Maybe the USMC was right to go with the M103?

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8640
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Maybe the USMC was right to go with the M103?

Postby Fade2Gray » Sun 25 Feb 2018 07:43

chykka wrote:yeah but in Russian tanks having moving parts like that you better not be too tall or have long limbs :) low profile makes things cramped and dangerous inside

Do you have a source to back these claims up or are you just inventing stuff?
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3370
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Maybe the USMC was right to go with the M103?

Postby chykka » Sun 25 Feb 2018 08:51

I dunno I know people mentioned if your tall and the turrets spinning in leopard you could get hurt if your not paying attention.
Image

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: Maybe the USMC was right to go with the M103?

Postby Steamfunk » Sun 25 Feb 2018 08:56

Fuck, and here I thought autoloaders should have jammed crits or have their RoF lower as the HP of the unit goes down. I guess "weapon jammed" can cover that as is just fine.


I think the author of that article probably tried to counter the arm-chewing myth that got around. The autoloader can obviously break down just like anything else but the Russians usually have a backup option, which in this case is a hand crank and ramming rod.

BTW if anyone is wondering what happened to that panoramic sight it was found to interfere with the MG and wasn't adopted. It seems to have resurfaced many years later on the 90s BMP-T, although it's since been replaced by the standard thermal combination sight.

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13127
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: Maybe the USMC was right to go with the M103?

Postby another505 » Sun 25 Feb 2018 10:03

hansbroger wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:
another505 wrote:I wouldn't mind, but there should still some variety in accuracy, like 10 -15 accuracy difference from the most accurate to the least accurate in the same generation. but ofc the least accurate one will have other advantages like AP, range or speed.

Soviet missiles having more range strikes me as pretty LOLwut. For ground units, fighting at the absolute max range depends on so many conditions being perfectly favorable that I think a hard cap of 2,800 should be enforced, or more ATGMs bumped up to 2,800 because of how weak they are ATM. Also one of the biggest things that determines whether or not an AFV can reach out range is not the range of the weapon, but the quality of the optics.

Unless someone can show me that Soviet optics on the T-80U/BMP-3 are somehow way ahead of NATO optics I can't see justifying having such a range advantage.


Well when talking about GLATGMs or IFV/TD mounted systems you're talking about the ATGM being integrated into the tanks' FCS and taking advantage of the optics, LRF and meteorological suite on the tank which in the case of things like the 1A33 or 1A45 you're talking about optics that are possibly superior to those mounted on a TOW or Konkurs launch post, I doubt they'd be any more accurate than a TOW fired by a M2A2.

2800m seems reasonable, especially for the real world, even optimistic for a place like central Europe.

Soviet missiles don't need better range than NATO types if they have equivalent accuracy, they are however, in most cases, faster when it comes to GLATGMs (9m112 is actually quite zippy, even faster than SVIR/Refleks) or the high tier TD ATGMs like Kokon and ATAKA.


I think the current atgm ranges are fine, some rare 2925, and then 2800 and more common 2625. As long as the advantages needed to be paid, there are some variety and allows player to choose.
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8640
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Maybe the USMC was right to go with the M103?

Postby Fade2Gray » Sun 25 Feb 2018 17:47

another505 wrote:I think the current atgm ranges are fine, some rare 2925, and then 2800 and more common 2625. As long as the advantages needed to be paid, there are some variety and allows player to choose.

We'll probably need to return to the EE reaction times then. Part of what made ATGMs useful then was that if you shot one while in range of tanks, the launcher didn't get nailed immediately by return fire.
Last edited by Fade2Gray on Mon 26 Feb 2018 08:00, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12318
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Maybe the USMC was right to go with the M103?

Postby Mike » Mon 26 Feb 2018 00:14

Fade2Gray wrote:
another505 wrote:I think the current atgm ranges are fine, some rare 2925, and then 2800 and more common 2625. As long as the advantages needed to be paid, there are some variety and allows player to choose.

We'll probably need to return to the EE reaction times then. Part of what made ATGMs useful then was that if you shot one while in tank of tanks, the launcher didn't get nailed immediately by return fire.


That's one of the nicer things about SD. The aim times are longer so you don't immediately get slammed by tanks. But the slower units mean sorry crush you instead. :lol:
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13127
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: Maybe the USMC was right to go with the M103?

Postby another505 » Mon 26 Feb 2018 03:40

Fade2Gray wrote:
another505 wrote:I think the current atgm ranges are fine, some rare 2925, and then 2800 and more common 2625. As long as the advantages needed to be paid, there are some variety and allows player to choose.

We'll probably need to return to the EE reaction times then. Part of what made ATGMs useful then was that if you shot one while in tank of tanks, the launcher didn't get nailed immediately by return fire.

well, thats also one of the main reason i would buff atgm accuracy and speed across the board without cost change
But i didn't want a huge radical change

i wouldnt mind reaction time nerf, cause rof is overemphasized ingame when FCS and Optics are a lot more important. But, yea again, gameplay might change a lot
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8640
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Maybe the USMC was right to go with the M103?

Postby Fade2Gray » Mon 26 Feb 2018 08:02

another505 wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:
another505 wrote:I think the current atgm ranges are fine, some rare 2925, and then 2800 and more common 2625. As long as the advantages needed to be paid, there are some variety and allows player to choose.

We'll probably need to return to the EE reaction times then. Part of what made ATGMs useful then was that if you shot one while in range of tanks, the launcher didn't get nailed immediately by return fire.

well, thats also one of the main reason i would buff atgm accuracy and speed across the board without cost change
But i didn't want a huge radical change

i wouldnt mind reaction time nerf, cause rof is overemphasized ingame when FCS and Optics are a lot more important. But, yea again, gameplay might change a lot

I doubt a reaction time change would be a huge and radical change. It would help encourage defensive play a bit more, but then again with a decent artillery rework to properly prep a lane for attack, I think it would balance out.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6307
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: Maybe the USMC was right to go with the M103?

Postby KattiValk » Mon 26 Feb 2018 16:35

another505 wrote:Except 2a72 in my book is a higher tier than bushmaster 1, it will remain inferior but can be equal to RH202 and 2a42 in other ways (after i also nerf the opvulcan :twisted: ). Bushmaster 2 is its tier.
I would also buff Base Tow to 16AP.
The ROF buff is general, not an exact number since i havent use the game mod to read files anymore.
Kewl, in my book M829 is superior the clearly superior sabot, 25 AP returning when?

Bushmaster 2 is magically significantly faster ROF than the Bushmaster 1 in this game for...reasons? It still doesn't make all that much sense. The larger Bushmasters have marginally better regular cycling rates than the original Bushmaster, I've never seen one that fired all that fast.

The autocannon ROF system is laughably flawed at the moment, favoring massive ROF over everything else. In reality, practical ROF of all autocannons are similar to how fast the Bushmaster fires sustained at range, the higher ROF ones simply bursting and resting to let the cannon settle and/or cool.

A Bradley with 150% or 200% the armor of a BTR should not lose a cannon fight against it at anything but near point blank range. Cannon fights against BMPs with similar armor as the Bradley should be in the Bradley's favor at the longer ranges (especially considering US autocannon sabot was better for basically the entire half-century), with BMPs edging out at anything sub 700m or so. In this similar vein, BMPs should beat out LAV-25s at longer ranges, but like the BTR, the lighter vehicle should still be able to kill the heavier one with micro.

High ROF cannons should be better at unloading HE at close range against infantry squads, not at killing vehicles when compared to other slower cannons.

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12318
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Maybe the USMC was right to go with the M103?

Postby Mike » Mon 26 Feb 2018 18:30

M829A2*
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests