Jump to content

Euro wonder tanks!


outontheop

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I can only say that there is no intentional bias from our end. It may however be that we know better about certain protection characteristics of some of our customers' vehicles than others. This is one of the many reasons why SB Pro is neither designed not suited for quantitative statistical predictions of battle damage results, or the validation of tactics and procedures.

I can say however that "fairness" is no concept guiding our modelling process. We use the best estimate that we have and give a damn about whether these figures make a certain vehicle "look good" im comparison to others. If it is inferior in head-on engagements - avoid them and use flanking shots from ambush positions, or use missiles with a longer range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, I imagine there's no intentional bias, no. I assume you're using older applique packages on the M2A2s modelled, but that's... well, it's an older model. It's not that one is 'better' or 'worse' neccesarily; both are from very different schools of thought regarding IFVs. I just have a hard time swallowing the VAST difference in survivability, though. Of course, if the M2A2s modelled are using 1991 armor packages (logical considering you haven't had the time to update the M2 or M1 lately), it's right on par with reality.

In the end, though, I'd STILL take the Brad, even if it is slightly less armored and has a lower caliber gun. In an empty battlefield with only Brad vs CV9040, using only cannon, the Brad is at a disadvantage in a straightup gunfight. But if you add in the Brad's standoff advantage with the TOW, typically the Brad comes out on top. This is, of course, assuming the Brads are fighting a primarily defensive battle. If they're leading an advance, they're at a serious disadvantage.

But even THAT is a moot point. Brads aren't designed to fight CV9040s, and CV9040s aren't designed to fight Brads. The Brad (and I assume CV9040 as well) is designed to fight the BMP-2 and similar. Against THAT threat, they're on equal footing. Both will resist SovBloc 30mm, both will die when hit by AT4/5, and both 25mm and 40mm will easily penetrate a BMP at any range you can hit at. I actually prefer the 25mm vs BMPs simply because you have more rounds to work with, and with a little practice you can fire a 5-7 round burst that 'walks back' across a moving target, allowing effective engagement without firing a sensing round. I personally find that engagement method to be faster and more effective than a lase-steady track-fire engagement with the 40mm, where losing a steady track will cause the dynamic lead to miss the target entirely

Against tanks, the Brad is at something of an advantage; TOW gives it a long-reaching all-aspect engagement capability CV9040 lacks.

...which makes me wonder, why isn't CV9040 with Bill 2 modelled? It'd be rather nice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...which makes me wonder, why isn't CV9040 with Bill 2 modelled? It'd be rather nice!

because the swedish army didnt have funds to actually buy it in real life so it hasnt been ordered for SB Pro either.

and there has been some discussions about its use...

Swedish terrain is mixed, here in the south a CV90 Bill is a viable option, but further north the engagements ranges isnt wery far anymore and the 40mm CAN (side/rear aspect close range) take out most eastern MBTs by itself (ewen if its not built to do it) and our TO&E is built around mutual combat support with 2 tank coys and 2 mech coys in one battalion wich means most times the coys attacks together and if not, its common to switch platoons so the mech coy gets a tank platoon for fighting enemy tanks and the tank coy gets a mech platoon for clearing enemy infantry.

so with this background there has been long discussions if a CV90Bill is really worth loosing most of the mech squad in the back and forcing a CV90 to stand i battleposition for over 13seconds while the Bill is on its way to the target.

Personly I dont want a CV90Bill because I cant see any justification for it in Swedish terrain.

/KT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add to it aswell that BILL2 is a rather old missile, whit no upgrades since the early 90´s. Only 2km range, so it's effective inside the 40mm range and it's slow. There is some IFV vs tank tactical advantages, but as KT pointed out, our IFV is never far from a tank.

There is a only a prototype of the CV9056, the prototype had the missile gunner in the fighting compartment, not the wisest idea, but the cheapest since no hard or soft-ware needs to be added to the GPS. I would say that this also added to the con side of the CV9056.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True enough, though I'm a bit dubious about counting on 40mm vs tanks as anything but a last resort.

... I suppose the US Army's tradition of expeditionary action the last century or so means that being flexible for any terrain is ingrained into our tactics and choice of equipment.

As to having tanks along, US Army tends to do the same, be it organic as in Cav hunter/killer teams, or via task organizing between tank and mech companies (or even between Stryker recce and Stryker infantry companies, or even WITHIN Stryker companies, where the company ATGM/MGS platoon is typically broken between the infantry platoons)

I just rather like having a weapon that can reach out and destroy damn near anything at 4 clicks. In fact, one of the quickest lessons I learned through experimenting with fighting vs. Leo II and CV9040 is that it's more effective to flip roles: IE, have the Abrams kill the CV9040s, whose armor is tissue unto the 120mm (but fairly resistent to 25mm), and have the Bradleys kill Leo IIs, because the top-attack TOW IIB circumvents most of the Leo's impressive armor protection (not to mention TOW is just as lethal at 4k as point blank. No worries about impact velocity!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But TOW (and most other ATGM) are defeated by trees, overhead telegraph wires, powerlines, water bodies, moderate slopes at the firer's position.

Direct flight ATGM can target any point which can be directly observed (as long as the guidance continues to function), but top attack ATGM need overhead clearance as well, and cannot pass over one vehicle to strike a vehicle behind, even if the second vehicle is exposed as the warhead fuses on height change and magnetic anomaly.

This means that in close terrain you may get effective autocannon shots at much longer ranges and from a wider selection of BP than you can for TOW.

(Worse of course, if you are fighting T80s or any of the other recent Soviet equipment, it has 4000-5000m ranged supersonic laser guided tube fired ATGM, with fire on the move capability and low guidance restrictions due to the absence of guide wires.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT11 Snajper is supersonic? Info I have says it takes 11.7 seconds to reach 4000 meters, which makes it slightly slower than TOW.

I was also unaware it had fire-on-the-move capability; I was under the impression it was SACLOS laser, and therefore required a fairly stable firing position.

As to overhead cover, the TOW-2B is not a ballistic-attack missile, it's still a direct attack, just it's direct attack with overfly. It still flys straight toward the target, it just flys a meter or so ABOVE the target. It does not execute a dive like Javelin (which, incidentally, can also be fired in direct attack mode when power lines, tree canopies, overpasses, or other overhead obstacles prevent the ballistic attack).

Agreed, though, wire guidance is outmoded. As I recall, production is now underway of wireless TOW (what an oxymoron, eh?) that uses datalink instead. Helps it get around the wires snagging or shorting out on water/power lines/ trees/ other obstacles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just thinking a minute ago, actually CV9040 is a good in-game surrogate for a LOT of the new IFVs in development. Obviously there's going to be a lot of differences in switchology and procedure, but the capabilities (regarding armament and armoring) are all similar.

Between the US M1206 FCS IFV, the German Puma, South Korean XK21, all are:

-armed with 30-40mm airburst capable cannon,

-uparmored to 30mm+

-have dual-plane stabilization, thermal sighting, and dynamic lead.

Of course the systems using 30 or 35mm Bushmaster II (M1206 FCS and Puma) have a considerably larger ready rack and dual, rather than triple, feed, and would tend to fire KE in short bursts like 25mm rather than single shots like 40mm. And of course at least Puma and M1206 FSV have CITV hunter-killer systems on them (not sure about the XK21). I suppose the CV9035, when it's released on SB Pro, would be an even closer match to their capabilities, weapon wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT11 Snajper is supersonic? Info I have says it takes 11.7 seconds to reach 4000 meters, which makes it slightly slower than TOW.

I was also unaware it had fire-on-the-move capability; I was under the impression it was SACLOS laser, and therefore required a fairly stable firing position.

Well that makes it significantly faster, not slower than TOW.

The manuals state that TOW IIA takes 14.5 secs to reach 3000m, and 20.1 secs to reach the maximum range of 3750m. TOW IIB is slightly slower (roughly 0.5 secs longer at range). (oh and there is a delay after firing the weapon before the missile is launched of almost 2 seconds as well).

TOW has a fairly good kinematic performance for an ATGM, with many of the shorter ranged missiles being much slower.

TOW is basically unable to fire at a target moving with an obstruction within the field of view of the sight and at a shorter or equal range, except at closer ranges when the cannon is probably a better choice anyway ;)

Take a look at any temperate scene, and there are very few places where you could retain a clear LOS to a moving target for 23+ secs.

As far as fire on the move capability - a stabalised Laser designator would have roughly similar performance characteristics as a stabalised main gun reticule - and no one doubts that it is possible to track a vehicle sized target while moving? Accuracy and range may be reduced slightly but Reflex has a much longer kinematic range than the 4000m you quoted, and should reach 5000m in less than 18 secs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes... I was going off TOWs stated flight velocity, not a list of total flight time (stated something in the region of 340 m/s). Makes me wonder if, in the flight times you're listing, it's including the 2-second gyro spin-up period. Or maybe my listed flight velocity is just MAXIMUM velocity, not average. I thought that seemed a bit fast.

Also, regarding TOW and intervening obstacles, you can't track the missile BEHIND a tree or something, for example, because that would cause the sight unit to lose track of the beacon on the missile, and it wouldn't be able to give guidance commands. There's also the risk of snagging and breaking the guidance wires, but that's less an issue because they're spooled from the missile, not from the launcher.

You CAN fire even if the missile must track past a lone tree or two, you just have to superelevate the sight (fly the missile) OVER the tree as you traverse past so the sight doesn't lose track of the beacon. Of course this is only practical if you have a few seconds time of flight remaining on the other side of the obstacle, so you can bring the missile back onto target

I'm aware that the Snajper has 5km range, I was just stating the 4000m number for purposes of determining comparative velocities. Not supersonic, at any rate. And the laser beam-riding Snajper would have the same problem as TOW, when it comes to intervening terrain: if anything gets between the missile and the sight (or more precisely, between missile and laser emitter), the missile will lose guidance and go ballistic until it can reacquire the laser (but, like TOW, it would probably have an unintended missile-ground interface before then!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TOW is high subsonic, obtaining Vmax of 307-318 m/s ( 297-301 m/s TOW IIB)

Trigger press occurs -1.50 secs (before launch)

V max is obtained at +1.5 to +1.6 secs (post launch) and at a range of 230-280m (269-310m TOW IIB)

After this, the missile coasts, TOW IIA taking 14.35 secs to reach 3000m (146-148 m/s) and TOW IIB taking 15.44 secs to reach 3000m (138 m/s)

By 3750m TOW IIA has been flying for 20.1 secs, and speed has fallen to 116-119 m/s. TOW IIB takes 21.4 secs, and is travelling at 110 m/s

I don't have detailed flight data for the Svir/Refleks missiles, but I do know that they have a similar boost/coast flight, as most medium range missiles do. The average velocity of the missile to attain 4000m in the 11.7 secs quoted is 341 m/s (which is the speed of sound at sea level), the peak flight velocity may be around 750-800 m/s.

Basically this is a guided 'soft'-launch HEAT shell fired at low and boosted to ordnance velocities, rather than a slow moving ATGM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, from the side it was LESS grotesquely biased; 4-5 hits in mid-hull kills Brads, it takes about 9-12 to kill the CV9040.

Amazing, the CV9040 superior armor to the Brad all around despite weighing considerably less, AND it's side armor is ALMOST as strong as a T-80!

It must come with standard issue deflector shields, I guess

great now we have to NUKE 'em? does it take any damage from 120mm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the point is that no one has PAID for the development of less archaic variants of the M1/ M2 for SB Pro.

... not that that keeps me from chafing at having to use the outdated variants in the game.

What's worse, though, is that the Bradley dismounts in game have always used the positively stone age Dragon (or, in the Beta, apparently no ATGM whatsoever). Actually, the infantry in the game perform pretty poorly PERIOD. The lack of modelling proper cover from small arms (and infantry behavior leading them to USE the cover), and ease of locating infantry due the fairly sparse environments in regards to ground clutter and brush in the game means infantry tend to die quickly and messily. They SHOULD be a VERY potent threat to the armored vehicles.

... Though in all fairness, the ESim team HAS at least added the option to insert individual dismount ATGM teams in the mission editor. I've had a lot of luck putting Javelin teams on the reverse slope of hills or far edge of stands of woods and nailing enemy armor as they pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the point is that no one has PAID for the development of less archaic variants of the M1/ M2 for SB Pro.

... not that that keeps me from chafing at having to use the outdated variants in the game.

What's worse, though, is that the Bradley dismounts in game have always used the positively stone age Dragon (or, in the Beta, apparently no ATGM whatsoever). Actually, the infantry in the game perform pretty poorly PERIOD. The lack of modelling proper cover from small arms (and infantry behavior leading them to USE the cover), and ease of locating infantry due the fairly sparse environments in regards to ground clutter and brush in the game means infantry tend to die quickly and messily. They SHOULD be a VERY potent threat to the armored vehicles.

... Though in all fairness, the ESim team HAS at least added the option to insert individual dismount ATGM teams in the mission editor. I've had a lot of luck putting Javelin teams on the reverse slope of hills or far edge of stands of woods and nailing enemy armor as they pass.

you bring up a good point infantry ARE a real threat to armour
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

FWIW, I just want to mention (and I can't say any more about it):

Wait for the next update to see how the new and improved M1 is before you waste any more effort comparing survivability. Everyone knows that one of the main strengths of the M1 is its post penetration survivability, but the original damage model was quite primative in comparison to the new one, thus not allowing this strength to be represented. Hundreds (maybe thousands?) of hours have went into making the new visual model, the associated armor model and all of the extensive testing of the armor model (putting thousands of rounds into it at all angles). Believe me, I know about the latter. :o

The M1 has come a long way:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/Gallery/g2_itemId/1402

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I guess I should clarify that "more survivable", as in, whether or not the turret sits on a huge stack of ammo. The last time I was a Tank Commander in an M1A1 (HA), it does not. But yes, you are right, it is a funny way for some engineers to make a vehicle survivable... a "passive" approach to say the least. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...