A long road

[Gloo]

Hi to you all.

I'm stumbling over a dilemma while trying to modify the french OoB. As a template unit for adjusting some MBTs values I decided to use the M1 Abrams. Here's my question: knowing this vehicle is able to shoot accurately while moving at 15km per hour max., I can see the Speed value used by the game is fairly accurate: 25; wich translates to 10 to 12 hexes per turn, off road. This represents roughly between 12 and 14,4 km per hour and that's pretty correct (while it does fail to represent the fact that the vehicle must decelerate (or even go to a full stop? Any "real life" M1 gunner here?) in order to reload between shots... ). Taking these values into account, what should be the number used to represent the capacities of an AMX Leclerc? This vehicle is able to shoot accurately (and reload) while moving at 40km per hour. Accordingly, the values used in the game sould not be 23 (how the creator of this OoB got this number remains a complete mystery to me!) but 66 (33 hexes per turn while driving off road)! I know the weight of the vehicle should be a factor here but a M1 weighs 60t and a Leclerc 56t... .
What do you think?

[Gloo]

As a related topic, could the creator of these OoBs entries (Abrams and Leclerc), give a small overview of the references and bibliography he worked with? I'm wondering why the Leclerc 2 is affected 50 in Fire control and a Stabiliser of 5, while the Abrams M1A2 SEP gets 55 and 6? Which datas where used here? As long as theses values (Speed, FC and RF) are used when firing while moving, it's very important and that really makes a huge difference between a kill and a miss (whith equally experienced crews).
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to start a polemical thread here! I just find it hard to start modifying anything as long as I don't know which references were used. I'm sure many users encounter the same problems: some data are obviously wrong but how to handle any changes if there are no basis to refer to?

[PlasmaKrab]

***GAME SCALE ALERT!!!***

First a reminder: one movement point in the game (i.e. one hex per turn, one speed point) equals roughly 3 (three) km/h or 2 mph.
Take that into account when calculating game speeds. 20+ is a decent road speed for a modern tanks, not factoring in overdrives that can take any of them (not only the Leclerc) up to 100km/h, at great risks for the drive train and the road.


Also keep in mind that not all OOBs have been created by the same people, so for two different countries, you may have two totally different sets of standards. Not to mention people's national pride kicking in from time to time.

Now that you mention it, the Leclerc and M1A2 should have broadly the same values. Maybe the Leclerc's FCS is slightly more sophisticated (at least the Serie 2+, but I wouldn't bet on it), but it is also reported to be largely less user-friendly, so chances are you could give it a slightly lower value for the same crew experience.

[Gloo]

First a reminder: one movement point in the game (i.e. one hex per turn, one speed point) equals roughly 3 (three) km/h or 2 mph. Take that into account when calculating game speeds.

Thanks a lot for the info but, how do you think I calculated the speed previously? It seemed so unbelievable to see a M1 firing and reloading while driving at 36km/h off road that I thought the ancient data used by SP2 (1 turn=150-180') was still used here! This gave a M1 12-14km/h off road capabilities, which was almost acceptable (considering this unit can fire while moving at 15km/h). I was wrong and it's actually 60 seconds per turn!

20 is a decent road speed for a modern tanks...

I agree but it means 10 for off road capabilities and that's WAY to much for moving AND firing, except for the AMX Leclerc.

Also keep in mind that not all OOBs have been created by the same people, so for two different countries, you may have two totally different sets of standards.

Do you mean that the data aren't checked against each other between the different OoBs? I don't think that's possible!

Not to mention people's national pride kicking in from time to time.

I see what you mean but there's no national pride here, just raw and unquestionable data, widely accepted and verified (even though there's always a margin between the values presented). The M1 is unable to fire and reload while driving off road at 36km/h. The Leclerc is -as far as I know, so don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong- the only MBT worldwide able to do this. Not even to mention the accuracy factor. No pride or "I have the biggest one" syndrome here.

Now that you mention it, the Leclerc and M1A2 should have broadly the same values.

I'm talking about the M1 which, according to the game was brought into action in 1980, and the Leclerc first generation, which was first issued to a real unit (the 6-12 RC, the one who's been recently sent to South Lebanon with the FINUL) in July 1994 (not in January 1992 as the game says), not the M1A2! The M1A2 is using a 120mm gun while the M1 used the 105mm M68A1, based on the English L7 tube, the same that was equipping the M60... .

Maybe the Leclerc's FCS is slightly more sophisticated (at least the Series 2 , but I wouldn't bet on it)...

When it comes to moving and firing simultaneously -and that's my only concern here- I don't thinks there's even the slightest point to compare the two vehicles. The General Dynamics FC system of the latest versions of M1A2 are probably as good as the one equipping the Leclerc but they remain with manually loaded tubes. I suppose that's a concern in the US army staff. Maybe that's the kind of reasons leading them to evaluate the possibilities of guided shells, as the MRM CE... while this kind of systems were previously despised for almost 40 years.

but it is also reported to be largely less user-friendly, so chances are you could give it a slightly lower value for the same crew experience.

That's an interesting info; could you quote your source for that please? I would rather have increased the experience value for the US crews (a priori they are more battle tested than any french MBT crew) so it seems more than fair to do that. But regarding the "largely reported less user-friendly" aspect of the vehicle I haven't heard about that until now.

[DRG]

Interesting.

You continue to ask for sources yet provide none of your own but I started to lose interest when you claimed

...."Accordingly, the values used in the game sould not be 23 (how the creator of this OoB got this number remains a complete mystery to me!) but 66 "

. Maybe you could "give a small overview of the references and bibliography " you are working with to help us. Or, rather than demanding we provide sources perhaps it would have been far more constructive to simply provide the information and what values YOU consider fair for this vehicle and we'll look into the issue. If the FC and RF ratings are too low I will be happy to adjust them.

Don

[loktarr]

->It seems to me that the Leclerc as a very fair representation in SPMBT: the figure 50/5 or 55/6 (Fire Control/Stabilizer) are not very diff�rent and so hard to precisely evalue that it just seem to me that you shouldn't take account of them, knowing they are 'in game' after... 2008... so you will NEVER find sources about it because the M1A2 SEP described simply isn't in service.,


->Concerting the Leclerc in itself you have certainly seen that is size is 4, it 2 less than the M1 SEP(6), making it very hard to hit. (the average value for MBT's is 5). You should test a duel: you will be surprised by the advantage given by the size. (which was the first requisite in leclercs paln and not any aiming system), I'would be interrested in an explanation of 'How can a tank 1,5 time larger have worst caracteristics on every point than the leclerc?'

->Try to understand that the moderator are frequently asked to change anybody's caract�ristics. If you don't have any precise source yourself how can you think they will accept your remarks?

->If you manage to fully justify yourself without getting angry, the experiments show that you will also be fully satisfied (about France, I complained two year ago that a fully professional army shouldn't have 70 in exp rating, you can now see it's 75).

->It seems we didn't get the same game, the early M1 you discribe as a 35/4 rating.
Hope that helps

[Gloo]

Interesting.

Great! I hope this isn't just irony, right?

You continue to ask for sources yet provide none of your own but I started to lose interest when you claimed...

You are supposed to be -or represent- the person who created these OoBs so it seemed fair that I, as an humble user, should be the one to ask for info! Apparently you think it's normal that I provide my sources first... strange attitude but I'll comply anyway. I assume though that, as I am able to read yours (the only one you provided is an english web site), using your language, you'll be able to read mines, using my language. I assume you -or whoever created these OoBs- hasn't used only US sources as references? No, I'm sure they wouldn't have done so.

Regarding this sentence: "the values used in the game sould not be 23 (...) but 66", I thought you had understood why I mistakenly reported these numbers (I'm sure you did). I thought the game turn represented 150-180 seconds instead of 60. So, according to the enlightenment you brought to me previously, my corrected assertion is that the movement numbers used could be: 25/5 for a M1 Abrams (this represents 24x3= 75km/h on roads and 5x3=15km/h off roads (its real firing/reloading capabilities while moving, as far as I know, until you provide your sources saying it can do that at 36km/h). Note that I'm not only pointing at the M1 MBT but at most of the other nations MBTs using manual loaders (RED vehicles are a bit trickier to deal with... ). Accordingly, the corrected values for a Leclerc in 1994 could be: 24/16 (72km/h on roads and 50km/h off roads). These values could be -imho- what the game should represent IF it was possible to alter the hard coded variables. But I'm pretty sure that, as you've been able to provide a reverse gear for armored vehicles, this implementation isn't impossible for your team to code. I'm sure -as you proved to be a clever man- you'll see that there's nothing more in this suggestion than a claim for a better gameplay and not pure criticism... . I don't want to use the term "realism" as I don't see this games series as a simulation but as games, nothing more than that. I like it to be as close as reality though. Especially when this claim can enhance the gameplay (that's what you did for years when you decided to start the Camo project, right?).

Maybe you could "give a small overview of the references and bibliography " you are working with to help us.

Funny how you answer my questions with questions and my requests with the same from me... / Anyway, here are some of the documents you ask for (I'm sure you know most -if not all- of these already... ). Note that the links pointing to http://minilien.com/ <=check here first if you please) are not a sneaky way to spread viruses or other malicious code! It's a fine french online utility to redirect and transform long web address, into a small and easily useable link.

About the AMX Leclerc:
Websites:
* The official port-folio from GIAT industries entitled "Leclerc Fiche technique" (technical specs.) in PDF format: http://minilien.com/?z5ZNOGqQec
* Another issue from GIAT entitled "Syst�me Leclerc": http://minilien.com/?cb5roQEyb3.
* Just for propaganda, a small video clip (420ko Real Media): http://minilien.com/?ZvWF0GmAIE
* The pages from a commercial society (IXARM) working for the French department of defense at upgrading and refitting vehicles and weapon systems http://minilien.com/?j8gS4ml74b
* The web site of the French ministry of defense presenting the Leclerc http://minilien.com/?lCZ7fsV6Rt
* An excellent page at Freepedia: http://fr.freepedia.org/Char_Leclerc.html
* Same find of stuff at Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_Leclerc
And so on...

Books/Magazines:
* St�phane Ferrard: Engins blind�s fran�ais - Editions E.P.A..
* Tankograd: Sp�cial Leclerc - Editions Azimut.
* RAIDS hors-s�rie n�3 et 5: Les chars de combat en action - Editions Histoire & Collection.
* Steel masters n�: 4 - 48 - 57.
And so on...

Some english speaking pages:
* A fine page at Army guide which is one of the very rare english sites giving an overview of its capabilities of firing on the move (though, strangely, he doesn't give the numbers he obviously knows of): http://minilien.com/?zmI1toVrYP
* A search result from Army technology: http://minilien.com/?i10L6VJaJm (curiously, there's no info about the capacities of firing while moving cross country, except the fact is quoted. Maybe it's detailed on a further page but I haven't noticed it /).
* A page of the free encyclopaedia AllExperts: http://minilien.com/?kDdBoq0Ag1
* Some interesting details about auto-loaders: http://minilien.com/?lnCXc9yimD
* For those avid of detailed photographs on almost every French military armored vehicles, here's the best worldwide source ever put online, Chars de France: http://minilien.com/?O7eSbC2J1d
And so on...

On these documents you can see the specifications of the Leclerc are as follow: 70-75km/h on roads, 50-55km/h off roads, and the capacity of firing and reloading while moving at 40-50km/h cross country. I think there's a justification here at my claim to modify the way the game represents each MBT's abilities of firing while moving off roads. But I may be wrong?

About the M1 Abrams:
Websites:
* The Military Analysis Network provides a fine page about the M1 series but remains strangely vague about its real capabilities of firing in cross country ("It has day/night fire on the move capability" (sic) "...its ability to fire reliably when moving at speed over rough ground..." (which speed? "Rough ground", does that means battered and jerky or flat on sand, stony?) http://www.fas.org/man/index.html
* The M1 Abrams page at Open encyclopedia: http://open-encyclopedia.com/
* The well known Fabio Prado site: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html
* The Wiki page about the Abrams series gives great infos about the M1 MBTs in operations and the effectiveness of its frontal armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (interesting data during real operations casualties).
And so on...

Books/Magazines:
* Yves Debays: M1 Abrams -Editions Histoire & Collection (I think this one's also available in english).
* Steel masters n�: 45 - 54.
And so on...

All these references give roughly 30mph in cross country (48km/h) which turns in 16hexes/t in game terms. All of the english speaking sources are well documented but there's no mention of the real capabilities of the system when it comes to speak about fire on the move (max. speed while firing/reloading; against moving or static targets?)! I don't know and wonder why, as this vehicle has been issued more than 25 years from now.

Or, rather than demanding we provide sources perhaps it would have been far more constructive to simply provide the information and what values YOU consider fair for this vehicle and we'll look into the issue. If the FC and RF ratings are too low I will be happy to adjust them.

I really don't know what would be "fair", specially for others! I gave you what values I think should reflect a bit more of what's the reality "I know of" (25/5 for a M1 and 24/16 for a Leclerc) but I'm aware that these values are impossible to use with the game system features actually delivered. I don't know if you would even consider altering the way the game calculates the movements, on and off roads, but maybe there's something to do with any other algorithm internally used? Something simpler than introducing an all new algorithm? Regarding the FC and RF values, I'm not sure it would do any good here. Modifying these numbers also alter the way a unit behaves when firing from a full stop, or on roads, right? Lowering these for a M1 would be at its disadvantage in any situation else than moving off roads and that's not what's intended.
Cheers.

[cusbut]

Hi
just dropping in my 2 pennies worth, overall I think the worlds leading MBTS are pretty much the same, the differences are not enough to give one side a huge advantage in a conflict, it will be the crews that do that. Now I was a Challenger 2 commander for many years and having carried out engagements on the move at speeds up to 40kph on battle runs and across the canadian prairie with great success and thats without an autoloader. British MBT training revolves mainly around manouver warfare so nearly all live firing is carried out on the move, it is essential that the tank is capable of doing this effectively. I am sure that if Challenger 2 is capable of achieving this sort of routine success then the M1 in all its technical glory will be too.

[Gloo]

...overall I think the worlds leading MBTS are pretty much the same...

Well, that solve all the problems then!

...it will be the crews that do that.

That's a crucial element, for sure.

Now I was a Challenger 2 commander for many years and having carried out engagements on the move at speeds up to 40kph on battle runs and across the canadian prairie with great success and thats without an autoloader...

I see, thanks for your testimony. What can I say against that? Not much, indeed. It's just opposite to everything I've ever read on the subject but, well, if you say so. I can't argue against a real life experience with my second hand statements. I've never been in a MBT moving cross country at 40km/h and tasked to load 120mm shells (I served in the air forces ). I guess the debate is over and I must surrender. So be it.

[DRG]

cusbut said:<snip>Now I was a Challenger 2 commander for many years and having carried out engagements on the move at speeds up to 40kph on battle runs and across the canadian prairie with great success and thats without an autoloader. <snip>

What would have been the range you were firing at targets be typically during training at Suffield and what would be the average range expected by the training staff for first shot hits while moving at speed?

Don