Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Rimgrimner » Tue 4 Oct 2016 16:27

fox_the_apprentice wrote:You're writing about the same people who gave out lots of FREE DLC for a really long time. You know, the people who were against paid DLC in the first place, but finally decided to give it a try after much urging by the community. I'm not crying pay2win without a LOT more evidence than your non-fact-based opinion. Here's a great idea: Why not wait until you've at least tried the nation for fuck's sake?


The Millionth Mile and Norse Dragons were things that were supposed to be included on launch? They got postponed for a long time before they finally came to the game. It's fine that you want to protect them, but these things were promised at launch. So that makes them great, to add things for free that was meant to be in the game from the beginning?

Right.

I am all for paid DLC, let me tell you that. I am not saying anything against paid DLC as long as its reasonable and in line with other factions. Right now, it is not in line with the other factions. I gave you one of the good examples from the DLC compared to other nations and that is apparantly non-fact-based. Using the experiences of other players that have given out videos, armory analysis and more, is apparantly "non-fact-based" aswell. Do you know what a fact is?

Please, dont post again, for your own sake before you try to play Eugen's hero again.

PS: I will try them. Dont worry.

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 » Tue 4 Oct 2016 16:35

Rimgrimner wrote:The Millionth Mile and Norse Dragons were things that were supposed to be included on launch?


Uh, no? Stop making up things.

Rimgrimner wrote: Right now, it is not in line with the other factions.


It has gaps in its AA, what are you on about? If it was "in line" with say USSR or NORAD, it wouldn't have such flaws.

Please, dont post again, for your own sake before you try to play Eugen's hero again.


Maybe you should lead by example.

Yeah, there's a few issues I've noticed with Israel, but there are some flaws as well. Take a pill and chill out and let the meta evolve around it first.

Rimgrimner wrote:Israel is skewered statwise. Now i cannot blame Eugen for this, but i have a edgy feeling that this is intentional in order to boost sales. Since Madmat decided to ignore my long message to him and give no reply, this strengthens this suspicion.


Key word being "edgy."

Also, MM ignores a lot of stuff, it doesn't make your argument anymore special.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Rimgrimner » Tue 4 Oct 2016 16:52

Fade2Gray wrote:
Rimgrimner wrote:The Millionth Mile and Norse Dragons were things that were supposed to be included on launch?


Uh, no? Stop making up things.

Rimgrimner wrote: Right now, it is not in line with the other factions.


It has gaps in its AA, what are you on about? If it was "in line" with say USSR or NORAD, it wouldn't have such flaws.

Please, dont post again, for your own sake before you try to play Eugen's hero again.


Maybe you should lead by example.

Yeah, there's a few issues I've noticed with Israel, but there are some flaws as well. Take a pill and chill out and let the meta evolve around it first.

Rimgrimner wrote:Israel is skewered statwise. Now i cannot blame Eugen for this, but i have a edgy feeling that this is intentional in order to boost sales. Since Madmat decided to ignore my long message to him and give no reply, this strengthens this suspicion.


Key word being "edgy."

Also, MM ignores a lot of stuff, it doesn't make your argument anymore special.


Fair enough. Speculating on what other people tell me wont be much of a valid argument.

nande
Lieutenant
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue 30 Sep 2014 02:31
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby nande » Tue 4 Oct 2016 17:07

would HEAT instead of KE for the transport Merkava have any basis in reality?

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Mighty_Zuk » Tue 4 Oct 2016 17:17

nande wrote:would HEAT instead of KE for the transport Merkava have any basis in reality?


In reality a Merkava transporting a squad would only have 5-10 shells, of several types.
Some APFSDS, some HE-MP, some HEAT and possibly 1 smoke or illumination.
Truthfully, transporting troops was never a feature the Merkava was supposed to have. There are no seats, no room for gear, and the walls are filled with spikes that would otherwise hold the ammo containers.

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Rimgrimner » Tue 4 Oct 2016 17:24

Mighty_Zuk wrote:
nande wrote:would HEAT instead of KE for the transport Merkava have any basis in reality?


In reality a Merkava transporting a squad would only have 5-10 shells, of several types.
Some APFSDS, some HE-MP, some HEAT and possibly 1 smoke or illumination.
Truthfully, transporting troops was never a feature the Merkava was supposed to have. There are no seats, no room for gear, and the walls are filled with spikes that would otherwise hold the ammo containers.


atleast its limited to the fire support teams or 5 man teams or less in the game. Which is the most ideal way to do it if u were to make it a transport.

User avatar
Demonicjapsel
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat 26 Jul 2014 20:58
Location: Triggering HRCK and his warcrime denying Yugoboos

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Demonicjapsel » Tue 4 Oct 2016 17:38

Rimgrimner wrote:The Millionth Mile and Norse Dragons were things that were supposed to be included on launch? They got postponed for a long time before they finally came to the game. It's fine that you want to protect them, but these things were promised at launch. So that makes them great, to add things for free that was meant to be in the game from the beginning?

Right.

I am all for paid DLC, let me tell you that. I am not saying anything against paid DLC as long as its reasonable and in line with other factions. Right now, it is not in line with the other factions. I gave you one of the good examples from the DLC compared to other nations and that is apparantly non-fact-based. Using the experiences of other players that have given out videos, armory analysis and more, is apparantly "non-fact-based" aswell. Do you know what a fact is?

Please, dont post again, for your own sake before you try to play Eugen's hero again.

PS: I will try them. Dont worry.


Except it wasn't? The decision to add the Scandies and NSWP was due to the Community, not because Eugen was planning on it. Originally the plan had been to simply leave them out. if anything the decision to add them, and give them a DLC bringing them up to 90's standard is pretty damn royal, given they owe us nothing...

as for P2W, the major issue has been solved, and as a whole, Israel has flaws which can be exploited. Likewise, the Dutch weren't P2W either, fun, sure, but OP, nowhere near. It combined a good tank tab with Decent infantry and recon, but lacked both in specialized aircraft and anti Helo AA, which again, can be exploited.

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Mighty_Zuk » Tue 4 Oct 2016 18:12

Rimgrimner wrote:There is little difference in chassis layout between the Merkava 1 and 2. The turret is also the same except for improved side armor.

My number on the Merkava 1 chassis are 217mm of steel without including the engine block. (hitting the engine is a kill in RD).

On which point on the hull? You do realize the UFP on all Merkava models (other than Mark 4 which isn't in game) has varying slopes?
If we believe Rolf Hilmes, the nose armor is 257mm thickness if we DON'T take slope into account. If we do account for slope, it would be up to 350mm of steel armor.
This is effectively the same hull protection provided by the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2.


Even if u ask for turret armor that is less than 200mm looking away from the spaced armor.

And how did you come to this remarkable conclusion?
The turret LoS is ~800-850mm. How did you conclude that 75% of it is pure air? Considering the fact that an ATGM damage to the turret revealed that the coverplate was at least 150mm thick. So what you're saying is it's 150mm steel, 600mm air gap, and 50mm steel? Great job man. Real good analysis.


Spaced armor are not as effective as people have it in their mind. Right now in the Israel DLC the Merkava 1 has 16 armor, when it actually is supposed to have abit more than the Chieftain only. (I suggested 12 AV)

1)Spaced armor is not a single, fixed layout. There are many appliances to spaced armor. In fact, there is no MBT in the world whose ballistic armor doesn't incorporate a spaced design.
It's highly effective against both CE and KE.
2)The Chieftain was tested in Israel extensively, and studied thoroughly. The Merkava design was in part influenced by the Chieftain, but not anything significant.


Unfortunately now the Merkava 2A sits like this:

105mm M68A1

2100m range
65% accuracy
50% stabilizer
15 Armor Piercing

Armor:
18/6/4/4

Comes with a Mk.19 AGL and a MG.

Cost: 80 points.

Lets compare that to one of the powerhouse tanks of the 80's for the same price - The Leopard 2.

120mm L44

2275m range
60% accuracy
50% stabilizer
16 AP power

Armor:
15/5/4/3

If these 2 were to go head to head in a direct confrontation the Merkava 2 would win head over heels, not to mention the Leopard 2 would have to move closer to even damage it. To bypass the extra 3 AV it would need to move longer than 175m in order to be able to do damage.

The Leopard 2 would indeed have a bit of a range inferiority over the Merkava as in normal 1vs1 conditions it would have 1 less FAV, but when engaging softer units or low cost tanks, it would have a damage and range advantage.
IIRC the Leopard has a higher RoF of 9 as opposed to Merkava's 8.


It adds insult to injury when a tank that is based on design philosophies from the Centurion, Chieftain and M60 does better than one of the superior western designs that even used composites and not only steel.

The Merkava 2A did use composite armor. According to Ogorkiewicz, it had a composite plate on each side of the turret, and a single composite armor bulkhead protecting the front.
It was the first Merkava tank to use composite armor.

Also, can you explain 2 things please?
1)In what way was the Merkava's design influenced by the Centurion and M60? If anything, the Merkava was designed to avoid the same casualties that these 2 tanks incurred.
The Merkava is radically different than any existing tank.
2)Was the Leopard 2 REALLY not influenced at all by past developments or the new tank developments of the west?
Because I can rightfully argue that it was also influenced by the casualties in 1973 to M48, M60 and Centurion tanks.


But since this is a BLUFOR compared to BLUFOR example ive made, what about REDFOR?

Ive gone into RD and looked at the armory for the MBT's that are around the 80 point mark. They all more or less sit at 14-15AV and 18-19AP, with 50% accuracy across the board. This means that in all the cases the REDFOR tanks would be able to hit the Merkava 2A at max range and still do damage, which would be 1 damage per hit.

The Merkava 2A can likely move up 175m and fire, and still win the engagement. Even then, the Merkava 2A has way more utility than other tanks in the same price class, featuring very strong AV and anti infantry capabilities to add. (It also brings a fire support squad)

Moving closer would force it to take more damage. So it's still balanced.

Conclusion:

Israel is skewered statwise. Now i cannot blame Eugen for this, but i have a edgy feeling that this is intentional in order to boost sales. Since Madmat decided to ignore my long message to him and give no reply, this strengthens this suspicion. The Merkava was far behind the Leopard 2 at the time armorwise and firepowerwise.

If Israel is skewered, wait until you see the stats on Soviet tanks.
Israel is not OP in any way, and gameplay of it has proven my claim. If they really wanted an OP nation and boost sales, they would have introduced some unicorns like Kilshon, Patriot, or Namer prototypes.
armor-wise, the Merkava wasn't behind the Leopard 2. We don't know how it compares, but given that both of them use composite armor, and that Merkava 2 weighed 11 tons more than a Leopard 2A4 (which had its armor substantially improved over the Leo 2), we can at least conclude that protection of the Merkava 2 was not far behind, or behind at all.

Firepower-wise, sure. It was behind but not that far. The M1 Abrams has the same gun as the Merkava 2, and the Challenger 1 used L11 rifled gun. And Leclerc used sub-par APFSDS ammo at the time.
So in this case we can say the Leopard 2 was, for a few years, ahead of the west in armament to some extent.


I could continue writing more on the Israel DLC, but unfortunately, it is too late. Eugen has decided to go with what i would consider a pay 2 win model. And they have showed zero interest in getting assistance with the game. I will likely buy the Israel DLC, but i will no longer write at this forum.

Paying for a DLC is not P2W. It's buying a normal expansion that doesn't really give you any noticeable edge over others, while supporting the devs.

When developers are this stuck in the past, Marshall programs and UGBEAR policies, the only result is a downward spiral. Wish you all the best on your future Finland and Yugoslavia DLC's.


Uhm... okay?
Come back when you're not offended.

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Rimgrimner » Wed 5 Oct 2016 03:00

Mighty_Zuk wrote:
Uhm... okay?
Come back when you're not offended.


I am offended by your ignorance :)

http://i.imgur.com/UXuZif4.png

http://i.imgur.com/6hqVjFD.png

Again you show to have zero knowledge on how things work. If you take a high hardness steel plate and back it with a soft steel plate, it is technically composite armor. You think too much of the word composite. You are not thinking of what kind of composite it is and nor how its functionality is.

Those 2 pictures show you 2 very simple things, and i hope you are smart enough to take this and quiet down about your 800-850mm LOS on the merkava 2 turret because you are full of it. Do you know how welding works? Do you see that the front of the Merkava 2 is hollow?

The Abrams uses up to 6 layers of different materials to defeat both KEPs and HEAT threats. What do the Merkava have in comparison to that? It has different hardness steel layers. The only great thing that the Merkava line actually works well against is HEAT shells.

A APFSDS shell would go straight through it like butter.

Unfortunately i am very sick of you and your incessant endless rampage of Israel glorycornholing that one can see across several forums. You are biased. You dont know in-depth 1/10th of what your country produces. You spread false information and turn a blind eye when people prove you wrong. :)

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby hansbroger » Wed 5 Oct 2016 03:34

Rimgrimner wrote:
Mighty_Zuk wrote:
Uhm... okay?
Come back when you're not offended.


I am offended by your ignorance :)

http://i.imgur.com/UXuZif4.png

http://i.imgur.com/6hqVjFD.png

Again you show to have zero knowledge on how things work. If you take a high hardness steel plate and back it with a soft steel plate, it is technically composite armor. You think too much of the word composite. You are not thinking of what kind of composite it is and nor how its functionality is.

Those 2 pictures show you 2 very simple things, and i hope you are smart enough to take this and quiet down about your 800-850mm LOS on the merkava 2 turret because you are full of it. Do you know how welding works? Do you see that the front of the Merkava 2 is hollow?

The Abrams uses up to 6 layers of different materials to defeat both KEPs and HEAT threats. What do the Merkava have in comparison to that? It has different hardness steel layers. The only great thing that the Merkava line actually works well against is HEAT shells.

A APFSDS shell would go straight through it like butter.

Unfortunately i am very sick of you and your incessant endless rampage of Israel glorycornholing that one can see across several forums. You are biased. You dont know in-depth 1/10th of what your country produces. You spread false information and turn a blind eye when people prove you wrong. :)


Now those are some interesting pics! and a serious airgap :o definitely in keeping with the rest of the spaced armor philosophy and provides great standoff for HEAT but agreed, effectiveness against KE is dubious and its unlikely to have been filled with special armor modules.

Israeli "special armor" modules seem to model the Soviet/UK budget approach of a thick steel plate sandwiching a rubber plate and with a thinner steel plate to complete the sandwich, up to the Merk 4 at least which displays far more use of other composite materials. They also do not seem to be comparatively any thicker than those used in the T-72B turret array.

Especially as the armor for the Merkava 2 turret in that critical position seems to be mostly bolt on top. There's a rather large uncovered area around the gun and the shot trap is not uparmored at all. A shell hitting the turret front a foot+ from the barrel is probably dealing with the same protection scheme as Merkava 1. While it's not shoddy T-80U K5 placement bad its still rather perplexing that they'd leave a bald spot like that
Image
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 48 guests