Quote:
...I am sure an AUTOLOADER can produce a faster rate of fire on the move, but I was referring to accuracy...
|
I'm not quite sure I understand exactly what you mean here. You said: "...I think the worlds leading MBTS are pretty much the same, the differences are not enough to give one side a huge advantage in a conflict, it will be the crews that do that.". If I read you right that was supposed to mean that, all in one, most of the leading nations MBTs have close (or similar characteristics regarding their combat capabilities on the field, right? Now, if I think about that in terms of pure statistical results, can I say that, in an engagement test between two equally gifted MBTs (speed; armor; ammunition types; crew experience, and so on), the potential of one protagonist of firing five or six shells while the second can only fire twice should provide a "significant" advantage? In terms of game play, can I say this advantage should be portrayed in a way yet to determine? Would you say these deductions are correct or did I miss something primordial, once again?
Quote:
I would reckon a maximum of 2 rounds a minute on the move if you want to hit your target it all depends on the skill and experience of the crew.
|
Should I read: an average crew can fire only one shot accurately per minute, in such conditions? In game, by 1999, a Chally 2 crew with 62pts in Exp. can fire 2 times while driving at 17mph (by the standards you set I would consider that's "almost" correct). In 1980, a M1 Abrams with a 54pts crew (fairly below average, right? By the way, is Avrg reached at 60/120 or 70/120pts?), can fire 2 times while driving at 20mph. Of course they loaded only 105mm shells but didn't they use one piece ammunitions instead of the English 2 or 3 pieces? Makes me wonder.
Quote:
An engagement involves a lot more than just how fast a gun loads, take into account that you have to identify your target first...
|
In game terms, as far as I know, you can only fire at a target that is already considered as acquired and identified, right? In real life engagements I'm sure things are sometime VERY far from, as you say: "data (...) released by manufacturers... ".
Your testimony is of GREAT value, indeed! I'd really love to read more messages with such valuable first hand info. Sadly, as it's very rare and hard to find, I think we'll have to rely mainly on those data released by manufacturers.
Quote:
Challenger 2 could fire 5 rounds a minute from a static position at the same target which isnt firing back, lol.
|
Do you mean that during these training runs "targets" actually fired back? What was the percentage of loss?
By the way, I would apologize!
I read what I wrote yesterday and I'm ashamed and confused. I mistakenly called you: "Mr. Sucbut" ! Of course there was no pun intended and it was only due to my "lightningfasttypewritingspeed proficiency" which was turned on for that occasion.