tanks vs. mech infantry

[KiOwA_25]

Goes through armour-plating like a hot knife through butter, unless said armour happens to consist of depleted uranium itself.

BTW the spearman vs. tank debate has been done to death throughout Civilizations 1-4, and as long as there's a mathematical chance of the spearman beating the tank it will continue to rage. Firaxis have done a much better job of addressing the issue in Civilization 4, and if you still insist on ordering injured tanks into battle against weaker but full-health, dug-in units, I say you're asking to be taught a lesson in tactics.

 

[RockStar-holic]

Why can't there be technological age modifier incorporated in the battle engine. I'd envision it like this: X2 multiplier for the first age diference with plus one per each additional age of difference. Spearman (ancient age) vs. tank (industrial age) yields a net modoifer of X3.

 

[holodmer]

An M1-A1 firing up-to-date (1994) armor piercing ammunition can penetrate an estimated 750mm of armor at 2000 meters, while the dreaded 88 of WW2 fame (used on the Tiger) could only penetrate around 168mm at 2000 meters.

I was away for a few days so I didnt see the reply.
The point I was trying to submit was, it dosnt matter if your todays gun can go though 750mm or 170mm ... both would destroy a armored vehicle

some analogy: its like throwing a 1000 and 10000 pound bomb on a VW Bettle, you could argue your 10000p bomb did more damage ... but in the end it dosnt matter

If it takes my army one bomb to do the job it takes yours 1000 to do, my army is 1000 times as destructive as yours. If we fight with those bombs, you will have killed .1% of my unit in the time I've wiped yours out. Accuracy and range are simply not ignorable when looking at destructive power..

yeah I can see my analogy wasnt chosen as I intended and I ofcourse agree that if you need x less attackers to win your army could be considered y times as powerful

Plus for some reason you're acting like destroying IFVs will destroy a mechanized division, when the infantry in those IFVs actually provide most of it's strength. WW2 era tanks are extremely vulnerable to modern infantry, they have much worse ability to see (especially at night) and much less shielding of vital components, plus modern infantry carry weapons far more effective against tanks than WW2-era infantry.

Of course if the chance of a modern mech Inf. higher to survive and win such a figth, I just didnt agree with the statement "it would even be a contest" for above given reasons.
After I got me some more Information on how modern mech inf works and I have to admit, I would consider their chance higher then before now, however that dosnt mean I would agree with given statement about them being cannon fodder.
About your argument about the Infantry without their vehicles, I would consider them highly immobile, so in a modern mobile war, you could almost call them a loss.

 

[KiOwA_25]

Anybody missing TOW infantry? Specialist anti-tank killers for a fraction of the price of Mech. Infantry.

Hey, we've got SAM dudes to knock air units out of the sky, I'd figure some TOW people wouldn't go amiss.

 

[Ace4nyC]

nice thread i must admit it....but what realy annoys me is that a warrior with copper axe can take on a modern tank regardless how beat up it is ... is strange. (happend to me this morning) ....

What realy puzzles me, why would a spearmen charge on to cullom of tanks? that are moving 40 miles an hour and crushing everything on there path ? who would be that crazy ? seriously who ?