Tanks tanks tanks...PROBLEMS!

[pharoah 65]

Really? Ok might have to give that a go. Whats the point of using the artillery computer then if I have to manually raise the main gun?

---------- Post added at 04:39 ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 ----------

Really? Ok might have to give that a go. Whats the point of using the artillery computer then if I have to manually raise the main gun?

---------- Post added at 04:41 ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 ----------

Really? Ok might have to give that a go. Whats the point of using the artillery computer then if I have to manually raise the main gun?

---------- Post added at 05:19 ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 ----------

Really? Ok might have to give that a go. Whats the point of using the artillery computer then if I have to manually raise the main gun?

[KingOchaos 10]

@ Pharoah

it also has auto elevation, thats \ (back slash) but its crap for point shooting because it goes for indirect by default for close targets. So a long time for impact.

I havnt really played with it much mind, just a quick tooto to see how it worked, i have no idea about the artillery computer?

[Doodle 10]

Heavy Artillery versus 18inch drystone wall - Wall wins...Come on..

[pharoah 65]

Thanks guys...also...wtf happened to my post?? lol. ah thats right...the webpage was slooow so I clicked post a couple of times (doh).

I need to work out all the keys for the M4 methinks.

[Hartmann 10]

Oh please. Now the tanks are "worthless airsoft plonkers".

Now one sabot is enough to eliminate a main battle tank without blowing it up right away.

That is airsoft then.

What do you want? Give BIS some info How it should be done.

Like ACE2 did it.

Much like they should look at ACE2 for every single aspect of their game.

[old_painless 182]

The non-destructibility of the environment gets me down every time. I drive a tank against one of those tin-sheds, shed wins! I fire several HE rounds against a tree, tree wins! I fire 20 main gun blasts against the tin-shed, it just stands there grinning once the dust settles (which looks cool, btw)

Also, a battle tank should be able to drive through a wooden house (or tin sheds for crying out loud). Perhaps not wise to do so, but the laws of physics should allow it.

So it's either hitpoints of objects that are wrong, or the rounds are not configured properly. Or the various buildings are not physX enabled, just staffage

[Hellbeard 10]

Oh please. Now the tanks are "worthless airsoft plonkers".

Now one sabot is enough to eliminate a main battle tank without blowing it up right away.

That is airsoft then.

What do you want? Give BIS some info How it should be done.

I really shouldn't have to remind what we had just discussed. Fired against 8 BTRs, a softer target than a tank, at the optimum hit location, the kinetic round only slightly hindered 3 out of 8. Five were unscathed. This should make it clear enough that one sabot is not enough to eliminate a target that's lesser than a tank.

In the world of tank warfare that tank is ineffective to comprise its role. The reason is, if your round can't penetrate at ideal conditions then it can never penetrate no matter how many times you shoot.

If I need to shoot 2-7 rounds to kill a low priority target like an APC, it's not worth the effort of bringing the tank along. They are worthless.

The high signature of the tank is only mitigated by it's firepower and armor. Tanks aren't useful for just one encounter and then they're spent. They should be able to fight for a day or two. That means that every shot has to count, and to have its effect.

The effect is to destroy the target.

A good hit is a good hit. It should destroy/disable ANY TARGET starting with the tank which is the highest armored target. That's the target against which the rounds are made for.

I'll qualify, so you don't get confused, that I mean a good hit is a hit that's in a good angle and at an appropriate location to damage a vital system.

Incidentally the hit location and the reticle are seriously misaligned. Though sights do get out of alignment, unless we have to option to manually re-align, I can't see why it's like this.

Here's a tip how BIS should do it: a hit = a kill. It's the only acceptable way to portray modern tank warfare. If you want to get more simulationey you can change the penetration factor by distance, angle of armor, and hit location.

[nerdwing 13]

The BTR in particular is just weird :\ They just obliterate my M2A1 Slammer in alot of missions I've ran with a quick 2-ATGM volley. They absolutely SOAK up 120mm fire from tanks, as Hellbeard has described.

I'm personally not hugely opposed to the actual tanks being super durable and capable of soaking certain shots many times over, but there should still be a way to bypass that durability by hitting certain parts to trigger catastrophic results.

[mbbird 11]

I really shouldn't have to remind what we had just discussed. Fired against 8 BTRs, a softer target than a tank, at the optimum hit location, the kinetic round only slightly hindered 3 out of 8. Five were unscathed. This should make it clear enough that one sabot is not enough to eliminate a target that's lesser than a tank.

In the world of tank warfare that tank is ineffective to comprise its role. The reason is, if your round can't penetrate at ideal conditions then it can never penetrate no matter how many times you shoot.

If I need to shoot 2-7 rounds to kill a low priority target like an APC, it's not worth the effort of bringing the tank along. They are worthless.

The high signature of the tank is only mitigated by it's firepower and armor. Tanks aren't useful for just one encounter and then they're spent. They should be able to fight for a day or two. That means that every shot has to count, and to have its effect.

The effect is to destroy the target.

A good hit is a good hit. It should destroy/disable ANY TARGET starting with the tank which is the highest armored target. That's the target against which the rounds are made for.

I'll qualify, so you don't get confused, that I mean a good hit is a hit that's in a good angle and at an appropriate location to damage a vital system.

Incidentally the hit location and the reticle are seriously misaligned. Though sights do get out of alignment, unless we have to option to manually re-align, I can't see why it's like this.

Here's a tip how BIS should do it: a hit = a kill. It's the only acceptable way to portray modern tank warfare. If you want to get more simulationey you can change the penetration factor by distance, angle of armor, and hit location.

The only "acceptable" way to portray modern tank warfare? Excuse me? Are you even aware of what a sabot round is? Subcaliber. It's a tiny little non explosive dart flying into your tank, and if you don't hit anything important and there's not much to spall then it's not going to do anything. Tanks of the '60s and '70s were built with such little armor and with so little of the frontal profile not covered in ammo that "1 hit = 1 kill" could in some instances be true, but no longer.

Your little anecdote about destroying a target under optimal conditions is silly. That logic is intended to work on a large operational level, not in a 1v1 stat engagement of a video game that does damage via raw numbers. I don't get why you say 1 shot should equal 1 kill right after stating that tanks have a little something called staying power. Tanks are durable machines. This silly "logic" of yours on as to why damage should be so binary is what made tank battles in all the previous games so uninteresting.

On top of all that, Arma is not a simulator. There's very little interesting about 1 hit = 1 kill for tanks.

[Hellbeard 10]

The only "acceptable" way to portray modern tank warfare? Excuse me? Are you even aware of what a sabot round is? Subcaliber. It's a tiny little non explosive dart flying into your tank, and if you don't hit anything important and there's not much to spall then it's not going to do anything. Tanks of the '60s and '70s were built with such little armor and with so little of the frontal profile not covered in ammo that "1 hit = 1 kill" could in some instances be true, but no longer.

Your little anecdote about destroying a target under optimal conditions is silly. That logic is intended to work on a large operational level, not in a 1v1 stat engagement of a video game that does damage via raw numbers. I don't get why you say 1 shot should equal 1 kill right after stating that tanks have a little something called staying power. Tanks are durable machines. This silly "logic" of yours on as to why damage should be so binary is what made tank battles in all the previous games so uninteresting.

On top of all that, Arma is not a simulator. There's very little interesting about 1 hit = 1 kill for tanks.

Dear friend, I am aware of what a sabot is because I have 15 years cumulative experience as a tank crew man, 3 compulsory duty and an additional 12 active reserve. I am very well versed in ammunition types and effects. More especially the particular gun that is used in the game, the smooth-bore Rhinemetall-licensed 120mm. I think I stated that before.

That is how ammunition works. If you don't like, tough.

One round is one kill - in most circumstance. Penetration isn't making a tiny indentation and then following that with another hit to go all the way through. The dart doesn't only make a small hole and shoot debris out the other side, it keeps going penetrating, destroying and shattering all the systems in its path. Creating additional damage from the super hot metal, shrapnel, shock wave and things catching fire.

Tanks are only durable against ammo that isn't specifically made to defeat their armor. The rounds the tank shoots, are such ammunition. That's the AP part in APFSDS, it stands for Armor Piercing. That means that it... wait for it... Pierces the armor! Ta daaa!

If I wanted to play a game that had little to no simulation to it, there's a lot more options that do it far better and prettier than ARMA.

Edit: after some research I found a claim that the L44/120mm I'm friendly with isn't licensed by Rhinemetall but is merely compatible with it. TMYK.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Hellbeard

[old_painless 182]

The non-destructibility of the environment gets me down every time. I drive a tank against one of those tin-sheds, shed wins! I fire several HE rounds against a tree, tree wins! I fire 20 main gun blasts against the tin-shed, it just stands there grinning once the dust settles (which looks cool, btw)

Also, a battle tank should be able to drive through a wooden house (or tin sheds for crying out loud). Perhaps not wise to do so, but the laws of physics should allow it.

So it's either hitpoints of objects that are wrong, or the rounds are not configured properly. Or the various buildings are not physX enabled, just staffage

Just checked - the tin shed can be blown up and destroyed with an explosive charge. So the damage dealt from a battle tank main gun may be too small .....

[PantherAl 11]

Hellbeard nails it:

Just because its a solid bar, doens't mean it just makes pretty holes. 6 Years active duty Tanker, with rings on my gun tube to show I know what I am about. When a KE penatrator hits a tank, the spalling that is caused (Thats the hunks of metal being blasted off the backside of the armour - spall liners are usless agianst full up guns) is shot off like a super sized shotgun. But thats just part of it: You have a massive overpressure forming ni the compartment as the very metal of the dart and the armour turns into plasma: which is very very hot as you can imagine. Anything even slightly flamable will burst into flames. And that specifically means ammo. Unless its behind a nice thick blast panel (The M1, or Merk for example are the only ones that really have a serious protective plate - sheet metal doesn't count), that superhot fragments, or raw plasma, with hit the ammo and... pop goes the top. Speaking from experience, its very obvious when you have a good hit on a tank with silver bullets.

[byku 13]

The BTR problem is the fact that it does too much damage imo with its 35mm cannon. M2A1 can survive 2 missiles but it gets destroyed by those few 35mm shots, also the areas(engine, crew etc) are probably too small without the full sabot simulation(like hellbeard said). I was able to destroy BTR with one shot but i suppose it was VERY lucky. So either they should increase the size of "engine" etc, so our SABOT would hit them easier or they should improve sabot simulation(which is probably a lot harder :P), although current armor simulation is miles better than Arma 2:) for that thanks BIS. Oh... and Cheetah AI will win ALWAYS with AI in T-100... why does 35mm rounds destroy T-100 is beyond me.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Byku

[christianmo 10]

I went to the ticket posted earlier in the thread and found this link to the results of a test where a T-80U and a T-90 were tested against various AT weapons. I figured the T-90 should offer less or equal to the same amount of armor the T-100 offers in Arma 3.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

As its seen no penetrations to the front was had from the APFSDS round with ERA armor. This suggest that regular armor + ERA is able to stop most, and in this case all of said rounds. Furthermore it shows that only 1/5 of the rounds penetrated the front without ERA. this shows three things:

1) ERA is effective at stopping APFSDS rounds.

2) The front armor alone should be able to stop the majority of APFSDS rounds.

3) without ERA, a significant proportion of rounds can penetrate the front, which is considered the strongest AFAIK.

The tests results are only relevant to hits made to the front. It would be nice to have data from side hits as well, to show the impact different armor thicknesses makes.

To me it seems like scoring the "good hit" is what is what should be difficult. Can't really say anything about the lethality of AP round that penetrates into the crew compartment, i will leave that to the experts who have seen the damages done by shrapnel. Look into the data yourself, you might interpret it another way than i have :).

[KingOchaos 10]

I have exactly zero experience in armored warfare in RL(riding in apcs is about the extent of my experience.)

I agree with the BTR (why is it tracked, shouldnt it be a bmp) One sabot should mean yah cleaning out the crew and passengers with a hose. But the MBT's are suppossed to be the next generation ones, im assuming the t100 would be the armata mbt t99, one of the few things known about it is its supposed to have the crews in internal armoured capsules, and an unmanned turret, even if one o the capsules is destroyed, the tank can theoretically remain operational, with the remaining crew assuming control of their dead comrades duties. These arnt downgraded 50 year old t72s.

But as a curiosity, ive got ask, ive always wondered how a needle penetrator would perform on a heavily sloped, ERA covered say t90 turret, does it dissipate/deflect penetration, or is ERA only effective against shaped explosive/heat rounds?

---------- Post added at 23:06 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

I went to the ticket posted earlier in the thread and found this link to the results of a test where a T-80U and a T-90 were tested against various AT weapons. I figured the T-90 should offer less or equal to the same amount of armor the T-100 offers in Arma 3.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

As its seen no penetrations to the front was had from the APFSDS round with ERA armor. This suggest that regular armor + ERA is able to stop most, and in this case all of said rounds. Furthermore it shows that only 1/5 of the rounds penetrated the front without ERA. this shows three things:

1) ERA is effective at stopping APFSDS rounds.

2) The front armor alone should be able to stop the majority of APFSDS rounds.

3) without ERA, a significant proportion of rounds can penetrate the front, which is considered the strongest AFAIK.

The tests results are only relevant to hits made to the front. It would be nice to have data from side hits as well, to show the impact different armor thicknesses makes.

To me it seems like scoring the "good hit" is what is what should be difficult. Can't really say anything about the lethality of AP round that penetrates into the crew compartment, i will leave that to the experts who have seen the damages done by shrapnel. Look into the data yourself, you might interpret it another way than i have :).

Well that answers my question, i must have been typing when you were posting ;-)

[nerdwing 13]

Playing with a friend as a tank crew (Invade and Annex), and we expended an entire tank's AP load into 4 enemy armored vehicles without any kills. Two T-100's, and two ZSU's. Over 18 hits (some went short because ~magic~)

Engagement was 200-250 meters. Highlight was an APFSDS round going through a ZSU's turret clean and destroying the civilian house behind it.

[Hellbeard 10]

I went to the ticket posted earlier in the thread and found this link to the results of a test where a T-80U and a T-90 were tested against various AT weapons. I figured the T-90 should offer less or equal to the same amount of armor the T-100 offers in Arma 3.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

As its seen no penetrations to the front was had from the APFSDS round with ERA armor. This suggest that regular armor + ERA is able to stop most, and in this case all of said rounds. Furthermore it shows that only 1/5 of the rounds penetrated the front without ERA. this shows three things:

1) ERA is effective at stopping APFSDS rounds.

2) The front armor alone should be able to stop the majority of APFSDS rounds.

3) without ERA, a significant proportion of rounds can penetrate the front, which is considered the strongest AFAIK.

The tests results are only relevant to hits made to the front. It would be nice to have data from side hits as well, to show the impact different armor thicknesses makes.

To me it seems like scoring the "good hit" is what is what should be difficult. Can't really say anything about the lethality of AP round that penetrates into the crew compartment, i will leave that to the experts who have seen the damages done by shrapnel. Look into the data yourself, you might interpret it another way than i have :).

Without casting doubt as to the validity of this website we should think logically. If the tank can't destroy it's natural enemy: the opposing tank, it's gonna have a bad time. They will more often than not meet front to front,

Consider also, that not all APFSDS ammo is the same and equal. There have been and still are improvements to the technology of ammunition and armor side by side. When one is improved the other follows.

In any event, the supposed ammo used for the trial is noted as 3BM42. After a quick search it turns out that for the supposed era of the test the ammo was already obsolete:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_ammunition#3VBM17.2F3BM42_.283BM44.29

The website states a distance of 1,500 meters. Wikipedia says the ammo has a penetration ability of 450mm at 2,000 meters perpendicular to the armor, the one right after it on the list from eight years before the test has 600mm and the one after that(current?) has 800mm. ERA may deflect the round (I don't know, that's not what it was made to defeat); once the ERA module explodes, it's gone.

Finally, gonna have some doubts as to what the data was and whether or not this website has any credibility, beyond that it seems to me that using obsolete ammunition to prove how great your modern tank protection is falls in line with my stereotypical conception of Russian arms industry.

Nerdwing- your experience sounds like what I'd expect: terrible. I hope they change it completely on release (or intend to change it soon thereafter). Though there hasn't been any word(at least that I've heard).

[Hellbeard 10]

Hmmmm. From the changelog/spotrep:

"New impact effects for SABOT ammo"

A new experiment is in order!

[Tonci87 163]

Don´t bother, it is just a visual effect.

[PantherAl 11]

ERA has about zero effect on KE ammunition other than it adds a few mm's of metal it must punch through - a KE round is going so fast the ERA block doesn't have time to explode before the rod is through it. The reasoning behind ERA however is to defeat shaped charges. As a HEAT round hits the target, the spike on the end ignites the round proper. The explosion of the HE material is shaped by first, the cone that it is molded into the shape of, and the copper (usually) disk that caps it. Between the HE and the Copper, a jet of superheated plasma forms that will cut through metal much like a really really soupped up cutting torch will. ERA works by causing the HEAT spike to hit it first. This has two effects. One, the plasma jet is started before its supposed to: the length of the spike is very specific in order to maximize its effectiveness. Second, the explosion of the ERA will affect the shape of that plasma jet, greatly reducing its effectiveness.

As to the site mentioned earlier.

Yeah. Um, that is fantasy la-la land. Remember; Sov/Rus tanks come in 30 tonnes or so lighter than western designs. Since the gun and ammo is about the same, the fuel capacity near enough, and the engines not all that different, where do you think that wieght was shaved off of? Armour. Sov/Rus designs simply can not have equal armour protection, untill someone overrules the laws of physics, or comes up with some sort of Anti-Gravity device.

[JestersDead 2]

If you have any doubts about how ridiculous the armor is, watch this video...

http://youtu.be/HXFD4K7kl5w

There's an earlier video as well, but the 2nd one really shows how heavy the armor is. After recording that video, I did another where I fired SEVEN PCML's into a mobile howitzer before it died. Seven. There's no argument you can give me that will make me accept that as normal. I'll post the PCML video if anyone wants to see it.

Edited September 12, 2013 by JestersDead

[maturin 12]

ERA has about zero effect on KE ammunition other than it adds a few mm's of metal it must punch through - a KE round is going so fast the ERA block doesn't have time to explode before the rod is through it. The reasoning behind ERA however is to defeat shaped charges. As a HEAT round hits the target, the spike on the end ignites the round proper. The explosion of the HE material is shaped by first, the cone that it is molded into the shape of, and the copper (usually) disk that caps it. Between the HE and the Copper, a jet of superheated plasma forms that will cut through metal much like a really really soupped up cutting torch will.

You're out of date. Modern Russian ERA now detonates before even being struck by KE, disrupting the trajectory of the projectile.

[Hellbeard 10]

You're out of date. Modern Russian ERA now detonates before even being struck by KE, disrupting the trajectory of the projectile.

Please link to a source. I'd like to see how that works. Couldn't find anything by searching.

Edit:

Actually found something-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5

"...Relikt, the most modern Russian ERA, which is claimed to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5[citation needed]. It detonates on command before the round hits based on information from radar..."

Interesting.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Hellbeard

[mbbird 11]

ERA has about zero effect on KE ammunition other than it adds a few mm's of metal it must punch through - a KE round is going so fast the ERA block doesn't have time to explode before the rod is through it. The reasoning behind ERA however is to defeat shaped charges. As a HEAT round hits the target, the spike on the end ignites the round proper. The explosion of the HE material is shaped by first, the cone that it is molded into the shape of, and the copper (usually) disk that caps it. Between the HE and the Copper, a jet of superheated plasma forms that will cut through metal much like a really really soupped up cutting torch will. ERA works by causing the HEAT spike to hit it first. This has two effects. One, the plasma jet is started before its supposed to: the length of the spike is very specific in order to maximize its effectiveness. Second, the explosion of the ERA will affect the shape of that plasma jet, greatly reducing its effectiveness.

As to the site mentioned earlier.

Yeah. Um, that is fantasy la-la land. Remember; Sov/Rus tanks come in 30 tonnes or so lighter than western designs. Since the gun and ammo is about the same, the fuel capacity near enough, and the engines not all that different, where do you think that wieght was shaved off of? Armour. Sov/Rus designs simply can not have equal armour protection, untill someone overrules the laws of physics, or comes up with some sort of Anti-Gravity device.

Ah, another WEST IS THE BEST man, incapable of seeing both sides of the story.

You're wrong on both accounts; I imagine your ignorance to Kontakt-5 has something to do with the above. And as for Eastern tanks? Yeah lets forget the fact that the tanks are not even remotely similar in size to the Abrams-esque vehicles of the west. Silhouette differences, cabin space differences, shape differences, slopes, cavity additions, and armor composition differences. You're absolutely delusional if you think the weight difference and your own lacking understanding of "the laws of physics" alone equates to the conclusion you want.

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

Lets also consider the fact that A. "NATO" is likely not using depleted uranium and B. The entire silhouette of the tank is not the entire silhouette of the crew compartment, and moreover, IFVs/APCs have separate compartments entirely for separate crews and sometimes for the driver on his own. Bits of spall, intense pressure waves, and fast metal rods are all very dangerous, but they do not cause lazer-like destruction through every inch of the vehicle. A good hit into the turret cabin area would nearly certainly kill the gunner and commander, but to say it destroys everything in sight of the point of penetration is absolutely silly, and that every hit is a crew cabin hit is even worse.

Edited September 12, 2013 by mbbird

[Hellbeard 10]

Ah, another WEST IS THE BEST man, incapable of seeing both sides of the story.

You're wrong on both accounts; I imagine your ignorance to Kontakt-5 has something to do with the above. And as for Eastern tanks? Yeah lets forget the fact that the tanks are not even remotely similar in size to the Abrams-esque vehicles of the west. Silhouette differences, cabin space differences, shape differences, slopes, cavity additions, and armor composition differences. You're absolutely delusional if you think the weight difference and your own lacking understanding of "the laws of physics" alone equates to the conclusion you want.

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

Lets also consider the fact that A. "NATO" is likely not using depleted uranium and B. The entire silhouette of the tank is not the entire silhouette of the crew compartment, and moreover, IFVs/APCs have separate compartments entirely for separate crews and sometimes for the driver on his own. Bits of spall, intense pressure waves, and fast metal rods are all very dangerous, but they do not cause lazer-like destruction through every inch of the vehicle. A good hit into the turret cabin area would nearly certainly kill the gunner and commander, but to say it destroys everything in sight of the point of penetration is absolutely silly, and that every hit is a crew cabin hit is even worse.

I'm curious. Why does that "NATO" isn't using DU seem significant to you? *edit: after reading up a bit I guess you mean that the DU causes more fire than Tungsten. A valid point.

What ignorance of Kontakt-5 has been displayed? You don't mean the not yet fielded Relikt?

*the penetrator will turn molten and super hot as it shoots into the inside of the armor. Damage may be compartmentalized. Unless the hit doesn't affect any of the components, if it weren't center mass for example, tanks should be considered destroyed after two hits. If they don't explode or break up after one.

This image seems to illustrate the issue rather well. I'm not certain about the authenticity or accuracy.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Hellbeard