> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:
could you explain your logic here?
> I would put Soviet
why? if western fc is the best, make it Superior and only let everyone else
have Basic.
> So, we've got a size 6 gun in a turret (18CP) and one extra APSW
well, size 6 guns are not allowed, but i think we can ignore that as they are
clearly a Good Thing. i'm not sure that two 7.62 mm mg's (one coax) counts as
two apsw; remember that a typical apsw is supposed to be an hmg or a grenade
launcher.
> a total of 19CP with 6CP spare, assuming a size 5 hull. I would
i'm not too happy about the stealth. is an m1a1 actually harder to hit
than a 60-tonne tank from a less-developed army?
> I've assumed that you can spend spare capacity on improving armour
how about cp equal to vehicle size class can be used to improve one facing by
one level? in the case of modern tanks, it might be the top or back, as they
have quite good armour all round.
> Challengers and M1A2s are reputed to be quite tough. See Tom
an mbt is basically the best gun you have got, mounted on tracks and armoured,
so for two nations at roughly the same level of technology, their mbt's will
inevitably be quite similar.
how about this for the generic mbt: size 4 (20 cp), armour 4 size 6 gun in
turret (18), your choice of extra apsw (1), another extra apsw (1), apfc (1).
less advanced countries lose out on fire control or only get level 3 armour.
Tom
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
Actually, since the M1A1 and similar modern MBTs have much lower physical
profiles than older tanks, the stealth (lowering the profile) makes perfect
sense.
> At 03:34 PM 11/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
Lower is very relative. If an older tank is like the side of a hanger, an
M1 is like the side of a barn. Much smaller profile - but it still
sticks out like a sore thumb. You have hundreds of square feet of flat metal
surface reflecting back at a sensor no matter what the tank is, or the
direction you emit at it from. If you could build a tank to look like the F117
or B2, and construct it out of similar materials, then "stealth" would be
relevant. Until you do, it isn't. How tall is an M1? 7, 8 feet? That's eight
feet of metal reflector. So an M60 is taller? Wouldn't make a difference.
Tanks are giant moving radar reflectors, no matter what the type or era (up to
now, anyway). Older soviet tanks, like the T34 or the
T54/55 are lower and smaller than an M1, AND their turrets are
considerably lower and rounded which gives a smaller radar profile. They still
show up on all kinds of sensors like a beacon.
> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Adrian Johnson wrote:
> Lower is very relative. If an older tank is like the side of a
Yes, a tank is still a very large target. But lower tanks would still be
harder to spot that relatively higher ones, and the size is relative in DSII.
That's why the walkers have a signature of one higher than their size, because
they are too friggin' tall. Also tank or infantry commanders going after tanks
won't be using radar to detect them.
Howdy!
> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
> Actually, since the M1A1 and similar modern MBTs have much lower
It's a relative thing.
The (former) Soviet tanks are some of the lowest profile MBTs in the world.
Hence the maximum height requirement of 5'2" or thereabouts for the crew.
Later,
Ken