Soviet auto-loaders

[kevineduguay1]

DRG,

Thank you for your reply.

Now what do you have to back it up!

What I see now is that GAME PLAY is more important than REALITY.!

[kevineduguay1]

Mark,

Keep an EYE on this. It will get ugly!

[Sewter]

Hey Buddy, here's something to EYE!

Check the attachment!


"General Dynamics Land Systems also offers the Modular Low-Profile Turret 105 (LPT 105), fully described in the Light tanks section, for installation on the Centurion, as well as other vehicles such as the Leopard 1, M48, M60, M1, T-54/T-55/T-62 and AAV7A1.

The LPT, which is armed with a 105 mm gun firing standard NATO ammunition, offers a number of advantages as follows: it reduces the profile of the tank and therefore makes it harder to hit, it reduces the overall weight of the vehicle (so allowing additional armour to be applied to the hull), it reduces the crew from four to three, it provides increased protection against top attack and has further growth potential to 120 mm and a mix of guns and missiles."

Sorry if this isn't on-topic, but it is an interesting auto-loader.

[kevineduguay1]

Yes DRG I did do a test. T-10Ms vs M1A2SEP Abrams. The Abrams while sitting still had a one shot advantage but after both vehicles moved their full movement, almost all the Abrams had only 2 rounds of main gun ammo to shoot (some did have 3) and so did the T-10Ms.
So on the move a T-10M matches an Abrams in ROF?

P.S. Yes the Abrams totally dominated all the scenarios. Only once while I played the Russians did I manage to "button" one of the Abrams while loosing 17 tanks out of 3 companies of T-10Ms.

[DRG]

And when the T-10ms move (or any Soviet tank that is in the same era as just about any western tank) the Western tank that has moved has a better chance of actually hitting it's target after it has moved . You can have all the rounds in the world and if all you hit is air they are worthless to you so that further tips the balance in favour of the western tank even though you think the Russian equipment fires too many rounds in comparison to it's western counterpart.

In answer to you other question, we consider all factors-- gameplay AND reality and in a game, gameplay is important (as is reality) and when designing any game getting a balance between the two sometimes conflicting issues is difficult but in the end, it's a game. If you want reality, join the army. It you want to play this game but don't think this one has enough emphasis on "reality" you are free to sit down and edit a complete set of OOB's and offer them up for people to try and if they like them they'll tell you and if they don't, they'll tell you as well.

Don

[kevineduguay1]

You just made my point!

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:
You jusy made my point!

If you want to belive that, I *SO* happy for you. I have no idea what "point" you think I made for you but if you go away happy I've done everything I set out to do. In game terms, the way everything works together, the "western" tanks are superior to the "eastern" ones if only by degrees EVEN if they have the same number of "shots" in a given turn. If you think that proves your "point" we just wasted a lot of time.

Have fun reworking all the OOB's. I'm sure everyone will be interested in what you come up with

Don

[kevineduguay1]

T-10M is still equil to the Abrams M1A2 as far as ROF?

Are you on drugs? I did the test did you?

An Abrams has the same ROF as a 1950s tank with two part ammo?

Your getting mad and just silly. Show me some facts. Or cant you?

[narwan]

You are being very silly here yourself. You can't even interpret your own test correctly!

As to the T10 being equal in ROF to the Abrams you've actually denied that twice in your own posts. You said the Abrams had 1 shot advantage while sitting still (first ROF difference). You also mentioned that while most Abrams had 2 shots left just like the T10's after moving their full allowance, some had one more. Sounds like a difference to me (nr 2).

But the silliest is that you had both tanks move their own full allowance and than compare them as if that was an equal comparison!
I've checked it (yep, did the test) and a T10 with speed 14 will get to an astonishing 24 mph on the road. An abrams with speed 22 will make it at 38 mph.
Congratulations, you've just showed that a much faster moving abrams has just slightly more shots left (averaging all your tanks) than a much slower moving T10.

But guess what happens when you move the Abrams at the SAME speed as the T10 (24mph on the road), in other words, make an equal comparison?

I do find it a bit baffling though. Here you go wanting to see an actual difference in ROF because of ammo type (2 part vs 1 part). As if making a distinction in ROF between different calibers isn't enough you now want to see 2-part ammo cause a measurable effect (we are talking short turns here, remember)? If we work down the calibre list and factor in all the different guns and their ammo types I guess we'd end up with 57mm guns having a ROF of 15 to 20.
Cause lets face it, any chance in the current situation with regards to the Abrams and T10's would ripple through all the OOB's and you'll be back soon enough with another unit to ***** about.

[kevineduguay1]

nar wan,

It was silly. T-10s and Abrams tanks will never see one another in action.
On the other hand my point was made even by your tests that after full movement a 1950s era T-10 still had the same ROF as most of the Abrams on the field.
One piece ammo vs two piece, a very good modern stabiliser vs none.
Yes the test was silly but made a point.

My scenario was advance vs advance. After playing both sides twice, no Abrams were hit and most of the T-10ms were destroyed. As it should be. In one scenario while playing the Russian side I did manage to "button" one Abrams. But recorded no direct hits.

The whole point here was ROF.