equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

[kireta21 13]

Do you remember the F-117 downing in 1999? (Also by a S-125 Neva) It wasnt luck! The old soviet radar systems, like the P-18 or P-12 operating in the VHF band have no difficulty detecting it.

Radar operator knew where F-117 was, even before detecting it, thanks to ground observators and bomber itself flying excactly same route for the third time. It was all about separating target from radar noise. So it's kind of irrelevant.

NATO doctrine was not to engage Soviet armor in head on fight, but to clean sky first, rape T-xxs with close support aicraft and anti-tank helis, and THEN finnish what left with their own tanks.

This is why Warsaw Pack had best air defense ever, both quanity and quality, as countermeasure to expected NATO air superiority, to force NATO armor to head on fight they wanted to avoid.

But I think we're going a bit offtopic, even if discussion itself is interesting nonetheless.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Radar operator knew where F-117 was, even before detecting it, thanks to ground observators and bomber itself flying excactly same route for the third time. It was all about separating target from radar noise.

Yes, I know its offtopic, but I have to correct this. They didnt know where the F-117 was, they detected it using a P-18 radar. They knew only that the F-117 fligh is probably headed to that area. Anyway, you cant "separate the target from radar noise". You see the target on the indicators or not. its so simple. Try this simulator, you can actually shoot down the F-117 in it. (very hard to do) http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

[rangerpl 13]

Yes you're right I'm really confused with all the prototypes and upgrades.

The A6M is the one with the L55 and the current standard MBT. We have only 393 of them cut down from more than 2100 Leo2 A4 in 1996 the count wont get much higher since MBTs are not any longer the main focus for german defense and operation strategy.

The A7 is a private venture of KMW for urban warfare and uses the shorter L44.

Im not always checking version numbers before I write a post, the A7 was the last I did remember for beeimg the most recent version.

Alright then.

I'm just always wary of "armchair commandos", you see... Too many kids these days pulling information out of their ass to try to prove their country's superiority and inflate their own balls.

Carry on :cheers:

[Ollie1983 10]

E3 Sentry radar range OTH in excess of 400KM. Risk from SAMs? Non-existent. F117 in heavy rain is trackable on radar using very old long wave radar, which is very easily jammed anyway. Given the number of successful operational sorties by F117s the loss of one aircraft is pretty good going I would say. In any event the first strike penetration bombing these days would be carried out by B1-Bs or aircraft like the TU-160 flying very low and very fast and using stand off weapons, if in fact their roles was not carried out by cruise missiles which you have not a hope in hell of stopping.

S125?! Lol!!! first fielded 1963!!! Radio command guidance?! lol....

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------

Well actualy, it not a problem to swim on Elbe, have done it several time when i was near on vacations, but still, what does it have to do with our conversation?

For your interest, this is your super wide Elbe when it's corssing with Vltava near mělník city:

http://www.prahanoviny.cz/wp-content/uploads/soutokm%C4%9ALN%C3%8DK7.jpg

It's not so wide as you can see :)

lol! Yeah I can just see tanks walking across that!!!:D

Edited March 17, 2011 by Ollie1983

[derk yall 0]

Does it have even a sence to argue with you? You dont answer to questions, When you dont have an argument you pull out something absolutly irelevant (logistic of WP to do with the actual performance in ArmA II ) and then you go into mocking your discution oponent. You dont have any reliable source for thing that you say (everything you said about WP logistic prove that) and you act as an nice example of Armchair general. I dont see any futher need to discus with you, so the last comment in conversation with you:

As you see, Elbe passing in CZE (in cold war times Czechoslovakia) is not wide, neither deep. There a many bridges over it, and if some bridge would be destroyed by bombarding (as they would not given the effective AA-defense) they could be easyly replaced by ponton bridge. So yes there are bridges over Elbe/Labe wich tanks can cross, there are bridge over Elbe/Labe that supply truck can cross. In cold War there was an effective AA-system with effective airforce wich could protect these bridges and if a bridge was destroyed, it could be replaced by a ponton bridges.

About, F117 - learn something about Ramona, Tamara and Vera radar.

Howgh.

[Ollie1983 10]

Your arguments are inconsistent. First you say the Elbe is not a problem as it is not wide enough or deep enough. Then you go on to really undermine that by saying there are many bridges, we can build pontoons etc etc... So which is it?

Then there is also this nonsense about AAA, yes we can shoot down the capitalist E3, hoo-ray! Only you can't because the E3 would never be anywhere the front line and can monitor and direct a battle from hundreds of KMs away where it is flying over friendly soil and within its own AD umbrella.

Then there is all this nonsense about your much vaunted SAM and AAA ability, much of it based on designs that originated in the 60's and 70's.

That was a threat and NATO knew it, hence the training of aircrew to fly very low, nap of the earth and use stand off weapons like TLAM.

The crossing of rivers in Europe is a major problem, whilst tanks or armouer vehicles can ford, wade or even swim, their supporting vehicles cannot.

All of which reinforces my argument that even if the soviets had technical and numerical superiority in the field, they would have stopped dead for lack of fuel and ammo.

Pontoon bridges are not magical inventions, they represent a lot of soft skinned vehicles and men working in a confined area for a long period of time. Perfect targets for cluster bombs, folding fin rockets and napalm, as well as air delivered mines...

Anyway, the nub of this is that in real life, the American armoured vehicle is the one to be in, simply because they are the only armed forces able to adequately supply and maintain their units in combat for more than a few days.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

I completely agree with Dark Yell. You dont answer any questions. Just talk BS, BS and even more BS. You dont know anything about the equipment of WP. You think that the miserable performance of all soviet/eastern equipment in arab-israeli wars and iraq are real qualification of these, while forget the fact that the arabs didnt receive any valuable training.

S125?! Lol!!! first fielded 1963!!! Radio command guidance?! lol....

What do you think mr. professor, what guidance method the most recent Tor, Tunguska or Pantsir variants use?

And yes, this "pathetic" system downed your "invicible" F-117. The NATO fired dozens of HARM missiles at the battery, and none hit! And besides the F-117, this battery downed an F-16 too. This is the result of proper training.

Lets end this offtopic BS.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Archbishop Lazarus

[Ollie1983 10]

I read a bit of wiki earlier too. Apparently many dozens of missiles were fired in many conflicts and their effectiveness was rather low, actually below western standards. I guess if you throw enough up you'll eventually hit something.

Radio command guidance is thoroughly daft, not least because it is susceptible to jamming. :D You will not find many western weapons system that rely on this today.

I'm sorry you feel this is off topic BS but I myself find it very interesting and I guess many contributors feel the same way. Those who don't are invariably fanbois who feel their national pride or something is being slighted.

I have answered many questions, though most of my points are simply ignored because there is no useful counter argument. You ask whether I am deeply interested in soviet or Warsaw pact materiel, no, not really, I am not, not least because I have no interest in the many different variants of christ knows how many obsolete and tired machines have been fielded in the past by either side. The effectiveness of WP equipment has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, and it has consistently been shown to be creamed at every opportunity or else let down by poorly trained, conscripted or actually unpaid personnel using it.

I am more interested in the doctrine and planning of the major protagonists in this time period and the political arena within which it operated. However, it would appear that no one here has much clue about the soviet plans despite the vehement assertion that WP equipment and their troops were vastly better than those of NATO....

PS I am unsure how many aircraft took part in or how many sorties were carried out in the Kosovo campaign, but I am guessing it was many thousands. The Serbs claimed two aircraft shot down. Congratulations to them, they are clearly excellent and very skilled in air defence.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Ollie1983

[archbishop lazarus 24]

This reply clearly proves that you are an US fanboi. You speak, but know nothing. absolutely nothing. just typical western propaganda.

One last question to you: What do you tink about the M48? Because it had absolutely no chance against the israeli Shermans and AMX-13s in 1967. No. Dont answer it. I already guessed it. You would say that that the arabs frightened of the israelis and blew up their tanks themselves, even that the M48 was the worlds best that time. But if the M48s were T-XX, you would say that how bad those soviet coffins were.

[Ollie1983 10]

I am certainly not a US fanboi mate. I'm from the UK actually. Not that it makes any odds. :D

I can't say I have an opinion really of the M48, although the Americans tend to retain weapon systems that prove very effective, since the M48 is no more, it must have been poor.:confused:

On further reading I see the Israelis took about 3000 KIA and the coalition about 8000 by conservative estimates. Their tank forces took about 400 losses but the arabs lost more than 5 times as much.

Guess they couldn't have done too bad after all, though the Israelis had defensive positions and other technical advantages.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Ollie1983

[Baff1 0]

It works okay for now, its not awful or stopping me from playing, if a patch is released that solves this, fair enough, but I'm not irate about it, nor am I irate about the fact my fanboi T72 gets creamed so easily, apparently, since that apparently happens in real life anyways.

I can't think of any examples of this happening in real life.

---------- Post added at 10:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 PM ----------

We're talking about tanks in the game, that gaming being Arma2. In the game, generally speaking, the M1 is more survivable and it can cream enemy armour if used well.

To me this reflects the real life scenario quite well, hence I have no argument with the game.

.

To me this does not reflect the real life scenario quite well.

For me, the only real life scenario I have heard of with M1 and T72 facing off, required an enormous numerical superiority in the side of the M1 (8:1 = twice that of a Sherman/T34 vs a Tiger in WW2) not to mention air domination and the support of many other weapon systems.

Straight after that battle, M1 got upgunned and uparmoured.

Sorry but this sounds anything but "easy" to me.

In urban conflicts, M1 and T72 both seem to get creamed by infantry.

In it's defense, the M1a1 had a 200 metre greater effective range than the T64/72 in the Gulf War. It had the first shot advantage.

Not so against a missile equiped T64 however.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Baff1

[nkenny 1057]

Why Arabs loose wars. Interesting essay. I don't agree with the premise that warsaw, soviet, or russian equipment is fundamentally less effective than equivelant western gear. I do agree that ideology, political considerations, and logistical infrastructure means more than whose got the shiniest gun.

As a Norwegian I'm hardly a rabid-pro-soviet enthusiast either.

-k

[hellfire257 3]

Back on topic, the range that you are shooting that T72 at, will cause it to explode. Those SABOT darts travel at a stupidly fast speed. At that range the T72 might as well not have armour. The dart will travel through it like a knife through butter. That is why the T72 explodes, along with the ammo storage problem. :)

RE: the Cobra + Sabot, the Sabot will make a nice little hole. Obviously the effects will depend on where the Cobra is hit. I can't really comment on this much, however I'd like to refer you to DCS Black Shark, in which being hit by a shell from a T80 doesn't always mean impending doom. It usually leaves a nice hole which you can see the sky through.

IMO the default system is a fairly good compromise all things considered. However, the best system to date is the ACE damage modelling.

[king homer 1]

In it's defense, the M1a1 had a 200 metre greater effective range than the T64/72 in the Gulf War. It had the first shot advantage.

Not so against a missile equiped T64 however.

That's a loose statment Baff1. There were no T-64 at all in the Gulf War. The T-64 was never exported.

There were a lot more T-72s in Gulf War than M1s. I could now list a lot of facts why the M1 was the far more superior tank in GW but fortunately Archbishop Lazarus did already do this.

[kireta21 13]

There were a lot more T-72s in Gulf War than M1s.

When campaign started, yes. But lots of 'em was blown to bits by air support before first M1's reached battlefields.

Anti-Iraqi coalition performed real-life test of strategy they planned to use in case of Soviets invading Europe. First, secure air superiority and neutralize enemy AA defence. Second, shred enemy armor to pieces with close air support. Third, send tanks to mop up what's left.

Seeing how effective it was in Gulf, it seems Soviets did the right thing putting so much time and resources on developing their air defence systems.

Edited March 24, 2011 by boota

[kotov12345 10]

IMO the default system is a fairly good compromise all things considered. However, the best system to date is the ACE damage modelling.

different system = different bugs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooanGMwMs44

yes - ace match more attractive then game itself - but it lags like hell.

Don't need to make such lag to have better config in damage system.

I only saw one server plays warfare map and never saw that game finished.

Normally ai stop moving and became unkillable and admin restart server.

I have 120 fps in takistan - in ace I have 30 same setting.

[rangerpl 13]

Has anybody here mentioned the fact that Iraqi T-72s performed so poorly because they were downgraded "monkey-models"?

Aside from the add-on spaced armor, put there by the Iraqis, their tanks had plain steel plating, an FCS a'la 1944, no passive night vision (they had floodlights and active NV, both easily detectable), no thermal sights, no proper AP rounds (some were firing training shells).

Also you are forgetting that many Iraqi tanks were not in fact Asad Babils (Iraqi T-72), but rather Type 59s and 69s, roughly similar to T-54/55 and T-62 series tanks. They were in no way superior to the Coalition.

Not to mention the fact that they were being pummeled by the USAF's A-10s and the Army's AH-64s.

The Gulf War was NOTHING like a European conflict. Some Soviet Army T-72s had reactive armor, many had composites as well as NBC protection and modern systems. Same thing goes for Poland, Czechoslovakia, the GDR, Hungary and former Soviet republics. All of them upgraded their tanks with digital FCS, new generation ERA, thermal vision, more powerful engines, etc.

Iraqi T-72s are in no way representative of Soviet tank design as a whole.

[king homer 1]

Iraqi T-72s were as mentioned before in this thread original T-72 models from Russia or export models from Poland (T-72M/M1). Iraq also received some knock-down kits to assemble their own T-72M/M1/whatever (Asad Babil). Most of the T-72 built in Iraq are made out of different T-72 version parts, some with and some without laser range finders etc., so you can't identify them exactly.

different system = different bugs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooanGMwMs44

yes - ace match more attractive then game itself - but it lags like hell.

Don't need to make such lag to have better config in damage system.

I only saw one server plays warfare map and never saw that game finished.

Normally ai stop moving and became unkillable and admin restart server.

I have 120 fps in takistan - in ace I have 30 same setting.

If you're searching for bugs there is little chance you won't find any. But I'm sure the armor damage system is not the reason for your massive FPS drop.

Edited March 25, 2011 by King Homer

[igneous01 19]

different system = different bugs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooanGMwMs44

yes - ace match more attractive then game itself - but it lags like hell.

Don't need to make such lag to have better config in damage system.

I only saw one server plays warfare map and never saw that game finished.

Normally ai stop moving and became unkillable and admin restart server.

I have 120 fps in takistan - in ace I have 30 same setting.

that bugs already been fixed (1.9 now moving to 2.0 soon)

i dont know of what ace problems your talking about, i get the same frames with and without ace. so unless your using something like SLX or zeus, theres your problem.

if its multiplayer setting, well that depends how good their servers are. But everytime i played domination or evo with ace it was all very smooth and good to play.

[kireta21 13]

I'd like to remind you balance problem OP pointed:

the difference between tanks can be for example

t72 blow after 2 body sabots -

t90 after 3 and

m1a2 after 4

Let's compare ArmA2 armor values and RL armor values at its strongest point.

T-72 - 690HP. T-72B (w/o ERA) est. armor - up to 400mm vs. KE.

T-90 - 800HP. T-90 ets. armor - up to 830mm vs KE.

M1A1 - 850HP. M1A1HC (oldest model in active service) armor - up to 900mm vs KE

M1A2 TUSK - 900HP. M1A2 SEP - up to 960mm vs KE.

So game already greatly favours old T-72 in term of armor.

Main difference is here:

Sabot 120mm - 800DMG. M829A3 can penetrate 760-800mm at 2km.

Sabot 125mm - 650DMG. BM-42M can penetrate 600-650mm at 2km.

So OK, these are kinda based on real life ammunition.

Balance isn't bad. Tanks damage system is. Still, with more realistic system game would be just as unbalanced as it is now. And T-72B vs M1A2 SEP TUSK (age difference is over 20 years) would be a turkey shot,

Edited March 25, 2011 by boota

[archbishop lazarus 24]

To make things clear, Iraq used the following versions:

T-72, T-72M, T-72M1, Asad Babil.

They used the T-72 in very limited numbers, these were built in the soviet union.

Most of the T-72M and M1 tanks came from Poland. For unknown reason, polish export tanks are significantly worse quality than soviet and czechslovak ones. (in fact, domestic tanks are also worse, but not that much) This included flawed armor quality, incompatible parts to the other versions, more crude workmanship, and even reliability problems.

Iraq used the 3VBM-3 rounds with 3BM-9 projectile (maraging steel penetrator). In the soviet union, it was only a training round. It cant penetrate even the M-60's front turret (although it penetrates the front hull easily)

Asad Babil tanks were more or less unified, similar to T-72M, their quality was also bad.

The worst problem was the absolute lack of training. They didnt even knew what rounds are they firing! They used their tanks as SP artillery with APFSDS(!!!) against infantry. On some occasions, they just turned the turrets towards the enemy, and fired the gun without aiming. The link Nkenny gave us explains the problems in arab countries in great detail:

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

2 boota:

We dont have T-72B in vanilla game. The one ingame is probably a T-72M1 version. The T-72B's turret armor is around 540mm KE and 900mm CE, the late version (incorrectly: BM) 740mm KE and 1120mm CE. Although this still means that the T-72B is no match for an M1A2.

I also agree, no need balance. We need an armor simulation system, even if its so simple as in Blitzkrieg/The day after.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Archbishop Lazarus

[kireta21 13]

The T-72B's turret armor is around 540mm KE and 900mm CE, the late version (incorrectly: BM) 740mm KE and 1120mm CE.

Only with Kontakt-1 ERA, which was added during production, apparently early production models were uparmored later. Sometimes ERA equiped model is referded to as "T-72BV", made-up model name, similar as AK is commonly called AK-47 to distinguish it from later models. But yeah, ArmA2 T-72 can be some other variant. Do Russians actually have any tanks w/o ERA in service? I mean, in 80's they were adding it even to obsolete tanks like T-55.

I also agree, no need balance. We need an armor simulation system, even if its so simple as in Blitzkrieg/The day after.

That's the first armor simulation system that came to my mind. Fairly realistic (for a game), but still simple. I think it would suit game even better than Steel Beasts-style hardcore realism. But that's just my opinion here.

Edited March 25, 2011 by boota

[king homer 1]

To make things clear, Iraq used the following versions:

T-72, T-72M, T-72M1, Asad Babil.

They used the T-72 in very limited numbers, these were built in the soviet union.

Most of the T-72M and M1 tanks came from Poland. For unknown reason, polish export tanks are significantly worse quality than soviet and czechslovak ones. (in fact, domestic tanks are also worse, but not that much) This included flawed armor quality, incompatible parts to the other versions, more crude workmanship, and even reliability problems.

Iraq used the 3VBM-3 rounds with 3BM-9 projectile (maraging steel penetrator). In the soviet union, it was only a training round. It cant penetrate even the M-60's front turret (although it penetrates the front hull easily)

Asad Babil tanks were more or less unified, similar to T-72M, their quality was also bad.

So basically that what I wrote and you wrote already. Your source? :D

[rangerpl 13]

Iraqi T-72s were as mentioned before in this thread original T-72 models from Russia or export models from Poland (T-72M/M1). Iraq also received some knock-down kits to assemble their own T-72M/M1/whatever (Asad Babil). Most of the T-72 built in Iraq are made out of different T-72 version parts, some with and some without laser range finders etc., so you can't identify them exactly.

This is true.

However, tests conducted by the United States and Germany with ERA-equipped T-72s showed that the modern Russian armor could prevent APFSDS rounds from achieving a 100% penetration rate. This worried the US and led it to develop the M829A2, meanwhile the Russians developed Kontakt-5 and Kaktus armor.

The T-72s in ARMA 2 are not T-72M1s, Chernarus was a former Soviet republic and should therefore be equipped with Soviet Army equipment, not export models. The Russian faction in ARMA should also operate some kind of modern version of the tank.

All I'm saying is that an armored showdown between Russia and the USA wouldn't be as one-sided as people think.

Also bear in mind that the Iraqis were poorly trained, demoralized, unmotivated, and, unlike the Russians, lacked a developed tank doctrine. The Sergeants commanding tanks were not the only inept ones; the lieutenants, captains, colonels and generals commanding them also knew little about the proper application of armored forces.

I'm not trying to defend Russia or try to prove them superior; I'm just saying that they are a much different force from the Iraqis.

[max power 21]

Chernarus wasn't a Union Republic, but an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. I don't know if that makes any difference as to what tanks it might have realistically. They would be at the same rank as Turkmenistan ASSR and Kazakh ASSR.