RE: 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

RE: 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 >> RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/23/2020 10:04:21 PM

Malevolence

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: boomboomf22

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.

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.

Ok, next time I will mention HEAT instead---especially when mentioning something that someone else wrote somewhere else.

And to add to your point, HE does mean high explosive, but not necessarily fragmentation. There are all kinds of rounds of many sizes that use "HE" in the name (as opposed to AP), but have other qualities.

My favorite is HEI-T, among many favorites. In auto-cannons, a very fun round to use. You might not know all the effects of explosives and how they kill people, but fragmentation isn't required. Fragmentation is nice to have in area of effect. It produces more casualties relative to its costs.

As a rule of thumb, HE in the name only implies chemical explosive--not exclusively fragmentation--and AP implies kinetic projectile. However, you can mix and match to good effect.

A designer needs to purpose build a round for good fragmentation effects. Maybe you missed that part in the previous post.

Finally, I'll add this for all the logistics lovers. As a national military, en masse, you want your ammunition stocks to run like any good retailer. You want to keep enough on the shelf to give customers meaningful choices, but not so many that they kill your supply chain. Everyone doesn't get match-grade or hand produced rifle ammunition (but some do).

we can dream of better days

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/23/2020 11:29:22 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 boomboomf22)

Post #: 31

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/24/2020 6:11:45 AM

boomboomf22

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

Vis-a-vis HE not always having a frag component by design sure I'll concede that. However (and this may not apply in modern shell design IDK I'm more familiar with ww2) all HE shells are going to cause fragmentation to a degree. Hence my comment as to the ratio shock and blast effects to frag damage. And I am aware of many of the effects of close proximity explosions on the human body, which range from shock waves causing tearing and organ damage to dismemberment. As well as more esoteric COD like the fact that sometimes people who are outside the radius of the shock wave from the explosion suffer sudden neurological and organ failure. There is a name for the last one but can't remember what it is and can't be arsed to look it up as it is 2am here.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 32

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/24/2020 11:51:16 PM

Soar_Slitherine

Posts: 426
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boomboomf22

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.

That was my starting assumption too, but apparently, post-war US tests found that the HE shells for the 76mm high-velocity gun introduced in 1944 to upgrade M4 Shermans with better anti-tank capability had 40% less fragmentation effect compared to the older, shorter-barreled 75mm gun. Seems the stricter engineering requirements involved in firing the faster shell really mattered.

(in reply to boomboomf22)

Post #: 33

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/25/2020 1:31:35 AM

boomboomf22

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

Interesting, hadn't seen anything on that, but haven't done a huge amount of searching on the subject. However still doesn't account for HV armed tanks being pretty crap vs inf in game, esp as the fragmentation is only one of the casualty causing effects of HE.

Basically what I am arguing for is HV tanks still being capable in the anti-infantry role whereas right now they really aren't. If we want to use examples I would point to the disappearance of infantry support tanks with short barreled weapons, with that role largely being folded over into IFVs, and even then most IFVs with larger guns (60mm or greater) are still reasonably high velocity weapons.

EX: Taking the German close support 75mm and comparing it to a modern similar size weapon in the same role
75-mm KwK L/24 (PzIV f1) 385m/s (for AP, couldn't find number on HE shell, I assume it is probably similar)
D-56-TS (76 mm) (PT-76B) 680m/s (HE-frag velocity)

Unfortunately I cannot find any stats on modern weapons (like, I can find effective range and stuff, but velocity is universally missing and I can only put so much effort into an internet discussion), so that is why I have gone all the way back to the PT-76 (and I had to go to the dubious source of War Thunder for the velocity at that)

And I would note that most modern Infantry Support vehicles have moved away from larger guns to autocannons and MGs for the ROF and suppression value over the explosive value of those weapons.

(in reply to Soar_Slitherine)

Post #: 34

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/25/2020 4:18:33 AM

Malevolence

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

IFV's aren't wasting auto-cannon ammunition on infantry unless they must.

While you're considering all engineering data, maybe buy a cup, and drink a nice hot cup of tea or coffee?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/25/2020 4:21:48 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 #: 35

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/25/2020 4:33:07 AM

Twotribes

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

IFV's aren't wasting auto-cannon ammunition on infantry unless they must.

While you're considering all engineering data, maybe buy a cup, and drink a nice hot cup of tea or coffee?

Why not their piddle little 20 and 30 mm guns don't even routinely kill other IFV's or APC's.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 36

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/25/2020 5:12:50 AM

Malevolence

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Why not their piddle little 20 and 30 mm guns don't even routinely kill other IFV's or APC's.

Can you elaborate on this assertion?

_____________________________

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 Twotribes)

Post #: 37

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/25/2020 9:52:41 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

But Malo's comments on limited main gun rounds is still accurate and valid: the load outs are precious and it is hard to allocate even one round to soft targets. the coax is the weapon of choice there and as also noted, the ammo for that is (can be) relatively unlimited.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to boomboomf22)

Post #: 38

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/25/2020 8:30:44 PM

zgrssd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

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).

And nothing in what you just said disgarees with anything I had said.

A gun can be designed as AT gun, and still fire a lot of HE shells. It is not like putting explosives into a shell is a special secret.
The 88 was designed as a Anti-Air gun and still fired a lot of AT shells. And HE shells.

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 39

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/26/2020 12:06:31 PM

Malevolence

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

A gun can be designed as AT gun, and still fire a lot of HE shells. It is not like putting explosives into a shell is a special secret.
The 88 was designed as a Anti-Air gun and still fired a lot of AT shells. And HE shells.

I'll just add, it's not just bore, there are many other forces and factors at work too. As a simplification, you are correct, but you know we can't just put any like-sized caliber round into just any same bored weapon. Putting explosives into a shell is no secret, but putting the correct amount of propellant, explosives, etc. inside for the weapon and mission is important.

Like my above comments about machine guns, I could have written two more paragraphs about range to target as an evaluation criteria for making MG selection decisions. It's just too damn boring for games unless you want a simulator--which I don't. There are too many factors involved. It makes discussing engineering details really just pointless fun.

Crews don't care about the history of the stug-iii. Fighting the vehicle is muscle memory. Your brain is working on all the important things instead.

That all said, I have no knowledge of how any WW2 powers standardized their rounds or if cannons were designed for standardized rounds. I have no interest in the history of tools and equipment (military or otherwise) as a personal hobby.

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/26/2020 5:49:26 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 zgrssd)

Post #: 40

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/26/2020 5:53:36 PM

boomboomf22

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

I am always willing to go as far into the weeds as I can, as I have demonstrated earlier in the thread. However I think the basic point several of us are making (and yes this has gone way off topic of the original thread) is that the disadvantage of HV guns seems too severe in comparisons to the advantages of howitzers (which imho don't seem to have that bad of an hard attack). Please people speak up if I am just projecting my opinion onto others.

As for the original topic of this thread let me say that I find myself using Light tanks for most work, and heavies for smashing armored formations, but haven't seen much use for the other types of tank (Md, TD, Ass) and have yet to have a game reach the point I can make monitor tanks. That said I have used GR Cataphracts (Monitors) to huge effect. Had a game where 2 units of them + militia systematically smashed the forces of a Major power, and only had to stop because the ran into a 6 hex wide mountain range.

< Message edited by boomboomf22 -- 7/26/2020 6:00:02 PM >

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 41

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/26/2020 7:47:54 PM

gmsitton

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

Suspending disbelief, since it's just a sci-fi game, I interpret howitzer to mean infantry support/close support, and HV to mean anti-tank, as a rule-of-thumb.

(in reply to boomboomf22)

Post #: 42

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/28/2020 1:02:25 AM

lloydster4

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

Cmon guys, this is like watching two drunk history majors arm-wrestle over the last slice of pizza.

Here's what we've established so far:

-AI doesn't field enough Hard Targets
-There is interest in an "all-purpose tank"
-Light Tanks are still the king

Point #2 seems to have the most enthusiasm, so let's think about it:

If you change Tanks to be effective against all targets, then how do you balance them?

Edit: If anyone mentions ww2 they get half-rations for a week.

< Message edited by lloydster4 -- 7/28/2020 1:03:37 AM >

(in reply to gmsitton)

Post #: 43

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/28/2020 8:16:15 AM

Malevolence

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

Cmon guys, this is like watching two drunk history majors arm-wrestle over the last slice of pizza.

...

Edit: If anyone mentions ww2 they get half-rations for a week.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

Here's what we've established so far:

-AI doesn't field enough Hard Targets
-There is interest in an "all-purpose tank"
-Light Tanks are still the king

Point #2 seems to have the most enthusiasm, so let's think about it:

If you change Tanks to be effective against all targets, then how do you balance them?

You balance them with the weapons and armor--the access and use of different weapons and armor.

The idea of light, medium, and heavy tanks is a useless level of complexity. It causes all kinds of issues--a combinatorial explosion. See also the curse of dimensionality.

This curse impacts OOBs, UI report filtering, AI model selection and use, etc.

It's a pox.

My recommendation is that the model discovery is Tank. Period.

Military research (and applied engineering) opens new weapons and armor.

After discovery and research, you build a new tank model using better subsystems. Rinse and repeat.

That said, the developer may not want to do that for other reasons. Chiefly among those reasons is that the model tree is weak. In other words, not much effort has been done to include futuristic models. That will likely change when/if air/sea is added--if those don't become separate trees.

A caveat to "my way" of thinking. I don't think showing the player full research and technology tress is a good design decision. I know players like it. They want to follow a path that makes the game easier. I think it defeats the purpose of discovery. IMO, it is better to only show the next possible nodes in the tree as ideas--including some that don't work at all--false paths and dead ends. Like logistics, however, many players chafe when confronted with serious multi-domain decision making systems (full mini-games). Many want to push counters with some nice easy facades bolted on for setting.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/28/2020 8:37:41 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 lloydster4)

Post #: 44

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/28/2020 9:40:02 AM

Saros

Posts: 454
Joined: 12/18/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

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.

Turtle is underselling the real winner in his lineup, the absurdly tough APC.

Of course they are going up against some nifty units of mine.

Tank murderer.

Cheap & cheerful APC popper.

It's a savage war this one, I think the most brutal i've ever been involved in. My problem is Turtle has more pop, two other major/player capitals and a 3-4x bigger army.

< Message edited by Saros -- 7/28/2020 9:41:06 AM >

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 45

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/28/2020 9:54:30 AM

Malevolence

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saros

...snip...

It's a savage war this one, I think the most brutal i've ever been involved in. My problem is Turtle has more pop, two other major/player capitals and a 3-4x bigger army.

All I can think looking at those death machines is, "crash research liquid armor".

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/28/2020 9:57:07 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 Saros)

Post #: 46

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/28/2020 5:22:54 PM

DTurtle

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saros

It's a savage war this one, I think the most brutal i've ever been involved in. My problem is Turtle has more pop, two other major/player capitals and a 3-4x bigger army.

Well, you've done a stupendously good job of messing with my logistics, so I only had one real turn with close to full fuel and ammo/energy to attack with.

Of course, in that turn I did kill 700 tanks and 100 walkers.

It is really, really nice to see how important the logistics are in this game. You only notice it against a human player willing to take advantage of that.

(in reply to Saros)

Post #: 47

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/30/2020 3:38:48 PM

demiare

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

If you change Tanks to be effective against all targets, then how do you balance them?

RPG in masses like happened in reality (+ aircraft, but it was temporary solution IRL and in SE we don't have aircraft yet).

Currently RPG in SE are very very under-performing + we don't have them in most of formation. Same happened in *CENSORED* age

and tanks are really shine then.

(in reply to lloydster4)

Post #: 48

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 7/30/2020 8:14:07 PM

boomboomf22

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

Plus maybe make At guns more practical to use. So like intigrate them into some formations, and give us the ability to make independent motorized AT formations as a cheaper squishier alternative to TDs

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 49

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 8/8/2020 6:55:45 AM

soldat411

Posts: 11
Joined: 8/6/2020
Status: offline

Probably because I have been playing against normal ai, I have been building heavy tanks, and some assault guns. I have one medium tank corps as well.

(in reply to boomboomf22)

Post #: 50

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 8/10/2020 9:23:25 PM

zgrssd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

A gun can be designed as AT gun, and still fire a lot of HE shells. It is not like putting explosives into a shell is a special secret.
The 88 was designed as a Anti-Air gun and still fired a lot of AT shells. And HE shells.

I'll just add, it's not just bore, there are many other forces and factors at work too. As a simplification, you are correct, but you know we can't just put any like-sized caliber round into just any same bored weapon. Putting explosives into a shell is no secret, but putting the correct amount of propellant, explosives, etc. inside for the weapon and mission is important.

My point was that something can be designed as a AT gun, but still have explosive shells. And even fire mostly explosive shells in practical use.
The existence of HE shells does not mean weapons are "Universal" today, anymore then they were the last milennium.
HE shells are simply the reason designated AT guns have any damage vs soft targets.

To answer the Tread Topic Question (I think I forgot that):
- I use light tanks to carry howitzers. It does not take a lot of armor or a lot of a callibre to win the Callibre Calculation against Infantry
- I use heavy tanks - in a pinch medium ones - to carry my AT guns. With those Callibre does mater. Quite a lot even. At 180mm Gun, 200mm Armor a heavy can easily match the highest callibre guns with it's armor.
But then I hardly met any Hard Targets from the AI so far. I heard it used to be very differently.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 51

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 8/12/2020 2:45:14 PM

DeltaV112

Posts: 45
Joined: 10/16/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

A gun can be designed as AT gun, and still fire a lot of HE shells. It is not like putting explosives into a shell is a special secret.
The 88 was designed as a Anti-Air gun and still fired a lot of AT shells. And HE shells.

I'll just add, it's not just bore, there are many other forces and factors at work too. As a simplification, you are correct, but you know we can't just put any like-sized caliber round into just any same bored weapon. Putting explosives into a shell is no secret, but putting the correct amount of propellant, explosives, etc. inside for the weapon and mission is important.

Like my above comments about machine guns, I could have written two more paragraphs about range to target as an evaluation criteria for making MG selection decisions. It's just too damn boring for games unless you want a simulator--which I don't. There are too many factors involved. It makes discussing engineering details really just pointless fun.

Crews don't care about the history of the stug-iii. Fighting the vehicle is muscle memory. Your brain is working on all the important things instead.

That all said, I have no knowledge of how any WW2 powers standardized their rounds or if cannons were designed for standardized rounds. I have no interest in the history of tools and equipment (military or otherwise) as a personal hobby.

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

Honestly this whole thread really is just demonstrating how much meaningless waffle you can generate to obscure a real issue. That a HV gun ingame comes with 75% attack reduction versus "soft" targets is extremely weird and results in a choice between infantry support and better anti-armor capability that has no real-life basis. Howitzer-armed tanks existed in a limited fashion during WW2 and the interwar period, but only as a limited component of tank armament. Once you had tanks capable of mounting 3"/75mm high velocity guns, these simply replaced the 3" howitzer and the AT-focused vehicles. Larger howitzers like the 105mm/122mm/152mm held on for a little longer but were similarly replaced as the larger 90mm and eventually 100mm/105mm guns became common. Even during WWII the 122mm howitzer on Soviet assault guns was replaced with a high-velocity 122mm gun.

Postwar the howitzer basically dissapears as a tank armament. There's no need for a bigger HE shell than can be carried by a tank for direct-fire purposes, existing tank guns can defeat any practical battlefield fortification. The 152mm gun-launcher was high caliber primarily for the ATGM, the USA never seriously contemplated a pure 152mm gun for its HE-throwing potential(consider the M8 as a successor light tank to the M551 which was designed for the 105mm gun). One important point that you're missing in all this talk about guns lacking good HE ammo is that this was much more an issue with NATO tanks. Soviet tanks were issued large amounts of dedicated HE-frag rounds and this made up the majority of their ammunition load. They also got advances in shell fusing much more than NATO did, with fusing designed for partial barrier penetration, fusing off of extremely light obstacles, and even laser rangefinding combined with programmable time fusing at the end of the Cold War.

Talk about how the main gun wouldn't be used against individual infantry in the open is misunderstanding the abstractions at play. The categories of "soft" and "hard" are extremely broad, infantry is always "soft" even when it's highly fortified, towed guns are "soft", neither of these things would be engaged purely with the MG yet they are soft ingame. If we consider a "105mm Howitzer" ingame to represent more like a 152mm gun that has a similar mounting weight to a 105mm HV gun, I think that a 50-75% soft attack value compared to the howitzer makes sense but the 25% value we have ingame is way too low. The way attack calculations work does result in diminishing returns but I think that tank anti-soft values should likely be higher in general to make them kick in sooner.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 52

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 8/12/2020 3:47:07 PM

zgrssd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeltaV112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

A gun can be designed as AT gun, and still fire a lot of HE shells. It is not like putting explosives into a shell is a special secret.
The 88 was designed as a Anti-Air gun and still fired a lot of AT shells. And HE shells.

I'll just add, it's not just bore, there are many other forces and factors at work too. As a simplification, you are correct, but you know we can't just put any like-sized caliber round into just any same bored weapon. Putting explosives into a shell is no secret, but putting the correct amount of propellant, explosives, etc. inside for the weapon and mission is important.

Like my above comments about machine guns, I could have written two more paragraphs about range to target as an evaluation criteria for making MG selection decisions. It's just too damn boring for games unless you want a simulator--which I don't. There are too many factors involved. It makes discussing engineering details really just pointless fun.

Crews don't care about the history of the stug-iii. Fighting the vehicle is muscle memory. Your brain is working on all the important things instead.

That all said, I have no knowledge of how any WW2 powers standardized their rounds or if cannons were designed for standardized rounds. I have no interest in the history of tools and equipment (military or otherwise) as a personal hobby.

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

Honestly this whole thread really is just demonstrating how much meaningless waffle you can generate to obscure a real issue. That a HV gun ingame comes with 75% attack reduction versus "soft" targets is extremely weird and results in a choice between infantry support and better anti-armor capability that has no real-life basis.

So you are telling me that the guns of IFV's perform as well vs Vehicles as a Main Battle Tanks main gun?
That we could not make a gun better at killing infantry, if we could get rid of the AT needs for a gun?
Because that would be utter nonsense!

(in reply to DeltaV112)

Post #: 53

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 8/12/2020 4:06:33 PM

demiare

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
So you are telling me that the guns of IFV's perform as well vs Vehicles as a Main Battle Tanks main gun?
That we could not make a gun better at killing infantry, if we could get rid of the AT needs for a gun?
Because that would be utter nonsense!

What guns on IFV?
30-57mm is capable to deal with tanks only attacking them in flanks (and usually NATO only as they're have huge problems both with quantity and quality of armor) but fully capable to deal with equal IFV.
100mm guns on existing IFV are have poor ballistic (they're more like mortar then cannon) and unable to use APDS ammunition so it's simply unsuited to deal with hard targets at all - they will not perform better then 45-57mm. But they're obsolete and new designs of IFV are no longer using them.

He's trying to say that we can't create a 122-125mm gun that will be notably better against infantry then existing tank guns. Tank guns are close to perfection, they have only two major flaws: very difficult to manufacture (so expensive) and unsuited for long-ranged precise indirect fire.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 54

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 8/12/2020 4:20:00 PM

DeltaV112

Posts: 45
Joined: 10/16/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
So you are telling me that the guns of IFV's perform as well vs Vehicles as a Main Battle Tanks main gun?
That we could not make a gun better at killing infantry, if we could get rid of the AT needs for a gun?
Because that would be utter nonsense!

You could probably shed some weight if you abandoned the anti-vehicle role but I would actually say that you can't really do that much better than a 100-125mm shell in the direct-fire gun role. You'll note that absolutely nobody is going around building 152mm gunned vehicles for the direct-fire role. There are some vehicles using low velocity guns in this range, the Soviet BMP-3 and Nona SPG come to mind, but the gains versus a medium to high velocity gun are fairly minimal- compare something like the AMX-10RCR which uses a 105mm that can handle most non-MBT vehicles.

The comparison against an IFV's autocannon is completely specious because the IFV faces serious internal space and weight considerations around the requirement for dismounts and transportability/river fording that make a large gun of any sort impossible.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 55

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 8/12/2020 4:57:17 PM

demiare

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeltaV112
You'll note that absolutely nobody is going around building 152mm gunned vehicles for the direct-fire role.

You're partially wrong here :) Several models of experimental tanks were build and tested (for example Rheinmetal is trying to design 130mm nowadays) - with a result that currently 152mm is a huge overkill, enemy tanks are not armored enough to make it viable and reduced amount of ammo will hurt overall performance. Still next generation of russian tanks (T-14) is already designed with an option to upgrade main gun up to ~150mm.

(in reply to DeltaV112)

Post #: 56

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 8/12/2020 5:03:59 PM

DeltaV112

Posts: 45
Joined: 10/16/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare
You're partially wrong here :) Several models of experimental tanks were build and tested (for example Rheinmetal is trying to design 130mm nowadays) - with a result that currently 152mm is a huge overkill, enemy tanks are not armored enough to make it viable and reduced amount of ammo will hurt overall performance. Still next generation of russian tanks (T-14) is already designed with an option to upgrade main gun up to ~150mm.

In the context of anti-tank yes there have been studies of bigger guns to improve performance. Nobody has as of yet actually built production vehicles that carry bigger guns, I doubt 152mm Armata actually exists off of a drawing board or that it is a simple modification. There's certainly no drive for a bigger gun out of a desire for a bigger HE round.

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 57

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 8/12/2020 5:23:58 PM

demiare

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeltaV112
Nobody has as of yet actually built production vehicles that carry bigger guns, I doubt 152mm Armata actually exists off of a drawing board or that it is a simple modification. There's certainly no drive for a bigger gun out of a desire for a bigger HE round.

Yes, nothing in mass-production currently. No it not a simple modification of course, but it's already planned one. There is no info on which stage of development they're currently but there is no surprise here as secrecy in last decade is overwhelming. Most of "leaks" are semi-official, lol.

No, you're wrong here, bigger tank gun = longer shells = longer kinetic penetrator = better armor penetration. Bigger HE is much less important instead as 122-125mm (direct fire!) already more then enough for any "soft" target on modern battlefield, howitzers are using large calibers mostly because of indirect fire mode - they need to penetrate roofs to maximize damage to buildings (well, in case of Soviet/Russian army also for tactical nuke shells that planned to be use in mass). Monsters like 200-300 mortars are especially good for that, being capable to obliterate whole building (or large section of it in case of huge apartment building) with a single guided hit.
It's surprising for civilians but bigger caliber of HE shells =//= better efficiency and larger area of effect, especially if we're speaking about whole unit firing and not a single gun in virtual reality. We need to keep amount of fragments low but in same time keeping their size&weight values in a specific area so they will have high piercing power and it's not a simple task in case of huge shells. And slow RoF is death sentence on modern battlefield.

< Message edited by demiare -- 8/12/2020 5:25:32 PM >

(in reply to DeltaV112)

Post #: 58

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 8/12/2020 5:53:18 PM

DeltaV112

Posts: 45
Joined: 10/16/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare
No, you're wrong here, bigger tank gun = longer shells = longer kinetic penetrator = better armor penetration. Bigger HE is much less important instead as 122-125mm (direct fire!) already more then enough for any "soft" target on modern battlefield, howitzers are using large calibers mostly because of indirect fire mode - they need to penetrate roofs to maximize damage to buildings (well, in case of Soviet/Russian army also for tactical nuke shells that planned to be use in mass). Monsters like 200-300 mortars are especially good for that, being capable to obliterate whole building (or large section of it in case of huge apartment building) with a single guided hit.
It's surprising for civilians but bigger caliber of HE shells =//= better efficiency and larger area of effect, especially if we're speaking about whole unit firing and not a single gun in virtual reality. We need to keep amount of fragments low but in same time keeping their size&weight values in a specific area so they will have high piercing power and it's not a simple task in case of huge shells. And slow RoF is death sentence on modern battlefield.

Not sure what you're getting at here, I'm well aware of how armor penetration and gun performance works in terms of reasons for bigger gun against armor, and I pretty much agree with you on bigger direct fire gun not being necessary against soft targets. Indirect fire is outside the scope of this discussion, tanks are AFAIK always presumed to use direct fire ingame.

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 59

RE: Anyone using Medium and Heavy Tanks? - 8/13/2020 6:42:54 PM

Malevolence

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeltaV112

Honestly this whole thread really is just demonstrating how much meaningless waffle you can generate to obscure a real issue.

Are you addressing me directly with this first sentence?

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 8/13/2020 6:44:47 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 DeltaV112)

Post #: 60