Jump to content
Wiki

[Poll] Is the Rhino MSG really useful?

Is the Rhino MSG really useful?  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the Rhino MSG really useful?

    • Yes, I use it often, it's much better than MBT.
    • Not at all, I never use it. The 'Tank Destroyer' nickname is overrated.
    • Not very much, I use it only when I have to but I prefer the MBT.


Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

Try doing anything with a MBT on Tanoa.

 

I need an adult.

 

YQQdemK.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×