72 replies to this topic

[Matthew Ace]

RagingOyster, on 28 May 2015 - 05:03 PM, said:

Except tanks today are far more heavily armed and armored than any WW2 tank while also being more mobile.

That said, I do have a question though...

How has TTK versus tanks in RL changed throughout? Including manpacked weapons.

Would be interesting to try and correlate that to MWO.

[CocoaJin]

For a while at least, the move from heavy to MBT was due to the guns being so capable that the heavy tanks weren't lasting very long anymore...like 1-2 shots. It was determined that since tanking the guns wasn't viable, it was better to rely on mobility.

MBTs were cheaper, could be produced in more abundance and could kill a heavy tank just easy as another heavy tank...and frequently did it carrying the same main gun as the heavy(like my HBK-4G vs Heavy and Assaults).

So basically, modern armor combat evolved into long range, peek-a-boo engagements with high damage and low TTK. Smaller, more mobile, cheaper, hard hitting MBTs enter the battlefield that could out position and overwhelm heavier tanks using skirmish and flanking tactics in addition to the same hull-down and covered tactics the Heavies used. Basically MWOs evolution today.

From what I understand, it appears TTK is going up again for top of the line, premiere MBTs. Armor tech is (or at least it was) beginning to outpace gun tech. There are some very effective specialized rounds out there, though it seems a multi-system approach to armor is helping to off-set them.

Edited by CocoaJin, 28 May 2015 - 06:32 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Used to do SRMageddon drops. Good luck coordinating fire with 6-10 SRM or SSRM equipped mechs jumping out of thin air, then zipping around INSIDE your lines, dropping artillery willy nilly everywhere you go. Even if you could focus fire in time to push back, at that point the brawlers are in their element and vaporizing parts faster than you can keep up.

It is glorious.

[RagingOyster]

Matthew Ace, on 28 May 2015 - 06:07 PM, said:

That said, I do have a question though...

How has TTK versus tanks in RL changed throughout? Including manpacked weapons.

Would be interesting to try and correlate that to MWO.

CocoaJin, on 28 May 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

For a while at least, the move from heavy to MBT was due to the guns being so capable that the heavy tanks weren't lasting very long anymore...like 1-2 shots. It was determined that since tanking the guns wasn't viable, it was better to rely on mobility.

MBTs were cheaper, could be produced in more abundance and could kill a heavy tank just easy as another heavy tank...and frequently did it carrying the same main gun as the heavy(like my HBK-4G vs Heavy and Assaults).

So basically, modern armor combat evolved into long range, peek-a-boo engagements with high damage and low TTK. Smaller, more mobile, cheaper, hard hitting MBTs enter the battlefield that could out position and overwhelm heavier tanks using skirmish and flanking tactics in addition to the same hull-down and covered tactics the Heavies used. Basically MWOs evolution today.

From what I understand, it appears TTK is going up again for top of the line, premiere MBTs. Armor tech is (or at least it was) beginning to outpace gun tech. There are some very effective specialized rounds out there, though it seems a multi-system approach to armor is helping to off-set them.

It's very difficult to measure TTK if we're talking modern tanks, because modern tanks haven't gone up against each other in real combat yet. Now, M1 Abrams tanks wiped the floor with old T-72s in Iraq, but that's hardly a good indicator given the discrepancy between the two. Man-portable weapons have also evolved significantly, but the most effective handheld AT weapons remain shaped-charge explosives that use a jet of liquid metal to bore through armor. These types of weapons can knock out any modern tank with a properly placed shot (treads, top of turret) but are defeated by the front and side armor in most cases. Reactive armor also helps minimize the impact of such weapons, though it is not a fool-proof counter.

It is entirely inaccurate to say that mobility has trumped armor. Modern MBTs are much heavier than older heavy tanks, while also being much faster, much better armed and much more heavily armored. A modern MBT does not have to rely on mobility, flanking or numbers to overwhelm a heavy tank. It will smash it head-to-head because of the technology involved. One of the biggest problems with what used to be called a "heavy" tank was engine technology, which made it impossible to mount the very heavy armor and weapons they carry without being cripplingly slow. With modern turbine engines, tanks like the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard can carry far more armor than older tanks while still being mobile. The MBT didn't beat the Heavy tank by overwhelming them, they just made them completely obsolete. Having a tank that sacrifices mobility for armor and armament is simply no longer necessary because modern engines and lightweight composite armor make building tanks that have heavy armor, high speed and powerful weapons is now doable. Also, modern MBTs are not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. They are in fact much more expensive than any prior generation of tanks. They are just so much better to the previous iteration that cost is a non-issue.

In general, TTK has gone down (as it has consistently throughout the history of armored warfare). While modern composites and reactive armor make tanks quite survivable, semi-guided KPs and HEAPs can still cripple or destroy any modern tank, especially with a shot to the rear. In most simulated engagements, tanks will get (at most) a half-dozen shots at each other because all it takes is one good hit to take one out with modern AT rounds. Tank engagements will also take place at much longer ranges than in the past, and the side that manages to get the first shot off will almost certainly win.
Essentially, there is only so much armor you can layer on before it becomes a detriment, while weapons are evolving at a faster rate.

[cSand]

CocoaJin, on 27 May 2015 - 01:17 AM, said:

The mobile skirmisher, the hard-hitting flanker...they are the re-new brawlers. It's not the slow, lumbering Assault...it's not utilized in the typical straight ahead steam-roll.

No, the new brawler is that guy that appears out of no where and smashes dudes in the mouth while they are fixated on their peek-a-boo engagement, fades away and then strikes again...just asses, elbows and weapons fire, then gone.

He is the guy patiently biding his time amongst the pack. You know him...head always a swivel, you can tell he is doritio surfing his allies' data links, always shuffling his feet but not really going anywhere...and then bam! Like he was shot out of cannon, he breaks ranks and commences punishing some poor ******* with open armor and tunnel vision.

You can tell he is doing it right, you'll see it in his opponents body language...because even DWFs wheel back on their heels, torso twist and start back pedaling...not because he is putting out so much damage, but because his timing was so good, the opposing pilot was just caught of guard...frankly, he doesn't even know what's hitting him yet.

I'm loving it!

welcome my entire MWO career



and also why I htink the QKD is the greatest mech !

[CocoaJin]

RagingOyster, on 28 May 2015 - 07:03 PM, said:

It's very difficult to measure TTK if we're talking modern tanks, because modern tanks haven't gone up against each other in real combat yet. Now, M1 Abrams tanks wiped the floor with old T-72s in Iraq, but that's hardly a good indicator given the discrepancy between the two. Man-portable weapons have also evolved significantly, but the most effective handheld AT weapons remain shaped-charge explosives that use a jet of liquid metal to bore through armor. These types of weapons can knock out any modern tank with a properly placed shot (treads, top of turret) but are defeated by the front and side armor in most cases. Reactive armor also helps minimize the impact of such weapons, though it is not a fool-proof counter.

It is entirely inaccurate to say that mobility has trumped armor. Modern MBTs are much heavier than older heavy tanks, while also being much faster, much better armed and much more heavily armored. A modern MBT does not have to rely on mobility, flanking or numbers to overwhelm a heavy tank. It will smash it head-to-head because of the technology involved. One of the biggest problems with what used to be called a "heavy" tank was engine technology, which made it impossible to mount the very heavy armor and weapons they carry without being cripplingly slow. With modern turbine engines, tanks like the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard can carry far more armor than older tanks while still being mobile. The MBT didn't beat the Heavy tank by overwhelming them, they just made them completely obsolete. Having a tank that sacrifices mobility for armor and armament is simply no longer necessary because modern engines and lightweight composite armor make building tanks that have heavy armor, high speed and powerful weapons is now doable. Also, modern MBTs are not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. They are in fact much more expensive than any prior generation of tanks. They are just so much better to the previous iteration that cost is a non-issue.

In general, TTK has gone down (as it has consistently throughout the history of armored warfare). While modern composites and reactive armor make tanks quite survivable, semi-guided KPs and HEAPs can still cripple or destroy any modern tank, especially with a shot to the rear. In most simulated engagements, tanks will get (at most) a half-dozen shots at each other because all it takes is one good hit to take one out with modern AT rounds. Tank engagements will also take place at much longer ranges than in the past, and the side that manages to get the first shot off will almost certainly win.
Essentially, there is only so much armor you can layer on before it becomes a detriment, while weapons are evolving at a faster rate.

So the past's MBTs evolved into today's MBTs, which are basically what Heavy tanks needed to be, but couldn't due to engine limitations.

My understanding is that past MBTs did use mobility and numbers to obsolete, as you say, Heavy tanks. I do agree that modern day MBTs have evolved from their original roots...technology has allowed them to be both mobile and heavily armored.

cSand, on 28 May 2015 - 07:44 PM, said:

welcome my entire MWO career



and also why I htink the QKD is the greatest mech !

Shhhhhh! The QKD is supposed to remain a sleeper. I need people to continue ignoring my QKD-5K!

Edited by CocoaJin, 28 May 2015 - 07:49 PM.

[cSand]

CocoaJin, on 28 May 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:

Shhhhhh! The QKD is supposed to remain a sleeper. I need people to continue ignoring my QKD-5K!

Yes of course aheemrmrmrmrmrmr


THE QUICKDRAW IS HORRIBLE, KEEP DRIVING YOUR TIMBERWOLVES


NOTHING TO SEE HERE

[RagingOyster]

CocoaJin, on 28 May 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:

So the past's MBTs evolved into today's MBTs, which are basically what Heavy tanks needed to be, but couldn't due to engine limitations.

My understanding is that past MBTs did use mobility and numbers to obsolete, as you say, Heavy tanks. I do agree that modern day MBTs have evolved from their original roots...technology has allowed them to be both mobile and heavily armored.



Shhhhhh! The QKD is supposed to remain a sleeper. I need people to continue ignoring my QKD-5K!

The main battle tank is a modern invention. In the past, there were "heavy", "medium" and "light' tanks each with their own drawbacks and advantages. There never were "old" MBTs that "evolved" into what we have today. They are a whole new breed of AFV. The reason we don't have the three distinct types anymore is because with modern materials and engines we can do everything in one package instead of having to sacrifice one thing (armor, for example) to get more of another (speed, for example).

[CocoaJin]

RagingOyster, on 29 May 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

The main battle tank is a modern invention. In the past, there were "heavy", "medium" and "light' tanks each with their own drawbacks and advantages. There never were "old" MBTs that "evolved" into what we have today. They are a whole new breed of AFV. The reason we don't have the three distinct types anymore is because with modern materials and engines we can do everything in one package instead of having to sacrifice one thing (armor, for example) to get more of another (speed, for example).

So early Cold War MBTs(that couldn't have it all) didn't trade mobility and lighter weight over the heavily armored and less mobile Heavies? It would seem the modern MBT(post-Abrams) is the evolution of MBTs into the heavily armored, yet still mobile tanks we see today?

I get MBTs are MBTs, but my understanding is that initial MBTs were less armored than their heavy counter-parts, and that the current armor levels of MBTs over past heavies is due to new tech...that theoretically, a modern heavy tank could then mount more modern armor at the expense of its mobility(a trade off modern militaries would not want), allowing greater tank vs tank resistance, but enough of a battlefield advantage vs other threats to justify their high cost and slower speed.

[9thDeathscream]

CocoaJin, on 29 May 2015 - 10:57 PM, said:

So early Cold War MBTs(that couldn't have it all) didn't trade mobility and lighter weight over the heavily armored and less mobile Heavies? It would seem the modern MBT(post-Abrams) is the evolution of MBTs into the heavily armored, yet still mobile tanks we see today?

I get MBTs are MBTs, but my understanding is that initial MBTs were less armored than their heavy counter-parts, and that the current armor levels of MBTs over past heavies is due to new tech...that theoretically, a modern heavy tank could then mount more modern armor at the expense of its mobility(a trade off modern militaries would not want), allowing greater tank vs tank resistance, but enough of a battlefield advantage vs other threats to justify their high cost and slower speed.

Your thinking the less armored MBTs, they were tank destroyers.

[Zolaz]

There will always be a brawl, there will always be short ranged combat in a drop. Just sometimes you will be fighting 4 or 5 guys at the same time because your team folded like a bad hand of poker. If you are a brawler with short ranged weapons your job is to take a little fire while you get into range. To help heat up the enemy.

Then get in there and kill all those mechs the LRM guys and long ranged lazor sprayers were shooting. If your team is folding get into a spot where the enemy has to turn their feet to be able to attack you. Preferably you should be able to shoot the enemy while the enemy is shooting someone else on your team.

[RagingOyster]

CocoaJin, on 29 May 2015 - 10:57 PM, said:

So early Cold War MBTs(that couldn't have it all) didn't trade mobility and lighter weight over the heavily armored and less mobile Heavies? It would seem the modern MBT(post-Abrams) is the evolution of MBTs into the heavily armored, yet still mobile tanks we see today?

I get MBTs are MBTs, but my understanding is that initial MBTs were less armored than their heavy counter-parts, and that the current armor levels of MBTs over past heavies is due to new tech...that theoretically, a modern heavy tank could then mount more modern armor at the expense of its mobility(a trade off modern militaries would not want), allowing greater tank vs tank resistance, but enough of a battlefield advantage vs other threats to justify their high cost and slower speed.

No, they didn't. A main battle tank marries all three (speed, armor, firepower) in one package. Once modern MBTs hit the field, there was no longer any such thing as a "heavy" tank because modern MBTs can mount even more armor than the heaviest of pre-Cold War heavy tanks. As soon as the advent of composite armor (c.a. 1960s), heavy tanks ceased to exist as effective fighting vehicles. There was never a design that had to "trade" armor for speed, because technology now allowed both.

As an example, the Brits rolled out the Chieftan in '66 (I believe) and at the time it was easily the most powerful tank in the world, far surpassing the Soviet T-10 (a "heavy" tank). Technology had, at that point, left the "heavy" tank concept behind.

[CocoaJin]

So my ides of the early MBT were just medium tanks that would eventually lead to MBTs?