No we haven't but it probably needs to be done. The problem is that armor has value against targets other than armor. WWII tanks usually carried more HE than AP. So a formulation based primarily on the armor/antiarmor value of tanks is really not correctly measuring their combat power or how they were used over half the time (i.e. firing at things other than other tanks). Things like height-length are not as critical if the tank is being used against infantry.One of my concerns with the new OLI system is that it over stresses the armor/antiarmor capability of tanks at the expense of measuring its "real combat value" (however that is actually measured). Probably what was really needed (and I think I discussed in my article) was an armor/antiarmor module seperate from the rest of the combat that would resolve the armor battle (if there was one) and then the armor could be factored in the with rest of the weapons for their overall combat power. This two-step process was one that never appealed to Trevor Dupuy.
But in general, there needed to be a third generation of the QJM/TNDM and we never got around to doing that.
[This message has been edited by Chris Lawrence (edited 07-10-2011).]
The Dupuy Institute Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
posted 07-10-2011 12:46 PM
