US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

ardi223
Master Sergeant
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2015 16:39
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby ardi223 » Mon 3 Oct 2016 20:55

GARGEAN wrote:
ardi223 wrote:Dude what are you talking about?
In our 8 year war with Iraq.Iraqi tanks were always pain in the ass.even their T-55/62s ripped most of our Chieftains.
Let along T-72s which were untouchable by our tanks due to higher range and accuracy

Hmmmmm... This is sarcasm? Which war you referring to?

Iran-Iraq war.that's why relied so heavily on our Tow cobras and F-4s with mavericks to deal with Iraqis armor
I want Lena Katina :mrgreen: :D 8-)

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby hansbroger » Mon 3 Oct 2016 21:02

GARGEAN wrote:
ardi223 wrote:Dude what are you talking about?
In our 8 year war with Iraq.Iraqi tanks were always pain in the ass.even their T-55/62s ripped most of our Chieftains.
Let along T-72s which were untouchable by our tanks due to higher range and accuracy

Hmmmmm... This is sarcasm? Which war you referring to?


Probably Iran-Iraq war.

@ previous.
Eastern bloc (USSR and friends) tanks have seriously under modeled FCS capability characteristics within typical battle ranges, Eastern bloc ATGMs have also received outrageously low atgm accuracy despite demonstrating considerably better performance in trial+irl combat environments. The relatively few instances of western mbt's engaging enemy afv's at well nigh fantastical ranges out in the desert during ODS/Granby has set a ludicrous and highly unrealistic bar for what constitutes main gun accuracy.

The bar for 80% CTH at ~2000m is actually quite low compared to what some people expect.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

Guggy
General
Posts: 8645
Joined: Thu 17 Nov 2011 02:53
Location: peaceful skeleton realm
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Guggy » Mon 3 Oct 2016 21:48

Its a mix of factors I think. BTR's Tank proposal from way way back in the day illustrated each instrument of a tanks FCS, and gave a rough abstraction of its CTH boost. We have really condensed factors at play, and engagements taking place at what isnt near maximum range.

Redfor's medium-range tanks do suffer the most from the factors though.

User avatar
Bullfrog
General
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Bullfrog » Mon 3 Oct 2016 22:05

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:I'm still not sure why the US needs FIST beyond SMAW.


Because the long term goal for any future development of the US should be to make both factions inside it flushed out.

Army lack of FiST, Shock inf, etc. and visa versa... stuff like that should be worked out.

That if there is going to be any development for the US outside of changing stats.
Last edited by Bullfrog on Mon 3 Oct 2016 22:09, edited 1 time in total.
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby GARGEAN » Mon 3 Oct 2016 22:06

Guggy wrote:Its a mix of factors I think. BTR's Tank proposal from way way back in the day illustrated each instrument of a tanks FCS, and gave a rough abstraction of its CTH boost. We have really condensed factors at play, and engagements taking place at what isnt near maximum range.

Redfor's medium-range tanks do suffer the most from the factors though.

BTR's proposals was somewhat good at filling, but very strange at conclusions. Giving non-Stillbrew Chiefs same armor as T-64A and Chief Mk.5 better acc that T-64B is strange at best.

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby codextero » Mon 3 Oct 2016 23:29

GARGEAN wrote:
Guggy wrote:Its a mix of factors I think. BTR's Tank proposal from way way back in the day illustrated each instrument of a tanks FCS, and gave a rough abstraction of its CTH boost. We have really condensed factors at play, and engagements taking place at what isnt near maximum range.

Redfor's medium-range tanks do suffer the most from the factors though.

BTR's proposals was somewhat good at filling, but very strange at conclusions. Giving non-Stillbrew Chiefs same armor as T-64A and Chief Mk.5 better acc that T-64B is strange at best.


it was based on a faulty number that the glacis of the chieftain was 120mm rather than the 75-80 mm it actually is. older sources stated the glacis of Chieftain was 120mm @ 70 degrees when it's actually much thinner once someone took an ultrasound to the thing.

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby GARGEAN » Mon 3 Oct 2016 23:34

codextero wrote:it was based on a faulty number that the glacis of the chieftain was 120mm rather than the 75-80 mm it actually is. older sources stated the glacis of Chieftain was 120mm @ 70 degrees when it's actually much thinner once someone took an ultrasound to the thing.

There was misses on T-64A side too. He stated glacis armor at 335mm, while lower estimates are giving it around 350mm, more common ones - 380-385mm.

User avatar
Eukie
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2014 16:22
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Eukie » Tue 4 Oct 2016 00:23

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:
Eukie wrote:I'm a big fan of infantry-wise variety, and the following came to mind as things the US could (not necessarily should) have:
Variety is a hard thing to balance, let alone argue for especially for the US.


I understand that. In any case, thanks for addressing my brainstorm in a thoughtful manner!

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:
Eukie wrote:HMG Team [FIST]
M16, Browning M2HB, 5 men
This would either be really bad or OP depending on the price tag. Until Eugen adjusts infantry acceleration/set up time, this cannot be fairly modeled.


Is that an engine limitation, or does infantry just not have built in acquisition delays as a rule?

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:
Eukie wrote:ASP-30 [FIST]
M16, APS-30, 5 men
If it weren't for the fact that the F-22 has already been outright denied, I'd say this was an even bigger pipe dream.


First produced in 1987, it's in timeframe! :P

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:
Eukie wrote:Heavy Weapons Squad
M240, M2 CG/SMAW/M47 Dragon, Mk. 19 (?), 5 or 10 man
This is basically FIST teams with an MG, which is not unique enough to warrant use.


I was thinking less FIST-with-an-MG and more "machine gunners who-also-carry-CGs, though with your objections to my MG-FIST suggestions, that might be infeasible to make in a way that doesn't turn into a squad full of Rambos running around firing machine guns with one hand?

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Killertomato » Tue 4 Oct 2016 00:26

REDFOR tanks are less accurate than they should be because the values are left over from EE, when their flavor was having super high AP and armor, but low acc.

I don't think T-64/80 stats have changed since the introduction of 2275m.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby codextero » Tue 4 Oct 2016 01:07

Killertomato wrote:REDFOR tanks are less accurate than they should be because the values are left over from EE, when their flavor was having super high AP and armor, but low acc.

I don't think T-64/80 stats have changed since the introduction of 2275m.


They got more accurate. Tank accuracy was re-scaled so tanks that had 9 accuracy in ALB got 60 ish percent in RD.

The T-80/64B was 8 accuracy in ALB IIRC, and they have 50% accuracy now, which would have been 10 in ALB.

EE Redfor tanks was just easymode. T-64B cost like 30 points less than Leopard 2A1 and had the same AP, armor, and a GLATGM (which was the shit back then). It was spam TOW-2 or die.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests