Leclerc should have always have had a 5 second reload since it can sustain it irrespective of movement unlike the Abrams which only got a 5 second reload because US mains are just bad.
Well I apologise ahead of time but I have to answer this off topic.
The M1s current reload speed also should have always been what it currently is, to even become a US tank crew member you must pass the Tank Crew Gunnery Skills Test of which the maximum allowed reload speed is 7s.
Practically, a good loader aims for a 4 second reload. And truly exceptional loaders can do it in as low as 3 seconds. Personally, my loaders could all beat 5 seconds even under the most arduous conditions.
I would say the M1s reload is pretty fair except for high speeds (in regards to whether it was possible), Gaijin even acknowledged in that interview which was almost 4 years ago now, that the M1s reload may change.
This “claim” however is also confirmed by actual US testing i.e. they also state movement doesn’t overall actually affect reload speed (unless going way to bloody fast of course):
I understand why French mains are overall still disappointed as there are many things that need to be addressed, but the 5s autoloaded reload was a pretty big buff imo and people seem to be downplaying it like the US players were.
I personally am now looking forward to playing them even more, but hey maybe that’s just me.
Loaders loaded as quickly when the tank was moving (at approximately 12 mph) as when it was stationary
12 mph (20 km/h) is a little bit different to the 50 or so km/h the Leclerc has been seen driving at whilst maintaining a 5 second reload. Really, the Leclerc is stated as being able to reload within 5 seconds at 90 km/h but there’s no footage of this.
Practically, a good loader aims for a 4 second reload. And truly exceptional loaders can do it in as low as 3 seconds
Leclerc can reload in less than 3 seconds under operator demand. But really, the whole point here is that the Abrams can’t sustain a reload of 3 or 4 seconds nevermind doing so whilst driving at over 50 km/h.
→ there was a 5 second reload on dev server
→ 5 second reload didn’t make it to live game
→ there have been no changes to the Leclerc since it was introduced
→ almost 5 years later it finally gets its 5 second reload
It’s a nice buff. But anyone should be whelmed at best by it considering it takes a grand total of 2 lines of code to make the change and it took a comical amount of sources for the fix to come - bug reports for other countries are implemented with only a small fraction of what was provided to the devs.
12 mph (20 km/h) is a little bit different to the 50 or so km/h the Leclerc has been seen driving at whilst maintaining a 5 second reload.
The 12mph was just what it was tested at, regardless, you did state the M1s would not be able to sustain said reload while moving, it can as was noted from what I gave you, I did however also already acknowledge it would not be able to do this at high speeds.
Possibly true, I don’t know the ex tanker stated his loader could do it under 5s " under the most arduous conditions", but it also doesn’t have such a reload speed in game, which is why I said 5 - 7s is fine.
That said if we are being fair, last I checked unlike loaders, autoloaders cannot face any issues in game as they can’t even be damaged which is why I personally have always preferred Autoloader > Loader.
bug reports for other countries are implemented with only a small fraction of what was provided to the devs
Mainly Russia tbh (no I am not saying Russian bias, they just seem to have all the Russian documents), most other nations have this exact same issue, the 5s reload wasn’t even because of a bug report afaik, Gaijin has known for years the M1 7.8 base reload speed was ahistorical as they straight up acknowledged such in said interview.
That said I have another example of what you are talking about, the AIM-9L was bug reported over a year ago that it should pull 32gs, a mere 2gs and still Gaijin hasn’t changed it, meanwhile in said timeframe the R27s were buffed to 35gs.
the maximum rate of fire (6 seconds) for the first stage rack of 18 shells can be achieved both stationary and in motion, and at high speed
If the 5 second sustained reload for the Abrams does take into account motion at ‘high speed’ which is what I believed you were implying, the above document is not indicative of this if it only mentions 20 km/h. I was just pointing out reloading at 20 km/h is a lot different to reloading at 50 km/h.
Also, “under the most arduous conditions” could mean anything from running exercises all day in hot weather, or sustaining a 5 second reload at 50 km/h over the roughest terrain known to man.
Russian tanks, sure. But for for bustle autoloaders, the mechanism is entirely compartmentalised to the autoloader. That is, if the autoloader breaks down because it’s been shot, your either dead or you’ve lost all you’re ammo. You could make it necessary to repair the autoloader in the latter case but it’d be redundant for obvious reasons.
What I also said in that exact same comment you are referring to:
I would say the M1s reload is pretty fair except for high speeds (in regards to whether it was possible)
Once again I don’t know if it is possible at high speeds, all I know is that all the evidence states they can sustain that reload speed whilst moving in general, which was a case against your claim:
Leclerc should have always have had a 5 second reload since it can sustain it irrespective of movement unlike the Abrams
Irrespective of movement would mean the M1s wouldn’t have said reload speed whilst moving regardless of speed i.e. I believe you are basically saying the 5s reload would only be when stationary, which I have already shown isn’t the case.
That was all I was talking about, I already acknowledged at high speeds it probably wouldn’t be possible, but then again I have no clue.
Regardless I do apologise as this is a Leclerc thread and I have brought up something that is completely off topic, I don’t want to interfere with what you guys are trying to do as I’m honestly just here to learn more about the Leclerc and what’s wrong with them.
What happened to me yesterday, and I would like for any of you to tell me if you also experience this, is that the ammunition stored in the back of the turret blew up differently than usual. Before, when a shot got into that ammunition compartment, I would usually have to spend both fire extinguishers and, after more than a minute trying to fight the fire, the tank would often end up burning anyway. Several secondary fires would start happening here and there, and there was no way to put eveything out.
Now, however, that ammo fire behaves as one of those that extinguishes on it’s own after a few seconds (it even has a counter of like 16 seconds) and after that, it goes away rather quickly, without any more damage than losing all but one rounds. Not only you don’t have to spend both fire extinguishers and bear the anguish for minutes, you also have pretty much a guaranteed chance to live.
As I was writing this, it happened again and it was exactly the same. So this seems like a fantastic change.
I have noticed myself getting ammo racked significantly more often happened 4 times in a row to me through the breach at times it seems like they made ammo more sensitive
Today enemy Merkava detonated my ammo rack by just shooting lower left frontal plate, funny thing is i only Lost my ammo and my commander and somehow didnt even Lost front fuel tank.
you had to move the back of the turret away from the engine before. I haven’t tried it with the new patch though.
If you let the ammo cook just over the engine, the fire spreads to said engine and fire extinguishers are needed, so putting the turret 90° left or right relative to the hull will usually mitigate the problem
For French mains, it’s easy to get jaded when multiple features to make your tank competitive get ignored due to “statistics”. Granted, every nation suffers from some aspect of it, but France is so underplayed that the general feeling is that many issues are overlooked based on average player performance.
Don’t get me wrong, that reload buff was a long overdue godsend, but it’s not enough for me to “prefer” the Leclerc over other MBTs. At least one more major buff/correction would be appreciated in my opinion, the easiest of which is a stronger round like SHARD to get the Leclerc to a level similar to the Type 10.
It certainly comes down to a matter of opinion, either would be welcome but preferably both. I personally haven’t had as many issues with mobility compared to firepower in terms of gameplay. Though, I have found that the lack of a LWS does hurt my survivability quite a bit.
Ah yes, because we all remember back when the Abrams had a 5 second reload, had it nerfed to 6 seconds, than had it restored.
/s
The Leclerc’s reload already use to be 5 seconds before it was nerfed for “le balance” reasonings. Even when it was 5 seconds, Leclerc still suffered and continues to suffer from many glaring issues; mainly mobility, and armor.
Having a stupid nerf that never should have happened reverted doesn’t mean we are suddenly going to shut up about the issues that already existed and continue to exist with Leclerc before said reload nerf even occured.
(updated for the 492th time in a row, including more sources and gear ratios for each gear, including speed for each gear, hopefully this will be the last)
