What's missing in the combat realism debate

[Bubba_B]

At the other end of the spectrum are the romantic-oriented gamers. The guys who LOVE underdog fights. Whose favorite stories are about little guys beating impossible odds, and our own world history is full of such stories.

Custer's Last Stand, where ill-trained, ill-armed indians took on a much better equipped American Military unit.

Scotland's Highlanders (a ragged, peasant army if ever there was one) defying British Knights and Longbow and WINNING!!!!! NONE of this should or would be possible under the purely scientific/mathematic approach, and IMO, it would be a loss to the game, because THESE are the stories we remember.



-=Vel=-

Sorry to disagree Vel but I think Custer was the Underdog there IMHO

Anyway good post

Go Scotland!!

[wingman]

So?.let?s take a look at the real world, and begin with the assumption that ancient units and modern ones cannot exist at the same time.

The British Army, when colonizing Africa and India, encountered primitive, savage tribes armed with bows and spears vs. the British cannon and rifle. IMO, that is an example of the very thing we?re talking about.

And, to their credit, those primitive, savage tribes dealt a blow or two DESPITE their technological inferiority before being conquered. (In game terms...the bowman beat the rifleman!)

Same thing was true of the Americas.

True, true, true....BUT NOT FUN!


I can undestand that if I am English and I invade the Indians on the other side of the map they are using warriors. However when both my English and the enemy French empires have coexisted on the same contenent for 5000 years, and we are equall in tech. Then the final showdown comes when we both get tanks, but I build tanks and the French are still using spearmen, while they can easily get alll their units to be at least infantry. This is not a fun scenario and it ruins my enjoyment of the game

[Velociryx]

Numerically, yes...but not technologically. That's the point tho....everyone who keeps saying that the high tech unit should always win aren't looking at history.

It hasn't happened often, but high tech units (Custer) are overrun by low-tech rivals now and then.

It doesn't happen often in the game, but high tech units (cavalry) are overrun by low tech units now and then (longbow).

I think the game paralells history fairly well in that regard.

-=Vel=-

And thanks!

[Barnacle Bill]

Actually, I can offer non-romantic explainations for each of those examples.

Custer's last stand - the Indians were not ill-trained, they were considered the finest light cavalry in the world at the time. A little shy on firearms, but this was a cavalry on cavalry fight so that didn't make so much difference. Plus, Custer was outnumbered over 10-1, and was the attacker. So, in Civ3 terms, Custer's 1 Cavalry unit attacked a stack of 10 Horsemen, and ended up retreating after reduced to 1 hit point (of course Georgie was one of the guys that got reduced). Even with a proper combat results table, that should be a bad move. The idea is not that having a gun makes you invulnerable, just that in an even-numbers fight you are going to kill the enemy a lot faster than he can kill your guys.

Isandwalla - Again there was a huge numerical advantage on the winning side. This time lets call it 10 Zulu Impis attacking one British Rifleman. There were some abstract factors here as well - the Brits were caught by surprise (not fortified, in Civ3 terms) and effectively had an ammo shortage due to inefficient distribution of the available supply. You can't really model that last one in Civ3, but you would not need to. With a good CRT, sequential attacks by 10 Impis should be enough to overwhelm 1 Rifleman unit.

Thermopolye - Here, the side with the mission win was technologically superior, and fortified in a mountain pass. In Civ3 terms, first imagine that we have two kinds of mountain terrain - "Mountain Pass" works like mountains in stock Civ3, while "Mountains" are impassable to all ground units whatsoever. You have a string of "mountain" squares across the top of a pennensula, broken only by a single "mountain pass" square. In that "mountain pass" square, in a fortress (there was a stone wall across the pass), fortified, squats a single Greek elite Hoplite unit. The Persians bring up 1 elite Immortal, a couple of veteran Archers and a unbelievably large wad of conscript spearman. The present system will model that correctly - where it breaks down is not in different types of pre-gunpowder units but in what happens after that.

Scotland - that was actually a pretty even match-up. Again, same tech level on both sides. Give the Scots elite status to model being very pumped. It could happen.

The point is, a well modelled system that produces results which "feel right" to the Grognard would still allow the cases you named to be replicated in the3 game, but without allowing Henry V to defeat a WWII panzer division with his army of longbowmen.

And yes, I know all about the design decision to make it how it is because of strategic resources, and have posted a proposed alternative elsewhere, which in short is to let you build things without the appropriate strategic resources at a substantially higher cost, which I have supported in detail with historical examples.

[mindseye]

I think its possible for a bunch of spear wielding men to destroy a tank, but it would be rare.

I believe this very scenario took place in Ethiopia when Italian armor encountered spear-wielding warriors who were sometimes able to immobilize the tanks by de-tracking them.

Another example of ancient encountering modern for n.c.: the Opium Wars. On land, artillery and rifles fought against spears and crossbows. At sea, armored steamships clashed with junks.

Yes these encounters are rare, but they do happen! In fact, one such encounter is taking place right now in Afghanistan: muskets versus stealth bombers.

- mindseye

[zapperio]

[SIZE=1]

And yes, I know all about the design decision to make it how it is because of strategic resources, and have posted a proposed alternative elsewhere, which in short is to let you build things without the appropriate strategic resources at a substantially higher cost, which I have supported in detail with historical examples.

That solution would have to be implemented carefully so as not to detract from the urgency associated with the acquisition of the resources. Gameplay speaking, the resources add a lot to the fun and the strategy of the game and I would be unhappy to see them diminish in importance.

Zap

[TCO]

NC,

Let me step back from the flaming a bit and try to give my analysis more disppassionately.

1. I think the combat was too easy and too one-sided in Civ2. I like the changes descrobed in Civ3. Just my point of view. I'm a pretty darn good civ player. And I'm also very unbothered by losign any individual unit or even city. This kind comes from playing the game a lot. I think of the units as representing their namesakes...but I don't take it completely literally.

2. The people unhappy with combat are unhappy for various reasons.

Some are genuinely unhappy for realism reasons. They are military junkies (although interestingly enough...none seem to have served...correct me if I'm wrong) and they like to think of the tank and it;s incredible power, which truly could destroy any non-gunpowder unit. Some of these people would like to see more power give to modern units AND have the AI be more strategic and keep up better in tech. I personally doubt this is possible. You can change unit numbers easily but the AI is difficult to improve. People like this should go get a war game that doesn't have changing technology. They will find what they want.

Many others are unhappy for realism reasons, but in addition hate to lose battles. They have less tolerance for loss and theyn tend to try to fight with smaller armies (so low prob events are more damaging.) Some of these people use strategies that even in civ2 were considered suspect (using cavalry as defenders for instance). As much as they hat it, I would advise these people to either change/improve their strategies...or tweak the unit values to give themselves more of an edge. (In almost all cases, tweaking the unit values will lead to advantages for the human player...since the AI won't exploit the changes well.)

[Shiva]

Originally posted by D4everman


Hey, Shiva, still in the Infantry? Signal here! Screw that sleeping in the woods crap...oops I forgot. I'm signal. Whenever YOU guys go to the field we gotta go the field! And you guys go a lot! (no matter...I'm a recruiter-in-training now)

Naaa, I got out in the 90's. My first 2 years in I was in the field for about 3/4s of it and loved it. After that I couldnt stand garrison duty and after trying to get posted at NTC 3 or 4 times(if I could have gotten in I'd still be in since their in the field 5 to 6 days a week) the writing was on the wall to get out (plus all the cut backs and promotion freezes after the wall came down).

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
At the apparent scale of Civ3, it is not "a tank", its "an armored division", i.e. a large formation with 10-15 thousand guys built around several hundred tanks but including supporting infantry & artillery, plus wads of guys in non-combat support roles. A couple of neighborhood duds might very well take out "a tank" under the right circumstances, but 15,000 neighbor dudes will never take out an armored division.

No not at once, however in tens years of fighting (and ten years are one turn sometimes in this game) neighborhood dudes in Afghanistan killed 30,000 or so Russian soldiers ( more than a division). Since the game doesnt track troop loss or replacements I really dont see the problem with a division being removed from play once in a while since total losses in turn could easily equal the manpower of a unit. Its all abstract and people will just have to deal with the fact that when things are abstracted they dont always work the same way they do in real life.

[Special_K]

Originally posted by GP

Many others are unhappy for realism reasons, but in addition hate to lose battles. They have less tolerance for loss and theyn tend to try to fight with smaller armies (so low prob events are more damaging.)

Part of the problem is that in the current game these things arn't low probability events, instead they seem to happen quite frequently. Also, it seems that the random number generator isn't very random. For example once I attacked a city 4 defenders with something like 12 calvary. All the clavary were either killed or retreated at 1 hp. I reloaded and waited till the next turn to attack. This time I lost only 1 or 2 calvary and took the city easily. I realize you could make up role play reasons (morale and all that), but really the random numbers should be slightly more random so things like that wouldn't happen.

As for those pointing out relatively obscure cases in history where the inferior force beat the superior force, these cases are exactly that OBSCURE. They shouldn't be hapening nearly as often as we see in civ 3.

I also realize this was done deliberately as a design decision. I just think it was a poor design decision and could have been handled differently as has been posted in other places. Now I will stop my b****ing and go back to enjoying the game .

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Special_K

Part of the problem is that in the current game these things arn't low probability events, instead they seem to happen quite frequently. Also, it seems that the random number generator isn't very random. For example once I attacked a city 4 defenders with something like 12 calvary. All the clavary were either killed or retreated at 1 hp. I reloaded and waited till the next turn to attack. This time I lost only 1 or 2 calvary and took the city easily. I realize you could make up role play reasons (morale and all that), but really the random numbers should be slightly more random so things like that wouldn't happen.

Anybody have ideas how we can test this thoroughly? In spite of my romantic inclinations I'd love to see some numbers from controlled battles.

Zap

[Gonzalo Nieva]

Maybe You need a different perspective, forget about historical references and think in the game itself: When a technological superiority must overcome another "age" and keep game balance and a fighting chance if You fall behind?

[LordLynch64]

Question? Do civil wars still occur if you take the capital city of a civ? I really liked that feature in the previous games and I think this game should have that feature. Let me know.

LORD LYNCH

[Chowlett]

Originally posted by Special_K
For example once I attacked a city 4 defenders with something like 12 calvary. All the clavary were either killed or retreated at 1 hp. I reloaded and waited till the next turn to attack. This time I lost only 1 or 2 calvary and took the city easily. I realize you could make up role play reasons (morale and all that), but really the random numbers should be slightly more random so things like that wouldn't happen.

Surely that situation indicates that the random numbers are very random from turn to turn, and that actually you'd like them to be a little less random, to kind of normalise the results.

Or, rereading your post, do you mean that the random numbers, while different from turn to turn, are disturbingly similar within each turn? That's a possibility, I don't know yet, my copy is still shrinkwrapped on my shelf.

[Capt Dizle]

I am not keeping records of this. I do however understand the concept of the odd thing standing out and "seeming" to be more common than it is in reality.

Having said that, let me say this.

I have seen amazing streaks of antiquated units beating state of the art units. Streaks.

If one unit wins with a 1 of 7 chance going in, you say well that happens.

If you see 8 battles and the 1 in 7 unit wins 6 times, then you have a problem.

That is what I am seeing. It doesn't happen all the time, it happens in streaks. That's why I question the way the random numbers are being generated.

Will some math head calulate the odds on something like I have decscribed please?

Lately I have been playtesting. Normally, I would not attack at bad odds like the AI does. I have been trying it and I have had some sucess doing it but no really long streaks yet. I will try to take notes on this sort of thing.

[Khannalxytys]

All of you discuss about if u should or not accept it the way it is... well ... some people like to accept it and have fun .. others like to have the full monty as the way they think it should be... and if there is such a noise about this particular aspect... that makes it an issue that must be addressed by those who wish to sell the game.. probably that wont hamper the sells that much .. but it will eventually since word spreads out from those who disagree with it... pleasing both sides is hard... but since the pros say that u should accept it but not that is better this way .. and the cons say that it should be changed... changing it pretty much would please both ... and increase sells..


having said that.. i thought i did posted a plausible solution .. but since it aint very popular... probably means that it was not accepted .. thus.. i think u people should help posting solutions.. instead of complaining.. and waiting for firaxis .. (which is also ok .. since u payed for it.. though i prefer to manage while still facing the issue.)

[Khannalxytys]

did posted

ouch ... among other typos.. this pierces my heart...

whatever people understand

[n.c.]

I never leave enough time for this thread! (sorry)

jt- I am from an area with one of the highest per-capita concentrations of PhDs in the world!

Bubba- "actuall game play changes that need to be made"
Which is exactly the point of this thread. Your not understanding that does not make it a rant.

CyberShy- I returned it and merely have a faint hope that it will be playable in the future.

Ozymandous- Show me an active duty Phalanx.

Vel- Some abstractions are required, some are not. Some that are not required are annoying, some are not.

GP- We know our reasons for being unhappy.

[TCO]

Originally posted by n.c.


GP- We know our reasons for being unhappy.

Different critics are unhappy for different reasons. They cvary from people who think the new combat is too hard to people who think it's unrealisitc to people who claim the AI cheats against them. It's useful to define the different issues so they can be discussed properly.

[Bubba_B]

Yeah talking about Saturday Night Live Skits is dealing with gameplay

What I don't understand is you

[TCO]

Originally posted by Special_K


Part of the problem is that in the current game these things arn't low probability events, instead they seem to happen quite frequently. Also, it seems that the random number generator isn't very random. For example once I attacked a city 4 defenders with something like 12 calvary. All the clavary were either killed or retreated at 1 hp. I reloaded and waited till the next turn to attack. This time I lost only 1 or 2 calvary and took the city easily. I realize you could make up role play reasons (morale and all that), but really the random numbers should be slightly more random so things like that wouldn't happen.

As for those pointing out relatively obscure cases in history where the inferior force beat the superior force, these cases are exactly that OBSCURE. They shouldn't be hapening nearly as often as we see in civ 3.

I also realize this was done deliberately as a design decision. I just think it was a poor design decision and could have been handled differently as has been posted in other places. Now I will stop my b****ing and go back to enjoying the game .

2 things:

-the game uses a random generator string, so you have to go back fr enough to reset it.

-Are you a "reload cheater"? Reloading combat is very low...

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Venger


I tell you what. You and some of your neighborhood buds go attack a tank and tell us how it went. Wait - just tell us when you are leaving, you won't be back...


Actually, numbers DON'T matter in Civ, because every combat action is one unit versus one unit. CTP had stacked combat which made numbers truly matter.


Venger

Hmm, remember Saving Private Ryan where those soldiers are trying to hold a bridge and they put 'sticky bombs' on the side of the tank to blow the treads? This was not a fluke but possible because of the rugged urban terrain, which is represented in civ3 by the defense bonuses for large cities. A tank is vulnerable in real life without proper protection and support. And such it is with civ 3, you have to use a combined arms approach, to be most likely to succeed.

Numbers DO matter, if you don't take a city because there was only 1 defender with 1 hp left, then the defenses will likely be restocked next turn. Numbers protect you from the freak occurences where a spearman gets lucky and fends off a tank. Once you get past the newbie stage you should understand this.

Another thought, an elite spearman in a size 20 city on a mountain has a defense rating of 12(13 if fortified?) or even more possibly if across a river. And in such situations any unit(particularly a regular unit) can lose.

[cassembler]

n.c.:

Note exactly what I'm saying when you give examples attempting to disprove this statement: that which did not happen, did not happen. Tough position to counter.

Wadded through the thread and noticed this statement.

I dare to counter.

"...in a Quantum Mechanical world, I cannot predict where a particle will be with 100 % certainty. I can only speak in terms of probabilities. For example, I can say that an atom will be at some location with a 99 % probability, but there will be a 1 % probability it will be somewhere else (in fact, there will be a small but finite probabilty that it will be found across the Universe). This is strange. "

- http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
(Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle)

Strange to ponder the relationship between this statement and the Civ3 combat model.

[VetteroX]

I totaly Agree with Vengar on the tank issue, Shiva doesnt know what hes talking about. You were in the army? Big deal. A lot of people in the army dont know anything about anything else other then what they use directly. A few people here in college went to the army before comming here, and I know more then weapons and vehicles then they do.

Take an M1A2. First, in some areas, it has nearly a foot thick of classified material armor. And reactive plates on top of that. An old Russian RPG like they use in Afganistan would barely scrtach the paint.

You mentioned the cop killing the guy who stole the tank... yes we have all seen the video... but obveously you havnt seen it in a long time Shiva, because you got it all wrong what happened. The guy was completely unstopable. Theres a radio recording where an officer calls the armory asking if they have anything to stop the tank... the responce is "negative" Know how the tank got stopped? Because the guys own mistake. He drove over a big cement road divider diagonaly, and the tank got stuck on it. Cops got on top, used metal cutters to rip off the hatch, then fired inside.

Now, if the guy had a crew of gunners and not made a mistake, the only thing that would have stopped him would be another tank, a helicoptor gunship, or a very heavy anti tank weapon, like a Dragon Anti Tank rocket launcher.

You laugh when Vengar said 25 mph like it was too fast? Thats too slow. An M1A2 can do about 50 mph on smooth terrain, slower on rougher stuff, but a modern tank is not slow. And it has plenty of anti infanty weapons. 7.62mm gun, .50 cal gun, flame thrower, smoke bomb launcher....

The slits can be closed, and it has TONS of optical sensors. Infared, night vision, regular camara vision, everything. It even has air filters for poisonous gas, cooling systems if it gets too hot inside, and some radiation resistance.

Fact is, grenades, small arms, and molotof cocktails WONT stop a GOOD tank. It will stop an old under maintained Russion T 72, but NOT an American M1A2, A Brittish Challenger, or a German Leopard 2.

Simple logic will tell you this.... Think about it. Think if your the guy with a 180 IQ chosen out of tons of others to design a tank. Dont you think they design this multi million doillar machine to kill people armed with several hundered dollar rifles and molotof cocktails?

Only a moron would send tanks out alone, they need infanty and air support, and you dont drive tanks down narrow little streets. But, in open grassland or even the suburbs, tanks will murder infantry.

[Robert Plomp]

n.c.: CyberShy- I returned it and merely have a faint hope that it will be playable in the future.

In that case I'm sure you playing with a non-cd crack, aren't you ?

c'mon, be honest !

[n.c.]

So sad that real life gets in the way of full poster response.

GP- I agree that issue identification is useful. The question is who does it. While you had good motives, some tell others what their problem is in a derisive manner.

cassembler- I'm certain that is facinating, but went over my head.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by VetteroX
I totaly Agree with Vengar on the tank issue, Shiva doesnt know what hes talking about. You were in the army? Big deal. A lot of people in the army dont know anything about anything else other then what they use directly. A few people here in college went to the army before comming here, and I know more then weapons and vehicles then they do.

Well I sure seem to know more about it than Vengar or you. Just because some people your in college were in the army (what MOS btw?) and dont seem to know about weapons or vehicles ( gee, why do I get the feeling none of them were in a combat arms MOS) doesnt mean some people in the army do. As for what you say about the M1A2 bellow it shows you dont know much more than these people at all.

Originally posted by VetteroX
Take an M1A2. First, in some areas, it has nearly a foot thick of classified material armor. And reactive plates on top of that. An old Russian RPG like they use in Afganistan would barely scrtach the paint.

Lol sorry pal but the M1A2 (nor the M1A2sep) doesnt mount reactive plates. What it does mount is depleted uranium armor on top of the clobham (layers of composite armor of different types to give maximum protection. The only part "classified" is just what theclobham armor is made out of, how its made has been common knowledge since the 80's).

As for your RPG barely scratching the paint, it would most certainly destroy the road wheels and knock a track off. Also depending on the type of RPG ( russia made more than one type) a hit by one of the stronger versions on the rear deck could kill the engine on the M1 and M1A1 depending on the deflection of the shot. Far more than a scratch.

If your looking for something in the US army that uses reactive armor try the M60, M2 IFV. Reactive indeed

Originally posted by VetteroX
You mentioned the cop killing the guy who stole the tank... yes we have all seen the video... but obveously you havnt seen it in a long time Shiva, because you got it all wrong what happened. The guy was completely unstopable. Theres a radio recording where an officer calls the armory asking if they have anything to stop the tank... the responce is "negative" Know how the tank got stopped? Because the guys own mistake. He drove over a big cement road divider diagonaly, and the tank got stuck on it. Cops got on top, used metal cutters to rip off the hatch, then fired inside.

No the cop fired through the vision slot. They got into the tank later via cutting the hatch. The fact still remains that the guy was killed by a man with a pistol from the outside. Also what armory did they call? Or are you talking about the vehicle park where the tank came from? Hate to break it to you sunshine but most bases that I've been (including that one) on they dont store ammo anywhere near vehicles.

Originally posted by VetteroX
Now, if the guy had a crew of gunners and not made a mistake, the only thing that would have stopped him would be another tank, a helicoptor gunship, or a very heavy anti tank weapon, like a Dragon Anti Tank rocket launcher.

If the guy had a full crew of gunners and stay out in the open it would have been hard to kill but once again you show how not ever using a weapon system can give people the wrong idea of its ability. One guy armed with a M72 law or an AT-4 could have stopped it pretty quickly (or one of the RAW grenades). Also a heavy anti-tank weapon would be a TOW. A dragon is a two man portable AT system and is classified as a medium AT weapon.

Originally posted by VetteroX
You laugh when Vengar said 25 mph like it was too fast?

No I laugh a Vengar because he was whining about me bringing up a lone tank and then after whining he brings up a tank moving 25 mph.

Originally posted by VetteroX
Thats too slow. An M1A2 can do about 50 mph on smooth terrain, slower on rougher stuff, but a modern tank is not slow. And it has plenty of anti infanty weapons. 7.62mm gun, .50 cal gun, flame thrower, smoke bomb launcher....

It can do 65mph over smooth terrain.

The smoke grenade launchers are for cover while it moves if its been zero'ed in on, hardly an anti-infantry weapon. It doesnt have a flame thrower. Never has and I really am starting to wonder where your getting this crap from? Also you must have never been in a tank (or any other armored vehicle) in your life (Vengar sure hasnt) because you would know just how limited your vision is when buttoned up and how easy it is for footsoldiers to sneak up on you.

Originally posted by VetteroX
Fact is, grenades, small arms, and molotof cocktails WONT stop a GOOD tank. It will stop an old under maintained Russion T 72, but NOT an American M1A2, A Brittish Challenger, or a German Leopard 2.

Fact is grenades can detrack any tank and once that happens the crew is screwed because without help they are stuck. Its only a matter of time till they have to come out. As for a molotov they can do alot more damage than you think if they happen to land on the engines air intakes of a modern tank.

Originally posted by VetteroX
Simple logic will tell you this.... Think about it. Think if your the guy with a 180 IQ chosen out of tons of others to design a tank. Dont you think they design this multi million doillar machine to kill people armed with several hundered dollar rifles and molotof cocktails?

Simple logic is what it is, simple. Tanks are not designed for killing people on foot (although they are good at that). Tanks are designed for killing other tanks, AFVs,IFVs, and other vehicles. They are good at killing people on the ground as an side effect of thier design not the thrust of it. Thats why you have IFV's and infantry because tanks are far from the end all be all against people on foot that you or Vengar paint. Maybe you should take a hard look at how effective armor was of the russians in Afghanistan (and they did use the modern T80 there).

Originally posted by VetteroX
But, in open grassland or even the suburbs, tanks will murder infantry.

It will murder what it can see, if it cant see it then it cant kill it. As I said before a buttoned tank has limited vision at best and most of the grassland I've been around (I live on the great plains after all) is far from truly flat. You'd be suprised how easy it is to hide in them if you have to. You would also be suprised how easy it is to sneak up on a tank. I know, i've been there. You should try it before you talk as if you have some knowledge of it.

[Raleigh]

Actually ancient weapons do exist side by side with modern weapons.

The aztec and the spanish in the 16th century.

cannons and african tribes in the 19th century.

Helicopters and peasants with arrows (Vietnam war - the various ethnic tribes that special operations worked with were primitively armed until reequipped by american forces to combat VC.

It is not entirely unrealistic. If it is, the rules of CIV3 should automatically exchange old units for something else after certain periods of time or technological advancement.

Sadly, the designers probably will not fix this combat system, but FIX is definitely the correct word. I waited so long from Civ 2 for them to make progress and they really regressed. Sigh.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Shiva

No child, just some years in the infantry and working close with armor.

As I said the "right circumstances" so please dont try and distract the point with silly statements about phasers and such.

So what are the right circumstances? When should a non-gunpowder unit take out a tank unit?

You talked about the m2hb on the tank as if its some magic ward against infantry up to a mile away which it isnt. Might be nice in the desert but in most places people can easily find cover from it and once your close enough its useless which is the point.

So how are these forces to kill the tank? Do they transport in? You expect them to advance in cover close enough to destroy a tank outfit. How many people do you think we're talking about here? A roman legion versus a tank batallion. Do the math sparky.

The same goes for the main gun and any hull gun. At least thats the way its worked on the tanks i've been around.

So WHY is the gun on there? The Sherman carried a .50 cal and twin .30's. Most WW2 era tanks carried at least two, often three AI weapons. Do you think the gun is on there for what, show?

No one, doesnt make the fact that a few people could kill said tank any less valid does it? I guess that would be one of those "right cirumstances" and you wouldnt need a a phaser

You are rationalizing your entire argument - under the "right circumstances" nearly everything is possible. Is that your justification for defending the spearmen or three guys on your block theory of infantry anti-tank warfare?

No ,your the one lacking the facts. If your cant bring those a-p weapons to bear then your not going to kill anyone, no matter how many ar mounted on a vehicle or how far they can reach. Also heres a little fact for you.

Oh great, you took the time to get a fact.

A few years back someone took an M-60 for a little joyride (most people have seen the video of what happened). The driver was killed by a police officer putting his pistol in a vision slot and firing. The rounds bouncing around inside killed the man so I would guess that a guy with a pistol can kill off a tank.

Ooops. So much for your fact. I saw the god damn thing, the guy was rolling over EVERYTHING, until he straddled himself over a center median. Only THEN were the cops able to get on the tank, pry into it, and kill the driver.

So your three homeys in your hood argument depends on what... center medians?

Who mentioned a tank driving around at 25 miles an hour?

Are tanks mobile or immobile? Dork.

Ugh, no. No tank driver worth his salt is going to spin around in circles playing tag with people outside their tank. Another little fact is the turret can turn far far faster than you can spin the tank around if your dumb enough to try and out pivot a moving man.

Which tank? Many, MANY tanks do not have a turret traversal rate that exceeds their turn rate.

Also your hull mounted gun has the same type ofproblems with limited arc and depression as the turret weapons. Useless at close range.

Another total mistatement of fact. Useless at close range? No, I think not - a gun is just as useless if you attack me from behind, are you going to argue a gun is useless at close range? Do you even think before you write this nonsense?

Tell it to the russian tankers killed by teenagers armed with molotovs in Finland or the Germans tankers who got the same in Russia by "high schoolers". I bet if you look around you'll see a lot of this over the past 60 or so years in many many different places.

Nearly as apropos as getting beat by a concrete median. Who do you think is the larger group - tanks killed by infantry, or infantry killed by tanks? Why is the tank on the battlefied with all these inferiorities?

Have you seen the footage of tanks gunning Iraqi infantry? I have, it's gruesome. Maybe they should have sent some guys from your neighborhood after them.

As I said the tank is far from the end all be all you make it out to be and its mg's are far from the magic charms against people on foot you wish them to be.

History laughs at your ignorance. Have you even examined what the presence of armor does to a battlefield? No, because apparently your arguements all rely on your extensive history of digging latrines in whatever AF has low enough standard to let someone with nary a combat clue in. But your asinine arguments about three guys with a can of gas being effective anti-tank infantry is as ridiculous as arguing that an assault rifle is an effective AA gun because the NVA fired thousands of them at once and managed to damage some aircraft with them.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Shiva
Lol sorry pal but the M1A2 (nor the M1A2sep) doesnt mount reactive plates. What it does mount is depleted uranium armor on top of the clobham (layers of composite armor of different types to give maximum protection. The only part "classified" is just what theclobham armor is made out of, how its made has been common knowledge since the 80's).

It's chobham armor you feckless simpleton.

As for your RPG barely scratching the paint, it would most certainly destroy the road wheels and knock a track off.

I got 50 bucks that says an RPG cannot untrack an M1.

No I laugh a Vengar because he was whining about me bringing up a lone tank and then after whining he brings up a tank moving 25 mph.

When talking about air combat, do you assume the plane is moving? What a jacka$$.

Also you must have never been in a tank (or any other armored vehicle) in your life (Vengar sure hasnt) because you would know just how limited your vision is when buttoned up and how easy it is for footsoldiers to sneak up on you.

Why is the tank buttoned? It's easy to sneak up on the tank when the crew is asleep as well, does that make the Sandman an effective anti-tank weapon? What do you think the tank crew does, just sit inside it playing cards?

Fact is grenades can detrack any tank and once that happens the crew is screwed because without help they are stuck. Its only a matter of time till they have to come out. As for a molotov they can do alot more damage than you think if they happen to land on the engines air intakes of a modern tank.

Range of molotov - 15 feet.
Range of .50 cal - over 1 mile

You start with the molotov, I'll start with the .50 cal. We'll post the results here. Actually, I'll post the results here...

Simple logic is what it is, simple. Tanks are not designed for killing people on foot (although they are good at that). Tanks are designed for killing other tanks, AFVs,IFVs, and other vehicles.

You are so stupid it's incredible! Why do you think they designed the tank? To kill other tanks? There WERENT any other tanks! Let's build this tank thing in case someone else builds a tank thing...

Tanks were built to attack enemy entrenched lines - they provide massive offensive firepower and are heavily armored against counter fire. Have you actually SEEN a tank? Are you sure you aren't talking about something else, like maybe a bicycle, or an umbrella, or an espresso machine?

They are good at killing people on the ground as an side effect of thier design not the thrust of it. Thats why you have IFV's and infantry because tanks are far from the end all be all against people on foot that you or Vengar paint.

First, the names Venger fuçko, try to get it right just once. Second, do you (don't answer, it's rhetorical, it's obvious you don't) know anything about the development of the tank? It was developed to break the trench lines of WWI Europe. Please, pick up a book at your local library. Or ask your hospital attendant for one...

Maybe you should take a hard look at how effective armor was of the russians in Afghanistan (and they did use the modern T80 there).

Shiva, shut up before you lose all dignity. You have no knowledge of the war in Afghanistan, and you clearly have no knowledge of tank warfare there, or anywhere else. Allow me to quote from:

Click here you big dork

"Consequently, the newest tanks did not fight in Afghanistan and the T-64 was the most modern tank tested there"

It has a nice, independent view of the war in Afghanistan.

I know, i've been there. You should try it before you talk as if you have some knowledge of it.

Oh the IRONY of that statement!

Venger