Tanks, thermal imaging, weapon loadout and ammunition

[PantherAl 11]

The problem is, when you read things pumping up the capabilities of this or that, is that its all done in ways to sell stuff. Tests are rigged: on both sides. The only thing that really counts is actual use in live ammo fights. In that regard, Eastern (Sov/Russ) designs have come out as nothing more than expensive target practice for western designs. Not all is great for the west: as mentioned in other threads, the Soviets have at times pulled some pretty impressive rabbits out of their hats. Gun launched ATGMs, though first used by the US Army, was abandoned by the US, the Soviets on the other hand, took it, ran with it, and proved it would work. Granted, they had too, as the ability of the Russian 125mm gun at range sucks at best, but at least they saw the issue, and found a fix. A habit others can learn from here in the west. Russian style armour protection, ERA and otherwise, simply isn't up to the same standard as western: The maths just don't add up. T90 comes in 20 tons less than an M1, yet the gun is about the same weight, the engine, though larger than the T90's, is about the same weight, and while it does carry more fuel, it isn't that much - so the lost weight has to come from somewhere, and while some of it can be accounted in its smaller size, you still have tons of armour protection you have to shed to get to the T90's weight.

Now, like the Gun Launched ATGM, the Russians know this, that's why they have put so much effort into ERA as a way to help defeat the better western ammunition. And don't doubt that western Ammo is better: the only time the Russians can sell Tank Ammo is when they sell to someone that can't buy western, or that they are not giving away via 'loans'. There is a huge international market for western manufacturers to build ammo for Russian guns using western concepts and materials. Particularly the propellant - for some reason, to this day, the Russians can't get as good as we do. It boggles my mind since there is no real reason for them not too: they have the knowledge, the capability. Russian Chemists take a back seat to no one, yet.. they can't do it. One of the reasons they pushed the ATGM project so hard.

The Russian ERA is good stuff: I will freely admit. But its not magical. ERA can work to a degree against KE, but not even close to what is claimed. If the high end ERA was that good, the west would be using it: its a heck of a lot cheaper than the stuff we do use for armour for starters.

Leo2? Not good? Seriously?

The latest versions are almost as good as the M1/Merk in protection, and slightly better in firepower due to its souped up main gun (120L55). And saying the Merk isn't survivable is laughable at best. Having served on M1's, and as a former master gunner, even I will say the Merk has us on this. Heck, the Merk is faster than a M1 in rough terrain believe it or not, and its armour protection is at least as good: having the engine up front just makes it even better. Especially from a Crew Protection viewpoint. If I had to pick the top tank, it would honestly be the Merk. I am a huge fan of it, even though I served on the M1, both in peacetime and wartime, I just feel the latest marks (3 and 4) are just that good.

When it comes to active protection systems, while the Russians took a early lead in it; remember that they are not stupid, they saw the obvious weaknesses in the design path they went down, they just didn't have the tech to make it work as well as it needed to in a modern environment. Came close, I'll give them that, and the US didn't really even bother trying. It was the Israeli's that perfected it.

As to Duplet: Good ERA, I'll give it that. But not that good, and as cheap as it is, how come no one wants it? That's the only test that really matters.

---------- Post added at 01:33 ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 ----------

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:

http://i.imgur.com/TTN2L6R.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/PbOboKK.jpg

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.

Heh... yeah, reverse and no steer is a weird bug to have. But as to the Phalanx, there is a version mounted on the back of a Hemmit, was used to knock rockets and mortar rounds out of the sky around the Green Zone. I *really* want to see an Air Defense version of the M1. They played with using a GAU-8 in the turret of a M48/60 during the whole Sgt. York debacle, and I would love for them to try it again - especially now with GoalKeeper sensors and software, and Ground Launched AMRAAM's, which is all very very doable.

But, so you are a Merk crewie eh? Only got to crawl around the outside of a Mark 2, never got to get really hands on with one. Have to share stories of the weirdness that it must have. :)

[Harbinger2456 10]

And what about the missing loader and TC CITV????

Hellbeard, did you ever play M1 Tank Platoon 2????

EPIC game. It seems the kids who are making Arma never really played an awesome military sim in their lives.

Sad really. Arma has such amazing possibilities just wasted...

Totally freaking agree! That's what just kills me! We need to simulate realistic vehicles and aircraft! I mean, come on, how much does it take to simulate a realistic tank? This is 2013! Not 1985.

---------- Post added at 04:04 ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 ----------

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. :)

Have to disagree with that. Look at the BMP-3 and the BTR-90 in Arma 2. They are both total killers being able to take on a large variety of enemies, from tanks to infantry. And that's because they have a variety of weapons at their disposal. I like how the Russian's think. :)

[Damian90 696]

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

Wrong assumption. Merkava was not designed the way it is because it is so great idea, but because it was a nececity. Merkava Mk1 in terms of protection was primitive tank when was inducted, even a simplest variants of T-72 were better protected by the simplest version of soviet composite armor.

General Israel Tal (which I consider as a genius) knew that with limited resources and Israel being back then, a state with poor technology in terms of AFV's protection, needed to find a solution, his solution was a spaced armor made from simple, homogeneus steel. However this solution was effective only on older types of ammunition, and made vehicle unnececary heavy, also reason for such big weight was in efficent design with huge internal volume, engine at front, primitive and unnececary heavy suspension.

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.

Here it is, however video does not show all tests against all types of ammunition used, Ukrainians also tested this protection against French Leclerc when France sended there unit for tests.

"Duplet" with reactive elements CHSKHV-34 is a further development of "Knife" with reactive elements CHSKHV-19.

Ukraine also developed other vehicle protection solutions like "Kontrast" multi spectral camouflage cover, "Varta" electrooptical countermeassure system and "Zaslon" hard kill active protection system which is a further development of earlier, Soviet design "Dozd".

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.

Do you know the work of mr. Dmitry Rototayev? He was chief engineer of a team that was working on ERA, this work started some time in 1950's, their first ERA design however contained too much explosive filler that's explosion damaged protected vehicle and they needed to tweak these things.

Also "Blazer" ERA is not even Israeli design, it was designed by Manfred Held, he is (or rather was) German, and in fact "Blazer" was very primitive, more primitive than "Kontakt-1" with 4S20 reactive elements. Also Manfred Held later, did not provided further help for Israel, but he was still working on ERA, I seen a document, where it was wrote that Germany successfully developed heavy ERA similiar to Soviet "Kontakt-5" with 4S22 reactive elements for Leopard 1 tank. This new German ERA, was capable to protect Leopard 1 against 105mm APFSDS ammunition, which earlier was capable to defeat this vehicle due to it's thin armor. However German army never adapted this design due to several reasons, like the fact that this ERA was a build in design, while Germans preffered modular.

If everyone had Duplet then everyone would also have Duplet defeating ammunition. Measure-countermeasure.

Do you even know the principle on which "Duplet" works? It is very difficult to find a countermeassure against ERA that do not use classic explosive filler encased byt two steel plates.

"Duplet" use linear shaped charges, which means that any kind of projectile, is cut in to small pieces, making it ineffective.

Oh and BTW, USA bought 4 Object 478DU5 tanks from Ukraine equipped with "Knife" ERA for experiments, what is interesting, Americans very quickly went silent on this, and never released test results compared with "Kontakt-5" they tested.

Russian style armour protection, ERA and otherwise, simply isn't up to the same standard as western: The maths just don't add up. T90 comes in 20 tons less than an M1, yet the gun is about the same weight, the engine, though larger than the T90's, is about the same weight, and while it does carry more fuel, it isn't that much - so the lost weight has to come from somewhere, and while some of it can be accounted in its smaller size, you still have tons of armour protection you have to shed to get to the T90's weight.

This is wrong thinking. You base your opinion on Soviet and Russian/Ukrainian tanks by using as an example Iraq. But Iraq never had the most modern tanks, in fact some of T-72 they received were not even equipped with the most primitive soviet composite armor developed for exports to a non Warsaw Pact allies.

T-90's lower weight comes from different factors, first is it's size, this vehicle is really small compared to NATO tanks. Second is that heavy composite armor protects only front turret and hull, side turret is not protected by composite armor. Instead Russians used mathematics (and they are damn good in maths) to calculate probability of hit to the turret sides, and just inclined turret sides to a very specific angle. This way their tanks have a turret of very specific geometry where turret sides, within 60 degrees frontal arc of turret, are allways covered by front armor.

Of course this have also side effect, such turret is not universal and is optimized only for open field combat, NATO tanks have turret sides protected by composite armor, which means they have better protection over sides, but the cost is much more weight.

The Russian ERA is good stuff: I will freely admit. But its not magical. ERA can work to a degree against KE, but not even close to what is claimed. If the high end ERA was that good, the west would be using it: its a heck of a lot cheaper than the stuff we do use for armour for starters.

I think the biggest problem is that you do not understand the Russian concept. For westerners, ERA is addon to the main armor, for Russians it is integral element of vehicle protection, which means they use it allways as a part of composite protection, it's most outer layer.

However thinking at west is slowly changing, and possibly ERA will also be some day used as integral part of vehicle protection next to a more advanced composite armor.

Leo2? Not good? Seriously?

In terms of vehicle and crew survivability? Yes, it's desing in this aspect is based on Leopard 1. In fact Leopard 2 in the very beggining was just a slightly larger Leopard 1 with bigger gun, bigger engine and better FCS to put it simple. If not USA and British agreement to lend Germans help in armor development, Leopard 2 would have worse protection than even export downgraded variants of T-72.

The latest versions are almost as good as the M1/Merk in protection, and slightly better in firepower due to its souped up main gun (120L55). And saying the Merk isn't survivable is laughable at best. Having served on M1's, and as a former master gunner, even I will say the Merk has us on this. Heck, the Merk is faster than a M1 in rough terrain believe it or not, and its armour protection is at least as good: having the engine up front just makes it even better. Especially from a Crew Protection viewpoint. If I had to pick the top tank, it would honestly be the Merk. I am a huge fan of it, even though I served on the M1, both in peacetime and wartime, I just feel the latest marks (3 and 4) are just that good.

Rh-120/L55 indeed have good characteristics, however gun is not the most important one, the ammunition is. Americans are lead developers of APFSDS ammunition, followed by Germans and then Russian with their newest projects like "Swinets-1", "Swinets-2" and "Grifel".

As for protection and crew survivability. Ammunition storage in Merkava is primitive and dangerous to crew.

Mobility subject is interesting, I was talking with some guys from US that were working with transmissions, they say that X-1100-3B used in M1 have both advantages and disadvantages. It is damn simple and reliable transmission, however it have worser breaking system and is designed for soft gear shifting. Another price for simplicity and reliability is that X-1100-3B do not allow you to use full potential of the AGT-1500 gas turbine, this transmission increases full consumption and also waste some of the power that turbine offers.

Normally AGT-1500 waste only 30HP for auxiliaries, while a diesel engines of comparable power waste 100+ HP, however X-1100-3B also takes some of the power from engine, and final HP on sprockets is comparable to diesel powered vehicles, this plus soft shifting makes M1 a little slower, even if AGT-1500 have greater power capabilities. It was calculated that comparable diesel engine can have max power of 1800HP, while AGT-1500 can have a maximum power of 2000HP.

But the point is that differences in mobility are minor.

When it comes to active protection systems, while the Russians took a early lead in it; remember that they are not stupid, they saw the obvious weaknesses in the design path they went down, they just didn't have the tech to make it work as well as it needed to in a modern environment. Came close, I'll give them that, and the US didn't really even bother trying. It was the Israeli's that perfected it.

Russians developed a lot of active protection systems working on different principles, be it "Dozd", "Drozd-1", "Drozd-2", "Arena", "Arena-E", "Shtora-1" not to mention some systems currently in development.

Also the problem is a high level of secrecy, Russians do not like to talk much about some things, we only know that they fielded with success "Drozd-1" system and even combat tested it in Afghanistan. Later however the system was abandoned as old and complicated.

As for USA, oh come on, you have many promising designs in this field of expertise, be it Iron Curtain, Quick Kill and some others. Especially Quick Kill is very interesting and considered as most promising and giving new capabilities thanks to the concept of VLS launchers.

As for Israelis, well Trophy have it's drawbacks, just like Iron Fist, both are step ahead but I think there are better designs.

As to Duplet: Good ERA, I'll give it that. But not that good, and as cheap as it is, how come no one wants it? That's the only test that really matters.

Who said nobody wants it? Thailand just recently purchased 49 BM "Oplot" tanks that are currently manufactured in Kharkiv. Ukraine will purchase these tanks in future hopefully, and currently is modernizing their T-64 tanks to BM "Bulat" standard which is equipped with slithly older and simpler "Knife". More orders can come in future, Ukrainians are promoting BM "Oplot" at the biggest arms expo's around the world, and they have some other interesting designs in development as well.

The only real problem of "Duplet" is it's size and weight, front turret modules weight 3 metric tons!

Edited September 27, 2013 by Damian90

[Hellbeard 10]

Doesn't matter what might have or could have been. The historical fact is that the Israeli Blazer is the first ERA kit developed and manufactured. I suppose we owe a lot to Manfred Held for it, but that doesn't make it German. Or Russian.

So Leopard 2 would have been worse if not for it being better. Seriously, you are defeating your own arguments by now.

There already are development into ammunition with precursor projectile to initiate protection systems.

Beyond that, I don't want us to get bogged down by a technical discussion that has no substance. The information as to how and whether Duplet claims and theory have anything to them is not available making the debate pointless.

I could add more about what you had written but I don't want to get sidetracked.

What's the bottom line as to how ArmA3 should improve? That tanks should be impenetrable in their frontal turret? Maybe less chance of penetration with head on hits to the turret?

What ammo seems more likely in the future scenario as influenced by these armor advances?

[Damian90 696]

What's the bottom line as to how ArmA3 should improve? That tanks should be impenetrable in their frontal turret? Maybe less chance of penetration with head on hits to the turret?

Different armor system, which is simple but should be reliable. What I mean is something like this: Front turret armor = 950 vs KE, APFSDS-1 penetration = 650 which means armor is impenetrable, APFSDS-2 penetration = 850 which means there should be calculated some percentage of penetration probability, APFSDS-3 penetration = 960 which means that armor will be penetrated. Simple and logical, partially based on ACE2 system.

However bigger problem is lack of more detailed vehicle vurnability model, which would include weak zones and armor surfaces would be separated from each other, so hit at front would not cause damage to other surfaces if not nececary due to penetration path.

What ammo seems more likely in the future scenario as influenced by these armor advances?

APFSDS in future will be most reliable way to defeat modern MBT's, followed by ATGM's and then RPG's.

However the problem with APFSDS is mostly the limitations of current armament not the ammunition itself. IMHO at some point we will have a dilemma what to do, improve 120 and 125 mm guns, or swith to 140mm and bigger callibers, so we can use more propelant charge, which will create more pressure and propell heavier and longer penetrator to greater velocities.

In case of ATGM's and RPG's we have a problem of different nature, this is limitations of shaped charge warheads. Shaped charge warhead to have significant increase in penetration, must be bigger.

I remember that article about "Burlington" armor tests, said that in 1970's, during tests of one of this armor configurations, they were able to perforate such armor array, only with a special test warhead, which have weight and size beyond any reasonable limits usefull for combat ammunition.

IMHO the only reasonable way is top attack, because front and even side armor starts to be really difficult to be defeated. So top attack and some tactics, like trying to outmanouver tanks and attack them from behind.

[DogNine 1]

I thought the current limitation with the gun was that they had hit the maximum speed of chemical propellant?

Meaning that the way the gun works had to be redesigned, ie. electro-thermal.

Also on a gameplay note, if frontal armor is able to be easily penetrated then whats the point of heavy armor? Survivability Is the reason for having the heavy otherwise you'd just take medium armor.

[Harbinger2456 10]

Also on a gameplay note, if frontal armor is able to be easily penetrated then whats the point of heavy armor? Survivability Is the reason for having the heavy otherwise you'd just take medium armor.

Because heavy armor keeps out lesser projectiles from APC's / helicopters and such. You can fire like crazy with a 30mm cannon mounted on a heli at a MBT. The most your going to do is damage its scopes and knock out its lights. Then its going to turn and shoot you down with its .50 .

[PantherAl 11]

I thought the current limitation with the gun was that they had hit the maximum speed of chemical propellant?

Meaning that the way the gun works had to be redesigned, ie. electro-thermal.

Also on a gameplay note, if frontal armor is able to be easily penetrated then whats the point of heavy armor? Survivability Is the reason for having the heavy otherwise you'd just take medium armor.

Well, yes and no. You can always build a bigger gun. For example for a while the US and Germany was working on a 140mm gun that would fit in the Leo and the M1. And the performance was all that you could ask. A few downsides, ammo was stupid heavy, and the barrel was a tad long:

[squirrel0311 16]

Well, let me say first off that I agree that the ammunition needs to be updated and as I stated before in my wish list on page 213 of the Wish List No Discussion thread, I do think that at least the drivers need an interior. I'll post the excerpt below. Really the only thing I don't agree with is this....

Optical vs. LCD:

Seems insane to me that any tank manufacturer would drop the optical channel altogether. The camera and display can't compete with optical vision- it's refracted light in eyeball retina resolution vs. luminescent light at what the camera can sense, after transmitted to the computer and what the screen can reproduce. It will probably always be inferior barring some hyper vision brain chip.

The daytime vision should be optical. The thermal imaging should be displayed on a screen.

This isn't exactly accurate because the bigger the lens means the more light and contrary to what some might think, the eye does have a finite resolution. (I may not explain this correctly but you can look it up.) We already have Ultra HD displays that can put out more fine detail than what our eyes are capable of or at least need to distinguishing the information being presented. In fact there is a large number of people who can’t distinguish the difference between pictures printed at 150dpi vs 300dpi at normal viewing distance. Not to mention that our eyes are kind of randomly analog... In theory, mounting a telescope to a periscope sounds ideal but with the advancements in technology today and where it will be at in 2035, I think it's pretty safe to say that doing so might actually be less beneficial. Especially when you take into account all the pertinent information that can be displayed on the screen as well.... A camera with a big optical lens connected to an HD display will do all that.

As for thermal and what someone said in regards to optics for pilots..... Yes pilots get the best optics and I'm sure they're MUCH better than the Pas-13s which are old, big and have about a..4-6 hour battery life if you're lucky. Pilots get the best thermal and night vision because they are in charge of not crashing a multi-million dollar piece of equipment. Even though they're better, they do suffer somewhat from the same problems. More than likely the reason he doesn't notice the image blend as much is because he is above looking down, rather than say... on a a flat surface with the sun behind him looking at a bunch of hot surfaces all facing the sun. It's like arranging pieces on a chess board, closing one eye and looking at it from above, then laying your head on the table and doing the same thing. (Not sure if that makes sense.)

Anyway, advancements in thermal and night vision imaging are happening pretty much every day so it's not too farfetched to believe that they managed to take two thermal cameras, put them side by side and stitch the image together to give depth perception and what not. (The shadows are a game engine flaw I think.. same with smoke) In fact they've already blended thermal and night vision together and are working on improving it.

Here was my wish list excerpt:

Better visibility and DETAIL for armored drivers Turned In: This is supposed to be the future...No one would make an armored vehicle with only one available view port unless they have absolutely no idea what they're doing and didn't learn from WWII. You can even see 3 distinct view ports on the driver hatches of the vehicles in Arma 3 right now, you should at least able to turn your head and look diagonally. Ideally the view ports would have...eh 135 degrees field of view? Also again, this is supposed to be the future… the drivers should have a dashboard with a screen that shows at least a rear facing camera that is Night Vision capable (ideally it would have a forward facing camera as well). And if you really want to get fancy... the driver's front facing camera should be connected to a slave system on their helmet like an Apache gunner... where ever he turns his head is where the camera looks, so that it would be just like if he was turned out. It doesn’t need thermal or anything super fancy just give him the tools to see where he’s going. (Night vision and a little bit of zoom to identify IED’s and mines.) We have web cams that can zoom, pan left, right, up, down, rotate 360, and track faces…I can’t see why we couldn’t mount a camera on a tank under the turret for the driver.

Armor Optics Vulnerable to Small Arms Fire: Any mounted weapon with a remote viewer SHOULD be vulnerable to small arms fire IF YOU CAN HIT IT. For tanks and APC’s at least, they should have a redundancy system. The periscope view ports (the 3 slots on the driver’s hatches) should be used only as a last resort after their good optics have been destroyed, but even the view ports should be able to get shot up so bad that you can’t see out. Obviously I know that 3rd person will make this feature useless but it should still be added. It’s too bad that the devs didn’t think of this before the models were made. I would have given the gunner a primitive periscope sight mounted next to and looking down along the bore of the main gun so it and his coaxial machine gun would still be somewhat effective. The gunner sight would be receded inside the armor of the turret, requiring a nearly straight on shot to hit it. The down side is that it wouldn’t be thermal or night vision, it wouldn’t have zoom and it would have a severely limited field of view. (Scenario) You’re hiding in a building and a tank pulls up beside you and stops in the street with no infantry support, you should be able to shoot out the optics of the tank partially or completely blinding it if you can hit all the cameras and view ports.

(Some of this junk might be wrong or confusing I can explain it better after I get some sleep. haha)

[Harbinger2456 10]

Well, yes and no. You can always build a bigger gun. For example for a while the US and Germany was working on a 140mm gun that would fit in the Leo and the M1. And the performance was all that you could ask. A few downsides, ammo was stupid heavy, and the barrel was a tad long:

Lol, and it doubles as artillery!

[DogNine 1]

I imagine that gun would be problematic to field! Looks scary as hell though.

Do you know what the other vehicle in the picture is?

I was under the impression that medium armor is meant to protect from anything less than an anti tank attack, if so, the question remains. Do you field an expensive (both logistically and financially) heavy armored vehicle or multiple cheaper medium armor if they can all be neutralized by the same class of weapon.

I guess this is an evolution of battle theory kind of question, more often answered by battlefield realities than armchair generals. :)

Personally if I was out there I'd like every bit of protection I could get, however that's not how governments spend their money.

[PantherAl 11]

It's a Swiss Pz68.

But was, that's a pretty good battle theory question. Which is better? Heavy Armour that has all the ability in the world to stop 90% of all attacks, or, since 90% of all serious AT weapons aim for the title of "Most Overkill" why bother?

It comes down to no chance of survival to decent chance. Light Armour, say my personal favorite, the CV90120, has the firepower to handle about anything it sees. Sure, not the most modern of western tanks from the front, but, more than enough otherwise. It does come with a supplemental Armour package that protects it from most RPG hits, and is dirt cheap and simple to use compared to a state of the art MBT. In a peacetime, or peacekeeping army, this is the way to go. But if you have to design a army that you know will have to fight, and fight hard, you have to understand that you will lose a *lot* of them, and the crews that are in them. At that point, the MBT is the better buy. Of course doctrine will trump all, but generically speaking, it is a good rule of thumb.

[Harbinger2456 10]

It's a Swiss Pz68.

But was, that's a pretty good battle theory question. Which is better? Heavy Armour that has all the ability in the world to stop 90% of all attacks, or, since 90% of all serious AT weapons aim for the title of "Most Overkill" why bother?

It comes down to no chance of survival to decent chance. Light Armour, say my personal favorite, the CV90120, has the firepower to handle about anything it sees. Sure, not the most modern of western tanks from the front, but, more than enough otherwise. It does come with a supplemental Armour package that protects it from most RPG hits, and is dirt cheap and simple to use compared to a state of the art MBT. In a peacetime, or peacekeeping army, this is the way to go. But if you have to design a army that you know will have to fight, and fight hard, you have to understand that you will lose a *lot* of them, and the crews that are in them. At that point, the MBT is the better buy. Of course doctrine will trump all, but generically speaking, it is a good rule of thumb.

Especially if the enemy has air power. Modern CBU's are Awesome!

[DogNine 1]

Which almost makes it more dependent on the weapons the enemy has available. You only have to look at the US response to the ability for insurgents to use potent and improvised weapons.

I've always found it an absurd irony that the heavy armor has to be held back because recon and/or intel show that there are AT weapons that have to be cleared out by infantry!

Still coming back to gameplay, you need to be able to stop heavy armor or they would just roll over everything. All the more reason for a good working component damage system to allow for disabling without destroying.

This is good food for thought.

[Hellbeard 10]

Different armor system, which is simple but should be reliable. What I mean is something like this: Front turret armor = 950 vs KE, APFSDS-1 penetration = 650 which means armor is impenetrable, APFSDS-2 penetration = 850 which means there should be calculated some percentage of penetration probability, APFSDS-3 penetration = 960 which means that armor will be penetrated. Simple and logical, partially based on ACE2 system.

However bigger problem is lack of more detailed vehicle vurnability model, which would include weak zones and armor surfaces would be separated from each other, so hit at front would not cause damage to other surfaces if not nececary due to penetration path.

APFSDS in future will be most reliable way to defeat modern MBT's, followed by ATGM's and then RPG's.

However the problem with APFSDS is mostly the limitations of current armament not the ammunition itself. IMHO at some point we will have a dilemma what to do, improve 120 and 125 mm guns, or swith to 140mm and bigger callibers, so we can use more propelant charge, which will create more pressure and propell heavier and longer penetrator to greater velocities.

In case of ATGM's and RPG's we have a problem of different nature, this is limitations of shaped charge warheads. Shaped charge warhead to have significant increase in penetration, must be bigger.

I remember that article about "Burlington" armor tests, said that in 1970's, during tests of one of this armor configurations, they were able to perforate such armor array, only with a special test warhead, which have weight and size beyond any reasonable limits usefull for combat ammunition.

IMHO the only reasonable way is top attack, because front and even side armor starts to be really difficult to be defeated. So top attack and some tactics, like trying to outmanouver tanks and attack them from behind.

I thought the current limitation with the gun was that they had hit the maximum speed of chemical propellant?

Meaning that the way the gun works had to be redesigned, ie. electro-thermal.

Also on a gameplay note, if frontal armor is able to be easily penetrated then whats the point of heavy armor? Survivability Is the reason for having the heavy otherwise you'd just take medium armor.

I don't really see a need to fragment the amount of different KE rounds. You will stock the best one you can afford that can defeat the most likely enemy. I agree about the need for better armor penetration and damage simulation.

Electrothermal and electromagnetic seem the most likely near future gun tech developments. Another option, like Damian90 wrote, is smarter ammunition - top down EFP seems like a good candidate(like SADARM or SMART).

Well, let me say first off that I agree that the ammunition needs to be updated and as I stated before in my wish list on page 213 of the Wish List No Discussion thread, I do think that at least the drivers need an interior. I'll post the excerpt below. Really the only thing I don't agree with is this....

This isn't exactly accurate because the bigger the lens means the more light and contrary to what some might think, the eye does have a finite resolution. (I may not explain this correctly but you can look it up.) We already have Ultra HD displays that can put out more fine detail than what our eyes are capable of or at least need to distinguishing the information being presented. In fact there is a large number of people who can’t distinguish the difference between pictures printed at 150dpi vs 300dpi at normal viewing distance. Not to mention that our eyes are kind of randomly analog... In theory, mounting a telescope to a periscope sounds ideal but with the advancements in technology today and where it will be at in 2035, I think it's pretty safe to say that doing so might actually be less beneficial. Especially when you take into account all the pertinent information that can be displayed on the screen as well.... A camera with a big optical lens connected to an HD display will do all that.

As for thermal and what someone said in regards to optics for pilots..... Yes pilots get the best optics and I'm sure they're MUCH better than the Pas-13s which are old, big and have about a..4-6 hour battery life if you're lucky. Pilots get the best thermal and night vision because they are in charge of not crashing a multi-million dollar piece of equipment. Even though they're better, they do suffer somewhat from the same problems. More than likely the reason he doesn't notice the image blend as much is because he is above looking down, rather than say... on a a flat surface with the sun behind him looking at a bunch of hot surfaces all facing the sun. It's like arranging pieces on a chess board, closing one eye and looking at it from above, then laying your head on the table and doing the same thing. (Not sure if that makes sense.)

Anyway, advancements in thermal and night vision imaging are happening pretty much every day so it's not too farfetched to believe that they managed to take two thermal cameras, put them side by side and stitch the image together to give depth perception and what not. (The shadows are a game engine flaw I think.. same with smoke) In fact they've already blended thermal and night vision together and are working on improving it.

Here was my wish list excerpt:

Better visibility and DETAIL for armored drivers Turned In: This is supposed to be the future...No one would make an armored vehicle with only one available view port unless they have absolutely no idea what they're doing and didn't learn from WWII. You can even see 3 distinct view ports on the driver hatches of the vehicles in Arma 3 right now, you should at least able to turn your head and look diagonally. Ideally the view ports would have...eh 135 degrees field of view? Also again, this is supposed to be the future… the drivers should have a dashboard with a screen that shows at least a rear facing camera that is Night Vision capable (ideally it would have a forward facing camera as well). And if you really want to get fancy... the driver's front facing camera should be connected to a slave system on their helmet like an Apache gunner... where ever he turns his head is where the camera looks, so that it would be just like if he was turned out. It doesn’t need thermal or anything super fancy just give him the tools to see where he’s going. (Night vision and a little bit of zoom to identify IED’s and mines.) We have web cams that can zoom, pan left, right, up, down, rotate 360, and track faces…I can’t see why we couldn’t mount a camera on a tank under the turret for the driver.

Armor Optics Vulnerable to Small Arms Fire: Any mounted weapon with a remote viewer SHOULD be vulnerable to small arms fire IF YOU CAN HIT IT. For tanks and APC’s at least, they should have a redundancy system. The periscope view ports (the 3 slots on the driver’s hatches) should be used only as a last resort after their good optics have been destroyed, but even the view ports should be able to get shot up so bad that you can’t see out. Obviously I know that 3rd person will make this feature useless but it should still be added. It’s too bad that the devs didn’t think of this before the models were made. I would have given the gunner a primitive periscope sight mounted next to and looking down along the bore of the main gun so it and his coaxial machine gun would still be somewhat effective. The gunner sight would be receded inside the armor of the turret, requiring a nearly straight on shot to hit it. The down side is that it wouldn’t be thermal or night vision, it wouldn’t have zoom and it would have a severely limited field of view. (Scenario) You’re hiding in a building and a tank pulls up beside you and stops in the street with no infantry support, you should be able to shoot out the optics of the tank partially or completely blinding it if you can hit all the cameras and view ports.

(Some of this junk might be wrong or confusing I can explain it better after I get some sleep. haha)

Agree on two latter points.

You're forgetting the large difference in refracted light vs. luminescent display. Optical vision still trumps the screen in that regard. You get more wavelengths, more contrast, less strain, better visual processing with optical vision.

[Damian90 696]

The whole discussion about light vs heavy armor and economy of this choice is interesting.

USA is here a very interesting example. At the end of 1990's and beggining of XXI century, there was a plan to replace all armored vehicles, also heavy ones, with one lightweight modular platform the MGV developed within Future Combat Systems program, because it was expected that the only conflicts in future would be low intensity and peacekeeping. However around the end of first decade, MGV was cancelled because of experiences from Iraq and Afghanistan, where lightweight armor had survivability problems. In such situation the MGV would be just a deathtrap for it's crew.

Even active protection systems do not have a 100% reliability, and then, even if APS works correctly and destroy for example RPG grenade, there is still probability that shaped charge jet will be partially formed and have enough penetration capability to harm vehicle and it's crew.

Because of this, US had made a 180 degrees turn and changed the concept.

Now we have several programs:

Modernization of existing M1, M2, M109 and Stryker platforms within ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) program, where their survivability, firepower, mobility and other characteristics will be improved while their SWaP-C will be zeroed.

Replacement of M113 platform with new, bigger, heavier, better protected AMPV platform.

GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle) program where aim is to develop new, highly survivable, heavy tracked platforms, first increment is new IFV which will replace in this role the M2, later it is anticipated that new SPH and MBT designs will start their research and development cycles to eventually replace M109 and M1.

And finally the JLTV program which aims to design a highly survivable multipurpose utility vehicle to replace HMMWV, and JLTV is allready bigger and heavier than HMMWV.

I remember that I read several months ago interview with one of high rank US Army officers, he said clearly, US Army aims to use more survivable vehicles, but this also means that US Army armor mechanized force, will use heavier, not lighter vehicles.

And then we have some European armies, which aims to reduce their heavy armor mechanized forces beyond the point of absurd. Neederlands completely deleted their armor mechanized forces and one of their high rank officers said that their army lost all capabilities to fight efficently in conventional conflicts, in fact they lost all their offensive capabilities without tanks, and now politicians started to sold out their IFV's even.

Some however like France, UK, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy and several other European NATO members, try to keep some balance.

So this is indeed interesting problem, and it seems that real life operations, veryfied all these ideas and shows that there is no alternative for highly survivable, heavy armored tracked vehicles.

[mikha_a 10]

I agree with regard to the usefulness heavy platform (like tanks). APC(BMP) at the moment, IMHO of course, no measure up to conditions of any conflict. Concerned to both arms - to a lesser extent, and protection - more. Passive armor seems to me, is an important component of survivability vehicle on the battlefield. For example in IDF created heavy armored APC's like Ahzarit, Namer. These APCs can interact with the tanks, as have a comparable level of protection of both the kinetic and the cumulative weapons, various kinds of mines and explosive devices.

In ARMA 3 many simplifications, but it seems to me that for the protection of tanks is not sufficient, and the power of tank shells - understated, assortment of shells - no good, minimum level of fire range of tanks and armored personnel carriers weapons - too short.

I understand that the ARMA - no Steel Beasts Pro, but I hope that the developers will correct it does not match. If - no, we need to wait for modes, like Armor Improvement System (AIS) mod :) :)

Edited September 29, 2013 by mikha_a

[Harbinger2456 10]

Still coming back to gameplay, you need to be able to stop heavy armor or they would just roll over everything.

Exactly. Why the Ruskies came up with the RPG-29.

[maturin 12]

The RPG-29 is nothing special. It's a slight upgrade that penetrates tanks' side armor, but not the front.

Just like the AT4 and RPG-7 did for T-72s and M60s, it does for Abrams and Challengers.

[Variable 322]

The RPG-29 is nothing special. It's a slight upgrade that penetrates tanks' side armor, but not the front.

I'm not sure how valid this data is, but it points at the RPG-29 ability to penetrate T-90 and T-80 front armor.

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

[maturin 12]

To my great disappointment, some very knowledgeable people have pronounced that a fake. There's apparently no actual evidence that such tests were conducted.

It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. The Russians wouldn't want to give away the actual armor capabilities of the T-90, would they?

[Variable 322]

I agree, that's what made me doubt the validity of the data.

[nodunit 397]

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.

The strange thing is that Arma 3's thermal shaders can actually render out to something such as this http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a25_1365523275 as seen here

and the reason.

I say this is because at 1:52 you can see how the terrain and especially hangars hold a heat signature comparable to the nearby vehicles, and at 2:17 you can see a single soldier in the town, made blatant when the image loses contrast. I think this is due to a constrast or HDR...Arma 2 suffered these effects in general and it seems to have carried over but it doesn't make sense.. either way it severely hampers the use of thermal for any platform.

I made a ticket on the tracker titled "Thermals and their use as optics" with various comparisons, videos and so on so I'm sure someone is aware of the issue.

Edited October 1, 2013 by NodUnit

[Damian90 696]

I'm not sure how valid this data is, but it points at the RPG-29 ability to penetrate T-90 and T-80 front armor.

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

Vasily Fofanov said once that this is old and false story, but he resigned to update his website, and all informations there are rather obsolete.

BTW AFAIK RPG-29 penetration capabilities were overestimated. Most "sources" claims ~750+ mm penetration of RHA, my friend a year ago perhaps found a Bazalt company, the manufacturer of RPG's, advertisement note where penetration is claimed to be only 600-650mm.

In Iraq there were several incidents where insurgents fired RPG-29 at M1A1/M1A2 front armor (both turret and hull), without any effect on tank and it's crew. In case of British Challenger 2, this tank have a weak spot in it's front hull armor, this is why insurgents were successfull.

Besides this RPG-29 is not the most dangerous RPG Russians developed, look at RPG-28, a single shot monster with a 125mm tandem warhead, RPG-29 use 105mm warhead. Difference is huge.

[Variable 322]

Vasily Fofanov said once that this is old and false story, but he resigned to update his website, and all informations there are rather obsolete.

BTW AFAIK RPG-29 penetration capabilities were overestimated. Most "sources" claims ~750+ mm penetration of RHA, my friend a year ago perhaps found a Bazalt company, the manufacturer of RPG's, advertisement note where penetration is claimed to be only 600-650mm.

In Iraq there were several incidents where insurgents fired RPG-29 at M1A1/M1A2 front armor (both turret and hull), without any effect on tank and it's crew. In case of British Challenger 2, this tank have a weak spot in it's front hull armor, this is why insurgents were successfull.

Besides this RPG-29 is not the most dangerous RPG Russians developed, look at RPG-28, a single shot monster with a 125mm tandem warhead, RPG-29 use 105mm warhead. Difference is huge.

Interesting.

I suppose a lot of data has become available during the Syrian civil war. It would be interesting to see how (western and eastern) armament affected the T-72 and other tanks' armor (including reactive). Does anyone has data on that?