equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

[Bazul14 10]

PvP is the way to go on the long run, but not with the MW2 style PvP.:bounce3:

---------- Post added at 06:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

As for equality, no tanks are equal, and if you are trying to do that, then stop and don't bother. Its a waste of time and its also stupid...

[Baff1 0]

here we go again about things not being exactly the same, mirrored, balanced or whatever you want to call it for the both sides...

1. the armor for any tank in the world, maybe besides the leopard is not up to par with the m1a2 one.

2. russians had one main basic principle regarding their tanks, since ww2: sheer numbers of them.

.

The same basic principle the U.S. has had. (They built Shermans faster than the Germans could blow them up. In every battle in Iraq they fielded 4 tanks for every enemy tank they faced).

The difference, Russians have made many many more, so they have most likely refined them better. Rather like how the Germans build better motor cars than the British. They build more of them so they refine their process more often. The engineering evolves with each generation produced.

U.S. and U.K. tank armour is a copy of Soviet composite armour.

Abrams armour is older generation armour than the T80 and T90 which both supercede it's design.

Other than that, I agree with your comments on balance, no need to balance the game.

And DM's comments on which tank is the the best. No one really knows. All tank crews must be made to feel that their own tanks are the best so that they have no fear of battle.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Baff1

[kotov12345 10]

it is ok politics and other crap I dont care.

I only I care I want play good game when M1A2 in game hold 20 rpg7v shots it is bug.Game need complete to be reworked on balance.

T90 hold 8 rpg7v shots.

[Bazul14 10]

I think that we are making a slight mistake here. Look, the T90 is an upgraded T72. Abramses, in the Gulf Wars did not get any frontal penetration from 125mm or ATGM fire. Early T72s did, by the hundreds. So yeah... Think about that. Also, older does not mean worse. The T72 and T90 do not contain DU in their armor.

[max power 21]

I think TOP is not concerned so much with the armour strength as the tendency for russian tanks to explode.

[b00ce 160]

But the fact of the matter is, the T-72 blows up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUMxZ34Ptco

The T-90 is essentially a T-72. (Forgive the oversimplification.) I'm willing to bet that the T-90 is almost and/or as likely to explode as the T-72.

The M1 is specially designed to NOT explode violently. (Ammo hatches blow out and the magazine is separate from the crew in the event that it does cook off.)

[Inkompetent 0]

The T-90 is essentially a T-72. (Forgive the oversimplification.) I'm willing to bet that the T-90 is almost and/or as likely to explode as the T-72.

In the event of penetration it indeed is. The comfort for T-90 tank crews is that scoring a penetrating hit on a modern T-90 is much more difficult than on a T-72.

It was also the reason for the now abandoned Black Eagle tank project (modernization of the T-80 with a new turret, with a blow-out magazine like on western tanks), so that they too would have a tank which - when destroyed - doesn't instantly kill the entire crew as well.

[kotov12345 10]

But the fact of the matter is, the T-72 blows up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUMxZ34Ptco

The T-90 is essentially a T-72. (Forgive the oversimplification.) I'm willing to bet that the T-90 is almost and/or as likely to explode as the T-72.

The M1 is specially designed to NOT explode violently. (Ammo hatches blow out and the magazine is separate from the crew in the event that it does cook off.)

it is nothing relayed to problem in game on video no t90 no rpgs no m1a2.

What you talking about m8 ?

[Nightrain 10]

He is talking about that because of its design and the way the ammo is stored, a T-72 is more likely to explode.

[kotov12345 10]

He is talking about that because of its design and the way the ammo is stored, a T-72 is more likely to explode.

Yes - if tank got shot to turret.This is very known problem but nothing relayed to game.

I'm not talking about particularly T72.I'm talking about balance in game based on realistic facts.

The fact is M1A2 hold 20 rpg shots and T90 is 8 is completely crap and called broken game play and bug.

As well as same choppers blows after 2 sabots shots and T72 blow after 1.

My idea not concentrate on particular models but change armor and damage for all models in game.This is very simple to change.

[Beagle 684]

The fact is M1A2 hold 20 rpg shots and T90 is 8 is completely crap and called broken game play and bug.

No it is not since I already pointed out that the T-90 in game is a T-72BU...later renamed T-90 and in no way comparable to modern T-90M

[Baff1 0]

I was under the impression that T72 and M1 were broadly comparable vehicles. Of similar age and generation.

[Inkompetent 0]

I was under the impression that T72 and M1 were broadly comparable vehicles. Of similar age and generation.

The T-72 and M1 - yes. The M1A1 got most importantly a bigger and better gun, and the M1A2 has got even more upgrades. Even then the M1 had better armour than the T-72 which still relied more on numbers than 1v1 fighting.

[Baff1 0]

Sure, but the T72 has had a bucket load of upgrades too.

As I understood it, the armour of the T72 was superior.

They raved about it after it fought in the Bekaa valley.

The reason the M1 got a bigger gun was because the gun it had been using wasn't up to the job.

It fought T72's in the Gulf War and then they upgunned it straight after. Because of (the most basic un-upgraded) T72's armour.

Take note that after the same battle, the Russians, nor any of the many other countries who field the same weapon, didn't feel any express need to upgun their own tanks. They still haven't.

M1 has never ever ever, engaged in 1v1 combat. 4:1 is the lowest force ratio it has deployed in.

It's America's MBT. They have just about the largest army in the world.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Baff1

[Inkompetent 0]

Yep. If it wasn't for the poor training of the Iraqi crews and that the M1s had better night vision it would have been a much tougher fight. M1s up against Russian T-72s would have been a very even fight, most likely.

[whisper 0]

Tssssh, screw that, never say "M1 can be killed", or you'll have the US tough brigade on your neck instantly (examples above), and never say "T72 can be easy target", you'll get Russian Spetz on your door as fast ....

Am I mistaken, or is the thread about tanks (wrongly) fully exploding when being touched on tracks by M1, and nearly everyone answering "My tank is the bettah!" ?

[Baff1 0]

You are mistaken.

Neither I nor Inkompetant are discussing our own tanks.

Our countries have different ones that don't feature in the game.

This is true for the bulk of all respondants in this thread.

But er.. the point is still valid. I think we all know we have to watch ourselves not to get sucked into that.

Tank balancing has been an age old concern here since Operation Flashpoint days. It's quite rare any two people can agree.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Baff1

[kireta21 13]

The reason the M1 got a bigger gun was because the gun it had been using wasn't up to the job.

It fought T72's in the Gulf War and then they upgunned it straight after. Because of (the most basic un-upgraded) T72's armour.

Not really. Only handful of M1IP saw action in 1991. Most American tanks were M1A1 and M1A1HA.

Basically newest variants of M1 and T-72/T-90 were equal to each other. But I don't think USA have any basic M1A1 in active service today. They were mostly upgraded to be roughly equal to M1A2, same like T-72B improved with K-5 ERA.

[Ollie1983 10]

Not really. Only handful of M1IP saw action in 1991. Most American tanks were M1A1 and M1A1HA.

Basically newest variants of M1 and T-72/T-90 were equal to each other. But I don't think USA have any basic M1A1 in active service today. They were mostly upgraded to be roughly equal to M1A2, same like T-72B improved with K-5 ERA.

There is no way the Russian tank can be as heavily armoured as the M1. TUSK improvements boosted its weight to 70 odd tonnes. The T72 and other variants thereof are nothing like this weight.

It is an irrelevance anyway since it is just a game. Whether more variants might be better/worse etc is not an issue since they aren't featured in the game. M1A2 TUSK is in game and is survivable enough for me, vanilla T72 is in game and gets creamed, Desert Storm style. I'm cool with that, since I don't generally use antiquated soviet era enemy gear anyway. Like a country as backward as Takistan would ever be able to field front line equipment anyway.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Although Im a big fan of soviet/russian tanks, I think even the latest T-90A/M is no match for an M1A2. The reasons: It still has the obsolete Kontakt-5 heavy ERA. It doesnt add any protection vs. the M829A3 rounds. Also, the ERA coverage is quite poor on the turret front, the Shtora takes up much room, this area is especially vulnerable.

The second reason is that the T-90 cant use long rod penetrators, due to the autoloader design. The third reason is that the importance of gun launched ATGM is overestimated. It can penetrate 900-1000mm CE RHA, but it isnt enough against the M1A2 turret which is around 1350-1600mm against HEAT.

[Ollie1983 10]

Firing missiles from gun barrels is pointless- The Americans tried this with the Sheridan, didn't work a damn.

A shell can be fired and most of its mass is explosive content, unlike a rocket, which has to be guidance system, propulsion etc. Having weapons on tanks with ranges of many KMs is pretty pointless because in a typical battle they would never be able to detect much less target the enemy at ranges in excess of a few KM. Not so for helicopters which of course have a better vantage point.

The BMP with a dedicated and seperate launcher system for ATGMs is fair enough, giving IFV a sort of potential anti tank ability, same with Bradley and TOW, the beauty of it also being that, since it is wire guided you can fire it at anything- buildings, bunkers, hard points etc.

It is worth noting that hellfire, TOW etc weapons are many times larger than a typical tank shell, which would be a disadvantage in a cramped tank. Crews would prefer to carry more rounds of shells than fewer of rockets. Flight time of shells is also higher, hence less time for the enemy tank to take evasive action. Sabot rounds travel at 1km/sec.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Ollie1983

[kireta21 13]

There is no way the Russian tank can be as heavily armoured as the M1. TUSK improvements boosted its weight to 70 odd tonnes.

Well, yeah I should add "when they came out", cause I was misundertood, I think. M1 vs T-72A, M1A1 vs T-72B, M1A1HA vs T-72B w/K1 ERA, M1A1HC vs T-72 w/K5 ERA. Later 125mm gun reached development limit @Archbishop Lazarus pointed - unability to use long rod penetrators. While NATO countries created M829A3, L28, DM-53. 125mm is stuck in 80's and the newest round - BM-42M - offers similar penetration as BM46 from mid-80's. It's just cheaper as made of tungstein not DU.

TUSK kit (those 7 more tons) have nothing to do with frontal armor. When it comes to tank vs tank M1A2 TUSK is as good as any M1A2 SEP or M1A1SA.

I still wonder why BIS added army's M1A2 TUSK instead of real M1A1HC+ with TUSK kit, as designed for Marine Corps.

[Beagle 684]

Tungsten cabide made penetrators are actually more expensive as DU ones and can deliver a better performance. DU is no miraculous material.

http://defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm

DM-63

http://www.deagel.com/Projectiles/DM-63_a000938001.aspx

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Later 125mm gun reached development limit

Not the gun. The autoloader design. The ukrainian 125mm long rod rounds can penetrate more than 750mm KE RHA, which is 150+ mm more than the most advanced russian ones, but it uses a different autoloader.

Unfortunately, russian tank business is full of corruption. In the early '90s, everyone knew that the T-80U was superior to the late T-72B, still, they abandoned the upgrading of T-80U, and tried to further develop the T-72. Why? The manufacturer of the T-72 was/is better in lobbying.

Knowing this the fate of the Objekt 640 Chorniy Oryol and the new Objekt 195 is quite understandable. The problem is that they still forcing to upgrade the T-72, but there is nowhere to upgrade it. This tank reached its limits, and the latest versions are already obsolete, its inferior in all important aspects (firepower, protection, mobility).

Ukraine continued the development of the T-80UD, and their most recent T-84 Oplot-M is now in the same league as the Abrams, the Challenger2 or the Leopard. This again proves the superiority of the T-80 over the T-72 (T90).

[Ollie1983 10]

DU is a waste material from working with radioisotopes and fuel production. It just happens to be very very dense and cheaper than tungsten not least because Tungsten is so chemically unreactive and thus difficult to obtain.

The autoloader on Soviet or Ex soviet bloc tanks is poor, it elevates the gun between shots and is slower than a human operator. Hence less time on target. It also means one less crewman for tank operation, maintenance etc.

Of course the beauty of materials like DU etc is that they are dense, hard and DU in particular is self sharpening, too.

The fact remains that in all instances the Abrams is more survivable than any T variant and hence this is reflected in game. Who the hell wants the bad guys to win anyway?