Modern Warfare Mod brings World in Conflict from the Cold War into the Modern Age. It also ups the ante on realism and authenticity in every role – Infantry, Armor, Support and Air, while trying our best to keep everything relatively balanced for fun and interesting gameplay.
Python Ammo Management for Main Battle Tanks
Post a comment
Description
Offensive ability SABOT/APFSDS rounds can be fired as fast as main cannon's fire rate, however you have an ammo stack of 24 rounds. Once they are deleted, offensive ability will no longer work until reload is completed.
This is great :D
Loving this in Trident F10, but I think the M829A3 is a little bit underpowered...
Also, the M1A2 has a manual loader, not an autoloader :S
The US Army is currently evaluating Meggit auto-loader, so we put that in for python automation code :P
Hmm... manual loader is faster and doesn't jam though.
i agree, that has always been an overlooked point about western tanks in general and the abrams in particular. the manual loader with a skilled crew gives a western tank approximately double the rate of fire of a t90 or type 98
an autoloader would actually cripple the abrams imo, unless we were forced to cut back on personnel for whatever reason
The fire-rate on Meggit auto-loader is 12 rnds/min.
That is one 120mm round per 5 seconds.
I guess experienced crew could beat that, but 12rpm is pretty competitive for an auto-loader.
Mdswebmaster.com
Mdswebmaster.com
Mdswebmaster.com
"The Soviet/Russian AK-130 (twin barrel 130 mm), using autoloading, can achieve up to 40 rounds per gun per minute.[2] The Italian 127 mm/5" Compact has similar performance. Another example is the USS Des Moines 8-inch guns, which can fire 10 rounds per minute when other guns of the same caliber can only do 2 rounds per minute"
"A modern autoloader for a 120–125 mm caliber weapon in good condition can achieve about 10–12 rounds per minute. This rating may or may not include the time required to bring the gun to the appropriate loading angle (if required) and then bringing it back up to firing angle after loading. This is fast, but not quite as fast as a human loader, for which claims of 15 rounds per minute (at least for a short time) are made." Meggit does not have to bring the gun to a appropriate loading angle, as demonstrated by the video to a degree.
"For weapons above 127 mm, the increased weight of the round pushes this issue decisively in favor of the autoloader"
This is very important, as the majority of NATO ARE currently studying plans to introduce a 140mm main gun. These shells weigh in excess of 40kg (~90lbs). These are two piece ammo, and is out of the realm of speedy reloading by Humans. You want a Example? M109A6 vs Pzh 2000 or K9 Thunder.
M109A6 has a semi automatic loading cycle, but still relies on two humans to load the gun. Its 155mm are two piece shells. 2-3rpm sustained. Pzh 2000 or K9, well, lets just say it is about 4x that, at 9-11rpm sustained.
Your the one here making baseless claims, back them the **** up, or get the **** out of town. I dont see how Infantry ATGMs, CAS Aircraft, and Long Range AGMs matter in a argument regarding TANK AUTOLOADERS.
Autoloaders have been able to sustain matching speeds as Humans since the early 1980s, when the T-80 came into service.
The video shows how fast the Meggit can reload a 120mm main gun. Tis nearly as fast as a Human in his first minute, minute and a half (12rpm vs ~15rpm), but the issue ONCE AGAIN (Capitalizing for lack of knowledge on how to bold and italicize on this forum) is that Meggit can sustain this rate of fire over as long as it has ammo.
You go and speed lift 60lb boxes for a while, tell me how long you can sustain 15 per minute before you attack my comparison.
Speed-lifting 60 lbs boxes for a while does get tiresome no matter how well trained you are, that is a fact. And is also proven by the fact that the military is researching auto-loading solutions for Abrams tanks.
And as for modern warfare of "speedy battles" involving ah-64, ATGM's etc, I don't believe that comparison makes any sense. Generally you always get a first-shot, first-kill against your threats and your loader had already loaded your gun anyway to begin with.
It takes time for tank crew to spot/locate and track ATGM positions that are well hidden inside hardened positions and covers -- it is not like playing Quake3 multiplayer. And if you have missed your first shot, auto-loader or manual-loader, the other side has already traded your shot with an ATGM response, so you're SOL. The better way to defend yourself from ATGM threat is to equip the tank with best defensive systems, such as active protection system, laser warning receiver, smoke grenades, etc. The last thing you need to defend yourself from incoming ATGM threat is a human loading your gun in panic, no matter how well trained he is.
And as for CAS aircraft and enemy helicopters.. it's not the job of MBT to fight them off, the 120mm cannon is not an AA gun, though it can be used to shoot at slow moving aircraft like helos, with quite low success rate unless you have the proper anti-aircraft munition. Bottom line, if enemy aircraft is operating in your armor theater, the question to be asked is how did they manage to pierce through Air Force CAP screen and where are the mobile SAMs. The auto-loader vs. human loader has no effect in such instance.
thats not what i was talking about. i was commenting on the fact that most modern tank combat will be taking place very quickly, and that in that face of so many modern antitank weapons platforms and combined armes operations, tank on tank combat will be very rare. grizzly's claims that the autoloader makes an impact are assuming that the battle lasts long enough for the human loader to tire and the autoloader's average speed to make an effect.
@grizzley
then you obviously didnt read what i wrote very carefully before blowing up all over it kid. (as i recall, you did not cite any sources either) i said that most modern tank combat will be very short-lived, BEFORE the autoloader's advantage over the human is able to take effect.
Dude this is silly.
It makes no difference whether we call it auto-loader or manual loader. If I rename the code to say "Gunner" instead of "Meggit Auto-Loader", you wouldn't be writing wall of text bitching about Abrams getting downgraded.
Besides, it's simple to simulate auto-loading in a game from code standpoint than a manual loader. With manual loader sim, you need to slow down the rate of fire as engagement progresses further. We don't have this problem to worry about with auto loaders.
/Dan
just giving some input regarding the improvements that are made to this mod. besides, if you look at my posts, i am hardly the one writing "walls of text". i actually had not heard about the meggitt before now, so i assumed it would be like the older sov-bloc carousel's.
that last response was directed solely to grizzley as his last reply was out of order
Most modern Tank Combat has lasted over the course of hours, not minutes. (Except in Gulf War II, where tank warfare was near nonexistent. ODS is really the only source we have to go off of, where the 2 major tank battles i recall took place over the course of a day each(Respectively, taking place during a Sandstorm and in Kuwait City))
In fact, every wargame that NATO practiced during the Cold War in which major (And i mean major) tank battles were predicted to be involved were predicted to last over the course of 30+ minutes.
That was also predicted to be high intensity, wherein every shot counted, as did every second. An autoloader is beneficial, seeing as the US Military, the main one who threw a mega fit when Crews were reduced from 5 to 4 in the M26 (Or was it the 48?) to M60, is seriously looking into further reducing the crew to 3 and replacing the loader with an Autoloader. This will reduce Maintenance Costs, payrolls, etc., as well as all firerate related items.
You cited two battles from long ago, thats it. I pointed out the many things wrong with yours and Heaneys assumptions as too autoloader. The first thing you should've done, even before you ******* posted, was look up the ******* "Meggit Autoloader". You would've saved so damned much trouble.
Furthermore, you showed your keen lack of knowledge in regards to tanks by first off comparing Western equipment to Eastern. Eastern Tanks do not have Turret Bustles, while Western Tanks do not have the room for Carousels.
Heck, for a little fun fact for you: When the Ukrainians (Designers of the T-64 and T-80, the only two half decent tanks to come out of the USSR) added a Turret bustle to the T-84 Yatagan, and replaced the 125mm gun with a 120mm, they turned a tank that was at best an equal to a bare bones M1A1 into a tank that can quite well compete with the M1A2. Two changes, and the tanks ability increased tenfold.
look kid, i have better thing to do with my time than clutter up mw's page trying to explain the finer points of armoured combat
(like how 30+ min for tank battles on the scale of kursk is actually a very short time) to an arrogant 15 year old. btw, people have been comparing eastern equiptment to western for decades, they are fair comparisons. if you really feel that strongly about this discussion or feel that you have something to teach me, feel free to pm me.
(oh, and i did look up meggitt defense systems, maybe if you did, you could spell it correctly :))
Funny how you instantly assume im 15, and how you assume your better than me.
This is enough for me to assume your an arrogant ******* retard.
Honestly, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cant so much as capitalize words?
M1a2 Abrams Overated T80 ftw
LOL
The M1A2 SEP is out of the T-80s league. The T-80 can't look at the Abrams.
if they made the Abrams realistic in combat, 125mm shells would bounce, then the Abrams would take the enemy out before they even saw it... hopefully the m1a3 doesnt get an auto loader thats 100 more parts that might break down. no modern tank today can penetrate an abrams front or side armour, only the rear, no abrams has been lost to an enemy tank irl, only 3 were destroyed by enemy fire, the rest were destroyed by friendly fire, usually having to destroy it cause it was bogged down, those 3 abrams that were destroyed took more beating then any other modern tank to date. all crew survived.
actually more like 19 abrams were destroyed in GW1. its side armour can be penetrated by most main battle tanks if they use the right ammo. the Iraqis were using steel-core rounds, which are very ineffective vs. chobhoam armour. Russian DU rounds are more than capable of killing the abrams from under 2000m. the round is even more important than the size of the gun. 125mm DU rounds would not be as prone to "bounce" off a tank's armour.
as to your post about toughness, the challenger 2 has taken more of a beating in combat and survived to fight the next day. it is marginally slower than the abrams though
I love the abrams, it is probably my favorite tank, but it is not invincible.