Tank gun accuracy, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Airland Battle tank balance

Ribar
Warrant Officer
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 09:27
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Contact:

Re: Tank gun accuracy, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Airland Battle tank balance

Postby Ribar » Mon 16 Jan 2017 01:00

RedFive wrote:
Killertomato wrote:What was the dominant weapons system in 1991? The modern main battle tank.

ATGMs and other PGMs, especially air-delivered ones. Hell Bradleys killed more tanks in Desert Storm than Abrams tanks did.


"It always comes down to the infantryman and his rifle." :mrgreen:

edit : sorry for derailing :oops:
Image :mrgreen:

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: Tank gun accuracy, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Airland Battle tank balance

Postby Killertomato » Mon 16 Jan 2017 01:10

RedFive wrote:
Killertomato wrote:What was the dominant weapons system in 1991? The modern main battle tank.

ATGMs and other PGMs, especially air-delivered ones. Hell Bradleys killed more tanks in Desert Storm than Abrams tanks did.


Looking at desert storm skews things in this instance.

For one thing, in WWIII, the air force wouldn't have had the entire war except for the last four days to engage the enemy army alone. For another, in a bigger war those PGMs would be hitting targets more important than lone tanks. "Tank plinking" as seen in the Iraqi desert was a symptom of target starvation.

As for the M1s and Bradleys... there were more Brads and they got more kills. That's true. But they didn't lead the charge and they were never the weapon of choice given a choice. The M1 always was. Doctrine was centered around heavy armor in every major country.
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
Azaz3l
Brigadier
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sat 1 Oct 2011 10:38
Location: Bus 410
Contact:

Re: Tank gun accuracy, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Airland Battle tank balance

Postby Azaz3l » Mon 16 Jan 2017 01:20

Meh, I'd rather see all ATGMs get an accuracy overhaul instead, similar to what happened to tanks once.
Image

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

Re: Tank gun accuracy, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Airland Battle tank balance

Postby Frencho » Mon 16 Jan 2017 01:32

Well from an authenticity first point of view, I'd prefer a 65% Acc ceiling for MBTs and a 50% Acc floor for low-end ATGMs.

That way 70% Accuracy high-end ATGMs are more accurate than the only two MBTs qualifying for 65% Acc (M1A2 Abrams & Leclerc).
So, most Premium MBTs sit at a good 60% Acc rating. Then fix case by case the Acc discrepancies (Merkava 1, Moderna, Baltic Front MBTs). This would pretty much translate into a -5 % Accuracy nerf across the board for tanks.

Don't know how well this would translate into gameplay as I havent played in 2 months.

Or just overhaul the ATGMs first and then see if tank accuracy needs to be touched.

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: Tank gun accuracy, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Airland Battle tank balance

Postby HrcAk47 » Mon 16 Jan 2017 01:35

Azaz3l wrote:Meh, I'd rather see all ATGMs get an accuracy overhaul instead, similar to what happened to tanks once.


Tanks need overhauls too.

And planes.


Damn. WG4 can't come soon enough.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

wehrwolfzug
Master Sergeant
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon 16 Apr 2012 11:32
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
Contact:

Re: Tank gun accuracy, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Airland Battle tank balance

Postby wehrwolfzug » Mon 16 Jan 2017 01:42

The problem is air power is so dominant that tanks only get time to come out of hiding and shoot one shot. Currently any ground unit that sits out in the open for five seconds get clicked on by player with a jet in the tab. This means exspensive tanks have to one shot kill, and everything else is useless.

Helicopters are just as bad too, but their speed is much slower, they cost a lot of supply and can be attacked by most ground units. Jets need to cost supply and there must be a call in delay. There are much deeper issues at work here. Adjusting tank accuracy will just make in not worth the risk to poke your turret out of the woods.

RedFive
Warrant Officer
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed 6 Jan 2016 15:22
Contact:

Re: Tank gun accuracy, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Airland Battle tank balance

Postby RedFive » Mon 16 Jan 2017 01:48

Killertomato wrote:Looking at desert storm skews things in this instance.

We don't have another example of a modern military in action during 1991, so it's all we have to go on. If we're going to get into hypotheticals, ATGMs would have rendered MBTs into death traps in WW3, IMO.
For one thing, in WWIII, the air force wouldn't have had the entire war except for the last four days to engage the enemy army alone.

Likely not, but that doesn't change the tremendous effectiveness of ATGMs and other PGMs.
For another, in a bigger war those PGMs would be hitting targets more important than lone tanks. "Tank plinking" as seen in the Iraqi desert was a symptom of target starvation.

So the PGMs would be even more important, then?
As for the M1s and Bradleys... there were more Brads and they got more kills. That's true. But they didn't lead the charge and they were never the weapon of choice given a choice. The M1 always was. Doctrine was centered around heavy armor in every major country.

If Wargame has taught me anything, it's that unsupported tank assaults are suicidal (one point I think WG gets right on), doctrine called for the M1s to be fighting in combined arms groups with Bradleys. Plus there would be more Bradleys than M1s in just about any plausible WW3 scenario you can name, so the point stands.

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: Tank gun accuracy, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Airland Battle tank balance

Postby Killertomato » Mon 16 Jan 2017 02:00

RedFive wrote:We don't have another example of a modern military in action during 1991, so it's all we have to go on. If we're going to get into hypotheticals, ATGMs would have rendered MBTs into death traps in WW3, IMO.


ATGMs were overegged as a threat in 1991. They can be suppressed by artillery and smoke much more easily than armor can, and by the end of the cold war, a lot of ATGMs in the stocks would have been unable to kill tanks in wide use from the front at all- with the exception of TOW-2A and really big ATGMs like Maverick, most of the ones that did were just entering service in 1991.

Likely not, but that doesn't change the tremendous effectiveness of ATGMs and other PGMs.


It... does? Relative to ground forces? If you keep the aircraft back for 96 days and send them in for 4 days they'll do a lot less.

So the PGMs would be even more important, then?


Not vs. tanks. Vs. SAM sites, artillery concentrations, supply depots, bridges, yeah. Except for Maverick, no US airborne PGMs were supposed to be used against tanks on a regular basis at all. There simply weren't enough of them.

If Wargame has taught me anything, it's that unsupported tank assaults are suicidal (one point I think WG gets right on), doctrine called for the M1s to be fighting in combined arms groups with Bradleys. Plus there would be more Bradleys than M1s in just about any plausible WW3 scenario you can name, so the point stands.


And the Bradleys would always be in a support role, like BMPs and Marders. No IFV had the staying power to mix it up right up front. The primary weapon was always the tank.
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: Tank gun accuracy, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Airland Battle tank balance

Postby another505 » Mon 16 Jan 2017 02:13

Nope, dont agree with OP. Tanks already engage each other quiet slow, especially super heavy tanks duke out . With less accuracy, there are even more reasons to bring out the atgm planes
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: Tank gun accuracy, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Airland Battle tank balance

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Mon 16 Jan 2017 02:17

Killertomato wrote:ATGMs were overegged as a threat in 1991. They can be suppressed by artillery and smoke much more easily than armor can, and by the end of the cold war, a lot of ATGMs in the stocks would have been unable to kill tanks in wide use from the front at all- with the exception of TOW-2A and really big ATGMs like Maverick, most of the ones that did were just entering service in 1991.


To be honest, the Gulf wars were more of an outlier than the norm, looking at similar conflicts around the time period (Yugoslavia, Chechen etc.) ATGM's were absolutely deadly and often feared, even the more "obsolete" ones were effectively used to destroy Armour it shouldn't have on paper.

Hell, even most modern conflicts like Syria and Yemen are still utilizing cold-war era stock effectively to defeat even the more modern tanks.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 33 guests