A real tank Hp system.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

What about crew optics? In german military you get trained as infantry to shoot at the tank with your mg3 to blind him (make him go mad by the sound and disable important optics), while the AT soldier takes aim... i imagine you can pretty much render a tank useless if you ambush it with some machine guns and can disable the important optics

It would make this game unplayable:

1, Vehicles are spotted by AI kilometres away.

2, AI is sniper

The result? Two soldiers kill your tank from 2km, and you dont even have a chance to spot them.

But is this tactic useful in RL? I dont have experiences concerning western tanks, but I know soviet ones very well. I dont think that the MG sound is audible in a tank, because the engine sound is extremely loud, and of course there are other sources of loud noises inside. The optics are bulletproof. You cant crack them wiht small arms. You need at least a 12.7mm MG.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

As much as I like "alternative anti tank tactics" (I've heard about snipers, but not machinegunners), I don't think the idea is feasible. For an AI I'm pretty sure the tank is nothing but a point in space with config values like cost and threat. It's probably completely unaware of "parts". An AI doesn't use AT against the tracks, he aims for the entity. He doesn't even appear to know how to attack it (at least well), like "should I wait until it gets past me so I can nail him from behind"?

Should he be aware in general of these things? Questionable due performance, most likely. I'm only guessing here, but it sounds right :p

Another thing is "what is optics and sensors"? Stuff like this would have to be split up into several parts, the gui for it would get a bit too occupied, at least for a game like this which isn't a "specialized tank sim". Would be similar with air units. The loss of individual systems (vacuum, eletrical, pitot static etc) belongs in a flight sim, not a war sim.

If everything was super easy to make, and had no impact on performance - then sure, go all the way as far as I'm concerned. But they aren't free, and cost a lot in development time. But then also the hard parts - no action game chopper flight controls. And we could say bye bye to most of the players.

Edit: If anything, a tank could have additional "hit parts" for us to experiment with. Should be very easy to detect hits to these parts and apply some gradual overlay or ppeffect to the optics, on a mission basis. Maybe something for ACE?

Edited October 23, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[KCIV 10]

something to keep in mind is. THE AI SUCK no matter how many mods or how much ZEUS you use. there not going to match a human. (see the PS)

This in Multiplayer would be AMAZING!

I think that they should make arma have a flightsim + Tanksim in it. maybe as a mod or something. cuz it seems to me EVERYONE can fly its like COD EVERYONE is a sniper. just because they can be. make the flying more sim like? and you set a standard. like with ace sniping. Not everyone can just pick it up and shoot. takes practice (specially with windage). why not apply the same thing to flying? or tanks?

The thing is.. Should and Could are two different things. Although i want pretty complex sim flying and tanks. i don't think it will happen due to costs and time. BUT I think what you presented here is a good solid step in that direction. or if anything good conversation :)

ps ZUES is Gods gift to arma. I never play without it.

Just my 2 cents...

[max power 21]

What about crew optics? In german military you get trained as infantry to shoot at the tank with your mg3 to blind him (make him go mad by the sound and disable important optics), while the AT soldier takes aim... i imagine you can pretty much render a tank useless if you ambush it with some machine guns and can disable the important optics...

or fire from other large calibre guns, not able to penetrate mainarmor but surely enough to do some impression on optics and other systems mounted outside

I'd love to see some damage to the softer external equipment, like the commander's machine gun, external missile systems, optics, etc. The problem with the optics stuff is that the tank crew has backup periscopes and stuff. You'd have to balance the ability to blind the tank with the crew's ability to compensate for it.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Reminds me of...

Well, yeah, man, you see, like, all the tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours, so all we can hope to do is, like, scare 'em away, y'know. This gun is an ordinary 76mm but we add this piece of pipe onto it, and the Krauts think, like, maybe it's a 90mm. We got our own ammunition, it's filled with paint. When we fire it, it makes... pretty pictures. Scares the hell outta people! We have a loudspeaker here, and when we go into battle we play music, very loud. It kind of... calms us down.

:D

[nkenny 1051]

As much as I like "alternative anti tank tactics" (I've heard about snipers, but not machinegunners), I don't think the idea is feasible. For an AI I'm pretty sure the tank is nothing but a point in space with config values like cost and threat. It's probably completely unaware of "parts". An AI doesn't use AT against the tracks, he aims for the entity. He doesn't even appear to know how to attack it (at least well), like "should I wait until it gets past me so I can nail him from behind"?

Optical systems are surprisingly fragile and horrendously expensive. A man with an Ag-3 who knows where to shoot can deal damage for millions against a tank. If he would be fooldhardy enough and LUCKY enough to remain undetected/unshot by the tank that is; those sensors aren't just for show.

As the Russians learned the hard way in Grozny. Automatics are a potent antitank weapon because it keep the surrounding infantry occupied--while your AT people can make their strike.

From an implementation in Arma2 point of view I think the chances are minescule at best. The AI needs to get the fundamentals right before adopting circustantial techniques. From what we've seen so far-- thats still a way off.

-k

[kireta21 13]

Well, we were trained to that as well, though this supposed to work against Shilkas and apc's, we were never told it can work against MBT's, so I'm not sure.

Still it wouldn't work in ArmA2 without totally changed damage system. Two words: Splash Damage. Area damage ignore obstacles that IRL would block shrapnels or shockwave. Tank gets hit by RPG in side of turret - splash damage destroy optics. Like in ArmA where hitting frontal turret with RPG forced crew to leave tank. Why? Because splash damage disabled tracks.

Edited October 24, 2010 by boota

[x3kj 1247]

It would make this game unplayable:

1, Vehicles are spotted by AI kilometres away.

2, AI is sniper

The result? Two soldiers kill your tank from 2km, and you dont even have a chance to spot them.

[...] The optics are bulletproof. You cant crack them wiht small arms. You need at least a 12.7mm MG.

If the AI can give headshots (or even more accurate, not all optics are that big after all) at 2Km i'd say the AI shooting ability is a bit over the top.

I doubt you can hit tank optics at 2Km while the tank is moving. If it doesn't move and you would hit, wouldn't it be realistic then? ;)

Seriously, if the AI would be that good, you could propably tell them to not shoot at tanks with sniperrifles. If they spot a tank at that distance they should mark it or at least give HQ the position because there are surely better ways to disable the tank if it's still that far ;)

You don't have to crack the glass. If they get damaged ( i doubt a rifle round just bounces off without effect) enough you can hardly use them anymore. If i remember the pictures/vids of Sniper shots at US Humvees with ballistic glass - the areas around the impacts where almost head-sized.

And i don't think you can simply exchange the glass infront of thermal/target optics without leaving the tank.

Simple see-throughs like for the driver (don't know the english name) will work propably, not sure how much replacements (if at all) they usually have however.

I dont think that the MG sound is audible in a tank, because the engine sound is extremely loud, and of course there are other sources of loud noises inside.

I would really like to know how that sounds. I'm think it overrules the engine sound (not tank weapons of course). Should be pretty annoying with a high rof^^.

For AI - just enable MG gunners (if there are no better targets around) to shoot at the tank as a whole. At some point it may hit optics. Or it just annoys the (human) crew.

Still it wouldn't work in ArmA2 without totally changed damage system.

Hm. Something to think about. I don't see how splashdamage from an RPG should be able to hurt "hard parts" of a MBT tho. So that should perhaps be changed then as well.

As we are daydreaming already (i think) - a little randomization in AI crew behaviour would be good. Jumping out as soon as the vehicle is imobilized is way too predictable. Shoot track/tire and you can easily disable any AI vehicle. Judging by situation is impossible so randomization seems the only way to "simulate" crew morale,self-preservation-instincts, etc

Edited October 24, 2010 by Fennek

[archbishop lazarus 24]

OK, that 2km range was exaggerated, but the AI shoots very well, you cant deny that. :)

Anyway, on soviet built tanks, its extremely hard to hit the optics, so you have very-very low chance of damaging them. Of course you can hit the periscopes, but the crew will replace them in less than 30 seconds. (unlike lots of western vehicles :) )

I would really like to know how that sounds. I'm think it overrules the engine sound (not tank weapons of course). Should be pretty annoying with a high rof^^.

Trust me. I have driven a few types (T-55, MTLBu, Shilka, BMP-1) and they are so loud inside, even at idle, that its IMPOSSIBLE to communicate without the helmets. I have such experience. So no way that the MG sound is annoying.

Concerning splash damage: HEAT rounds doesnt have. But, larger HE shells, for example a 152mm one can easily destroy (not damage!) the optics and some external components.

[dm 9]

Of course you can hit the periscopes, but the crew will replace them in less than 30 seconds.

In battle, when they have more important things to deal with...

Because they carry lots and lots of spares...

Because removing a periscope to replace it doesnt leave a huge hole through which nasty things can occur...

(unlike lots of western vehicles)

Yes yes, Russia strong! We get it.

Last I checked, many of the periscopes in most western vehicles are also "quick change". Especially the important ones like driver, commanders primary and (depending on the vehicle) gunner/turret primary...

[archbishop lazarus 24]

DM!

I dont want to insult you, but have you ever seen a real tank? :confused:

Anyway, I read not so long ago, that the brits had problems with spare periscopes on some of their vehicles I dont remember which one though.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I have driven a few types (T-55, MTLBu, Shilka, BMP-1) and they are so loud inside, even at idle, that its IMPOSSIBLE to communicate without the helmets. I have such experience. So no way that the MG sound is annoying.

Was you ever shot at by MG? I don't know, but a closed up steel can where sound waves can't escape, sounds like a good resonance chamber to me. I mean, if somebody is being teched that as a tactics, there must be something to it?

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Well, you are right if we shoot a lightly armored vehicle, like a BMP, or a BTR. But if we shoot a tank, it isnt really true. You have to take the thickness into account. For example, take a 10mm steel plate, and hit it hard with a hammer. It will be a quite loud bang. Next, take a 80mm plate. (the side of most soviet tanks) It will be much less louder, and maybe the hammer's handle will break off. I dont think that the MG shots would annoy the crew. And if you hit the glacis plate, which is usually quite sloped, the bullets will simply ricochet.

I also written earlier that in a tank, not only the engine which makes loud noises. Coax MG, main gun, the servos of the stabilizer, cooling systems, etc.

Another problem, that a tank isnt a good resonance chamber: Spall liners, antiradiation liners, and hundreds of various parts, all will reduce the acoustic waves.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Archbishop Lazarus

[kireta21 13]

Concerning splash damage: HEAT rounds doesnt have. But, larger HE shells, for example a 152mm one can easily destroy (not damage!) the optics and some external components.

I'm talking about ArmA2 splash damage, indirecthit=xxx; like in mentioned situation (common in ArmA), when hitting hard part of tank with relatively weak weapon (like PG-7) (turret or hull) disables soft parts (engine or tracks) because indirecthitrange=xxx ignores objects.

If optics were made enough weak to be disabled by MG fire, splash damage would kill them almost every time turret or frontal hull is hit

HE rounds in ArmA2 (arty, mortars, Grad) are super-effective against tanks anyway.

[dm 9]

I dont want to insult you, but have you ever seen a real tank? :confused:

Taught to drive one, rode around in lots of others. Somewhat of an AFV specialist (both as a hobby and for work)...

Next, take a 80mm plate. (the side of most soviet tanks) It will be much less louder, and maybe the hammer's handle will break off.

Again with the Russia strong nonsense, "I hit a Russian tank so it broke my hammer!" Will your hammer break if you hit a western tank? :j:

I dunno what crappy hammers you're using, but if the handle breaks when you hit something, you should get a better hammer.

There are several articles (in real books, not on the internet) about Challenger 2's in combat in Iraq between 03 and 09 (I cite these a lot, because they are the most commonly known about) where vehicles have sustained heavy enemy MG and RPG fire, with only damage to the optics (glass smashed) and raidos (antenna blasted off). The crew were said to have been "fatigued" by the noise of the rounds (not specified whether it was MG or RPG) striking the vehicle.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Something for the sound modders to take notice of maybe?

Good resonance chamber was bad choice of words by me btw, as obviously it won't resonate forever. But steel is an excellent sound transmitter (iron horse is coming :p), ending up in a closed space. I still don't know, but it does sound feasible to me that the noise levels would get quite intense. How when an asdic hits a sub? Not sure if it's comparable, or even real for that matter.

Edited October 25, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[NeMeSiS 11]

Again with the Russia strong nonsense, "I hit a Russian tank so it broke my hammer!" Will your hammer break if you hit a western tank? :j:

00:45

:D

[Txheat 10]

feeling slightly responsible for the thread please don't turn this into anthor western v russian agrument which to many tank threads get reduced to. So far I think the best idea would the the hitzone areas with different kill chances with a random roll intergrated. I think that is something that BiS would be able to do.

just remeber this is not the time to bash each others tank. its the time to get to the point where we can, anddo it in a fair and realistic system :)

[Baff1 0]

There are several articles (in real books, not on the internet) about Challenger 2's in combat in Iraq between 03 and 09 (I cite these a lot, because they are the most commonly known about) where vehicles have sustained heavy enemy MG and RPG fire, with only damage to the optics (glass smashed) and raidos (antenna blasted off). The crew were said to have been "fatigued" by the noise of the rounds (not specified whether it was MG or RPG) striking the vehicle.

.

Vasily Fofanov's website gives some detailed accounts of armour trials with Russian tanks. The same sort of results as you described were the norm vs a variety of Sabots and anti tank missiles.

Most of the time, everything was fully functional after a direct hit, but they took out the optics on one of them.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Baff1

[dm 9]

There are also lots of stories from the Iran/Iraq war, where Iranian Chieftains took multiple hits from 125mm APFSDS and HE rounds, and aside from some rather ugly disfiguration of the armour where the round hit (only partial penetration was achieved, so the armour did its job) no other damage was caused to the tank.

The longer you fire at a vehicle, however, the greater the chance that you will hit something important.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

only partial penetration was achieved, so the armour did its job

No wonder. Iraq used only the 3VBM-3 round (3BM-9 projectile, with maraging steel penetrator), which was used only for training in the SU. This was the same which couldnt penetrate the side of the Abrams. A 3BM-22 (1976) could have been penetrated the Chieftain with ease.

[dm 9]

Well done for missing the point and perpetuating the russia strong! thing.

The point is not whether or not the rounds actually penetrated, but the fact the tanks fought on after taking hits.

Much as they should do with a proper tank damage system...

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Well done for missing the point and perpetuating the russia strong! thing.

You dont really hide your hatred against russians. Are you racist or what?!

[dm 9]

Continue to miss the point I see :j:

I have no problem with Russians, not too fond of stupid people tho...

The whole point of the thread is about armour simulation, not about whether or not Russian or Western tanks are better or not, the point is about the effects of fire on either one.

Effects that I'm talking about with anecdotal information (Iranians Chieftains in the Iran/Iraq War, and British Challenger 2's in the recent Operations in Iraq) where vehicles have sustained fire from opposing tanks or small arms, with little ill effect.

So please stick to the topic, or butt out.

[max power 21]

You dont really hide your hatred against russians. Are you racist or what?!

Please read the past 2 pages of this thread carefully before formulating a response to what DM just said. There is no need to start throwing accusations of bigotry around. What DM and others are talking about is a historic tendency for threads about some unit behaviour in general to become someone's vehicle for an international war machine pissing contest. Ironically, THAT behaviour is bigoted, nationalistic, and unhelpful. What specific values any tank should have, regardless of its place of manufacture, is useless fluff. Those sorts of discussions happen after a useful model of tank behaviour is established and tuned.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Max Power