M1 Abrams baseline

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3619
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Gopblin » Wed 8 May 2013 00:42

Again: PACT has somewhat better tanks, arty, and AA.
NATO has better planes, helos, infantry, infantry ATGM, vehicles.
Balance.

If anything, it's the NATO players that are underpowered.

In 10v10s, I regularly see 15 players join NATO vs 5 for PACT, then the five experienced people who know how to play both factions are shamed into switching, leaving all the noob NATO fanbois with standard decks clinging to their side.

Seriously, I'm yet to see NATO use simple stuff like forward capping with helo, cluster bombing roads, using rocket arty barrages before a fight, with any regularity.

PACT needs to stay where it is - at least for now. If NATO is made easier to accommodate the drooling masses of new players, they will never even try to play PACT or learn advanced tactics, as stats superiority will let them hold their own without it.

Best wishes,
Daniel.
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

Bastables
Warrant Officer
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri 30 Mar 2012 05:49
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Bastables » Wed 8 May 2013 00:43

Gopblin wrote:Interesting, so basic T72M is actually more armored than the game gives it credit for?
How does DM33 compare to say M829?

Also, I think the crew survival concerns, while important on the scale of the overall war (and extremely important to the crew!), don't matter that much on a game scale. While more wounded crew might survive in a Western MBT, it's not like they will be able to keep fighting after a 125mm penetration.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

DM33 is a tungsten sub caliber said to penetrate 560mm at 2000m
M829 is the DU sub caliber said to penetrate 540mm at 2000m
So against theoretical RHA calculations it preforms worse, which makes sense as tungsten is harder than DU, but i think in actul use really not much difference.

If DM33 fails at 1500m vurses T72M1 turret you can bet M829 would as well.

It's sort of too fine grained for war game where tanks have front armour, not belly armour, glacis, turret, mantel armour ect ext. The T72M1 hull can be penetrated at 2000m even after 16mm appliqué. The Composite turret armour much more tricky or even proof. So what does eugen model? proof till 1500m, penetration at 2000m? or just as they have done abstract something in-between. (which I agree with as the correct method just so we don't have CPU brought to a grinding halt by having to carry out massive/multiple armour interaction calculations like the combat mission series of games)

User avatar
Fri13
Lieutenant
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu 22 Mar 2012 14:22

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Fri13 » Wed 8 May 2013 10:25

Radioshow wrote: If Fri13 had his way it would be impossible to beat PACT. NATO may have not been able to beat PACT in a conventional war, we will never know for that period. But to say you know for sure is arrogance of the highest order. Half of all this is speculation.
You want total realism for one part of the game, then throw it out for others. You cannot simulate everything in this "game" therefor you have to make compromises, approximate or remove features altogether.

If someone made a game where one side was completely OP you would never have any opponents regardless of whether or not it's realistic. Alot of this game is not realistic, but If you think it should be then oh my it better be.


You are so wrong with your conclusions.....

What I say, would not make impossible to beat PACT and NATO would have change to do so.

User avatar
Graphic
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10587
Joined: Mon 30 Apr 2012 10:18
Location: Battle Born
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Graphic » Sun 12 May 2013 01:51

Digging this up to make some new points based on the maturing meta-game.

Setting aside things that will obviously be fixed, when I look at NATO vs Pact in terms of tanks, the only thing that's off is NATO hasn't a real medium-heavy. There's a gap between the Chieftain mk. 10 and the 100+ pt tanks, and frankly the vanilla M1 is perfect for that role.

It's basically equal in capability to the 80 point T-72 Wilk, but in different ways.

Wilk as 3 more AP, Abrams has 2 more accuracy.
Abrams has a normal stab, Wilk has bad.
Abrams is very big with poor optics, Wilk is normal sized with normal optics.
Same front, side and rear armor, and +1 on the top for the Wilk.
Abrams is 10km faster but the Wilk has 150km more autonomy.

Whatever price either of them are, they should be about the same. Basically 80 or 85 points is spot on, and it would fill the gap nicely.

The problem is the Super M60 is sitting at 85 points and it's clearly not as good as either of them. I don't want to turn it into a discussion about the Super M60, but suffice it to say that if it had the armor it actually did, it would deserve to stay at that price point. If not, it's price would need to be looked at (like so many other things).
k

User avatar
Torrisco
Colonel
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2012 04:10
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Torrisco » Sun 12 May 2013 03:16

I think is better to make it cheaper, one thing i have noticed is that between 60pts and 100pts there are too few nato tanks(2 or 3 at much), all tanks are clustered between 30-60pts mediums and 100-150 hvies. The M1 by 85-90pts is fine
Image

User avatar
urho
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue 29 Apr 2014 12:26

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby urho » Fri 5 Aug 2016 03:45

Bastables wrote:
Fri13 wrote:
SaitoHawkeye wrote:When and where did the US test the original M1 against the original T72? I can't find anything :(


Sorry, not USA but USSR and Germany has done those, using shells what NATO used and same cannons (you don't need same MBT to fire same cannon to your armor).

Do you mean the Haide tests? weren't those were conducted with DM12 HEAT and DM33 APDSFS 10,5cm and 12cm vurses the NVA T72 M's (No ERA armour)?

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/ar ... T72M1.html

Hull was vulnerable to both HEAT and AP. Front turret was proof Versus DM12 HEAT and DM33 only started to penetrate at below 1500m ranges.

Both the DM33 and DM53 are 105mm, not 120mm.
There was no 120mm ammo tested here.
1. 120mm Rheinmetall ammo has 5 fins, not 6. But you see 6 fins everywhere.
2. This was back in 1993. 120mm DM53 was first tested in 1994 or 1995.
Image

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12154
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Mike » Wed 7 Sep 2016 14:46

urho wrote:
Bastables wrote:
Fri13 wrote:
Sorry, not USA but USSR and Germany has done those, using shells what NATO used and same cannons (you don't need same MBT to fire same cannon to your armor).

Do you mean the Haide tests? weren't those were conducted with DM12 HEAT and DM33 APDSFS 10,5cm and 12cm vurses the NVA T72 M's (No ERA armour)?

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/ar ... T72M1.html

Hull was vulnerable to both HEAT and AP. Front turret was proof Versus DM12 HEAT and DM33 only started to penetrate at below 1500m ranges.

Both the DM33 and DM53 are 105mm, not 120mm.
There was no 120mm ammo tested here.
1. 120mm Rheinmetall ammo has 5 fins, not 6. But you see 6 fins everywhere.
2. This was back in 1993. 120mm DM53 was first tested in 1994 or 1995.


Over a three year necro. :lol:
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
CandyMan
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2017
Joined: Sat 11 May 2013 01:24
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby CandyMan » Thu 8 Sep 2016 06:21

Image
Image
Your standard pinko Commie swine...
Rabidnid wrote:NK has a veritable cornucopia of mediocrity to choose from when it comes to inexpensive vehicular recon!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests