Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks?

[lloydster4]

Curious about y'alls experiences with medium and heavy tanks. I rarely field them myself, and I feel sure that I'm missing something.

For soft targets, I'd rather have Mech. Quad-MG's, L Tanks, Assault Guns, or L Walkers.

For hard targets, I usually use infantry and walkers.

To be fair, most of my playtime was before newer patches which introduced reduced fuel costs and significant buffs armor plating.

[Twotribes]

Right now I am play against no majors so I make a few medium tanks and walkers for roleplay but my light tanks are handling the forces against me fine. Against majors I would probably field more tanks and maybe some heavies. Thinking of making a heavy for infantry support would use a howitzer.

[Galdred]

I would use them to destroy enemy light and medium tanks, but they are seldom fielded, so I rely mostly on rovers and light tanks until I see a large armored threat.

[demiare]

My IMHO we should end with stupidity of "howitzer" guns on tanks. Tanks usually carry two+ types of shells, so "high-velocity guns" should be renamed into "APDS-shells" and instead buff a lot hard attack for tanks. This will solve most issues with medium/high tanks low usability.

[Journier]

well yea in our modern world thats true, but shouldnt we think of a different possibility of the mindset of the designers? Think of WW2 era tanks some were designed as infantry support with large bore guns with high HE loads.

This is a world that developed and now you get to aim its war research into what you think would work best. Not what the modern world would in 2000. Your society is just coming out of pretty much the dark ages. All info is lost.

[demiare]

ORIGINAL: Journier

well yea in our modern world thats true, but shouldnt we think of a different possibility of the mindset of the designers? Think of WW2 era tanks some were designed as infantry support with large bore guns with high HE loads.

Yean, and they called "Mechanized artillery" [:D]
Anything else isn't effective - WW2 is just had proved that. And we see exactly why so - armored enemies are rare target at battlefield as they still too expensive (even now lol), so to keep tank role - mobile and FAST attacker unit we should prioritize "soft" target. This why we all, as SE players, prefer "howitzers" tanks. And it's wrong for me because of two reasons:
1) Howitzer + armored platform = Mechanized artillery and not tank. So we have two different kind of army forces doing same job and using same ammo. This is insane idea for any military - too expensive, too much wasted resource. Specialization is the king, no reason to keep 2 different units to do exactly same job.
I know that in game MA able to use ranged attack while light tanks with howitzers are not. But they can't do so only because of developer mistake - "howitzer" is a gun capable to indirect fire by design.
2) This approach (separate "anti-tank" and "anti-infantry" tanks) already had proven to be wrong in WW2 and all wars after it. Yean, I know that NATO is still stuck with "anti-tank" tanks idea, but well IMHO after ~7k years even they will accept the inevitable and agree that was wrong about it. [:D]

[Journier]

differing views, you are seeing it as if they know the military background for thousands of years in tactics.

I am saying they do not, they only know whats been going on for their short history as a city state clawing back from being barbarous nations.

you still have good points but its a fictional game and you can do whatever you like in it with your unit designs.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: demiare

My IMHO we should end with stupidity of "howitzer" guns on tanks. Tanks usually carry two+ types of shells, so "high-velocity guns" should be renamed into "APDS-shells" and instead buff a lot hard attack for tanks. This will solve most issues with medium/high tanks low usability.

Those alternative shells is why it even has a soft attack worth a damn. And guns do differ, in part wich shells are avalible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZKxmlpbwqk

And those basic rules still apply. You can design a gun for Anti-Tank or Anti-Personel purposes - not both.

ORIGINAL: Journier

well yea in our modern world thats true, but shouldnt we think of a different possibility of the mindset of the designers? Think of WW2 era tanks some were designed as infantry support with large bore guns with high HE loads.

This is a world that developed and now you get to aim its war research into what you think would work best. Not what the modern world would in 2000. Your society is just coming out of pretty much the dark ages. All info is lost.

"Modern" guns are jsut always AT guns, unless it is a anti-infantry vehicle. Our tactics and formations adapted to deal with that limitation.

[demiare]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

And guns do differ, in part wich shells are avalible

Yes, caliber isn't only gun's stat.

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
"Modern" guns are jsut always AT guns, unless it is a anti-infantry vehicle.

No, you're wrong here. Modern tank guns aren't rifled to increase their longevity (APDS shells are quite literally eating barrels) and allow to use guided missiles at cost of some long-range accuracy (isn't important as they're rarely used for indirect fire). British are exception, possibly because they thought to use their tanks as mobile anti-ship artillery to defend from landing.

Still infantry is a main target for tanks and "standard" loadout for tank have much more HE shells then anti-armor (HEAT/APDS) one. And don't forget about field fortification. Low-caliber guns are great against bandits as civilian buildings barely protect from their fire but can't do anything with adequate fortifications - you will need large caliber tank/artillery gun here (or something else).

[Maerchen]

To answer OPs question: In my last win - yay - I developed a tank destroyer to counter the major that was just developing tanks. I fielded exactly one independent tank destroyer, but as it reached combat line, I won.

Stats: HP 515/1050 soft a/d: 72/36 Hard a/d: 433/577, 88mm high velocity gun, 100mmm steel plating, double diesel engine.

HTH!

[Malevolence]

It really depends on where you are in the tech tree overall and what your opponents field against you.

In many cases, technology discoveries (to beam, etc.) keep low caliber weapons effective before you need to model the giant bore weapons.

The same is true of armor.

As an aside, with respect a "howitzer" on a tank, I hate the name used, but I understand and agree with the logic and simplicity of the design used. It would be fine if the word howitzer was simply deleted.

[DTurtle]

In a multiplayer game my enemy is fielding quite a lot of very good light, some medium, some heavy tanks and quite a lot of APCs.
So I'm now fielding more and more AT guns and some of these guys:


Very effective.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

In a multiplayer game my enemy is fielding quite a lot of very good light, some medium, some heavy tanks and quite a lot of APCs.
So I'm now fielding more and more AT guns and some of these guys:

Very effective.

What do your design model stats look like? (e.g. Structural Design, Basic Design, Engine Design, Weapon Design, and Armor Design)

I admit, I tend to base my evaluation on the model's design stats, not the actual attack/hitpoint values on the card. That's somewhat silly, because ultimately it just needs to be better than the opponent, for a similar costs.

The majority of my models are "experimental prototypes" that are never fielded until a sufficient structural design score is rolled. Only then do I field the model for service.

[DTurtle]

For a first model actually not bad (except for the armor). The anti-tank gun is much better from the rolls (but unfortunately can't field a beam gun):



Constantly rerolling models until you can get good rolls is possible. It does require you to have enough time to do that though. That is not a given in a multiplayer game.

I didn't check beforehand what units can field a beam gun (even though I have a save game specifically for stuff like that...). So I thought I could simply skip the laser guns and leapfrog a tech level. That didn't really pan out, which left me badly behind on mobile anti-armor tech. This meant I had to go with what I rolled. The first outing of the tank destroyers was quite satisfactory (pushing the enemy back from my main SHQ). Since the game was started with 1.01 a long time ago, the fuel cost for that thing is insane and I can't afford to recruit too many at the moment. So I am now fielding lots of anti-tank guns while getting laser guns and newer anti-armor tanks as fast as possible.

[Malevolence]

The PK III is ok I guess. [X(] [:D]

As I said, I tend to look at how well the weapon reached a state of self-actualization, regardless of overall raw firepower, etc.

I'm sure the Killer works very well too.

Thanks for sharing.

[gmsitton]

Close Support/Infantry tanks were successfully used by the US in the WWII Pacific theater, and by Soviets on the Eastern Front.

Anyway, I'm playing a game with slow tech advances, and medium and heavy tanks so far look like a good idea around round 100. Decent models were too expensive earlier, and who knows what will happen as the game goes on. I design light tanks with an AT role, and a second design for a CS role because they are relatively cheap. Sometimes I create a third light tank design with a small HV gun, 25mm armor, and the largest possible engine to act as scout tanks. I haven't made up my mind yet on these.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: gmsitton

Close Support/Infantry tanks were successfully used by the US in the WWII Pacific theater, and by Soviets on the Eastern Front.

152mm bore...

... and the MGM-51 Shillelagh as icing on the cake. [:D]

Still, not a howitzer.

[Antediluvian_Monster]

The US DOD defintion for howitzer is a low or high trajectory cannon firing at medium velocities, with length normally between L/20 and L/30. Per that, the M81 gun/launcher on Sheridan is indeed technically a howitzer. Or perhaps a gun-mortar, since the weapon seems to be shorter than normal howitzer ("gun-" because normal mortar per DOD is indirect fire and muzzle-loading).

Other examples of post war "howitzers" would be the low pressure gun on BMP-1 and the 60mm gun-mortar on some AML armoured cars.

Overall I tend to see the large distinction between high velocity guns and howitzers as excessive and too "Brits in the Western Desert circa 1941" who fielded tank guns that were either high velocity and were issued with only AP solid shot or low velocity and issued with HE. Even British eventually started mixing ammo loadouts. Post-war high performance HEAT warheads, lighter gun mounts and better recoil compensators completely change the game by '60s, and we get stuff like 6 ton armoured cars with 90mm 750 m/s MV guns capable of knocking out most battle tanks of their day at any range.

[gmsitton]

It's all moot regardless once you get laser weapons.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: Antediluvian_Monster

The US DOD defintion for howitzer is a low or high trajectory cannon firing at medium velocities, with length normally between L/20 and L/30. Per that, the M81 gun/launcher on Sheridan is indeed technically a howitzer. Or perhaps a gun-mortar, since the weapon seems to be shorter than normal howitzer ("gun-" because normal mortar per DOD is indirect fire and muzzle-loading).

Other examples of post war "howitzers" would be the low pressure gun on BMP-1 and the 60mm gun-mortar on some AML armoured cars.

Overall I tend to see the large distinction between high velocity guns and howitzers as excessive and too "Brits in the Western Desert circa 1941" who fielded tank guns that were either high velocity and were issued with only AP solid shot or low velocity and issued with HE. Even British eventually started mixing ammo loadouts. Post-war high performance HEAT warheads, lighter gun mounts and better recoil compensators completely change the game by '60s, and we get stuff like 6 ton armoured cars with 90mm 750 m/s MV guns capable of knocking out most battle tanks of their day at any range.

Sorry, but not true. I mean that in the nicest internet way possible. [:)]

An elephant has a tail. A cat has a tail. Therefore a cat is an elephant. [;)]

I recommend you not focus on one, specific, component and wikipedia-like definitions of the weapon systems. Google-knowledge is not enough.

Field artillery includes troopers who employ cannons, rockets, and missile systems.

Infantry and Armor includes troopers who employ cannons, rockets, and missile systems.

Despite this, a cannoneer and tank gunner perform different duties using different systems--fire control systems, quadrants, firing tables, sights, etc. The procedures, methods, and systems, in total, they use are not the same, despite the cannon tube. Cannoneers use guns and howitzers, for example. Tank gunners use guns, but do not use howitzers.

These details include some incredibly boring stuff like ammunition design, safety, risk, rules, inter-service rivalry, training, etc.

Six Sheridans are not a battery of howitzers. Two Sheridans are not a howitzer section.

When performing Table VIII with the M551A1, does the crew respond to a call for fire? No.

The M81E1 rifled 152 mm gun/launcher is not a howitzer. It is a total system with much more than just a cannon tube.

Bottom line, if you call it a howitzer, professionals think you sound ignorant of all those other details. That said, we aren't just in Kansas anymore.