Let's talk about tanks

[novahot 1]

Since first time Showcase Tanks came out, I once again played tonight. It' s been five minutes into the mission. Because of a cheap little wall it's over. Track damaged, crew got out, I wasn't able to get the tank back driving.

My question is headed to the community and BI. Will this ever be fixed or do I have to live with fact, that we are not supposed to play heavy machinery?

I've got lots of questions concerning vehicles (Michael Bay movie explosions, turned-out driver view for every tank) but this ... this!

[Jafit 10]

BIS can't fix your bad driving :)

Michael Bay movie explosions

Don't get me started

http://i.imgur.com/OGmlm6k.png

[novahot 1]

Jafit, that's not funny at all. I wasn't driving, I was commanding the driver. ;)

But for real. Indirectly you are right but let's not get started with AI.

These walls are everywhere. Why isn't it possible to make these walls for vehicles above a certain weight (Merkava 60+ tons) or track-driven ones clipping?

Because of the desastrous situation on public servers, I play a fair amount of time Wasteland. 2t-Pick-Ups at fences are another story.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Novahot

[spamurai 3]

If we're getting a Sniper and a Helicopter DLC pack....

are we going to eventually see a Armor DLC pack?

[martin_lee 33]

That's weird :( I've played with tanks for quite a bit, and this showcase mission for quite a number of times. I've had my share of getting stranded above rocks and wall, but never do they damage tracks, let alone bailing my crews.

Just want to make sure, can you try to reproduce this in the editor? That showcase mission do have quite a bit of AT soilders.

[silentghoust 132]

In all honesty this is quiet possible in real life as well, didn't you ever watch the high speed chase involving the cold war tank in the U.S? Same issue, got stock because he bottomed out XD

[roguetrooper 2]

What I really hate about AI tank gunners is, that they constantly and randomly move the turret/cannon arround. It's terrible. Why the heck don't they keep the turret aligned to the front unless a target has been assigned?

When you (as a human player) expect a thread to come from the right side (from behind a house or hill), it is impossible to be prepared (i.e. align the gun already into this direction although nothing can be aimed at yet) to it because of the that drunk carousel gunner.

It's also a pain to navigate through narrow streets even with a player as driver because the gunner constantly feels the need to turn randomly around.

[instagoat 133]

Tanks easily get stuck on such obstacles in real life. The walls should have some destruction model, though, so it's not -as- easy.

The bigger problem I see is the bad damage model. It is bad. For a good one, one should look at war thunder (free to play, I might add) where they model internal components additionally to internal penetration of the rounds. All we get is massive explosions taking out entire villages.

Problems specifically that I see:

AI unable to reverse with tanks: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16717

The internal hitpoint system, no crew damage, bad sounds (not impact sounds, no impact sounds inside the vehicle, etc.).

Very inconsistent AI spotting is another problem. They are especially bad at ranges above 500 meters. You can drive a truck across their field of vision and not be spotted rather too often: I could understand that if you use a civvie vehicle, but it is -hard- to misidentify an ifrit at any range.

The turret rotation speeds of the tanks are also much to fast, so the AI constantly overshoots and is just really bad at getting a bead on target. Turret rotation speed should be at around 10 seconds for 360° (I found 9 seconds cited for the leopard in some places). Right now they swing around at almost double that speed, which is hard to manage for the AI and also makes them react much too quickly.

No defensive systems against missiles, and the armor simulation is made pointless by the hitpoint system. Even if you don't penetrate, you can kill pretty much any vehicle in a certain amount of hits because of some sort of splash damage? I tested with both HEAT and APFSDS against all tanks, but not very exactly. (Used the trace script to see if hits penetrated.)

I love tanks, but right now I'm pretty much only playing war thunder because the Arma 3 tanks suffer from AI and simulation shortcomings.

[Bouben 3]

The turret rotation speeds of the tanks are also much to fast, so the AI constantly overshoots and is just really bad at getting a bead on target. Turret rotation speed should be at around 10 seconds for 360° (I found 9 seconds cited for the leopard in some places). Right now they swing around at almost double that speed, which is hard to manage for the AI and also makes them react much too quickly.

Thank you for this. I hate this since the OFP times. It is so unrealistic and immersion breaking.

I was watching some Syria footage and tanks regularly took much more time before they were able to actually shoot at a target. A lot of aiming corrections were involved too.

In the game, I have a feeling that tanks are autonomous turrets.

[stormhawkv 19]

I was watching some Syria footage and tanks regularly took much more time before they were able to actually shoot at a target. A lot of aiming corrections were involved too.

That's because they use handwheels to turn the turret and raise the gun. Modern tanks are equipped with computers and stabilizers. However, I agree that turret rotation speed is way too fast.

[instagoat 133]

That's because they use handwheels to turn the turret and raise the gun. Modern tanks are equipped with computers and stabilizers. However, I agree that turret rotation speed is way too fast.

Even modern high-pressure hydraulics cannot turn the turret at such speeds. SPAAGs can, but their turrets are not heavily armored and full with heavy ammunition (mostly electronics.). Rotation speed for the Leopard 2 and M1 appear to be 9 seconds for a full rotation: still 3 seconds slower than the tanks ingame currently can. Try Reyhards Tanks to see how the T-72 and T-55 perform: they do not use hand-wheels, tanks have not done that since mid-way through WW-2. They use either powerful electric motors (in lighter vehicles) or hydraulic pressure.

Another problem seems to be misconfigged armor. The 120mm APFSDS goes straight through the sides of two Kumas and damages a third in the row. Side armor on this version of the Leopard 2 is just as strong as the frontal armor. Also, hitting the reinforced plate or the non-reinforced plate on the side of the T-100 makes no difference in protection. Why is this?

Pictures below of triple-kuma-kill (This was tested with the pre-bootcamp version.)

[l337acc 15]

Those little stone walls are one of very few things that cannot be penetrated by small arms, fyi.

[Bee8190 10]

My issues with tanks - very WIP physx even long after the BETA stage ( which supposed to be dedicated getting vehicles right ) exceptionally boring, non immersive sounds ( and that is even if the sounds were recorded straight from source eg. real life tank, I doubt the job took more than half an hour and anything other than tank driving couple feet forward and backwards just to get the base sounds ) nonexistent & very disappointing interaction with terrain as per OP other than pushes being pushed into ground in a funny to say the least animation and on top of it, the issues mentioned here earlier.

Yes dear BI, still looking forward to more tweaks and still didn't get over it :)

[Bouben 3]

That's because they use handwheels to turn the turret and raise the gun. Modern tanks are equipped with computers and stabilizers. However, I agree that turret rotation speed is way too fast.

T-70s/T-80s use handwheels?

[-=seany=- 5]

My issues with tanks - very WIP physx even long after the BETA stage ( which supposed to be dedicated getting vehicles right ) exceptionally boring, non immersive sounds ( and that is even if the sounds were recorded straight from source eg. real life tank, I doubt the job took more than half an hour and anything other than tank driving couple feet forward and backwards just to get the base sounds ) nonexistent & very disappointing interaction with terrain as per OP other than pushes being pushed into ground in a funny to say the least animation and on top of it, the issues mentioned here earlier.

Yes dear BI, still looking forward to more tweaks and still didn't get over it :)

Agree with this. The best tank driving experience in any game is Arma2oa. The M1A1 is so much fun to drive across the terrain at speed. It looks and feels really good, pretty much perfect I'd say. It may not have been "Physx", but it did me just fine. Arma3 tracked vehicles don't come close to this. I'm sure the potential is there and to be even better. But at the moment it is quite far from this.

[Aeriyn 10]

I'd be happy if BI had actually done interiors for armor, sort of like in this thread. Imagine if you could actually get crewmembers injured while in there...

[Damian90 697]

they do not use hand-wheels, tanks have not done that since mid-way through WW-2. They use either powerful electric motors (in lighter vehicles) or hydraulic pressure.

Yeah right, can I ask, did you ever sit inside a modern tank? Or at least read any good book about them?

All modern tanks have both power turret traverse and gun elevation and also backup handcranks for traverse and elevation.

Also servomechanisms that traverse turret and elevate gun can be in tanks both of fully electric or electrohydraulic depending on vehicle or time period when it had been designed.

Another problem seems to be misconfigged armor. The 120mm APFSDS goes straight through the sides of two Kumas and damages a third in the row. Side armor on this version of the Leopard 2 is just as strong as the frontal armor. Also, hitting the reinforced plate or the non-reinforced plate on the side of the T-100 makes no difference in protection. Why is this?

Perhaps you have a problem because you actually have no knowledge about tanks? :D

No, side armor of the Leopard 2A4 with Revolution upgrade package is not the same as frontal armor, it's actually thinner. Leopard 2A4 front turret armor is 800mm thick + ~200mm thick addon armor. Side hull armor is ~80mm thick max + air gap for track + 250-300mm thick side skirts over crew compartment, side turret armor is ~300mm thick + ~250-300mm thick addon armor over crew compartment.

So actually yeah, a 120mm modern APFSDS can go through side armor of several vehicles, especially if fired from close range.

Besides this, you can use Olds RAM mod, which greatly improves this issue.

Besides this, I had discussion with ZGuba, and I helped him figure out the actuall physical thickness of armor in different tanks. So at this point A3 models are relatively close to reality.

IMHO the overall vehicles protection is more an issue of config values improvement.

What I would wish that should be improved is actuall gearbox, the biggest problem I see, is that when turning left or right, there is no gas, it's just like I would take out my foot from gas pedal, which is not realistic for a tank, it is not a car, to actually turn it needs gas so engine will provide enough power for transmission to enable vehicle turning.

[stormhawkv 19]

T-70s/T-80s use handwheels?

As Damian90 explained all tanks have handwheels but for those used in syria (and your statement was about tanks in syria) it is their only way to turn the turret whereas in a modern tank the gunner locks a target and the computer automatically aims the gun at it.

[Damian90 697]

No, tanks in Syria also have power traverse and elevation besides handcranks. Even old T-54 have powertraverse and some later modifications even have stabilization for gun or for gun and turret.

And no, gunner does not lock a target and computer does not automatically aims gun at target, it's another myth.

In all modern tanks gunner needs to manually (which means it is he who control the turret and FCS) aims at target. Some modern tanks however are additionally equiped with semi-autotracker or real autotracker.

For example French tank Leclerc have a semi-autotracker which helps gunner aiming at moving target by increasing servo's movement precision. There are some other tanks like Merkava Mk4 or T-90SM that have autotracker, however autotracker works only when thermal sights are on, because it tracks thermal signature of target, principle is similiar to how for example short range AA missiles with IR seekers track their targets.

However autoracker is just a helping tool for gunner, and can be cheated by enemy, so gunner allways have ability to override autotracker and manually aim at targets.

[Bouben 3]

No, tanks in Syria also have power traverse and elevation besides handcranks. Even old T-54 have powertraverse and some later modifications even have stabilization for gun or for gun and turret.

And no, gunner does not lock a target and computer does not automatically aims gun at target, it's another myth.

In all modern tanks gunner needs to manually (which means it is he who control the turret and FCS) aims at target. Some modern tanks however are additionally equiped with semi-autotracker or real autotracker.

For example French tank Leclerc have a semi-autotracker which helps gunner aiming at moving target by increasing servo's movement precision. There are some other tanks like Merkava Mk4 or T-90SM that have autotracker, however autotracker works only when thermal sights are on, because it tracks thermal signature of target, principle is similiar to how for example short range AA missiles with IR seekers track their targets.

However autoracker is just a helping tool for gunner, and can be cheated by enemy, so gunner allways have ability to override autotracker and manually aim at targets.

It would be amazing if this was simulated properly in the game. Thanks for the info.

[instagoat 133]

Yeah right, can I ask, did you ever sit inside a modern tank? Or at least read any good book about them?

All modern tanks have both power turret traverse and gun elevation and also backup handcranks for traverse and elevation.

Also servomechanisms that traverse turret and elevate gun can be in tanks both of fully electric or electrohydraulic depending on vehicle or time period when it had been designed.

Perhaps you have a problem because you actually have no knowledge about tanks? :D

No, side armor of the Leopard 2A4 with Revolution upgrade package is not the same as frontal armor, it's actually thinner. Leopard 2A4 front turret armor is 800mm thick + ~200mm thick addon armor. Side hull armor is ~80mm thick max + air gap for track + 250-300mm thick side skirts over crew compartment, side turret armor is ~300mm thick + ~250-300mm thick addon armor over crew compartment.

So actually yeah, a 120mm modern APFSDS can go through side armor of several vehicles, especially if fired from close range.

Besides this, you can use Olds RAM mod, which greatly improves this issue.

Besides this, I had discussion with ZGuba, and I helped him figure out the actuall physical thickness of armor in different tanks. So at this point A3 models are relatively close to reality.

IMHO the overall vehicles protection is more an issue of config values improvement.

What I would wish that should be improved is actuall gearbox, the biggest problem I see, is that when turning left or right, there is no gas, it's just like I would take out my foot from gas pedal, which is not realistic for a tank, it is not a car, to actually turn it needs gas so engine will provide enough power for transmission to enable vehicle turning.

The question was whether or not tanks use hand cranks as their primary method of traverse. (I didn't specify this, though, so I apologize if this was a simple misunderstanding.) The presence of backup systems is a given, everything else would be bad engineering, don't you think?

As for the armor, I didn't check on the specifics values for the Leopard 2 Revolution, but the physics of the rounds used prohibit overpenetration since the rounds disintegrate once leaving the armor on the inside in the shape of a super hot plasma jet. Depleted Uranium rounds also shatter into burning uranium fragments, but even assuming these are just tungsten penetrators they would not overpenetrate simply because nothing sufficiently hard and fast would reach the opposite side of the tank. I have read about overpenetrations against iraqi tanks during the first gulf war, but I do not think you can compare the armor of a BMP 2 or Asad Babil to that of a Leopard 2 or Merkava.

My main contention is how the rounds behave after they penetrated, really. The damage simulation is inadequate, tanks do not blow up like air-gas filled pressure tanks. In fact, the types of results to hits are massive in their variety. HEAT and Shaped Charge behaviour is also not simulated, but both these types of warhead are prevalent especially with missile systems. At some point this would need to be addressed, too, for completeness sake.

First though, turret rotation, AI perceptiveness and Damage behavior.

[maturin 12]

but I do not think you can compare the armor of a BMP 2 or Asad Babil to that of a Leopard 2 or Merkava

Sure you can. The corrected side armor values for the Leopard 2 are less than the frontal armor values for an Asad Babil.

[Variable 322]

Another thing that is missing from the tanks is sound effects - it would add so much for immersion if you could hear the turret engine as it rotates the turret, maybe even sound effects for changing FOV and switching view modes.

[Damian90 697]

As for the armor, I didn't check on the specifics values for the Leopard 2 Revolution, but the physics of the rounds used prohibit overpenetration since the rounds disintegrate once leaving the armor on the inside in the shape of a super hot plasma jet. Depleted Uranium rounds also shatter into burning uranium fragments, but even assuming these are just tungsten penetrators they would not overpenetrate simply because nothing sufficiently hard and fast would reach the opposite side of the tank.

Wrong, penetrator will eventually shatter or disintegrate depending on which type of armor it will hit, in other words, thin armor or armor optimized against shaped charge warheads like these modules on hull sides of Leopard 2 with Revolution package, will have minimum inpact on integrity of APFSDS penetrator, especially if it is modern one.

I have read about overpenetrations against iraqi tanks during the first gulf war, but I do not think you can compare the armor of a BMP 2 or Asad Babil to that of a Leopard 2 or Merkava.

Depends where.

My main contention is how the rounds behave after they penetrated, really. The damage simulation is inadequate, tanks do not blow up like air-gas filled pressure tanks. In fact, the types of results to hits are massive in their variety. HEAT and Shaped Charge behaviour is also not simulated, but both these types of warhead are prevalent especially with missile systems. At some point this would need to be addressed, too, for completeness sake.

This I can agree, overall ammunition fire is not explosion but more just a very violent burning of propelant charges, explosions are very rare.

[mistyronin 1181]

This I can agree, overall ammunition fire is not explosion but more just a very violent burning of propelant charges, explosions are very rare.

Funny thing is that works, more or less, accurately in the game Iron Front based in the A2 engine; even in the adaption mod for Arma 3.

So if you can get that kind or damage / penetration simulation in A3 with a "mod", why not implement it in the vanilla game?

( you can pass the video to the min 16:30 if you want to see a good zoom hit )

Edited July 24, 2014 by MistyRonin