03-06-2003 23:17									#31
	Suffering from ads?

The best tank killer is _not_ another tank, comparing Iraqi tanks to the M1 Abrams is like comparing a Cessna to a F-14.

Designed in the early 80s, the A2 Abrams is a behemoth weighing in at nearly 69 tons. By comparison, the T-62, the stock Iraqi tank, was designed in sixties, weighs a paltry 41.5 tons. From there, the comparisons only become more stilted in favor of the Abrams. The T-62 series suffers from numerous design flaws, including a cramped crew compartment, thin armor, primitive fire control, and exessively vulnerable feul and ammunition storage. In practice, the Abrams' superior thermal vision equipment allowed it to outrange Iraqi tanks, day and night, by about 1000 meters.

Yet with even all these advantages, the overwhelming majority of Iraqi tank kills were as a result of Allied air power. So it's important not to read to much into a single engagement.

quote: Originally quoted by Lord of the Mark IIUC thats why you want a combined arms attack - keep the enemy tanks from focusing on the choppers, by making them focus on your tanks, then the choppers can swoop in on the opportunities opened up by the land battle.

You do understand correctly, however this is a tactical consideration, and SMAC/X is a strategic game. To examine the strategic efficacy of a unit, you need to take a look at the number of casualties inflicted and taken in combat, against a particular type of foe. When you do so, you'll see that the tank/chopper conflict routinely falls in favor of air power.

	03-06-2003 23:52									#32
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by CEO Aaron The best tank killer is _not_ another tank, comparing Iraqi tanks to the M1 Abrams is like comparing a Cessna to a F-14. Designed in the early 80s, the A2 Abrams is a behemoth weighing in at nearly 69 tons. By comparison, the T-62, the stock Iraqi tank, was designed in sixties, weighs a paltry 41.5 tons. From there, the comparisons only become more stilted in favor of the Abrams. The T-62 series suffers from numerous design flaws, including a cramped crew compartment, thin armor, primitive fire control, and exessively vulnerable feul and ammunition storage. In practice, the Abrams' superior thermal vision equipment allowed it to outrange Iraqi tanks, day and night, by about 1000 meters. Yet with even all these advantages, the overwhelming majority of Iraqi tank kills were as a result of Allied air power. So it's important not to read to much into a single engagement. You do understand correctly, however this is a tactical consideration, and SMAC/X is a strategic game. To examine the strategic efficacy of a unit, you need to take a look at the number of casualties inflicted and taken in combat, against a particular type of foe. When you do so, you'll see that the tank/chopper conflict routinely falls in favor of air power.

well thats the problem with Civ type games -theyre strategic, yet the modeling of combat is not. In the real world you would never send a unit of choppers to attack a city by itself - a realistic strategic level game really ought to include an army that represents a combined arms unit. but then we wouldnt see choppers flying around the map - which is fun, and the civ design philosophy, followed by SMAC, is never to sacrifice fun for accuracy. That was the origin of this discussion - it was stated that choppers in SMAC are overpowered - which newbie that i am, i think they are in gameplay terms (at least in SP) Frank responded in terms of real life - in real life choppers are used in a combined arms context, which it is hardly necessary to do in SMAC.

As for number of kills being mainly achieved from the air - yes, but wasnt that heavily fixed wing aircraft, including AC-130's as well as choppers? And this in an environment where the attacker had 100% air superiority. Not an Iraqi fighter to be seen. Even so the presence of coalition tanks may have been important, in forcing the Iraqis to concentrate, and taking away the serb/Kosovo strategy of dispersing and camouflaging (of course that was all fixed wing aircraft, no apaches)

Youre right one cant generalize from one engagement, but how many real world battles are there to make judgements from?? Op Iraqi Freedom went pretty fast - any other significant Chopper-armor confrontations since Desert Storm????

	03-06-2003 23:54									#33
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Jamski Stupid pilots want to stay out of small arms range and use their rockets, eh? -Jam

guess it would depend on terrain, weather etc. Not sure how far off a chopper can stand and kill tanks with desired efficiency.

	03-06-2003 23:59									#34
	Remove this text

oh and againg the balance of air kills vs tank kills of Iraqi tanks is to some extent an artifact of the forces the Coalition brought to the battle. we had a truely massive air armada including an full airborne division of choppers plus Marine choppers, marine air, 4 aircraft carriers, large numbers of tank killer aircraft, B52s used tactically, plus fighterbombers,etc. On land all we had were essentially 3 heavy divisions - 3rd ID, 1st Marines, and the Brits.

If we had to fight an enemy with 3 times the resources, could we have tripled the air campaign as easily as the ground campaign??? Im not sure.

	04-06-2003 10:24									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark I think its standard for a tank to have a MG as well as main weapon, but not sure what angle of elevation is possible.

Depends on the tank (including MBT, IFV, APC), and some have two: a standard-caliber anti-personnel MG and a larger-caliber AAG.
Most are limited to around 80 degrees because the post is short and the vertical pivot is directly on top of the horizontal pivot.
There are some with a taller post and an offset vertical pivot similar to an altitude/azimuth telescope mount, allowing the full 90 degrees of elevation, and actually a little over the top, so the operator (usually the tank commander) can track and lead an aircraft at fly-over, targeting the underbelly of the fuselage, the wings, and the fuel tanks. If a kill doesn't happen, enough damage can occur to the landing gear doors and control surfaces to force a belly landing or bail-out, depending on the pilot's ability and his superior's orders.
That danger is one of the reasons why a fixed-wing aircraft bombing a tank or other live ground target will dive as steeply as possible and then climb as vertical as possible, to minimize his own aspect. With modern "smart" fire-and-forget munitions, you don't see so much dive-bombing any more, but sometimes there are circumstances (such as terrain, including buildings) that can require some variation of it.

	04-06-2003 11:06									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Good discussion. I like the idea of limiting the range of choppers, it is quite realistic. Another good idea (if it's possible) is to make jets capable of multiple attacks.

I agree with those who say that there hasn't really been an opportunity to test the efficacy of helicopters against heavy units in anything like a standup fight. What we have seen in Gulf War 1 & 2 is air supremacy for coalition forces, where the sorts of units that could give helicopters real trouble (Fighters, AAA and to a lesser extent SAM) have been targeted and destroyed by fixed wing strikes before the helicopters were committed to the battle. The Arab Israeli wars were a long time ago, and Arab air resistance was of almost token in performance. In the 1980s the Syrain Air Force was forbidden to fly against the Israelis in Lebanon after the fiasco in 1982, where the Israelis opened the battle with a combined arms (in this case artillery and fixed wing air power mostly) assault on the Syrian air defense net, followed by a very short (and for them bloody) appearance by the Syrian Air Force.

	04-06-2003 13:38									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well, its not really a stand-up fight, but 'copters in Vietnam and Chechnia were the most effective direct attack units (ie, not artillery or bombers) in terms of kills per capita - i.e. a 3 man 'copter crew was killing more than a 6-man infantry squad, or a 4-man tank crew. But this was gurilla fighting in rough terrain, with contact not occouring every day, not like a stand-up battle.

-Jam

	05-06-2003 04:03									#38
	Put an end to popups!

I too like the idea of cutting down the range on choppers. Cutting their base movement to ~6 squares would even be helpful. I also think that interceptors should be able to attack them as though they are grounded, to reflect their extreme vulnerability to fixed wing aircraft. Of course, since they take damage when they are not landed over a turn break, this would rarely come into play...

	05-06-2003 18:15									#39
	Remove this text

this AM Washington Post has a column by an ex Air Force Chief of Staff - knocking on the Army for using the Apaches for the deep strike mentioned above - use fixed wing for deep strike, use choppers in close support (ie combined arms) he implies Army used Apaches cause they didnt want AF in charge. He thought the attack WAS signicant, in showing the vulnerabilty of choppers on their own.

	06-06-2003 12:40									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Jamski Well, its not really a stand-up fight, but 'copters in Vietnam and Chechnia were the most effective direct attack units (ie, not artillery or bombers) in terms of kills per capita - i.e. a 3 man 'copter crew was killing more than a 6-man infantry squad, or a 4-man tank crew. But this was gurilla fighting in rough terrain, with contact not occouring every day, not like a stand-up battle. -Jam

True perhaps, but helicopters also took very high losses in those conflicts. Both the Mujahideen and the NVA / VC became more and more adept at setting up ambushes to take out helicopters. The VC liked to use RPGs, which if they hit were very likely to destroy a helicopter. This tactic has also been used regularly in Chechnya. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan prefered to use heavy machine guns on mountain tops using plunging fire to hit the unarmored upper portions of Soviet Hind helicopters. I still say that the artillerymen had the best kill ratio, they rarely get killed unless their fire base is overrun.

Modern warfare between two evenly matched and equipped foes is mostly theoretic at this point. We can probably figure out how different weapon systems will relate to one another, but there will also be suprises. There will always be that guy who figures out that his anti-aircraft gun makes a dandy anti-tank weapon when he is pressed by tanks.

	06-06-2003 15:18									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: I still say that the artillerymen had the best kill ratio, they rarely get killed unless their fire base is overrun.

Yeah, you're right, that's why I excluded them from the comparison. If there's a war and everyone is drafted, I'm becoming a artillery man for sure. Or logistics

-Jam

	06-06-2003 15:32									#42
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I have the munchies.

	11-06-2003 17:03									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Jamski Yeah, you're right, that's why I excluded them from the comparison. If there's a war and everyone is drafted, I'm becoming a artillery man for sure. Or logistics -Jam

I'd go for logistics and try to avoid becoming "deaf as an artilleryman".

	11-06-2003 19:13									#44
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Copters are a game breaker. That is why I only play with my modded ruleset that actually puts copters later than tanks in the techtree. >:|