Re: [DS] No Capacity was: Points system (Merkavas)

I love a challenge. Let's see stats for an M1-A3 and I'll see how bad my

Merkava attempts look.

I can see two DS2 issues that impacts the Merkava implementation:

1. Some Merkava versions (all?) allow for removing about half of the 
main gun ammo in favor of stretchers or a dismount team (making the 
Merkava the perfect IFV).
2. The forward mounted engine helps minimize crew casualties on 
penetrating hits through the front armor. there are also some 
maintennance benefits (iirc), as the deck armor lifts off to allow for 
engine access - without pulling the turret too (this may have been a 
different tank, it's been a while); that's still a crane job, but the 
depot folks would rather not mess with a functioning turret and makes it

possible to replace engines at improvised repair points and maybe even 
truly in the field. [1]

In the first case, DS2 doesn't track ammo, the system simply isn't that 
detailed. In the real world ammo stowage is a major design problem, even

Hammer's Slammers MBTs have ammo issues. The Merkava shows that 45 120mm

rounds are equivalent in Capacity Points to one stand of infantry or a 
stretcher stand (hypothetical but reasonable unit type). The clamshell 
doors also allow for rapid field resupply and also don't show up in DS2.

In the second case vehicle crew casualties aren't tracked in DS2, 
another granularity issue. Likewise, resupply isn't an issue at the 
chosen scale (although a Merkava could reload in 3 turns instead of 9 if

my numbers are right for 10 minute turns). Even Striker doesn't address 
resupply ergonomics as a design factor. And ASL is vague about the 
number of people comprising a Crew counter.

So two major differences between the Merkava and other first line MBTs 
just don't show up in DS2, so the design system doesn't need to account 
for them and the system doesn't support them by design. I wouldn't be 
surprised if a DS2 Merkava doesn't wind up looking a whole lot like an 
M1, where the Striker Merkava would show a lot more difference.

[1] If the engine swap on a mobility-killed Merkava is the main repair, 
leaving the hole in the front armor... How big is that hole and how 
compromised is the armor protection. That's s serious advantage if a 
Merkava can take a round through the front slope, have the engine 
replaced and be back on operation an hour (it never take the book time 
in the field, the penetrator had to damage something not being swapped 
out) after a spare engine and a crane show up. A 120mm round is throwing

a ~50-75mm sabot, so the entry hole won't be THAT huge.

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Michael Llaneza wrote:
>
>> Yeah, the DS2 system needs some work, but so much that it needs to be

>> scrapped altogether.
>
>
> Yep :-/
>
>> Some of the real world examples depend on assumptions. One big one is

>> the Ontos, with its six recoiless rifles. That's way too many to fit 
>> on a small vehicle. Looked at another way, the Ontos has just one 
>> weapon system and maybe giving it a single SLAM is more accurate (my 
>> copy of DS2 is hiding right now or I'd run out the stats). The SLAM 
>> is much closer to how the Ontos was actually used, so it is more 
>> accurate to rate it that way.
>>
>> Any other vehicles that DS2 can't build ?
>
>
> Some examples:
>
> - Merkava
> - CV90120
> - Any vehicle which is protected against rifle fire all around but 
> doesn't have heavier protection to its front
> - Any gun/mortar system
>
> In fact pretty much no existing tank can be realistically represented 
> using the DS2 design system thanks to their armour distributions. 
> Where DS2 gives a size/3 vehicle armour 3/2/2 for front/sides/top, 
> real-world tanks have something more like 8/2/1 :-/
>
> 'Course, if we go into the SciFi realm we have stuff like the Posleen 
> vehicles, Renegade Legion's aerospace-capable grav tanks, mid-sized 
> mechs... <g>
>
> Later,
>
> Oerjan
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
>
> "Life is like a sewer.
>  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> -Hen3ry
>
>