Thread: SK-105 probs
View Single Post
  #17  
Old January 31st, 2007, 10:33 AM

Shan Shan is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 178
Thanks: 6
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Shan is on a distinguished road
Default Re: SK-105 probs

O/T and quite irrelevant for the game but anyway: Have you ever taken place on the gunner's seat of an early 'K', Siddhi? O/T and quite irrelevant for the game but anyway: Have you ever taken place on the gunner's seat of an early 'K', Siddhi? (You'd have to be quite short + slim to fit in ;-))

Quote:
Siddhi said:
A RoF of 12 rounds per second is easily achievably if the engagement-arc is IIRC below 50 degrees - and there are enough targets. In manuvers that I have knowledge of a platoon of the Kurassier regularly anhiliated M60A3 compnaies on line abrest attack without any casulties in a single engagmenet.
I can confirm that - M60 crews usually stopped making the common jokes about their "smaller brothers" as the Kuerassier was called on the radio AFTER maneuvers. This, however, requires well-trained crews, and it takes a long time to get that good.

Quote:
Siddhi said:
Not completly correct about the sites or stabilsation btw, although the ballistic computer and TI was added only in 1993 the stabilisation system in place beforehand was very good as were the optics, passive IR and XSW-30-U 950 /white light searchlight. 95% first-round-hit at 1,700m.

A stabilizer on a Kuerassier? Sure? AFAIK even the A2 upgrade (which, btw, was introduced only as part of the infamous Mech-Paket only from 1998 onwards, definitely not 1993) never included a stabilizer (which stabilizes the gun along 2 axis on the move... only to avoid misunderstandings), only a fire control computer and true night fighting capability (TI) were fitted. A stabilizer would not be of much use anyway if you're defending. One of the main weaknesses of the 'K', however, was its hydraulic turret transmission which sometimes worked, sometimes caught fire, and very often didn't work, and that one was not changed. Another weakness - the hydraulic steering system - also quite unreliable due to high pressures - it's not fun to fin out you cannot steer any more when you're driving at full speed...

And now to the optics of the earlier version: The daytime optics were not far from WW2, say what you want but fact is: except that you had a laser rangefinder which would get you a good range, the gunner still had to enter the range manually by adjusting his optics... and about night fighting: IMHO the passive system was completely useless - dirvers could see more on their image intensifier night sight than commanders and would often spot the "enemies" that the commander could hear, but not see... and as soon as you'd turn on the IR searchlight , everyone with an IR sight or better would know where you are.

True, the WP armies didn't have much better night-fighting capabilities but seriously... 1700m at night with 95%? Sounds a bit like manufacturer's data... under ideal conditions - maybe. But in real life and not-ideal weather conditions - impossible.

So - overall, if I'd play a cold war scenario on the defending side, I'd still prefer Kuerassier over the M-60, since it has greater RoF and mobility - but it has to be said that this is a poor man's weapon, often called a movable A/T gun with a splinter jacket...
__________________
'Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat' - Flavius Vegetius Renatus (~400 AD), in the preface to 'De re militari'
Reply With Quote