Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1869
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
It's a game. Costs should be balanced with the required effort. Furthermore, any modern "war machine" is pretty much guaranteed to stupidly overpriced; they were not designed for total warfare.
For a better comparison, the Panzerfaust cost the Germans $3000 per unit to produce and the Russians were producing T-34s for $6000 to $8000. (Numbers are converted to 2013 dollars using dollartimes). A single rocket would be lucky to disable the tank, let alone destroy it beyond repair. So even in real life, it's not as uneven as people assume. |
R F Gyro
Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic
360
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:It's a game. Costs should be balanced with the required effort. Furthermore, any modern "war machine" is pretty much guaranteed to stupidly overpriced; they were not designed for total warfare. For a better comparison, the Panzerfaust cost the Germans $3000 per unit to produce and the Russians were producing T-34s for $6000 to $8000. (Numbers are converted to 2013 dollars using dollartimes). A single rocket would be lucky to disable the tank, let alone destroy it beyond repair. So even in real life, it's not as uneven as people assume. And even back then the limiting factor was trained crews, not number of machines. Even more so now. |
Scheneighnay McBob
Bojo's School of the Trades
1499
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
A single rocket is never an issue in dust. Not to mention multiple AV fittings can't match the price of a vehicle in the first place.
While I support that it should take some coordinated effort to destroy an HAV, but sides of the AV vs vehicle argument want too much in their favor. |
Big miku
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
246
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:It's a game. Costs should be balanced with the required effort. Furthermore, any modern "war machine" is pretty much guaranteed to stupidly overpriced; they were not designed for total warfare. For a better comparison, the Panzerfaust cost the Germans $3000 per unit to produce and the Russians were producing T-34s for $6000 to $8000. (Numbers are converted to 2013 dollars using dollartimes). A single rocket would be lucky to disable the tank, let alone destroy it beyond repair. So even in real life, it's not as uneven as people assume.
AV Weaponry as came a long way since they days of the Panzer V, with APFSDS, KEPs, Top Attacking MANPATS, Shaped HE Charges.
You're comparing WW2 Tech , almost 100 years old mind you, to modern day AV Weapons.
Better Armor was introduced, We moved to shaped charges and top attack weapons.
Reactive Armor was introduced, we moved to duel Hollow Tandem charges.
Offense is always better then Defense. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1869
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Big miku wrote: AV Weaponry as came a long way since they days of the Panzer V, with APFSDS, KEPs, Top Attacking MANPATS, Shaped HE Charges.
You're comparing WW2 Tech , almost 100 years old mind you, to modern day AV Weapons.
Better Armor was introduced, We moved to shaped charges and top attack weapons.
Reactive Armor was introduced, we moved to duel Hollow Tandem charges.
Offense is always better then Defense.
You are comparing toys that happen to have lethal applications. We haven't produced true war machines in a long time. |
Big miku
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
246
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:You are comparing toys that happen to have lethal applications. We haven't produced true war machines in a long time.
what do you mean? Our Tanks are made to kill other tanks, Comparing modern Tanks to ww2 era tanks is like comparing a Porsche to a bicycle.
Despite being made for "total warfare" Even the best tanks would be at the mercy of a basic M1.
Here is a very good read on just how wrecked WW2 tanks would be against Their Modern day counterparts
http://drakhl.blogspot.com/2009/03/tank-duel-modern-vs-wwii.html |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1869
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Big miku wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:You are comparing toys that happen to have lethal applications. We haven't produced true war machines in a long time. what do you mean? Our Tanks are made to kill other tanks, Comparing modern Tanks to ww2 era tanks is like comparing a Porsche to a bicycle. Despite being made for "total warfare" Even the best tanks would be at the mercy of a basic M1. Here is a very good read on just how wrecked WW2 tanks would be against Their Modern day counterparts http://drakhl.blogspot.com/2009/03/tank-duel-modern-vs-wwii.html
The history of the M1 is ballooning costs, and constant need to upgrade the gun to keep up with competition armor. Furthermore, you are assuming passive defenses are the only cost balance. A total war "tank" would be closer to a ground Apache. Enough armor to stop small arms, missiles for destroying old enemy armor, an autocannon for anti-light armor and anti-personnel, and countermeasures vs enemy missiles. True that's not a MBT, but why would it need to be now that the cannon is no longer the most effective weapon? |
Big miku
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
246
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote: True that's not a MBT, but why would it need to be now that the cannon is no longer the most effective weapon?
So you want a BOLO? No tank will ever be able to stand up to AV.
What is to stop BVR Weapons such as the USNs rail guns which are slated to be deployed on a new Destroyer Class by 2018? Or ever traditional BVR weapons such as SAG Missiles from Airborne threats? Or IEDs under the road Or simply infantry getting the jump on it in a city or Vally.
Don't get me wrong, I love BOLOS, but it is just not possible, look at the history of warfare, Offense has always trumped defense. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1870
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 17:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
Big miku wrote:Noc Tempre wrote: True that's not a MBT, but why would it need to be now that the cannon is no longer the most effective weapon? So you want a BOLO? No tank will ever be able to stand up to AV. What is to stop BVR Weapons such as the USNs rail guns which are slated to be deployed on a new Destroyer Class by 2018? Or ever traditional BVR weapons such as SAG Missiles from Airborne threats? Or IEDs under the road Or simply infantry getting the jump on it in a city or Vally. Don't get me wrong, I love BOLOS, but it is just not possible, look at the history of warfare, Offense has always trumped defense.
BOLOs is the exact opposite of what I mentioned. And yes, if you could shrink railguns into tanks that would bring back the cannon as a frontline anti-armor weapon, but I'd be shocked if the same amount of energy couldn't be used for an active deterrent of some kind. Sloped, reactive armor, combined with a touch of stealth, makes tank destroyers more defensive than tanks, hence no real rush on bringing the overpriced, overweight, unjustifiably vulnerable M1A3 to the production lines yet. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |