> Ndege Diamond wrote:
> The extra shots are interesting. I will have to try that next time I
Well, first of all, there IS NO WWII tank even remotely comparable to an
M1A2. :)
But to answer your quesion, an M1A2 can sustain about 6RPM from the main gun,
constrained primarily by the loading cycle (for all of 3 min., BTW, then it's
a
20+ min back-breaking chore to hand-transfer 120mm ammo, @85lbs per,
from the
Semi-Ready to the Ready rack, after which your loader will be so tired
you won't
be getting 6RPM any more, if you're still alive). A '43-era Sherman
might have a slightly lower ROF, constrained not by the loading cycle (a
strong loader could
load the 75mm main gun with one hand), but by target acquisition (Mk-1
Eyeball ruled the day...no Independant Thermal Viewer in Scan mode with
Auto-Target Lock
to help find the enemy). However, it should be noted that over 50% of the 75mm
rounds fired by Shermans in combat bounced right off German armor, right up
until limited #s of the tank were upgraded to HV 90mms in '44. With the 120mm
Rheinmetall on the Abrams, it's typically "one hit/one kill." The
Sherman 75mm did sport 120 rounds in the Ready rack, tho.
--Rich Spainhour
> At 09:02 AM 4/24/00 -0600, you wrote:
Heh, yeah. I ment comparable in how they were used. MBT like. Although, now
that I think about it, this might be like comparing Basic FCS with Superior...
Still, I am getting the impression that the exponental increase in ROF of MBT
main guns is not something borne out by real life.
<snip info>
Thanks, very informative.
> >Well, first of all, there IS NO WWII tank even remotely comparable to
Although,
> now that I think about it, this might be like comparing Basic FCS with
If we assume basic FC is the MK1 eyeball or something similar and that
superior FC is thermal imaging, auto lock on target, enemy recognition, IFF
protocols and other similar whiz bang tech stuff we should not be asking about
the reload rate of the main gun. Still important but more of a determining
factor is the acquire, track and kill cycle. With basic FC this will take
quite a bit longer than the superior FC which is doing a good chunk of the
work for you. Consider that the WWII tanks had to stop to get any kind of
chance to hit their target while the Abrams can motor along at 70mph taking
pot shots at over a mile away with a decent to fair chance of a hit is a big
difference. Increasing the rate of fire seems more than reasonable and
balances out the high vs low tech quite nicely. YMMV.
> The Sutherlands wrote:
> Consider that the WWII tanks had to stop to get
Er, no. Sorry to be pedantic, but an M1-series tank won't do more than
45 mph on a smooth surface, and while the tank would happily keep that pace
cross-country, the crew (except for the driver) would be smashed into
paste in
short order (no seatbelts, you see, and lots of sharp-edged protrubences
and
spikey bits). Cross-country, the best you can do is ~25mph, depending
on terrain.
As to accuracy, the weapon system will engage out to 3.5km with a 90%+
PH/PK, if
properly boresighted and layed.
I don't object to the rules as written (ie. ROF increases w/tech
lvl)...someone asked if an Abrams had a higher effective ROF than a Sherman,
and I replied in
the negative. In a game environment, it's cooler to have higher-tech
AFVs shoot faster, so let the rule stand, by all means.
--Rich Spainhour
> > ...the Abrams can motor along at 70mph...
Actually, that's 70 Km/H as Rich points out:
> M1-series tank won't do more than 45 mph on a smooth surface
In a message dated 4/24/00 7:09:59 PM Central Daylight Time,
> Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz writes:
<< M1-series tank won't do more than 45 mph on a smooth surface >>
Actually the M1 had a governor on it that would not allow a faster speed
- of
course the governor was the first thing a tank crew "modified". As the tank
grew heavier (in later versions) I don't doubt that 45-48 MPH is a top
speed on the road anymore.
In a message dated 4/24/00 6:16:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
> rspainho@mines.edu writes:
<<
As to accuracy, the weapon system will engage out to 3.5km with a 90%+
PH/PK, if
properly boresighted and layed.
I don't object to the rules as written (ie. ROF increases w/tech
lvl)...someone asked if an Abrams had a higher effective ROF than a Sherman,
and I replied in
the negative. In a game environment, it's cooler to have higher-tech
AFVs shoot faster, so let the rule stand, by all means.
> [quoted text omitted]
Gun stabilization allows the gunner to keep his sights on the target and the
gun posts up and down relative to the hull of the tank allowing it to fire
accurately while moving. Without stabilization tank vs. tank wwarfare is a
series of dashes and halts. Run fast to be a bad target - slam to a stop
to take a shot when you have it.
Consider that the WWII tanks had to stop to get
> any kind of chance to hit their target while the Abrams can motor along
No, that's a very good point. I like the rule. I guess I just needed to see
the justification for the rule spelled out;)
> rspainho wrote:
> to help find the enemy). However, it should be noted that over 50% of
Shermans - 90mm ? 76mm HV maybe, but AFAIK not the 90mm. IIRC these were
only fitted to the M36 TDs and the Pershing.
There appears to be a consensus growing on the list that increasing the ROF
for additional levels of FC to accentuate the difference between high and low
tech. The only question is what is the best way to implement it.
Increasing the number of allowed targets and shooting at each with the same
capability (die type) or Decreasing the die type for each additional target
shot at.
The first version would IMHO show up the differences between levels of FC.
In a message dated 4/25/00 2:13:15 AM Central Daylight Time,
> tony.francis@kuju.com writes:
<<
Shermans - 90mm ? 76mm HV maybe, but AFAIK not the 90mm. IIRC these
were only fitted to the M36 TDs and the Pershing.
Tony
> [quoted text omitted]
Quite right - for WW 2 and Korea - but the Israelis retrofitted theirs
with
105mm guns the same as on the M60 - she "Super" Sherman.