Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> War Room >> Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/17/2020 2:49:56 AM

lloydster4

Posts: 164
Joined: 6/19/2020
Status: offline

Curious about y'alls experiences with medium and heavy tanks. I rarely field them myself, and I feel sure that I'm missing something.

For soft targets, I'd rather have Mech. Quad-MG's, L Tanks, Assault Guns, or L Walkers.

For hard targets, I usually use infantry and walkers.

To be fair, most of my playtime was before newer patches which introduced reduced fuel costs and significant buffs armor plating.

Post #: 1

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/17/2020 3:08:07 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Right now I am play against no majors so I make a few medium tanks and walkers for roleplay but my light tanks are handling the forces against me fine. Against majors I would probably field more tanks and maybe some heavies. Thinking of making a heavy for infantry support would use a howitzer.

(in reply to lloydster4)

Post #: 2

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/17/2020 9:32:48 AM

Galdred

Posts: 23
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline

I would use them to destroy enemy light and medium tanks, but they are seldom fielded, so I rely mostly on rovers and light tanks until I see a large armored threat.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 3

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/17/2020 11:43:09 AM

demiare

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline

My IMHO we should end with stupidity of "howitzer" guns on tanks. Tanks usually carry two+ types of shells, so "high-velocity guns" should be renamed into "APDS-shells" and instead buff a lot hard attack for tanks. This will solve most issues with medium/high tanks low usability.

(in reply to Galdred)

Post #: 4

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/17/2020 1:41:04 PM

Journier

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/28/2010
Status: offline

well yea in our modern world thats true, but shouldnt we think of a different possibility of the mindset of the designers? Think of WW2 era tanks some were designed as infantry support with large bore guns with high HE loads.

This is a world that developed and now you get to aim its war research into what you think would work best. Not what the modern world would in 2000. Your society is just coming out of pretty much the dark ages. All info is lost.

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 5

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/17/2020 2:57:26 PM

demiare

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Journier

well yea in our modern world thats true, but shouldnt we think of a different possibility of the mindset of the designers? Think of WW2 era tanks some were designed as infantry support with large bore guns with high HE loads.

Yean, and they called "Mechanized artillery"

Anything else isn't effective - WW2 is just had proved that. And we see exactly why so - armored enemies are rare target at battlefield as they still too expensive (even now lol), so to keep tank role - mobile and FAST attacker unit we should prioritize "soft" target. This why we all, as SE players, prefer "howitzers" tanks. And it's wrong for me because of two reasons:
1) Howitzer + armored platform = Mechanized artillery and not tank. So we have two different kind of army forces doing same job and using same ammo. This is insane idea for any military - too expensive, too much wasted resource. Specialization is the king, no reason to keep 2 different units to do exactly same job.
I know that in game MA able to use ranged attack while light tanks with howitzers are not. But they can't do so only because of developer mistake - "howitzer" is a gun capable to indirect fire by design.
2) This approach (separate "anti-tank" and "anti-infantry" tanks) already had proven to be wrong in WW2 and all wars after it. Yean, I know that NATO is still stuck with "anti-tank" tanks idea, but well IMHO after ~7k years even they will accept the inevitable and agree that was wrong about it.

(in reply to Journier)

Post #: 6

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/17/2020 6:12:21 PM

Journier

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/28/2010
Status: offline

differing views, you are seeing it as if they know the military background for thousands of years in tactics.

I am saying they do not, they only know whats been going on for their short history as a city state clawing back from being barbarous nations.

you still have good points but its a fictional game and you can do whatever you like in it with your unit designs.

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 7

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/20/2020 12:00:22 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

My IMHO we should end with stupidity of "howitzer" guns on tanks. Tanks usually carry two+ types of shells, so "high-velocity guns" should be renamed into "APDS-shells" and instead buff a lot hard attack for tanks. This will solve most issues with medium/high tanks low usability.

Those alternative shells is why it even has a soft attack worth a damn. And guns do differ, in part wich shells are avalible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZKxmlpbwqk

And those basic rules still apply. You can design a gun for Anti-Tank or Anti-Personel purposes - not both.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Journier

well yea in our modern world thats true, but shouldnt we think of a different possibility of the mindset of the designers? Think of WW2 era tanks some were designed as infantry support with large bore guns with high HE loads.

This is a world that developed and now you get to aim its war research into what you think would work best. Not what the modern world would in 2000. Your society is just coming out of pretty much the dark ages. All info is lost.

"Modern" guns are jsut always AT guns, unless it is a anti-infantry vehicle. Our tactics and formations adapted to deal with that limitation.

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 7/20/2020 12:02:56 PM >

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 8

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/20/2020 12:23:06 PM

demiare

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

And guns do differ, in part wich shells are avalible

Yes, caliber isn't only gun's stat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
"Modern" guns are jsut always AT guns, unless it is a anti-infantry vehicle.

No, you're wrong here. Modern tank guns aren't rifled to increase their longevity (APDS shells are quite literally eating barrels) and allow to use guided missiles at cost of some long-range accuracy (isn't important as they're rarely used for indirect fire). British are exception, possibly because they thought to use their tanks as mobile anti-ship artillery to defend from landing.

Still infantry is a main target for tanks and "standard" loadout for tank have much more HE shells then anti-armor (HEAT/APDS) one. And don't forget about field fortification. Low-caliber guns are great against bandits as civilian buildings barely protect from their fire but can't do anything with adequate fortifications - you will need large caliber tank/artillery gun here (or something else).

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 9

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/20/2020 2:39:02 PM

Maerchen

Posts: 348
Joined: 6/16/2020
From: Germany
Status: offline

To answer OPs question: In my last win - yay - I developed a tank destroyer to counter the major that was just developing tanks. I fielded exactly one independent tank destroyer, but as it reached combat line, I won.

Stats: HP 515/1050 soft a/d: 72/36 Hard a/d: 433/577, 88mm high velocity gun, 100mmm steel plating, double diesel engine.

HTH!

_____________________________

The logistics hell this game is IS the fun part! - Maerchen, 2020

The good thing is, we have all the information in the reports. The bad thing is, we have all the information. Maerchen, 2020

Came for SE. Will stay for SE.

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 10

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/20/2020 6:48:01 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

It really depends on where you are in the tech tree overall and what your opponents field against you.

In many cases, technology discoveries (to beam, etc.) keep low caliber weapons effective before you need to model the giant bore weapons.

The same is true of armor.

As an aside, with respect a "howitzer" on a tank, I hate the name used, but I understand and agree with the logic and simplicity of the design used. It would be fine if the word howitzer was simply deleted.

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/20/2020 6:53:16 PM >

_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to Maerchen)

Post #: 11

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/20/2020 7:20:13 PM

DTurtle

Posts: 443
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline

In a multiplayer game my enemy is fielding quite a lot of very good light, some medium, some heavy tanks and quite a lot of APCs.
So I'm now fielding more and more AT guns and some of these guys:

Very effective.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 12

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/20/2020 7:46:08 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

In a multiplayer game my enemy is fielding quite a lot of very good light, some medium, some heavy tanks and quite a lot of APCs.
So I'm now fielding more and more AT guns and some of these guys:

Very effective.

What do your design model stats look like? (e.g. Structural Design, Basic Design, Engine Design, Weapon Design, and Armor Design)

I admit, I tend to base my evaluation on the model's design stats, not the actual attack/hitpoint values on the card. That's somewhat silly, because ultimately it just needs to be better than the opponent, for a similar costs.

The majority of my models are "experimental prototypes" that are never fielded until a sufficient structural design score is rolled. Only then do I field the model for service.

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/20/2020 7:49:59 PM >

_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to DTurtle)

Post #: 13

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/20/2020 9:06:00 PM

DTurtle

Posts: 443
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline

For a first model actually not bad (except for the armor). The anti-tank gun is much better from the rolls (but unfortunately can't field a beam gun):

Constantly rerolling models until you can get good rolls is possible. It does require you to have enough time to do that though. That is not a given in a multiplayer game.

I didn't check beforehand what units can field a beam gun (even though I have a save game specifically for stuff like that...). So I thought I could simply skip the laser guns and leapfrog a tech level. That didn't really pan out, which left me badly behind on mobile anti-armor tech. This meant I had to go with what I rolled. The first outing of the tank destroyers was quite satisfactory (pushing the enemy back from my main SHQ). Since the game was started with 1.01 a long time ago, the fuel cost for that thing is insane and I can't afford to recruit too many at the moment. So I am now fielding lots of anti-tank guns while getting laser guns and newer anti-armor tanks as fast as possible.

< Message edited by DTurtle -- 7/20/2020 9:18:13 PM >

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 14

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/21/2020 4:42:42 AM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

The PK III is ok I guess.

As I said, I tend to look at how well the weapon reached a state of self-actualization, regardless of overall raw firepower, etc.

I'm sure the Killer works very well too.

Thanks for sharing.

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/21/2020 4:47:54 AM >

_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to DTurtle)

Post #: 15

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/21/2020 11:11:25 PM

gmsitton

Posts: 121
Joined: 10/25/2012
Status: offline

Close Support/Infantry tanks were successfully used by the US in the WWII Pacific theater, and by Soviets on the Eastern Front.

Anyway, I'm playing a game with slow tech advances, and medium and heavy tanks so far look like a good idea around round 100. Decent models were too expensive earlier, and who knows what will happen as the game goes on. I design light tanks with an AT role, and a second design for a CS role because they are relatively cheap. Sometimes I create a third light tank design with a small HV gun, 25mm armor, and the largest possible engine to act as scout tanks. I haven't made up my mind yet on these.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 16

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/22/2020 1:10:01 AM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmsitton

Close Support/Infantry tanks were successfully used by the US in the WWII Pacific theater, and by Soviets on the Eastern Front.

152mm bore...

... and the MGM-51 Shillelagh as icing on the cake.

Still, not a howitzer.

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/22/2020 1:11:13 AM >

_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to gmsitton)

Post #: 17

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/22/2020 4:48:26 PM

Antediluvian_Monster

Posts: 13
Joined: 7/22/2020
Status: offline

The US DOD defintion for howitzer is a low or high trajectory cannon firing at medium velocities, with length normally between L/20 and L/30. Per that, the M81 gun/launcher on Sheridan is indeed technically a howitzer. Or perhaps a gun-mortar, since the weapon seems to be shorter than normal howitzer ("gun-" because normal mortar per DOD is indirect fire and muzzle-loading).

Other examples of post war "howitzers" would be the low pressure gun on BMP-1 and the 60mm gun-mortar on some AML armoured cars.

Overall I tend to see the large distinction between high velocity guns and howitzers as excessive and too "Brits in the Western Desert circa 1941" who fielded tank guns that were either high velocity and were issued with only AP solid shot or low velocity and issued with HE. Even British eventually started mixing ammo loadouts. Post-war high performance HEAT warheads, lighter gun mounts and better recoil compensators completely change the game by '60s, and we get stuff like 6 ton armoured cars with 90mm 750 m/s MV guns capable of knocking out most battle tanks of their day at any range.

< Message edited by Antediluvian_Monster -- 7/22/2020 5:28:56 PM >

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 18

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/22/2020 7:37:40 PM

gmsitton

Posts: 121
Joined: 10/25/2012
Status: offline

It's all moot regardless once you get laser weapons.

(in reply to Antediluvian_Monster)

Post #: 19

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/22/2020 10:23:33 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Antediluvian_Monster

The US DOD defintion for howitzer is a low or high trajectory cannon firing at medium velocities, with length normally between L/20 and L/30. Per that, the M81 gun/launcher on Sheridan is indeed technically a howitzer. Or perhaps a gun-mortar, since the weapon seems to be shorter than normal howitzer ("gun-" because normal mortar per DOD is indirect fire and muzzle-loading).

Other examples of post war "howitzers" would be the low pressure gun on BMP-1 and the 60mm gun-mortar on some AML armoured cars.

Overall I tend to see the large distinction between high velocity guns and howitzers as excessive and too "Brits in the Western Desert circa 1941" who fielded tank guns that were either high velocity and were issued with only AP solid shot or low velocity and issued with HE. Even British eventually started mixing ammo loadouts. Post-war high performance HEAT warheads, lighter gun mounts and better recoil compensators completely change the game by '60s, and we get stuff like 6 ton armoured cars with 90mm 750 m/s MV guns capable of knocking out most battle tanks of their day at any range.

Sorry, but not true. I mean that in the nicest internet way possible.

An elephant has a tail. A cat has a tail. Therefore a cat is an elephant.

I recommend you not focus on one, specific, component and wikipedia-like definitions of the weapon systems. Google-knowledge is not enough.

Field artillery includes troopers who employ cannons, rockets, and missile systems.

Infantry and Armor includes troopers who employ cannons, rockets, and missile systems.

Despite this, a cannoneer and tank gunner perform different duties using different systems--fire control systems, quadrants, firing tables, sights, etc. The procedures, methods, and systems, in total, they use are not the same, despite the cannon tube. Cannoneers use guns and howitzers, for example. Tank gunners use guns, but do not use howitzers.

These details include some incredibly boring stuff like ammunition design, safety, risk, rules, inter-service rivalry, training, etc.

Six Sheridans are not a battery of howitzers. Two Sheridans are not a howitzer section.

When performing Table VIII with the M551A1, does the crew respond to a call for fire? No.

The M81E1 rifled 152 mm gun/launcher is not a howitzer. It is a total system with much more than just a cannon tube.

Bottom line, if you call it a howitzer, professionals think you sound ignorant of all those other details. That said, we aren't just in Kansas anymore.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/22/2020 10:49:26 PM >

_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to Antediluvian_Monster)

Post #: 20

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/22/2020 11:06:22 PM

Antediluvian_Monster

Posts: 13
Joined: 7/22/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

quote:

ORIGINAL: Antediluvian_Monster

The US DOD defintion for howitzer is a low or high trajectory cannon firing at medium velocities, with length normally between L/20 and L/30. Per that, the M81 gun/launcher on Sheridan is indeed technically a howitzer. Or perhaps a gun-mortar, since the weapon seems to be shorter than normal howitzer ("gun-" because normal mortar per DOD is indirect fire and muzzle-loading).

Other examples of post war "howitzers" would be the low pressure gun on BMP-1 and the 60mm gun-mortar on some AML armoured cars.

Overall I tend to see the large distinction between high velocity guns and howitzers as excessive and too "Brits in the Western Desert circa 1941" who fielded tank guns that were either high velocity and were issued with only AP solid shot or low velocity and issued with HE. Even British eventually started mixing ammo loadouts. Post-war high performance HEAT warheads, lighter gun mounts and better recoil compensators completely change the game by '60s, and we get stuff like 6 ton armoured cars with 90mm 750 m/s MV guns capable of knocking out most battle tanks of their day at any range.

Sorry, but not true. I mean that in the nicest internet way possible.

An elephant has a tail. A cat has a tail. Therefore a cat is an elephant.

I recommend you not focus on one, specific, component and wikipedia-like definitions of the weapon systems. Google-knowledge is not enough.

Field artillery includes troopers who employ cannons, rockets, and missile systems.

Infantry and Armor includes troopers who employ cannons, rockets, and missile systems.

Despite this, a cannoneer and tank gunner perform different duties using different systems--fire control systems, quadrants, firing tables, sights, etc. The procedures, methods, and systems, in total, they use are not the same, despite the cannon tube. Cannoneers use guns and howitzers, for example. Tank gunners use guns, but do not use howitzers.

These details include some incredibly boring stuff like ammunition design, safety, risk, rules, inter-service rivalry, training, etc.

Six Sheridans are not a battery of howitzers. Two Sheridans are not a howitzer section.

When performing Table VIII with the M551A1, does the crew respond to a call for fire? No.

The M81E1 rifled 152 mm gun/launcher is not a howitzer. It is a total system with much more than just a cannon tube.

Bottom line, if you call it a howitzer, professionals think you sound ignorant of all those other details. That said, we aren't just in Kansas anymore.

Bit too much unnecessary noise in that post to take it very seriously, but you seem to be saying that howitzer is, per some definition you are using but not citing*, a weapon exclusive to the artillery arm?

How about 105mm Howitzer M4, used on few variants of the M4 Sherman tank?

*Incidentally mine was Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 21

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/22/2020 11:37:41 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Antediluvian_Monster

Bit too much unnecessary noise in that post to take it very seriously, but you seem to be saying that howitzer is, per some definition you are using but not citing*, a weapon exclusive to the artillery arm?

Sorry, I have zero art skills. I can't draw you picture book.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Antediluvian_Monster

How about 105mm Howitzer M4, used on few variants of the M4 Sherman tank?

Or the AMX-D30 Vulcano. You're proving my point. But, do you know why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Antediluvian_Monster

*Incidentally mine was Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.

Sorry, but I think you googled something wrong.

My wife told me I have to stop teasing the kids on the internet. Take it or not.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/22/2020 11:50:35 PM >

_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to Antediluvian_Monster)

Post #: 22

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/23/2020 12:04:35 AM

Antediluvian_Monster

Posts: 13
Joined: 7/22/2020
Status: offline

Unofortunately, it seems like I can't post links due to having registered recently. I took the document off CIA webpage. Your's seems to be a more recent and more contracted one.

"howitzer � 1. A cannon that combines certain characteristics of guns and mortars. The howitzer
delivers projectiles with medium velocities, either by low or high trajectories. 2. Normally
a cannon with a tube length of 20 to 30 calibers; however, the tube length can exceed 30
calibers and still be considered a howitzer when the high angle fire zoning solution permits
range overlap between charges. See also gun; mortar."

< Message edited by Antediluvian_Monster -- 7/23/2020 12:06:04 AM >

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 23

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/23/2020 12:24:12 AM

demiare

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Antediluvian_Monster

The howitzer delivers projectiles with medium velocities, either by low or high trajectories.

Do you know what it's mean, right? Because seems you are not.

(in reply to Antediluvian_Monster)

Post #: 24

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/23/2020 12:40:47 AM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

Let's turn this discussion back around to fun. Howitzer's blasting stuff in direct fire mode. King of Battle, balls to the Queen.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/23/2020 12:42:38 AM >

_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 25

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/23/2020 2:49:52 AM

boomboomf22

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/29/2017
Status: offline

Part of my problem vis-a-vis Howitzer vs High Velocity gun is that IRL a high velocity gun is not going to be worse at anti-infantry work even assuming ww2 tech and same diameter shell. I think the best example of this in action would be the early STuG vs later models or the PzIV f1 vs the PzIV f2. After the change was made from short barrel inf support 75mm guns to long barrel ones they were significantly better at AT roles and I have never read anywhere that their performance against infantry suffered from the upgrade.

The reason to want to mount a shorter weapon for infantry support is because with a lower velocity short weapon is it is cheaper, lighter and potentially can use a smaller turret ring than a HV gun so you can go for a bigger gun per weight and turret ring size. So like on the crusaders the Brits fielded they had a 2pdr (40mm) or 6pdr (57mm) AT gun (depending on model) whereas the Close Support tank mounted a 3 inch (76.2mm) short gun. Additionally it can be a factor of gun design. Especially on the Brit tanks due to doctrine their HV guns often were not issued HE ammo, and the HE for the guns was often pretty crappy. The 2pdr HE especially was considered mostly useless.

Plus because shell volume is a curve, not a straight line it can be considered worthwhile to sacrifice you AT capacity for better HE if the primary task is infantry support. So like a 80mm shell is going to have much more than double the explosive volume of a 40mm shell.

So as it stands our scientists universally seem incapable of designing a good shell for our high velocity guns.

My proposed solution to this (assuming Vic wants to model reality rather than just game mechanics) would be to have Howitzers get a nerf to hard attack, but weight and cost less than HV guns so that there is an incentive to build them on dedicated inf support units (I am currently rping this right now using the unit quality settings and making my inf support units be low quality) but make the cost of mounting HV guns worth the choice when significant armored warfare is encountered.

I don't know if that will make howitzers worth mounting in a inf support role or they will disappear past the mid-game as short barreled weapons on proper tanks mostly have IRL but I think it still is better than HV guns being crappy against Inf and thus my read is that most players just stick with big howitzers until other weapons (Lasers, etc) exist.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 26

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/23/2020 4:47:29 AM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

Perhaps thinking about the tank model as possessing "one gun" is a mental stumbling block.

The design stats represent the whole vehicle (i.e. model), not just the one named weapon system.

I will refrain from another lecture. Short version, it's the not the main gun that makes a tank adept at killing soft targets--in both offense and defense. Remember, it's not carrying shells purpose-built for fragmentation.

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/23/2020 4:51:57 AM >

_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to boomboomf22)

Post #: 27

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/23/2020 1:42:31 PM

Antediluvian_Monster

Posts: 13
Joined: 7/22/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boomboomf22

Plus because shell volume is a curve, not a straight line it can be considered worthwhile to sacrifice you AT capacity for better HE if the primary task is infantry support. So like a 80mm shell is going to have much more than double the explosive volume of a 40mm shell.

Specifically it's 80^3�40^3= 8 times as much mass. Presuming the shell designs are otherwise identical. There are other considerations, of course, such as rate of fire, blast radius (scales by square root of burster weight), range, penetration and fragmentation ability (e.g. a very light gun would have trouble with any kind of fortifications).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

I will refrain from another lecture. Short version, it's the not the main gun that makes a tank adept at killing soft targets--in both offense and defense. Remember, it's not carrying shells purpose-built for fragmentation.

Nothing wrong with lectures, provided they are made clearly and respectfully.

I presumed the reason why the HV tanks retain any soft attack was that they were assumed to have some sort of machinegun.

What do you mean by "not-purpose built for fragmentation"? Do you mean the considerations for HV gun's HE rounds (as I understand there is generally a need for thicker shell walls due to higher pressures invloved) tend to push such ammunition away from a sweet spot for anti-personnel fragmentation ability?

(in reply to boomboomf22)

Post #: 28

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/23/2020 3:54:42 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Antediluvian_Monster

What do you mean by "not-purpose built for fragmentation"? Do you mean the considerations for HV gun's HE rounds (as I understand there is generally a need for thicker shell walls due to higher pressures invloved) tend to push such ammunition away from a sweet spot for anti-personnel fragmentation ability?

I think the Brits developed the correct ratios and everyone else copied them. Don't hold my feet to the fire on that one. The point is, as you said, fragmentation rounds are designed to cause the ubiquitous casualties we see in the movies (without all the movie fireballs). Although Marshall's research has been found lacking rigor at best, and fabricated at worst, there is enough other evidence to support the effectiveness of small, casualty producing, shrapnel. We can ignore the even sexier DPICM, etc. and stick to basics here.

As someone else mentioned, sorry I forgot where or who, HE rounds (HEAT), are shaped charges--sometimes multi-staged shaped charges. HEAT is great against an IFV, like a BMP, or a BTR. It's not the correct tool against soft targets, even if it does work in a pinch.

Different nations have sometimes tried to make the hybrids work, but they have never stuck for good reasons. You have to make too many compromises.

Finally, to keep it under TLDR, tanks carry few main gun and auto-cannon rounds. The crew doesn't waste them on trivial soft targets unless it's the method of last resort.

Tanks (and IFVs) do, however, carry highly mobile, protected, and better accurized machine guns at 12.7mm and below. A coaxial MG fired using a fire control system and high magnification sight is very nice indeed. 😎

Plus, the crew can move on the battlefield and fire the weapons from better protection relative to other MG employing platforms.

Most importantly, they carry more MG ammunition relative to other platforms. More quarters to spend on the game means more dead and wounded enemy.

MG ammunition is relatively heavy when dealing with combat loads. For a "jeep" the weight matters. For an infantry MG section it's a hellish (but beloved) burden. For a tank, it's trivial. You store spares on the exterior.

Tank crewmen refer to infantry troops (or anyone outside the tank) as "crunchies" for good reason---but they don't waste precious main gun rounds on them.

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/23/2020 4:11:08 PM >

_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to Antediluvian_Monster)

Post #: 29

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/23/2020 8:05:01 PM

boomboomf22

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/29/2017
Status: offline

[/quote]
Malevolence
As someone else mentioned, sorry I forgot where or who, HE rounds (HEAT), are shaped charges--sometimes multi-staged shaped charges. HEAT is great against an IFV, like a BMP, or a BTR. It's not the correct tool against soft targets, even if it does work in a pinch.

[/quote]

Actually HE isn't HEAT. HE stands for High Explosive and in a shell relying on fragmentation and shock and blast effects to inflict personal casualties. The ratio of which (shock vs fragmentation) is dependent on shell design. It is not a shaped charge at all.

HEAT is High Explosive Anti-Tank. It is a shaped charge using those principles to achieve non-velocity based armor penetration. Thus HEAT (after it was developed) was the goto AT round for low velocity guns, and has been adapted for modern HV guns because the AP rounds will often overpenetrate lightly armored vehicles causing minimal damage.

Additionally there is High Explosive Squash Head developed by the brits, but I have no clue how that type of shell performs.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 30