Tanks, thermal imaging, weapon loadout and ammunition

[Vladiman 10]

+1 to everything. The whole reason I started playing the Arma series was it's promise of being a realistic simulator. It's sad they seem to be taking a different direction with Arma 3...

[lavbo0321 5]

+1 to everything. The whole reason I started playing the Arma series was it's promise of being a realistic simulator. It's sad they seem to be taking a different direction with Arma 3...

Arma was once advertised as the "Ultimate Simulation".

False advertising if you ask me...

What gets me the most, is the things they are missing is nothing compared to what they have achieved in other areas. So WTF BI!!!! This stuff is childs play.

Maybe they just don't have the right military advisors on board to help them out... Which I doubt.

Mayby they just don't want to compete with themselves http://products.bisimulations.com/

Now I saw VB2 on Camp Pendleton. and it was AMAZING. Really hard to believe they are the same company. Very bizare...

Looks like they really could make Arma 3 great if they wanted. Looks like I may have to become a government entity and buy this instead.

Edited September 24, 2013 by lavbo0321

[-ghost-tf 12]

Really hard to believe they are the same company. Very bizare...

That is because they arent the same company :) BIS and BISIM are completely different.

[lavbo0321 5]

That is because they arent the same company :) BIS and BISIM are completely different.

VBS2 was based on Arma 2 so I can assume VBS3 will be based on Arma 3. They are so different in fact, they have the same logo, and history. I believe they are both subsideraries. But they are very much working together at some level. Just look at the screans of both programs.

Just ironic they don't ramp up A3 and truely make it the Ultimate Simulation game.

Interesting they share the same wiki.

Edited September 24, 2013 by lavbo0321

[R0adki11 3945]

As -Ghost-TF- said BIS and BISM are separate companies, for anything regarding VBS2 or VBS3 please use the VBS thread.

[Kirill 1]

As -Ghost-TF- said BIS and BISM are separate companies, for anything regarding VBS2 or VBS3 please use the VBS thread.

Whose fault is that VBS has more desired and required opportunities for players ARMA?

We can see that the engine is the same. We can see that the possibilities are very different. While BI will not go towards community - it will last.

[mistyronin 1181]

Whose fault is that VBS has more desired and required opportunities for players ARMA?

We can see that the engine is the same. We can see that the possibilities are very different. While BI will not go towards community - it will last.

Last time I checked VBS costed a few thousand dollars, so it make sense... If all the A3 players pay that for a new game, I'm sure BI will add all the features possible...

[spanishsurfer 58]

I just wanted to chime in on the thermal imaging. I don't know anything about tanks but I am a military pilot (HC144a). The thermal imaging we have on board is state of the art and what Arma 3 has actually looks A LOT like what I see onboard my plane. I only mention this because it seems like some people are unhappy with it, to me it looks pretty realistic.

Just my .02

[Kirill 1]

MistyRonin This is a very old song. In the Russian community there are people who are after work (in their spare time) to make a bipod, shooting from vehicles and body armor for the week! They do not have full access to the game engine. BI have it. What kind of money are you talking about?

Business as usual ...

70% -80% of the content VBS - no need in ARMA. Make a limp - have I pay for that 100,500 dollars?)

I think in Finland there are many people who share my opinion.)

Edited September 25, 2013 by Kirill

[Hellbeard 10]

I just wanted to chime in on the thermal imaging. I don't know anything about tanks but I am a military pilot (HC144a). The thermal imaging we have on board is state of the art and what Arma 3 has actually looks A LOT like what I see onboard my plane. I only mention this because it seems like some people are unhappy with it, to me it looks pretty realistic.

Just my .02

Very interesting.

Do you not find, however, that spotting and identifying humans and vehicles is different?

For me the differences are very substantial - spotting and identifying, as well as reading the "flat" thermal image, takes great skill and knowledge. I mean, in ArmA3 all I have to do is find the bright spots, in real life I need to find those spots but then I need to "read" what they are and what environment they are in.

From videos of thermal videos of gunships engaging insurgents it seems that the tank and helicopter thermal imaging gear isn't so far apart which is why I find your comment strange. A quick search suggests your plane is used for sea-recon? That would present you with a thermally uniform environment where anything of interest stands out very strongly. That's significantly different from land, I think.

Guys, if the mods don't want you to discuss VBS here please refrain from doing so and stay on topic how ARMA3 can improve. Either giving input and ideas to BI or to modders reading this.

---------- Post added at 16:33 ---------- Previous post was at 16:15 ----------

Just read the new changelog:

"...Improved handling of terminal ballistics on armored vehicles..."

Hmmm? Let's have a look!

[LoneCrow66 10]

Ok I get ya.. there should be different rounds that is for sure. Anti Tank, Anti Personnel. Hell I think there are artillery shells with nuclear warheads and cluster bomblets and mines and all sorts of payloads. In the future I'm sure there would be similar.

This is why when we get into a tank at a FOB or somewhere we should be able to drive by one of the support vehicles and get a menu to choose our loadout before heading out.

[PantherAl 11]

What on earth were they thinking, did nobody at BIS turn round and actually say something like "guys the tanks kinda suck" i think were just gonna have to wait till our community makes some better units.

Tanks should be armed to the teeth with like at least 3 weapons

120mm Main Gun

20mm Secondary

12.7mm HMG

7.62mm COAX

Smoke Launcher

Anti-ATGM Defences

Laser Designators

ATGM's

You don't want a lot of systems on an AFV: The more you have, the more than can and will break, and the more you have to train with. Training time is a zero sum game, so.. less the better. Main Gun, Co-Axial MG, And One or two MG's for the loader and commander. As far as ammo types, having a choice is good, but you don't want umpteen different types - When you try to have a round for every use, you always wind up short of one of them when you least can afford it. Cannon for Co-Ax sounds good on paper, but doesn't play out well in reality: Cannon are generally larger than a MG, and ammo storage is a lot more so than the storage for a MG in the Co-Ax role. As to defensive systems, if they don't take the attentions of a crew member, great, otherwise, time spent working that has to come from him working something else. Once more, complexity is not a good thing. :)

[Hellbeard 10]

Good job BI! I don't know for sure, but I think maybe they're listening!

Most targets were neutralized or catastrophically destroyed in two shots.

Now, what you did there, do it again because it's still underpowered. It's not throwing a toilet paper roll underpowered like before but APC's still sometimes walk away unscathed after one shot, sometimes not destroyed and not neutralized after two. APFSDS against the t-100 were a lot more consistent and confirmed destruction most of the time by two good hits. The BTR and Gorgon seem way, way, way over armored for what an APC can be. HOWEVER, as I said before, good hits are good hits. One should suffice, for a majority of the cases to severely damage if not neutralize and destroy. ESPECIALLY for APCs which now seem to be heavier armored than the tanks. It's really a great step in the right direction, it needs to be kicked up a notch.

So keep dialing up that APFSDS dial. You'll know the right level when APCs are mostly neutralized and/or destroyed in one good shot and hard targets are usually neutralized after one, positively after two. Then you know, that if the target wasn't killed, that it's that you didn't hit well and not that you didn't grind away enough HP by the roll of the dice.

Two new notes:

You don't have to start the engine to use the turret.

Probably true for all types of vehicles.

Sounds need a lot of work.

Can't hear almost any of the explosions and shooting outside. The sound of the round firing seems way too dull, it really is very very loud; it's not deafening like it is outside but it's not like you're at the bottom of the sea. Engine sound is too muted. Could stand to add the sound of the case-base falling inside the turret clanging around after shooting. The breech slamming shut as the round goes in, maybe the sound of the safety engaging and the loader calling out that the round is loaded and ready to fire. The sound of the turret servos whirring, the clamps engaging and disengaging. We can then leave to ACE to add the sounds of candy wrappers tearing and crew members farting.

Good job though in listening to us and improving the game! There's lots more to do, but we're going in the right direction. At least as far as I am concerned (I might not be the target audience). I'm so happy that things are moving!

[lavbo0321 5]

Good job BI! I don't know for sure, but I think maybe they're listening!

Most targets were neutralized or catastrophically destroyed in two shots.

Now, what you did there, do it again because it's still underpowered. It's not throwing a toilet paper roll underpowered like before but APC's still sometimes walk away unscathed after one shot, sometimes not destroyed and not neutralized after two. APFSDS against the t-100 were a lot more consistent and confirmed destruction most of the time by two good hits. The BTR and Gorgon seem way, way, way over armored for what an APC can be. HOWEVER, as I said before, good hits are good hits. One should suffice, for a majority of the cases to severely damage if not neutralize and destroy. ESPECIALLY for APCs which now seem to be heavier armored than the tanks. It's really a great step in the right direction, it needs to be kicked up a notch.

So keep dialing up that APFSDS dial. You'll know the right level when APCs are mostly neutralized and/or destroyed in one good shot and hard targets are usually neutralized after one, positively after two. Then you know, that if the target wasn't killed, that it's that you didn't hit well and not that you didn't grind away enough HP by the roll of the dice.

Two new notes:

You don't have to start the engine to use the turret.

Probably true for all types of vehicles.

Sounds need a lot of work.

Can't hear almost any of the explosions and shooting outside. The sound of the round firing seems way too dull, it really is very very loud; it's not deafening like it is outside but it's not like you're at the bottom of the sea. Engine sound is too muted. Could stand to add the sound of the case-base falling inside the turret clanging around after shooting. The breech slamming shut as the round goes in, maybe the sound of the safety engaging and the loader calling out that the round is loaded and ready to fire. The sound of the turret servos whirring, the clamps engaging and disengaging. We can then leave to ACE to add the sounds of candy wrappers tearing and crew members farting.

Good job though in listening to us and improving the game! There's lots more to do, but we're going in the right direction. At least as far as I am concerned (I might not be the target audience). I'm so happy that things are moving!

I noticed a difference in of my missions. I have a large composite mind field and before APC would have to roll over a lot of them to stop. Last night, one AT mine took it and the sqaud inside out completely. And the T-100's had much harder time making it through. And finally the OPFOR engineres are automatically clearing the mindfield as they move through as opposed to just running through it. Not sure if they updated it or just strange AI logic.

[byku 13]

To be honest I hope they will not go into direction - one shot - one explosion, but instead they will make certain "zones" in vehicles bigger so it would be easier to destroy them(as we don't have proper sabot simulation). As an example I've shot sabot to the main gun in AA tank, NOTHING.

[Kirill 1]

Necessary to prevent AI gunner to leave the tank, if it can continue to fight.

Now SABOT penetrate the frontal armor of the tank at a distance of 3km. This is not normal, I think. Such attacks must not penetrate the armor, but they can break the guidance system, a gun, tools review, tracks.

I do not understand how the tank could explode if I shoot him in the back wheel.

All this will prolongs until BI no use normal system damage (as in the Combat Mission, for example)

Edited September 26, 2013 by Kirill

[Hellbeard 10]

Actually 3km should be around the average range for tank engagement.

I think the rounds are designed for 2km.

Though the frontal armor, when presented face on, might deflect or defeat the penetration if ammo and armor are suited to one another (which they are with equivalent forces).

Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829#M829A1

"...The effective target range is 3,000 m (3,300 yd).[2] Point-blank the M829A1 is estimated to penetrate 670 mm (26 in) of steel armour, which decreases to 620 mm (24 in) at 1,000 m (1,100 yd) and 570 mm (22 in) at 2,000 m (2,200 yd).[3] At 4,000 m (4,400 yd) it is still believed to penetrate 460 mm (18 in) of steel armor...."

Manufacturer website:

http://www.atk.com/products-services/120mm-m829a1-apfsds-t-ammunition/

"...Target range 3,000 m..."

So, between 2,000 and 4,000 meters the round loses 11cm of penetration ability. We can(probably wrongly) assume 3-5cm reduction between 2,000m and 3,000. I'm also guessing what's meant by "effective range" is 100% frontal penetration. Penetration might mean different things, though: either going through the first bit of armor and getting into the compartment behind it, or going through the target completely.

[Kirill 1]

We are talking about the future tanks with obscure features. But I guess that's the new tanks one generation (similar t-90c and the M1A2 SEP, for example). If in the game were the "old" T-90 or M1A2 against the "modern" anno 2035 tanks - I agree. Let the forward-looking shells punched through them to 5km. But existing tanks - the same age. I would even made ​​them nonpenetreitebel for SABOT at 1500-2000 meters. How many do not read articles about the latest tank shells ... there is no consensus on what they can do against a modern enemy tanks at long range. I do not superpatriot-no-brains. I read the professional literature. And I'm not sure that a modern sabot NATO penetrate from 2km in the front armor of modern Russian tanks.

[LoneCrow66 10]

Remember the reactive armor? Maybe they have that with a new form of composite that makes it even more reactive? That would explain why I can hit a barbed wire fence and flip in the air so easily.. it bounces off objects like it weighed nothing :)

[Hellbeard 10]

We are talking about the future tanks with obscure features. But I guess that's the new tanks one generation (similar t-90c and the M1A2 SEP, for example). If in the game were the "old" T-90 or M1A2 against the "modern" anno 2035 tanks - I agree. Let the forward-looking shells punched through them to 5km. But existing tanks - the same age. I would even made ​​them nonpenetreitebel for SABOT at 1500-2000 meters. How many do not read articles about the latest tank shells ... there is no consensus on what they can do against a modern enemy tanks at long range. I do not superpatriot-no-brains. I read the professional literature. And I'm not sure that a modern sabot NATO penetrate from 2km in the front armor of modern Russian tanks.

What's important to remember is that ammunition and armor develop side by side. As one player arms himself with more effective armor, the other side develops better ammunition.

If armor upgrades became so effective that they stop the round at half the engagement distance then the ammo would be replaced by a kind that can work farther away.

A great example is when the Kontakt 5 was fielded and gave considerable protection against m829 (the upgrade kit has limitations - can't cover everything and you can't add too much weight and size without losing a tactical advantage) a new round was developed to defeat it:

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

...or for example when ERA was developed then tandem charges were created to defeat that.

P.S.

Wasn't clear from your post but the "slammer" is an IMI Merkava MK.IV and not a concept based on M1A2 SEP.

[Damian90 696]

Well actually as a person that is interested in subject and made a lot of own research in this subject.

First thing about modern tanks protection. Not even a single, modern tank use passive armor as it's basic front hull/turret and side turret protection.

Today modern tanks use composite armor that is reactive in nature. We have actually several types of reactive armors that are: ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor), a simple NERA (Non Energetic Reactive Armor), advanced NERA which can be also found in form of advanced composite armors (like Burlington, Dorchester etc.) and finally NxRA (Non Explosive Reactive Armor).

There is a good reason why passive protection is no longer considered as efficent. To be efficent against many types of threats, passive armor needs to be bulky (large volume) and heavy, and this is obviously no go. So different types of reactive or dynamic protection are used today.

As for modern APFSDS ammunition, well, I doubt that even DM53/63 or M829A3/A4 would be capable to defeat front turret armor of the most modern tanks, obviously excluding weak zone like gun mantled, but ArmA3 models are not that detailed.

BTW to be honest, as BLUFOR MBT, I would preffer M1A2SEP not M2A1 "Slammer" vel Merkava Mk4. M1A2SEP is a much better tank, better balanced, and have superior optics and fire control system to any other known design.

[Hellbeard 10]

Well actually as a person that is interested in subject and made a lot of own research in this subject.

First thing about modern tanks protection. Not even a single, modern tank use passive armor as it's basic front hull/turret and side turret protection.

Today modern tanks use composite armor that is reactive in nature. We have actually several types of reactive armors that are: ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor), a simple NERA (Non Energetic Reactive Armor), advanced NERA which can be also found in form of advanced composite armors (like Burlington, Dorchester etc.) and finally NxRA (Non Explosive Reactive Armor).

There is a good reason why passive protection is no longer considered as efficent. To be efficent against many types of threats, passive armor needs to be bulky (large volume) and heavy, and this is obviously no go. So different types of reactive or dynamic protection are used today.

As for modern APFSDS ammunition, well, I doubt that even DM53/63 or M829A3/A4 would be capable to defeat front turret armor of the most modern tanks, obviously excluding weak zone like gun mantled, but ArmA3 models are not that detailed.

BTW to be honest, as BLUFOR MBT, I would preffer M1A2SEP not M2A1 "Slammer" vel Merkava Mk4. M1A2SEP is a much better tank, better balanced, and have superior optics and fire control system to any other known design.

ERA is more effective against, and designed to defeat, hollow charges. It's become prevalent due to the rise of the infantry carried ATGM(Yom Kippur war being a benchmark thereof and if I'm not mistaken the M60 blazer kit is the first one). While it might have some effect against kinetic rounds, it is far less effective against them.

The rise of the tandem warhead threat caused the deployment of the Active Protection systems (I don't think there's any active duty ones yet excepting *TROPHY, again Israeli).

Modern kinetic penetrators are perfectly capable of defeating most of the armor of modern tanks, or they wouldn't carry them.

Manufacturers website:

https://www.atk.com/products-services/120mm-m829a3-apfsds-t-ammunition/

"...The M829A3 round defeats advanced armor at extended ranges..."

Tanks aren't invincible. If the round you're carrying and shooting can't destroy your enemy, you don't use it and you develop a better one.

I don't want to seem dismissive or condescending but if you have a strong claim one way or the other please cite a source or give us some qualification for your base of knowledge.

To be honest your idea that the most advanced kinetic rounds wouldn't be able to defeat front turret armor of modern tanks seems outlandish. What would tanks do when facing each other in combat? Just expend all their ammo at each other and then go back?

PantherAI knows more about this than I, I'm sure, and might want to chime in.

I believe I cited my own qualification as being an active reserve tank crewman with 12 years and counting as well as an additional 3 in mandatory service.

Here's a couple of picture to lend more authenticity:

I agree about the randomness of the Merkava being there. It would be more efficient to have a European machine brought there than American or Israeli.

edit: Most probable might have been the Leopard 2A6 of the Hellenic Army or the Turkish Altay.

*Phalanx notwithstanding, it's much bigger and carried on ships.

---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

I just remembered. I assume it's a known issue but tanks have the ability to reverse and turn at the same time, unlike their behaviour ingame.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Hellbeard

[Damian90 696]

ERA is more effective against, and designed to defeat, hollow charges. It's become prevalent due to the rise of the infantry carried ATGM(Yom Kippur war being a benchmark thereof and if I'm not mistaken the M60 blazer kit is the first one). While it might have some effect against kinetic rounds, it is far less effective against them.

You are wrong, because you use as example, obsolete 1st generation ERA, or os called light ERA. 2nd generation ERA which is universal or heavy is efficent against APFSDS, even more effective is 3rd generation ERA.

However Israel is not the leading developer of ERA, in fact first ERA was developed in Soviet Union, but was not inducted in to service because of several reasons (among them were conservative views of higher rank officers, and also problems with amount of explosive filler, which sometimes cause damage to protected vehicle and whole ERA array, not individual cells).

The rise of the tandem warhead threat caused the deployment of the Active Protection systems (I don't think there's any active duty ones yet excepting *TROPHY, again Israeli).

Tandem warheads are obsolete against modern 3rd generation ERA that have anti-tandem capabilities, such ERA is for example Ukrainian "Duplet".

Modern kinetic penetrators are perfectly capable of defeating most of the armor of modern tanks, or they wouldn't carry them.

Then why Ukrainian tank BM "Oplot" during tests, have front turret impenetrabale for a 120mm French OFL-120F1 fired from 100m during tests? :D

There is even video where turret front armor module (BM "Oplot" have modular turret armor) is hit from 100m with APFSDS round and that round left only 60mm deep hole in outerlayer which is approx 80mm thick.

Manufacturers website:

https://www.atk.com/products-service...-t-ammunition/

"...The M829A3 round defeats advanced armor at extended ranges..."

This is advertisement.

Tanks aren't invincible.

I never said otherwise.

If the round you're carrying and shooting can't destroy your enemy, you don't use it and you develop a better one.

Yes, I agree.

But this is not that simple.

I don't want to seem dismissive or condescending but if you have a strong claim one way or the other please cite a source or give us some qualification for your base of knowledge.

I use many sources about research on vehicles armor protection, be it documents from british The National Archieve about "Burlington" armor, also articles, some documents from Armor Symposium my friend collect, also presentation like for example "Duplet" dynamic protection video from tests.

To be honest your idea that the most advanced kinetic rounds wouldn't be able to defeat front turret armor of modern tanks seems outlandish. What would tanks do when facing each other in combat? Just expend all their ammo at each other and then go back?

I talk only about turret front armor, I do not talk about weaker front hull armor and also weak zones like gun mantled. Also there is such thing like safe manouvering angles concept, which means that adequate protection needs to be provided within vehicles 60 degrees frontal arc, but this is difficult, and you can hit hull sides, turret sides, some other exposed weak zones that are nececary.

Besides this, also frontal armor have limits of hit it can be capable to absorb, however these limits are classified.

I agree about the randomness of the Merkava being there. It would be more efficient to have a European machine brought there than American or Israeli.

edit: Most probable might have been the Leopard 2A6 of the Hellenic Army or the Turkish Altay.

Leopard 2 is tank designed with obsolete requirements based on requirements of Leopard 1, which means that Leopard 2 crew have more or less same survivability as crew of T-72 if armor is defeated, same applies to Altay or Merkava, simply because ammunition in these tanks (or part of ammunition) is stored using obsolete methods.

M1 Abrams is the only tank inducted in to service where crew survivability was absolute priority during development phase, this is why crew losses in M1's are smallest ones among all tanks that ever participated in combat. And if NATO preffers survivability, this is the only choice, unless we consider some experimental vehicles.

[mistyronin 1181]

M1 Abrams is the only tank inducted in to service where crew survivability was absolute priority during development phase, this is why crew losses in M1's are smallest ones among all tanks that ever participated in combat. And if NATO preffers survivability, this is the only choice, unless we consider some experimental vehicles.

Uhm the Merkava itself was designed that way ( crew survivability first ), and has been improved with the different combats that Israel has been into.

[Hellbeard 10]

You are wrong, because you use as example, obsolete 1st generation ERA, or os called light ERA. 2nd generation ERA which is universal or heavy is efficent against APFSDS, even more effective is 3rd generation ERA.

However Israel is not the leading developer of ERA, in fact first ERA was developed in Soviet Union, but was not inducted in to service because of several reasons (among them were conservative views of higher rank officers, and also problems with amount of explosive filler, which sometimes cause damage to protected vehicle and whole ERA array, not individual cells).

Tandem warheads are obsolete against modern 3rd generation ERA that have anti-tandem capabilities, such ERA is for example Ukrainian "Duplet".

Then why Ukrainian tank BM "Oplot" during tests, have front turret impenetrabale for a 120mm French OFL-120F1 fired from 100m during tests? :D

There is even video where turret front armor module (BM "Oplot" have modular turret armor) is hit from 100m with APFSDS round and that round left only 60mm deep hole in outerlayer which is approx 80mm thick.

This is advertisement.

I never said otherwise.

Yes, I agree.

But this is not that simple.

I use many sources about research on vehicles armor protection, be it documents from british The National Archieve about "Burlington" armor, also articles, some documents from Armor Symposium my friend collect, also presentation like for example "Duplet" dynamic protection video from tests.

I talk only about turret front armor, I do not talk about weaker front hull armor and also weak zones like gun mantled. Also there is such thing like safe manouvering angles concept, which means that adequate protection needs to be provided within vehicles 60 degrees frontal arc, but this is difficult, and you can hit hull sides, turret sides, some other exposed weak zones that are nececary.

Besides this, also frontal armor have limits of hit it can be capable to absorb, however these limits are classified.

Leopard 2 is tank designed with obsolete requirements based on requirements of Leopard 1, which means that Leopard 2 crew have more or less same survivability as crew of T-72 if armor is defeated, same applies to Altay or Merkava, simply because ammunition in these tanks (or part of ammunition) is stored using obsolete methods.

M1 Abrams is the only tank inducted in to service where crew survivability was absolute priority during development phase, this is why crew losses in M1's are smallest ones among all tanks that ever participated in combat. And if NATO preffers survivability, this is the only choice, unless we consider some experimental vehicles.

Lots of stuff here.

If there's a video of a thing please link it, then we can address what it is we're seeing and what the claims are. Some advertisements have less of a hold in reality than others. The historical facts stand, regardless of whether Ukraine developed force fields.

Tanks will usually meet face on and trade fire that way. That's why frontal armor is the heaviest and why ammunition is developed to defeat that armor.

The Soviets were the leading developers except they never refined, manufactured or fielded ERA which makes them the not leading developers. My meaning was the M60 Blazer kit is the first fielded ERA.

The reason I said Leopard 2 or Altay are more likely is because they are geographically closer. You can't always choose the best thing there is.

Having one single type of armor that allegedly can stop the latest KE rounds is hardly "most modern tanks". As a matter of fact it is the absolute lowest possible minority you can have before not existing at all. I'm going to go ahead and seriously doubt that it is really that good, though the point is tangential. If everyone had Duplet then everyone would also have Duplet defeating ammunition. Measure-countermeasure.