Updated List Of Tanks Around 7.7 BR That Need A Reload Buff To Become Competitive again

The old thread got slightly off topic so here’s a new try to get this going.

The War Thunder meta has shifted towards a faster playstyle over the years and these tanks are simply not good enough to warrant such an insanely long reload. Some of the higher BR ones are unplayable even in a slight uptier so to make them viable again without making them op they should get their reload rate adjusted to cope with the faster meta instead of moving down in BR.

T32/T32E1 18.8s13.5s
M103 19.3s13.5s
M60A2/M551 15.6s13.5s
Jagdtiger 23.621s
Maus/E100 23.619s
Object 268 22.3s20s
IS-2 (all variants) 27s19s
IS-3 26s20s
IS-6 20.5s16.5s
IS-4M 27s19s
T-10A/T-10M 19.5s14s
FV4005 38.5s30s
Conway 19.4s14s
Conqueror 19.4s14s

Do you agree? Give your reasoning in the comments
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Examples given are the stock reload but the same difference should be applied to aced reload times. (These times are slightly different than in the old discussion post)

Reload is used as a means to balance the game they don’t have to be 100% realistic.

4 Likes

I generally agree, but I think the T-10M specifically is fine how it is. I bring it in my 8.7 lineup and it does just fine at its BR, and in an uptier it definitely struggles though that’s an issue of its armor being useless, not the gun being bad.

4 Likes

It’s really not. The gun handling, depression, mobility and reload are much worse than other tanks at that BR. It gets penned by everything at its BR and it can pen most things but the reload is twice as long. The T-10M need this buff.

2 Likes

Isn’t there already an exact thread for this?

Screenshot 2024-03-27 at 01-57-05 Updated List Of Tanks Around 7.7 BR That Need A Reload Buff To Become Competitive again - Game Discussion _ Realistic Battle - War Thunder — official forum

Screenshot 2024-03-27 at 01-58-30 Updated List Of Tanks Around 7.7 BR That Need A Reload Buff To Become Competitive again - Game Discussion _ Realistic Battle - War Thunder — official forum

I think the heavy tanks reload buff is too much away from the realism part.
For me the stats should be

KV-2 (all veriants) 43s → 32s
IS-2 (all variants) 27s → 23s
IS-3 26s → 22s
IS-6 20.5s → 18s
IS-4M 27s → 23s
T-10A/T-10M 19.5s → 16s

T32/T32E1 18.8s → 16.5s
M103 19.3s → 17s
M60A2/M551 15.6s → 13.5s

FV4005 38.5s → 33.5s
Conway 19.4s → 16s
Conqueror 19.4s → 16s

Jagdtiger and Maus buff makes sense due to large internal space, Loader efficiency should be higher.
Object 268 had Loader assist, therefore buff justified.

Additionally KV-2 reload should be buffed too. No way a 40kg HE shell and its fire charge requires longer time to reolad compared to 183mm 72.57kg HESH and its fire charge. The KV-2 also have enough space for Loaders to be efficient.

3 Likes

I think the heavy tanks reload buff is too much away from the realism part.

Realism doesn’t matter. You can look at what they did to the Sturmtiger to make it playable.

IS-2 (all variants) 27s → 23s

The IS-2 is among the worst vehicles in the whole game right now. That 4s wont change much.

IS-4M 27s → 13s

Out of the mentioned IS tanks the IS-4 has by far the most turret space so the buff would be justified by realism somewhat but 13s is a bit low. Though I’d love to see how it would perform in game lmao.

Additionally KV-2 reload should be buffed too.

I think low tier long reload tanks are a topic for another debate but sure why not.

Oops, I meant 23s , 13s will be too much buff 😂

But I get where you are coming from. It is up to Gj for the buffs tho, power of change is not from us.

Depends on player, I generally preform well in IS-2’s. I even bring model 43 up to my 6.7 line up

I agree with all except IS-3. The IS-3 has tons of armor but it comes at the cost of crew efficency and therefore firepower. It should play like a Jadgtiger with a slow turning turret but very long reload.

If the IS-2 was suppose to be hard to take out by the PaK 40 the IS-3 should be hard to take out by the PaK 42.

Buffing the reload of the IS-3 would make it way more effective than it actual was or should be.

With an immense increase in protection but otherwise worse performance it should be a small improvement over the IS-2 1944 overall.

The IS-4M on the other hand achives both good protection and crew ergonomics but was simply too heavy for the Soviet railroad system to be useful.

At the moment the IS-2 1944 is probably the weakest 6.7 heavy tank, even though it now features that ahistorical 130mm lower plate.
Buffing the RoF would put it more on par with the other heavy tanks.

The IS-3 is currently 7.3, which doesn’t make sense to me. It only advantage over the IS-2 was surviving getting hit more often but you also have to survive more because it’s slower and has worse traverse.
While it is more survivable at some range, it’s also very easy to disable at close range.
At 7.0 with a long reload would put it up against all the WW2 tanks it was suppose to fight, yet it wouldn’t be super effective appart from soaking up hits.

I can all see these heavy tanks having an increased RoF because I think it would be quite possible, but I’m generally against unrealistic reload times. (Like the T-54 being 7.5s vs. M60 and Leo with 6.7)

they could play all these stupid buffet ideas, small maps and modern vs old tanks, in arcade mode, it would be so good if realistic mode was realistic

1 Like

Unless you have documentation they can reloaded that fast, they won’t be changed.

1 Like

I assure you, Sturmtiger surely can reload faster than KV-2, ignore historical records telling us about 10 minutes reload time, loader is simply on methamphetamine.

1 Like

Reload is a balance matter, the only case it isnt is when it’s autoloaded/ loaded by mechanism.
In that matters they cant make it reload quicker than autoloader IRL can, but as you can see with Type 90 & 10, Leclerc, T-80U (+) and probably several more, they can option to choose less quick reload times, even if autoloader allows for a faster reload.

Regarding the documentation stating reload times, it sure can be used as reference point for them, but again, in cases of Sturmtiger and few more heavies that isn’t really a case.

1 Like

Are these aced crew reload times? I swear my conqueror had a 16.8 second reload already or something like that. And I’m still confused how the Conway has the same reload as the conqueror considering it’s as room as the fv400t with a 2 stage 120mm. The reload for the chieftain is already too slow but especially for the Conway. It’s a bit like the Alecto when it has a 9 second reload for an open top 95mm howitzer round? Somehow….

I never got this, they have a br system for a reason. Make the tanks realistic and then balance them on their performance. Would stop gaijin from having to artificially nerf tanks or buff others because they don’t think it would fit the br they want it at. It may be a good idea in theory but gaijin can’t be trusted to balance tanks acuractly based on reloads and armour.

Reloads are still based on documentation. Also the Sturmtiger is the only vehicle with an artificially shorten reload.

Tweaking only one parametr of a vehicle to justify lower/higher BR isnt a great idea.
Faster reload is nice, but a chnage of reload in for example 3 seconds for a tank with an already big reload time is sure nice, however increasing BR over it is a bad idea.

Reload is a soft stat they can use to balance. While BR is a hard stat. The rest is utter nonsense.

The entire breach meta is all artificial. Reload can change but it really should be as realistic as possible.

1 Like

The difference is that the FV4005 stores shells and propellant in the turret, while the KV-2 has all 40+kg shells in the hull.

Of course this layout might be wrong.

There are other things to consider. The FV4005 turret is large enough for the loaders to stand upright, the KV-2s turret is at most 1.5m high.
The gun on the KV-2 is old artillery piece with interupted screw breech. Before the gun can be reloaded one loader needs to open up the gun.
The FV4005 has a ramp that allows the loaders to glide the ammo from the stoage to the gun, without having to hold onto to them for long.

Of course it also needs to be considered that the FV4005 was only a prototype and carries merely 12 rounds, compared to the KV-2 which carried 36.

The KV-2s targets, bunkers, obstacles and defensive structures, wouldn’t move out of the way.
RoF wasn’t really an issue.