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.