Allan Wotherspoon
-
Posts
184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Allan Wotherspoon
-
-
Overwatch tactics are useful. It will cost you some units initially, but once you see where Blue has units you can either hit they with artillery or flank them.
Allan
-
The automatic mortar you are thinking about is the 2B9 Vaselyk.
More information on the Vaselyk can be found here:
http://www.galope.com/mike/frames.htm
Allan
-
The Leopard C2 is probably the ultimate development of the Leopard 1 tank, but it is not a match for the M1.
The M1 is by no means the perfect tank, but it is generally considered one of the best in the world, equaled (some say bested) only by the Leopard 2A5.
I don't know why your friend referred to the M1 as an APC with a turret on it. It does not carry any troops beyond its four person crew and it is designed for one thing - killing other tanks, something it is very good at.
The M1 and the Leopard 2 already have a lot in common. They use the same gun (a German designed 120mm smoothbore) and can fire each other's ammo.
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jaja:
The M1s armor is sloped two ways. To the rear and to the side. Sidal sloping isn't as effective since units offset to the target can ignore the sloping.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A unit slightly above the M1 can ignore the slope to the M1's armour, as can a unit on the same level if the M1 is on a slight down slope.
In any event, slope is not that much of a factor in armour protection these days. Long rod APFSDS penetrators are designed to turn into the armour rather than skipping off. Only at very high angles, far higher than the turret front of the M1 or any other modern tank of slope to you start to see APFSDS skipping off.
Modern armor is also not designed to stop a projectile by causing it to ricochet. Instead they use layers of differing density to induce tumble and cause the penetrator to break up.
Allan
-
The Leopard 2's armour is sloped, except that it is sloped to the side rather than from top to bottom.
The latest model Leopards, especially the Swedish STRIV 122 model are generally considered to be the best armoured tank in the world today. Armour technology is always changing and by now there is probably something better out there than the Chobham/CU combination used by the M1 series.
-
1. More equipment for OPFOR.
2. Counter battery radar
3. Enforced emplacement/displacement times for on map artillery & mortars (goes with #3)
4. Until more elevations are possible, a few more terrain types, especially impassable to vehicles woods, impassable to vehicles rough and impassable to all units rough.
5. More countries in the database. All of NATO would be nice, but I'd settle for the UK, Germans and French.
Allan
-
Originally posted by Determinant:
Something that's always bothered me about the photos that I've seen of the Abrams (never seen one in the flesh): It always looks to have a bad shot trap under the main gun mantlet (cf Leopard2 and Challenger2). I note Carter's quote about under turret armour (but it can't be meant to deflect kinetic attacks onto the top deck or into the turret ring surely?) - it all leaves me v. confused.
The shot trap on the M1 and other modern tanks is not as bad as it looks. Modern APFSDS rounds are designed not to richochet. Instead they turn inwards and dig into the armour. If they don't penetrate they tend to break up. Only at very shallow angles to they tend to ricochet. It is very unlikely that a round that hit that area would be deflected downwards into the hull.
Allan
-
No reactive armour on the M1.
In terms of the effective armour thickness, in 20 or 30 years we may know for sure. 900mm may well be correct, or it may be less or more.
There's been considerable speculation on Tanknet.org with respect to the armour thicknesses of various tanks, the M1 included. Check out this URL for the most recent thread:
http://www.tanknet.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000080.html
Based on the speculation there, 900mm KE protection may not be unreasonable for the M1A2SEP.
Allan
-
The Canadian Forces Infantry Journal has published several articles on the LAV III. Check out this link:
http://www.brunnet.net/infsch/journal/32/32-lav3-a.htm
This article discusses the protection level of the LAV III.
Allan
-
At present the new list at eventfoto.com is for discussion of where to move the list to. It may well end up being the new list, but that has not been finally decided yet.
Allan
-
For a virtual tour of the Canadian Forces Coyote Recon. vehicle, check out this site:
http://www.dnd.ca/menu/coyote/index.htm
Allan
-
Personally I would like to see different versions of vehicles with and without thermals rather than having a preference switch give all tanks thermals or not. That way you could mix and match your force, giving say one company from each battalion thermals if you wanted. It seems that would be a technically easier way to implement it.
The other thing I would like to see is some differentiation in thermal ranges. There is now some unclassified stuff out there on useful ranges for thermals and they generally are a lot less than 4000m for 1st gen thermals and not much more than 3200m for the latest generation.
Allan
It's been a while!
in TacOps 4
Posted
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dhuffjr:
Another thing on my wish list is a representation of a 70mm ground rocket system. I had read an article in the Marine Corps Gazette quite some time ago lamenting the current 155mm piece and singing the praises of getting rid of it entirely or at least supplementing it. The authors big gripe was smoke support and the burden it would place on arty units to have the amount of smoke rounds on hand that Inf. commanders would like. The rocket system would obviously not have the range of 155mm howitzers but could get much closer and besides for smoke support they don't have to fire much beyond the FEB. I have seen a picture of a proposed system with 6 19round pods so one unit could lay down a dense smoke screen or a heck of alot of firepower at one time.
[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: dhuffjr ]<hr></blockquote>
You're thinking of the Slammer IV or Slammer V (I can't remember which it was). As far as I know, it never made it past the prototype stage.
Allan
[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Allan Wotherspoon ]</p>