Wargame: Airland Dragon

Oddball
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu 3 Apr 2014 15:47
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Oddball » Sat 2 Dec 2017 07:53

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... /m60a3.htm has more information on numbers of TTS-equipped tanks at the specified dates in question. In short, there were several thousand in existence by the mid-80s.
Attachments
Page 202.png
Page 202.png (939.35 KiB) Viewed 86 times
Page 208.png
Page 208.png (886.74 KiB) Viewed 86 times
Page 210.png
Page 210.png (982.16 KiB) Viewed 86 times

Oddball
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu 3 Apr 2014 15:47
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Oddball » Sat 2 Dec 2017 07:54

Finally, the last of the pages regarding this issue:
Attachments
Page 211.png
Page 211.png (920.73 KiB) Viewed 85 times
Page 215.png
Page 215.png (889.08 KiB) Viewed 85 times

User avatar
Sireyn
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Sat 2 Dec 2017 12:41

Very interesting reading! It seems to me that the only reason the M60A1 ERA is superior to the M60A3 is to represent the ERA upgrade, which given the date, also came with improved ammo. I'll make a list of differences between the chassis', but I'd be interested to hear any suggestions for balancing you have.

Upgraded from base M60
M60A1 : 1963-1980 : no gun stabilization
M60A1 AOS : 1972 : Simple retrofitted stabilizer
M60A1 AOS : 1973 : Add-on chin armor, new hydraulic fluid with lower flashpoint
M60A1 RISE : 1975 : New engine/transmission, More reliable parts
M60A1 RISE/ Passive: 1977 : New passive night vision sights
M60A1 RISE/ Passive: 1979 : Smoke dischargers on turret, new steel tracks, replaceable track pads
M6OA1 ERA : 1988-1990 : ERA

Upgraded from M60A1
M60A3 : 1978-1979 : Includes all M60A1 upgrades, smoke dischargers, thermal shroud for gun, laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, crosswind sensor
M60A3 TTS : 1979 : Solid-state ballistic computer, laser rangefinder, turret stabilization system, track pads, IR imager (better than on M1 Abrams), exhaust smoke
M60A3 TTS : 1980 : Steel roadwheels

Based on this, I'm considering the following
- Convert M60A1 AOS to the 1979 standard (+1 front/side armor, medium optics)
- Reduce accuracy of M60A1 ERA to 50/25 and range to 1925
- Separate M60A3 and M60A3 (TTS) into two different tanks
M60A3 : roughly equivalent to vanilla M60A3
M60A3 (TTS) : 1983+ for use with M833 DU-APFSDS, Accuracy to 65/40

Oddball
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu 3 Apr 2014 15:47
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Oddball » Sat 2 Dec 2017 14:52

For such a small issue, I was really looking more towards a simple fix. My original idea was to just flip the gunnery stats of the "ERA" model, and the A3 (which I assumed is the TTS-equipped tank.)

In regards to dropping the ranges: Other tanks with Thermal Sights (like the Leopard 1A5) get to have 2275 range. As well, the base M1 boasts 2100. Based on everything I've read on the matter, the Texas Instruments AN/VSG-2 thermal sights are well-noted to be the "best in the world" at the time. While I don't take claims like that to heart (as everyone says such things about their equipment,) it is interesting to note that it's relatively common to find accounts from crewmen of M60A3s transferring into Abrams of the period finding that the M60A3 Thermal equipment is superior to that of the early Abrams, citing higher resolutions. The reason it evidently was not used in the Abrams was because it was a larger unit; and this status quo in regards to fire control apparently didn't change until the M1A2.

REDFOR counterparts, such as the the Soviet T-62M1 (which is priced the same at 50 points,) feature a new fire control system called "Volna" (which presumably includes a thermal imager) and it gets to enjoy a range of 2275, as well. The T-55AM, which is also equipped with this fire control system as part of its modernization package, enjoys a range of at least 2100 while being less expensive than the M60A3.

While this is far from a comprehensive analysis, I don't think that dropping the ranges is justified, and I think putting the TTS range up to par with the Leo 1 and T-62M1 would be appropriate. I am not knowledgeable enough of the game's balancing and economy (I'm just a casual) to really suggest any resulting pricing changes. What I write here is mostly for realism's sake, so take it with a grain of salt.

Again, I know it's a little issue and I'm embarrassed to even bring it up. I've played a few games of this mod, and it's pretty great. I wish I knew about it years ago.

The only other issue I would point out is that, in the case of infantry, I'm seeing some sort of really strange tearing effect on them in the armory. I also don't seem to remember them running around as you flip through infantry units in the base game. Are they supposed to do that?

User avatar
Sireyn
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Sat 2 Dec 2017 17:05

I can see your point about the range decrease. The idea was partially biased being that I would like to reduce gun ranges where possible. I'm going to replace the Super M60 (only 1 prototype built, and not intended for domestic use) with the M60A3 (TTS). I'll take a look at the bigger picture of gun ranges another time.

The SF units will run because I changed their default spread distance, which the armory is too small for apparently. I don't know what you mean by tearing though.

Thanks for the input; my mod is built on small ideas like this.

Oddball
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu 3 Apr 2014 15:47
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Oddball » Sat 2 Dec 2017 17:56

On the issue of gun ranges: Personally I've always thought that, from a realism and game-play standpoint, they could all just be simplified down to a universal 1500 meter range. Through out the cold war years, you find a lot of period manuscripts and documentation focused around performance at this range bracket as the ultimate judge of gun effectiveness. And, really, just about every tank in the game (save for some of the WWII hold-overs, and possibly early M48s/T55s) can participate in battle at this range. See below for an example of a period work regarding the M60A1. Timestamped for convenience. I can post other examples if you like.

https://youtu.be/7uc-wTlD-_U?t=2m26s

That would probably better serve to highlight the lethality of ATGMs, by letting them engage at further ranges than tank guns. It also justifies the comblock rube-launched ATGMs, which in vanilla I always just turned off as being more hassle than they were worth.

Sadly, with the nature of RD maps, I don't think it's possible to really get ATGMs to be as effective as they should be. From my experience, they'll just fire and lose the target when it passes behind a single bush without the ability to reacquire the target.

User avatar
Sireyn
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Sat 2 Dec 2017 19:00

I had the idea to create multiple weapons for the guns to represent different gun ranges, similar to how infantry rifles work. I've put off evaluating this as it is such a large-scale project, but I would be excited to have it happen.

I could create it so optimal gun range is around 1500m or less and anything beyond requires the tank to stop to fire. I would want a technological basis to apply stats, even if it would be simplified into range brackets.

I've finished the edits on the M60 line. I believe this to be the best representation of each unit.

M60A1 AOS and RISE : Armor standardized to 10/5/2/2
M60A3 : 1979 standard; 13 pen, 2275 range, 55/30 accuracy
M60A3 (TTS) : 1983 standard; 15 pen, 2275 range, 60/40 accuracy
M60A1 ERA : 65 points, 16 pen, 2100 range, 50/25 accuracy (Mag'ach 6 with 1 more pen)
M1 Abrams : 2275 range, 60/50 accuracy

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m60.html Here is another interesting reference for M60's
By the way, I have the "How to Fight" series bookmarked in Youtube. I love those cheesy Cold War training videos.

Oddball
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu 3 Apr 2014 15:47
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Oddball » Sat 2 Dec 2017 19:20

I can agree with that. Only thing I'd nitpick is that the M60A3 also saw service in Desert Storm, so it would have access to the same ammunition.

While the M60A1 is stereotyped as the 'Marine' M60, which is sort of is, the conflict in which it participated (which I assume is why it gets newer ammunition) saw the U.S. Marines utilizing their own M60A1s as well as M60A3s and M1s borrowed from the U.S. Army. That being said, it's only a one point difference and the extended range more than makes up for it.

User avatar
Sireyn
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Sat 2 Dec 2017 19:40

You have a point, but by then the Army was using the Abrams primarily, if not exclusively. The M60A3's in use were for the Marines and there are M1A1(HC)'s in game.

Here are a couple instances where individuals discuss M60 deployment. The second link suggests that only one battalion of M60A3's were used, which equates to 4-5 companies worth. Not to nitpick your statement, this is primarily for my reference If I get the idea to do it.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=369934
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... p?t=106356

New version is uploaded.
(French marines standardized to 15 hitpoints, like all other marines)

Oddball
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu 3 Apr 2014 15:47
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Oddball » Sat 2 Dec 2017 20:03

You are correct. I wasn't meaning to sound like I was trying to make a mountain of a molehill.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron