US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Sigirdiwarth
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon 5 Jan 2015 12:08
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Sigirdiwarth » Wed 15 Feb 2017 03:41

Killertomato wrote:They both need 2275m.

That's reasonable but I'd rather buff the bad units than the decent ones.

Killertomato wrote:4 rounds/min would be charitable.

Argh, I misunderstood you, I thought that you were one of these 15+ ROF for every blue tank people. My bad :D
That being said, guns with 7 rounds/min and lower are very painful to use and I'd like 8 rpm to be the minimum across the board.
Image

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 » Wed 15 Feb 2017 04:12

Sigirdiwarth wrote:
Killertomato wrote:They both need 2275m.

That's reasonable but I'd rather buff the bad units than the decent ones.

Killertomato wrote:4 rounds/min would be charitable.

Argh, I misunderstood you, I thought that you were one of these 15+ ROF for every blue tank people. My bad :D
That being said, guns with 7 rounds/min and lower are very painful to use and I'd like 8 rpm to be the minimum across the board.


It's two sides of the same coin there, man.

M1 and M1IP (and M1A1, which had the same FCS) were the standard of the world in terms of production tank fire control until Leclerc came off the lines in 1990. They deserve high acc and 2275 more than all but the very finest tanks in the game.

On the other hand, it was almost impossible to fire the M81E1 more than two or three times in a minute because you needed to use the compressed-air system to clear the breech or you might accidentally blow yourself up trying to load the gun.

4 rounds/min is the realistic limitation on that system.
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?

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Mike » Wed 15 Feb 2017 07:37

GARGEAN wrote:
Killertomato wrote:4 rounds/min would be charitable.

Stub gun of huge caliber and heavy barrel-like ammunition with problems with loading having less RoF that cannon with unitary loaded cannon with smaller ammo that "muh 12 RoF" Rh120? Impossibru!


Asteroids OP?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_RH120
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby GARGEAN » Wed 15 Feb 2017 15:07


Exactly!

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Bougnas » Wed 15 Feb 2017 15:10

How good was the M774 (or M735, don't remember what was the latest) 105mm ammo in comparison to other 105mm ammo from the late 70's, early 80s?
Image

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby GARGEAN » Wed 15 Feb 2017 15:49

Bougnas wrote:How good was the M774 (or M735, don't remember what was the latest) 105mm ammo in comparison to other 105mm ammo from the late 70's, early 80s?

Meh. Especially in 80s. Teardrop core didn't do well.

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Bougnas » Wed 15 Feb 2017 15:55

GARGEAN wrote:
Bougnas wrote:How good was the M774 (or M735, don't remember what was the latest) 105mm ammo in comparison to other 105mm ammo from the late 70's, early 80s?

Meh. Especially in 80s. Teardrop core didn't do well.


I mean, how much pen did it have and what other ammo could do at the time? (thinking of L64A4 and I believe the DM33?)
Image

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby codextero » Wed 15 Feb 2017 18:33

GARGEAN wrote:
Bougnas wrote:How good was the M774 (or M735, don't remember what was the latest) 105mm ammo in comparison to other 105mm ammo from the late 70's, early 80s?

Meh. Especially in 80s. Teardrop core didn't do well.


M774 was monobloc depleted Uranium, and therefore should be very good for caliber. Projective was 475mm long, but a good proportion of that is the steel tip and rear fins. Weight of the penetrator should be around the 3.5-3.8kg range.

Image

M735 had the teardrop shaped Tungsten core, which was considerably worse than monobloc but better for size than the tungsten plug used in earlier rounds. That said it was still a 105 and smaller than the 115/125. M774 should be the round used on M60A3 and stock M1.

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby wargamer1985 » Wed 15 Feb 2017 18:49

The M774 was significantly better than comparable APFSDS rounds up until around 1984 when the Germans rolled out the DM33, which had superior performance to the M774, but by this time the M833 was very commonplace in the US arsenal, where it was greatly superior to the performance of the DM33.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Bougnas » Sun 19 Feb 2017 12:23

Did USA actually use the V-150 variants at all? Apparently they always used the V-100 only.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests