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

Michael Llaneza wrote:

 >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?)

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).

At least some Merkavas - certainly the Mk.3, not sure about the earlier
- 
can remove up to all but the ready rounds (5-6 rounds IIRC) in order to 
carry more infantry, though that's usually only done in rear areas or
for 
vehicles on medevac duties. However, in a small battle (the size DS2 
handles without too great difficulties <g>) 20-30 rounds go a fairly
long 
way... and the infantry carried can be vitally important too.

 >2. The forward mounted engine helps minimize crew casualties on
 >penetrating hits through the front armor.

Not very different in effect from eg. the Abrams, which has a honeycomb 
structure in its forward fuel tanks; that structure adds quite 
significantly to the armour protection provided by those fuel tanks
(both 
due to breaking up HEAT jets and long-rod penetrators and to reducing
the 
risk for ignition of the fuel). 'Course, an Abrams might be able move
away 
from the place even if it has a leaking fuel tank, while a Merkava might

have difficulties with a hole through its engine block :-/

 >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);

Huh? AFAIK you don't have to lift the turret off to swap the engine on
any 
modern Western tank. On tanks with large turret bustles you need to turn

the turret so the bustle gets out of the way, but that's it. (I have
seen 
some claims that WarPac tanks needed to remove the turret to service the

engine, but since at least some of those claims are attributable to a 
certain Mr. Suvorov and the most recent such claim I've seen are from
1983 
I'm not entirely certain about their accuracy...)

 >In the first case, DS2 doesn't track ammo, [...]

No, but DS2 *does* track carrying infantry - and the Merkavas have
enough 
room to carry some types of infantry (eg. artillery spotters) while 
carrying enough ammo for a shorter engagement.

 >In the second case vehicle crew casualties aren't tracked in DS2,
[...]

True. But as I pointed out above, the second difference isn't all that
big 
tactically whereas the first one is.

 >(although a Merkava could reload in 3 turns instead of 9 if my numbers
are
 >right for 10 minute turns).

Err... according to those Finnish tankers I've talked to, as well as 
reports from Chechnya, it takes roughly 45 minutes to reload a T-72. 
Although its basic load is smaller than that of a Merkava or Abrams its 
carousel autoloader is considerably harder to reload than the bustle
racks 
of western-style tanks, so I don't think it'll take Leopard 2 or Abrams 
significantly *more* than 45 minutes to reload their magazines. 45
minutes 
is 3 DS2 turns.

The Merkava is IIRC faster to reload than other western tanks, but more 
importantly it is *safer* to reload - you can do the entire reloading
under 
at least some armour protection, instead of having to climb outside the
tank.

 >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.

You're seriously meaning to say that the ability to carry infantry
doesn't 
show up in DS2...? (The other of your "major" differences doesn't show
up 
all that much in real life either, so I agree that DS2 doesn't have to 
account for that one <g>)

You also left out another difference between Merkavas and other MBTs
which 
can be important in a tactical battle - the Merkava's 60mm under-armour 
mortar. Very useful for supressing enemy infantry or lay your own smoke 
screens without having to call the batallion mortars.

 >I wouldn't be surprised if a DS2 Merkava doesn't wind up looking a
whole
 >lot like an M1,

They'd be quite similar, except that the Merkava should also be able to 
carry at least some types of infantry elements and should have a "light"

Artillery piece in addition to its main gun (or, preferrably, "very
light" 
Artillery - but that's one of Mike Elliott's house rules, not in the
rule
book itself). It should also be slightly smaller, though heavier, than
the 
Abrams in spite of carrying all this extra equipment :-/

 >[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.

A normal hole from an ATGM or APFSDS is up to a couple inches in
diameter. 
Depending on what type of armour you're talking about, the reduction in 
armour protection can be anything from "virtually none unless the shot
hits 
the hole" to "fairly significant".

 >A 120mm round is throwing a ~50-75mm sabot,

Confusion of terms here. The sabot is the discarding bit which fills out

the space between the sub-caliber penetrator and the inside of the
barrel; 
therefore a 120mm round has a sabot which is 120mm in diameter. IIRC
modern 
120mm long-rod penetrators are only about 40mm in diameter.

Looking forward to see you tackle the CV90120 and the CV90-AMOS 
(twin-barrel 120mm gun-mortar on a CV90 hull, known as SPP 120 in the 
Swedish Army) <g>

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."