End date 2030, 100 years...

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

The reason I say that is that that would have SG WWII - MBT covering 100 years or, to put it another way, roughly the difference in time between the battle of Waterloo in 1815 and the Somme in 1916, or from the Somme to today.

Food for thought on many different levels...

Have things changed more or less? Has weapons and technology advanced more quickly or more slowly? What do you think?

My observations from different eras from the game:

The first period is probably 1930-1941. In this period, there are mostly infantry battles with armor of any kind being a very valuable asset (some AT guns are so crappy they have a hard time knocking out Panzer IIs). Some monsters are almost immune, for example KV-1 tanks.
The next one is from 1941-1945. In this period, AT guns are more effective and can reliably kill the most common tanks on the battlefield, however there are some tough opponents like the Kingtiger, the IS-2 etc. Infantry is better equipped to deal with enemy armor thanks to panzerfaust, bazooka etc.
Then we go to 1945-1959. Early Cold war period. The battle ranges increase, HEAT AT rounds become more effective but still, armor is relevant (although I do think that tanks of this period are are more vulnerable to KE projectiles than they actually were but anyway). The best AT weapons are frankly, other tanks.
Then it is 1960-1970. HEAT becomes widespread, ATGMs make their appearance in numbers. Tanks are extremely vulnerable and good tactics are a must. Towards the end of this period, the Soviets deploy the first tanks that are resistant to HEAT, but they arent exactly immune.
Then we have 1970-1991. Late COld war period. The latest tanks can resist HEAT very well and they are tough even for many KE projectiles. NATO has an edge there, thanks to more submunitions in artillery and thermal imaging, although SOviets have some goodies in the form of ERA and active protection vs guided projectiles. Grunts have it tough with LAWs/RPGs vs. modern tanks.
Lastly, 1991-end. This era is actually a continuation of the last one, with more guided projectiles. Tanks are a mixed bag since they are vulnerable to many things, but also quite resistant to others and the newest vehicles have insane turret armor. This period is mostly characterised by "hide, make a quick attack and hide again".

That is my 2 cents on how warfare has changed in the eyes of WinSPMBT. Any other observations are most welcome.

[Suhiir]

It's not just armor it's overall.

The ability to move, communicate, detect and hit opponents has been improving steadily since the advent of the railroad, telegraph, rifled barrel, and the observation balloon.

The Tactics of Napoleon were suicidal in the American Civil War, those of the Civil War suicidal in WW I, etc. etc. While the methods of the last war often work fine vs less technologically sophisticated opponents they're not viable vs top tier ones.

Along with this has come a steady downward spiral in the size of the "key" tactical unit. From the divisions of Napoleon to the brigades of WW I, to the regiments of WW II, to the battalions of Vietnam, to the companies of recent conflicts, to almost the platoon level.

[jivemi]

[quote=Firestorm;836404]

Originally Posted by jivemi

Depends. Before the 1840's, there was a definite dichotomy between a "musket" and a rifle because they both had their strengths and weaknesses. Rifles were more accurate but slow loading; you can just drop a musketball down the barrel and fire it, where an early rifle-ball had to fit so tightly for the rifling to actually work that you had to take your time to hammer it down the barrel. R. Lee Ermy explains it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ2JdkG2Yi4

The invention of the minie ball changed that, it removed almost all of a muzzle-loading rifle's disadvantages. By 1865 almost everyone had a "rifled musket" of some kind—and some of these were literally smooothbore muskets that had grooves cut in the barrels to turn them into rifles— so they just started calling anything muzzleloaded a "musket" to differentiate them from the next wave of technology: breech-loading and lever-action guns that were becoming more and more common.

Interestingly enough, I've seen sources from World War I refer to old guns that were still in limited military use (lever-action Winchesters, breach-loading Martini-Henrys) as "muskets". Might have once been a fairly generic term for obsolete service weapons, though I don't know for sure.

Thanks for the video and explication. So now I know that early rifles (Kentucky Long and British Baker of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe's Rifles fame) fired ball instead of conical bullets. Learn something new here all the time. Cheers!

[IronDuke99]

Early muzzle loading rifles needed some kind of patch to grip the rifling, this made them slow to load. Also early riflemen would often hand measure and load the powder (to aid accuracy) rather than use premade up cartridges (cartridge paper is a term we still use) hence they could never fully replace smooth bore muskets, until the invention of the expanding -minie- bullet in the 1850's.

In an emergency you could load a early muzzle loading rifle without the patch, but with nothing to grip the rifling you had no more accuracy than with a smooth bore Musket.

Smooth bore muskets, fired in a volly by massed soldiers, were accurate enough out to about 100 yards, but pretty well useless at much over 200 yards.

Rifled Muskets like the Minie and the Enfield pushed the effective range, again for volly fire, out to maximum of up to 400 yards and one of the things that meant was that infantry could now engage artillery at beyond canister range (anti personnel round, of lead balls packed in a tin, that turned a smooth bore field piece into a giant shotgun).