Also abrams their is no left over casing only the primer so not a good comparison
2 Likes
Wow, your takes are still as abysmal as I remembered them to be when you left the old forum. Lolman presented you with a video of an Abrams in combat and most likely in movement(you can see the breech wobble up and down) reloading in 5 seconds.
The open ammo door is also already modeled in War Thunder. Blowout panels don’t work during reload, last I checked.
But hey, here’s another video where the loader reloads the gun in exactly 4.21 seconds. Faster than the 5 seconds in War Thunder.
Where am I getting with that? 5 seconds is a good average value for an ‘ace’ crew as is represented in War Thunder when you have all crew points leveled up+the double mastery. Just take the L instead of digging a deeper hole to die in.
2 Likes
Of course the doors are opened during the reload cycle, how else does the loader access the rounds?
The issue is that with any of the videos provided that show sub-6sec reloads, the doors are kept open between reloads. As explained previously, the blast doors must be shut before the gun is armed, this slows things down considerably.
War Thunder has the blast doors closed as soon as the reload cycle is complete.
With no view of the interior, meaning this very likely shows another case of the doors being kept open.
It also only shows a single round fired, and I’ve already linked to the video in which TheChieftain addresses this issue, War Thunder does not model initial rate of fire, it models sustained rate of fire.
Feel free to use editing shoftware to check the actual reload time.
The videos provided showed 5.3 seconds and 6 seconds.
If you’re not interested in a civil discussion where evidence is provided for either case without resorting to insults, please just say so.
That way I’ll just block you.
When Gaijin actually bothers to model reload in such a detailed fashion, your point will make sense. We don’t even have autoloaders module modeled yet and you’re arguing over blast door opening and closing speed.
Not only that but this is such a niche situation only for the first shell fired in a serie since a loader wouldn’t close the blast door during continuous firing, which again, is represented in War Thunder as continuous firing leave the tank vulnerable to ammo racking.
My man, I’m absolutely civil. Where have I personally insulted you? Please point it out. You’re refusing to accept video evidence proving you wrong instead of simply admitting you were incorrect and moving on. And funny of you to talk about evidence when you provided none to support your point of view other than a Leopard 2 reference.
PS: Leopard loader debunking your point:
1 Like
It already is.
In-game, the doors are kept shut whenever the reload process isn’t happening.
If there’s even 0.1 sec between the gun being reloaded and firing, then the doors are modelled as being shut for 0.1 seconds.
That means the doors work in-game.
Also, for every video provided that shows a 5.3 second reload (with doors closed) I can show a video where the reload takes 10 seconds. And I’m not claiming the 10sec video is any more valid than the 5sec video, just that the average , I repeat: AVERAGE according to source material lies around 7.5 seconds.
Even source material for the 105mm seems to be conflicted on this topic, you get anything from 5.3 seconds to 8.6 seconds:
I’m all for more detailed reloading mechanics being implemented, such as:
- More realistic ready-rack restocking where the turrets have to be oriented correctly for the process to take place.
- More realistic modelling of the autoloaders, where, for example, the Soviet reload time is dependant on the time it takes the carousel to rotate.
- Faster initial reload for human loaders, but gradually decreasing reload when the rounds become more inconvenient to access.
- Decreased reload rate depending on speed and terrain.
I suspect that Gaijin won’t even do this though as it might make things too complicated for what it supposed to be a arcadey and accessible game, hence why they simply take the average and throw in some ‘balance’.
Surely you’re familiar with the term Ad Hominem?
5 seconds is what you get with an elite loader in War Thunder.
Just because an average M1 loader reloads in 6 seconds doesn’t mean excellent loaders are the same. This isn’t a fixed value, it is dependent on the man reloading. The only thing that can be done is for an army to set a minimum standard, that being 7 seconds on the 120mm M1.
Which goes back to what I’m saying. When and only when Gaijin implements a more advanced reloading system, your original point will make sense. The system is simplified right now, 5 seconds is perfectly fine as an average for an elite loader in this simplified system. So deal with it I guess?
Surely you’re familiar that Ad Hominem refers to attacking the person rather than the argument? I called your argument abysmal because it is. I didn’t directly attack you. Make an effort, please.(that one is directed at you, see the difference?)
2 Likes
That’s what I’ve been saying this whole time though.
Gaijin currently takes the best case scenario for a average reload rate, I never called it wrong or implausible that a loader can load within 5 seconds, I just pointed out that it’s not realistic as far as a AVERAGE and SUSTAINED reload rate goes based on source material.
I also pointed out that the 120mm and 105mm having the same reload rate, dispite the 105 allowing for lap-loading whilst the 120 doesn’t isn’t logical.
I’m on a 70% winrate and 5 - 1 K/D ratio in my M1A1 for the matches I’ve played since the patch dropped, trust me, I’m dealing just fine with it.
I fail to see how saying my takes are as absymal as previously, has any impact on the topic we’re currently discussing, or how it addresses any of the arguments or sources I’ve presented.
But whatever, let’s move on.
And yet videos exist of loaders reloading a 120mm sustained in about 5 seconds or less, posted in this very topic. So? Okay, I guess? Good loaders exist, average loaders exist. Excellent loaders can and will reload a 120mm in about 5 seconds during sustained fire. Sometimes a bit slower, sometimes a bit faster.
I served alongside these people during my time and this argument of loader fatigue is a fat myth. Moving an object from right to left ISN’T a tiring movement and loaders commonly train to deadlift heavier weight than your 120mm shell. The case could be made if they had to pick up the shell from the floor and carry it up to the breech but that simply isn’t the case.
Good for you.
3 Likes
Agreed.
I’m not sure why you’re mentioning this, but okay.
When the vehicle is completely stationary? Sure.
When the vehicle is moving at speed over terrain? Absolutely not.
left over casing
@Mytho61734
Top is Abrams, bottom is Leopard 2.
That’s the primer left over like i said the abrams casing burns away when fired on leaving the primer
That’s been a thing on both vehicles since their earliest interations… combustible casings are basically NATO standard.
i didn’t know that the leo had it too
i more used to British 3 piece which has no casing
I mean what I said about the stats going up once all the “spice of the month” players stop playing top tier still applies, and you also didn’t show data for other nations’ tanks.
Here’s some additional 3-4 second reload videos:
2 Likes
I’d very much like to see your stats backing this up, especially showing what nations were on your team versus the enemy team.
What happens to the casing?
If people want to consider loader fatigue then they should also consider the probability of a autoloader getting jammed or breaking down.
4 Likes
it burns away and the primer is the only thing left
1 Like
Autoloaders can shoot multiple thousands of rounds before being at risk of jamming, effectively zero chance of one breaking down in the timespan of a War Thunder match. Human loaders are incomparably worse in the measures of reliability or sustained firing. Human loading is highly variable and fatigue starts increasing from the first round shot.
1 Like