Realistic Armor Fights and Penetration.

[Bazul14 10]

The armor fights in Arma2 are usually fine, except when an APC meets a tank.

Here is what usually happens. An APC meets a tank, spams with 20/25/30/40mm rounds and destroys the tank in a matter of seconds even though it is just hitting the frontal armor or the front of the turret. Also, if the APC manages to fire first, then the tank will not even be able to respond. Realistically, any tank except the T34 should be able to withstand AP/HEAT rounds of that caliber. I find it relatively hilarious that a 30mm AP round can apparently penetrate over 500mm of armor(~basic T72). It is absolutely impossible for such a round to penetrate so much armor. If it would be just the T34's 60mm of armor, then it would be fine, cause it is realistic. Oh, and for the argument that will surely come up: "You know, if you fire a 50cal/AP shell in the same spot it will actually penetrate the armor, even 1000mm(~Abrams)." That is actually BS for two reasons: 1- you would theoretically need to fire hundreds if not thousands of rounds to penetrate even 200mm of armor. 2- Your rounds will very likely not hit the exact spot again. The low caliber gun is not a laser gun. The rounds will not hit in the same spot again and again. They will hit the target usually in an oval shaped area, depending on the speed/weight/movement. They will not hit the same spot again and again.

Second thing. Apparently HE rounds of the same calibers are able to do the same thing. The APC can just spam HE rounds into the tank's armor and the tank will just blow up. That is not even half realistic. vBF2 is more realistic because of the firing rates. Right now, it takes like 15 sec for a BMP2 to fire its HE rounds and kill an M1 Abrams.

These rounds should be able to damage the sights/weaponry/engine of the tank at best, but most of the times they will just be useless, because of their low caliber and therefore low quantity of explosive. They should NOT destroy the tank hull and turret of the tank. LOL, in the best/most lucky case, they should be able to make the turret get stuck. Also, if fired at the engine of the tank, they should theoretically be able to damage it, but that depends on the tank. For example the engine of the Abrams is slightly more exposed than that of a T72s. What should be done is to neutralize the damage of the small caliber AP and HE rounds on the hulls and turrets of the modern/post WW2 tanks in ARMA 2 and OA. Another improvement should be the ability of these rounds to disable/damage the sights of vehicles. Also the tracks are apparently very easy to disable, just fire a couple of shots and tadaaa, they are gone. This is however debatable, because it depends on the thickness of the tracks/ road wheels, so I won't ask to change that.

[kotov12345 10]

who told you that arma2 the realistic game ? :)

[Bazul14 10]

who told you that arma2 the realistic game ? :)

Well, it is more realistic than lots of other games, and I hope that it will continue to be, because that is why it is actually worth those 50$, and that is what differences it from other first person PC games.

[kotov12345 10]

Well, it is more realistic than lots of other games, and I hope that it will continue to be, because that is why it is actually worth those 50$, and that is what differences it from other first person PC games.

ok - TAB button is main target system in all vehicles in game.Such system not exist in real.where is realism ? lol Press TAB and your vehicles automaticly lock target and fire and target down :)

[Beagle 684]

The issue about MBTs beeing much too vulnerable to autocannons is indeed a big showstopper. Its usually easier to get a kill on a T-72 with a BMP using the 600round AP rounds...I dont care about the Missile on top anymore.

A 3 second burst will disable a T-72 from every aspect...thats highly incorrect.

Autocannons should be effective only by rear and side impact...sames problem exists still with AT-Launcher ammo.

[Bazul14 10]

kotov12345

Private First Class

Join Date: Feb 2011

Location: london

Posts: 17

Send a message via MSN to kotov12345

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bazul14 View Post

Well, it is more realistic than lots of other games, and I hope that it will continue to be, because that is why it is actually worth those 50$, and that is what differences it from other first person PC games.

ok - TAB button is main target system in all vehicles in game.Such system not exist in real.where is realism ? lol Press TAB and your vehicles automaticly lock target and fire and target down

kotov12345 is online now Report Post Reply With Quote

That can be changed from the in game difficulty settings....

Also, try to do or say something constructive, not baseless and slightly illogical drivel.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Bazul14

[Beagle 684]

That can be changed from the in game difficulty settings....

Also, try to do or say something constructive, not baseless and slightly illogical drivel.

Quote???

[Bazul14 10]

The issue about MBTs beeing much too vulnerable to autocannons is indeed a big showstopper. Its usually easier to get a kill on a T-72 with a BMP using the 600round AP rounds...I dont care about the Missile on top anymore.

A 3 second burst will disable a T-72 from every aspect...thats highly incorrect.

Autocannons should be effective only by rear and side impact...sames problem exists still with AT-Launcher ammo.

Exactly, the ATGM is actually a waste of time compared to the autocannon. By the time your missile gets to the target(if its at over 100m) you could have disabled the gun of the enemy tank with your autocannon.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Tanks are not indestructible - even on their front side. It would be more like of a unrealistic gamey "showstopper" if you can turn your tank against your enemy and simply wait till his ammo is depleted. Would be more like playing "Codename: Panzers" from Stormregion/CDV. :rolleyes:

[johncage 30]

they can use anti tank missiles or try to hide. not a showstopper at all to reflect realistic damage.

[Bazul14 10]

Exactly, Tanks are not invulnerable, but having them destroyed by APCs with auto canons is really weak. After all, what is the point of having a tank if it gets blown up by a weakly armored APC?! Just because tanks look cool or have a big HE round?!?! I mean common, other than allowing noobs with APCs to roam on the map, there are no other reasons against a realistic armor/damage system.

[maturin 12]

Tanks are not indestructible - even on their front side. It would be more like of a unrealistic gamey "showstopper" if you can turn your tank against your enemy and simply wait till his ammo is depleted. Would be more like playing "Codename: Panzers" from Stormregion/CDV. :rolleyes:

Unrealistic gamey? And I suppose tanks in this game can be destroyed by a sufficient quantity of pistol rounds to prevent abuses too? Don't be a dumbass. Better make those Abrams destructible by AT4s and sniper rifles! Feature X is unrealistic so we better make the rest of it unrealistic too.:bounce3:

ACE2 managed to make things realistic and playable and they only have scripting workarounds and shitty hitboxes as their tools. BIS could make a better system in their sleep.

[max power 21]

Are we talking all tanks here or the older ones?

The tab lock is the catch all targeting system in the game, and simulates a lot of different things. For tanks it's not trying to say that tanks achieve radar lock, but rather just a way of your to interface with the AI in the game and other features like the FCS.

[Bazul14 10]

Not talking about tab lock, just realistic armor penetration and damage.:bounce3:

[Posta 10]

Yeah I agree! I don't like the armor hitpoints in Arma 2. ACE does this better.

[Gunter Severloh 4067]

Either Ace or something like this mod could help for penetration:

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=9651

Although dont think it was designed with realism in mind, more of a need for a longer lasting fight.

As for Tank FCS I think BIS should implement a system into the tanks, I had the Tank FCS by Nowonderdog in my Mod for Arma,

heres a vid of a test mission I recorded in 2009 that somewhat demonstrates this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPHJhw7-uRY

the numbers bottem middle were the range, it was a laser designation system where the distance from another tank was displayed,

when the numbers turned 0000 then you had no distance or no lock.

There also was a lead type of designation where if an enemy tank was moving your tank would lase it and then compensate

your sites for the lead so you could hit a tank on the move.

This is basically the mod I am talkign about, has 2 vids to demonstrate, as well as alot of information detailing on how the system worked:

NWD TankFCS

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2217

As for penetration the same modder had a mod for infantry weapon ballisitics and penetration nothing for tanks though:

NWD Ballistics

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=1776

Obviously this is all for Arma, but I really do think BIS should really review alot of the mods in the community and implement them,

or maybe upgrade them and integrate them.

[max power 21]

I'm pretty sure ACE's thing is hitpoints too. There's an attribute for vehicles called 'minimal hit' which is supposed to prevent damage under a certain strength. If you find you can blow up tanks with a pistol I guess it wasn't implemented for that vehicle.

[maturin 12]

Ace's system is the best it can be. I've spent a lot of time trying to break it, and almost every problem I've come across is the result of broken BIS hitboxes and models. There's just not a good base of vehicles to base it on. And having to rely on scripts make us have to settle for firepower kills that knock out not just the main gun, but the coax and the commander roof gun.

[Bazul14 10]

I guess we are diverting a little bit here, as my suggestion was mainly focused on the armor and minimum hit thing that was previously mentioned. However, the sights and aiming systems in the tanks should receive some modifications too.

[maturin 12]

I guess we are diverting a little bit here, as my suggestion was mainly focused on the armor and minimum hit thing that was previously mentioned. However, the sights and aiming systems in the tanks should receive some modifications too.

Minimal hit isn't enough. It's all appallingly complicated, and even ACE's convoluted and imperfect system is really a bare minimum of realistic.

A binary can penetrate/cannot penetrate system would not be good at all. It would only be good for fixing the small arms hitpoints bug. But that's just basic scripting.

The estimated RHA equivalence of the Abrams' front turret is higher than the estimated RHA penetration of pretty much every HEAT weapon on the planet. It's rear turret armor is vulnerable to most shoulder-launched weapons out there.

But the front turret has weak spots. And a hit that doesn't penetrate may destroy optics or cause spall that harms the crew. It may even give them a concussion without doing any direct injury.

And a rocket hit to the rear armor may strike an equipment rack, shorting out the fuse, or strike at a low angle and glance off.

Any dedicated armor system needs either a complex series of randomized results or a centimeter-accurate hitbox for every inch of the tank. And any system worth it's salt must take angle of incidence into account, as well as varying resistances to HEAT versus KE.

Edited March 3, 2011 by maturin

[max power 21]

Well, the projectiles do take angle of incidence into account. They ricochet and low angles. I think they might do damage + ricochet, though. I know HEAT shells ricochet and seem to explode twice.

[Baff1 0]

Minimal hit isn't enough. It's all appallingly complicated, and even ACE's convoluted and imperfect system is really a bare minimum of realistic.

A binary can penetrate/cannot penetrate system would not be good at all. It would only be good for fixing the small arms hitpoints bug. But that's just basic scripting.

The estimated RHA equivalence of the Abrams' front turret makes is higher than the estimated RHA penetration of pretty much every HEAT weapon on the planet. It's rear turret armor is vulnerable to most shoulder-launched weapons out there.

But the front turret has weak spots. And a hit that doesn't penetrate may destroy optics or cause spall that harms the crew. It may even give them a concussion without doing any direct injury.

And a rocket hit to the rear armor may strike an equipment rack, shorting out the fuse, or strike at a low angle and glance off.

Any dedicated armor system needs either a complex series of randomized results or a centimeter-accurate hitbox for every inch of the tank. And any system worth it's salt must take angle of incidence into account, as well as varying resistances to HEAT versus KE.

Top post old son.

Personally I think the randomised results is one that works really well in games. Table top or computer.

It sure saves a lot of maths for something that ostensibly provides the same outcomes.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Baff1

[maturin 12]

Well, the projectiles do take angle of incidence into account. They ricochet and low angles. I think they might do damage + ricochet, though. I know HEAT shells ricochet and seem to explode twice.

But if an RPG strikes armor at 45 degrees and doesn't ricochet, does the game do the trigonometry to find the practical thickness of the armor?

Rather, I've seen killing shots with sabots that ricochet into the sky, ineffective shots that go straight through.

[max power 21]

Well, no it doesn't- not that I know of. I'm certainly not implying that it does. It sure does know the angle of incidence, though. I would be happy with any enhancement, trigonometry or know, I don't care. I was very pleased with the minimalhit system when it came out, and I will be further pleased when and if they choose to give the armour sim more detail still.

[Bazul14 10]

HEATs don't ricochet a lot unless at a very low incidence angle, probably under 30. Their blast might be more ineffective at a low angle, but they won't ricochet IRL.