My Personal OOBs for USA, UK, China, Russia, Australia, And Germany

[Turret]

Here's my personal OOBs for USA, Russia, China, UK, Germany, and Australia.

The Australia OOB contains a few completely fictional units, BTW, not personal speculation.

What's your feedback? (I know the fictional units in the Australia OOB are complete nonsense, not accurate simulations of anything in existence, BTW)

[Turret]

Also, here's my personal OOB for France, oob 6.

Note the equalization of turret and hull protection ratings:-though surely not exactly correct (you wouldn't know all of military disinformation, in general, a vehicle is armoured against a specific range of weapons), on an MBT, generally the front is immune to everything current.

Tell me what you think of my OOBs.

[Suhiir]

All I'm going to say is that there are usually good reasons for the units and the values assigned to them in the current OOBs.
Be VERY careful and POSITIVE about your facts before altering OOBs.

Does this mean there aren't errors or typos in some OOBs?
Hardly.
But for the most part they're pretty darn accurate.

[Turret]

To my mind, to perform its role, a tank (or armoured vehicle) would have the necessary armour to protect, and reply/ and deliver fire protected.

On MBT's the armour seems thickest on the front.

The weapons of potential adversarys of the time, along with other considerations, would need to be countered by the MBT's armour, and so from this, one can predict to a degree the armoured protection of the tanks of an era.

Also, if the enemy had vehicles protected from ones own weapons, then this may mean one can predict the power of the weapons needed to counter the vehicles in question, and not just.

That's what I suspect.

For instance, if a Leopard was produced with frontal protection of say, 40+, then not just RPG rounds of the era would be protected against, but possibly the 100 and 115mm guns of the time...

[scorpio_rocks]

The values assigned to weapons and armour in the game haven't been made up! They are carefully gleaned from real life data.

Whilst the occasional "what-if", conjectural or experimental vehicle can be fun; I think you will find most people prefer to play with historically accurate, realistically performing equipment.

p.s Your base assumption is probably pretty flawed - in my reading it seems the destructive power of weaponry normally outstrips / out develops the protection available.

[Turret]

Here's something. Have you ever wondered military deception?

If you had your way, would you fool potential adversarys and millions of innocent civilians as to the true specifications and capabilities of your military hardware?

I'm still working it out, there's so much to wonder...

[DRG]

Hmmmmmmmmm........ have they legalized pot in Australia ?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I don't doubt some deception exists, China's stealth fighter capability bore that out in the real world. However that being said we work with what's available. JANE's for instance was looked upon with "wonderment" in the context of where or how they got some of their info. But again that's out there for the public. I've posted from a government site in the main forum and yes the information is good and to a degree accurate, but the true capibilities will not be known as they will be classified beyond ANYONEs access out here at present. So I make your argument to a degree but we are limited to what access we are granted in researching all this data and trying to make it work within the context of this game and make it as accurate as possible.
I agree with others here to the need to be careful because unless you've got information better then most can get access too then I'd be looking over your shoulder and expect a knock on your door. Because then you'd be as guility as everyone else in how and what information you used to arrive at your conclusions. But mods are allowed of course but I would question the methodology involved here.

These type of things are classied for a reason, to interpolate the data attained, to counter it, copy it, make it yours better, development new systems and finally to determine if your secrets have been comprimised.


Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

We know the correct information for older equipment, it either becomes declassified or some one does tests on captured or procured equipment.
Stats are then modified accordingly if needed, though normally they were not far off in the first place.
Sure there is the odd error creeps in more due I am guessing to the volume of data & data entry problems than anything else.
Based on this one can say even the modern stuff is pretty close, minor tweaks when hard data is available.
They are based on experts evaluations not some guess.

Thousands of hours have been spent by people making sure as best as possible things are accurate.
Its fine if you want to play with a fictitious OOB but state clearly that is what it is & it bears no resemblance to real equipment.

As an example for years people from time to time would moan Russian tanks are to tough, T-72 T-80 etc.
Tests conducted on them have since proved the game was virtually spot on.

[Turret]

Is there any single source of the information in question? To my mind, there wouldn't be. There could even be unknowings spreading info from 'official' and 'de-classified' sources, and not just.

I wouldn't know myself, I adjust my OOBs from guess-timation, and a few things I knows.