Gaijin low it down to make some balance just like the Type 90 it will turn in to an autocannon if we make it historical accurate.
Bro crying with 4 sec reload meanwhile me crying with 7.1s on top tier when ZTZs autoloader was modified to reload 6 sec but Gaijin still think its the old T-72 one. So i have tank with no armor that gets lolpenned by anything with slowest reload in top tier coupled with T-90M that atleast have armor.
1 Like
Would be hard to find documents they’d listen to, but most of the articles I’ve read around the gun do tend to suggest the longer barrel gave it better performance. Would be an effort to track them down, but would think information would be relatively available if people better at research than I investigated it.
Semi-fixed if you’re from a region that they sell to but refuse to invest in server infrastructure, such as Oceania. It will still jump a good 80% of the time, or just refuse to approach the required firing solution.
lol, I came into this topic expecting OP to want a longer reload. 2.5 seconds? Jesus.
?
110 ping for Oceania users to Japan server, 210 to USA server if you have a good ISP. Hull aiming is fine. Maybe you’ve been experiencing packet loss from a poor choice in ISP?
Then that is a ping/packet issue and not a vehicle specific issue. It might be more pronounced on some vehicles more than others but isn’t inherently a vehicle issue.
Because the reload it currently has is as correct.
The reload speed in the bug report would increase its BR by 0.3 - 1.0.
Not sure why you want the 103C to be up to BR 10.0.
Nah, for APDS they recalculate pen, but for apfdsd they forgot.
Has it been reported?
I don’t know.
source: trust me bro
i can try see in my archives to disprove that claim, but if there would be such a lock then that would surely be mentioned in a document. i am lacking in the swedish language so reading all of these will be a bit difficult and take time for me
Hull aiming hasnt been fixed, try aiming the tank horizontally with fully depressed suspension. or god forbid, on slight, uneven terrain. do you even play the strv103’s ?
well this has been greatly stated in the british documents, however i possibly have more documents about this in the archives so i will see what i can find
no its not correct. why should they go up in br even more after recieving historical reload speed? they already went up in br
They went up in BR based on their current reload speed.
For autoloaders with programmable speeds [which the Strv 103 has], any speed slower than its safe operating limit is a real speed.
Just as manual reload speeds of 120mm RH-120 derivative guns being slower than 3.5 seconds is a real speed and we have instances of over 8 seconds in-game.
Autoloaders without programmable speeds such as T-series tanks or AMX-13, are restricted to their real-life speed in-game.
do you believe strv103c at 9.0 is justified? or the shitty hull aim of all the tanks?
strv103 does not have programmable reload speed, they always reload as fast as they could once the reload button was pressed
THERE IS a very short delay in the circut for ammunition like apfsds, so the rammer goes easier and not as forcefully on these ammunitions while ramming them into the breech, however that is such a slight difference that its not really noticeable
At first glance it is stated in the document you linked above that the autoloaders hydraulic system is linked to the main hydraulics at least:
“The oil pressure that is used in the system is taken from the tanks hydraulic system”
Yes, i even had a recent discussion on it’s effectiveness at it’s new BR. It’s still very good for it’s BR. If stat shark ( StatShark - See All Player, Missile, and Vehicle Statistics ) is correct then during June all three 103 version were performing in the top 50 (top 17% out of 291 total vehicles for rank 5 and 6) in kill/death ratio. They were performing better than 83% of all vehicles in rank 5 and 6.
I took a couple of games last month to see how it felt with the new BR and this was my result:
And these are my over all totals over the years:
Could you link to those? I’m curious.
This is a project report made during development of possible solutions and possible end results. Not an actual list of capabilities it had at the end. I think it’s in relation to the two prototypes before the 10 first prototypes (103-0) were built since its from early 1959.
Sidenote:
When you post documents like this you have to also provide the first page showing declassification of the document.
I swear, War Thunder talks about realism when we ask for balance ("we cannot do TO mode because it’s not realistic), but will talk about balance when we want realism (“reload times don’t need to be accurate”)
the aiming is hydropneumatic and electrically, not hydraulic
book cover:
the document(s):
(and this picture here is from an introduction to the tank):
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?
book cover:
document:
well the end results seem to have been ever better when the british were able to test them,
document from same report:
you can read the british report here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fgLr_JepyNgIj0Dq6pjsybsJ6gJtGb82/view?usp=drivesdk
this is funny. why would a 60 year old tank still be classified? almost all strv103 tanks have been scrapped the only remaining 103 tanks are in museums
1 Like
Hell yeah! Another classified documents leak! I was here for the Harrier AND the Stridsvagn 103!
this isnt classified smart man you can easily find the RAC trial documents online
Talk to Necromancer, he’s the one all paranoid about it not saying “declassified” on the front page