Modern Graphics Showcase

[fairline]

Originally posted by tanelorn
Thanks Fairline, I value your oppinion. The Paton turret basis was from Kihen (surprise-surprise, its a common secret) with a little help from Nemo's magic box of colour shades. The mirage original is from turbosquid. I found about them about a while back, their source material is highly reccomended.I also use black and white photos.

I use turbosquid to copy from myself - I've listed this and a few others in Catfish's Graphics thread.

As for DU shells, they are in standard use by nato countries. The press protested whenit was rummored we got UD shells for the apache chainguns, then the matter was silenced.

mmmm... DU-tipped rounds, cluster-bombs, daisy-cutter fuel-air bombs. Weapons of Mass Destruction, perhaps? What civillised nations we are...

In the comparison trials for the new Greek MBT, the Chalenger got the best marks for mechanical reliability.

The company I work for makes the engines for 'em ;

The Leopard 2 offered better standardization and integration with existing infrastracture and units, plus generally better performance.
IMHO the Abraams is slightly overrated and vastly overpriced.
Its a true tank-killler but:
Just to move it around, you have to build a new road network and bridges capable of supporting its huge weight. Its limmited by poor fuel eficiency, and where it can go in the battlefield. In realtime operational conditions as in Iraq, tracks that are supposed to last a year get worn down every two months. You cant really establish a beachhead with it. It is not LST friendly. It has bad environmental reputation so it's bad for PR

It is not a surprise the US army is looking into the 15 tone range for a supplement, and the FST that is projected to replace it will weigh half as much, 35 tonnes as a prerequisite.

Agreed. The Abrams has more sophistacated target acquisition than the Leo or the Challenger, but the relative performance of the Challenger in the Gulf was the same; only 1 tank lost (friendly-fire to another Challenger) versus a lot of poor bastards killed in T-55s, T-60s and T-72s. Sickening really

[Pablostuka]

Oh, now that I know you have great knowlegde about modern armor...can you please make a comparative between a Leopard 2A4 and a T-72M? Which Civ2 stats should they have?

Thanks

[Palaiologos]

Don't you mean T-80?

[Pablostuka]

Nope. T-72. I'm not sure about the 'M' variant. All I know is that I mean the T-72 tanks from Belarus that were sold to Morocco in the year 2000. I can't find more info...but they are T-72

[Palaiologos]

I just thought you wanted to compare the latest of NATO and Russian tank models.

[rmsharpe]

The T-72M was a Polish-Czechoslovakian version of the T-72. The T-72M1 was a Russian export version.

[Pablostuka]

well...that Thanks rmsharpe.

Can somebody do a compare between the T-72M1 and the Leopard 2 A4 (not A5)? My old books from the Cold war era only show the leopard 2A1, and the T-72B (the same as the T-64)

Thanks in advance

[Case]

Originally posted by fairline
There really isn't much to choose between an M1A2, Challenger 2 or Leo 2A5.

Probably the biggest advantage the M1A2 has over its compeditors is it's excelent computer, targeting and communication systems. Everything else seems to cancel out.

I suppose the only qualitative difference comes from the ammo used: the US and UK use DU shells which presumably the Australians won't (thank God - they should be banned!)

Australia is phasing it's limited stocks of DU shells out - the only thing we've ever used them for is to arm the Phallanx point defence guns on our major warships.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Pablostuka
Oh, now that I know you have great knowlegde about modern armor...can you please make a comparative between a Leopard 2A4 and a T-72M? Which Civ2 stats should they have?

Thanks

Without wading through too much technical crap, if you consider the difference between a WW2 Tiger tank and a Sherman, you pretty much have a point of reference for the relative strengths of any of the latest western tanks (M1A2, Challenger 2, Leo 2A6) versus the T-72.

Hell, the engineer geek in me can't resist wading throught the technical sh1t: The UK/US/German tanks are all fitted with varying developments of Chobham armour; this is multi-layered composite/steel/ceramic armour which is as effective as 3 or 4 times the equivalent thickness of steel-only armour (as fitted to the T-72). Later versions of the T-72 are fitted with reactive armour, which is basically a bunch of explosive charges fitted to the outside of the tank; when an AT round hits one of these charges it blasts away from the tank, thereby reducing some of the momentum of the round and triggering it prematurely (sounds like a hair-brained scheme: a tank that blows itself up, but it works). Despite this, the T-72 is many times more vulnerable than the M1A2/Leo/Ch2.

All these tanks have 120mm or 125mm guns, but those fitted to the western tanks are much more effective than the Russian version. The target acquisition and fire-control computers of the western tanks amplify this. A friend in the Royal Engineers recalls watching a Squadron of Challenger 1s line up in the first Gulf War and systematically knock out a unit of Iraqi T-55/T-62s at a mile or so range; none of the iraqi rounds even reached the British tanks, while every Challenger round fired was a kill.

On the plus side the T-72 has a low silhouette: that's it really.

If you look at the kill/losses ratio in both Gulf Wars, no Challenger 1s or 2s were lost to enemy fire, while a few M1A1s were so-called 'mobility kills'; RPG hits to their exhausts knocked them out but the crew survived. None were lost to enemy tank fire. Hundreds of T-55s, T-62s and T-72s were destroyed by the M1s and Challengers. By analogy, this would apply equally to Leopard 2s.

Comparisons between late-model T-72s and early M1s (105mm guns) showed that the M1 could knock out the T-72 at 2000m whereas the M1 was invulnerable at ranges greater than 1000m. This range is probably halved for the later generation Abrams, Challengers and late Leopard 2s

As for civ stats, it would be ridiculous to simulate this reality, so I guess you have to consider playability; make the Leo's stronger than the T-72s but give tha AI a fighting chance.

[Art of War]

Also, Tom Clancy told a story in his book about tanks. It happened in Gulf War I. An M1 got stuck in some thick mud, so the rest of its group kept going (they were on a mission). And who showed up but three (3) T-72s. The M1 took out all three without a hit to it at all. The last T-72 fled behind a barn, and the M1 shot through it and wiped it out. They later dug the M1 out.

[Pablostuka]

Thanks a lot, Gareth

In my scenario there will be Leopard 2A4, M-60A3, M-48A5 and T-72M1.

I'm sure the M-48 has nothing to do against the others...

[tanelorn]

Pablo, as for unit stats, have a look at: http://www.pmulcahy.com
Ignore the questionable intro page,
Go look at the tables for vehicles and weapons.
Much of that stuff is fictional (a few are weapons that don't exist- or just don't exist yet )
It is so detailed, that some of that info found its way into other sites as "real" inteligence

For instance, the entry about the T94 (that is non-existant) found its way into a Checzh tank site (after some retouches) and was copied by a number of English speaking tank sites as top secret stuff (no, I am not going to name which ones, you'll see)
LoL
The comparison tables from twilight war RPG (WW3 in the 90's) are probably good for a start.

[fairline]

That's a cool site Tanelorn, but I wonder what he based his armour stats on? Chobham-type armour is highly classified and the US and UK are very secretive about their tanks capabilities.

[Case]

Originally posted by tanelorn
Pablo, as for unit stats, have a look at: http://www.pmulcahy.com
Ignore the questionable intro page

Yeah, definetly ignore that page - everytime I visit the site it gives me the shivers

Go look at the tables for vehicles and weapons.
Much of that stuff is fictional (a few are weapons that don't exist- or just don't exist yet )
It is so detailed, that some of that info found its way into other sites as "real" inteligence

OTOH, some of the stuff the webmaster considers 'fictional' is actually very much real

for instance:

Bushmaster: This vehicle was built for South Africa, and was probably not ever used in Australia, nor will it be.

Wrong on both counts - the vehicle is Australian designed and built, and deliverys started late last month.

F-111 Aardvark: US F-111's were retired after the 1991 Gulf War, and the only other country to use them, Australia, took them out of service and sold them back to the US a long time ago.

Nope - The Australian Air Force plans on operating these aircraft up to 2020, and even bought about a dozen surplus American aircraft following the USAF's decision to retire them.

...but of course, this is quibbling. The meat of the site is excelent.

Fairline: I suspect that he just took an educated guess

[Palaiologos]

That is a seriously freacked out dude!


(The site's owner)