Tactics beat Technology

[USSRsniper 0]

Combined arms FTW. :D

Only if you have anything to combine.... :rolleyes:

Edited August 27, 2009 by USSRsniper

[Baff1 0]

Can be done on the move too, but I'd definitely doubt it can be done in any rougher terrain where the tank isn't moving evenly.

And also it is greatly depending on distance. There's no point in a fast reload unless you can get a second shot off really fast, so at long ranges it wouldn't be much advantage. Still it is at worst at the same speed as the auto loader while moving, unless the terrain is so mean you can't aim and shoot either ^^

I don't know matey you see vids of those Ruskie tanks aiming and firing in mid air.

Over a minute a modern autoloader is expected to get an extra shot or two in.

Over rough terrain you should expect a loader to be hanging on to something, not juggling explosives.

[bogdanm 0]

M1A1 load time

0:45->0:51

0:57->1:02 (well it should be 1:07 because the gunner isn’t able to fire until the loader pulls that lever)

1:18-1:24

T-80 autoloader

0:00->0:04

0:00->0:04

0:00->0:04

0:00->0:04 :))

EDIT: Found another video. Leopard 2 while moving

0:15-0:24

Edited August 28, 2009 by BogdanM

[USSRsniper 0]

Autoloader in action not just factory test video, with tank firing it's gun :)

Action starts from 1:45

Edited August 28, 2009 by USSRsniper

[bogdanm 0]

Autoloader in action not just factory test video, with tank firing it's gun :)

Action starts from 1:45

I don't see much difference, perhaps one extra second.

[xclusiv8 10]

I don't see much difference, perhaps one extra second.

People get tired, machines don't.

[bogdanm 0]

People get tired, machines don't.

Wise words my fellow forum colleague. But that time delay between the factory test and the field test might come from a couple of reasons like old mechanism or poor factory assembly.

[-Shifty- 10]

Why is this wrong?

T72 vs Abrams should be close to 50/50.

Same for T90.

At greater range (4Km perhaps) T72 and T90 should be the clear winners with 0 casualties.

The Tusk variant should make no discernable difference vs MBT's. It's technological enhancements are all anti-infantry.

It has greater side armour, enough to defeat RPG 7, but not enough to defeat tank rounds.

What is the "side armour function" please Mr?

Does it keep them nose on to the enemy perhaps?

What's wrong is that the US military is like 10x better then any military that would use T90s or T72s.

Training always beats technology, and America, the UK, and Australia and most of Europe have much better tanks and training than countries like Russia, lets not even mention Asia...

But I love the stuff you can do in this game. Aren't all the vehicles/weapons balanced anyway? The M1A2 Tusk is the T90 with different skin right?

Read this:

Great technical convos going on there I learned so much. A lot of the posts are just idiots but check out the long posts. Amazing knowledge you get there!

Edited August 28, 2009 by -Shifty-

[derk yall 0]

Why so many people from the "west" think that russian/eastern technology and training is crap? Brainwashing propaganda anyone?:j:

[-Shifty- 10]

Why so many people from the "west" think that russian/eastern technology and training is crap? Brainwashing propaganda anyone?:j:

Maybe because America has proven itself to be friggin amazing at war.

Russia...well...sorta failed a lot.

[derk yall 0]

Well, proved where? In fight againts untrained army with low grade equipement? I dont want to sound like a jerk, but what you say is something made by propaganda. US Army is a modern and good army, I have respect for them, but surtenly they are not 10x better than others armies.

[bogdanm 0]

@-Shifty-

Your avatar and sig tell me that you are probably american so I'm really not surprised of what you said. What exactly has accieved the US army so far in Iraq in Afghanistan? This year was by far the bloodiest for the Coalition forces especially US and British forces(may they rest in peace).

[ShadowY 0]

Maybe because America has proven itself to be friggin amazing at war.

Russia...well...sorta failed a lot.

funny guy...

[Inkompetent 0]

Well, Russia haven't been in any war at a larger scale since... well... WW2. Chechenya and Afghanistan (USA didn't win in Afghanistan either, so I guess Russia and USA scored equal there) hasn't been anything like Korea, Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Georgia was so short. I guess Afghanistan for Soviet and Vietnam for USA are the closest comparisons we can get, and even that isn't close.

They haven't got (or should we say: 'taken') any chance to field test their military themselves.

If I'd think the Russians are lacking in any area it would probably be doctrines and communication. Not that they haven't modernized from the terrible cold war doctrines, but I wouldn't believe that the same level of soldier initiative or the communication assets to make such initiatives efficient are available at really low level, like especially for the US forces.

Non the less. All equipment has different strengths and different weaknesses, both adapted to different military tradition, doctrines, political climate and economy (both monetary, material and manpower).

[rgallant 10]

Let's see you need to turn this on it's head for people to understand.

So let's take a nice war that has been talk and analyzed to death.

WW II

Wermacht

Better trained

Better tanks - Pzkw IV and Panther

Far more Combat experience

US army

Not as well trained

Lots of Sherman's - A more reliable tank but not as good a combat tank

Little combat experience

Now who won that one.

And just for a cheap shot :) no one has won in the Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran area ever. Russia, Britain, or the US.

Have worked with and against the US army 10X better not even close. They are no better or worse than any other well trained and equipped army.

But on topic, any modern tank with a decently trained crew and up to date ammunition can pretty much take out any similar vehicle. It always comes down to tactics and luck. 1st to shoot will tend to come out on top all things being equal.

As for armour and penetrator, no modern tank uses a single armour system, and all modern tanks are well protected against HEAT rounds. Fairly well protected against KE rounds (SABOT for you other old guys.). In fact they are least well protected against HESH rounds, but Kevlar liners and spaced armour protects against these quite well.

[ShadowY 0]

Let's see you need to turn this on it's head for people to understand.

So let's take a nice war that has been talk and analyzed to death.

WW II

Wermacht

Better trained

Better tanks - Pzkw IV and Panther

Far more Combat experience

US army

Not as well trained

Lots of Sherman's - A more reliable tank but not as good a combat tank

Little combat experience

Now who won that one.

another funny guy...plzz stop me from repeating myself :bounce3:

[Inkompetent 0]

Now who won that one.

USA didn't win thanks to Shermans against German tanks. The Allies won the west front thanks to air superiority and Germany's lack of diesel. In fact only one of four (British?) Shermans were ever upgraded to the Firefly (i.e. getting a cannon actually capable of destroying something), making the Allies need unreasonable amounts of tanks to achieve anything against the German counterparts.

[rgallant 10]

another funny guy...plzz stop me from repeating myself :bounce3:

I think you missed the irony in there aimed at the other guy, but then maybe it just my sense of what is funny.

I did not intend to imply the Americans were a better army but rather for all those who hammer the Russian/Eastern forces as useless should shut up and look at the state of the US army in WW II and see the possible comparison, to modern situation.

It is entirely possible the Russian army does not have as good a training and motivational system as the US, it is equally possible the T90 and T80 are lessor AFV's.

But they have a lot of them and have been proven to be willing to spend the lives to win the war. The US on the other hand tends to wilt in face of higher losses due to political pressure.

[Baff1 0]

Let's see you need to turn this on it's head for people to understand.

So let's take a nice war that has been talk and analyzed to death.

WW II

Wermacht

Better trained

Better tanks - Pzkw IV and Panther

Far more Combat experience

US army

Not as well trained

Lots of Sherman's - A more reliable tank but not as good a combat tank

Little combat experience

Now who won that one.

.

The Russians won that one.

Lest we forget, in WWII, 4/5 Germans Soldiers were killed on the Eastern front.

Tandem warheads are the current leaders in AT ammunition in my opinion.

It is not lost on me that Russian tanks are all equiped to fire them and that they have a signifcant range advantage using them.

That gives them the first shot in a lot of scenarios, also the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, (how long does it take a tank to travel 2 kms anyway?)....

Edited August 28, 2009 by Baff1

[TangoRomeo 10]

Let's see you need to turn this on it's head for people to understand.

So let's take a nice war that has been talk and analyzed to death.

WW II

Wermacht

Better trained

Better tanks - Pzkw IV and Panther

Far more Combat experience

US army

Not as well trained

Lots of Sherman's - A more reliable tank but not as good a combat tank

Little combat experience

Now who won that one.

The outcome of a conflict is not decided at tactical level. You can win the battles, and eventually loose the war. It happened, and still does, in our century. There's more to it than simply pitting different technology, quality and experience against each other. Without the backing of a large intact industry and sufficent resources, i.e. fuels, even the mightiest war machine will grind to a halt. That's why the US in WW2 could keep on rolling successfully on several fronts, it's industry was, unlike Germany's, not subject to bombardment. It had the capacity to even provide it's allies sufficent material to bypass bottlenecks in production, or to compensate for losses (via Lend-Lease -Act), which is regarded as a crucial factor for the outcome of WW2.

[bogdanm 0]

^^Best post so far. The industry that backs up the military is just as important as the technological advantages. Even if a country has bought the most advanced military equipments, if it doesn’t have the industry to support, replace the army it will eventualy run out of the supplies, spare parts and become incapable to fight anymore.

This is why saying that western countries are supperior military wise than Russia is nonsense. There is no western country besides USA that can single handed fight off the Russian army. The main reforms in the Russian Army have started only 5-6 years ago and they already have more modern/21th century tanks, APCs, fighters, bombers etc than any western european country. And this was accieved in peace time with production is at a really slow pace. Also the military doctrines and tactics have been changed/updated to modern warfare. A good example is the dramatic decrease of Russian casualties in Chechnya.

Also most of the western armies will not increase in size in the next years, only replace/scrap the old equipment, while the Russian army will continue to increase its 21st century fighting force and by 2025 it will probably replace half of the army with modern equipment.

Of course this are just predictions/assumptions but with the current economic increase(the one before the economical crisis :D) its quite possible that Russia will return to its former glory.

Take this post with a grain of salt, I didn’t do proper research about the things said(just basic knowledge) so feel free to correct me.

[USSRsniper 0]

technology is noty always good for example M1's engine can't be repaired in the field, most of the time the M1's are shipped back to the US for the repairs. You can't simply bust out wrench and a hammer to fix M1 :)

[JackandBlood 10]

Ummmhmm. That's how famously that Abrams heavy commons got himself into the path of 3 T-72s. And it was a tactical ...decision to let the tank get into a position in solo contact with 3 enemy MBT, hit once by all 3 t-72s. And it was not the technological advantage of DU armor among other Abrams tank advantages that allowed the tank to survive; then destroy all 3 T-72s... I can smell a kneebiter (or asskisser) a mile away. Maybe you should re-evaluate your position. Perhaps BIS simply isn't allowed the access to classified details of each recent MBT's capabilities and has to make concessions hmmm?

Course in your defense (cuz i'm not here to ridicule your ideas completely just to tone down this popular but ludicris thread), Afganistan has shown. On foot intelligence gathering in this particular state is far superior to UAVs and satelite photos.

[bogdanm 0]

Ummmhmm. That's how famously that Abrams heavy commons got himself into the path of 3 T-72s. And it was a tactical ...decision to let the tank get into a position in solo contact with 3 enemy MBT, hit once by all 3 t-72s. And it was not the technological advantage of DU armor among other Abrams tank advantages that allowed the tank to survive; then destroy all 3 T-72s... I can smell a kneebiter (or asskisser) a mile away. Maybe you should re-evaluate your position. Perhaps BIS simply isn't allowed the access to classified details of each recent MBT's capabilities and has to make concessions hmmm?

Yeah nice story! But its just a story unless you have proof of course. :p

Oh and thanks for bringing some sense to this "ludicris" thread, you surely know much better than any of us. Your example clearly teach us how the US Army won the first gulf war. A vastly outnumber army(US Army) crushed those bad "terrorists". :)) You almost convinced me that single M1 won the war by itself, not the other 3500 tanks, 2000 planes and 1 mil soldiers. :rolleyes:

[MehMan 0]

They weren't terrorist back then. Just Iraqis. ;) Axis of evil and weapons of mass destruction sounds much meaner than Iraqis.