[Poll] Is the Rhino MSG really useful?

[Wiki 1558]

Hello guys.

So, I make this poll to have your opinion.

 

Do you think the Rhino MSG is really useful?

IMHO, not very much:

barely faster than MBT, much more fragile, same canon as an MBT.

 

What do you think?

[Meme779 4]

Its laser guided shell with UAV can provide in-direct fire.

 

Maybe it can be air lifted by V-44??

 

Might be faster on road? Its top speed is 92km/h while T-100 can only reach 62km/h.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

The Rhino is pretty great. It's fast, has a laser designator, ATGMs, and it's airlift capable via Blackfish. I still prefer the Slammer just because I enjoy tanks and tracked vehicles in general, but it has its place.

[Ex3B 266]

"Yes, I use it often, it's much better than MBT."

> I don't think its "much better than MBT"... in head to head ground combat, I think you'd want the MBT. A Rhino can land a hit on an MBT, only ot have the MBT shrug it off and one shot the Rhino. The Rhino is going to be much more vulnerable to infantry AT weapons as well

 

"Not at all, I never use it. The 'Tank Destroyer' nickname is overrated."

> but I do use it. I agree that the "Tank destroyer" nickname is over rated. Its better thought of as a mobile gun system. A number of systems like it have been made, many with the anti-tank role in mind... in the end, they have almost never been used against tanks (and performed poorly when used as such), but do well as fire support and against lesser armored vehicles.

 

"Not very much, I use it only when I have to but I prefer the MBT."

> The MBT fills a different role. An MBT doesn't give indirect fire support, and an MBT isn't airmobile via the blackfish.

With NATO forces and the blackfish, I can make scenarios where NATO flies in some pretty serious firepower and armor (Marshalls and Rhinos) from offshore.... meanwhile, what is CSAT going to fly in? MRAPs slung under Tarus? LSVs carried by Xians? AAF brings in what? Nyx's....

 

If there's an unoccupied island that you want side to fight over, the Rhino would be king of ground combat on that island. Before the Rhino, it was the Marshal.. without the Blackfish, it would be the marshal or the gorgon... after a long trip through the water.

 

That makes the Rhino useful in my book, in a way very different from MBTs

[Wiki 1558]

Definitely shit:

just tried again the showcase:

6 DH with AP round on an MBT: it was still alive and kill me in 1 shot.

As usual....

[Wiki 1558]

Same problem with the Angara in the last mission of the mini campaign:

 

damaged Slammer: it took me 5 DH on the flank with AP rounds to blow it up with 125mm - and as said, it was already damaged

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

On 11/17/2018 at 4:15 AM, Wiki said:

Hello guys.

So, I make this poll to have your opinion.

 

Do you think the Rhino MSG is really useful?

IMHO, not very much:

barely faster than MBT, much more fragile, same canon as an MBT.

 

What do you think?

Try doing anything with a MBT on Tanoa.

 

Cheers

[Harzach 2517]

5 hours ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

Try doing anything with a MBT on Tanoa.

 

I need an adult.

 

[Wiki 1558]

13 hours ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

Try doing anything with a MBT on Tanoa.

 

Cheers

 

Yes, so using a Rhino when there is no MBT is quite a solution...

 

But in combat, the Rhino has more chance to get destroyed than an MBT.

 

Facing an MBT, the Rhino will lose 90% of the time:

 

Same canon : no advantage

Weaker (usually 1 hit and it's destroyed) : disadvantage

A little bit faster : advantage but with a decent gunner in the MBT, speed is no use.

 

So, why name it tank buster if it will lose 90% of the time in combat?

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

7 hours ago, Wiki said:

 

Yes, so using a Rhino when there is no MBT is quite a solution...

 

But in combat, the Rhino has more chance to get destroyed than an MBT.

 

Facing an MBT, the Rhino will lose 90% of the time:

 

Same canon : no advantage

Weaker (usually 1 hit and it's destroyed) : disadvantage

A little bit faster : advantage but with a decent gunner in the MBT, speed is no use.

 

So, why name it tank buster if it will lose 90% of the time in combat?

 

Not sure what you'd expect? Maybe your concept of a mobile gun platform is skewed, they're simply not designed to take on tanks in a direct engagement.

The list of things that can survive a 1:1 with a MBT is pretty thin, even MBT vs MBT is usually decided by who gets the first hit.

 

The tank busting comes from firing terrain following, laser guided missiles with UAV or Laser designator support from beyond visual range.

 

 

Cheers

[Tankbuster 1746]

4 hours ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

 

The tank busting comes from firing terrain following, laser guided missiles with UAV or Laser designator support from beyond visual range.

 

 

 

1

Exactly. This isn't designed to engage with tanks, it's designed to ambush them and it does it very well. It's indirect fire capabilities and mobility reward teamwork, planning and tactics, something that is sometimes missing in todays player.

[Ex3B 266]

I'll agree with the OP on the naming... it should be named a mobile gun system, not a tank destroyer.

As to the other complaints... if he's having the same problem with an Angara... there's some other issue.

[Tankbuster 1746]

I know the term these days refers to artillery pieces, but isn't this technically a self propelled gun?

[mmm 35]

The kind of wheeled gun carrier are generally adopted on cost ground over MBTs. Basically the cheapest chassis to carry a multipurpose tank gun, and are never intended to take on tank as the primary role. An ATGM carrier would be a "tank destroyer".

 

But HE in this game doesn't go through even thin metal shed. After you've done the "destruction" to destructible buildings a hit to the building also won't do anything to the man on the other side of the thin wall. Nor is airburst implemented in the "2035" setting so you know this is an alternate universe. I think everyone have noticed this but if you want to kill something with HE in this game you really have to hit the floor around the person, or you have to land the HE shell on his face. In the end it turns out it might be easier to do so with a high velocity sabot or just spray coax wildly from 1km away. Speaking of which the loss of kinetic energy doesn't really reflect that well with the current damage model. Halving the velocity actually result in 1/4 the kinetic energy, it may still be a very damaging amount to human flesh, but interaction with body armor can be totally different. Yet coax still kills pretty well at a distance which the bullet has gone almost subsonic.

 

I'd rather have them introduce something more novel than a very un-2035 Rooikat. Something like BMPT would have been interesting, which is also a concept that has been gaining some traction lately. Or if they really wanted to do LOAL NLOS weapon why not model something like Spike which is how most modern missiles achieve NLOS capability, which is admittedly more complex to implement in game. Or for something more simple like IR/radar stealth on ground vehicles? I could understand their reluctance to introduce APS since its hard to gauge its actual effectiveness, and more importantly when it doesn't work, how and why? But there are still plenty of options to represent plausible 2035 technologies based on current trend than just future looking skins and models.

[Ex3B 266]

4 hours ago, mmm said:

The kind of wheeled gun carrier are generally adopted on cost ground over MBTs. Basically the cheapest chassis to carry a multipurpose tank gun, and are never intended to take on tank as the primary role. An ATGM carrier would be a "tank destroyer".

If its something that is supposed to compete on cost/in numbers, not 1 on 1, then the Nyx AT could be considered a tank destroyer, or even a Prowler AT.

IMO a tank destroyer that would be close to the Rhino would be playing the "glass cannon" trope... something that can dish out damage, but can't take it. It would need to dish out more damage than an MBT, so that both could essentially 1-2 shot the other. Something like that old "M1 Thumper" prototype (which mounted a 140mm gun), but with less armor.

 

Quote

But HE in this game doesn't go through even thin metal shed. After you've done the "destruction" to destructible buildings a hit to the building also won't do anything to the man on the other side of the thin wall. Nor is airburst implemented in the "2035" setting so you know this is an alternate universe. I think everyone have noticed this but if you want to kill something with HE in this game you really have to hit the floor around the person, or you have to land the HE shell on his face. In the end it turns out it might be easier to do so with a high velocity sabot or just spray coax wildly from 1km away. Speaking of which the loss of kinetic energy doesn't really reflect that well with the current damage model. Halving the velocity actually result in 1/4 the kinetic energy, it may still be a very damaging amount to human flesh, but interaction with body armor can be totally different. Yet coax still kills pretty well at a distance which the bullet has gone almost subsonic.

What does this have to do with the topic of the Rhino or tank destroyers? HE isn't meant for use against armor... so it seems quite off topic

 

Quote

I'd rather have them introduce something more novel than a very un-2035 Rooikat. Something like BMPT would have been interesting, which is also a concept that has been gaining some traction lately. Or if they really wanted to do LOAL NLOS weapon why not model something like Spike which is how most modern missiles achieve NLOS capability, which is admittedly more complex to implement in game. Or for something more simple like IR/radar stealth on ground vehicles? I could understand their reluctance to introduce APS since its hard to gauge its actual effectiveness, and more importantly when it doesn't work, how and why? But there are still plenty of options to represent plausible 2035 technologies based on current trend than just future looking skins and models.

But... the BMPT is basically what we get with the BTR-K Kaymsh.

30 mm autocannons? check

AT missiles? check

7.62 mm mg? check

30mm GMG? No... but isn't that a bit redundant with the 30mm cannon firing HE rounds? I suppose if you want to lob them instead of using direct fire...

But such a thing has no more AT capabilities than anything else mounting an AT launcher... this would not be a tank destroyer... and it wouldn't be very novel (it would be quite similar in armament to the BTR-90 from Arma 2, but with more armor).

[mmm 35]

On 11/23/2018 at 3:56 PM, Ex3B said:

If its something that is supposed to compete on cost/in numbers, not 1 on 1, then the Nyx AT could be considered a tank destroyer, or even a Prowler AT.

IMO a tank destroyer that would be close to the Rhino would be playing the "glass cannon" trope... something that can dish out damage, but can't take it. It would need to dish out more damage than an MBT, so that both could essentially 1-2 shot the other. Something like that old "M1 Thumper" prototype (which mounted a 140mm gun), but with less armor.

Very astute observation, those would be aptly classified as "tank destroyer", actually I don't know what else those are capable of other than fighting tanks(in an asymmetrical manner).

As I understand "tank destroyer" historically carried a tank gun only for as long as recoilless shaped charge weaponry wasn't mature. Since then it was possible to cut down the cost of chassis significantly.

 

On 11/23/2018 at 3:56 PM, Ex3B said:

What does this have to do with the topic of the Rhino or tank destroyers? HE isn't meant for use against armor... so it seems quite off topic

Wheeled (modern)assault guns aren't generally meant to fire many sabots so they better be able to reflect their intended real life role. I went on to explain how I believe HE lethality modelling is too lacking to do so and how similarly inappropriately modeled coax/RCWS overshadowed high caliber HE when in real life there's not much overlap between the 2.

 

On 11/23/2018 at 3:56 PM, Ex3B said:

But... the BMPT is basically what we get with the BTR-K Kaymsh.

30 mm autocannons? check

AT missiles? check

7.62 mm mg? check

30mm GMG? No... but isn't that a bit redundant with the 30mm cannon firing HE rounds? I suppose if you want to lob them instead of using direct fire...

But such a thing has no more AT capabilities than anything else mounting an AT launcher... this would not be a tank destroyer... and it wouldn't be very novel (it would be quite similar in armament to the BTR-90 from Arma 2, but with more armor).

2x30mm autocannons, 4x SALOCS ATGM in the same weight class of hellfire(in contrast of more common ground launched ones) that's on the other hand almost impossible to reload in combat due to launcher configuration, unlike say TUA TOW, Bradley or their own 9P149, 2 more independently targetable bow GMG, armored similarly to MBT with less protected unmanned turret whose destruction doesn't translate to a catastrophic kill, and no troop compartment.

 

That's the most distinct addition I could think of without major platform update to ARMA 3. I'd argue there's more distinction than between the MBTs if viewed under the same light.  Of course there's the problem with the limited vehicle simulation fidelity it may not be able to reflect all attributes of such vehicle, and the delicate faction "balance", somethings that's a more serious consideration these days I guess.

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

Its name already says: MGS. Not MBT. It fulfills an entirely different role. It is a mobile, airliftable gun platform for heavy fire support using missiles, a decent gun and machineguns.

It is not designed to take hits. But to deliver them from a relatively safe position. 

[drebin052 324]

46 minutes ago, the_one_and_only_Venator said:

It is not designed to take hits. But to deliver them from a relatively safe position. 

 

Exactly. I'm sure OPFOR players in Warlords can attest to how annoying a decent BLUFOR team spamming Rhinos + MARUKs can be. You literally cannot get close enough to counter them unless you avoid getting detected.

[Ex3B 266]

On 6/8/2020 at 4:50 AM, mmm said:

Very astute observation, those would be aptly classified as "tank destroyer", actually I don't know what else those are capable of other than fighting tanks(in an asymmetrical manner).As I understand "tank destroyer" historically carried a tank gun only for as long as recoilless shaped charge weaponry wasn't mature. Since then it was possible to cut down the cost of chassis significantly.

Well, the Nyx-AT is capable of fighting pretty much any ground vehicle, preferably "armored vehicles", which are sometimes loosly called "tanks" by some audiences. With a 50 HMG, protection against small arms, a low profile, and thermal imaging; its also decent against infantry... but less so than the 20mm cannon variant. The AT- nyx would be a type of tank destroyer.

Historically... Tank destroyers have been a rather broad class of vehicles that has changed over time. In WW2 they were mostly tracked vehicles with minimal armor, carrying either an open top turret, or no turret (but were enclosed).

But this isn't WW2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer#Post-World_War_II

"With the development of flexible anti-tank missiles, which were capable of installation on almost any vehicle in the 1960s, the concept of the tank destroyer has morphed into light vehicles with missiles." It then goes on to cite some vehicles that are rather Nyx- like (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos ), and some that are rather Rhino like (light armor, large main gun that can also fire ATGMS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2S25_Sprut-SD )

The ability to fire ATGMs has lead to overlap with assault guns, and overlap was already starting in WW2

The article also cites an overlap with the development of APCs... some APCs have a mixed armament with ATGMs (so again, light armor, but has an AT weapon), while others are built on an APC chassis with ATGMs mounted (like TOWs on M113s and such: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NM142)

In this case, the Rhino and the Gorgon and the Kaymsh can all overlap with the TD role. Sabot rounds are often preferable though, because of the faster time to target (and if it were modeled in Arma, lower change of being intercepted by an active defense system).

The article does mention in the 21st century section: "Missile carrying vehicles however are referred to as anti-tank missile carriers instead of tank destroyers."

 

China made a "rhino-like" TD, that was phased out in favor of ATGM carriers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_89_(tank_destroyer)

While the Stryker MGS was never intended as a tank destroyer, and the Italian Centauro ended up serving not as a TD as it was designed, but as fire support like the Stryker MGS does,

 

Quote

Wheeled (modern)assault guns aren't generally meant to fire many sabots so they better be able to reflect their intended real life role. I went on to explain how I believe HE lethality modelling is too lacking to do so and how similarly inappropriately modeled coax/RCWS overshadowed high caliber HE when in real life there's not much overlap between the 2.

Well, HE lethality is another topic, and airbursting shells would be awesome. We also have some funny HE mechanics with 30mm (or was it 40mm?) HE rounds that penetrate walls and such, but explode on each surface they hit even when penetrating

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gun

"They were not intended to be deployed as tank substitutes or dedicated tank destroyers.[4] Nevertheless, as the conflict progressed, the increasing proliferation of tanks on the battlefield forced many assault gun units to engage armor in defense of the infantry, and led to armies becoming more dependent on multipurpose designs which combined the traditionally separate roles of an assault gun and a tank destroyer."

"Currently there appears to be a move toward wheeled vehicles fitting a "tank destroyer" or "assault gun" role, such as the M1128 Mobile Gun System of the US Army, the Centauro Wheeled Tank Destroyer of the Italian and Spanish Armies, the Chinese anti-tank gun PTL-02 and ZBL08 assault gun, and the French AMX-10 RC heavy armoured car."

Its very hard to differentiate "asault gun" from TDs... especially now with ATGMs... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan - large claiber, low velocity gun, light armor... seems like an assault gun, until you fire an ATGM out of it, and then it can serve as a TD.

HEAT rounds are also a factor too, since a low velocity HEAT round is about as deadly as a high velocity HEAT round of the same caliber.

 

 

On 6/8/2020 at 8:40 AM, the_one_and_only_Venator said:

Its name already says: MGS. Not MBT. It fulfills an entirely different role. It is a mobile, airliftable gun platform for heavy fire support using missiles, a decent gun and machineguns.

It is not designed to take hits. But to deliver them from a relatively safe position. 

Not MBT, for sure, but since they also call it a Tank Destroyer, that suggests it would be appropriate to send these against MBTs... or at least use them to defend against MBTs in a direct fire role.

WW2 TDs had light armor, but a large enough gun that it didn't matter in a tank vs tank engagement - either one could one shot the other. They were basically as good as a tank for fighting tanks, but weren't as versatile as tanks in other aspects. They could hang back and support infantry, but not spearhead assaults, or participate in high speed flanking attacks like tanks could.

 

Anyway, back ot the topic: Airmobile, long range indirect fire support with the Maruks, and a powerful main gun that will one shot pretty much anything except tanks... and can knock out tanks with 1 hit from the right angles (not the front)... yes, its useful, but I don't think its great as a tank-destroyer.