Ronin_GE

Member
  • Content count

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

73 Neutral

About Ronin_GE

  • Rank
    Warrant officer

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Combined arms games
  1. What kind of RL damage is the "hull break" meant to model?
  2. PS: the difficult part is to know beforehand when you'd need it and when not
  3. I can not differentiate between the impact marks of the 23ers, i have to take the range personals word for it... DM33 and 53 have a destinctively different "crater" size... At 1000m and above its not that you aim for UFP or Turret, its center mass...where the round hits is a question of the CEP. Effective range means: sufficient chance to knock that target out of the fight (and btw also includes hull-down-targets) HEAT(or better called: "MZ") is generally not intended for use against armour(hard targets) but against IFB/APC(semi hard targets) and softskins. So it is not considered for anti-tank SoPs. The range was not tied to a specific round, so that tbh was a guess derived from the info gathered at the ranges
  4. Maybe both. AFAIK crews from "74" where involved in the shootings...and they where equiped with Leo 1 at that time... Also it makes sense, thats after these there where 2 "effective ranges" for hard targets given in training. the 1000m for Leo1, and an other < number for the Leopard 2.
  5. Die Fahrzeuge und Waffen der Bundeswehr , in Steelbeasts modelliert. [video]
  6. But yeah, it will be a good combined arms shootout...and I get to smack T-64's. Its quite satisfiying to guide the MILAN into the flank and whatch it go boom (you have to make a runner after the shot tough) Armour and penetration models as good, but not as nicely visualized as in WT.
  7. Meanwhile I'm working on a mixed-US/GE mission against T-64 They are comming And with that we'll try to stop 'em
  8. PS and while we're at it: how about crew damage from the "widow makers" (tree branches comming down, or crew getting hurt when bumping into trees at too high speeds) ...nah, just kidding
  9. Haha, simulating barrel-strikes...that would be fun. ANd it would teach tanks to stay the in open ground where they belong
  10. Noticed plenty (apart from the basic game mechanics that alway throw in to same size teams into a meeting engagement)...even as I play maybe 1-2 games a week just for giggles. Was just hoping that at least simple real life tactics can work in game.
  11. Angriff mit M1IP Panzern und Bradley M2A2 Schützenpanzern. [video]
  12. Nope, you should not magically know where he is, but: - work together with other player to provide overwhatch, - move in short bounds only (while another tanks keeps an eye out for lauches) - if launch gets detected...run to neares cover (or, if available pop smoke) - everyone else: plow over the launch area with MZ or HE rounds... Work IRL, if it doesn't work in warthunder, they should work on the game mechanics...
  13. To remove the ability to fire from behind cover, would be to remove the very thing these vehicles where designed for. A good "improvement" would be to introduce the muzzle-safety distances ATGM missles have, and the obscuration of LoS for the first 1-2 seconds as it would(often) be IRL. Other then that, promote team tactics: if you go toe-to-toe with an ATGM carrier behind cover...you deserve to get killed. Stay turret down but keep an eye of the ATGM vehicle, let others get in range and whack it from the flank or at least get into MZ/HE range... If the enemy spots the flanking manouvre and leaves BP, go in for the kill.(or simply call down artillery)...of, course, these are just real life tactics...don't know if they work in warthunder Yeah, small maps a poison for anything resembly armoured combat.
  14. Here is a small collection of information on arty-handling. Gives a rough idea on how to get effect onto a target: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Artillery_Guide The use of artillery can be compared to long-range sniper fire (somewhat). After all you want to hit targets dozends of kilometers away. For that you need lots of data: -own(observers) location -location of the targets -locations of your guns -weather data (temperature, humitidy, wind, air preasure...and all these date for several air layers into several kilometers of height) -ammunition data (powerder temperature, muzzle exact velocity for you given round+charge combination...) when you have these perfectly...there is still an error from the accuracy of you shooting data(values above) and deviations in charge/round/gun quality. These (random)errors will result in shot-defelection in the target area. Apart from guided/steered rounds, you compensate this by shooting more rounds to increase the chance to hit. Everything smaller then 900 m2 can be considered a small target, that need more round to get hit.
  15. I've spent the best years of my live as a member of the Armoured corps, working with Leopard 1 and Leopard 2's(not a tanky mind you, I'm better then that ). Some hands on time on the T-72 (thanks to CZ and Slovak armed forces), so I know their capabillities to some extend. By compasrison the T-72 had slower top speed and less acceleration(odd gearbox, and worse power/weight ratio the Leo1, wobbly streering) Not to mention the problems you get when keeping you stabilization switched on over rough terrain for more the a minute...or if you turn the turret to fast, that a jocke actually. It was better on softer ground due to the wider tracks...and the low profile of the vehicle is an advantage on its own. The ex-NVA T-72s where mauled in tests at the range in Meppen, which I did not see first hand. But I had a chance to inspect the vehicles (although a bit rusty by then) a few years after... Thats of course not a "linkable" source...so take it or leave it. In defence, it is actually rather easy to obtain the perfect conditions...You decide when to engage and have everything ready => you pump out your rounds(breach-hands-lap) => go turret down and move to the next BP, during that time the loader tosses out the 3 casings and takes a breath. You can keep that up for quiete some time...enough to spent your ready rack (14 rounds). >BTW:The tankies at Aben Hede are great and very experienced...but keep in mind they are ex-mil, not practicing all year and not very young anymore < T-72 is better here with 22 rounds ready...after that they'll need half and hour or more to reload the carrusel, or load manually at 1-2 rpm at best. Ready rack in the Leo1 can be filled in less the 10 mike...if you go it slow Immune, is a word I'd use for no tank againt main gun ammo. I'd see: "very likely to survive a hit." as more to the point. But even if we take that as a given: Why should exactly and only THIS decade/half decade be modelled?
  16. @Laviduce: I guess you've ran that "simulation" using Steelbeasts? One has to take the result not with a pinch, but a pile of salt. 1. The ammo-vs-armour model is based on public available data 2. Much depends on how the AI reacts and fires at targets which is not perfect. So you can not truly determine the killing poweer of one tank vs the other just from that. Steelbeasts is not designed as a round penetration/damage simulator...there is FEM/CFD software for that , its designed to teach working tactical behaviour. Which, according to muzzleflash98, is unfortunatly not a strong point of warthunder... As to the T-72: The T-72 has a xxxx mobility compared to the Leopard 1. During the firing tests against T-72M1,(with an max. armour thickness of 440mm at the turret checks) the DM23 proved to be sufficent...nah, lets say "Ok". Penetrating the turret front at the thickest point from 1000m away. Which is impressive, but still 1000m is awfully close ;-) The autoloader in the T-72 if by far inferior to the T-64's...slower and less reliable. 8 rounds per minute? lol I've seen Leopard one crews pump out 3 rounds in 8 seconds. Given that the M-60 has more space for the crew, I guess that is also possible with the M-60..maybe even more. The fire control system of the T-72 is abymal and the reverse speed also a whooping 5km/h. IMO a T-72 formation attacking, will eat 3 rounds from each gun, before then even get to shoot back...and by then the Leo1/M60's should be on the way to the next BP
  17. Or if your FO is good, the gun team is good and the weather troop gave you a good "(St.) Barbara report"...you can hit with the first round even if the gun moved.
  18. Man kann die "Demonstranten" doch verstehen. Wenn ich gegen die Umweltverschmutzung demonstrieren will, gehe ich immer in die nächste Pizzeria und zünde dort die Bestuhlung an...dies macht sinnvoll auf die Umweltprobleme aufmerksam und wird diese eindämmen.
  19. Most "tanky" games give a wrong impression what "to flank" means. In defence it means to position myself AWAY from the enemy axis of attack, and wait till they pass into my engagement zone...where I can place shots into their sides from as far away as possible (+1500m minimum) In attack it mean, to move where OPFOR can't see me, and getting into a firing position without moving into their engament zone. I get it, that this is outside of Warthunders scope, so for the use of real armour tactics, one should play other games I guess...
  20. This again implies engaging the target from the front. In all defence exercises I've been part in (often in force ratios of 3:1 or 4:1 in OPFORs favour), I engaged at my terms and from the flank :-P
  21. The problem is, that the battlefield is very fluid with own and enemy recon mixing quiete happily with both own and enemy forces. Just look at the blue on blue incedents in desert storm. And we are talking cold war here...so NO BMS available. And without radio you'll know feck about where other units are...heck, sometimes its hard to tell where you yourself are. Had plenty of exercises in my time, where own units got lost, recon got shot at or enemy mistaken for own troops...So to identify what you see, is very very important.
  22. No, It means that if haven't it you are the second tank to engage...which is likely to be just too late. So the T-64 can fly over obstacles? is that what you mean? Chieftain and M-60 immune to 100mm rounds of the time? Yeah, sure As you brought up the Iranians... I think they learned that this is not the case in a harsh lesson Yeah, sure... Even the mighty sovjet army+the WP satelites didn't have enough tanks to be everywhere as the same time. To concentrate tank power in the point of main effort, is paramount for the CCCP doctrin to work...and this leaves gaps in other places. Depending on what criteria you put on balance...like any given "fielding day" of a weapons system, there NEVER is balance. Not before 1950, not after... IMO: f*ck balance. But thats just me.
  23. The APFSDS fired at the east-german T-72 was basicly obsolete round...there was much surprize when the came out of the TC hatch after piercing the turret front. That lack of mobility is a major problem for a tank, be it "offensive" or "defensive" in design. If they run into an obstacle(mines, abatis, wire, dug in infantry)...they have the choice of turning and exposing their soft spots, or crawling backward with 5 km/h and getting smashed by a healthy dose of ICM While CCCP tanks relied on Stadiametric ranging, which with a good crew can be accurate to something like +/- 100, US and german tanks had stereoscopic range finders (f.e. mixed-image method) that where much more accurate and easier to use. That was already connected to a ballistic computer that gave you a ready firing solution right after ranging. The "only" option that an stabilizations system adds, is the ability to fire on the move. So an FCS does not nessearily need a stabilization. The 16x sight has a clear advantage, I allows you to identify a target at 2000 and more meters ...if you shoot on anything you spot with an 7/8x mag sight at 1500m, chances are good you kill your own recon. Nah, that was not the plan. More like: ->throw sand into the enemies eyes(kill their recon) -> slow/stop/channel them with mines and other Obstacles, kill lead elements with combination of ATGM/tank fires/artillery ->fall back to next line before RED arty plows the ground over... ->(and that goes for both sides) hoping that one party blinks and talks start before the "instant sunshine" button is pressed... Leopard was not better, it was different then M-60 and Chieftain. Also the Corps composition of the cold war placed the American and German corps into the most "tank suitable" avenues of approach. So I do not think that "Germans will only fight T-55/T-62" was even a consideration. ATGM vehicles or dismounted missle teams where a key factor for both sides. So the "ATGM spam" would be mutual. It's got nothing to do with beeing daft, earlier spotting/ID-ing of your traget allows you to manouvre and engage on your terms, while it will leave the enemy often in a position where he has to react. No, it does not fit(and I would not even say that it does not fit), because WT does not model combined arms very well and has too small a map size. In a tank-vs-tank shooting game, where the mission is to capture-flag, the T-64 will have an upper hand. Also, why should "composit armour" be a hard boarder? If Gajin thinks it will be profitable...they'll add stuff. If not,not. I don't understand this obsession by some posters here, who seem to get upset when there is a vehicle that is hard to kill or which, in their p.o.v., should not be able to kill their pet vehicle. Maybe some take this game far to seriously...
  24. Wut?