Thats pre service and about 4 years of development time before it was serviced so useful but not necessarily 100% accurate
Yes whilst true for most other autoloaders the S Tank was (still is) the fastest sustained fire rate of anything ever put into service according to Rickard and a few other sources
That means it can shoot out all 50 rounds with a 3.2 second reload
As per every auto loader however i assume you can change its speed and so a slower time would be more economical in terms of maintenance which we know Sweden prefers
Going through documents of several trials with it they dont usually measure its reload as a whole, just reaction time
overall yes it is wrong in game but it doesnt really suffer from it rn, the biggest issues are still the hull aim as per usual and other bits, such as the commander not having the ability to fire the gun from the commanders sight itself which is a bit weird
The one matrix leaked im pretty sure is still in service with the USA and maybe spain or something
That or its applicable to it/so close its still very classified
However you are comparing it to a manual from 1971, which is what has been shared on the S tank
It’s documents, I mean, America still has crimes against civilians during the 1960s classified, so I wouldn’t put it past some militaries to have some obscure vehicle still classified. Although he claims he found it online, so it’s obviously not classified.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
*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.
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.
Sure, though i wonder how often that would actually happen.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
