I love a challenge. Let's see stats for an M1-A3 and I'll see how bad my
Merkava attempts look.
I can see two DS2 issues that impacts the Merkava implementation:
1. Some Merkava versions (all?) allow for removing about half of the main gun
ammo in favor of stretchers or a dismount team (making the Merkava the perfect
IFV). 2. The forward mounted engine helps minimize crew casualties on
penetrating hits through the front armor. there are also some maintennance
benefits (iirc), as the deck armor lifts off to allow for
engine access - without pulling the turret too (this may have been a
different tank, it's been a while); that's still a crane job, but the depot
folks would rather not mess with a functioning turret and makes it
possible to replace engines at improvised repair points and maybe even truly
in the field. [1]
In the first case, DS2 doesn't track ammo, the system simply isn't that
detailed. In the real world ammo stowage is a major design problem, even
Hammer's Slammers MBTs have ammo issues. The Merkava shows that 45 120mm
rounds are equivalent in Capacity Points to one stand of infantry or a
stretcher stand (hypothetical but reasonable unit type). The clamshell doors
also allow for rapid field resupply and also don't show up in DS2.
In the second case vehicle crew casualties aren't tracked in DS2, another
granularity issue. Likewise, resupply isn't an issue at the chosen scale
(although a Merkava could reload in 3 turns instead of 9 if
my numbers are right for 10 minute turns). Even Striker doesn't address
resupply ergonomics as a design factor. And ASL is vague about the number of
people comprising a Crew counter.
So two major differences between the Merkava and other first line MBTs just
don't show up in DS2, so the design system doesn't need to account for them
and the system doesn't support them by design. I wouldn't be surprised if a
DS2 Merkava doesn't wind up looking a whole lot like an M1, where the Striker
Merkava would show a lot more difference.
[1] If the engine swap on a mobility-killed Merkava is the main repair,
leaving the hole in the front armor... How big is that hole and how
compromised is the armor protection. That's s serious advantage if a Merkava
can take a round through the front slope, have the engine replaced and be back
on operation an hour (it never take the book time in the field, the penetrator
had to damage something not being swapped out) after a spare engine and a
crane show up. A 120mm round is throwing
a ~50-75mm sabot, so the entry hole won't be THAT huge.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Michael Llaneza wrote:
> scrapped altogether.
> the Ontos, with its six recoiless rifles. That's way too many to fit
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Michael Llaneza wrote:
[...]
> In the second case vehicle crew casualties aren't tracked in DS2,
Time scale in DSII (just fyi for everybody, to make sure we're all
on the same page; again, more quoting, page 4 this time) - "In
DIRTSIDE II, the Timescale is fairly loose, and in most cases pretty
irrelevant to normal play...if it is necessary to determine how long each
battle has lasted in game terms (eg, if is is part of a campaign) then treat
each full turn as being equivalent to 15 minutes...".
Just a suggestion from our benevolent designer, not a hard
fast-in-stone scale. Again, just to refresh our perspectives.
Mk
> Michael Llaneza wrote:
> I love a challenge. Let's see stats for an M1-A3 and I'll see how bad
All.
> allow for removing about half of the main
At least some Merkavas - certainly the Mk.3, not sure about the earlier
-
can remove up to all but the ready rounds (5-6 rounds IIRC) in order to
carry more infantry, though that's usually only done in rear areas or for
vehicles on medevac duties. However, in a small battle (the size DS2
handles without too great difficulties <g>) 20-30 rounds go a fairly
long way... and the infantry carried can be vitally important too.
> 2. The forward mounted engine helps minimize crew casualties on
Not very different in effect from eg. the Abrams, which has a honeycomb
structure in its forward fuel tanks; that structure adds quite significantly
to the armour protection provided by those fuel tanks (both
due to breaking up HEAT jets and long-rod penetrators and to reducing
the risk for ignition of the fuel). 'Course, an Abrams might be able move away
from the place even if it has a leaking fuel tank, while a Merkava might
have difficulties with a hole through its engine block :-/
> there are also some maintennance
Huh? AFAIK you don't have to lift the turret off to swap the engine on any
modern Western tank. On tanks with large turret bustles you need to turn
the turret so the bustle gets out of the way, but that's it. (I have seen some
claims that WarPac tanks needed to remove the turret to service the
engine, but since at least some of those claims are attributable to a certain
Mr.Suvorov and the most recent such claim I've seen are from 1983 I'm not
entirely certain about their accuracy...)
> In the first case, DS2 doesn't track ammo, [...]
No, but DS2 *does* track carrying infantry - and the Merkavas have
enough room to carry some types of infantry (eg. artillery spotters) while
carrying enough ammo for a shorter engagement.
> In the second case vehicle crew casualties aren't tracked in DS2,
True. But as I pointed out above, the second difference isn't all that big
tactically whereas the first one is.
> (although a Merkava could reload in 3 turns instead of 9 if my numbers
Err... according to those Finnish tankers I've talked to, as well as
reports from Chechnya, it takes roughly 45 minutes to reload a T-72.
Although its basic load is smaller than that of a Merkava or Abrams its
carousel autoloader is considerably harder to reload than the bustle racks
of western-style tanks, so I don't think it'll take Leopard 2 or Abrams
significantly *more* than 45 minutes to reload their magazines. 45 minutes is
3 DS2 turns.
The Merkava is IIRC faster to reload than other western tanks, but more
importantly it is *safer* to reload - you can do the entire reloading
under at least some armour protection, instead of having to climb outside the
tank.
> So two major differences between the Merkava and other first line MBTs
You're seriously meaning to say that the ability to carry infantry doesn't
show up in DS2...? (The other of your "major" differences doesn't show up all
that much in real life either, so I agree that DS2 doesn't have to account for
that one <g>)
You also left out another difference between Merkavas and other MBTs which
can be important in a tactical battle - the Merkava's 60mm under-armour
mortar. Very useful for supressing enemy infantry or lay your own smoke
screens without having to call the batallion mortars.
> I wouldn't be surprised if a DS2 Merkava doesn't wind up looking a
They'd be quite similar, except that the Merkava should also be able to carry
at least some types of infantry elements and should have a "light"
Artillery piece in addition to its main gun (or, preferrably, "very light"
Artillery - but that's one of Mike Elliott's house rules, not in the
rule book itself). It should also be slightly smaller, though heavier, than
the
Abrams in spite of carrying all this extra equipment :-/
> [1] If the engine swap on a mobility-killed Merkava is the main
A normal hole from an ATGM or APFSDS is up to a couple inches in diameter.
Depending on what type of armour you're talking about, the reduction in armour
protection can be anything from "virtually none unless the shot hits the hole"
to "fairly significant".
> A 120mm round is throwing a ~50-75mm sabot,
Confusion of terms here. The sabot is the discarding bit which fills out
the space between the sub-caliber penetrator and the inside of the
barrel; therefore a 120mm round has a sabot which is 120mm in diameter. IIRC
modern
120mm long-rod penetrators are only about 40mm in diameter.
Looking forward to see you tackle the CV90120 and the CV90-AMOS
(twin-barrel 120mm gun-mortar on a CV90 hull, known as SPP 120 in the
Swedish Army) <g>
Regards,
Replying to my own post here:
> >allow for removing about half of the main
> carry more infantry, though that's usually only done in rear areas or
What's more, the Merkava's half-load of main gun ammo isn't that much
smaller than the *maximum* ammo load on a T-72 or similar tank - so if
we
don't keep track of when the T-72 "should" run out of ammo, I don't see
any compelling reason why we "should" do it for the Merkava either even when
it
is carrying infantry :-/
Later,