I think that it is generally acknowledged that the M48 series of tanks in this game are not the greatest. They aren’t necessarily bad, they are relatively speedy, and their armor is… OK I guess, and their gun can do some work… but when compared to the fully stabilized tanks that they often run into, or at least the better armored T-54s and T-55s its hard not to ask what the hell the americans were thinking when they were making this thing.
And that’s because a major component of how the M-48’s were supposed to work is just not present in the game. When the M48 was being designed a major driver was the thought that this tank was going to be outnumbered. Each tank was going to have to individually be superior to soviet tanks, in what was presumably going to be long range battles in relatively open country. So the americans put a lot of effort into ensuring that the M48 would have a advantage in that sort of combat, and the main thing they had to give that advantage was the rangefinder and ballistic computer.
In game, the rangefinder gives you the range, and then you punch that into the sight and fire the gun. the real rangefinder was hooked up to the gun so that when you got the range the gun was already elevated appropriately, taking a step out of the equation that we have in game. I believe that if you switched ammunition types before dumping the range you got that the elevation would adjust accordingly, allowing for a rapid follow up shot with a HEP on a target you previously hit with HEAT as a example, but I am not sure about that.
At any rate, adding the elevation being adjusted to the rangefinder being used would make the M48 better at fighting at distances, better represent the tank as it was in real life, and generally make it more enjoyable. moreover, it would give the M48 something of a unique ability for the BR it is in, as the Soviet and British equivalent tanks (T-55 and Centurion) don’t have this ability.
Anyway, let me know if I got anything wrong, and if this is a good idea to be implemented.
Well, honestly, I would tell you to make a bug report to see if they implement that possibility in the M48, since it is something realistic.
Wasn’t just the M48 that had this. M60 and M103 did as well. But Gaijin will probably just shrug and say “No LRF? No superelevation!”
Best of luck to him though.
I would already be happy, if the tanks reload went down to 5s.
Imagine putting a huge turret on a medium tank, armed with a 90mm that has a nice convienent ready rack and still be on the slower of RoF for a 50s mediums tank.
Of course having the rangefinder feature would be neat as well.
M48 > T-54
If the M48 is not as capable than there’s something wrong.
Reload rates rarely have any correlation to reality. They are set for “game balance”.
Fun Fact: the stereoscopic rangefinders and ballistic computers were electro mechanical, full of cams and gears up until… what the M-60A3?
It only makes sense to buff reload beyond historical performance for vehicles who are otherwise just not competetive.
It doesn’t make sense to deny a vehicle it’s historical rate of fire without ever trying how it would perform.
Since their introduction, tanks like the M26, M47 and M48 always had a 7.5s reload, similiar to a Tiger or Panther.
Notionally they are play tested during development and on the dev server in how they will interact in their desired BR.
Well that was quick.
It has been seen by gaijin and submitted as a suggestion. time will tell if it goes anywhere
I wonder if the Leopard 1 used a similiar system. It’s from the 60s afterall.
Shouldn’t the M60 also have something like the M48?
Yeah, I’m trying to get a understanding of how the m60s fire control was different.
the way the M48A1 sight worked was that the gun would lay on target, the commander would use the rangefinder to get the range, and that would be fed through the ballistic computer to the sights, which would have the elevation added (making the aim point go down from the gunners point of view. the gunner would then elevate the gun so the sight was back on target and fire.
I think at some point, maybe as soon as M48A2, a hydraulic thing was added that would elevate the gun automatically and make the system quicker. But I don’t really know when this would be.
And I think there are plenty of leopard 1 people who can answer that better than I, because I just don’t care about that tank.
And the final, lamest update.
The suggestion has been rejected as not a bug. Only laser rangefinders set the elevation or add superelevation, even if there is specifically a lot of effort put into the design of the actual tank to do just that. The M48 series will remain artificially worse than they should be to satisfy arbitrary gameplay mechanics.
Yeah, it was passed on a suggestion as we don’t have that feature in game for this type of range finder. Only laser range finder’s have the ability to do this.
On one page I read that the HEAT-FS had problems with inclined armor, and that it was very easy for it to bounce off armor zones at 60°, so the M48 would depend mainly on the HVAP. Is that true?
So i kinda get it, as a mechanic thing, but then that just gets me going with regards to the mechanics.
With regards to rangefinding and stabilization, the main fire control components, the systems seem too simple, and as a result instead of having a steady increase in capabilities as you go up the tech tree you get abrupt jumps.
Right now there is for rangefinders either nothing, the rangefinder (which just gives you the range estimation faster) and then you jump to the ultrafast laser rangefinder that elevates the gun as well.
And for the stabilizers, you jump from nothing to in most cases perfect 2 plane fire on the move at any speed stabilizers, as opposed to working through tanks with less capable stabilizers before getting to the modern ones that we are used to. Having a greater range of stabilizers and stabilizer efficiency would make the tech tree progression more natural
But thats just my opinion.
Stike that and reverse it. HVAP typically did not do well against angled plate
It puts it in the versus specific ammunition section.
“M431 HEAT works well at any range on any part of the T-54, but the killing power is low and the shell has fuzing problems on angled parts of the armour. It has a high probability of failing to detonate if it strikes the upper glacis when the tank is angled 20 degrees sideways. The shell may not work properly on the well rounded shape of the turret, especially the top half.”
I don’t know if it’s true or a lie.
Later in another post on that same page there is an interesting fact that indicates that the HEAT-FS of the PT-76 would have a penetration of 280mm, so if it is real it could be improved and its Br raised to at least Br 7.0.
A lie may be a bit far, but it looks like that conclusion is based on the M341 HEAT round M27 recoiless rifle against a T-34. The M431 heat round was a generation more advanced and would not have had the same fusing issues.
Ok,thanks for the answer.Maybe he made a mistake and refers more to the M348, which is a much older 90mm HEAT.