Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

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

Re: Suggestion for Merkava tanks

Postby codextero » Thu 6 Oct 2016 04:47

Mighty_Zuk wrote:
Borscht wrote:What about those moments when a shell simply doesn't penetrate the armor? Doesn't happen by Wargame logic, cause we can have T-55 hitting Leo2 from the front with (VERY) relative success.
Where I'm trying to get with this is if we will have engine crits from frontal penetrations, then ALL the rest of the nations should have tons more fire system and movement related crits done to them, after all the crew in them is much less protected, right?


Yep. In tanks like Leopard 2, Leclerc and Challenger 2, about half the ammo is situated in the front. So frontal penetrations to them would usually leave a burning wreck or a dead driver depending on where it hits.


This looks like an Abrams buff!

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby hansbroger » Thu 6 Oct 2016 05:04

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:Still think Merkarva's FAV should in no way be equivalent to M1A2's and Leo-2a5's.

I'm not even a fan of western tanks and I'll admit there's no way foreign nations can match their armour, especially for that time period.


Yeah USSR'S only excuse is Muh K5. I think III baz is a solid 20-21 FAV tank that possibly has 22 FAV potential from Muh Bluefor science, the 2800m GLATGM and providential AP+gun handling stats should make it the Bluefor T-80UM, :lol: only in this case it's useful because it has top armor. It has fantastic killing power and a GLATM.. remind me again why it needs field beating armor too!? This is flying in the face of all logic used to keep the lid on T-80UM and Leclerc.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

AJE
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat 7 Sep 2013 07:22
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby AJE » Thu 6 Oct 2016 05:06

hansbroger wrote:
Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:Still think Merkarva's FAV should in no way be equivalent to M1A2's and Leo-2a5's.

I'm not even a fan of western tanks and I'll admit there's no way foreign nations can match their armour, especially for that time period.


Yeah USSR'S only excuse is Muh K5. I think III baz is a solid 20-21 FAV tank that possibly has 22 FAV potential from Muh Bluefor science, the 2800m GLATGM and providential AP+gun handling stats should make it the Bluefor T-80UM, :lol: only in this case it's useful because it has top armor. It has fantastic killing power and a GLATM.. remind me again why it needs field beating armor too!? This is flying in the face of all logic used to keep the lid on T-80UM and Leclerc.

To be fair the T-80UM and T-80UK deserve 22 FAV just like the T-90.

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby codextero » Thu 6 Oct 2016 05:18

AJE wrote:
hansbroger wrote:
Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:Still think Merkarva's FAV should in no way be equivalent to M1A2's and Leo-2a5's.

I'm not even a fan of western tanks and I'll admit there's no way foreign nations can match their armour, especially for that time period.


Yeah USSR'S only excuse is Muh K5. I think III baz is a solid 20-21 FAV tank that possibly has 22 FAV potential from Muh Bluefor science, the 2800m GLATGM and providential AP+gun handling stats should make it the Bluefor T-80UM, :lol: only in this case it's useful because it has top armor. It has fantastic killing power and a GLATM.. remind me again why it needs field beating armor too!? This is flying in the face of all logic used to keep the lid on T-80UM and Leclerc.

To be fair the T-80UM and T-80UK deserve 22 FAV just like the T-90.


Not quite, T-80U's naked turret armor was inferior to that on the T-72B because it's considerably less LOS. Western analysts called the T-72B "Dolly Parton" because the bulged out turret cheeks holding the BDD array were compared to Dolly Parton's breasts.

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: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Killertomato » Thu 6 Oct 2016 05:25

codextero wrote:
Not quite, T-80U's naked turret armor was inferior to that on the T-72B because it's considerably less LOS. Western analysts called the T-72B "Dolly Parton" because the bulged out turret cheeks holding the BDD array were compared to Dolly Parton's breasts.


Super Dolly Parton. The T-72A was Dolly Parton. :P
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
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby hansbroger » Thu 6 Oct 2016 06:10

Killertomato wrote:
codextero wrote:
Not quite, T-80U's naked turret armor was inferior to that on the T-72B because it's considerably less LOS. Western analysts called the T-72B "Dolly Parton" because the bulged out turret cheeks holding the BDD array were compared to Dolly Parton's breasts.


Super Dolly Parton. The T-72A was Dolly Parton. :P


But T-80U has Muh fancy composites! It's a shame they didn't just move the damn spotlight and instead left a bloody meter of the turret face uncovered with ERA... The least they could have done would have been spaced hard steel applique in the same shape as the K5.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
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: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Killertomato » Thu 6 Oct 2016 07:36

hansbroger wrote:
Killertomato wrote:
codextero wrote:
Not quite, T-80U's naked turret armor was inferior to that on the T-72B because it's considerably less LOS. Western analysts called the T-72B "Dolly Parton" because the bulged out turret cheeks holding the BDD array were compared to Dolly Parton's breasts.


Super Dolly Parton. The T-72A was Dolly Parton. :P


But T-80U has Muh fancy composites! It's a shame they didn't just move the damn spotlight and instead left a bloody meter of the turret face uncovered with ERA... The least they could have done would have been spaced hard steel applique in the same shape as the K5.


They decided they'd rather see at night. Can't blame them, though the spotlight was basically a SHOOT ME HERE sign by 1985.
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
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby another505 » Thu 6 Oct 2016 08:14

I remember there is a thread of T80um having new ceramic armor in it, and it deserves 21 FAV.
and the T80u series having 4 TAV and 10 rof
Image
Of Salt

AJE
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat 7 Sep 2013 07:22
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby AJE » Thu 6 Oct 2016 08:40

codextero wrote:Not quite, T-80U's naked turret armor was inferior to that on the T-72B because it's considerably less LOS. Western analysts called the T-72B "Dolly Parton" because the bulged out turret cheeks holding the BDD array were compared to Dolly Parton's breasts.

I thought the T-80U had a redesigned turret compared to earlier T-80s, and had roughly the same armor protection (without ERA) as the T-72B. I also assumed that if the T-72BU got upgraded titanium armor inserts, the T-80UM would as well, since it's about the same timeframe.

User avatar
Yakhont
Colonel
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2012 04:33
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Yakhont » Thu 6 Oct 2016 10:34

Mighty_Zuk wrote:It may have been published in ARMOR magazine (in the 80's), but I consider it valid because of the article's author. not the platform.
Ogorkiewicz was known to have participated in numerous military projects including tank developments, and he was personally familiar with Israel Tal, which might explain why he gained access to the Merkava.

There is no data actually on the weight. We only know official weight, which is 63 tons for Merkava 1-2, and 65 tons for Merkava 3-4.
Those are stats shown on the internet.

For example, everywhere I read, the Namer (APC based on Merkava) weighs 60 tons. IRL when I talked to a maintenance crew who were working on a Namer CEV, and said it was nearly 67 tons.

Just look at the Dor Dalet upgrade for example. It included some very thick applique over the turret sides of Merkava 2 and 3, and on the Mark 2 it also included a thick frontal armor applique. Yet official weight remained completely unchanged.


We have to take official data because that is the entire basis of research and is the closest we can get without direct access to the tanks and testing equipment.

I don't know what you are trying to explain; the Namer CEV is heavier than the base NAMER because of the engineering equipment added, and we have some sources for this.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3480/384 ... 7cc1_b.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Evenor.jpg

The second picture is that of a Namer CEV without the dozer at 63.5tons, and with the rest of the equipment 67 tons would be plausible.

I don't know about the Dor Dalet upgrade and if you have sources bring them forth and they can be scrutinised and cross-referenced.

Allowing for better morphology of armour and perhaps some kind of composite armour the Merkeva II would slightly better amoured than the I on the hull, but without changing the dimensions on the hull there are severe limitations of up armouring because 1) The engine need room for cooling and there is a lot of surface to cover on the hull.

There are servre limits on the fundamental design and layout of a Merkeva style vehicle that skews the firepower, mobility and armour ratios in favour of crew protection. This is why no one else has done such a MBT.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests