Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Mighty_Zuk
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016 17:56
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Mighty_Zuk » Fri 7 Oct 2016 22:12

Yakhont wrote:Not only urban but other weapons fired from elevated settings e.g. clusters and top attack munitions


Everything after Merkava 2C has roof armor. It won't stop an RPG-7V2 but it will handle clusters to some extent.

Yakhont wrote:Im still undecided if Wargame should model engine as protection. For me an engine kill is basically the same as a total kill. Wargame was not build to simulate these things.


It could go for a more realistic approach and give it similar stats as the Abrams line, going with Merkava 1 as equivalent to M1, Merkava 2 as equivalent to M1IP, and so forth. But it would also include an AP buff for some, which would balance it back anyway.


Yakhont wrote:In other tanks it assumes the crew or ammunition would be exposed before the engine so Im not sure it its fair that the Merkeva gets a pass before everyone's engine placement gets modelled.Hence the crew and ammo do not need to be hit make the unit "out of game" so to speak.


Didn't quite understand what you're saying here.

Yakhont wrote:Your mentality is clearly that the dug in bunker position is where the Merkeva is safest or most at home? I dont really see the ramp as a benefit when because it assumes a tank would expend dozens of rounds and then some more and then keep firing in a static position when what i think should happen is the tank is relieved and does to a safe supply point to be replenished.


Replace the word "Merkava" with "tank" and you got that right.
Unless the tanks are maneuvering in an offensive operation, they will be in a prepared position (that's what combat engineers are for).
Going hull down is the basics for stopping an armored assault.

Here's a dug-in position for single tank:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4wyATkcRzvs/maxresdefault.jpg

Earth wall with a long firing line:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pm6yYi-JugY/maxresdefault.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FbQaiYlKiN0/U ... pondin.jpg

None expects a tank to expend all its shells. But you should also remember that tanks never carry a full load of a certain shell.
Out of a loadout of, say 40 shells, a tank may have 10 APFSDS (tanks and LAV), 10 HEAT (LAV), 14 HE-MP (heli, infantry, LAV), 4 smoke/illumination, 2 stun. Just an example.
So against an equal enemy, you have 10 shells in total to expend on tanks.
That's not much considering some will miss, some will fail to penetrate, and in many cases you'll need multiple penetrations to destroy the tank.

Not to mention that any normal country's doctrine dictates retreating to another line to exit an enemy's effective range (turret is always more protected, save for a few cases).

So the ability to load under fire and very quickly is a very important feature, and allows a more free expediture of ammunition.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Fade2Gray » Sat 8 Oct 2016 04:21

Mighty_Zuk wrote:and seriously do you have anything against me? All I ever hear from you are insults or attempts to insult.
If you can't contribute in any way to the discussion, don't reply.


You are a horribly biased shitposter. I've called out Ring for fabricating nonsense about you(got a wonderful PM from him pretty much confirming that he's full of it as well), and now I'm calling out you. Both of you are full of it. If you can't handle being put on blast, then this forum isn't for you.

That "tanks are not supposed to fight in cities" is pure LOLwut. I guess M1s and Brads pushing right with the infantry in Samarra and Fallujah, sometimes without ERA kits, was a big no-no to you, eh?

Yakhont wrote:Im still undecided if Wargame should model engine as protection. For me an engine kill is basically the same as a total kill. Wargame was not build to simulate these things.


If the crew decides to bail, then yes. Otherwise a track may be able to keep fighting, though as a sitting duck. Also depends on other things, did battery power get totally knocked out as well? If so then then it will only be able to keep fighting with the turret on manual. In that case, the temptation for me to bail would be higher. Still, if the TC is good then he should assess the situation and decide from there. If the turret ring is not jammed, you have at least an hours worth of battery power, and enough ammo to keep fighting for the immediate future?

In the highly lethal environment you'd be bailing out into I'd dare say most of the time it'd be best to stay on your track and keep fighting.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby hansbroger » Sat 8 Oct 2016 05:19

Fade2Gray wrote:
Mighty_Zuk wrote:and seriously do you have anything against me? All I ever hear from you are insults or attempts to insult.
If you can't contribute in any way to the discussion, don't reply.


You are a horribly biased shitposter. I've called out Ring for fabricating nonsense about you(got a wonderful PM from him pretty much confirming that he's full of it as well), and now I'm calling out you. Both of you are full of it. If you can't handle being put on blast, then this forum isn't for you.

That "tanks are not supposed to fight in cities" is pure LOLwut. I guess M1s and Brads pushing right with the infantry in Samarra and Fallujah, sometimes without ERA kits, was a big no-no to you, eh?

Yakhont wrote:Im still undecided if Wargame should model engine as protection. For me an engine kill is basically the same as a total kill. Wargame was not build to simulate these things.


If the crew decides to bail, then yes. Otherwise a track may be able to keep fighting, though as a sitting duck. Also depends on other things, did battery power get totally knocked out as well? If so then then it will only be able to keep fighting with the turret on manual. In that case, the temptation for me to bail would be higher. Still, if the TC is good then he should assess the situation and decide from there. If the turret ring is not jammed, you have at least an hours worth of battery power, and enough ammo to keep fighting for the immediate future?

In the highly lethal environment you'd be bailing out into I'd dare say most of the time it'd be best to stay on your track and keep fighting.

Image
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

Mighty_Zuk
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016 17:56
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Mighty_Zuk » Sat 8 Oct 2016 10:14

Fade2Gray wrote:You are a horribly biased shitposter. I've called out Ring for fabricating nonsense about you(got a wonderful PM from him pretty much confirming that he's full of it as well), and now I'm calling out you. Both of you are full of it. If you can't handle being put on blast, then this forum isn't for you.


So shitposting and trolling is more accepted than having healthy discussions on this forum? Glad you at least admit it.
You can keep shitposting. I'm not going to stop you. But I'm at least telling you that you're just wasting your time.

Fade2Gray wrote:That "tanks are not supposed to fight in cities" is pure LOLwut. I guess M1s and Brads pushing right with the infantry in Samarra and Fallujah, sometimes without ERA kits, was a big no-no to you, eh?

The fact that they needed ERA kits (among other additions) proves that tanks aren't supposed to go into cities.
Going in without ERA kits could be acceptable if the area was already partially cleared.
But experience in Grozny (high elevation threats) and Gaza (although ATGMs were intercepted, without APS there would be a lot of casualties) shows that this is not the playground for tanks.
If anything, tanks are supposed to encircle a city and bombard it.

Tanks go into cities today because there is no other choice. Until recently, there were no vehicles specialized for this task, like for example the T-40 Le Clerc, BMPT, or Namer armed with 30mm.

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Frencho » Sat 8 Oct 2016 14:19

What are you on about?!

Leclerc T40 remained just a concept, in paper...

It's only Russia who has enough spare T-72s to refit as BMP-Ts, for most countries equipped with soviet tanks, T-72s are their actual premium MBTs. So why would they transform a big chunk of their tank fleet into a dedicated urban fire support platform?

We don't see any BMP-T in Syria, Iraq or Yemen now do we?! But a several T-55s, T-62s,T-72s, T-90s, Abrams, M60s, AMX-30s and Leclerc's doing urban fire support...

Meh, BMP-T and Leclerc T-40 are just fancy unicorns people love putting in video games to compensate for their complete uselessness in the real world, as the market for them is inexistent and redundant because of modern IFVs (that can actually carry an infantry squad).

User avatar
Borscht
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed 30 Oct 2013 15:44
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Borscht » Sat 8 Oct 2016 14:49

Fade2Gray wrote:That "tanks are not supposed to fight in cities" is pure LOLwut. I guess M1s and Brads pushing right with the infantry in Samarra and Fallujah, sometimes without ERA kits, was a big no-no to you, eh?

Tanks are not supposed to fight in the cities. Unfortunately you can't call the Iraqi offensives with the militants armed with old RPGs a reliable proof.
Your own example of not even having ERA is perfect to prove that those "together with the infantry" offensives were not considered dangerous to the tanks.
If, hypothetically, those same tanks crossed the border into Russia and have entered a city, ERA would be plastered all over and going in without it would be the same as signing your own death warrant.
P.S. Do you know how Israelis use tanks in urban areas? They don't. They level the area with artillery and tank fire and then move infantry in.
Tanks in urban zones are way to easily trapped and killed.
P.S.S. Zuk told you already, look up the Grozny offensive.
SOUP OF GLORIOUS DESIGN

Mighty_Zuk
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016 17:56
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Mighty_Zuk » Sat 8 Oct 2016 15:53

Frencho wrote:What are you on about?!

Leclerc T40 remained just a concept, in paper...

It's only Russia who has enough spare T-72s to refit as BMP-Ts, for most countries equipped with soviet tanks, T-72s are their actual premium MBTs. So why would they transform a big chunk of their tank fleet into a dedicated urban fire support platform?

We don't see any BMP-T in Syria, Iraq or Yemen now do we?! But a several T-55s, T-62s,T-72s, T-90s, Abrams, M60s, AMX-30s and Leclerc's doing urban fire support...

Meh, BMP-T and Leclerc T-40 are just fancy unicorns people love putting in video games to compensate for their complete uselessness in the real world, as the market for them is inexistent and redundant because of modern IFVs (that can actually carry an infantry squad).


1)BMPTs aren't just converted T-72. They are also newly designed hulls and T-15 IFVs.
Infantry carrying capability is dependent on chassis, and T-15 can carry infantry.
Le Clerc was just an example of a platform built for urban combat.
a Namer was also tested with similar armament, though it's unlikely we'll see it renewed until the Eitan begins production.

Problem is, most just prefer to risk tanks and IFVs because it's a lot cheaper and easier than introducing another type of vehicle.

2)The experience in Syria is a very good example, thank you. It proves that cities are far too dangerous for tanks.
There are enough videos of T-72 and T-55 tanks blown to bits with an RPG or ATGM fired from a remote building rooftop.

3)Their usefulness IRL is greater than tanks and IFVs in urban areas, and even when not fighting in such scenario, they act as formidable firing support vehicles with shared mobility as the rest of the ground vehicles, and can serve multiple roles.
And I'm not talking about any specific vehicle here.

Rimgrimner
First Sergeant
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2016 14:32
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Rimgrimner » Sat 8 Oct 2016 16:40

Mighty_Zuk wrote:
Rimgrimner wrote:
the tungsten penetrator would have to go atleast 2000 m/s to outperform DU.


Source please.

Image

As you can see, on a BHN 250 target, WC begins to outperform DU at 1,620m/s.
On BHN 300 it outperforms DU at a bit over 1,650m/s.
On BHN 350 it outperforms DU at 1,700m/s.

The Merkava 3's APFSDS is the M322 at 1,705m/s.


Source is a friend of mine who worked for Krauss Maffei Wegmann. Hardness also is a factor, and on this discussion we havent even mentioned range either.

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby hansbroger » Sat 8 Oct 2016 16:44

Mighty_Zuk wrote:
Frencho wrote:What are you on about?!

Leclerc T40 remained just a concept, in paper...

It's only Russia who has enough spare T-72s to refit as BMP-Ts, for most countries equipped with soviet tanks, T-72s are their actual premium MBTs. So why would they transform a big chunk of their tank fleet into a dedicated urban fire support platform?

We don't see any BMP-T in Syria, Iraq or Yemen now do we?! But a several T-55s, T-62s,T-72s, T-90s, Abrams, M60s, AMX-30s and Leclerc's doing urban fire support...

Meh, BMP-T and Leclerc T-40 are just fancy unicorns people love putting in video games to compensate for their complete uselessness in the real world, as the market for them is inexistent and redundant because of modern IFVs (that can actually carry an infantry squad).


1)BMPTs aren't just converted T-72. They are also newly designed hulls and T-15 IFVs.
Infantry carrying capability is dependent on chassis, and T-15 can carry infantry.
Le Clerc was just an example of a platform built for urban combat.
a Namer was also tested with similar armament, though it's unlikely we'll see it renewed until the Eitan begins production.

Problem is, most just prefer to risk tanks and IFVs because it's a lot cheaper and easier than introducing another type of vehicle.

2)The experience in Syria is a very good example, thank you. It proves that cities are far too dangerous for tanks.
There are enough videos of T-72 and T-55 tanks blown to bits with an RPG or ATGM fired from a remote building rooftop.

3)Their usefulness IRL is greater than tanks and IFVs in urban areas, and even when not fighting in such scenario, they act as formidable firing support vehicles with shared mobility as the rest of the ground vehicles, and can serve multiple roles.
And I'm not talking about any specific vehicle here.


Armor has proved itself to be perfectly useful and resilient in Iraq and Syria when not used independently or as stationary bunkers. Most of the SAA tanks we see getting destroyed are either on raids with literally zero infantry support or functioning as pillboxes. Although cities are as dangerous as they've ever been for tanks the advantages provided by tanks in city fighting still seem to outweigh the risks of using them in that environment. Effective use of tanks with infantry support in urban environments is going on literally right across the border (and increasingly more prevalent in Syria as well).

Vehicles like the BMPT don't offer any real advantages in firepower over the existing combat team of tanks and IFV's which happen to bring along the most vital urban firepower asset.. Infantry. Even today people sure are more willing to risk tanks than to shell out for BMPT class FSVs. The usefulness of those platforms as a tank escort in open country is again dubious because it's functions are perfectly taken care of by IFVs and the greater precision and responsiveness of modern mortars and artillery as well as missile systems. BMPT class vehicles are too aggressive to ever be employed in peacekeeping and they're rather expensive for sustained COIN.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3381
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby chykka » Sat 8 Oct 2016 16:52

Syrians are doing so with T72, Shilkas, and BMPs. Not ideal but when the SAA is doing offensives they really have no choice or other armoured carriers for the job. How much destruction of the cities is evident these weapons and hulls are really too keep the men safe and offer some bigger firepower.

You can position them down a long street and it's hard to get RPG close however their enemy does have ATGM which they are forced to be vigilant about. I remember a T90 getting hit in Syria on the turret.
Those dug in positions protect fragile hulls and leaves the turret only part exposed so it does make tanks harder too spot and hit at the same time.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests