A real tank Hp system.

[max power 21]

Rationally, it would seem to me that the US trend to fit their vehicles with RPG screens means that they are still a threat. If it made little difference, degrading the performance of their vehicles with thousands of pounds of grid iron wouldn't make any sense.

As for the effectiveness of heat rounds, all else being equal, the one with the wider diameter will be the better penetrator. As for the effectiveness of HEAT in general, hezbollah popped off 5 Merkava mk IVs with HEAT weapons during the Lebanon conflict in 2006. I'm not saying these were frontal arc penetrations, I'm just saying that they are effective in killing the crew of modern MBTs.

[maturin 12]

Rationally, it would seem to me that the US trend to fit their vehicles with RPG screens means that they are still a threat. If it made little difference, degrading the performance of their vehicles with thousands of pounds of grid iron wouldn't make any sense.

Both a .50 round and an RPG-7 are practically guaranteed to penetrate a light vehicle. Since there's not much armor to chew through, an RPG could conceivably make about the same sized hole, plus a slightly bigger hole on the other side too. If there was nothing important in the space between, and no one got hit by hot flying spall and copper shavings or lost their hearing and/or eyesight, that is.

And it's my impression that weapons like the AT-4 are especially designed to trash the insides of light vehicles rather than delivering maximum penetration for a shoulder-fired weapon. Their wikipedia page claims that that tube makes a flash of light that blinds passengers for seven minutes creates an overpressure equivalent to two normal atmospheres. Again, wikipedia tells me that that's half-again the pressure or a nuclear bomb going off and that will blow your limbs apart, so something must be wrong here.

[max power 21]

I don't know if these effects are exclusive to the at-4. It seems like all of the EFPs I've seen (on video) are quite bright. It also stands to reason that an shape focussed pressure wave resulting from 1/2 kilograms of high explosive would have some kind of effect on nearby people in its path.

[Ulanthorn 10]

The case I refered to was a Fennek hit in the side by a old model RPG-7 in A-stan in 2006. The hot metal jet made its way though the vehicle and punched the commanders door out of it's hinges. Nothing else happend and the vehicle could drive away on it's own. It was noted that a HMG would have been a more dangerous threads since the Fennek is only STANAG 4569 level 3 protected while the upgraded Strykers meet lvl 4.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Ulanthorn

[max power 21]

The case I refered to was a Fennek hit in the side by a old model RPG-7 in A-stan in 2006. The hot metal jet made its way though the vehicle and punched the commanders door out of it's hinges. Nothing else happend and the vehicle could drive away on it's own. It was noted that a HMG would have been a more dangerous threads since the Fennek is only STANAG 4569 level 3 protected while the upgraded Strykers meet lvl 4.

I think the Stryker is also a light armour vehicle, so I don't think it's fair to say in your earlier post that heavy machine guns are the bigger threat to light armour vehicles in general.

[maturin 12]

The RPG that hit the Fennek could have horribly maimed everyone in the vehicle if a few bits of metal had flaked off and started bouncing in the wrong direction.

It might be better to say that HMGs are a more reliable way of destroying light APCs, simply because of the redundancy inherent in a hail of bullets that will defeat the armor. But if you are part of the crew, you are going to be infinitely more worried about something shoulder-fired, portable and omnipresent. A bunch of massive machineguns can't go running around a city block or hiding behind trees.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

There are images to be found where RPG fire outright destroys a HMMWV, and others where it just penetrates doing little real damage. Isn't it possible for us to play with EH handledamage/hit to play with this as a random event? Store original values in a vehicle variable, and when hit, make needed adjustments to the effect, and set the new values. Or something.

I don't mind a HMMWV/Stryker being blown to kingdom come by an RPG attack. I just hate it when it happens every single time. Randomness is what is needed here, not just adjusted values.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

The Stryker is especially vulnerable to RPG attacks. (In fact, to any attack :) )When the warhead penetrates its thin armor, the overpressure cant leave the vehicle like in a BTR-80 with a few hatches open.

[maturin 12]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/m1126-strykers-in-combat-experiences-lessons-01323/

Col. Brown here claims that his Strykers got hit with 115 RPGs and none penetrated. Err... really?

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Now THAT is an american propaganda! :) The slat armor isnt that good... It has only around 50-60% chance to defeat a PG-7V.

And...

The M1126 Stryker’s main armor protects against 14.5 mm rounds, shrapnel, and overpressure...

The front is protected against it, but the sides are easily penetrated by even 12.7mm AP rounds. Shrapnels can also penetrate the sides easily.

[max power 21]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/m1126-strykers-in-combat-experiences-lessons-01323/

Col. Brown here claims that his Strykers got hit with 115 RPGs and none penetrated. Err... really?

Sure, why not? But what's an RPG? And what does he mean by penetration? Even m1a2s have been 'penetrated' by rpgs. I would like to know what percentage were og-7s, rpg-2s, or other exploding munitions. I wonder what the quality of the information he's getting is.

[Baff1 0]

As I understand it their are Strykers with better armour than others, the amphibians for example.

I also had assumed that the penetration from an RPG would produce lethal amounts of heat inside a vehicle.

The pictures on TV of that Abrams tank crew who bailed out underfire... bailed out covered in flames.

I hadn't thought about the pressure change.

Well that´s really your opinion because you have no proof of this. I´m not saying who has the better tank system but your assumption is rather dubious my friend.

It is my opinion and here is why...

Check out the ranges for yourself.

Essentially tank vs tank weapons systems have followed one of two main routes. Kinetic or Chemical.

Longest NATO tank kill was something like 5KM from a Challenger 1 tank against a T55 using a kinetic penetrator.

With a kinetic energy round, the longer the distance to the target the less the force it strikes with.

The Soviet Reflecks missile on the otherhand (capable of being fired from a T64 or newer) has a range of 6km and because it has a (twin) chemical warhead, not a kinetic one, does not lose any of it's penetration capability.

It has a much higher RHA penetration score than any kinetic round to start with since it is a big arse anti-tank missile... and it holds that power over longer range.

It's only drawback is the flight time.

During which a laser must be kept pointed at the target.

Presumably the firing tank is kept stationary at this time if possible.

So if we did the old ArmA favourite Airport tank duel, the NATO tanks would all have been hit first as they would have to cross at least 1 km under fire.

(At least they would all be face on front armour to the firers!).

Reload times for an autoloader are 6.5 km, mobile or static, rough terrain or smooth, and a further 1km p/s flight time.. so from the 6-5km of Nato tanks trying to close the gap a soviet tank in open ground can expect to get upto 6 shots in unopposed.

In terms of ArmA, 6 hits on any NATO tank before it gets a shot off = dead tank.

In the Gulf Wars, coalition tanks held this same advantage over their enemy tanks. Range and shot power.

To make matters worse the Ukraine fire a top down attack fire and forget missile out of their tanks.

I'm not sure how this works but I would suggest that this is still a longer wepaon to fire as I think it must still take valuable secs to get a lock after loading it into the barrel before firing.

A kinetic penetration weapon system on the otherhand is fire and forget.

No hanging around stationary for valuable seconds after firing like a sitting duck.

It also can be used better for snapshots as the flight time is perhaps 4km per second.

The closer the range between the firer and it's intended target the greater force it will hit with.

So Soviet styled take the advantage of range and penetration while for NATO styled tanks it is targeting speed and rate of fire.

And you are correct, I don't have proof of this, it is something I would enjoy seeing modelled.

Essentially I still feel a hit point system is wrong for the game and that a penetration system is over engineering. All that is required is a statistical chance of causing a critical hit based on the weapon system and they type of armour it is deployed aginst. So one score for the weapon type modified by another for the armour type.

Hitboxes can still be kept the same as exist in the game already.

This allows for easy modifcation so that people can model all the different variables easily and to their own preconceptions of various armour and weapon systems capabilities as they best see them.

I say hitboxes do not need to be changed, but actually, I would like to see one more modelled, the top.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Baff1

[kireta21 13]

You are right when saying CE rounds penetrate more RHA. Even all powerfull M829A3 would penetrate ap. 600-650mm at 5km.

But modern armors provide much more protection against CE than KE. M1A1's turret had (in 80's) 450mm vs KE and 800mm vs CE. T-72B fitted with K-1 ERA had ap. 550mm vs.KE and up to 850mm vs.CE. I don't think this disproportion changed with introdution of 2nd.gen. cobham, DU, heavy and multi-layered ERA. Actually nearly all modern tanks are expected to have 60% more protection against CE than KE.

Also autoloaders don't load ATGMs. It have to be loaded manually, as it don't fit autoloader (unless something changed in that matter since 80's. Those missiles were pretty damn big). And Russian tanks aren't famous for their ergonomics.

[Baff1 0]

Thanks for the update on the autoloading of ATGM's. I looked into it som more and found this at Vasily Fofanov's site...

The 9K119M Refleks-M (AT-11 SNIPER-B) is a guided weapons system launched from the 2A46M main gun of T-80 and T-90 MBTs. The 9K119M system uses beam-riding laser guidance. The tank directs a coded beam from a special gunner's sight, which creates a laser "funnel" with the missile riding in the center. The 9K119M uses the 9M119M missile. The ammunition round is 3UBK20 and consists of the 9M119M missile and the 9Kh949 reduced charge propellant casing with a spacer plug which seats the missile properly into the main gun. The 3UBK20 ammunition fits into the normal autoloader on the tank, and the normal load is 6 missiles.

There has been a lot of advancement in autoloaders over the years I think.

This article is specific to T80 and T90.

Autoloaders on T64 and T 72 could easily be different versions and generations with different specifics.

I've also read that the missile was slower than I thought too, taking 17.5 seconds to travel 5km. (Kinetic rounds are also much slower than I suggested too, but the fire and forget nature of them remains the same).

I think modern armour has proved itself to be vulnerable to chemical warheads.

The Lebanese used Sagger ATGm's against Merkava IV the other year. That's a missile from 1961 vs 1999 tank armour.

At 700-950 RHA this is a missile that is (on paper) capable of penetrating the M1A1 (80's) tank with it's 850 RHA vs chemical warheads at it's hardest point.

Challenger 2 got penetrated face on by a hand held launcher.

Chemical warheads work.

Likewise kinetic warheads work. A Russian kinetic round fired from the same gun in the 80's would expect to deliver 450-560 RHA @2km which again can penetrate our 80's M1a1 at even it's hardest point of 450 RHA vs KE.

That one type of armour offers a greater protection to another type of attack, while intresting, changes little tactically on the battlefield.

Both types of munition kill tanks.

One method isn't superior to an other. They are both effective.

A HEAT munition keeps it's full lethality over any range while a kinetic penetrator loses it's lethality the further it flies.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Baff1

[maturin 12]

I also had assumed that the penetration from an RPG would produce lethal amounts of heat inside a vehicle.

The pictures on TV of that Abrams tank crew who bailed out underfire... bailed out covered in flames.

I think the heat generated is more likely to cause a secondary explosion or fire rather than kill the occupants outright.

Injury from spalling is probably the most common, and I read an article about the high incidence of eye injuries from tiny pieces of metal.

The rather extravagant description of the after-armor effect of the AT-4 by its makers below does include heat, but not in a way that makes it sound like the most lethal hazard. (And I think we can assume that the AT-4 is more dangerous to the crew of light vehicles, being especially designed for that purpose. I've also read that RPG-2s were significantly more lethal to the passengers of M113s in Vietnam than the RPG-7.

* A massive overpressure inside the vehicle of approximately 1 bar over normal. [According to Wikipedia, this equivalent to a nuclear bomb. Errr...]

* Secondary fragments from the warhead itself due to a larger entry hole, plus more extensive spalling than caused by HEAT warheads of similar diameter.

* An intense light that is 100 times brighter than sunlight.

* Generation of dense smoke in the armoured vehicle's interior.

* Extensive heat is generated inside the armoured vehicle.

FFV claims that besides the effect of the massive spalling and fragmentation on the occupants of the armoured vehicle, which is standard for all HEAT warheads to a degree, the massive overpressure and intense heat will cause ammunition and more importantly the armoured vehicle's diesel fuel[13] to ignite. The intense light effect will blind any occupants for at least seven minutes, in addition to the obscuring effect of the dense smoke created by the AT4's HEAT warhead.[14]

Edited October 14, 2010 by maturin

[kireta21 13]

Challenger 2 damaged in Al-Amarah was hit in lower hull section, where armor is roughly 850mm (including ERA) vs.CE, so RPG-29 with its ~800mm penetration, dual warhead and some luck is enough to defeat it. Chally2 armor was critized after that incident, but it's worth to notice most modern tanks have only 700-900mm vs CE in that place, as it gets hit very rarely. T-80 and T-90 have even less (400-500mm) as this part is even less exposed. It's better to put more armor where it's more often needed.

Merkavas do that to extreme. At it strongest point it has probably more armor than any other MBT, but there have been reports of crew compartment been penetrated by HMG fire!

I don't say HEAT rounds don't work against MBT. They work, unless they hit front turret or glacis, as those are usually far beyond their penetration ability. HEAT can penetrate weaker spot of armor, and works much better against light armored vehicles. Just in head-on fight it's better to stick to KE rounds, as most hits will be in turret, some in glacis, and very few in mentioned weak spots.

@maturin

Sometimes M1 tanks carry few maingun rounds in hull to speed up loading (or simply to carry more). It's not very safe. but quite common. It's possible after been hit by jet one or some rounds went off inside.

[edit]

Something I found on tanknet one day:

Those are pretty old tanks, but I think it shows clearly how much difference new armor system would make

Edited October 15, 2010 by boota

[dm 9]

Challenger 2 got penetrated face on by a hand held launcher.

The only penetration of CR2 from handheld launchers I know of was a lucky strike which skipped up and penetrated the relatively unarmoured toe on the underside of the hull, striking at the very base of the romor ERA.

An area which has since recieved an improved armour package (although rather typically of MoD procurement, the area which was actually penetrated only gains a very thin additional layer of applique.)

So while it was "head on" it was hardly in an area typically epxected to be struck by incoming fire...

[maturin 12]

Merkavas do that to extreme. At it strongest point it has probably more armor than any other MBT, but there have been reports of crew compartment been penetrated by HMG fire!

Seems like a strange choice for Israel, with the chaotic urban battles that have been the norm more recently.

An Abrams took an RPG-29 warhead through (IIRC) the side of the turret in Iraq. It caused a stir when they found the thin little slug buried in the opposite wall.

Edited October 15, 2010 by maturin

[archbishop lazarus 24]

The Lebanese used Sagger ATGm's against Merkava IV the other year. That's a missile from 1961 vs 1999 tank armour.

Dont use stupid western codenames. They are only good for confusing things.

The Maljutka missile has many modifications, dont confuse the old 9M14 and the later 9M14P1 variant that has 520mm CE penetration, which shouldnt have problems defeating the side plates of even a Merkava IV.

I don't say HEAT rounds don't work against MBT. They work, unless they hit front turret or glacis, as those are usually far beyond their penetration ability. HEAT can penetrate weaker spot of armor, and works much better against light armored vehicles. Just in head-on fight it's better to stick to KE rounds, as most hits will be in turret, some in glacis, and very few in mentioned weak spots.

I totally agree. This is why I said earlier that russians overestimate their gun launched ATGMs.

[ray243 11]

Maybe BIS can do something more close to world of tanks? Not exactly the best tank hitpoint system, but pretty darn amazing. If BIS want to go further, they should follow Men of war or red orchestra.

[maturin 12]

[edit]

Something I found on tanknet one day:

Those are pretty old tanks, but I think it shows clearly how much difference new armor system would make

Great diagrams.

Those are some low-ass number on the side view. Make me understand ACE 2 results more.

But what's with the parts marked Fuel+Cooling not having an armor rating?

[DarkLabor 10]

To delete.

Edited December 31, 2012 by DarkLabor

[Baff1 0]

I don't say HEAT rounds don't work against MBT. They work, unless they hit front turret or glacis, as those are usually far beyond their penetration ability.

The same is equally true of kinetic rounds.

Both types of round work. Both type of round has more trouble with the hard points.

I don't think there is a lot of point attempting to model the actual damage caused by any particular weapon system to any particular armour system too closely since the real details are all kept secret from us.

A loose estimation is in my opinion quite enough for any video game.

Especially if those scores are easy to modify so that those people who disagree wildly with BIS's guess can tailor it to their own specific ideals.

---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------

I totally agree. This is why I said earlier that russians overestimate their gun launched ATGMs.

I think it's by and large fair to say that everyone overestimates their own tanks. (Not to mention planes, submarines and all the rest).

A weapon system that does not enjoy the confidence of it's users is not a very good one.

What I would say in defence of the Russians.. is that I expect that they have used those ATGM's in combat. They should have a pretty clear idea of whether they work or not.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Baff1

[kireta21 13]

The same is equally true of kinetic rounds.

I don't think there is a lot of point attempting to model the actual damage caused by any particular weapon system to any particular armour system too closely since the real details are all kept secret from us.

A loose estimation is in my opinion quite enough for any video game.

Especially if those scores are easy to modify so that those people who disagree wildly with BIS's guess can tailor it to their own specific ideals.

Totally agree. Theorically we would need 2 armor and penetration values, separate for KE and CE. But unless we are trying to make something like Steel Beasts, one Armor value for hitzone and one Penetration value for ammunition is enough. And we even won't lose much of realism here, as most modern armor types provide similar KE to CE protection ratio, usually around 1:1.5. So actually recalculating armor/penetration values of all systems either to KE or to CE will be enough.

Hitzones for tanks could be:

Front Turret, Front Hull

Side Turret, Side Front (crew compartement) Side Rear (engine compartement)

Rear, Top

And Ammunition storage where succesful penetration could lead (% chance) to catastrophic destruction of vehicle, with big blast and crew instantly KIA.

Penetration of armor should be in % chance rather than "can penetrate/cannot penetrate", basically higher armor to penetration ratio - less chance for penetration.

While still not overly complicated it would provide all realism actually needed.

But this is rather wishlist :D. In fact, even simple armor/penetration system like in Blitzkrieg RTS game would be a huge step foward.

[x3kj 1247]

Hitzones for tanks could be:

Front Turret, Front Hull

Side Turret, Side Front (crew compartement) Side Rear (engine compartement)

Rear, Top

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

Edited October 23, 2010 by Fennek