The Commonwealth Changes thread

User avatar
Mister Maf
Lieutenant
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sun 15 Dec 2013 23:15
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth Changes thread

Postby Mister Maf » Sat 3 Jan 2015 09:27

orcbuster wrote:Laploading is pretty much standard on any tank without a wet stowage rack (doing this with wet stowage removes the point of this entirely) . Leopard 1 loaders had 3 rounds for instant use. 1 in the barrell, 1 in hand and 1 between the legs. Suffice to say it can be done extremely fast. (Courtesy of prettyhill, former 1A5NO operator)

If you pay attention to the video, he says the following:
The other advantage was that you can now lap load. With 105s this wasn't a problem either. Now, what lap loading is [explanation of lap loading]. This is not permissible with modern smoothbore 120mm ammunition.

In other words, he is saying that being able to lap load is an advantage of the Cheiftain's 3-piece 120mm ammunition over other 1-piece 120mm ammunition, expediting the process of loading a large-caliber shell. For 105mm cannons like the Leopard 1's, lap loading could already easily be done without this system. The Challenger 2 still uses 3-piece ammo with rifled barrel, and look at its rate of fire ingame!
Image

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth Changes thread

Postby orcbuster » Sat 3 Jan 2015 09:44

Reason you can't (or rather don't as it iss perfectly doable) lapload single piece 120 ammo is because this would remove the safety benefit of the seperate wet ammo stowage system found in all manually loaded l44/256 120mm tanks. If laploading was to be a thing I'd also suggest that all tanks without seperate stowage suffer a massive increase in catastrophic explosion crit chance, butfrankly I don't see that happening or if it's even possible to do either.
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
Mister Maf
Lieutenant
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sun 15 Dec 2013 23:15
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth Changes thread

Postby Mister Maf » Sat 3 Jan 2015 11:07

orcbuster wrote:Reason you can't (or rather don't as it iss perfectly doable) lapload single piece 120 ammo is because this would remove the safety benefit of the seperate wet ammo stowage system found in all manually loaded l44/256 120mm tanks. If laploading was to be a thing I'd also suggest that all tanks without seperate stowage suffer a massive increase in catastrophic explosion crit chance, butfrankly I don't see that happening or if it's even possible to do either.

I mean if you're gonna go and be realistic like that then you'd also have to basically have all Soviet tanks from the T-64 and up be instantly destroyed when they get an ammo cookoff because the shells are stored right in the damn middle of the tank for the autoloader.
Image

Hollywood Myth
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue 2 Dec 2014 06:36

Re: The Commonwealth Changes thread

Postby Hollywood Myth » Sat 3 Jan 2015 11:10

Mister Maf wrote:I mean if you're gonna go and be realistic like that then you'd also have to basically have all Soviet tanks from the T-64 and up be instantly destroyed when they get an ammo cookoff because the shells are stored right in the damn middle of the tank for the autoloader.

Nah, you should do some more reading.

Good try though.
Image

User avatar
Mister Maf
Lieutenant
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sun 15 Dec 2013 23:15
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth Changes thread

Postby Mister Maf » Sat 3 Jan 2015 11:22

Hollywood Myth wrote:
Mister Maf wrote:I mean if you're gonna go and be realistic like that then you'd also have to basically have all Soviet tanks from the T-64 and up be instantly destroyed when they get an ammo cookoff because the shells are stored right in the damn middle of the tank for the autoloader.

Nah, you should do some more reading.

Good try though.

Image
Image

Soviet tanks used a carousel autoloader system that carried the ammunition below the turret ring, inside the crew compartment. The design was inherently poorly-protected and presented an enormous danger to the crew in the event of an explosion. Please point me towards something stating otherwise if I'm really that wrong.

note that i'm not actually advocating that this be modeled ingame that'd be silly
Image

Hollywood Myth
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue 2 Dec 2014 06:36

Re: The Commonwealth Changes thread

Postby Hollywood Myth » Sat 3 Jan 2015 12:10

The autoloader carousel is actually decently protected, the jack-in-the-box effect is usually the result of rounds being stored outside the carousel.

Granted, the tank will still go up if the carousel is hit directly, but this is hardly common.
Image

Majorpain
Master Sergeant
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun 26 May 2013 17:59
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth Changes thread

Postby Majorpain » Sat 3 Jan 2015 12:51

Hollywood Myth wrote:The autoloader carousel is actually decently protected, the jack-in-the-box effect is usually the result of rounds being stored outside the carousel.

Granted, the tank will still go up if the carousel is hit directly, but this is hardly common.


Have you seen the size of that carousel? Its bad enough storing a load of bag charges under the turret ring, anything penetrating around the bottom of a soviet auto loader tank stands a good chance of a catastrophic kill.

User avatar
Infinitum
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon 15 Jul 2013 09:18
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth Changes thread

Postby Infinitum » Sat 3 Jan 2015 13:08

Chieftain Mk2, 5 and 10 8 ROF

Chieftain Mk10/Chally mk1, 2 ,3 ROF (one more because of superior FCS)

This needs to happen !

I mean this guy said himself its has comparable ROF to M1 Abram and Leo2 so I don't see why it couldn't happen along with changes to the base T-80, It would be nice to see the the 120 Rifled guns getting some treatment.

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth Changes thread

Postby DoktorvonWer » Sat 3 Jan 2015 14:48

Infinitum wrote:Chieftain Mk2, 5 and 10 8 ROF

Chieftain Mk10/Chally mk1, 2 ,3 ROF (one more because of superior FCS)

This needs to happen !

I mean this guy said himself its has comparable ROF to M1 Abram and Leo2 so I don't see why it couldn't happen along with changes to the base T-80, It would be nice to see the the 120 Rifled guns getting some treatment.


Nah, should be:

Chieftains: All 8 RoF (from 7)
Challenger 1 Mk 1, Mk 2: Also up to 8 RoF (from 7)
Challenger 1 Mk 3: 9 RoF (from 8)
Challenger 2: 9 RoF (as current)

Why? Chieftains should have the normal loading for comparable manual loaders, as should the similar Challenger 1 turret.
Challenger 1 Mk 3 had a turret re-design which facilitated easier loading, hence the current +1 RoF in-game. It should maintain this +1 over the Mk 1 and Mk 2, and have 9 RoF. As I understand the interior of Challenger 2's turret is very similar to the layout of Challenger 1 Mk 3, so this then makes total sense that both would be 9 RoF.
Image

User avatar
Mister Maf
Lieutenant
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sun 15 Dec 2013 23:15
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth Changes thread

Postby Mister Maf » Sat 3 Jan 2015 21:03

DoktorvonWer wrote:
Infinitum wrote:Chieftain Mk2, 5 and 10 8 ROF

Chieftain Mk10/Chally mk1, 2 ,3 ROF (one more because of superior FCS)

This needs to happen !

I mean this guy said himself its has comparable ROF to M1 Abram and Leo2 so I don't see why it couldn't happen along with changes to the base T-80, It would be nice to see the the 120 Rifled guns getting some treatment.


Nah, should be:

Chieftains: All 8 RoF (from 7)
Challenger 1 Mk 1, Mk 2: Also up to 8 RoF (from 7)
Challenger 1 Mk 3: 9 RoF (from 8)
Challenger 2: 9 RoF (as current)

Why? Chieftains should have the normal loading for comparable manual loaders, as should the similar Challenger 1 turret.
Challenger 1 Mk 3 had a turret re-design which facilitated easier loading, hence the current +1 RoF in-game. It should maintain this +1 over the Mk 1 and Mk 2, and have 9 RoF. As I understand the interior of Challenger 2's turret is very similar to the layout of Challenger 1 Mk 3, so this then makes total sense that both would be 9 RoF.

This is logic I can get behind.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests