One of the solutions that presented itself during the research was to equip tanks armed with 122mm D-25 with some sort of automatic or semi-automatic loading system. The system however was quite unwieldy and since the loader still had to be present and the turret was not big enough, such a system could potentially lead to the reduction of the amount of ammunition carried.
The use of the electro-mechanic rammer on the T-10 made the life of the loader much easier and it had other advantages as well – the gun could be for example loaded while elevated up to 28 degrees – but failed to significantly increase the tank’s rate of fire – with the two-piece ammunition, it stayed relatively low (4 rounds per minute).
To improve the rate of fire, the students of the BTV academy (Military Armored Forces Academy) came with a novel solution – to install 2 two-layer pistol-style magazines into various heavy tanks, including the IS-3. The magazines served as ammo racks (they were not loaded extra) and were operated electrically (using hydraulics). One magazine contained HE shells, one contained AP shells. In case of electric (hydraulic) failure, the magazines could be also operated manually. In order to fit the entire magazine into the turret, the inside had to be significantly reworked and the tank crew was according to the BTV proposal to be reduced to three men, the design of the turret had to be changed somewhat as well. Additionally, since less recoil was required to make the project functional, the gun recoil compensator mechanism would also have to be changed.
This project was however never accepted by the military and was basically just a thought exercise. Further research focused on creating a proposal for the automatic loading of the 122mm M-62 gun on the T-10 tank.
So smaller ammo rack and faster rate of fire. Players will have to be efficient, or they will feel how is it like to run out of ammunition the first five minutes of the battle.
ReplyDeleteI believe WG will give this tank enough ammo, at least as much as IS-6 has.I dont like this concept to be a premium tank. In my opinion nerfed IS-5 would be better option.
DeleteThis proposal means no goldammo for you scumbags.
ReplyDeleteOnly HE and AP.
Clever like the mauschen 150 mm gun.
Wait the mauschen won't have HEAT ?
DeleteThat's very good.
It would surpass the Maus if it had HEAT
DeleteThat actually sounds great to me.
Delete220+ pen is more than enough at tier 8.
DeleteWho even needs gold in the current IS-3?
Plot twist: This tank has D25t, thus only 175 pen.
DeleteWe need less AUTOLOADERS, not more. Autoloaders should be a "novelty" in the game just like they were in REAL LIFE, a novelty and a FAILURE in design.
ReplyDeleteThe T57 was considered by the American Military as a FAILURE, but WG makes it OP?
The Waffle was strictly a paper design, but WG makes it OP????
Only one variant of the 50B was ever built so again another FAILURE in design, but WG makes it OP????
I think you don't realize this is a different kind of autoloader.
Deletea) learn how to read, this is a mechanical load assist, not a magazine
Deleteb) AMX50B was built, considered a success, but NATO normalization came into effect and smaller medium tanks with 90/105mm guns were *required* by NATO member. Like France.
c) Waffle's gun is an automatic flak gun. You know what else existed at the time? Automatic 127mm dual purpose guns on ships. The design of putting one of those on a E100 platform is fantasy, not the gun itself.
And if autoloaders are a failure in design, please explain modern autoloader tanks.
Say, when all the former Warsaw pact and it's allies have MBTs armed with autoloaders, no your point doesn't stand. Secondly , AMX 50 design had ATLEAST 4 variants, the AMX 50 100 in game, the 50 100 rearmed with 120mm gun in a new turret , the AMX 50 120 in game and at last the AMX 50B in game. And no, AMX 50s were successful designs, only NATO standards prevented it from servicing.Thirdly , game wise, how the fuck are autoloaders OP? They only excel at burst damage, after that , they are screwed.
Delete...and you should probably start to learn the difference between load assistant system and magazines
AMX-13 was a very successful design...
Delete-50B was successful but NATO turned it down because it didn't follow regulations.
Delete-Waffle is not even real!!!
-Autoloaders are not failures! They are used in modern tank today
-This is an assist not and autoloader
-50B was successful but NATO turned it down because it didn't follow regulations.
Delete-Waffle is not even real!!!
-Autoloaders are not failures! They are used in modern tank today
-This is an assist not and autoloader
The autoloaders are fake in that they do not function in the game like real-life. The autoloaders have to realign the gun with the loader after each shot (i.e. elevate the gun in modern Soviet tanks) to reload, but in the game that doesn't happen.
ReplyDeleteThe French partially solved the issue with the oscillating turret; however, the ammo capacity was still an issue, which WG solved by just doubling the amount of ammo for play purposes.
DeleteThe Americans tried it, but the autoloader jammed too much and they also had the same ammo capacity issues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteso lemme get this straight:
ReplyDeletethe graduates at the BTV formulated a thesis to cram a magazine type autoloader (strangely enough, why in the world are people thinking that autoloader = drum type autoloader in the game?) for the IS-3 and that this autoloader type removes the human loader? the bad thing about it is probably the notion that its going to be very hard to change rounds on the fly.
the mechanism reminds me of how the Valkyria Chronicles Edelweiss may have had since it only consisted of the commander that doubles as the gunner and the driver that doubles as the radioman. only difference is that the Edelweiss was using single piece rounds.
Maybe a new prem tank if they remove the IS 6?
ReplyDelete