A long road

[Gloo]

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...

That's correct and I agree (even though 50 against 55, that makes a sensible difference but that's not the point)... as long as we're not talking about firing/reloading on the move! I, as a french can do with the way the game fails to reflect this crucial fact; that's not a problem, really. On the other hand, the side effect of using this fact as a motivation to modify and enhance the way the game system deals with moving and firing vehicles, seems to me a really interesting point. It's also a problem when it comes to find a unit to use as a template in order to make modifications in the OoBs. Regarding the "national pride" Palsmakrab was talking about, I find it funny to see some french units really weak and hard to play with (actually it's challenging to play French against any "major" nation -even against REDs too- between 1946 and 2020 :OD). As long as it's historically or technologically accurate, where's the problem? It's just a game! A strong army doesn't necessarily make a great player but a great player can take the best out of a really poor army.

...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

I'm not sure to understand precisely what you wanted to say but if you're talking about what will be the future of MBTs, I agree. I remember while playing SP3 a few years ago (still play it now and many others should do the same... that's very edifying to compare how this game plays compared to WinMBT or WaW) . I used to play with pairs of Leclerc MBTs and Tigre HAP/HAD. I spent some time to create these helos from scratch, using the data I had at hand. It was almost sci-fi at times but, except for the dates, I can see now it was pretty close to reality. No matter what each player decides to play with when it comes to hypothetical conflicts, or toys he uses, since the pleasure to play is present. However, here we're talking about existing materials and about how their specifications could be better reflected by the game system. Moreover I really think the movement points, and how this feature is used by the system, could be refined. After all, WinMBT has a very rich implementation of terrain natures and elevations; compared to that, the rather simple way it is treated in terms of movement points (all/half/nothing) is a bit "outdated". Don't you think?

Concerting the Leclerc in itself you have certainly seen that is size is 4 (...) you will be surprised by the advantage given by the size.

Yes, and so what? Any MBT has a big gun and therefore a HUGE advantage against a VBL. That's another fact of life. Do you suggest I should alter some characteristics of my VBL, in order to compensate this disadvantage, only because "that's unfair" ? Is this what you wanted to say? I don't get the point.

which was the first requisite in leclercs paln and not any aiming system), I' would be interested in an explanation of 'How can a tank 1,5 time larger have worst caracteristics on every point than the leclerc?'

Do you suffer from the "national pride syndrome" previously mentioned in any way? What are those "worst characteristics" you're talking about and who ever said the M1 "have worst characteristics on every point than the leclerc" ? Don't make me say what I've never said, please, or quote it clearly from my previous messages. Anyway, examples where "bigger's not better" can be found in every army of the world (remember Alexander and his elephants against Scipio's footmen... ), in every era of humanity. During the years preceding WW2, the french industry produced some of the best armored vehicles worldwide, in terms of size and armor thickness. In May of 1940, the week german panzers defeated those monsters. US Shermans did the same to Panthers and Pz V; "honeys" did the same with Pz III, and so on. Have you ever seen a B1 Bis tank next to a Pz III/IV and compared their characteristics? Can you provide any info about the superiority of the M1 Abrams over the Leclerc regarding their respective capabilities of firing while moving? Can you provide info on the superiority of its manual loading system over the automatic one used by the Leclerc, specially when moving? Can you show any example of a M1 Abrams able to drive cross-country at 40km/h, fire at a 60km/h moving target, hitting it then reloading and doing the same thing again? If so, I'll be happy to change my point of view. You see, I know Belgium is a very small country. Despite of that, they always produced the best machine guns, the best precision rifles and, additionally, the best chocolate and some of the best comics. I don't feel annoyed about such facts, nor am I annoyed knowing for certain that the Hughes AH-64 is a better attack helo than the Gazelle, or even the Eurocopter Tigre, but what annoys me is when I read that X is better than Y, while I know for certain that this is not true. I won't compare the Leclerc to the M1 regarding armor or munitions because I don't have enough data -and knowledge- about those points. I won't say french tankers are more experienced than US ones because I know that's not true. What I know from what I read at reliable sources is that a M1 loader can't do his job when his vehicle his riding at 36km/h cross country, while the auto-loader of the Leclerc has not the slightest problem in such case. Same thing, at the same speed, when it comes to fire accurately at a 60km/h moving target. Prove me I'm wrong here and I'll be happy to apologize.

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?

I'm informed about that but hey man, where in hell did you get I wanted anyone of the Camo crew to change anything in the OoBs?! I've never asked for such things! What I asked for (and that's the very first sentence of my very first message (thought you'd read this one, at least... !)) was on how to handle the M1 values as a guideline to make my own modifications. I just find it hard to do that because the M1 values used for movement seemed wrong to me. So I wanted to know if the data I have at hand, saying a M1 can't fire accurately at moving targets and reload while moving at more than 15km/h off road, are wrong or correct. If that's correct, then maybe something should be done to modify the system used to represent movement speed against firing capabilities (if the data are correct, that means almost ALL the MBTs values are completely wrong too!). Additionally I asked for a bit of info about how the numbers were chosen and some references to learn from. How can you change any number if you don't have any idea about how they interact with each others? One can make tests but that's a pure waste of time.

If you manage to fully justify yourself without getting angry...

Getting angry? I've been polite and asked a rather simple question. The answer I got was disappointing and harsh, as Don treated me -at first sight- as if I was just coming here to criticize.

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

M1A2 SEP Abrams (I compared this one with the Leclerc serie 2), Obat 12, unit n� 316 = FC: 55 Stab: 6.
The 35/4 you're talking about are the M1 Abrams values but I never mentioned it should compare to the Leclerc serie 2.

[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

[loktarr]

Gloo said:

... as long as we're not talking about firing/reloading on the move!

Here I don't understand: stabilization is the very figures that reflects fire on the move...

Do you suffer from the "national pride syndrome" previously mentioned in any way?

The little �... says that I'm precisly as french as you...As could my bad english

I'm not sure to understand precisely what you wanted to say but if you're talking about what will be the future of MBTs, I agree.

I was simply saying that 'Tout �a se sont des suppositions' oob's creator have done very 'long range' suppositions: if you want to die of heart disease, just look at the UK's MBT-law

Concerting the Leclerc in itself you have certainly seen that is size is 4 (...) you will be surprised by the advantage given by the size.

Yes, and so what?

You can easily check: Leclerc is 2,5 m height, the M2A1 SEP is 2,8 m height and not 2,5*1,5=3,75, so the oob creator decided to give this advantage which correspond to reality and again, at long range it give the leclerc in SPMBT a 'quasi' total superiority...

In May of 1940, the week german panzers defeated those monsters. US Shermans did the same to Panthers and Pz V; "honeys" did the same with Pz III, and so on. Have you ever seen a B1 Bis tank next to a Pz III/IV and compared their characteristics? Can you provide any info about the superiority of the M1 Abrams over the Leclerc regarding their respective capabilities of firing while moving?

Ironicaly this is because of this particular defeat, which was underlined after german's defeat in 45 (in order to give german
troops a good morale; as they always justified their defeat against Russia by the 'overwhelming odds', see US post-war reports over red army written by germans...), that French army is always seen as a big band of cowards... Everybody forget to say that the french has lost 300.000 deads in 4 weeks which is a lot for runners and that after two weeks the brave English (that's not ironical) where back home...

M1A2 SEP Abrams (I compared this one with the Leclerc serie 2), Obat 12, unit n� 316 = FC: 55 Stab: 6.
The 35/4 you're talking about are the M1 Abrams values but I never mentioned it should compare to the Leclerc serie 2.

Didn't you mention M1 with 105mm gun? There is some misunderstanding there... and again n�316 simply doesn't exist... So feel free to create an 'horizon 2010' Leclerc

After that let me had something: look at the anti-HEAT armor. Can you find a better one that the Leclerc?

The great problem here is the rof: Leclerc one is very hight but doesn't serve 'in game' because the final rof is determinated only by experience... A problem that simply isn't easily solved.
Also, you can see with a very quick comparison that the French oob is one of the most detailled in the game far beyond germany for instance...

Last point: I'm doing a campain about the French Foreign Legion Paratroops... can I hope you will be a play tester?

[cusbut]

Engagements on the move were expected to be taken at 1000mtrs and below, given that the scenario would be advance to contact or assault from an FUP, these were normally set piece battle runs starting at individual tank level and working up through troop, squadron and eventually battlegroup tests. Targets would be a mixture of static and moving targets and would have to be aquired engaged and destroyed in a specified time limit using APFSDS, HESH and COAX, a factor that may be significant here is the fact that challenger 2 uses 3 piece ammunition therefore the ability to load on the move becomes a lot easier. First round hits on static targets on the move at 1000mtrs would be 95% assured. Individual crews were required to get a 75% hit rate to progress on to higher tests, I would say the average hit rate would be 85% but there were crews that constantly achieved 100% hit rates. Any failures would require a specialised gunnery team to examine the vehicle and crews for faults. Most failures were due to bad maintenance or crew error.

[DRG]

Have you tried simulating those RL conditions with the game?

When I do I get similar results

Don

[cusbut]

No, but thats sound quite interesting, I will give it ago
: )

[loktarr]

DRG said:
When I do I get similar results

Yes it's very impressive! I tried it too. A very good work from the oobs creators!

[Gloo]

Here I don't understand: stabilization is the very figures that reflects fire on the move...

I think there's been misunderstanding here (two french trying to debate in English... that could make a fine theme for a Woody Allen movie! ). First, the values you present are used by M1A2 SEP and Leclerc 2 while I was focusing on M1 and Leclerc 1 (even though that's a detail). Second, are you really sure 1 point, up or down, in Stab isn't that important? To me the main thing affecting the fire on-the-move capabilities is the number of Mvmt. points. Or, as i said, it should be so, imho. Since a unit without such capabilities shouldn't have any fire left after a single move (or, at most, one shot; to simulate the necessity to go to a full stop in order to acquire its target and shoot at it accurately). That could be dependent based on terrain, of course (some can shoot while moving on roads or flat and open terrain to a top speed yet to determine; some could have more than one shot but assorted of a penalty to hit, and so on). But, the demonstration provided by Cusbut render all this great theories obsolete Anyway, Stab points (and other variables, like Exp.) act as a modifier to calculate how much shots are left after moving (since that was how it worked in SP2 with points above or below 4) but I really don't know how it is handled now by WinMBT. Did you make any test with static/moving units? I didn't, so I won't be so sure, but I guess that could make difference between a hit and a miss. Since the Camo crew don't provide formulas, it's near impossible to say for certain. Anyway, Fire control, Rate of fire, and movement points are values probably mixed together (to a point) in order to render how well a MBT is able to hit a target, while remaining static or moving. These are altered by the crew experience and over factors (vision, morale, and so on). All these things are parts of a big picture, far to complex to understand since we don't have the exact algorithms used in the game code. I mainly wanted to focus on how movement rate interacts with firing/reloading capabilities. My main concern was how this is implemented and how to create a "template unit", for a given period of time, in order to use it to calculate how the others could be rated. Right now, the only thing I can rely on is that there's a table giving the ratio between terrain and movement points, and the fact that 1mvmt point equals 3km/h. I wanted to learn more but, since Cusbut showed how wrong I was to believe there's important characteristics that could make huge differences on the battlefield between MBTs, there's no point in wasting time on that subject! Let's play the game the way it's been made, as we always did.

The little �... says that I'm precisely as french as you...As could my bad english

I noticed this detail (the accentuation, not your bad English (which is, now that you mention it, VERY bad, to be honest )). But I know of many french people who only swear by the "American way of life". Some even spend their holidays on horses back, dressed as cow-boys, pretending to live in the wild west... . Not quite sure such french citizens aren't a little bit biased towards American point of view

I was simply saying that 'Tout �a se sont des suppositions'

I got that point but, as I said previously, we were talking about M1 Abrams and Leclerc 1, which were produced more than 15 years ago! That's not prospective, that's real facts and vehicles that have been battle tested for quite a while!

You can easily check: Leclerc is 2,5 m height, the M2A1 SEP is 2,8 (...) at long range it give the leclerc in SPMBT a 'quasi' total superiority...

Did you conduct tests on this? I did a quick one. It seems to give the Leclerc a slight advantage in detection terms when remaining static but I didn't find much of an advantage relative to hitting rates. Are you sure that this "little" point added to the SEP in Stab, plus the 5 points in FC, don't compensate for these 2 little points in size... ? Not even to mention the Mvmt. advantage, since Mr. Sucbut demonstrated this one's only a myth

Ironicaly this is because of this particular defeat (...) the brave English (that's not ironical) where back home...

I hope there's no Tommies around... I won't comment further on that, since I don't want to initiate politics arguments here. I'd just like to say that I'm ashamed for those, still pretending the french army acted cowardly in 1940, and that I'm thankful to the Brits they had the will and courage to make an inexpugnable fortress of their islands during that very time frame... .

Didn't you mention M1 with 105mm gun?

Absolutely correct. And I maintain the M1 Abrams has a 105mm gun. Check it out by yourself.

and again n�316 simply doesn't exist...

Seems you have a problem using MobHack, or perhaps are you referring to a different version of the game? Unit 316: OBat12 USA, has the M1A2 SEP Abrams associated to this number. I'm positive about that. Then again, check it out.

After that let me had something: look at the anti-HEAT armor. Can you find a better one that the Leclerc?

Did the M1 Abrams had a better armor than the Leclerc first series? Good question and easy to verify ) Now, if you test a fire fight between Leclerc 1 and M1A1HA (or other MBTs (haven't tested with Challys since they were using special HEAT ammunitions)) you'll find this high anti HEAT protection is not so useful! A sabot impact from these guns to the front hull (even sometimes in the FT) and the Leclerc's out for good (one hit one kill, most of the time). You still have to maneuver to find hull down positions (dream it would be as easy as it is with Combat mission ).

The great problem here is the rof: Leclerc one is very hight but doesn't serve 'in game' because the final rof is determinated only by experience... A problem that simply isn't easily solved.

Yes, as far as I know, shots number is relying on Exp. (though it also depends on suppression level). But, as Cusbut said, since even a Chally 2 can fire accurately and reload while moving at 40km/h off roads, this value isn't a real issue, isn't it? Maybe this only remains for opfire calculation purpose? Does values above 5 give an even better penalty reduction? I really can't say.

Also, you can see with a very quick comparison that the French oob is one of the most detailed in the game far beyond Germany for instance...

The detail is pushed as far as giving the french scen designers the theoretical strategic possibility to incorporate pack mules, for towing tasks, up to 2020! But I'm still wondering why this glorious military asset isn't available between 1946 and 1948? Maybe this sophisticated unit was in a development period during this very time frame?

Last point: I'm doing a campain about the French Foreign Legion Paratroops... can I hope you will be a play tester?

I've never done such things (I only play tested some of my own scens) but I'll be happy to take part! Is this hypothetical or based on real operations like Kolwesi and such?

[Gloo]

...challenger 2 uses 3 piece ammunition therefore the ability to load on the move becomes a lot easier.

And safer... for sure! I thought the Chally 2 ammunitions were only 2 pieces. How does this translate in reloading times? I read the 2 pieces ammunition was, at times, even faster to load manually than a single piece would be with an auto-loader. Find this detail hard to believe since, on a Leclerc, this operation is said to be done between 3 and 5 seconds Some more precision please: are you affirmative the 95-100% rate you're talking about were achieved with the Chally 2 firing while moving at 40km/h, instead of decelerating then firing/reloading, then speeding up again? How many shots per minutes (average) were possible? Are you positive a M1 Abrams, during the period of 1980/1984, was probably capable of such prowess? Thanks for the info.