A Story in 5 Strikes or: State of the A3 damage model

[instagoat 133]

This thread is just a little description of a trial I made with the vanilla game, against an empty MBT-52.

It is to describe the (evident to everyone) problems of the armor penetration system, as well as show what -does- work.

A total of 7 shots were fired from a static M2A1 against the frontal armor of a static MBT-52. Distance was 1600 meters.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

First shot fired hit the front of the hull, right at the joint of upper and lower glacis. The round penetrated the armor, and was stopped by some component just behind that. It did not reach the drivers or the fighting compartment behind. (Fig 1: View of the strike from the front. Fig 2: Shot of the strike from the inside. Armor joint can be traced between the triangular protrusions to the right of the headlights.)

Fig. 3

Second shot fired hit the front of the hull, squarely in the upper glacis right above the first shots strike. Again, the armor was penetrated, but the round was stopped just behind by another unknown component. It did not reach the drivers compartment. The round was stopped at about the depth of the Idler wheel. (Fig 3: View of the strike from the front. )

Third shot was aimed at the turret front, upper glacis but went high, flying straight through the AA-MG mounting above the commanders hatch, nearly clipping the RCWS.

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fourth shot was aimed at the turret front but went low, hitting the hull short of the drivers hatch, just inside of the rear view mirror on the tanks right hand side. The round was completely stopped by the armor. It did not bounce. However, despite not penetrating, the hull's damaged textures popped up when this round hit. (Fig 6: shows where the round hit. Note damage textures. Fig 7: Side view showing round stopping right on the armor's surface.)

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fifth shot was aimed at the hull side, aiming to strike the spaced armour to test its performance. The round hit the armor straight on, penetrated it, was deflected by the primary armour inside and above the tracks and was then stopped by the running gear. So far, this was the most complex behaving round. (Fig. 8: Hit on the spaced armour front. Actual path of the round is always just below the drawn line, as indicated by it being not centered on the hit mark. Fig. 9 shows the path of the round just behind the frontal part of the spaced armor. Note how it deflects to the left and traces right along where the hull outside armor would be. The line stopped just behind the turret and above the tracks, but damage indicator still showed the track especially damaged.)

Fig. 10

Sixth shot was aimed at the turret and resulted in a hit. The shot hit the inside plate of the gunners viewport, penetrated it into the space between gunmantlet and gunsight wall, deflected of some component to tag the commanders station, penetrated the rear wall of the fighting compartment, the rear armor of the turret and the spaced armor behind that and continued on to impact the ground behind the tank. To my complete surprise, this shot did not result in destruction of the target. (Fig. 10 shows the hit as the round is still in mid flight, after overpenetrating the turret. Green tracer colour indicates that the round had less than 25 % of its initial velocity left. )

The Seventh shot hit the tank in the turret ring and immediately blew it up.

So, what did I take away from this? Firstly, I can't tell what is going on after penetration. The damage modelling of the individual modules is also still way too simplistic. On the other hand, the armor itself still appears to hold up as far as the hit and penetration modelling is concerned. I have been playing tons of warthunder in the past year, which has changed my view on what constitutes a good vehicle damage model. WTs selling point is obviously its realistically modelled vehicles, however, sooner or later vehicles will be in need of an overhaul of some sorts. The question is, how, and what do we as a community expect. Where does the realism overkill begin, and what do we take as to be expected from a battlefield simulation on the level of Arma 3?

Here is my five points:

1: More diverse internal modules with module damage. Most basic should be: Tracks/Wheels, Weapons, Optics, Fuel, Engine+Drivetrain, Ammunition, Crew and Weapons articulation.

2: More advanced behaviour of rounds. For example, modern NATO APFSDS uses pyrophoric materials, so shot no. 6 should not have overpenetrated. Instead the round would have slammed through the armour on the side of the vision device and gone off, blasting burning uranium and liquid steel into the fighting compartement. Other devices in need of better simulation are shaped charge warheads and the like.

3: Crew Damage. Tank crews are invulnerable to penetrating rounds (Fig. 15)

4: Ability for crews to make minor repairs and crews not abandoning tanks just because tracks are damaged.

5: Better external damage simulation and wrecks. No more disappearing turrets, tracks, etc.

Example of a warthunder killcam to show the complexity of the internal damage modelling. The game models armour spalling, shell fragmentation, shell explosive effects, ammunition fires and explosions. Killcam does not draw all fragments a shell throws around, but only those that cause damage.

[gibonez 18]

The damage model could use a total overhaul not only on vehicles but also on humans.

Also god daam at that war thunder damage model.

[zimms 22]

I recently picked up War Thunder and tank combat is really fun. The damage/armor model is very good, you always have to remember your angles. Plus all that other stuff like terrain deformation (just imagine what a 188t Maus would do to a muddy meadow). I would love to see all that in Arma, but we always want Arma to do everything and be the only game we'd ever have to play. It's not a realistic expectation for Arma to be the be-all end-all.

Still, an improved damage model (body armor + vehicles, medical system) would #1 on my wishlist for the expansion, seeing how all other aspects of Arma are really stepping up lately, especially with Marksmen.

[Arctic Fox Defense Solutions 147]

Probably wont happen anytime soon, but it is about time we get some more modern types of component damage added, both for people and vehicles.

Quite primitive by todays standard really.

[devilslayersbane 28]

I'd like to see some damage overhauls in fixed wing first. I enjoy flying CAS/CAP and I don't have *too* many issues with the current flight model, but I'd like to see arma make use of the physx engine and the modular damage from OA in the fixed wings. EVEN the man-class vehicle type has modular damage (thus why AGM's medical system allows you to heal your legs independently).