One of the few times which i say “you’re right”
Hell,i even tested it myself on a test drive:depleted the first order rack,put the chronometer of my phone right below my monitor and as soon as i clicked to fire i started the count,and i stopped it only the frame after it let me shot again
Results?7.53s,take into account the human error and you’re sitting at a 7.5s non-first order reload
@Stona_WT can we expect any of the accepted bug reports for the CV9030 MK.IV to be added before everyone takes off for the Holidays or no?
Python 4 - 14.7
Sholef my beloved, you haven’t been forgotten!
Hopefully this trend continues, as there are still some things that need to be changed, such as the 15 ton weight reduction, the possible full gun stabilizer, the possible LRF, and the absolute continuation of reload rate being adjusted!
the Sholef should have NEVER had the fixed 11.9 sec reload from the get go, the whole idea of it being for balance is kinda nonsense when there are several artillery vehicles at/around its BR that already have a 7.5 sec reload such as the Type 99(7.3), the AuF1 (7.0), and the PLZ05(7.7).
then there is things like:
the VIDAR at 8.0(with crew skill based 2 round assisted reload of 7.3 sec stock and 6 sec aced),
and the Bkan 1C at 6.7 (with a 3.2 sec full autoloader (granted, it has limited side-side gun traverse and only 14 rounds, but the ammo load can now easily be offset by the fact it can place an ammo box which means in a stationary position it effectively has 28 rounds with a 3.2 sec reload for all of them))
to give some better slightly better criticism, the Sholef’s reload rate should be crew skill based, but the
shell auto loader still retained, what I mean is, its clear from that “famous” video (for those researching the Sholef) that demonstrates the Sholef’s reload rate/fire rate, that while the auto loader is working, the SHELL reload rate is FIXED, but the reload rate of the CHARGE/PROPELLENT can VARY
when the auto loader is knocked out by combat and/or has some general mechanical failure , that would mean that the crew has to manually load the shell as well and not just the charge/propellent, they can do that because they had that redundancy in place.
id also like to say that the idea that the 7.5 seconds reload being fixed to a non existent 2 round “first stage” is a fair bit silly, as the loader clearly has equally good access to the entire 25 charge/propellent in front of them, and the same likely could be said for the 10 charge/propellent storage right behind them, meaning that if there HAS to be a “first stage” ammo storage, it should be 25-35 charges instead of 2.
also the autoloader itself clearly has easy access to all 60 shells in its container, so the fact that the 2 round first stage is there, and as shown in the hanger x-ray view, is not even placed closely to the autoloader’s grabbing arm is also rather silly.
(this entire section also applies to the PzH 2000, as the 2 round first stage is also silly for very similar reasons)
Here is my suggestion for the Sholef’s reload rate: when the autoloader is working, the reload rate should be ~10-11 seconds on a stock crew, and 7.5 seconds, MAYBE even ~7 seconds, when crew reload skill is maxed out and aced;
when the auto loader has been knocked out, the reload rate should be ~16 seconds on a stock crew and ~12 seconds when maxed out and aced.
Please do forgive me if I made any spelling or grammar mistakes, for a few reasons my mind is currently a bit…groggy? foggy? something like that.
Id also like to apologize if this is too long for those reading this, I’m not very good at making things like thoughts short and this is the best I can do.
To those who read all this, thank you, thank you so much;
To every one here, regardless of having read my entire ramble or not, I hope you all have a happy holidays!
That’s a nice Christmas gift! Thank you!
Python 4’s at 12.0. Lmao.
This thing would go up to 14.0 if it got those.
So what is the difference between AIM-9L/I, AIM-9L/I-1 and AIM-9M?
Smokeless motor for 1.
But
The AIM-9M has a smokeless motor.
Wasn’t AIM-9L/I identical to AIM-9M apart from smoking motor before? So now AIM-9L/I and AIM-9L/I-1 don’t have any difference, do they?
I’m just confused.
No the L/i was generally considered below the 9Ms preformance. The L/i was hardwired the IRRCM into the GCS. The L/i-1 produced further upgraded the GCS for which was then said to be on par with the 9M.
But this is from my limited research on the L/i. I could easily be mistaken.
x2 Python 4 on F-5T Tigris
But sadly I never saw image thai F-5T carries forth Python 4 max
F-16C/D Block 40 Barak BR go to 14.0 next month, and AIM-9M replace with Python 4 in the first major update
But removed medium-range Air-to-Air Missile only (such as AIM-7M, AIM-120A and Derby)
I think gaijin decompression battle rating to 14.7 january 2026, and the first major update or second major update add Python 5 & AIM-120C-7 on F-15I Ra’am
Why, isn’t that plane slow as heck and radar not great? We already have planes at 13.0 with ARH. Why wouldn’t it go to like 12.7. It’s much slower than Germany’s f4 which has agm65d’s and aim120’s.
If you put python 4’s on it. 12.7 seems fitting. Demonstrably wouldn’t belong at 13.0 of the faster, better equipped German f4 is 13.0.
I’m not asking for it, I just don’t see how it belongs even close to 14.0
Fixing around the Player Profile #3…but still no Overall Winrate / Spaded Tanks
Perhaps 14.0 is me being hyperbole, but it would not be far off. Certainly 13.0 or up.
Python-4 is just a nuts missile. 4 second booster, 80(!!) second sustainer, 60-70g pull, 15+km max range, supposedly would have both gatewidth and suspended animation IRCCM.
It would be, by a considerable margin, the best IR AAM currently in the game if added with realistic capability. In the 12-13.0 area, using them would be absolute point and click adventure gameplay lol.
I just think putting Python 4’s on a plane this low in BR is a terrible idea. We have seen constantly from A-10’s / Su-25’s that it’s extremely difficult to find a healthy BR for aircraft who have missiles that are so much more potent than the airframe itself. IMO, Python-4 should only be added to proper top tiers when the meta permits (i.e F-16D / F-15I etc)
Doesn’t it already exist? I thought Japan already has it on f-15jm.
I just realized as I was typing this and going to look it up. I have it wrong. I was confusing python 4 with aam4 which already exists. That’s why I was confused about it being a big deal.
My bad.
You’re all good mate :)
I believe gaijin set 50G overload single plane, 70G with DASH helmet mounted display
Next month gaijin increase battle rating to 14.0 before the first major update Python 4 to replace AIM-9M on F-16C/D Block 40 Barak, but removed medium-range Air-to-Air Missile only
AIM-9M stock instead AIM-9L, next month increase BR to 14.3 and the first major update AIM-9L replace with Python 4
Basically : less teamkill possible when the dude fired it’s AIM-120B from 60km, while you’re dogfighting the target,…
Still no need for MICA-EM as we can’t long-range shot anything
