equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

[Ollie1983 10]

Someone appears to have got out of bed on the wrong side this morning.

In the OP, the individual concerned complained bitterly that there was a huge disparity between the survivability of the Western tank vs the Eastern tank.

This is, in fact, the case in reality. Or maybe you were not astute enough to realise that was the point I was making? Given the huge raft of technical advantages Western equipment tends to have, your F14 and Mig comment was actually quite accurate.

No tank or armoured vehicle is ever going to be 100% immune to the most ridiculous weapon. Hence a lucky shot using an RPG-7 can and will happen, the designers have obviously tried to eliminate that risk but have to halt somewhere to work within the parameters of their design specifications. Having a tank that is completely immune to RPG fire might be ideal but not if it weighs 100 tonnes, for example.

You are somewhat confused about my comments regarding the actions of M1 tanks when trying to completely destroy their own disabled companions. Knocking a tank out is relatively easy compared to obliterating it or its technology- the fleshy bits inside are very easy to deal with. Hence the fact that in Iraq it proved very difficult for the Americans to destroy the M1 using the very same weapon system. Another pound in the jar that suggests the game is in fact realistic. It is also worth nothing that in many caes air power was used to destroy American equipment. A 500lb PGM being the ideal answer. It is worth noting that in cold war doctrine, both sides knew that tanks could be knocked out or put out of action relatively easily, which is why both had extensive logistic chains intent on conducting BDR and getting fresh crews into them. Total tank destruction was far less likely and they knew this.

You're mistaking HEAT, KE and EFP effects completely. Sorry. You're also missing a trick about Sabot rounds. A sabot is far closer to a ballistic optimum than a fat HESH round or similar, hence better accuracy which is the name of the game anyway. This is why Sabot would be the default choice when expecting enemy armour.

Many reports from both British and American crews state clearly that the Sabot round was easily killing T72s at extreme ranges, basically at the maximum the targeting systems could work with. In addition one would question the need for a tank gun that kills at 8km or something similarly incredible when in a typical battlefield situation your view distance is going to be reduced somewhat.

If the Russians have developed explosive reactive armour that can defeat KE rounds I'd love a link that proves it. If the Russians have anything going for their designs it is that they are physically smaller and show better cross country performance, hence harder to hit and even see in the first place.

I am afraid your knowledge of typical carbombs must be well in advance of those typically used by insurgents, for it would take a monumental blast to really kill a tank. The crew would be killed certainly, the shock doing them no good at all, but the actual vehicle would need little more than a hosepipe inside it. Tanks are immune to shrapnel and blast largely, which is the whole point of putting men inside them.

You seem to want to argue pointlessly, when in fact I'm more interested in the representations within the game and its reflection on reality. Perhaps you are some kind of Soviet fanboi.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Ollie1983

[kotov12345 10]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-DSJ9ZDZmg

[Ollie1983 10]

What exactly are you complaining about Kotov? That shot from the T-72 hit the Abrams on the turret, it received damage but it was not fatal. Where is the problem?

The fact is the Abrams is more survivable than the T-72. Evidence? Desert storm. There are tonnes of reports about this and the Abrams that received enemy fire in that conflict. The majority of M1s lost were not from T-72 hits.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Ollie1983

[kotov12345 10]

complain about what even damage done to m1a1 from side lead to damaged truck

any damage done to t72 lead to destruction.Even Mi24 and mi8 hold 3 sabot shots.UH60 AH64 and AH1 2.

Idea was clearly described in first topic and ticketed.Pufu right - BIS (Kju) declined to change anything.

[Ollie1983 10]

I can't say I have fired tank rounds at helicopters but if that is true it is daft. I would not say there was a problem with the game as it stands judging by my experiences in armour vs armour battles in Operation arrowhead. I have killed and been killed by enemy armour, in both the Abrams, Bradley and Warrior. I would like to try the Challenger 2 and Leopard but I have no clue if these are in the game.

[wolfbite 8]

An asad babyl cannot be compared to a Russian T-72... Tbh In game I'm fine with the Russian tanks being easier to blow up than the m1a1's etc... But the gun and ammunitions the Russians have should be able to take out an Abrams in 1 shot... Not blow it up but dissable it .... But problems are that everyone has different views...

Edited March 11, 2011 by wolfbite

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Desert Storm illustrated neatly that the soviet era T72 could not touch a standard Abrams and in fact the majority of tanks lost by the US were from friendly fire.

Desert Storm proved nothing. Except the total lack of training on the Iraqi side. They were fanatical zealots, but terrible soldiers. I dare to say that with my 10-15 hours on T-55, Im a better tank driver than any iraqi driver in 1991.

If you say that T-72, you have to be a bit more specific. Iraq used T-72, (original & Asad Babil) T-72M and T-72M1 tanks. Many of the M and M1 variants were Polish built export ones, which were significantly worse quality than Czechslovak or Soviet built tanks. Another problem was ammo. Iraq used the very primitive 3VBM3 rounds (3BM9 pojectile) with maraging steel penetrator. This was unable to penetrate the side turret of the Abrams. (but if the itiots aimed at the hull, the Abrams is gone!) It was only a training round in the Soviet Union.

In contrast, the late T-72B (often incorrectly called BM), with properly trained crew, would have been a very tough opponent. With the latest ammunition (3BM46, 1991) it was capable of destroying an M1A1HA @ 2000m, while its frontal armor was virtually impenetrable. Along with the T-90, of course its a cannon fodder for an M1A2, but in 1991, the T-72B was a very very good tank, equal, or better than the M1A1HA.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Archbishop Lazarus

[NoRailgunner 0]

So what kind of damage/penetration model could be used as "base" for vehicles in A2OA? For example - Steelbeasts Pro or Combat Mission series?

Or what kind of information/data/specifications are true and which are only estimated/guesswork and which are just wrong? ;)

[Ollie1983 10]

Desert Storm proved nothing. Except the total lack of training on the Iraqi side. They were fanatical zealots, but terrible soldiers. I dare to say that with my 10-15 hours on T-55, Im a better tank driver than any iraqi driver in 1991.

If you say that T-72, you have to be a bit more specific. Iraq used T-72, (original & Asad Babil) T-72M and T-72M1 tanks. Many of the M and M1 variants were Polish built export ones, which were significantly worse quality than Czechslovak or Soviet built tanks. Another problem was ammo. Iraq used the very primitive 3VBM3 rounds (3BM9 pojectile) with maraging steel penetrator. This was unable to penetrate the side turret of the Abrams. (but if the itiots aimed at the hull, the Abrams is gone!) It was only a training round in the Soviet Union.

In contrast, the late T-72B (often incorrectly called BM), with properly trained crew, would have been a very tough opponent. With the latest ammunition (3BM46, 1991) it was capable of destroying an M1A1HA @ 2000m, while its frontal armor was virtually impenetrable. Along with the T-90, of course its a cannon fodder for an M1A2, but in 1991, the T-72B was a very very good tank, equal, or better than the M1A1HA.

Soviet gear was often of very high quality.

Unfortunately let down be the fact their servicemen were often conscripts, who didn't want to be there, and they were rarely paid on time or had enough time with basics like actual fuel or live ammunition.

The other problem with it was this automatic loader BS. It proved slower than a human loader, could not load as quickly and also elevated the main gun between each shot. Further eroding accuracy and number of shots on target in a given time.

The only thing the west was remotely concerned about during the Cold war or the intervening period after it, was the sheer numbers of tanks the Soviets had.

It would never have come down to a simple T-72 vs M1 engagement because the NATO battle plan was always to hit Soviet tank formations with air power- precisely the need for AH-64 and A10, long before they got near friendly armoured columns.

The 120mm smoothbore weapon did have drawbacks, hence the British declined to use it. It is also worth noting that by no means was the old 105mm gun 'bad', it performed well in Israeli hands.

Whether soviet tank ammo was any good or not, in 1991, is of no consequence, since we're talking about comparisons between materiel featured in Arma 2.

Interestingly, I have heard interesting stories about how Nato came to learn about Soviet reactive armour. A young British Lieutenant set off in the middle of the night in Kosovo I believe hoping to steal a piece from a tank when he tripped over something and sprained his ankle. When he examined what he had tripped over it turned out to be a single intact cell of RA.

The performance of allied tank guns in GW1 was exemplary, with notable occasions when Sabot rounds from American tanks passed through the sand berm protecting Iraqi tanks and then penetrating and destroying them anyway. One shot is also claimed to have killed two Iraqi tanks after passing through them both.

---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 PM ----------

So what kind of damage/penetration model could be used as "base" for vehicles in A2OA? For example - Steelbeasts Pro or Combat Mission series?

Or what kind of information/data/specifications are true and which are only estimated/guesswork and which are just wrong? ;)

I guess the ideal is to have a benchmark vehicle and then model everything else against it?

The fact is, in the game, I have taken hits in the M1 and it is soon disabled. It isn't invincible and rightly so. The most vulnerable part is obviously the rear and top, taking a hit there means all bets are off.

[roguetrooper 2]

@kotov12345

Concerning the testing environment in your video:

Doesn't the explosion of one tank pre-damage the neighbouring tank?

[Beagle 684]

@kotov12345

Concerning the testing environment in your video:

Doesn't the explosion of one tank pre-damage the neighbouring tank?

Not anymore, that effect is toned down significantly.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

The other problem with it was this automatic loader BS.

Yes, there were problems with it, for example in the T-64, and early T-64A tanks, but it wasnt that bad at all. The T-64 and T-80 type loaders were fast, the one in T-72 was slower. It didnt affect the accuracy, the problem was the stabilization system. Its effectiveness was similar to the western stabilizators of the '70s, so precise fire was possible only up to max. 25-30 km/h.

It would never have come down to a simple T-72 vs M1 engagement because the NATO battle plan was always to hit Soviet tank formations with air power- precisely the need for AH-64 and A10, long before they got near friendly armoured columns.

2K11 Krug, 2K12 Kub, 9K33 Osa, 9K31 Strela-1, ZSU-23-4 Shilka... etc. Although the attack helicopters and A10s would have been surely effective, but not without huge losses.

It is also worth noting that by no means was the old 105mm gun 'bad', it performed well in Israeli hands.

I've never heard that someone called the 105mm bad. Its new to me. :eek: The L7/M68 was the best tank weapon of the '50s and '60s. It was great against the T-54,55,62. But, it became quite ineffective with the appearance of the T-64. The T-72*, and the uparmored T-55M and T-62M tanks were also too much for this gun, this led to the development of the 120mm.

(*It is a common belief in the west that the israeli 105mm M111 round was so effective against it. In fact, the Merkava NEVER met the T-72 in combat. The T-72s were destroyed by TOW missiles.)

Back to the topic, in my opinion, eastern tanks should be more vulnerable (except their engines), but only if the projectile penetrates their armor. Of course this requires an armor/penetration simulating script package. Even if its so simple as the system in Blitzkrieg/The day after, this is a must have.

Currently, without such armor system, it is pointless to talk about the vulnerability of eastern/western tanks. The BIS hitpoint system is terrible, the worst of any game where you can drive a tank.

[max power 21]

Someone appears to have got out of bed on the wrong side this morning.

Because I disagree with you, I'm grumpy. LOL. Here we go!

In the OP, the individual concerned complained bitterly that there was a huge disparity between the survivability of the Western tank vs the Eastern tank.

This is, in fact, the case in reality. Or maybe you were not astute enough to realise that was the point I was making? Given the huge raft of technical advantages Western equipment tends to have, your F14 and Mig comment was actually quite accurate.

And you're not actually capable of noting when I'm agreeing with you and when I'm not, and you're not comprehending what I'm saying, either. The technical comparison you're making is a modern tank vs. one designed in the 60s, then you're claiming that there is a huge technical difference between east and west equipment. This is faulty logic. The reason why a t72 compares unfavourably to the latest American tank is not because it's Russian. It's because it's old.

No tank or armoured vehicle is ever going to be 100% immune to the most ridiculous weapon. Hence a lucky shot using an RPG-7 can and will happen, the designers have obviously tried to eliminate that risk but have to halt somewhere to work within the parameters of their design specifications. Having a tank that is completely immune to RPG fire might be ideal but not if it weighs 100 tonnes, for example.

Right, so we've now established that the Abrams has vulnerabilities and design flaws. Thank you.

You are somewhat confused about my comments regarding the actions of M1 tanks when trying to completely destroy their own disabled companions. Knocking a tank out is relatively easy compared to obliterating it or its technology- the fleshy bits inside are very easy to deal with. Hence the fact that in Iraq it proved very difficult for the Americans to destroy the M1 using the very same weapon system. Another pound in the jar that suggests the game is in fact realistic. It is also worth nothing that in many caes air power was used to destroy American equipment. A 500lb PGM being the ideal answer. It is worth noting that in cold war doctrine, both sides knew that tanks could be knocked out or put out of action relatively easily, which is why both had extensive logistic chains intent on conducting BDR and getting fresh crews into them. Total tank destruction was far less likely and they knew this.

You were arguing, as you pointed out, that the abrams superiority is realistic because they needed to do all kinds of crazy shit to them in desert storm to destroy them. That's a faulty analogy.

You're mistaking HEAT, KE and EFP effects completely. Sorry.

I don't think I am. Maybe you could be a doll and actually point out what 'effects' I'm 'mistaking'.

You're also missing a trick about Sabot rounds. A sabot is far closer to a ballistic optimum than a fat HESH round or similar, hence better accuracy which is the name of the game anyway. This is why Sabot would be the default choice when expecting enemy armour.

I think the optimum choice is anti tank missiles, like the ones the russian tanks fire from their barrels.

Many reports from both British and American crews state clearly that the Sabot round was easily killing T72s at extreme ranges, basically at the maximum the targeting systems could work with. In addition one would question the need for a tank gun that kills at 8km or something similarly incredible when in a typical battlefield situation your view distance is going to be reduced somewhat.

Find me a source stating the actual range. We've established that the T-72 is based on old technology.

If the Russians have developed explosive reactive armour that can defeat KE rounds I'd love a link that proves it.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/era.html

I am afraid your knowledge of typical carbombs must be well in advance of those typically used by insurgents, for it would take a monumental blast to really kill a tank. The crew would be killed certainly, the shock doing them no good at all, but the actual vehicle would need little more than a hosepipe inside it. Tanks are immune to shrapnel and blast largely, which is the whole point of putting men inside them.

And yet it has happened despite your denial. You can't rationally argue away things that have actually happened. This is revisionism.

You seem to want to argue pointlessly, when in fact I'm more interested in the representations within the game and its reflection on reality. Perhaps you are some kind of Soviet fanboi.

Perhaps you have no actual argument other than to call me a fanboi. I don't know why you took such offence as to start with the ad hominems. Maybe you don't deal with discussions very well. Further replies in this line of conversation can be directed to my pm inbox. Let's not dirty up this thread any further.

[kotov12345 10]

@kotov12345

Concerning the testing environment in your video:

Doesn't the explosion of one tank pre-damage the neighbouring tank?

nope - looks like delay inbuilt in game

[kotov12345 10]

vehicle name,real armor ave mm,proposal damage in game (track or turret or engine),

complete dastroy front,side,rea for RPG7/18/M136 ,jav /metis,smaw

all cars 1,2,2,2 1 1 1

BTR60 7 1,3,3,2 1 2

STRIKER 7 1,3,3,2 1 2

M2A2 M2A3 M6 10 1,3,3,2 1 2

LAV25 10 1,3,3,2 1 2

SHILKA 12 1,3,3,2 1 2

BTR40 12 1,3,3,2 1 2

M113 25 1,4,3,2 1 2

BMP2 33 1,4,3,2 1 2

BMP3 35 1,4,3,2 1 2

T34 45 1,4,3,2 1 2

AAVP77A1 45 1,4,3,2 1 2

BTR90 120 1,5,3,2 1 3

T55 120 1,5,3,2 1 3

VODNIK 120 1,5,3,2 1 3

T72 150 1,6,4,3 2 3

T90 high 2,7,4,3 2 4

M1A1 high 2,8,4,3 2 4

m1a2 high 2,9,4,3 2 5

If this table bit complicated - for example:

T72 armor 150mm average and will be nice to see in game that basic RPG or M136 make simply damage to part which was hit (dead track or gun or engine or other) and completely destroy needed 6 such rpgs from front 4 from side or 3 from rear or 2 javelins or 3 smaw rockets.

Armor taken from Google and checked in different web sites.High mean cant find proper digits.

Edited March 12, 2011 by kotov12345

[maturin 12]

Or they could look up the RHA armor estimates versus CE and KE, then apply that to the penetration and type of each weapon, with a random element for weak spots and ERA.

Because no offense, but that table is completely made up. 4 hits with an AT-4 to destroy an M1113 or BTR-60? Those mounted infantry wish. A hit anywhere will turn those vehicles into a torch.

[savagegoose 10]

you could always do a ww2 tank game, at least the armor stats and penetration stats are known

[Ollie1983 10]

Cue furious fanboi backpedalling....:D

Lovely referenced link there, too. How long did that page take to write, and does it have a soviet seal of approval for being yellow on black? :bounce3:

Anyways, as I said before, the game is presumably designed to find a best fit scenario based on reality. That reality is that in almost every conceivable situation, including that of the present day (IE when OP arrowhead is set) the Abrams creams the T72. Many thanks.

PS, I have no clue where you got the Merkva thing from since I did not mention that.

PPS And yes, they did need to do all kinds of crazy things to A1s to destroy them. I've illustrated this in some detail. No need to go back there as it would be wasting my time.

[kotov12345 10]

4 hits with an AT-4 to destroy an M1113 or BTR-60? .

not AT-4 - there is not AT-4 in arma2 game.

Basic RPG7V which not do much damage in game.

1 hit and M113 or BTR60 get damaged wheels/tracks down or some crew dead some have injured 2 hits all crew dea etc.

Same as in real life.

[Daniel 0]

AT-4 = M136 = ILAW

All are in game.

Unless you're confusing it with the Soviet AT-4 Spigot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-4_Spigot

[dm 9]

1 hit and M113 or BTR60 get damaged wheels/tracks down or some crew dead some have injured 2 hits all crew dea etc.

Same as in real life.

I dunno what "real life" you're living in, but a freaking 50 cal will penetrate an M113 or BTR-60 from the side/rear/top aspects.

Its not about the number of hits, its about the position of those hits.

You can shoot M136's into the engine block of an M113 all day long, but you're not likely to penetrate into the crew compartment. Shoot one good round into the side of the vehicle and its goodnight to the people inside. The vehicle will be perfectly fine/usable afterwards tho.

There are always the same two problems when this thread comes up:

1. "I'm from <insert name of tank producing country here> and <insert name of tank from that country here> is the best tank in the world!!11!1!1!!

Yes, this is great, you love your country. Wonderful. Truth is no one knows what tank is the best, because until the fight it out, its all hypothetical, paper based stats. And anyone with half a braincell knows that things rarely, if ever, go the same way as they are predicted on paper...

All current MBTs have their strenghts and their weaknesses. There is no way to know how it would play out unless it actually happenes. Too many variables...

2. People that over-simplify things. "Two shots from a <insert weapon name here> and <insert name of tank here> is DEAD!

Yeah, its never that simple. There is all sorts of things that effect whether or not a round will "kill" a vehicle, and simplifying it down to a "number of shots to kill" is no better than what we have at the moment.

That being said, the chance of seeing the damage system heavily modified before any possible "next game" from BI is slim to nil - its a HUGE amount of work that could never be justified for a free patch...

[kotov12345 10]

People that over-simplify things. "Two shots from a <insert weapon name here> and <insert name of tank here> is DEAD!

yes - but I'm only talking about game and game config.

Game have too many simplify things now - 1 shot = full desruction

---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 AM ----------

AT-4 = M136 = ILAW

All are in game.

Unless you're confusing it with the Soviet AT-4 Spigot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-4_Spigot

ok cool m8 m136 in game is not reloadable 1 shot launcher.

You need install arma2 b4 argue.

Just checked setting M1A2 need 20 RPG7V and 7 RPG7VL to destroy but T90 hold only 8 is this ok ? is T90 in 2.5 times weaky ?

I'm talking about that some vehicles too weak in game some too strong and it lead too some vehicles stayed unusable and others uses in rambo fights....

Edited March 12, 2011 by kotov12345

[dm 9]

Game have too many simplify things now - 1 shot = full desruction

In a lot of cases that will be true, so I dont see where the problem is?

In reality of course, there are certain conditions where you could shoot a vehicle indefinitely, and you will never catastropically kill it - shoot the bushmaster on the LAV at the frontal armour of even a T-72 and you're never going to destroy the tank the way you will in A2 (bursting into flames, a "catastrophic kill"). Shoot a HESH/HEAT/HEP round from a 120mm gun at a BTR-60 tho and there isnt going to be much left...

[kotov12345 10]

Shoot a HESH/HEAT/HEP round from a 120mm gun at a BTR-60 tho and there isnt going to be much left...

no argue with that - but some crew might survive sometimes....

btw in game there is only sabot and heat and heat not destroy vehicles in 1 shot :)

[metalcraze 290]

Things are not equal in real life. So are tanks. Some are better some are worse.

And then tell me PvP people are not trying to ruin ArmA2