Moderators: IronManBeta, CapnDarwin
ORIGINAL: hank
- someone else asked about more statistics when the game was over ... I too would like to see a list of destroyed vehicles, casualties, etc.
(like M1A1-12 destroyed; M2 Bradley-24 destroyed; T80-1; etc.)
ORIGINAL: CoffeeMug
ORIGINAL: Chelco
LOL, I didn't mean missile/shell-dodging tanks. I don't know about the TOW, but the acquisition of a moving target with a 120mm gun is kinda more difficult than the acquisition of non-moving one. Even with the most advanced optics and lead computing devices.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Hi,
to spot a moving target is MUCH easier than spotting a stationary target. So, the two or three seconds you need to acquire the target which moves sideways from your point of view, and to give the ballistic computer the lead is no problem.
Furthermore, a target moving sideways and offering its flank to you is no threat to you, actually.
A target which moves into your direction is a much bigger threat, but there you dont have to care about dynamic lead if you fire sabot. When firing HEAT just put the reticule a little bit below the target center. The target will drive into the round. [8D]
Cheers,
CM
ORIGINAL: MikeBrough
CoffeeMug, did you really mean that statement? Are you saying that a platoon of M1A2s moving past you and offering their flanks are no threat? Perhaps they're a more easily destroyed threat but those turrets swing round quite well.
ORIGINAL: hank
Sorry about the divergence Erik. I don't run into many SB people.
ORIGINAL: Crimguy
I think we'll only have an answer as someone becomes truly competent in deploying the WP units and can demonstrate it in-game. The AI isn't up to the task, but did anyone expect otherwise?
ORIGINAL: CoffeeMug
ORIGINAL: MikeBrough
CoffeeMug, did you really mean that statement? Are you saying that a platoon of M1A2s moving past you and offering their flanks are no threat? Perhaps they're a more easily destroyed threat but those turrets swing round quite well.
Yep [:)]
When tank platoons fight within main comat distance (up to 2500m), basically two tanks fight in a duel situation. They just exchange shots. When both tanks are able to kill the adversary with one round (penetration ability of the round!), the tank crew which opens fire first and hits the target, is usually the one which survives.
Now we have a sideways moving target and the observing tank opens fire. The target tank obviously attacks in a different direction and is not scanning in the direction of the firing tank, but in the diretion of movement. Perhaps the tank commander of the target scans the environment standing in the turret, but it's hard to identify another tank 2000m away.
The firing tank fires and after about one second (1600m/sec when sabot) the round hits the target with a probability of 80-90%. Even if the round misses, the target tank has a very small chance to kill the attacking tank (swivel the turret, identify the target, laser the distance and fire one round, the round travels 2000m and has the same probability to hit as above). During that time between being attacked and the round being at the target (about 10 sec) the attacker has another 2 chances to destroy the target.
A sideways moving target poses a threat, but no threat in comparison to a target moving in your direction.
Cheers,
CM
ORIGINAL: MikeBrough
To a certain extent, what you're saying holds good if you're defending in a tank that has that 80-90% chance of a hit at 2500m. But, if you're poor Ivan in a T-72 and a platoon of M1A2s or Challengers is heading across your bow, you wouldn't be thinking 'They're no threat'.
Well, the APFSDS-T round of the 125mm smoothbore gun of the T-72 has a penetration capabilty of about 600mm of standard tank steel after flying 2000m. IMO, chances are good that the round penetrates the armour
ORIGINAL: CoffeeMug
ORIGINAL: MikeBrough
To a certain extent, what you're saying holds good if you're defending in a tank that has that 80-90% chance of a hit at 2500m. But, if you're poor Ivan in a T-72 and a platoon of M1A2s or Challengers is heading across your bow, you wouldn't be thinking 'They're no threat'.
Well, the APFSDS-T round of the 125mm smoothbore gun of the T-72 has a penetration capabilty of about 600mm of standard tank steel after flying 2000m. IMO, chances are good that the round penetrates the armour.
A M1 tank platoon will loose at least 2 tanks when caught in the flank. In the role of the RED platoon leader I would order a surprising platoon volley on ONE tank and switching targets after the turret of the first flies off.
Being caught in the flank means casualties, no matter in which tank you sit in.
Cheers,
CM
IIRC, Iraq was using home grown ammo for their tanks that lacked the power of Russian made ammo. Memory is a little fuzzy, but I seem to remember our Sqdrn S2 mentioning it to us when we got back to Germany. Russian ammo was too expensive for Iraq, so they started up their own production factory and then short changed either the propelant or used inferior goods.
So, trying to use Iraq as an example of Russian killing power is a little skewed from the start
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
From the flank, with Soviet ammo, a T-80 certainly could penetrate an M1A1. With all modern tanks, there is much more armor up front than on the flanks or rear, usually by a factor of three or four. Chobham armor would offer more protection if the Soviets were firing HEAT, but not against sabot.
With all that can be said about Iraqi tactics and ammo deficiencies, there remain some lessons about NATO vs. WP that can be gained from the Gulf War and those do indicate that NATO had a quality advantage. I think FPG reflects the quality difference accurately, but the main source of pain for the WP side is the advantage of defending. We're looking to balance that a bit more in the first update - Rob has implemented some ideas which are being tested now and should make things a bit easier for the attacker (assuming good tactics, as always).
Regards,
- Erik
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
From the flank, with Soviet ammo, a T-80 certainly could penetrate an M1A1. With all modern tanks, there is much more armor up front than on the flanks or rear, usually by a factor of three or four. Chobham armor would offer more protection if the Soviets were firing HEAT, but not against sabot.
With all that can be said about Iraqi tactics and ammo deficiencies, there remain some lessons about NATO vs. WP that can be gained from the Gulf War and those do indicate that NATO had a quality advantage. I think FPG reflects the quality difference accurately, but the main source of pain for the WP side is the advantage of defending. We're looking to balance that a bit more in the first update - Rob has implemented some ideas which are being tested now and should make things a bit easier for the attacker (assuming good tactics, as always).
That's it. [;)] If the game will let me do it, then perfect!ORIGINAL: Crimguy
Erik - maybe what's needed in the update are a few scenarios that place NATO at a disadvantage, as opposed to changing the data. Ones where the defenses are not optimal, and NATO must rush it's units into position.
Regards,
We're looking to balance that a bit more in the first update - Rob has implemented some ideas which are being tested now and should make things a bit easier for the attacker (assuming good tactics, as always).
I appreciate purchasing a game from a company that monitors the forums and is motivated to improve the product!.[:)]
