Tanks tanks tanks...PROBLEMS!

[pipin78 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.

yeah true.. but these things are not modelled in game.. the armor/penetration system is obviously still WIP and need more work.

For example there are too few critical points modelled: I can unload 6-7 or more APDS rounds in the merkava turret ammo bustle (from the side) without any effect.. No turret damage.. no effect on the ammo count.. nothing..

(Try shooting an empty tank and then enter the vehicle to verify the damage)

The other problem is that there is zero feedback on the damage inflicted.. just a subtle texture change..

The devs should look at the following games for ispiration:

SABOW

Men of War series

Iron Front 1944 (same engine as ARMA 2!!)

in all of the above games there is good feedback on the damage inflicted and even scars and hit decals in the first two..

[das attorney 858]

The devs should look at the following games for ispiration:

SABOW

Men of War series

Iron Front 1944 (same engine as ARMA 2!!)

in all of the above games there is good feedback on the damage inflicted and even scars and hit decals in the first two..

Not to sound dissonant to your consonant; Iron Front (which you quite rightly cited as close to the Arma engine) caused significant slowdown when multiple vehicles were struck at the same time. I believe this to be because of the scripted damage routines.

If the calculation was engine-side in Arma 3, it would be a much better implementation imo.

Not to mention the lack of feedback (aural mainly) that you have in a vehicle, which distracts the player from their environment.

Offtopic but; why doesn't the player hear the clanging about of spent ammunition cartridges in the tank (and servo/hydraulic turret traverse sounds)???

[PantherAl 11]

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.

*sigh*

If you take a moment, and read the other posts in this thread and others, you will see where I pointed out the advantages that Sov/Rus design does have: And size was a big one. The gun/missile system: they are the first ones to get it right. Armour composition? Yeah, not so much. Russians are years behind, even Rosoboronexport admits as such in the development of higher grades of armour. And pray tell? How do you get the same armour of a tank that is 75 tons on a tank that is 45? What are you taking out? You have to take out something, because nothing is for free. And crew arrangement... sure, if you don't mind the autoloader ripping your arm off every now and then. Still only three which means when one tank goes down, a second goes with it to provide manpower to get it going again. And lack of understanding....

Excuse me... Had to wipe off the mess I made whilst drinking when I read that. Unlike some, I have spent years in the real world, using real tanks, using real ammo against real targets that shot back with real ammo. Secondly, I was a master gunner. Those that have served knows what that means. Basically, in short: I know of which I speak. I didn't learn all I know from playing video games and reading propaganda pieces put out by the very companies that are trying to sell Russian equipment or by the Russian government itself (usually one and the same, but..).

Which isn't to say all Russian stuff is crap. You need a cheap tank that looks good but you are pretty sure you won't have to use? Buy Russian. You need Air Defense? Unless you are getting onesies and twosies of this and that system, buy Russian Integrated Systems: From SPAAG's, Short, Medium, and Long Range missiles, all in one integrated package to cover a full up theatre of operations. Can't beat it. I'd replace the radars with western gear, but other wise Russian IAD has a very serious no BS rep. And the D30. Oh my, did they get that right. Best light gun made in the past 60 years. Hands down. Sure, the newish Royal Ord 105 is really good - fantastic even, but give a D30 a modern material workover - leave the design intact, just better materials and QC - it's a world beater.

But Russian Armour is only slightly better than a bad joke. The thing that the Sov's had going for was the use of heaping piles of them in a pretty decent Strategic and Tactical Doctrine - Doctrine we stole shamelessly and turned it into the late cold war Air-Land battleplan. Small targets make for hard to hit tanks - but that's less true now than it was then. Optics - again here, the Russians can't match - goes a long way to defeating that advantage. I don't care how small a target is, if I can see its glow in thermals, its easy pickings.

As to NATO not using DU...

Um. Yeah. Good luck with that. The US doesn't have a non-DU KE round. The Germans have the DM23, 33, 43, 53 and 63, but even then you are looking at Tungsten, and proven experience against ERA shows that it has zilch effect, other than letting you know you hit it for sure and certain. Simple fact: ERA has very little effect on KE weapons. Yes, if fired soon enough - Active Defense Systems are getting a lot of attention for this reason - it has a some chance of slightly deflecting the round. But very slight. ERA against HEAT on the other hand, is pretty darn good. As to Kontakt-5, also known as the 4S22 Panel. It does have better performance against KE weapons, but not with out *serious* drawbacks. For starters, its not a add on system. It has to be built into the tank at the factory level. It comes in 50% heavier, with a similar increase in weight of explosive. Which has the habit of ripping off gunsights, antennas, that sort of thing when they go off to near something easily broken. The first use of this was in the Object 219AS. Which later became known as the T80U. So, while protection - by Russian sources - only increased 10%, the cost of a T80U came out to be (in 84) R824,000 vs the T72B cost of R280,000. Not cost effective. Now, a lot of the armour that was destroyed by US forces was export models: these are not the best yardstick to judge by, as they usually had less capable armour and firepower. However, in the 90's, The US was able to purchase quite a lot of state of the art Russian Armour, that had all the bells and whistles and was able to handle them with the latest ammo without major issue. As to the T90- All that it actually is, is just a T72 with K-5 ERA and the FCS from the T80. To give one an idea as to how good the T90's FCS is, The only major export customer trashed them and replaced them with FCS's purchased from Thales, and the Active Defense system; the vaunted Shtora and Arena (Which for when they was introduced was actually decent), have also been ditched in favour of a system developed by Saab. The Russian's claim to have used a US made M829 round against the T90, saying that it stopped it cold, but no one believes that the Russians was able to get their hands on DU ammunition that isn't exported to anyone. While the test was a confirmed fact, as well as the fact that the round used was stopped, the betting is more along the lines of the DM33, which is very easy to get your hands on. And unsurprising, since that's a much older 120 KE round.

[mbbird 11]

*sigh*

If you take a moment, and read the other posts in this thread and others, you will see where I pointed out the advantages that Sov/Rus design does have: And size was a big one. The gun/missile system: they are the first ones to get it right. Armour composition? Yeah, not so much. Russians are years behind, even Rosoboronexport admits as such in the development of higher grades of armour. And pray tell? How do you get the same armour of a tank that is 75 tons on a tank that is 45? What are you taking out? You have to take out something, because nothing is for free. And crew arrangement... sure, if you don't mind the autoloader ripping your arm off every now and then. Still only three which means when one tank goes down, a second goes with it to provide manpower to get it going again. And lack of understanding....

Excuse me... Had to wipe off the mess I made whilst drinking when I read that. Unlike some, I have spent years in the real world, using real tanks, using real ammo against real targets that shot back with real ammo. Secondly, I was a master gunner. Those that have served knows what that means. Basically, in short: I know of which I speak. I didn't learn all I know from playing video games and reading propaganda pieces put out by the very companies that are trying to sell Russian equipment or by the Russian government itself (usually one and the same, but..).

Which isn't to say all Russian stuff is crap. You need a cheap tank that looks good but you are pretty sure you won't have to use? Buy Russian. You need Air Defense? Unless you are getting onesies and twosies of this and that system, buy Russian Integrated Systems: From SPAAG's, Short, Medium, and Long Range missiles, all in one integrated package to cover a full up theatre of operations. Can't beat it. I'd replace the radars with western gear, but other wise Russian IAD has a very serious no BS rep. And the D30. Oh my, did they get that right. Best light gun made in the past 60 years. Hands down. Sure, the newish Royal Ord 105 is really good - fantastic even, but give a D30 a modern material workover - leave the design intact, just better materials and QC - it's a world beater.

But Russian Armour is only slightly better than a bad joke. The thing that the Sov's had going for was the use of heaping piles of them in a pretty decent Strategic and Tactical Doctrine - Doctrine we stole shamelessly and turned it into the late cold war Air-Land battleplan. Small targets make for hard to hit tanks - but that's less true now than it was then. Optics - again here, the Russians can't match - goes a long way to defeating that advantage. I don't care how small a target is, if I can see its glow in thermals, its easy pickings.

As to NATO not using DU...

Um. Yeah. Good luck with that. The US doesn't have a non-DU KE round. The Germans have the DM23, 33, 43, 53 and 63, but even then you are looking at Tungsten, and proven experience against ERA shows that it has zilch effect, other than letting you know you hit it for sure and certain. Simple fact: ERA has very little effect on KE weapons. Yes, if fired soon enough - Active Defense Systems are getting a lot of attention for this reason - it has a some chance of slightly deflecting the round. But very slight. ERA against HEAT on the other hand, is pretty darn good. As to Kontakt-5, also known as the 4S22 Panel. It does have better performance against KE weapons, but not with out *serious* drawbacks. For starters, its not a add on system. It has to be built into the tank at the factory level. It comes in 50% heavier, with a similar increase in weight of explosive. Which has the habit of ripping off gunsights, antennas, that sort of thing when they go off to near something easily broken. The first use of this was in the Object 219AS. Which later became known as the T80U. So, while protection - by Russian sources - only increased 10%, the cost of a T80U came out to be (in 84) R824,000 vs the T72B cost of R280,000. Not cost effective. Now, a lot of the armour that was destroyed by US forces was export models: these are not the best yardstick to judge by, as they usually had less capable armour and firepower. However, in the 90's, The US was able to purchase quite a lot of state of the art Russian Armour, that had all the bells and whistles and was able to handle them with the latest ammo without major issue. As to the T90- All that it actually is, is just a T72 with K-5 ERA and the FCS from the T80. To give one an idea as to how good the T90's FCS is, The only major export customer trashed them and replaced them with FCS's purchased from Thales, and the Active Defense system; the vaunted Shtora and Arena (Which for when they was introduced was actually decent), have also been ditched in favour of a system developed by Saab. The Russian's claim to have used a US made M829 round against the T90, saying that it stopped it cold, but no one believes that the Russians was able to get their hands on DU ammunition that isn't exported to anyone. While the test was a confirmed fact, as well as the fact that the round used was stopped, the betting is more along the lines of the DM33, which is very easy to get your hands on. And unsurprising, since that's a much older 120 KE round.

I'm going to start by saying: I apologize for being antagonistic. I'd like to clarify some things though.

I'm not the opposite side of the spectrum with EAST IS THE BEST, and I make every attempt to be as unaffected by Eastern propaganda as possible. You know your stuff, that's pretty clear, but the armor/crew arrangements are important! You admit it yourself, 45 vs 65-70 tons is a big difference, but getting a similar amount of armor to 70 tons out of 45 tons is not difficult when such sacrifices have indeed been made! The crew and size arrangements were carried out, and that's where the majority of the weight disparity comes from. I don't mean to say it's the same amount of armor, some Western tanks have absolutely bonkers amounts of armor by LOS in the turret or UFP, but the sacrifices have been made to give Eastern tanks reasonably high amounts of front LOS armor. Regardless, when the big guns start duking it out I don't expect either West or East tanks to withstand optimal frontal 120/125mm hits anyway, but there are some provisions for anything of lesser power or of the (not tandem, which is gaining popularity in the ME) HEAT variety. But at least we're both acknowledging tradeoffs here and that's significantly better than the original post of yours from before (and I apologize for just having jumped into this thread).

As for the middle Russian bit: yeah, to say that certain hardware or specifically tank hardware alone was the only good thing the Soviets had going for them would be unfair. And to address a similar point, any information about the Russian military that comes from Russian sources is to be almost entirely ignored. That said, and I wish I could find the source right now, the last I read, the US government had reason to fear Soviet tanks with the data they worked with in the 80s and then 90s. You mentioned it yourself: they're not perfect but they're frightening in some respects. The Eastern design is perhaps a bit dated if we want to compare their performance to Western tanks in COIN warfare, but I wouldn't call them jokes.

And for the last bit. Yeah, Soviet/Russian tank design got convoluted and lost by the late 80s and fell apart entirely in the 90s. It's almost not fair, with the state Russia is in, to even compare them to the East anymore, but the concepts are all there. The claim is not that K-5 has improved KE protection performance, it's that it practically removes the danger of certain KE rounds entirely. I don't know whether or not to believe the claim or even part of it, but that's the idea. The drawbacks come with their tradeoffs, and maybe a part of the above is true, but who knows. It's actually physically exhausting trying to find solid, citable research on tanks since the 90s. I agree with most of what you've said about the T-90 (although the MS looks promising) but again, it's almost not fair considering the military funding of post-Soviet Russia. India seems to be enjoying it as a platform despite the stock drawbacks you mentioned.

That all aside, none of this, as interesting as it is, is particularly relevant to Arma 3 and while I totally love ontopic threads gone offtopic, I'm starting to ramble. I don't actually know if we can assume anything about DU rounds with our Armaverse NATO faction, I was actually just throwing the idea out there, remembering that a lot of EU nations don't use DU. Hell, there's like a 95% chance that the 120mm gun is a placeholder/WIP, along with large parts of A3 right now, so we'd better see improved armor simulation in the future, but I'm sure proper parallels between real life and vidya can be struck.

Edited September 13, 2013 by mbbird

[PantherAl 11]

*grins*

Fair enough. I will say this about Russian designs: If they went West between 1970 and 1982, they would have made a short job of it. The tipping point was the late 70's, though the budgets wasn't there, the DoD finally said to the various industries, "Stop with the save a buck mentality, build us the very best and screw the cost.". By the time they hit the field, and the training budgets went up, well, it was all but over.

But yes, we wandered far off topic. :)

[KingOchaos 10]

It may have been off topic, but interesting non the less. That Kontakt-5 is pretty cunning, it would never have crossed my mind it worked like scissors trying to shear the rod.. http://greathistory.com/how-reactive-armor-works.htm

Oh course this is the reason the rounds have evolved also... i suppose its classified, i guess they sheath the rods in ceramic or titanium or something.

But yea, the effect o the KE rounds needs a rethink... and the btr needs to be re designated bmp ;-)

[Hellbeard 10]

*grins*

Fair enough. I will say this about Russian designs: If they went West between 1970 and 1982, they would have made a short job of it. The tipping point was the late 70's, though the budgets wasn't there, the DoD finally said to the various industries, "Stop with the save a buck mentality, build us the very best and screw the cost.". By the time they hit the field, and the training budgets went up, well, it was all but over.

But yes, we wandered far off topic. :)

Soviet made tanks have driven west belligerent. This evening is Yom Kippur, or the day of atonement. In 1973 on Yom Kippur the Arab coalition launched a multi pronged offensive against Israel. Egypt and Syria fielded Soviet armor and Israel had mostly Western armor(M50, M51, M48, M60A1, Centurions and some converted T series captured earlier).

There was yet a technological advantage for the eastern machines- they had IR illumination or light amplification equipment which Israel lacked. In the other factors the field was relatively level, each design doctrine playing to its strength.

The numbers are around ~2,300 Arab tanks neutralized to ~400 Israeli tanks. So, a rate of 1 to 5-6.

Most tank kills were in armor vs. armor combat if memory serves me. Many were due to the introduction of wire guided AT missiles, esp. Sagger.

It should be noted, though, that there is a very significant human factor. Training, skill, doctrine, tactics, strategy and sheer ferocity are a decisive factor. When a single battalion of Israeli armor went up against a division of Syrian tanks in the Valley of Tears it was men who steeled their nerves, kept their cool and had the will to fight 40 against 500. The gun shoots as well as the commander manages, from a position sound as the driver brings it, as fast as the loader loads and accurate as the gunner aims.

As much as can be ascribed to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the design doctrine, it's how you use it that counts.

A notable example is Zvika Force- 2 tanks against 200.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Hellbeard

[Damian90 697]

It may have been off topic, but interesting non the less. That Kontakt-5 is pretty cunning, it would never have crossed my mind it worked like scissors trying to shear the rod.. http://greathistory.com/how-reactive-armor-works.htm

Oh course this is the reason the rounds have evolved also... i suppose its classified, i guess they sheath the rods in ceramic or titanium or something.

But yea, the effect o the KE rounds needs a rethink... and the btr needs to be re designated bmp ;-)

Wrong, "Kontakt-5" does not work as scissors.

It uses a different mechanism. First it increase erosion effect on penetrator (penetrator erodes during penetration process), second is that moving plates when ERA detonates, are inducting stress on penetrator, which meakes it to yaw and bend to the point where penetrator might break in to several pieces, such smaller pieces have limited penetration capability. And then there is strong latteral shock which pushes penetrator and it's fragments in to opposite direction limiting it's penetration capabilities further.

What is important to note, modern tanks composite armor works in similiar way. The "Burlington" armor (which is falsely called "Chobham") works on similiar principle as well as later armor designs developed by UK, US and their allies. This is why calling these armors passive is wrong, actually no modern tank base it's protection on passive armor, this protection is based on reactive armor in form of well known explosive reactive armor and less known by general public, non energetic reactive armor known by this general public as composite armor.

And no, modern APFSDS rods does not use ceramics. Actually ceramics are awfull material for both penetrators or even armor. Of course ceramics are very hard, but also very brittle, which is serious disadvantage.

Titanium on the other hand is very expensive.

Modern penetrators are actually heavy metal alloys, which is depleted uranium alloy or tungsten alloy.

Other thing is that "Kontakt-5" is actually obsolete type of universal or heavy ERA. There are newer types of ERA, like "Relikt" or even more promising, Ukrainian "Knife" and "Duplet". Ukrainian ERA works on completely different principle, by using linear shaped charges to create "knifes" cutting penetrators or other types of anti armor ammuniton in to small pieces.

Here is video from "Duplet" (which is multilayer variant of "Knife") tests against different types of ammunition and results.

This type of ERA can reduce performance of anti armor ammunition (even the very modern types) nearly to 0%.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Damian90

[KingOchaos 10]

Damian90"second is that moving plates when ERA detonates, are inducting stress on penetrator, which meakes it to yaw and bend to the point where penetrator might break in to several pieces" ;-) this is what i was meaning by cuts em like scissors... yah know counter rotating steel discs, yah gotta see the analogy fits ;-)

But yea this is gettin a long way of base, but interesting stuff non the less.

[Damian90 697]

;-) this is what i was meaning by cuts em like scissors... yah know counter rotating steel discs, yah gotta see the analogy fits ;-)

Scissors analogy better fits "Knife" and "Duplet" not "Kontakt-5". ;-)

But yea this is gettin a long way of base, but interesting stuff non the less.

If you are interested in tanks and other similiar vehicles, there is one good english language and proffesional forums where people that are currently serving and former tank crew members, as well as some known authors of good books and guys which are close to the whole industry are discussing, it is TankNet.

[Tonci87 163]

@ PantherAl

Since you seem to know what you are speaking off, might I ask you what you think of this Prototype Tank and it´s armor + cost effectiveness? (It will cost aprox, 2,1 million €)

http://www.ddsv.hr/tenk_degman_eng_1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-95_Degman

[PantherAl 11]

Soviet made tanks have driven west belligerent. This evening is Yom Kippur, or the day of atonement. In 1973 on Yom Kippur the Arab coalition launched a multi pronged offensive against Israel. Egypt and Syria fielded Soviet armor and Israel had mostly Western armor(M50, M51, M48, M60A1, Centurions and some converted T series captured earlier).

There was yet a technological advantage for the eastern machines- they had IR illumination or light amplification equipment which Israel lacked. In the other factors the field was relatively level, each design doctrine playing to its strength.

The numbers are around ~2,300 Arab tanks neutralized to ~400 Israeli tanks. So, a rate of 1 to 5-6.

Most tank kills were in armor vs. armor combat if memory serves me. Many were due to the introduction of wire guided AT missiles, esp. Sagger.

It should be noted, though, that there is a very significant human factor. Training, skill, doctrine, tactics, strategy and sheer ferocity are a decisive factor. When a single battalion of Israeli armor went up against a division of Syrian tanks in the Valley of Tears it was men who steeled their nerves, kept their cool and had the will to fight 40 against 500. The gun shoots as well as the commander manages, from a position sound as the driver brings it, as fast as the loader loads and accurate as the gunner aims.

As much as can be ascribed to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the design doctrine, it's how you use it that counts.

A notable example is Zvika Force- 2 tanks against 200.

Yeah, the effectiveness of ATGM's was a eye-opener for both sides - more for the west than the east, but I don't think even the Soviets expected it to work out so well for them. The YK war isn't a very good example of what would happen on the plains of Germany. In the IDF's case, you had a highly trained, highly motivated force fighting agianst export versions of Soviet gear. In Germany, you had some good equipment - but while the German Army would fight, and fight well, the US Army was in no condition to do more than get rolled in the 70's. Our equipment was at parity with the Soviets as far as armoured vehicles went, Aircraft was only slightly better, but not good enough to get past Soviet Air Defence - the one part of the YK war that left the IDF wondering where the truck that ran over them went to. And as to doctrine, Pact Forces was following the scheme that we stole in the 80's and perfected. The less said about manpower, the better: Watch the movie "Buffalo Soldiers" and you will get perhaps the most accurate rendition of the bulk of US Forces in Europe ever filmed. My Dad was stationed in Germany at that time (74-80) and when he saw that he laughed, and said they nailed it for at least 80% of the troops there. The US Strategy was jokingly refered to "Buckets of Sunshine": Basicly, if the Soviets penatrated more than the first major river barriers, the Air Force would start dropping Buckets of Sunshine (IE: Nukes) as the only way to stop them.