Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:44 pm
I first noticed this when I made a 105mm field gun, then again while choosing a gun for a custom tank. Both the American 76mm and 90mm are more expensive than the 105mm. If cannon prices are based on their power, would this make the 105 the weaker of the 3?
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:23 am
It sounds like that is the way it works
You cannot just compare cannons by their calibre. With tank guns high velocity is needed for penetrating kinetic energy and flat trajectory. That energy comes from burning a lot of propellant and to do that a long barrel is needed. The length of the barrel is expressed in calibres so the german 75mm/L48 had a barrel 48x75mm=3.6metres long, a useful tank gun.
On the other hand the 75mm/L24 on the Pzkw Mk4 of the early war years could not develop the same velocity, and was intended to be for infantry support rather than fighting enemy tanks.
An artillery cannon does not need high velocity. It achieves its range by throwing its projectile on a higher trajectory, which makes aiming more difficult. When the projectile arrives at the target, it destroys with an explosion rather than by kinetic energy.
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:34 am
What he said.
Guns seem to be valued most for their armour penetration. Those 76 and 90 mm guns are specialist anti-tank weapons. The 105mm is primarily an artillery piece with a secondary anti-armour capability (probably some sort of HEAT round) that is not as effective at killing tanks.
OTOH, once the enemy tanks are knocked out and the guns start using HE rounds against opposing infantry, I'd expect the 105mm to be more valuable because it makes a bigger bang, but Firefight doesn't seem to rate a gun's anti-personnel capability as highly as penetration when it comes to calculating purchase credit cost.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:02 am
Yeah, I was thinking it had to be something like that. After playing a few games with the 105 it just doesn't have the anti-tank ability that the 90 has.