Soviet auto-loaders

[kevineduguay1]

T-10M is still equil to the Abrams M1A2 as far as ROF?

Are you on drugs? I did the test did you?

An Abrams has the same ROF as a 1950s tank with two part ammo?

Your getting mad and just silly. Show me some facts. Or cant you?

[narwan]

You are being very silly here yourself. You can't even interpret your own test correctly!

As to the T10 being equal in ROF to the Abrams you've actually denied that twice in your own posts. You said the Abrams had 1 shot advantage while sitting still (first ROF difference). You also mentioned that while most Abrams had 2 shots left just like the T10's after moving their full allowance, some had one more. Sounds like a difference to me (nr 2).

But the silliest is that you had both tanks move their own full allowance and than compare them as if that was an equal comparison!
I've checked it (yep, did the test) and a T10 with speed 14 will get to an astonishing 24 mph on the road. An abrams with speed 22 will make it at 38 mph.
Congratulations, you've just showed that a much faster moving abrams has just slightly more shots left (averaging all your tanks) than a much slower moving T10.

But guess what happens when you move the Abrams at the SAME speed as the T10 (24mph on the road), in other words, make an equal comparison?

I do find it a bit baffling though. Here you go wanting to see an actual difference in ROF because of ammo type (2 part vs 1 part). As if making a distinction in ROF between different calibers isn't enough you now want to see 2-part ammo cause a measurable effect (we are talking short turns here, remember)? If we work down the calibre list and factor in all the different guns and their ammo types I guess we'd end up with 57mm guns having a ROF of 15 to 20.
Cause lets face it, any chance in the current situation with regards to the Abrams and T10's would ripple through all the OOB's and you'll be back soon enough with another unit to ***** about.

[kevineduguay1]

nar wan,

It was silly. T-10s and Abrams tanks will never see one another in action.
On the other hand my point was made even by your tests that after full movement a 1950s era T-10 still had the same ROF as most of the Abrams on the field.
One piece ammo vs two piece, a very good modern stabiliser vs none.
Yes the test was silly but made a point.

My scenario was advance vs advance. After playing both sides twice, no Abrams were hit and most of the T-10ms were destroyed. As it should be. In one scenario while playing the Russian side I did manage to "button" one Abrams. But recorded no direct hits.

The whole point here was ROF.

[narwan]

"On the other hand my point was made even by your tests that after full movement a 1950s era T-10 still had the same ROF as most of the Abrams on the field"

Now lets turn that back into 'reality'. Shouldn't both vehicles have 0 shots after using their full movement? After all, they either just spend the entire time allowed for a turn 'moving' leaving no time left for firing at all, or if there still is time left (to fire), they should be able to move faster in a turn (using that time to keep moving instead of firing).
But that's not how the game works. As in any model of (part of) reality abstractions need to be made to simplify things. Otherwise you wouldn't have a model but reality itself. A good model distinguishes itself not by it's processes (what you seem to be focused on) but by it's outcomes. For instances, the game makes no distinctions between KIA, WIA (physical or otherwise), MIA, POW's, and deserters. It has only a broad category named 'kills' (with the occassional 'group surrender'). Works fine because for the model it doesn't matter how the enemy troops were taken out of the fight, just that they are.
Same with your ROF. The real question is whether an accurate balance of fighting power is achieved, of which the ROF is only part.

You mention 2-part ammo as a factor for ROF, well, speed is also a factor; the faster a vehicle is moving the bumpier the ride and the harder the task for the loader. At the end of the round the Abrams is moving much faster than the T10 (if both use their full movement) so it's loader should get a bigger penalty than the T10's loader, shouldn't they? Would that penalty be bigger, equal to, or smaller than the 2-part ammo penalty?

[kevineduguay1]

nar wan,

You make some excellent points about movement being a factor. In the game, if a unit fires it will lose movement points. It can fire its full ROF and still have a little movement left.

In the open, on clear ground, in the game, the Abrams moved at 19MPH. This is below what it is capable of. The only source I have on hand now claims that the road speed is 45MPH and its cross country speed is virtually the same. The lower speed in the game allows with some reality that the Abrams could retain some of its ROF.

The T-10M on the other hand in the same conditions in the game moves at 12MPH.
The T-10 was a little easier to look up.
Max road speed for the T-10M is stated as 31MPH. Cruise speed on roads is 22MPH.
Max cross country speed is stated as 12MPH.
So your right, the T-10 should have one shot left after moving its full movement allowance. The one round in the tube.

And yes 2 part ammo with out an auto loader is a bad thing.
A 122mm HE shell comes in at 25kg, thats about 55 to 56 pounds, AP is slightly heavier. Then you have the case and powder charge to deal with.
A 120mm M256 compleat round (M829A3) weighs less than 56 pounds. That is about the same as the HE shell alone from the 122mm gun.
Which loader would tire faster?

[narwan]

"Which loader would tire faster?"

The one not being bounced up and down by the tank moving at high speed (over uneven terrain)!

Still, when moving at the same speed, the Abrams has a shot more. If it moves 50% faster it has about the same number of shots. Looks like a fair advantage to the Abrams to me...

[kevineduguay1]

nar wan,

At high speed the Abrams crew describes the experiance more as flying. This is not true of most Soviet tanks or 50s, 60s, 70s, era tanks. Even now they only have a modified suspention of a T-54.