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

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 02:27

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.

We'll likely never know, it's a pure hypothetical.
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.

Restricting it to ground forces is shifting the goal posts. The question was "What was the dominant weapons system in 1991?". Desert Storm showed what a tremendous force multiplier PGMs are, more important strategically and often tactically than MBTs.
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.

Don't forget Hellfire and TOW, the primary airborne PGMs meant to be used vs tanks.
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.

We don't know that for sure, it's another hypothetical. IMO tanks are to WW3 on the ground as battleships are to WW2 navies: Thought to be the most important unit going into the war, but changes in the battlefield have rendered them ineffective in most scenarios for which they were designed.

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 02:57

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:
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.


The fanciest, shiniest tanks weren't used in any of those conflicts. It was mostly a case of older tanks (or T-80BVs with empty ERA cassettes) vs. ATGMs of the same generation.

And yeah, you can kill a modern tank with a side-shot from an ATGM, but Syria and Yemen aren't exactly shining examples of maneuver warfare. Most of those videos are shooting at a tank that's been sitting on an OP for a looong time. It's harder when they move around.

RedFive wrote:Restricting it to ground forces is shifting the goal posts. The question was "What was the dominant weapons system in 1991?". Desert Storm showed what a tremendous force multiplier PGMs are, more important strategically and often tactically than MBTs.


The point was to compare ground forces to air forces, so it's not shifting the goalposts. You can't compare 100 days of air activity to 4 days of ground activity.

And strategic relevance is completely irrelevant to WRD and regimental-level operations, which is what this game does at the very largest point scales.

Don't forget Hellfire and TOW, the primary airborne PGMs meant to be used vs tanks.


Those are heliborne. I should've specified fixed-wing, my mistake. TOW (except 2A) and Hellfire (except for -F, introduced at the end of 1991) were marginal vs. ERA equipped tanks.

We don't know that for sure, it's another hypothetical. IMO tanks are to WW3 on the ground as battleships are to WW2 navies: Thought to be the most important unit going into the war, but changes in the battlefield have rendered them ineffective in most scenarios for which they were designed.


We do know it for sure, because it's what's happened in every conflict involving a military with armor since... 1973? You can't lead attacks with vehicles armored only against 30mm fire because they get killed too quickly.

This is why Namer and T-14 exist, this is why every Bradley replacement program since the late '80s has been armored like an MBT, this is why Puma weighs 44 tons and this is why even at the height of the stryker madness, the army kept the heavy units.
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
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 05:13

Killertomato wrote:
The fanciest, shiniest tanks weren't used in any of those conflicts. It was mostly a case of older tanks (or T-80BVs with empty ERA cassettes) vs. ATGMs of the same generation.


I think that's what made the Gulf an outlier, the US vastly overestimated Sadaam's capability so sent only the best of the best in terms of it's force and technologies. So a bunch of ~70's tech got absolutely smashed by the newest of the millennials.
Image

User avatar
Aus Askar
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 16:35
Location: Western Australia
Contact:

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

Postby Aus Askar » Mon 16 Jan 2017 06:35

If ALB had more than single digit population, I'd pick it over RD any day. I am sick of the superheavy and nato snipertank meta.
Image

Seryn
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon 5 Dec 2016 06:00
Contact:

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

Postby Seryn » Mon 16 Jan 2017 10:19

Aus Askar wrote:If ALB had more than single digit population, I'd pick it over RD any day. I am sick of the superheavy and nato snipertank meta.


Superheavy and Pact AT Missile spam meta*

User avatar
CommanderDef
Sergeant Major
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed 27 Aug 2014 04:36
Location: Prague, CZ
Contact:

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

Postby CommanderDef » Mon 16 Jan 2017 10:48

I would simply go for reworked Escalation in that case. New toys have high accuracy, that's one of the things that makes them new and expensive. RD has cat C units without proper year, price or balance, so there is no wonder it's hard to find a game with '80 time limit.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. Imagine no unicorns and '95 units (2005 missiles in some cases), imagine a nice number of units per card. Imagine era when the reds were proud.
Sometimes I wish my country wasn't included in the beginning, but coming as a paid DLC...
Spoiler : :
Image

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

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

Postby GARGEAN » Mon 16 Jan 2017 11:30

CommanderDef wrote:I would simply go for reworked Escalation in that case. New toys have high accuracy, that's one of the things that makes them new and expensive. RD has cat C units without proper year, price or balance, so there is no wonder it's hard to find a game with '80 time limit.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. Imagine no unicorns and '95 units (2005 missiles in some cases), imagine a nice number of units per card. Imagine era when the reds were proud.

Reds can be proud in any era, if you represent it right(i.e. tanks with full digital FCS having not less acc that blue ones with Mk.1 Eyeball FCS, or properly represented current and new 90's second gen ATGMs when blue have third gen ect.)

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

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

Postby molnibalage » Mon 16 Jan 2017 11:36

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:ALB tank balance was absolute garbage.

You had the have and have not tanks. When was the last time you've saw a T-55 or an M-48 in those games? While on the other hand tanks like the Leo-2A5, M1A1 and T-80U were nigh on indestructible. You'd just send a fast attack move and watch as everything got destroyed in it's wake, unless you came across another one of those tanks.

-1


1. Was not A5 in ALB, A4 was the most advanced...
2. I saw many times the T-55 and M48 because of lower base ACC they had chace to go closer to more advanced tanks and kill them and more advanced tanks had very little avail.
3. Were 30AP HEAT AGM in ALB so AGM suicide against the few top tier tanks worked as good as in RD. MiG-27K had 4 (!) Kh-29, F/A-18C also had 4x 30 AP AGM-65.

In ALB ATGM had real range and calc. ACC advantage. In RD except iTOW, TOW and Konkurs/M, Bastion and USSR tank based ATGM all are garbage and useless in cat A games. They do not have the ACC and firepower.

The biggest problem is speed rescale. Tank speeds are much more upscaled comparing to ATGM speed. Even if you launch at max. range 2625 m ATGM almost all tanks can get in gun range with insane ACC.

In ALB even older ATGM had 35-40% ACC at 2450-2625 m range while only a very, very few tanks had higher base ACC than 40-45%. (And was no reroll as I know for ATGM.)

As long as base ACC is RD are so totally OP and unrealisticly high at least one range decrease would be great of stepping back towards to ALB.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

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

Postby molnibalage » Mon 16 Jan 2017 11:50

Killertomato wrote:I think the meta we have now is the best one we've ever had.

What was the dominant weapons system in 1991? The modern main battle tank. What is the dominant weapons system in WRD? The main battle tank.

ATGMs are too bad on the whole, especially konkurs, but tanks are perfect.

During Desert Storm M2 Bradleys killed more tank than tanks in Coalition...

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

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

Postby Fade2Gray » Mon 16 Jan 2017 12:10

molnibalage wrote:
Killertomato wrote:I think the meta we have now is the best one we've ever had.

What was the dominant weapons system in 1991? The modern main battle tank. What is the dominant weapons system in WRD? The main battle tank.

ATGMs are too bad on the whole, especially konkurs, but tanks are perfect.

During Desert Storm M2 Bradleys killed more tank than tanks in Coalition...


Congrats on ignoring how KT already pointed out that they were not the ones leading the way into the heaviest of fighting, and that they were used simply because smaller numbers of M1s were too busy massacring stuff elsewhere. Remember, M1s can kill a bunch of tanks a lot faster than Brads can.

Thank goodness that the Brads had vastly superior optics and far better trained crews compared to what they were engaging. In armored warfare, if an ATGM launch is spotted, return fire for the launching vehicle is a really bad thing. Even if the squishy launch vehicle survives, if the missile is wire guided, you can have the wire cut from a near miss.

As a former Brad guy, we are trained to fear tanks. We try our best to avoid drawing their attention in a fight, focusing more on engaging enemy infantry and lighter AFVs. Using the TOW is considered a desperation move unless the enemy's attention is drawn elsewhere. For the most part, if we get the feeling enemy tanks are even remotely looking our way, we hold fire with the ATGMs. Firing a missile is bound draw all sorts of attention.

Of course, this assumes we are facing off against modern tanks with capable optics and well trained crews. If we're facing conscripts in Chinese T-55 knock offs, well, then its different. Against a T-80 though with a crack crew? Yeah, no way in hell I'd rise the TOW launcher unless they were focused on slugging it out with M1s.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 25 guests