RE: Limits of technology

Actually the NTC site lists the MILES rating for the T-80 main gun as
2400M which is a number that most places list as the effective range,
although the maximum range is 4500M.  Using other listings for a number
for the M256 120mm smoothbore of the M1A2, the effective range using
APFSDS is 3500M while HEAT is only 2000M.  HEAT has been found to be
less effective against reactive armor which equipped the T-72's that
OPFOR used.

NTC currently only fields the T-80 for OPFOR, the T-72 considered
obsolete. 

Also from the NTC site ( http://www.irwin.army.mil/ )are listed other
OPFOR weapons:

AT-8 ATGM with 3750M range
AT-5 ATGM with 4000M range
AT-3 ATGM with 3000M range

the ATGM's list that the launcher must remain stationary for 8-10
seconds when firing for guidance.

Some other sites mention that the AT-5 uses the same MILES stats as the
TOW.  I would assume that the AT-5B with the tandem warhead would be
rated with similar numbers as the TOW-2 or 2A with tandem warheads. 
Rated penetration for tandem warheads is 925mm of RHA (roughly three
feet).	Obviously new composite armors are a tougher material vs. HEAT,
but still a couple of feet of penetration is not insignificant.  I don't
know if the AT-5 has been uprated to top-attack like the TOW-2B.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Atkinson [mailto:johnmatkinson@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 11:12 AM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: Limits of technology
> 
<<SNIP>>
> NTC is an artificial game where the rules are heavily
> slanted in OPFOR's favor.  The reason is that if
> things were played 'real world' style, OPFOR wouldn't
> stand a hope in hell.  SAM traps??  Since the '60s the
> Air Force has put a lot of effort into SEAD, and they
> ain't half bad at it.  Not as good as artillery is
> (exposed rockets like on most WarPac SAM launchers
> don't react well to fragments of red-hot metal), but
> not bad either.  All OPFOR weapons have exaggerated
> ranges, hit percentages, and ability to kill what they
> hit.	All US equipment is underrated in all three
> categories.  I mean really, does anyone REALISTICALLY
> think that a T-72 can kill an M-1A1 frontally at 3km? 
> Or that the M-1A1's max effective range vs. T-72
> frontally is 2000m?  I know some guys would beg to
> differ based on the Greatest Ever Desert Firepower
> Demonstration.  Or the performance of the AT-5??? 
> This is the OPFOR longrange (4-5km) killer, yet In
> Real Life, the M-1 series is more or less immune to
> ATGMs except across the rear or coming from the top.
> 
> John
>