First video is 5.3 seconds, not 4.4 as the video claims. (feel free to check this yourself using editing software) Furthermore, I’m fairly certain the blast doors are kept open here, that’s not allowed under combat conditions and invalidates this video.
This is also not how Gaijin models the blast doors, they are kept shut under normal conditions.
Second video cuts off before the reload is completed and at that point the reload has already taken 5:31 seconds. The handle still needs to be pulled to arm the gun and ‘‘UP!’’ has to be announced before the gunner can fire.
That looks like it would’ve been around 6 seconds total.
You’re just presenting me with more video evidence that the reload rate is too quick in War Thunder. Everything points to the 120mm M1’s having a 6-8sec reload rate, whether that be video evidence or primary source documents.
Anyways, we’re going round in circles so I’ll leave it here.
I’m just going to relink the video of a loader slinging the entire bustle rack on average under 5 seconds again.
Since it seems like people are grasping for straws again.
Gunner engages a total of 15 targets with the 120, and the loader expends a total 15 rounds, with 9 remaining after the first engagement, and said 9 being handled to the lower slots in a 30 second gap between the engagements, and promptly slung after. The loader did not tire or slow until the last few rounds which still sat way up at the top of the rack.
In the second and final engagements, the gunner is sending it pretty much as the loader yells “UP”, with the loader being able to keep up with the gunner pretty much holding the trigger down.
The first video was 4.93 seconds.
The second video was 4.48 before cutting out. I would guess that would be 4.6 or 4.7 seconds.
The chieftain even said that there are loaders that can probably do 3 to 4 second.
Lastly the tank gunnery school fails any 7 seconds or longer. After 3 rounds they would not be as fast. But it is a training standard they can not be slower then 7 seconds.
my guy you are not getting through Necrons dense skull. He knows this stuff already, hes known for years, but he keeps pulling these papers out as if they actually hold any weight, hell people have uploaded videos of abrams gunners loading the 120 mm round in5 seconds.
So then we should be able to completely disable a russian tank ( actually any tank with a autoloader ) if its auto loader get slightly damaged right, because you can’t repair a autoloader in the field, hell you can’t repair any critical tank part in the field… but as you well know THIS IS A GAME. Everything is not going to be the way you read stuff off PAPER. It doesnt matter if the door is open or closed. I mean i can also say that a single piece of spall that penetrates the door shouldn’t INSTANTLY BLOW UP THE TANK KILLING EVERYONE, let alone a single piece of spall turning the ammo yellow, shouldn’t detonate the entire ammo storage compartment. I’ve seen video of Abrams loaders loading the 120mm round in 4.5 second continuously non stop for 12 rounds before the video ended.
Lol, brings up data from waaaaaaaaay before the new tanks with spall liners were added and before TWO WHOLE TOP TIER PREMIUM ABRAMS were added. Literally had to pull out the small amount of time where Abrams’ were somewhat viable.
Hell, top tier back then looked like:
Germany - Best tank is 2A6 (No 2 PSO or 2A7V)
USSR - T-80BVM (No T-90M)
Britain - Challenger 2E
China - WZ1001(E) LCT or ZTZ99A
Italy - Ariete AMV
France - Leclerc AZUR
Sweden - 122B PLSS
Israel - Merkava Mk.4 LIC
So essentially, at the time right before two top tier premiums were added, no top tier vehicles with spall liners, around six months after the most recent top tier MBT for them (so a lot of the noobs that play top tier for a short portion of time since there’s something new), and before a lot of new vehicles for other nations were added, the US teams were doing pretty ok? Am I supposed to be shocked or something?
What did the stats look like for the update literally a single month after the data you present, when a lot of tanks for other nations were added and a premium Abrams was added? Or the update two months later where even more new tanks for other nations were added? Or the update a few months after that when another new premium Abrams was added and the addition of top tier tanks with spall liners? What are their stats right now?
Vehicle being completely stationary (i’d love to see a loader handling around a ~20kg round while going at ~30kph through rough terrain in under 5 seconds)
He didn’t make a distinction whether it’s sustained reload speed or not (it isn’t).
Polish Leopard 2 manual indicates ~6.5 seconds sustained reload average (9 rds/min), but that’s under optimal conditions.
This video here is a perfect example:
About ~3.5 seconds between first shot and the cannon coming down, about ~6 seconds between 2nd shot and the cannon coming down.
Can a human loader manage load speeds around 5 seconds? Yes, for some time, but he will never continue to do it like in WT, he will tire out, the vehicle will be moving over terrain (thus adding to physical strain).
Arguing whether the reload is historical or not is IMO pointless (Gaijin uses it as a balancing method!), because as @Necrons31467 stated it’s the average sustained reload rate, not the fastest possible, currently the Abrams gets to enjoy a faster than average load rates, entirely because US players are the worst at top tier (29% WR when Italy manages 52% lol).
20kg is not a lot of weight. I don’t know why you are making it out to be so. You do not seem to have a problem with the speed of m900, and you do realize m900 is 18.5kg right? The loaders do not slow down because of fatigue. It because after a number of rounds fired they have to start looking for the next round to load.
He did make the distinction. He said it is not for the for more then 3 to 4 rounds. After that the loaders have to start hunting for where the next round is.
Hence why good loaders will rearrange the rounds back into the sweet spot in between engagements.
Not really.
These reload times are often performed with the blast doors kept open.
The manual clearly states that after a short number of rounds fired, the loader must start clearing the ejected casings to make room, it’s also not allowed to keep the blast doors open under normal conditions, both of these factors will limit the rate of fire.
The average sustained reload rate of a Leopard 2 is 7.5 seconds (8 rds/min) as per the tank manual, and this can be seen by various recordings:
You can not use a leopard to compare to an Abrams. The tanks have to different fire controls. For example you pointed out that the leopard lifts it’s gun for the loader to load the weapon. The Abrams does not do this it stays where the gunner is aimed unless the gun-sight disconnect switch is hit.
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.
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.
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’.
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?)
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.
