VBL-AT Anti Tank car
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
VBL-AT Anti Tank car
The french VBL-AT anti tank unit is in my opinion a bit unbalanced. Because of is very low Soft Attack and Mediodicre surface defence, it is best suited in a suprotive role or for nation with low availability of militairy goods. This unit is basicly a car with armor plating and a TOW on top of ithe roof. However, compared to it much more heavy counter parts a bit to slow. Instead of a maximum speed of 95km/u, I would recommend increasing speed by +/-10% to 105km/u. Also due to its simplicity, I think the construction time should be lowered by 20% to make it more appealing to be used as a cost effective expandible anti tank weapon.
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
The speed should not be increased, that is how fast it goes;
Don't mean to jump all over you, just wanted to share how I came up with the values that are there. Please feel free to add more details if you still feel that the values should be changed.
The soft attack of all Anti Tank units is lower, A TOW is not a weapon to use against soft targets. It's only other weapon on the VBL-AT version is a coaxial 7.62mm MG. You also have less crew than on an VBL-RC unit, where the crew could get out and support soft target attacks with their own weapons.PERFORMANCE:
Speed 59 mph (95 km/h)
Range
basic 373 mi (600 km)
max fuel 497 mi (800 km)
Obstacle
fording 2 ft 11 in (0.90 m)
gradient 50%
side slope 30%
As for the buld time, as a hard target it is one of the faster building units. Anything with that level of armor is going to take a while to build.Anti-tank
Primary
ATGM 1 x MILAN ATGM launcher
Ammo load 6 rounds
Secondary
Coaxial 1 x 7.62-mm MG on ring mount
Ammo load 3,000 rounds
Elevation -10/+50 deg
Based on that description I also don't see a need to increase its defence values.The VBL is an armored light truck with a sloped glacis and a boxy crew compartment. The front-mounted Peugeot XD 3T diesel engine is identical to a common commercially available powerplant. All glazing is bulletproof, the tires are run-flat type and the welded-steel body tapers in toward the center above the wheel line.
Don't mean to jump all over you, just wanted to share how I came up with the values that are there. Please feel free to add more details if you still feel that the values should be changed.
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
I agree with the speed, offensive strength and defencive strength.
The only problem I'm concened with is that the unit is simply not intresting to be build. For such basic unit I feel the unit is somehow to expansive. It cost effectiveness should somehow be improved, I think the invesestment cost should be lowered slightly. Compared to other Anti Tank units which have much better stats, its missing that small edge which would make it intresting to be build instead of other units. THe only edge I currently can think of it fast production time, low respources cost and low maintenance cost. The only thing I'm missing is a low construction cost. I therefore suggest decreasing its cost by 20%
Just wondering, how did the developers determin the cost/price of a unit. Get real data on this usue could be quite complicated.
The only problem I'm concened with is that the unit is simply not intresting to be build. For such basic unit I feel the unit is somehow to expansive. It cost effectiveness should somehow be improved, I think the invesestment cost should be lowered slightly. Compared to other Anti Tank units which have much better stats, its missing that small edge which would make it intresting to be build instead of other units. THe only edge I currently can think of it fast production time, low respources cost and low maintenance cost. The only thing I'm missing is a low construction cost. I therefore suggest decreasing its cost by 20%
Just wondering, how did the developers determin the cost/price of a unit. Get real data on this usue could be quite complicated.
Last edited by Sebastiaan on Sep 03 2005, edited 1 time in total.
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
The cost was often a guess based on the few real numbers we could find. I looked at the cost of this unit but it is already one of cheapest AT systems available. I looked at what else the France players can chose from and only the Milan Leg AT unit is cheaper. The other units are much more and have better stats.
Sorry, but I think we got this unit right. I do enjoy the debate however
If you have data that shows a different price... heck, any price!... I'd be interested to see the data.
Sorry, but I think we got this unit right. I do enjoy the debate however
If you have data that shows a different price... heck, any price!... I'd be interested to see the data.
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
Yes you can overstrength but only to +/- 60 % of default size. This effectivly means that a unit with a low strength (like artilery) will continue to have a low strength value. You can take a very cheap unit and oversize it 10x to compensate for its lack of power.
Going back at the subject, why not improve the ir base strength value (allong with construction cost) of this unit to compensate for their lack of compat effectiveness.
Going back at the subject, why not improve the ir base strength value (allong with construction cost) of this unit to compensate for their lack of compat effectiveness.
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
I don't understand what difference this would make, the cost and build time are "per squad". Increasing the strength will make the unit more expensive and take longer (unit strength 50 with build time of 0.5 days and cost of 1M in the spreadsheet will take 25 days and 50M to build)
I still don't see anything wrong with this unit. You are correct that it is weaker, that is what it is IRL...
I still don't see anything wrong with this unit. You are correct that it is weaker, that is what it is IRL...
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
Sorry about the nagging, I'm just looking for options.
What about scanning distance? beeing in a car allows all personal (except the driver) to look out for the enemy activity (with binoculars). Compaired to those armored cars (in which only the commander has a good view), this allows for a much better spotting strength meabeee we can improve this unit by givving it a better spotting strength in range of effectiveness
What about scanning distance? beeing in a car allows all personal (except the driver) to look out for the enemy activity (with binoculars). Compaired to those armored cars (in which only the commander has a good view), this allows for a much better spotting strength meabeee we can improve this unit by givving it a better spotting strength in range of effectiveness
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
We don't really have a set standard for spotting strengths and ranges of land units. When researching ships at least I could look up their radar system and get some values, with the land forces it was much more difficult.
That said, we have all the AT units at a spotting strength of 150, and I don't see that one would be better at seeing really stealthy units over another. Ranges are 20-30 km which we took as reasonable for none recon units.
Still not sure why you're so fixed on improving the stats of this unit...
And I don't mind the nagging, at least all the knowledge I've learned about military units is good for something I enjoy discussing the equipment, sorry if I'm being difficult
That said, we have all the AT units at a spotting strength of 150, and I don't see that one would be better at seeing really stealthy units over another. Ranges are 20-30 km which we took as reasonable for none recon units.
Still not sure why you're so fixed on improving the stats of this unit...
And I don't mind the nagging, at least all the knowledge I've learned about military units is good for something I enjoy discussing the equipment, sorry if I'm being difficult
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
Do you know why most commader sit ontop of their vehical when not in combat? That's because outsite of their protective shell, they have a much better way of scouting the environment. especialy when you are in a city, you need the ability to look at a wide angle to detect for any enemy activity. Thats why tanks/recons are so ineffective in cities because they can only scan for enemy activity through their periscope. The personal in car would not have this problem and therefore campared to anti tank units with higher armor, a better urban surviveability (or close range defense).
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Wow, you're really determined to see an increase in the stats of this unit
Well on this one I didn't have an answer on my own. Your argument seems logical, but, having no field experience, I figured I'd start asking some questions. George and I discussed it and (while he does not have field experience either ) we both feel that the difference in armor is more of a factor in determining the close defense value. The spotting range is already 30km where some of the heavier/more armored units only get 20km so we do already simulate "poping the hatch" to look around.
The only example I can think of is Canadian troops in Afghanistan where killed in an Iltus Jeep by a homemade roadside bomb where Americans in a Stryker in Iraq where hit by something bigger and the Stryker, while damaged, was still able to drive back to base with no one seriously injured.
Well on this one I didn't have an answer on my own. Your argument seems logical, but, having no field experience, I figured I'd start asking some questions. George and I discussed it and (while he does not have field experience either ) we both feel that the difference in armor is more of a factor in determining the close defense value. The spotting range is already 30km where some of the heavier/more armored units only get 20km so we do already simulate "poping the hatch" to look around.
The only example I can think of is Canadian troops in Afghanistan where killed in an Iltus Jeep by a homemade roadside bomb where Americans in a Stryker in Iraq where hit by something bigger and the Stryker, while damaged, was still able to drive back to base with no one seriously injured.
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
Don't know if you can count a road side bomb as a urban attack, sound more like a engenering attack to me, since it basicly is a road mine
One thing I still do not understand is why the speed of this vehical is so slow. It's basicaly just a missle system on top of a jeep, so why can't it travel the speed of a regular jeep?
One thing I still do not understand is why the speed of this vehical is so slow. It's basicaly just a missle system on top of a jeep, so why can't it travel the speed of a regular jeep?
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22099
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
For an answer to this, you would have contact someone at Parhard. We didn't make up the speed, that is how fast a VBL travels...Sebastiaan wrote:One thing I still do not understand is why the speed of this vehical is so slow.
http://www.nasog.net/datasheets/armour/ ... ut_Car.htm
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands