RE: Tank ROF, was Re: DS2 Balance

> >Well, first of all, there IS NO WWII tank even remotely comparable to
an
> M1A2. :)
>
> Heh, yeah. I ment comparable in how they were used. MBT like. 
Although,
> now that I think about it, this might be like comparing Basic FCS with
> Superior...
> Still, I am getting the impression that the exponental increase in ROF
of
> MBT main guns is not something borne out by real life.
>
> <snip info>

If we assume basic FC is the MK1 eyeball or something similar and that
superior FC is thermal imaging, auto lock on target, enemy recognition,
IFF
protocols and other similar whiz bang tech stuff we should not be asking
about the reload rate of the main gun. Still important but more of a
determining factor is the acquire, track and kill cycle.  With basic FC
this
will take quite a bit longer than the superior FC which is doing a good
chunk of the work for you.  Consider that the WWII tanks had to stop to
get
any kind of chance to hit their target while the Abrams can motor along
at
70mph taking pot shots at over a mile away with a decent to fair chance
of a
hit is a big difference.  Increasing the rate of fire seems more than
reasonable and balances out the high vs low tech quite nicely.	YMMV.

							That Chuk Guy