If Abrams cant have spall liners for historical reason then russian MBTs can never get a reload rate buff for their auto loaders unless it actually had a better reload rate in real life.
1 Like
Which is exactly how it is in game. the russian autoloaders dont get an unhistorical buff in game and I’m not advocating for them to get one.
5s reload isn’t unhistorical as well
1 Like
I never said it was, and i dont want them to change it.
›unhistorical
If it were a 3 second or 4 second reload like many many Abrams tanker love to claim, then yes that would be both unhistorical and, if abiding by US Army GST standards, not physically possible. But 5-6 seconds is perfectly manageable under most circumstances, at least in regard to 120mm armed Abrams. As for 105mm M1s, I couldn’t tell you because I’ve never served on one. And that’s the difficult thing about arguing over things like reload speeds in war thunder, it’s all arbitrary and normally is adjusted for balance reasons with little (if any) resemblance to reality.
But 5-6 seconds for a quick reload is perfectly possible, and I say that because I’ve done it myself and have had loaders who could do it handily.
5 Likes
I was never argueing about reload time, what it should be or weather its historical or not. I have no idea why people have started talking about what is historical and what isnt, because like you said, it doesnt matter because it gets changed for balance reasons, as it always has.
They actually do reload in 5 seconds when in sequential firing mode for T-64/T-80/T-90 or at the very least 6 seconds according to other sources
6.5 for T-72 or a maximum of 7 seconds according to other sources
So the autoloaders are artificially nerfed, AFAIK Gaijin is meant to have autoloaders at their actual proven reload speed. Since War Thunder we’re often only taking APFSDS rounds then optimal reloading conditions should be used. 5 Seconds for T-64, T-80 and T-90 with 6.5 for T-72.
As I understand, that’s only supposed to be the case with manual reloading.
yes they do. everytime they are destroyed, you can just repair them. You can’t repair a autoloader in the field.
1 Like
how long before they break into a 1000 pieces? because gaijin doesnt model these things for autoloaders, if you actually look at sources most autoloaders in game can reload faster in differnet modes in real life, but the catch is that it damages the systems for most of them, i can expect that its the same reason here, checking otu your sources im pretty sure im right sicne the only times those speeds you mentioned are cited they quite literlly state it as a minimum, citing Tankograd: T-80
if the gunner needed to fire at the same target with the same type of ammunition twice in a row (such as if he were engaging a tank with APFSDS, for example), the loading cycle would take 7.5 seconds. This matches the claimed 7.5 second reload speed implied by the combat rate of fire according to the manual.
it clearly states the its also the reload speed claimed by the tank’s own manual, from that we can easily assume that is the speed the tank is expected to operate 90% of the time.
ìi have also found this: T 72B Main Battle Tank Technical Manual | PDF, which LOOKS legit but i cant really verify its legitimacy because im not familiar with russian DOD documents, this manual claims to be valid up to 1990 and it states a time for loading one shot of the T72B Autoloader of 8 seconds, granted im pretty sure its either a rounding or it include the time it takes from firing to getting another round in, it also could be bollocks, but im gonna keep researching and come back to you.
ace crew being 5 seconds for abrams is realistic, hell some crews irl require consistent 4 second reload.
1 Like
Not always, there are several autoloading french vehicles that have their reloads nerfed so they can stay at lower br’s
1 Like
I’m not seeing any indicators there is some kind of “overclocked” setting for the autoloaders Soviet tanks use, seems to just be factory configured and perhaps field technicians could tweak it, but these mechanisms seem wholly uncomplicated in their use. Pick a shell type, press the button to load that shell, maybe a “sequential mode” setting where it keeps loading shells of the same type from the carousel until it runs out. Otherwise seems no room for some kind of “break the autoloader in exchange for some speed” option.
Well this is an interesting dilemma isn’t it.
I think a large part of the reloading in War Thunder is simply down to the fact that guns usually have an optimal elevation angle to reload. Pretty much all guns have this, in the sources I cited, they make it clear that up to a second of the reloading cycles is spent aligning the gun after the “load” button is pressed.
But I think this is generally ignored as it isn’t implemented in the game.
These seem to be conservative “combat rate of fire” estimates rather than strict technical statements about the reloading mechanism. Seems much more to do with targeting, fire control and other factors than just the mechanism putting new shells in.
Those are all well and good on the range, maybe even an (un)healthy deal of laploading, but it’s different in combat, on the move and so on, or just sustained loading.
It’s rare to see anyone quote these tanks as haveing 20-15/12 rounds per minute, almost always something like 10-9. Presumably an average for general combat conditions. As the Tankograd source states, probably manual reloads tank to 5-4 rounds per minute if the tanks are actually using more than a fraction of their speed.
I wish War Thunder would implement variable reload times, broken down into seperate steps with their own timers that are affected differently, dependent on the various conditions of reloading. Loader fatigue/stamina etc. I also wish the gun elevation during reload would be implemented.
The game ignores the huge list of downsides human loaders have in exchange for giving a consistent, if conservative, average estimate about reloading time. Conveniently enough for skilled crew to win reload duels with Soviet autoloaders.
I’m a sucker for realism in mechanics at almost any cost.
I can imagine why they don’t do this though, it would basically incentivise the already strong tactics of camping and punish aggression, which the game seems to try and make people play aggressively. Since a stationary tank would reload fastest, mobility would be punished when it comes to fighting.
But it’s strange because it ignores a vital aspect of the asymetric balance. It’s also just how tanks are generally actually used, slowing down to fire on the move, reload and these other things. Autoloaded ones don’t care about this since they have a massive advantage.
Sort of interesting too that all these 130mm+ guns basically have to be autoloaded and all the NATO generals whining about autoloader unreliability disappears in a puff of smoke, I also never saw any navies complaining about automatic loaders either, nor any armies saying bolt action is the only way to go since these automatic weapons are newfangled and less reliable.
Same seems to have happened with T-64 and T-80B, even more than the other Soviet autoloaders which are performing below spec I have provided.
you are failing to adress my main point though, your assumption of the autoloader underperfoming seems pretty unfounded considering the sources you yourself provided. 8 second doesnt look particularly conservative (probably more like 7.7) when you take into account what they probably mean is time that it takes to shoot reload and shoot at the same target, im very much into the camp of believe the 7.1 second in game is plenty realistic, and whilst human loaders have their downsides they also have plenty of benefits, not to mention you will hardly ever have a tank needing to fire enough rounds in a small timelapse to tire a loader to the point of signifcantly ampering his performance. even in war thunder itself you will hardly ever find yourself firing more than 10/15 rounds in a short enough time to significantly tire a loader. these mechanics arent made for a game which struggles with consistency with the already implemented mechanics.
Minimum reload cycle is 7.1 seconds:
Average combat rate of fire is 7.5 seconds:
The added 0.4s is due to autoloader often being stocked as: ‘‘APFSDS - HE - HEAT - APFSDS - HE - HEAT’’ which means the autoloader spends slightly more time on rotation.
1 Like
Since those sources say things like “However, the autoloader itself is capable of loading a round and returning the gun to aim on a target of the gunner’s choosing in only 6 seconds if the gunner chooses not to change ammunition types, so the maximum technical rate of fire is actually 10 rounds per minute.” for T-80. The cyclograms cited in the documents even contradict this since they include the time for the “reload” button to be pressed and show this process takes 6 seconds if you make conservative combat ammunition load, ammunition order and count the bloke pressing a button as if that’s relevant to the strict mechanism of the carousel.
T-80 cyclogram.
T-72 cyclogram
T-72 cyclogram at least doesn’t count the time to press the load button, but it does count the time to skip 2 shells which aren’t of the type requested and even counts the time for the cannon to recoil when firing, which it does at 7.4 seconds. These are including other things like cannon elevation to the required reload angle, which again doesn’t happen in War Thunder. In other words 7.4 is the normal/average given combat ammunition loadout, load order and practical facts technically unrelated to the strict mechanism of the autoloader operation itself.
I’m not familiar with this document, it states 8rpm (7.5 seconds) for combat and 7.1 seconds for the next shell in the carousel, which seems in line with what Tankograd’s cyclogram says. Unsure if they are counting the time to press the reloading button or not. Since it’s just a plain number we can’t exactly analyse what is measured. It’s possible combat reloading includes aiming at a new target,we don’t know without further clarification.
I’m curious why Fofanov insists 6.5 seconds though, but I cite Fofanov because it’s a reliable expert source. It’s possible that’s the strict time for the mechanism once the gun is properly elevated and until the new shell is in the barrel, presumably still at reload elevation.
This brings into the point that, as an example, T-72B3 would reload differently since the elevation mechanism is like 15 times faster than earlier models. So is this elevation period considered part of the reload rate?
No.
It’s simply the speed at which the autoloader completes a full reload cycle.
That’s not a reliable source, it’s an old website that hasn’t been updated in ages from what I recall.
It isn’t, this is a error in the way Gaijin implements elevation speed.
A similar discussion is going on around the Leopard 2A4. The maximum rate of elevation the system is capable of is 45°/sec, but it is limited to 10°/sec for the gunner’s controls.
Similarly, the T-72B3’s practical maximum rate of elevation is 3.5°/sec.
It seems likely that a patch at some point will correct this on all relevant vehicles.
If the document you found regarding the 6 second reliad when shooting the same round are true(i tend to doubt because i have not seen any other source agreeing with it)
It would be something i would like implemented but thats not gonna happened, gaijin would need to look at every single tank in the game and exact the same standards upon them,. And even if they were willing to do so, they would need more than one source which agrees with the conclusion you provided, Which i really struggled to find, especially because im a mega newbie at russian(im trying to learn), but looking at thie nunbers we have the ingme reloads dont look particularly inaccurate, despite that i will take happily read any more sources if you have one because it has been fun to have a constructive discussion for once, i will research a bit more on the t64/t80 style autoloader.
I made an edit because i misunderstood your argument, sorry for misenterpreting.
1 Like
So it’s sort of like a book in that sense, I’m not sure what’s the issue with citing a website “dead” since 2006 vs when we cite some documents from sometime in the 1990’s. I somehow doubt radical new information has leapt out about an autoloader designed in the late 1960’s.
I only want to point out books aren’t necessarily hugely more reliable than websites. Zaloga as an example just pulls numbers often from thin air, such is the case with many sources on these subjects. Perhaps because they are talking about something secret and uncitable.
So it seems. It would mean Gaijin is at least correct about basic T-72 autoloaders. It leaves the other autoloader type in doubt.
Because they make no seperation between the gunners sights and the cannon in terms of elevation and so on? I would definitely welcome updates which improve the realism of the mechanics surrounding fire control systems and so on.
I’ll believe that when it happens.
I’m unsure if the cyclogram would count as a primary source, but to be honest I’m doubtful crew manuals get so explicit and technical about the exact functioning, that detail is usually reserved for designing engineers only.
Indeed. I’m not trying to prove this to gaijin, merely point out there are lower numbers from reliable sources that Gaijin doesn’t use. As an example, T-64 and T-80 use almost identical autoloaders and yet in-game we see T-80B somehow reloading slower than T-80U??? Seems like a nerf for BR reasons, same with the thermals being added. Tacking bits on to keep at an ideal BR.
I’d advise looking at ovtaga forum, oftentimes lots of interesting information there, but you may become severely mentally ill from prolonged exposure to forum warriors arguing using probably illegal evidence. Sturgeon’s House forum also, but that’s english language so few problems to understand them. Websites like Fofanov and BTVT are just compilations of stuff people posted on Otvaga forum, to be honest.
It’s all good. I’m here to discuss and present evidence and arguments, not some mudslinging match (just don’t look too much at my posts in the abrams threads 💀)
It is not. Books cite sources for their claims, that website does not as far as I can find.
Because Gaijin currently takes the maximum traverse rate of the elevation mechanism, not the maximum traverse rate that the gunner’s controls allow for.
My Leopard 2 tank manual has an entire chapter dedicated to the elevation mechanism.
They should do that ideally, however the reality is often a lack of citations, citations to poor quality sources, citations that say the opposite or just citations to evidence that is wrong.
Indeed it apparently does not.
I see, would be very interesting to see gunners sights implemented more like how commanders sights are at the moment.
Could still be exceptional, also it’s a bit different since the crew must be somewhat aware how the elevation mechanism functions since you almost constantly have to use it.
The exact mechanisms and functioning of the aiming systems are of paramount imprtance since basically any mechanical property of those systems affects how it has to be used, an example might be what’s the minimal adjustment that can be made to the gun’s elevation or what kind of peculiarities might the mechanism induce in certain types of situations, (tracking a target moving towards you or any situation you can imagine)
The exact functionings and timings of the autoloader systems seems, by contrast, entirely superfluous since the crew don’t really interact with it in the same way. It’s more akin to a trigger on a service pistol. You only need to know if it’s working and how to pull the trigger, basically nothing else about it.
The autoloader is either working, in which case you specify which shell you want and command it to load, or it’s malfunctioning and you have the joyous task of manually loading. It’s not like the crew can even do a huge amount about the mechanism should problems arise, they’re likely a case of more than elementary jamming.
This arises from the degree to which the mechanism is automated and independent of human input or action. Keep your arms out of the way and it does its work.
I’m sure a service rifle manual wouldn’t specify, using a cyclogram as an example, how many miliseconds it takes for each part of the firing motions, bullet moving from the magazine, prior shell extraction ETC.
What you need to know is if there’s a fault, how diagnose a fault, how to fix a fault and how to maintain it so it doesn’t develop a fault. Also how to fire it, but that’s outside the scope of my comparison.
Have you managed to get your hands on, say, an East German T-72 manual? (I’m just assuming you’re German or can at least read German if you have a Leopard 2 manual, pardon me if that’s wrong.)
you can get a cell phone and install a translator, scan the words and it will translate german into english.