IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  « < 14 15 16  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Military talks, 2010 +
Jet02
post 2 Feb 2017, 17:17
Post #376



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 10 September 2016
From: Malysia
Member No.: 13185



What would be the outcome of a real battle between a tank formation and a mobile artillery group? What are the factors that would influence the outcome, and what can the losing side do to turn the tables?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
(USA)Bruce
post 2 Feb 2017, 17:26
Post #377


The Forums American Hotshot Flyboy
Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 2412
Joined: 22 November 2012
From: The foundation of modern freedom and Libery;United States of America.
Member No.: 9500



QUOTE (Jet02 @ 2 Feb 2017, 19:17) *
What would be the outcome of a real battle between a tank formation and a mobile artillery group? What are the factors that would influence the outcome, and what can the losing side do to turn the tables?

Intel, terrain, what tanks or artillery are we talking about, training/human factor is something that will be mentioned but wont be a caculateable varraible.

So this is a very off question, first of all a force of tanks wont stick to a formation when the foe has artillery on their side, they'd split and try to find their spotters


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jet02
post 2 Feb 2017, 17:35
Post #378



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 10 September 2016
From: Malysia
Member No.: 13185



Let's just say ...
1.they started off as a formation.
2. Everything is modern(t-14, m1a2sep, etc.)
3. No backup for anyone

Anything else there is to consider?

This post has been edited by Jet02: 2 Feb 2017, 17:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 3 Feb 2017, 6:38
Post #379



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5839
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Flawed experimental premise because armies with modern hardware (such as America and Russia, given the tanks you specified) would always use combined arms where the advancing tanks operate in close coordination with IFVs carrying infantry, helicopters, aircraft, reconnaissance and artillery some tens of kilometres away. A single platoon of tanks derping about in contested territory completely on their own so they can play cat and mouse with a lone battery of self-propelled howitzers with no manoeuvre support whatsoever is something neither side would allow to happen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jet02
post 4 Feb 2017, 3:07
Post #380



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 10 September 2016
From: Malysia
Member No.: 13185



So does mobile artillery stand a chance against tanks? Or do they just get pwned like in most RTSes?

I was trying not to include other assets so this wouldn't become one of those generic "usa vs russia who wins?" threads you find on quora.

This post has been edited by Jet02: 4 Feb 2017, 3:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 4 Feb 2017, 7:02
Post #381



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5839
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Again, it depends on circumstances. If you put the tank platoon and the artillery battery in a few square kilometre bubble, chances are the tanks would eventually find and destroy them easily. Under these artificial circumstances, the artillery crews might try the videogame thing and engage the tanks with direct fire for dramatic effect but since they are not deliberately designed to do that, the tanks would destroy them with their superior mobility, optics and by virtue of the fact that a tank is meant to do exactly that. In a broader, more realistic setup, the artillery would stand more of a chance if it has spotters directing their fires at the tanks over longer distances. If the artillery has precision-guided shells like Copperhead, Excalibur, Krasnopol or other types of smart ammunition, possibly carrying guided submunitions, then the artillery may well win. At the end of the day, it depends on whether the artillery can exploit its range and if reconnaissance and shell technology allow for precision fire. But if the artillery has neither and the tanks are bound to discover the battery eventually, then they would probably win. Tanks are designed to destroy other tanks, so a slower, larger, top-heavy SPH, armoured as it may be, will be at a major disadvantage in a direct encounter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Star_Abraham
post 5 Feb 2017, 3:22
Post #382



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 1 August 2016
Member No.: 13091



You guys are pretty messed up for not admitting the best military name is Pvt. Parts


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jet02
post 17 Feb 2017, 11:39
Post #383



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 10 September 2016
From: Malysia
Member No.: 13185



Cost and manufacturing limitations aside...

How would an ace combat style floating fortress/airborne aircraft carrier do irl?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
{Lads}RikerZZZ
post 17 Feb 2017, 13:55
Post #384


Certified Shitposter
Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 2096
Joined: 30 December 2013
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 10248
I don't sense anything...



Probably terrible as it would be super easy to cripple and a super easy target to hit. Theres a reason submarines exist lol


--------------------

Many thanks to IvanMRM for drawing my epic signature.
Also, check out our ROTR - Fan group on Facebook.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
(USA)Bruce
post 17 Feb 2017, 19:51
Post #385


The Forums American Hotshot Flyboy
Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 2412
Joined: 22 November 2012
From: The foundation of modern freedom and Libery;United States of America.
Member No.: 9500



QUOTE (Jet02 @ 17 Feb 2017, 13:39) *
Cost and manufacturing limitations aside...

How would an ace combat style floating fortress/airborne aircraft carrier do irl?

That depends, does it have a few nuclear reactors inside that can power lazers strong enough to counter balistic anti air like S-400's? If so then still not so great because theres navy ships that use lazers and a lazer avenger design is being used if not widely.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
(USA)Bruce
post 18 Feb 2017, 19:12
Post #386


The Forums American Hotshot Flyboy
Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 2412
Joined: 22 November 2012
From: The foundation of modern freedom and Libery;United States of America.
Member No.: 9500



Unrelated question;
Nuclear naval vessels

How or why are they legal? IF theese things saw combat then doesnt anyone care about the radaiation leaks? Is there some sort of geneva convention rule that forces the opposing side to clean up?

Like In a scenerio where russia will have its only carrier upgraded to nuclear capabilities, what if it got sunk? The risks are staggering for the enviorment


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 18 Feb 2017, 21:26
Post #387



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5839
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Since when does any military care about the environmental hazards that would arise if their hardware is destroyed/used? Nuclear power was a game changer for naval forces, especially
submarines, which have since become a vital element of the nuclear trident for any country that has them and that development won't be wound back via some treaty anytime soon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NikCaputnic
post 18 Feb 2017, 21:43
Post #388



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 3 November 2015
From: Near to the Heart of my Motherland
Member No.: 12315



IMHO, I really don't think that after someone destroys a nuclear-powered naval vessel, anyone in the world will care about the environment, because people will mostly care about how to escape the consequence of such act (or how to survive through them).

Also, there already were accidents with nuclear-powered submarines in the past, and yet they still all together barely produced such amount of radiation leaks similar to what current industrial wastes do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ally
post Today, 18:57
Post #389



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 7 February 2017
From: Europe
Member No.: 14509
"Life is a horizontal fall" ★



And now for something completely different.





Makeshift Iraqi rocket (MLRS?) Humvee.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 14 15 16
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20 February 2017 - 19:22