again you are using whatever suits your arguments:
1A. no not really, tanks were designed in the way they did, just becouse there was NO K AMMUNITION at this time. You are insinuating you researched armor piercing ammo before i researched armor. read that twice or thrice before you answer and think about your life. Following your line of though, nothing technically prevents me researching tanks immune to K-ammo or even hovering railgun magic transformers of death and destruction.
1B. 100m, 1 of 3 goes in. how did you preserve energy to do that with copper on range of about 500m i have no idea. My hobby is marksmanship. From my calculations, if you want to do that, with standard issue rifle of this time, you would need ballistic coefficiency of more than 0.950. Modern 7.62x63 aka .30 govt ( .30-60 springfield ) has BC of around 0.46 to 0.5. I am using .408 CT and even with BC of above .940 it looses 2,700KJ (thousands of Jouls, 25%) of its energy on distance of 500m. I tried calculating this with 0.950, and its one of 12 at best getting inside, with armor of around 10mm.
2A. yes, it was almost immune to MGs that were deployed at this time.
There are written documents about crew members having issued helmets to protect them from led splatting on the armor. Amount of led is mostly irrelevant since its more elastic and soft metal than even pig iron. I literally want to see you doing this in real life. I dare you.
2B. I brought up armored cars since those are always winning one on one with tanks so yes i think its quite relevant. Those have ingame similar statistics to defence and tanks are one thing that can literally stop them in normal battlefield, but not in SR
3A Spalling works with artilery, grenades and explosives, not with led bullets of this era and not on the distances you would imagine. "spalling kills people", really dude? also trench foot and diarrhea and angry neighbors.
3B "something something spalling hes dead (TL;DR)" really, again, also trench foot and diarrhea. Find me historic sources where at this time people were firing MGs at tanks to cause spalling. Was this looking like those (attachment) by any chances? Operator of the gun killed by spalling? I read stories they, that couldnt reload because bullets were splashing inside the cannon, they died because they unlocked breach and someone was shooting inside the barrel. Not one mention about brave MG crew spalling tank to death.
4. i really honestly believe you were not inside real tank, even modern, not even once. Nor you served in army. Imagine everything at this time sucked equally, artillery, personal weapons, cars, trucks, ships, submarines, trains, zeppelins, aircrafts, livestock, washing powder... everything, including trench foot and diarrhea of course. You saw maybe trench mortars? You know why there are very little of those in museums now? because those EXPLODED while in use, remaining ones was scrapped and nobody was ever talking about those again. If no units gets debuffs from reliability, so shouldn't tanks, if you want to debuf those based on their reliability, then other units gets also debuffs from their efficiency. German units had ammunition problems, canadians were misequipped with useless trench shovels, romanian and french rifles shoot rifle bolt in shooter faces. Uk's trucks got their wheel axles broken pretty easily. Is that what you want? i only just started... Same rules for everyone, and things will get nasty.
Also semi-conscious crew? on the distance of those 1-4 miles they can be dead for what i care. Tanks are support, in this era, not assault units. Tanks were used because of their defensive qualities. Those were basically mobile shields for infantry, and means to get through barbed wires, nothing more really. Tanks were new, noone really knew how to fight those. there were no weapon to really damage tanks over long distances, nor there were any reasonable targets for those tanks,
that is why I proposed:
* lowering soft attack, (no time worthy targets)
* and increasing hard damage. (58mm canons, duh)
* soft defence higher than armored cars (around 30% more armor by thickness, 50% per weight)
* hard defence up ( i guess, pretty good against cars that have hard attack)
* indirect bombardment defence down ( spalling, explosives and artillery)
* lowering fuel capacity ( high fuel demand, less than 5 km, range of one hex )
if you want to argue by all means, but find better arguments that those above.
File comment: crew apparently, gets "spalled" by MGs
article-2445626-188B7A3700000578-401_634x475.jpg [ 107.55 KiB | Viewed 148 times ]