Tank Battle Observation and Questions

[Apocal]

It's going to be easier to survive on the battlefield, but it's going to be tough watching your Sherman's shells veer off course like a quarterback throwing off his back foot.

I'm still used from that from playing REDFOR CMSF. T-55 missed three shots in a row on a target appoximately 1200m away.

[dan/california]

The Syrians probably don't have that many T-90s, the greatest realism issue though is the complete lack of supporting assets on either side. A Syrian tank concentration that large and moving in the open would be priority one for every asset in the theater pretty much.

It is equally true that a few camouflaged ATGM teams would GREATLY restrict the U.S. tactical flexibility.

In terms of 2-1 odds in tanks, the Abrams has simply wiped all the russian stuff it has actually faced. Always with a massive crew quality advantage going to the U.S. side. What would happen against the very latest russian stuff with equal crew quality is of course a matter for debate. I think the fact that the red tanks show up in two waves is very significant in this particular scenario. They are vulnerable to defeat in detail.

[MikeyD]

It is equally true that a few camouflaged ATGM teams would GREATLY restrict the U.S. tactical flexibility.

I'm in the middle of building a scenario that proves just that point

[MarkEzra]

I'd like to see Bad Moon Rising with a much bigger map. It would be interesting to see how the T-90 and M1A1 fare against each other at even greater ranges.

I'm Gonna Go ahead and do that. I'll also be making a force adjustment our two. It'll be designed with more of an eye to H2H than the game release version. I'm going to try to make it Huge but playable on most PC's.

[Battlefront.com]

jjhouston,

Not really the case when you're scanning with thermals through a gunsight on a stabilized turret. A moving platform's relative motion is less apparent when scanning for targets at greater distances and the stabilization and ballistic computers make the motion less of an issue for the gunner. Using the thermals, what really stands out isn't motion, per se, but hot spots.

Yes, for sure. Though sitting still and looking through thermals is going to be better than being in motion and looking through thermals. But point taken that millions of Dollars worth of technology definitely helps

As for distance, you are correct that the further out the distance is the less important relative motion is. However, without good optics and/or enhanced sensors distance brings with it other problems.

All in all, whatever benefits sensors give someone on the move they also give someone stationary. What they can do is narrow the gap between the two. In some situations the gap might be so tiny as to be insignificant. But there are definitely more variables which can crop up and make spotting on the move less effective than spotting while stationary on the whole, regardless of gizmos.

Steve