View Single Post
  #3  
Old August 10th, 2005, 04:32 AM
Fabfire's Avatar

Fabfire Fabfire is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Fabfire is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Accuracy values for the main guns - MBT\'s.

Quote:
Listy said:


Hullo kevineduguay1... **Waves**

If you're not, then appolgies. There's been this disscussion over at the DosMBT group, the following reply was given (Edward is talking about the formula used for working out the ACC):

Quote:
Edward R. Mortimer said:
Y'see, what we have works very well through WWII and even into the
1970's . . . and then breaks down because of the advances in
munitions. The problem is . . . most of that data on munitions in the
last 30 years are classified. Getting a coherent grip on the situation
is not easy. Yes, everyone knows the current formula is not perfect.
<snip></snip>
But to say the
in-game Soviet tanks are better than the in-game Abrams because of a
minor 2 points in ACC rating, yet ignore massive differences in other
ratings that are part of the formula, is ridiculous.

Appologies accepted. I am not kevineduguay1...

I don't think that a 2 points difference is ridiculous, because it affects not only the Abrams, but also the Leo 2 (up to the A4), Merkava...etc. What seems ridiculous is Western 120mm L/44 being rated as inferior to old Soviet 125mm guns. I am not ignoring other problems with the accuracy formula, it's just that as I have a little more knowledge on tank guns performance, it came to my attention first.

By this formula, who can garantee that even the Leo 2A6 120mm L/55 accuracy of 14 is right? Or even the Challenger's rilfed guns? What we need is a better general formula.

Finally, I still remain with the same doubts I posted.
But thanks for the answer, anyway.
__________________
"There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result" - Sir Winston Churchill.
Reply With Quote