Goes into the same story as the Merkava 4, which according to idf officials has a reload rate of 4.7sec.
GJ is stubborn in this area. No official documents that confirm it, no change.
Besides this, armies can reduce the peacetime fireing rate. Swiss Airforce does this not only ln their F18 but on the AAA Oerlikon KDA too. I had to put the rate limiter to prevent to shoot wartime salvos from the cannons.
Maybe same applies to Leclerc and Merkava. For me would make sense
Well, people say that, but sources do point to loading reliability as one of the key reasons. When reloading at a rate of 6 shots in 30 seconds there was some chance of the shell bouncing causing failure to load.
Afaik the Japanese casette autoloader does use one of its less reliable loading time in Warthunder. So this is mostly down to a balancing decision by Gaijin.
The same way the fact Leclerc has its limited top speed in Warthunder when it has in testimony been able to do 90 kph for sustained periods of time. What Gaijin portrays in game is whatever they deem based on stats to be balanced
Warthunder generally doesn’t do that kind of dicerolls outside of ammo detonation, fuel explosion, and wether a gun will actually fire with damaged breach or barrel.
Considering that the Soviet tanks and the Japanese Type 10 have an autoloader then I don’t see any reason why the Leclercs shouldn’t have a 5s reload. Gaijiggles seem to have a love/hate relationship with the community. We would like some more communication and clarification on what it is they are adding and why the haven’t added other stuff.
That’s what I said in my message above (and in the post I linked on the old forum)… You should maybe have read it before answering ;-)
Do you want a real recharge time without considering that this is a game-This recharge speed should be on the Aces or an Expert.?..For Russian tanks at the Expert level in the game, the recharge time is 7.1 seconds…
In fact …
MZ of T-64/80 type tanks-recharge time-6.0 seconds…
AZ of T-72/T-90 type tanks-recharge time-6.0 seconds for all types of projectiles…8.0 seconds for ATGM…
The cyclogram of the MZ of the T-80UD tank (478B)…
Neither the post you made or the post you linked mention shell bouncing or failure to load/close the breach as a reliability concern in terms of consistently loading the shell
So i did read what you said. You talked about mechanical stress, but i did not, as what i was talking about was shell bouncing.
It should definitely get the 5s reload
The CV90120 is pretty much a better Leclerc at a lower br…
If new tanks are coming in for a possible rank VIII, the Leclerc SHOULD be buffed to bring it closer to IRL values. At least in a perfect world where Escargot sticks with the newfound attention they’ve been giving to France.
The Type 10 while similar to the Leclerc, shouldn’t become the end all be all comparison. The Types 10 needs to be buffed to make it competitive, because that’s all Japan has. The Leclerc is being nerfed.
France shouldn’t be held back by the limitations of other tech trees. Where if the Leclerc becomes better then the Type 10 and Ariete it shouldn’t be our problem. They need to bring their own solutions to their problems.
Every other vehicle performs as if they were in perfect condition with no failures. Because it would just be the U.S, USSR, and Germany dominating because the smaller tech trees aren’t allowed to keep them in check.
Hum sorry, but how would you know since you have exactly 0 battle in both tanks?
Oh you read the stat card?
Meanwhile, I played them… with pretty much equal success…
11.3 or 11.7 does not matter since you would anyway play the CV90120 at BR 11.7 as it is the only Swedish tank at this BR…
But some rules for thee and not for me? Theres tons of other places niche limitations like that do not apply or are blatantly ignored. Its just a good cop out for Gaijin to keep western MBTs gimped to not outperform Russian ones. The Abrams can fire a 120mm in 3s stationary with an ace loader IRL.
This kind of tempo of more realistically 4s (3s is marginal) is exhausting tells me an actual tanker friend and can be maintained for only a very few shots. <6s is what is expected from an M1 loader for the gunnery skills test.
But if you really want to be realistic, also ask about the reload time of a M1 at 30-35 miles per hour on difficult terrain… Well, in certain conditions, the reload is just nearly impossible…
The fact is that the Leclerc is officially certified to reload every 6s still, and every 10s in motion.
Definitely not wrong. But putting both of our points together, Gaijin will just decide what they want to do without regard for reality. The max abrams reload is rather poor, autoloaders arent modeled so we dont have a module to destroy meanwhile our loaders can be destroyed, etc. If Gaijin wants to bend the rules, just make it fair.
I for one would not be opposed to a dynamic system where the first 3 shots if stationary are 3-4s, 10s on move, and 4.5-5s for ace crew stationary or under 10mph after, for a 120mm
With autoloaders being giant modules capable of damage and malfunctioning
Sure, at the end, Gaijin are our masters! 😜
And yes, in a game, it would be acceptable to have the Leclerc reload at 5s, since it can do it (although the wearing and mechanical stress on the autoloader would be deemed excessive).
As for a variable reload in the game, I think that would be too confusing for players (cheater!), probably bad for the gameplay experience, and also most likely badly implemented by our masters.
Well, I mean… Yes. That is true. In what you said in terms of actual realism. But in the context of War Thunder, not every single IRL detail needs to be added and implemented to the game. Especially if it’s probably going to affect the fun or playable aspect of gameplay (can you imagine if tank tracks and barrels take days to repair, long tank barrels getting stuck on buildings, damaged gunner optics cracking your sniper view)?
The developers have also stated that THEY decide what a tank’s actual reload speed is even with other reported sources or documentation saying otherwise. There are still other determining factors to consider before giving a vehicle its actual realistic reloading speed if say it is already quite good in other aspects such as armour, mobility, the shell it uses, how it performs at its current BR, etc…
They do this obviously for the sake of ‘balancing’ a vehicle (especially for top-tier MBTs in general).
Ex: The Japanese Type 10 MBT has a 4-second reload speed to compensate for their poor lack of armour protection compared to other nation MBTs.
The Sturmtiger quite literally took 7-10 IRL minutes to reload one of its massive 380mm rocket mortar shells yet ingame it takes only about a minute.
Many of the 106mm recoilless rifle vehicles that have the cannon itself located outside of the vehicle have to be manually reloaded with an exposed crew member opening up the back breech meanwhile the M50 Ontos reloads all six of its barrels at the same time in under a minute.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
For the French Leclerc, it isn’t exactly well protected compared to other MBTs equipped with similar penetrating APFSDS shells so I’d say for this thread that it is fair that it should get a reload compensation buff or at least a newer shell type if they aren’t going to make any changes for its armour.
The armor change is definitely one of the more important parts needed for the Leclerc. It’s far to squishy with it’s upper front plate and fuel tank.
Mobility is next where it can go faster and certainly have a better turret traverse.
Then the OFL 120 F1B+ can be added to make the Leclerc not have as bad of a dart.
If 5 seconds is added or not by then it wouldn’t be as big of a deal, but it would still be nice so it can actually be considered strong instead of just a niche vehicle for a few high skill players.
There are no empty blocks on tanks…?
Again, my point is not that the Leclerc should not have a 5s reload in game. That would be great and probably fair.
But, my point is that the argument for that should not be “The Leclerc reload is 5s IRL” because it is simply not true.
Again, for those who don’t want to read the all thread and the link I posted above: IRL the Leclerc could technically reload in 5s, but the operating settings are 6s still and 10s in motion, to avoid excessive mechanical stress and wearing
But this isn’t a factor to be taken into account ingame, as there is no such mechanic.
Otherwise, Russian tanks could take up to 15 seconds and all loaders, manual too, would be slower on the move as well.
Yes but then you have also to take the same factor for manual loading. Do you really think an Abrams at 60 km/h on bumpy terrain reloads in 5s? It actually does not reload at all…
Variable time reloading in the game would be just too messy, and bad for the clarity of the gameplay, and probably badly implemented by Gaijin.
