NATO-Pact Realism Mod

[olds 15]

Love your fun facts, keep them coming.

OK zimms, you asked for it! :)

Ever notice that Soviet tanks are rather smaller than their Western counterparts? Ever wonder why?

I won't claim to have made a thorough study of this topic, but here are some of my conclusions in the course of researching these vehicles...

There are some important points to keep in mind when considering Soviet tank designs:

• Cost effectiveness was often the overriding factor in Soviet military design: what was the cheapest way to get the job done?
  
• More so than Western designs, Soviet tanks were purpose-built to fight on the offensive in central European terrain. This was a consequence of the first point and the fact that the Soviets considered the European theater the greatest source of threat to their nation.
  
• Soviet military doctrine tended to stress quantity over quality.
  
• The last series of Soviet tanks were designed in the 60's-70's and reflected the concerns of those times. The Soviet Union collapsed before the next generation of design (post-T-64/72/80) could be implemented.
  

Soviet designers--like most tank designers--recognized that the MBT needed to maximize mobility, firepower, and armor. But the Soviet military-industrial complex was required to do this in the smallest package manageable. This was for a number of reasons that seemed to make sense to them at the time.

Smaller & lighter tanks:

• ...are cheaper to build than large ones
  
• ...are easier to transport (e.g. by rail)
  
• ...use less fuel (reducing the strain on logistics)
  
• ...can more easily traverse Europe's many small roads and bridges (there are a lot of little rivers in Germany!)
  
• ...are more easily camouflaged and obscured by terrain (rolling hills, etc.)
  

...Finally, back in the 60-70's when this last generation of tanks was being designed, fire control systems were pretty rudimentary and having a smaller tank meant that you presented a smaller target to enemy gunners. There are certainly many disadvantages of a smaller tank. But the Soviets--rightly or wrongly--decided that the benefits outweighed them. All in all, the Soviet military felt that tanks in a European battlefield would be killed quickly and in large numbers and thus it made sense to build more tanks rather than better ones.*

But by the 1980's, advances in technology--particularly in NATO tanks--were nullifying some of these benefits. Thermal imagers made AFV's easier to spot regardless of their size. And laser rangefinders and other advanced FCS made them easier to hit regardless of size. Being 20% smaller may very well have been a battlefield advantage in 1975, but it offered considerably less protection in 1985 against M1's and Leopard 2's.

--Mod Notes--

You'll be able to fight it out and maybe get an inkling of which design philosophy was superior. Just keep in mind--had the Cold War gone hot--the determining factor would probably not have been which tank was better 1:1, but how they would encounter each other in battle. If your Soviet division was ground down by airstrikes and AT mines by the time it got within range of NATO tanks, it would be in big trouble no matter what. Conversely, if half your Abrams tanks didn't make it to the battle in time due to mobility kills from Soviet artillery, or because they couldn't make it across a light bridge, then you'd likely be doomed even if your tank was twice as good as your opponent's.

*IMO this gives an insight into the "flaw" of poor crew survivability in Soviet tanks. Soviet planners knew that tanks were going take a beating in combat. My sense is their philosophy worked like this: if a tank is hit so severely as to be out of the fight, it kinda doesn't matter at that point whether the crew was maimed vs. dead, or even perfectly healthy but uselessly wandering the battlefield. ("Doesn't matter" in the sense that it wasn't worth making tanks more post-mission-kill-survivable if it meant they were much more expensive and you couldn't make as many of them). Pretty harsh, but there is a certain wartime logic there.

[mistyronin 1181]

Ever notice that Soviet tanks are rather smaller than their Western counterparts? Ever wonder why?

Doctrine's difference.

A good example is WW2, germany started having light tanks and could deliver Blitzkrieg, at the end of the conflict they had such a heavy tanks that most of them were abandoned due to mechanical failures and lack of fuel do to their weight. BTW the Allies used thousands of light and mid weight tanks in 1944.

Little and mid tanks are always a preference, due to their mobility and easy maintenance. And because you can use them massively.

[scajolly 14]

Hello

Happy you have chosen the proper focus for this game franchise. It's a bit of a coin toss for Arma 4, isn't it? Either it'll be a continuation of the future they've created for us, or they'll go back to their proper roots and spare us the trouble of moving content into a new game.

Do you intend to release a standalone that, ultimately, should draw together addons from a range of parties? Ie, is your work limited to configging some equipment and then working these into F2 formations that can be used? That was what I gathered from the OP, please do correct me if I'm terribly mistaken.

Please continue with your efforts, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it all.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

[*]Soviet military doctrine tended to stress quantity over quality.

I dont agree. The aim of the T-64 was to produce a quality tank, not a quantity. This was also reflected in production numbers. BMP series were also quality, in contrast to BTRs (quantity)

The quantity tank was the T-72, which was much simpler, and it was easier to produce. (Although it was more expensive than the T-64, but the reason for this was politics)

Anyway, good luck with your project, it is an iteresting one. :)

(if it were for A2, I'd gladly donate a few models)

Edited March 31, 2014 by Archbishop Lazarus

[Damian90 696]

There is also other problem. Actually the only example of a tank where crew survivability in case of armor perforation was taken seriously is M1 Abrams where whole ammunition is stored in 3 separated from crew ammo magazines with blow off panels. Other NATO or "Western" tanks does not have crew survivability significantly higher than Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) tanks.

Explanation is very simple. The most dangerous for crew is ammo cook off. You can't prevent it really if ammunition is hit (especially if ammo does not use IM propelant charge used in todays most modern tammo, IM propelant charge is very lowly sensitive to temperature and pressure so risk of it's cook off are very small).

So for example, Leopard 2 stores only 15 rounds in a turret in the same safe ammo storage type like these used in M1, rest this is 27 round are stored in normal ammo rack in hull. Challenger 1 & 2 stores propelant charges in armored bins but these can only postpone ammo cook off for a very short time period, giving crew enough time to bail out.

Leclerc have only 22 rounds stored safely in turret bustle, 18 rounds similiar like in Leopard 2.

Merkava have a similiar storage system like Challenger 1 & 2, Lebanon proved that safety of this sollution is rather limited.

Most other tanks like Type 90, Type 10, K2 replicates ammo storage from Leopard 2 and Leclerc. K1/K1A1 have whole ammunition stored in normal ammo racks in hull, no ammunition in turret as there is no turret bustle.

[olds 15]

There is also other problem. Actually the only example of a tank where crew survivability in case of armor perforation was taken seriously is M1 Abrams where whole ammunition is stored in 3 separated from crew ammo magazines with blow off panels. Other NATO or "Western" tanks does not have crew survivability significantly higher than Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) tanks.

An excellent point. When we casually speak of "general" differences in design principles (or doctrine), it's important not to oversimplify: Soviet designs were not "all one way" and NATO designs were not "all the other way."

[Damian90 696]

Well, crew survivability in case when armor protection does not stop projectile is very interesting topic.

What must be understood, is that projectiles themselfs do not do much damage or kill the crew. On avarage if projectile finds path inside, all crew members are ok, some crew members are lightly wounded, some might be heavily wounded, and in approx of 90% incidents when things start to be bad, only single crew member is dead when projectile or it's fragments, hits him directly.

Crew survivability drastically lowers when ammo starts to burn, this is very fast, violent process, automatic extuinguishers can't stop it. Fuel and engine fire is less violent, mostly can be extuinguished and it is rather slow giving time for reaction.

Interesting were American conclusions from Iraq, where fault for many vehicle fires was that crews had a habit to keep many of their belongings on the armor in rucks etc. Currently such habit is strongly prohibited especially in combat zones. Many vehicle fires would be avoided if crew belongings would not be stored outside. It is also not good idea to store such stuff inside.

RPG's were relatively low effective against tanks, even if side or rear armor was breached, crew casualties were small (mostly wounded) and vehicle damage was small.

So this is why ammunition isolation is so important and both NATO and Soviet future tank projects, had ammunition isolated from crew compartment. In fact Soviets in 1960-1970's were fully aware of that, just look at one of Alexander Morozov (chief engineer of the team that developed T-64) projects the Object 450 where crew is completely isolated from ammunition. project had however too ambitious goals for that time period and technology was not ready.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

What must be understood, is that projectiles themselfs do not do much damage or kill the crew. On avarage if projectile finds path inside, all crew members are ok, some crew members are lightly wounded, some might be heavily wounded, and in approx of 90% incidents when things start to be bad, only single crew member is dead when projectile or it's fragments, hits him directly.

Except if the projectile is a good old fashioned full caliber one. It may be important if the T-55 will be included in the mod, because it still used BR-412D APBC even in the 80's in Poland, Hungary and DDR. While the BR-412D has miserable performance compared to other types of ammunition, if it somehow still manages to penetrate, it does horrific damage to the crew and interior components, most probably seriously injuring, if not killing everyone, thanks to its bursting charge.

[Damian90 696]

Ah yes indeed, full calliber rounds have tendency too do much more internal damage.

It is somewhat a paradox that modern projectiles capable to penetrate even 850mm of RHA do relatively little internal damage on their own than old even WWII ammunition which was capable to barely achieve 200mm of RHA.

[serjames 357]

Good points on Ammo - does the the Soviet Autoloader system isolate the crew more from the propellent, or is there still access to within the Crew Compartment ?

Speaking with a Former Chieftan tanker (he's now a Civilian Challenger 2 trainer so he knows his stuff) he was telling me how they were planning to fight. Basically it was all long range engagement, Pushing forward at night, digging in hull down, Firing off 1, 2 maybe 3 shots. Then rapid pulling back - a defensive offensive if you like...

They never practised attacking along a front at all it was always spear heads, followed by breaking contact. Sniping if you will.

So first shot accuracy and stealthy manouvring were key to survivability, for the British element anyway.

[mistyronin 1181]

Speaking with a Former Chieftan tanker (he's now a Civilian Challenger 2 trainer so he knows his stuff) he was telling me how they were planning to fight. Basically it was all long range engagement, Pushing forward at night, digging in hull down, Firing off 1, 2 maybe 3 shots. Then rapid pulling back - a defensive offensive if you like...

Can't you get similar effects with a fire team with portable AT? More stealthy and cheaper.

I can't figure how a huge noisy heavy beast is used for "sniping" missions.

[Damian90 696]

Good points on Ammo - does the the Soviet Autoloader system isolate the crew more from the propellent, or is there still access to within the Crew Compartment ?

No there is no isolation.

Also remember that there are different autoloader design developed in Soviet Union. The T-64 and T-80 (also T-84 series) use 6ETs family of autoloader. They look and operate this way:

The T-72 and T-90 series use AZ-125/185 autoloader.

Both does not isolate crew from ammunition. Also there is plenty of ammunition stored outside autoloader.

Speaking with a Former Chieftan tanker (he's now a Civilian Challenger 2 trainer so he knows his stuff) he was telling me how they were planning to fight. Basically it was all long range engagement, Pushing forward at night, digging in hull down, Firing off 1, 2 maybe 3 shots. Then rapid pulling back - a defensive offensive if you like...

They never practised attacking along a front at all it was always spear heads, followed by breaking contact. Sniping if you will.

So first shot accuracy and stealthy manouvring were key to survivability, for the British element anyway.

Well, I don't give them much success here. T-64 was immune to British 120mm ammunition fired from rifled L11 and L30 guns. In fact the most modern British round currently in use, L27A1 CHARM3 will have problems with defeating frontal armor of T-72B or T-64B with heavy ERA like "Kontakt-5" or "Knife".

Also sniping from long range was also not the best idea. At a long range distance which is approx 5000m, Chieftain and Challenger series can fire only HESH, which is obsolete and non effective against tanks with spaced or composite armor. At the same time some Soviet tanks like T-64B, T-72B, T-80B, T-80U and T-80UD can fire at such long range engagements, gun launched anti tank guided missiles like 9M112 and 9M119.

The T-64B and T-80B uses 9K112 "Kobra" guidance system based on radio signals, crude but reliable and effective, this system uses 9M112 missile. T-72B uses 9K120 "Svir" system which is simplified version of 9K119 "Refleks" system used at T-80U and T-80UD, which uses laser guidance, both of these systems use 9M119 "Invar" missile.

Of course there are more types of ATGM's that can be fired from large calliber AFV guns developed in former Soviet Union, like Ukrainian "Kombat" which is 125mm GLATGM based on older 9M128 "Agona" which in itself is improvement over 9M112.

Can't you get similar effects with a fire team with portable AT? More stealthy and cheaper.

I can't figure how a huge noisy heavy beast is used for "sniping" missions.

The problem is that there is no stealthy "sniping".

The whole idea is to fire a few rounds, give enemy a bloody nose, and then retreat to next battle position and repeat untill enemy will have such high losses that it can't go further in to your territory.

You can do it with a tank, but not with ATGM team, why?

ATGM's are slow, they are not super weapon as they are portraied, and ATGM's have very low survivability. In fact after few shots, ATGM team would be detected and destroyed by artillery, or overrun by tanks and IFV's.

The best anti tank weapon is a tank. ;)

Edited March 31, 2014 by Damian90

[mistyronin 1181]

The problem is that there is no stealthy "sniping".

The whole idea is to fire a few rounds, give enemy a bloody nose, and then retreat to next battle position and repeat untill enemy will have such high losses that it can't go further in to your territory.

You can do it with a tank, but not with ATGM team, why?

ATGM's are slow, they are not super weapon as they are portraied, and ATGM's have very low survivability. In fact after few shots, ATGM team would be detected and destroyed by artillery, or overrun by tanks and IFV's.

The best anti tank weapon is a tank. ;)

Uhm, good point!

[Damian90 696]

You should purchase Steel Beasts Pro PE simulator, it really gives a good idea how to fight inside a modern tank, and there is plenty of training missions also explaining basic tactics, and for example how to fight in defensive by using your own vehicles mobility and how to give your enemy a "bloody nose". ;)

It is especially important if enemy have artillery. Of course tanks can relatively well survive HE bombardment if crew will close main sight armored plates to protect sights from shell fragments. But DPICM ammunition is very dangerous and if such attack occurs, you need to withdraw from battle position to next BP as quickly as possible. Best way is to retreat using reverse gear so you can all the time face potential enemy with your front armor.

This can be done with modern tanks that have proper transmission allowing them to reverse at speeds exceeding 30 km/h, older tanks might have some problems as their reverse speed is approx 5 to 10 km/h max.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

The best anti tank weapon is a tank. ;)

Exactly!

Also, ATGMs are becoming less and less useful since the introduction of composite armor. + Soviets used ERA, which made single warhead missiles useless.

Sniping with ATGMs is possible only with a few tank destroyers that are small enough or have good mobility. For example, the 9P149 Shturm-S, which is very easy to conceal, and fires supersonic missiles.

[bakerman 247]

Ah yes indeed, full calliber rounds have tendency too do much more internal damage.

It is somewhat a paradox that modern projectiles capable to penetrate even 850mm of RHA do relatively little internal damage on their own than old even WWII ammunition which was capable to barely achieve 200mm of RHA.

A bit unrelated to this mod, but I believe full caliber projectiles will make a comeback. The latest active protection systems (mongoose-4 etc) can defeat long-rod perpetrators and standoff weapons, but are virtually helpless against full caliber projectiles due to their high mass.

At the same time some Soviet tanks like T-64B, T-72B, T-80B, T-80U and T-80UD can fire at such long range engagements, gun launched anti tank guided missiles like 9M112 and 9M119.

Thanks Damian90 for pointing that out. People often forget that soviet tanks equipped to fire ATGMs had the upper hand in long range engagements, although this was relatively rare since the cost of equipping every tank with the needed fire control systems was considered too much.

Also, ATGMs are becoming less and less useful since the introduction of composite armor. + Soviets used ERA, which made single warhead missiles useless.

Sniping with ATGMs is possible only with a few tank destroyers that are small enough or have good mobility. For example, the 9P149 Shturm-S, which is very easy to conceal, and fires supersonic missiles.

Those defenses also protect against KE. ATMGs always seem to be one step ahead of defenses because they are relatively easy and cheap to develop.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Bakerman

[PVT Watt.J 14]

A bit unrelated to this mod, but I believe full caliber projectiles will make a comeback. The latest active protection systems (mongoose-4 etc) can defeat long-rod perpetrators and standoff weapons, but are virtually helpless against full caliber projectiles due to their high mass.

Perhaps, but I imagine that would depend on:

-Will active defense systems survive long on the battlefield against another advanced nation? Can those systems be sufficiently protected against 20mm+ rounds, 80-120mm HE frag, etc...? If not, then these tools are nice on the typical modern battlefield against lower-tech opponents, but not so much in an even fight.

-How big is the gap between 120/125mm old-fashioned AP vs. sabot rounds. If the gap is big, then perhaps you are better off just overwhelming the ADS with multiple sabot rounds at once.

[Damian90 696]

A bit unrelated to this mod, but I believe full caliber projectiles will make a comeback. The latest active protection systems (mongoose-4 etc) can defeat long-rod perpetrators and standoff weapons, but are virtually helpless against full caliber projectiles due to their high mass.

US Army will soon replace M830, M830A1, M908 and M1028 rounds with a single programmable multipurpose HE round coded M1069. M1069 can defeat a 150mm cast steel armor protecting side projection of T-55 turret, such effect is impressive.

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2867/nowyobrazmapybitowej6t.png

Here you can watch the versality of this type of ammunition. It can defeat older tanks, lightly armored vehicles, non armored targets, structures and even infantry in the open with air burst mode on.

So yeah I agree that full bore ammo will have it's comeback. But I doubt that any type of APFSDS (even with Mongoose interceptors) can reliably defeat APFSDS. Even if APFSDS rod is sucessfully intercepted, remember that this is still a big chunk of metal accelarated to at least 1500 m/s. I would not wish to sit inside APC that is hit by this junk of metal, even worse, if such penetrator had been intercepted by APC's active protection system, and loose it's trajectory, it can hit such vehicles with it's side surface, which will be even more dangerous than if rod would hit the target with it's tip.

Thanks Damian90 for pointing that out. People often forget that soviet tanks equipped to fire ATGMs had the upper hand in long range engagements, although this was relatively rare since the cost of equipping every tank with the needed fire control systems was considered too much.

Well, the ATGM's don't give much of advantage these days.

M1A2SEP have new fire control system that gives capability too fire conventional non guided ammunition at range of 5000m. This means that if we have a M1A2SEP and T-90A firing at each other at such range, actually M1A2SEP have advantage, simply because APFSDS is faster than ATGM, so when T-90A fires one ATGM and needs to guide it at M1A2SEP, the American tank can fire 2 or even 3 APFSDS rounds at Russian tank.

But of course, as far as I know, only M1A2SEP have such capabilities. Dunno if M1A1SA and M1A1FEP also, but both share the same components with M1A2SEP so probably yeah, these two can also do this.

Gun launched ATGM's at LOS battle ranges loose their advantages, thus I believe, such ammunition will evolve to BLOS with range of 12000m and beyond, such like prototype US GLATGM XM1111 MRM.

Also, ATGMs are becoming less and less useful since the introduction of composite armor. + Soviets used ERA, which made single warhead missiles useless.

Actually HEAT warheads on their own reached their limits. It is because HEAT warheads have their penetration capabilities mostly depending on their calliber, the bigger is calliber, the greater is penetration level. So sure you can design a warhead that will be capable to defeat 5000m of RHA, but it's size and weight will be beyond any practical useability. Such warheads are actually designed but only for one single task... static armor tests.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Damian90

[bakerman 247]

Woah now Shadow_MSOG and Damian90, this thread is about cold war era armored vehicles, you can post (post)modern era stuff over at AIS. ;)

[Damian90 696]

True. :)

By the way, about the cold war. IMHO one of the most interesting and unfortunetely rather avoided, are M60 series of tanks, especially M60A2 and M60A3 are interesting designs. :)

However I suppose that creating in ArmA series, a realistic sighting system for these tanks would be problematic... considering how many sights these things actually had!

[archbishop lazarus 24]

M60A1 would also have a place I think. Its rangefinder would be quite hard to script, (or even impossible) though...

[olds 15]

Woah now Shadow_MSOG and Damian90, this thread is about cold war era armored vehicles, you can post (post)modern era stuff over at AIS. ;)

Yes, please post crazy modern stuff on Bakerman's thread! He loves it!

re. M60, I'd like to add it at some point (at least M60A3 TTS). It will have some version of the highly simplified FCS common to all Arma tanks. :P

Edited April 1, 2014 by Olds

[bakerman 247]

With full access and control a more "advanced", as in an old - not advanced at all, FCS should be doable. You could also have multiple sights such as Optical/TV.

[Damian90 696]

Yup M60 and M60A1 with coincidence range finder will probably be immposible to model, so some sort of simplification will be needed, perhaps standard ArmA zeroing system but without laser range finder? This can also simulate other coincidence range finder like the ones in T-64 and T-64A, T-72, T-80 or some variants of the Leopard 1?

[olds 15]

Hello

Happy you have chosen the proper focus for this game franchise. It's a bit of a coin toss for Arma 4, isn't it? Either it'll be a continuation of the future they've created for us, or they'll go back to their proper roots and spare us the trouble of moving content into a new game.

My bet is more zombies or something. Maybe a story mode with cutscenes! :mad:

Do you intend to release a standalone that, ultimately, should draw together addons from a range of parties? Ie, is your work limited to configging some equipment and then working these into F2 formations that can be used? That was what I gathered from the OP, please do correct me if I'm terribly mistaken.

Please continue with your efforts, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it all.

Thank you SCAJolly, much appreciated. So far I was planning on starting with something like a variant of AiA SA. That's the mod that is linked to the open-source A2 port project called CUP. I like standardized. I like open-source. I like compatibility.

Assuming I pull that off, where it goes afterward will be open to question. There are a lot of random ports out there. Most of them, AFAIK, are essentially new skins over the same underlying Arma stuff. As you gathered from the OP, I'm not real interested in that. But we'll see. I'm happy to work with any modder who wants to get on the Cold War realism bandwagon for A3.

Got some more work to do with RAM first though--before I start seriously tackling (& learning!) A2 porting... :)