
Having got the mk3B and C I don’t feel the merkavas to be ^that bad tbh I need to wait and see how 12.0 plays out O.o
Change of scenery? I Mean abrams with a 6 second reload woudl still be one of the top dogs in game.
Though personally some decompression would solve most issues, I don’t think it’s very fair that any 10.7 comes across the likes of the M1A2 or A1 HC slinging M829A2 (I use the 11.7 lineup fairly often)
CR2 rn is in a sorry state of affairs TBH , ariete I’ve not got yet but at rank 6 so not long.
I mean if we got more accurate armours, reduced reloads for what crews sustain not just hte initial 5 round burst or 10 round burst they can do incredibly fast, then it would be idea, as well as that I don’t mean the fact tank crews can’t sustain fast fire rates for prolonged periods, I mean in general they’ll eventually slow down to around as far as I’m aware about 6 seconds!.
That could seriously change the engagement times, match pacing etc.
While irritating to face I don’t find them that bad RN what’s annoying the life out of me is the sub 5 second fire rate that’s been swept across nations, stuff like CR 2, or any russian / chinese auto loaders bar the T80s are absolutely slaughtered in general
Not bad, just offers nothing special.
Still my fav Chinese Tank tho.
1 Like
I love the thing tbh man it’s extremely nice to use.
Though the ZTZ 99 II and III are my favourite chinese tanks
1 Like