Strv103 wrong reload speed

[Necronomica]

@Stridsvagn-S@psn

the aiming is hydropneumatic and electrically, not hydraulic

Sure, you’re correct there, but i did say that the pressure for the the hydraulic part of the autoloader comes from the main hydraulic system and not a separate one for the loader. I didn’t mention the fact that it also uses gas in addition to the oil pressure as that wouldn’t effect the aiming and so i didn’t think it was necessary to mention. Additionally, the electric part of the loader is just initiation, the actual work is done hydraulicly.

@Stridsvagn-S@psn

the reason why the tank is still strong because its only played by skillful players who really know what they are doing, most people think the tank is utter garbage after their first play and move on, i think its the same for some french vehicles, no?

Which was one of my points as well, it’s a vehicle that doesn’t play at all like any other tank so players that first try it will think it is garbage because they will still try to play it as if it is a turreted tank. If you actually learn how to play it it is a good tank. BR placement is based on how well on average it earns RP and SL per match (among other things), how “effective” it is at it’s BR.

@Stridsvagn-S@psn

well the end results seem to have been ever better when the british were able to test them,

document from same report:

From what i have been able to find that is the loading time ONLY. That section discrubes the loading system, the extraction system is a separate thing. It doesn’t take into account the time it takes to extract the round as that is a separate function. The extraction occurs automatically when the gun is fired but then the gunner needs to press the load button to actually start to load the round after the extraction, that is the time that is 2.5 sec, excluding the extraction time and gunner pressing the button (the button can be held for “automatic” operation).

@Stridsvagn-S@psn

this is funny. why would a 60 year old tank still be classified?

Time has little to do with classification. Things can be re-classified if there is a need. You still need to show that regardless as if you don’t show that you risk a forum ban. “logic” doesn’t cover legalities.

[AlvisWisla]

I believe that the hull aim is the best implementation in and piece of software as of current.
And seeing how many inferior vehicles are becoming 9.0 with the Strf 103C, it’s currently justified.

[Fluffy_Bucketles]

@Necronomica

If you actually learn how to play it it is a good tank. BR placement is based on how well on average it earns RP and SL per match (among other things), how “effective” it is at it’s BR.

Would be better if it had any of the redundant systems.

[Necronomica]

What do you mean?

[Fluffy_Bucketles]

Currently all the rubbish is modeled as one big block, when the thing was split into redundant systems (the thing was an MBT, not a tank destroyer, so this was a consideration) for the parts relevant to mobility / gun traverse (transmission/engine etc). As it stands in the current climate, you’re dead to rights if someone so much as grazes the front of your tank.

Modeling the redundant systems present would at least facilitate some counterplay, even if at a degraded level of performance post hit. It would be very helpful, and address the primary frustration in using the thing for myself, and most new folk to it. Can’t really do anything post impact, in spite of the fact that the design did consider this.

Just a touch bothersome.

[Necronomica]

@Fluffy_Bucketles

Currently all the rubbish is modeled as one big block, when the thing was split into redundant systems (the thing was an MBT, not a tank destroyer, so this was a consideration) for the parts relevant to mobility / gun traverse (transmission/engine etc). As it stands in the current climate, you’re dead to rights if someone so much as grazes the front of your tank.

I think this is already somewhat modeled in terms of gameplay but not separate modules. For example if your engine is taken out you can still angle the tank vertically as well as use the autoloader due to the redundancy present on those. It’s also the only tank in the game that can still angle the hull horizontally while simultaneously repairing the tracks.

I don’t know of any other redundant systems on the top of my head that would be useful for gameplay in that sense.

[Fluffy_Bucketles]

@Necronomica

I think this is already somewhat modeled in terms of gameplay but not separate modules. For example if your engine is taken out you can still angle the tank vertically as well as use the autoloader due to the redundancy present on those. It’s also the only tank in the game that can still angle the hull horizontally while simultaneously repairing the tracks.

It is a half assed attempt and frankly would be better off if they had of just modeled the redundant systems. Being stuck static without the capability to face the enemy is shit, especially when if modeled correctly, this would be less of a problem in many situations.

Just because “It’s also the only tank in the game that can still angle the hull horizontally while simultaneously repairing the tracks.” is not a reason to say it is remotely modeled. It’s like saying someone’s entombed in cement, but hey, at least they’ve got a straw to breathe through. The current iteration is wanting, and even if they took away this arguably less than useful track behaviour, a proper iteration would be significantly better.

It’s just irritating to be screwed because they can’t be bothered to model it properly, whilst they cry “realistic”. Hell, the track behaviour would barely matter if it behaved the same as other tanks, as I’ve almost never lost both tracks except to people who can’t aim.

[Necronomica]

@Fluffy_Bucketles

It is a half assed attempt and frankly would be better off if they had of just modeled the redundant systems. Being stuck static without the capability to face the enemy is shit, especially when if modeled correctly, this would be less of a problem in many situations.

I don’t think it could do this IRL if the transmission and/or main engine was knocked out. Those were (as far as i know) needed to aim horizontally.

What redundant system is it exactly that you are referring to wanting implemented?

(Currently the redundant systems that are present don’t even have the modules modeled and can’t be knocked out at all so that is a big advantage as well)

[Fluffy_Bucketles]

@Necronomica

I don’t think it could do this IRL if the transmission and/or main engine was knocked out. Those were (as far as i know) needed to aim horizontally.

From my investigation, I have reached the conclusion that the loss of the primary would degrade it very significantly but still permit some functionality. Which would be a net positive over what we have. However, it also isn’t the primary issue, and in the event that this conclusion is incorrect, so be it. Even just being able to slightly retreat would be a net positive. After all, they won’t fix the infinite fires any time soon.

@Necronomica

What redundant system is it exactly that you are referring to wanting implemented?

Even just the ability to retreat with a secondary engine providing degraded functionality would be a net positive over what we currently have. As it stands, folk can snag an area that should not leave it static, and then just repeat hitting that same spot over to cause constant fires. Even just being able to move a short distance behind cover would be a net positive.

@Necronomica

(Currently the redundant systems that are present don’t even have the modules modeled and can’t be knocked out at all so that is a big advantage as well)

*The half baked attempt to model it.

It would be better for gameplay of both the individuals playing the tank, and those against the tank, for these systems to be modeled. Gives the player a chance, encourages people to develop better aim to facilitate crippling it properly.

But too tired to carry on about it. It’s just a pet peeve.

[Necronomica]

@Fluffy_Bucketles

From my investigation, I have reached the conclusion that the loss of the primary would degrade it very significantly but still permit some functionality. Which would be a net positive over what we have. However, it also isn’t the primary issue, and in the event that this conclusion is incorrect, so be it. Even just being able to slightly retreat would be a net positive. After all, they won’t fix the infinite fires any time soon.

Necronomica:

I think you’re correct in that either engine could technically drive the tank on its own and that would be a reasonable ask to have modeled in the game as well. But i wonder how much it would actually matter as the only time you get the engine knocked out without also having the transmission knocked out is when you’re shot from the side, at which point both engines are hit anyway. I can’t really think of any situation where someone would be able to hit just one of the engines without hitting the other or the transmission at the same time.

@Fluffy_Bucketles

Even just the ability to retreat with a secondary engine providing degraded functionality would be a net positive over what we currently have. As it stands, folk can snag an area that should not leave it static, and then just repeat hitting that same spot over to cause constant fires. Even just being able to move a short distance behind cover would be a net positive.

Sure, though i wonder how often that would actually happen.

@Fluffy_Bucketles

*The half baked attempt to model it.

I mean, the tank was introduced to the game long before any of the detailed internals were introduced. Sure, modeling it now is reasonable but would ultimately just benefit the enemies (which is fine, it just might need an adjustment in BR depending on how much it affects the performance of it).

[Fluffy_Bucketles]

@Necronomica

I can’t really think of any situation where someone would be able to hit just one of the engines without hitting the other or the transmission at the same time.

The 103 had 2 transmissions in a similar sense that it had the 2 engines. I do not know how well it functions without one in working order as I do not have records on it, but from my brief investigation of the thing, it appears it would be in a similar sense to the two engines. Thing would not be fighting back effectively, but would have some limited mobility. Sweden was aware of the limitations of a casemate main battle tank, and the advantages, and did take the effort to resolve some of the limitations with redundant and split up systems. Unfortunately, I do not have anywhere with a 103 near me to terrorise about this particularly thing.

Not asking for the thing to be moving around at a rapid rate of knots, but from my brief investigation, we should have some degraded mobility post penetration if said penetration is a poorly aimed shot. This would benefit both players who bothered to aim, and players who wanted to have some fun with an S tank without being knocked out the moment someone decides to drop heat rounds on the outer edge of your ufp to keep the tank burning down.

@Necronomica

I mean, the tank was introduced to the game long before any of the detailed internals were introduced. Sure, modeling it now is reasonable but would ultimately just benefit the enemies (which is fine, it just might need an adjustment in BR depending on how much it affects the performance of it).

Provided my familiarity with how it functions post loss of a transmission, I would posit that it would be both a benefit to the foe, and a benefit to the player. Well placed shots would disable it, as they should. Badly placed shots would no longer be impossible to counter purely because it burns the tank down and you can’t move even slightly to get out of cover.

Though a BR drop would also help. The armour really means nothing at the BR it is at, and is partially why the thing is so irritating to play. Rounds that won’t reach the crew will just keep the engine burning. Arguably much of that rating for Sweden, when compared to the competition, is a bit above where it ought to be. 103 is my favourite, and whilst it is good in game when you have the opportunity to use it, Gaijin’s insistence on forcing it into a TD role is a bit irritating. It is presently pretty unpleasant to use, for the most part.

[Necronomica]

@Fluffy_Bucketles

The 103 had 2 transmissions in a similar sense that it had the 2 engines.

Not from what i have been able to find.

( Technology of tanks : Ogorkiewicz, Richard M : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Page 263)

Both engines are connected to the same output geartrain, i think the diesel might have had an automatic variable transmission as an extra step in-between it and the geartrain but i’m not fully certain, i’ve also seen some images that i’m not sure if i can share. Either way it’s almost impossible to hit one thing without also hitting a lot of the rest of the components as well. Especially from the front.

Here is a video where they lift the entire powerpack out of the tank (timestamped to 9:30):
https://youtu.be/i0yLpP2LQwE?si=q5KOv65BT85-cQJl&t=570

At 11:37 he says “And these two engines, they are combined in the gearbox in front of both engines”

[Fluffy_Bucketles]

Yeah, I double checked some stuff and I read a shoddy translation and a source of dubious value. Indicated that it was separated to left and right hemispheres, but looked up a diagram and you’re definitely correct. Would not be the first time, won’t be the last.

[Necronomica]

Happens to the best of us :)

[Lewin_Schaedler-psn]

systems missing/not working (and other things) from my view:

hullaim is not working, the 2 seperate engines as stated, three second reload, accurate velocity and penetration as stated, commander sight is missing its fcs strv103a strv103c, implemented clutchbrake maneuver system, commander copula rotation not working in 3rd person strv103a, fixed ribbed armor of the tanks strv103a strv103c, heat grating (fence) that would actually work against heat on strv103c (imagine), not dying to fire because you ran out of fpe (most bullshit and unrealistic thing on s-tank series yet), incorrect powerpack placement in strv103c (sits too low in tank),
modeled autoloader would be nice to see, wrong 3rd crewmember labeled as “loader” should be radio operator or driver instead, missing ability to lower ground clearance strv103a strv103c (not sure about zero series prototype)

might add more to the list if more comes to my mind

also, it would be really nice to see strv103b in the future, it they could group all the tanks (strv103a - 103c) in a folder, instead of the tanks being foldered with centurions now. and of course strv103D prototype as event vehicle, however theres little to no info on the tank and the only prototype made sits at arsenalen hidden from the public

[Necronomica]

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

hullaim is not working

This works for me, what issues are you having?

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

the 2 seperate engines as stated

Sure.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

three second reload

Reload times are up to DEV’s discretion.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

accurate velocity and penetration as stated

Sure, if sources can be found and provided then make a report :)

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

commander sight is missing its fcs strv103a strv103c

Do you mean the module in x-ray or the functionality? because the functionality and game mechanic is there.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

implemented clutchbrake maneuver system

I don’t know what this would mean in terms of game mechanics.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

commander copula rotation not working in 3rd person strv103a

This works for me.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

fixed ribbed armor of the tanks strv103a strv103c

What do you mean?

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

heat grating (fence) that would actually work against heat on strv103c (imagine)

I’m having no issues with this, could you please provide an example of when it hasn’t worked?

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

not dying to fire because you ran out of fpe (most bullshit and unrealistic thing on s-tank series yet)

Huh? what do you mean?

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

incorrect powerpack placement in strv103c (sits too low in tank)

If you can prove this then please report it :)

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

modeled autoloader would be nice to see

Sure :) Detailed internals are planned for a lot of tanks, not sure about which ones though or if the 103 ones are included in those plans.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

wrong 3rd crewmember labeled as “loader” should be radio operator or driver instead

Sure, can be reported.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

missing ability to lower ground clearance strv103a strv103c

If you have sources it can be reported :)

[Lewin_Schaedler-psn]

@Necronomica

This works for me, what issues are you having?

try tracking a moving enemy tank on uneven terrain

@Necronomica

Reload times are up to DEV’s discretion.

ok then

@Necronomica

Sure, if sources can be found and provided then make a report :)

this has already been applied to apds of strv103-0 and strv103a they have 358mm pen point blank and 1500m/s velocity compared to centurion 350mm pen point blank and something something 1470m/s velocity. but strv103c apfsds has exact same penetration of 337mm (dont quite remember pen?also dont remember exact velocity rn) as other the other swedish centurion with this apfsds. Why?

@Necronomica

Do you mean the module in x-ray or the functionality? because the functionality and game mechanic is there.

no, you cannot fire the gun via commanders view

@Necronomica

I don’t know what this would mean in terms of game mechanics.

basically, faster turning of the tank while on the move, a rapid turn to engage enemies faster

@Necronomica

This works for me

doesnt rotate 360°. does on strv103c tho

@Necronomica

What do you mean?

the armor is bugged, sometimes it gives a flat surface for apds, heat, etc. for easier pen, sometimes it adds 700mm of armor. its unreliable and needs fixing

@Necronomica

I’m having no issues with this, could you please provide an example of when it hasn’t worked?

the “fence” doesnt work ~80% of the times and heat easily passes through. whats the explain here?

@Necronomica

Huh? what do you mean?

i didnt formulate this enough, its a issue with all vehicles generally. on s-tank series, the first penetrating shot has already destroyed the fuel tank up in front the transmission. 1fpe charge gone. the second penetrating hit into the tank sets the tank on fire. please explain how the remaining diesel is able to burn for so long and kilm the crew behind 30mm armored plate within seconds? trash game mechanic

@Necronomica

If you can prove this then please report it :)

already reported long ago, no attention

@Necronomica

If you have sources it can be reported :)

gave up after the 4th report

also, now i remember something more, when having hullaim on and ur driving, then ur braking to stop the vehicle, when it stops the gun continues to go up vertically, and only then lowers again to where you are aiming. doesnt happen when hullaim is turned off for some reason. this killed me countless times, basically it acts like a tank who has a heavy gun who swings like shit when you stop

[Necronomica]

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

try tracking a moving enemy tank on uneven terrain

I tried in test drive, no real issue. At most the vertical doesn’t “catch up” as fast as the horizontal so you have to aim a bit diagonal to be on point. But other than that no other issues. What issue are you having?

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

this has already been applied to apds of strv103-0 and strv103a they have 358mm pen point blank and 1500m/s velocity compared to centurion 350mm pen point blank and something something 1470m/s velocity. but strv103c apfsds has exact same penetration of 337mm (dont quite remember pen?also dont remember exact velocity rn) as other the other swedish centurion with this apfsds. Why?

No idea. You can bug report it here (just search a bit first so that you don’t report something that is already reported and known about): (Gaijin.net // Issues)

A guide on how to report bugs can be found here: ([Navigation] Technical Knowledge Base | War Thunder Wiki)

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

no, you cannot fire the gun via commanders view

Ah, then i missunderstood what you ment. Report it as described above.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

basically, faster turning of the tank while on the move, a rapid turn to engage enemies faster

So generative steering sort of? That isn’t a thing in the game at all for any tank. Many are asking for the mechanic though.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

doesnt rotate 360°. does on strv103c tho

Ah, then one of the two is wrong, i don’t think anything was changed on the cupola between the A and C. If you can find evidence of one of them being wrong then report it as described above.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

the armor is bugged, sometimes it gives a flat surface for apds, heat, etc. for easier pen, sometimes it adds 700mm of armor. its unreliable and needs fixing

Wouldn’t that be how it would work IRL as well though? Or am i misunderstanding something?

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

the “fence” doesnt work ~80% of the times and heat easily passes through. whats the explain here?

I’ve never seen this happen and can’t get it to happen in the protection analysis. Hence my confusion.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

please explain how the remaining diesel is able to burn for so long and kilm the crew behind 30mm armored plate within seconds? trash game mechanic

Subjective and applies to all tanks.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

already reported long ago, no attention

You can message a Technical Moderator to ask about an update for the report.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

gave up after the 4th report

See previous answer.

[Lewin_Schaedler-psn]

@Necronomica

I tried in test drive, no real issue. At most the vertical doesn’t “catch up” as fast as the horizontal so you have to aim a bit diagonal to be on point. But other than that no other issues. What issue are you having?

aiming brother, aiming. sure i can keep the gun on target, but i cannot aim precise at all. i dont really get how you keep defending the hullaim mechanic, sure its much better than it was years before, but it still is nowhere perfect. in world of tanks the strv103 aims just as smooth as every other tank

@Necronomica

So generative steering sort of? That isn’t a thing in the game at all for any tank. Many are asking for the mechanic though.

basically, hope to see such a mechanic in the future, this game has much potential afterall

@Necronomica

Wouldn’t that be how it would work IRL as well though? Or am i misunderstanding something?

well, its supposed to act like some sort of spaced armor, the “ribs” are like a seperate piece on top of the 40mm plate, you can see for yourself how the armor reacts in this facebook Redirecting... video where they fire slpprj m/66 (?) at it

i have bouced and tanked apfsds i absolutely shouldnt have, while irl 3BM22 fired from a t72 went straight through the armor plate of the strv103c and exited at the rear of the tank…

@Necronomica

I’ve never seen this happen and can’t get it to happen in the protection analysis. Hence my confusion.

weird, in my experience with over 1500 battles with strv103c heatfs goes through like butter. it works sometimes, but thats a rather rare occasion. also the “fence” just falls off after it has been shot 2-3 times which is …interesting

@Necronomica

Subjective and applies to all tanks.

any consideration of making this more realistic in the future?

@Necronomica

You can message a Technical Moderator to ask about an update for the report.

how and where can i ask this?

[Necronomica]

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

aiming brother, aiming.

Could you be more precise? What EXACTLY is the issue with the aiming?

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

in world of tanks the strv103 aims just as smooth as every other tank

…

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

well, its supposed to act like some sort of spaced armor,

Yep, I think this is just a symptom of the volumetric calculations War thunder does for all penetrations, i don’t think there is going to be any reasonable way to change this.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

video where they fire slpprj m/66 (?) at it

M/61 (Mentioned at 2:30 in the video), very interesting video, thanks for the link! :)

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

i have bouced and tanked apfsds i absolutely shouldnt have, while irl 3BM22 fired from a t72 went straight through the armor plate of the strv103c and exited at the rear of the tank…

The issue here is likely that WT counts where the point of the projectile hits and not the sides of it, so IRL if for example a APDS hits the “rib” just a small bit under the tip it angles the projectile up. In game that counts as a hit with the tip of the projectile and so just count it as extra thickness. which means it should also ads the same thickness to APFSDS. (not entirely sure about this though, a “fix” could be to apply some sort of “angle” modifier to have some shells bounce easier on those specific “ribs”).

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

weird, in my experience with over 1500 battles with strv103c heatfs goes through like butter. it works sometimes, but thats a rather rare occasion.

I only have 300 games in it, but still, not something i’ve experienced. If it happens again feel free to link the replay here in this thread :)

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

also the “fence” just falls off after it has been shot 2-3 times which is …interesting

Yeah, that’s the same for many other armor pieces on other tanks as well. Likely a game convention thing.

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

any consideration of making this more realistic in the future?

No idea, i have no connection to Development or any of those operations, Game Masters handle in-game chat and name bans. :)

@Lewin_Schaedler-psn

how and where can i ask this?

You can find all the teams and the areas they handle listed here: ( Who is who and Reporting Procedure ) . Make sure to not message any of the Seniors first as you likely wont get an answer. If you don’t get an answer from the first in the list after a few days then add a few more Moderators to the original message instead of sending a new one, that preserves the date of the message and doesn’t make it look like a new request. Then just keep adding more of them from the list every few days or so until you get an answer :)