equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

[kotov12345 10]

I still wonder why BIS added army's M1A2 TUSK instead of real M1A1HC+ with TUSK kit, as designed for Marine Corps.

same reason why Russian tanks have tanks on the back,but here on long drive only - not in the battle field.

Basically they don't know what they doing.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

The autoloader on Soviet or Ex soviet bloc tanks is poor, it elevates the gun between shots and is slower than a human operator. Hence less time on target. It also means one less crewman for tank operation, maintenance etc.

T-64/T-80 type autoloader (6EC-11, 6EC-15...) isnt slow at all. Elevating the gun doesnt affect accuracy at all. As I written previously, the stabilizator is to blame for it.

Who the hell wants the bad guys to win anyway?

For example me. I always play as russian. And dont forget our russian players!

[whisper 0]

Who the hell wants the bad guys to win anyway?

Awww.... loss of words :j:

hopefully that was a really non-serious comment

Edited March 15, 2011 by whisper

[Ollie1983 10]

T-64/T-80 type autoloader (6EC-11, 6EC-15...) isnt slow at all. Elevating the gun doesnt affect accuracy at all. As I written previously, the stabilizator is to blame for it.

For example me. I always play as russian. And dont forget our russian players!

It affects time on target. With non-auto loader designs, the barrel remains roughly pointing at the target, so a reload and the thing is ready to fire. Autoloader elevates the barrel meaning time is lost altering elevation of the gun.

It is slower than a human operator for this reason. It might physically be able to shove rounds up the spout faster, but the time between shots on target is longer.

[whisper 0]

Not if elevation changes occur during end of reload operations which should happen even without barrel elevation.

I'm not expert at all, not saying this is what is actually occuring on T-types autoloaders, but having an additional step doesn't always mean lost time, it can be done in parallel of some end operations of the reload

[Ollie1983 10]

You don't understand. The Barrel is elevated off target for the automatic reload. Once the round is loaded, the barrel is then brought back down, on target.

This does not happen in the M1. The barrel remains pointing at whatever it was before and after the reload. Do you understand now?

[whisper 0]

I understood very well, tyvm. Just wanted to point out just saying "it adds an additional step" is not enough to justify longer reload time.

Do you know the exact order of reloading operations on the T-series autoloader?

The reload operations can be separated into 4 separate operations to do, A, B, C & D, and only C requires the barrel to be elevated.

You elevate the barrel during A, bring it back during D => you don't lose time.

So, again, do you know the exact order of reloading operations?

Or actual official or measured figures of reloading operations?

Edited March 15, 2011 by whisper

[archbishop lazarus 24]

The gun elevation is the part of the cycle time! When the gunner presses the loading button, the carousel immediately begins to rotate. Its very fast on the T-64/80 loaders. While the carousel is still rotating, the gun are already on the loading angle and hydrolocked. Then the loader loads the projectile and the charge at the same time (on T-64/80, separate on T-72/90, this is one of the reasons why its slower), and then the mechanism unlocks the gun and returns on target. Cycle time is 6-13 secs, but its around 6 secs when "sequence mode" is on. In this mode, after you fired the gun, the carousel immediately begins to rotate to a same type round as you fired before.

T-72 loading cycle is 6,5-15 secs.

With a well trained gunner, the T-64/80 has the same rate of fire as any other manually loaded tank.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Archbishop Lazarus

[Ollie1983 10]

I understood very well, tyvm. Just wanted to point out just saying "it adds an additional step" is not enough to justify longer reload time.

Do you know the exact order of reloading operations on the T-series autoloader?

The reload operations can be separated into 4 separate operations to do, A, B, C & D, and only C requires the barrel to be elevated.

You elevate the barrel during A, bring it back during D => you don't lose time.

So, again, do you know the exact order of reloading operations?

Or actual official or measured figures of reloading operations?

I can't say I know or that I give a damn TBH about antiquated soviet era crud.

Anecdotal evidence from multiple sources suggests a human operator can reload the M1s or Challengers main armament faster than the autoloader in comparable Eastern Bloc models whilst keeping the sights on target. Thats good enough for me. Unless of course, you have been involved in a conflict where these weapon systems went head to head and can offer your experience to the contrary?

I don't doubt the Eastern bloc had some very clever people designing weapons over there for many years, the problem is, none of it was ever made properly, paid for in the first instance, or maintained or operated by competent people.

If the West thought automatic loaders were worthwhile, they would have used them. Clearly, they offer significant problems, not least the use of full length complete ammo which is not ideal.

Adding a system which involves such complexity to the weapon system is also questionable in my book.

As I said, for the last time, the autoloader elevates the barrel off target. The Western reload system DOES NOT DO THIS. I don't doubt an autoloader can put a round up the spout faster than a human operator... You seem to me having trouble understanding what I am saying.

Time between reloads and time between firing/hits is two different things.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

If the West thought automatic loaders were worthwhile, they would have used them.

Then it looks like France is east... :D

The new K2 Black Panther also uses autoloader.

[Beagle 684]

Again, since most of you obviouyl never did the loaders job...The time for relaod is on paper only...no human loader can sustain the high reloaf times given on the paper...after a dozend shots he wil fall behind a autoloader...why?

Because a tank is no comfortable workplace, ist hot up to 30°C (with airconditioning, without its 50°C), your mouth gets dry, you sweat, want to drink, and the rounds seem to get heavier and heavier with every shot.

Only autoloader perform the same all the time a autoloader can't get injured by just doing his job, Loaders often will. Autoloader dont care if the tanks is driving in terrain, Human loaders do and are slowed down even more.

[kireta21 13]

The time for relaod is on paper only...no human loader can sustain the high reloaf times given on the paper...after a dozend shots he wil fall behind a autoloader...why?

Human loader might get slower after a few minutes. The thing is, after those 2-3 minutes there's no AP rounds onboard anyway. With maximum fire rate most tanks will use up all rounds in less than 5 minutes.

[Beagle 684]

Human loader might get slower after a few minutes. The thing is, after those 2-3 minutes there's no AP rounds onboard anyway. With maximum fire rate most tanks will use up all rounds in less than 5 minutes.

On papr and in theory not in practical combat. There is to much "paper says" thinking here. Battlefield is no Shooting gallery and gunner wil not fire blind all ammo into no valid target.

Usual tactic is fire and movement and that takes time. Shoot, roll back, move to new fire position, aquire target, shoot, roll back etc.

Tank combat follows the same rules as Infantry combat.

Its not always flat desert all the way up to Baghdad.

It's a bit more complicated...and only half the ammo is stored in direct reach of the loader in the turret...the rest is stowed in the front...and that's the main advantage...not all ammo must be stored in the turret because a Loader can reload the turret magazine from the hull magazine with help of a loading support device.

Tanks do not work that simple. Tanks are logistic nightmares that are out of action after 4 hours out of support range.

[kireta21 13]

That's my point exactly. You don't need high constant fire rate, you rather need high fire rate in short periods of time.

[rangerpl 13]

The M1A2 can not survive hits from Leopard II A7 with L55 gun fired DM63. The A7 is in serial production for years and the german standard MBT now, but I somehow doubt we will see M1A2s invading germany for a while.

WHAT?!?

The Leo 2A7 was first shown off in 2010. The German MoD is still contemplating upgrading 50 2A6'es to 2A7 standard.

Maybe you made a typo and actually meant 2A6, but you did it repeatedly, so you left me a little confused. And more than a little annoyed.

Also you guys are forgetting other factors. For example Russia's military budget is nowhere close to that of the US, so while an M1A2SEPTUSK might have, say, 40 Depleted Uranium M829A3s on hand, a Russian T-90 will have fewer of the equivalent AP round.

The shitty performance of Iraqi T-72s, for example, was blamed on the fact that many their AP rounds had steel cores and some tanks fired training shots. Things might have looked different if the Iraqis had the latest APFSDS-T. The M1A2 is simply better supported and nobody can challenge that.

And somehow I find it believable that it takes a ton of RPGs to take down an M1A2. The M1A2 has reactive armor on the sides, which deflects the chemical energy from RPG HEAT warheads. You're going to say "T-90 has reactive armor too". The difference is that under the T-90s reactive armor, you have steel and some composites, etc. Under the M1A2TUSK's reactive armor, you have depleted uranium.

Edited March 16, 2011 by RangerPL

[Beagle 684]

Yes you're right I'm really confused with all the prototypes and upgrades.

The A6M is the one with the L55 and the current standard MBT. We have only 393 of them cut down from more than 2100 Leo2 A4 in 1996 the count wont get much higher since MBTs are not any longer the main focus for german defense and operation strategy.

The A7 is a private venture of KMW for urban warfare and uses the shorter L44.

Im not always checking version numbers before I write a post, the A7 was the last I did remember for beeimg the most recent version.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Beagle

[Ollie1983 10]

Christ the fanbois are still at it.:rolleyes:

I'm done with the autoloader argument. It is a poor system and pointless.

Anyway, I can further illustrate the problems soviet bloc tanks would have in combat, their lack of logistic support. Only the US can field enough vehicles to keep their frontline tank units fully fueled and resupplied. This is the main reason the UK does not field that many MBTs. They just cannot physically support them in the field.

Hence the best tank to be in is always an American one. Whether it is the fastest, best protected, more well armed it is secondary to the fact it will be filled with ammo, fuel and other supplies more of the time.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Ollie1983 can you proof anything what you say or is it just another poor and pointless view from a kid trying to put his favourite tank on top of all others? :rolleyes:

[nkenny 1057]

That's a very strong blanket statement. Are you talking about the enemies the US has faced using soviet era equipment, post-soviet Russia, modern Russia, or some other era? What kind of situation do you measure this by and so on. The basically incompetent arab armies are no good yardstick for modern conventional warfare-- and had the soviet army at 1945 decided to continue rolling west we'd be saying "СпаÑибо, дорогой ÑÑÑ€" rather than "Thank you sir"

Snarky comments aside the principle that the best logistically supported army will win is sound-- and the US has certainly proved its ability to project force AND support it in the field-- but to discount the immense investments, planning, and sheer field experience the collected Russian Army has (despite high level corruption) particularly at conventional warfare is faulty to the extreme.

-k

[Ollie1983 10]

Ollie1983 can you proof anything what you say or is it just another poor and pointless view from a kid trying to put his favourite tank on top of all others? :rolleyes:

Err can you prove anything to the contrary then?

---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 AM ----------

That's a very strong blanket statement. Are you talking about the enemies the US has faced using soviet era equipment, post-soviet Russia, modern Russia, or some other era? What kind of situation do you measure this by and so on. The basically incompetent arab armies are no good yardstick for modern conventional warfare-- and had the soviet army at 1945 decided to continue rolling west we'd be saying "СпаÑибо, дорогой ÑÑÑ€" rather than "Thank you sir"

Snarky comments aside the principle that the best logistically supported army will win is sound-- and the US has certainly proved its ability to project force AND support it in the field-- but to discount the immense investments, planning, and sheer field experience the collected Russian Army has (despite high level corruption) particularly at conventional warfare is faulty to the extreme.

-k

I'm not saying anything of the sort who will win etc and that is well beyond the scope of this discussion as you well know.

The point I made was that the technical superiority of west vs east or even inferiority is an irrelevance, because only the US has the logistical grunt to support their armoured divisions on foreign soil. This was painfully clear in Iraq because the British do not have anything like the logistical resources and hence were limited to the number of units they could field at a given time. Whether British, German, French, Russian tanks are the best is an absolute irrelevance anyway, when they cannot be kept fed with fuel and ammunition.

WW2 is an entirely different matter and a waste of time discussing, we can spend all day on what ifs.

For the record I have no 'favorite tank' although it is painfully clear there are some ex soviet bloc fanbois who do. They seem neglectful of the fact that whilst soviet equipment at many times throughout the cold war and even to the present day led the field technically, it was woefully inadequate in the more essential areas.

PS Also had a laugh about your theoretical soviet expansion post WW2. Patton would have loved you to try. Meanwhile, the US would have got on and built another nuke and Moscow would have been remodeled a bit like Hiroshima was.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Ollie1983

[kotov12345 10]

Ollie1983 can you proof anything what you say or is it just another poor and pointless view from a kid trying to put his favourite tank on top of all others? :rolleyes:

he bought game 2 weeks ago and posting suggestions already.Read what thread about man - play and tell after that lol.

[Ollie1983 10]

Yes obviously two weeks in the game is going to make a massive difference to ones understanding of the real world.....:D

Or clearly you know better because you have had the game for two years or something, lolz on you mate.

[kotov12345 10]

Yes obviously two weeks in the game is going to make a massive difference to ones understanding of the real world.....:D

Or clearly you know better because you have had the game for two years or something, lolz on you mate.

problem is that no one care care what you think.This thread relayed to problem in the game only not belongs to problem with soviet or any other tanks in real life.

ARMA2 is not even close to tanks simulator and not able to cover aspects that you guys talking about like crew survival and others problems.I saw war myself and talked to people who was real tankers in USA army and soviet and I'm not asking anyone what you think about Russian nor American tanks.

[Ollie1983 10]

We're talking about tanks in the game, that gaming being Arma2. In the game, generally speaking, the M1 is more survivable and it can cream enemy armour if used well. To me this reflects the real life scenario quite well, hence I have no argument with the game.

If soviet fanbois are so unhappy with the fact the game behaves like this. then either don't play Arma or get hold of a mod or something.

[kotov12345 10]

We're talking about tanks in the game, that gaming being Arma2. In the game, generally speaking, the M1 is more survivable and it can cream enemy armour if used well. To me this reflects the real life scenario quite well, hence I have no argument with the game.

If soviet fanbois are so unhappy with the fact the game behaves like this. then either don't play Arma or get hold of a mod or something.

so you are happy that sabot to turret lead to track damage for m1a1 in game ?

or

ah1z blows after 2 sabots same as m1a1 or m1a2 ?

Edited March 16, 2011 by kotov12345