RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[soul_assassin 1750]

Thanks for a great mod. Although i have some issues with the T-80U.

1. According to my sources (Janes Armour and Artillery 2003-2004) the gunner of the T-80U has the two planes stabilised Buran-PA Themal sight with a monitor for the commander, while your version has none?

2. The T-80U according to the same source has the 9M119 Refleks missile with a maximum range of 5,000 m. while yours have the older 9M112M Kobra with a maximum range of 4,000 m.?

3. The T-80U seems a bit "light" it sometimes flips over when hitting a small rock?

4. There is no difference in sounds when you drive onroad or offroad, actually the sounds generally seems a bit weak, but what do i know, never been near a real T80U?

5. I sometimes loose the abillity to reload the T-80U, eventhough i have plenty of ammo left for it? (This is maybe on my end, had the same problem on RDS T-72 series of tanks?)

6. Sometimes when i hit an APC wtih the main gun loaded with SABOT, it survives seems a bit strange? (Think i saw something posted in here about armour penetration system?)

7. Is there some reason for not using tap key to lase targets?

Not sure if JAAA 200-2004 are totally correct, but have seen the same data provided on various sources on the internet.

Other than that i really like you work, having only tried a tiny bit of the awsome amount you have provided!

Reagrds

MWT

Hahaha, stop reading Jane's. For real. Ever. :)

[mwt80 2]

Hahaha, stop reading Jane's. For real. Ever. :)

Strange???

[Grecco1 10]

Hahaha, stop reading Jane's. For real. Ever. :)

Any plans for a donkey dick AK?

[soul_assassin 1750]

Strange???

On the T80 only the UK and U(M) has thermals.

[Damian90 697]

2. The T-80U according to the same source has the 9M119 Refleks missile with a maximum range of 5,000 m. while yours have the older 9M112M Kobra with a maximum range of 4,000 m.?

That was a mistake, it will be fixed in next version.

6. Sometimes when i hit an APC wtih the main gun loaded with SABOT, it survives seems a bit strange? (Think i saw something posted in here about armour penetration system?)

APC's don't have proper armor system yet AFAIK (Reyhard can tell more), besides this, in most cases, APC's are so thinly armored that APFSDS round go just through making minimal damage, rounds that should be used versus thinly armored vehicles should be HEAT and HE.

1. According to my sources (Janes Armour and Artillery 2003-2004) the gunner of the T-80U has the two planes stabilised Buran-PA Themal sight with a monitor for the commander, while your version has none?

Actually some modernized versions of T-80U (and also T-80UD) have thermal sight, but not all, T-80U in RHS Escalation is actually the most basic variant of T-80U that never had any thermal sight.

Not to mention that Buran-PA is a piece of junk when it comes to image quality (resolution), and dunno if it could be simulated in RV engine, maybe but, not now.

Currently some T-80U's were modernized with PLISA thermal sights which use French Catherine-FC thermal cameras, PLISA is just a thermal sight variant for T-80U of the T-90A ESSA thermal sight, but not many T-80U's were modernized this way.

[Fal Soram 10]

Are you guys planning to add in the remaining ammunition for tanks soon? I'm assuming the reason a lot of the Russian tanks are so short on rounds is because they will eventually get a "Stowed ammo" system like RDS had? Also, the Abrams could use some HE rounds (Or MPAT)

[reyhard 2082]

APC's don't have proper armor system yet AFAIK (Reyhard can tell more), besides this, in most cases, APC's are so thinly armored that APFSDS round go just through making minimal damage, rounds that should be used versus thinly armored vehicles should be HEAT and HE.

APC have damage system but well, it was probably like Damian90 explained - shell passed through without making any damage because it didn't encountered any critical point on it's way

As for stowed system I'm planning to make it a little bit realistic compared to RDS but everything will be showcased in proper time ;)

[mwt80 2]

That was a mistake, it will be fixed in next version.

APC's don't have proper armor system yet AFAIK (Reyhard can tell more), besides this, in most cases, APC's are so thinly armored that APFSDS round go just through making minimal damage, rounds that should be used versus thinly armored vehicles should be HEAT and HE.

Actually some modernized versions of T-80U (and also T-80UD) have thermal sight, but not all, T-80U in RHS Escalation is actually the most basic variant of T-80U that never had any thermal sight.

Not to mention that Buran-PA is a piece of junk when it comes to image quality (resolution), and dunno if it could be simulated in RV engine, maybe but, not now.

Currently some T-80U's were modernized with PLISA thermal sights which use French Catherine-FC thermal cameras, PLISA is just a thermal sight variant for T-80U of the T-90A ESSA thermal sight, but not many T-80U's were modernized this way.

Ok, thank you. Read that the old, as you mentioned, Buran-PA had limited day usage. Do you have any plans to make a T-80 version with thermal vision, one of those you mentioned or the Agava system, to have something to go up against the fearsome M1 (he he)?

MWT

---------- Post added at 23:20 ---------- Previous post was at 23:13 ----------

APC have damage system but well, it was probably like Damian90 explained - shell passed through without making any damage because it didn't encountered any critical point on it's way

As for stowed system I'm planning to make it a little bit realistic compared to RDS but everything will be showcased in proper time ;)

Well ok i can understand if you are firing at the M113, heard about that in the gulf war (M1 againt thinly armoured russian made APC). Maybe i wrote it wrong i actually ment that i was firing at the M2A3 Bradley IFV and hit right at the front with a SABOT from a T-80 and saw a splash, and the Bradley kept going?

MWT

[EricJ 759]

Ka-52 seems to have a bug with the 2A42 magazines in both the pilot's seat (when using Manual Fire) and also the Gunner's position for the camo version (which I suspect will be an issue with the Grey one as well). As once you deplete the magazine it's not able to be reloaded or doesn't automatically reload.

[maturin 12]

I think the T-72B's (1984 version) ATGM just flat out doesn't work half the time. It did nothing to the front lower hull of the Abrams, which may be due to penetration values. But I've also had it fail to scratch the turret of a T-72B (no ERA), and even three missiles to the rear turret of the M1A2SEP did nothing.

Also, can't seem to damage the M1A2 SEP's rear turret with the T-72B's HEAT rounds. Is that SLAT armor working at 100% efficiency or something?

Edit: Also, the M1A2 SEP, with its supposed 1000mm+ RHA armor, can be blown up six ways to sunday by a few 500mm RHA PG-7VL or even RPG-26. Hits to a wide swathe of the frontal turret disable the gun and turret with a single hit, while it is also possible to somehow blow up the tank with direct damage to its hitpoints in a single frontal shot.

Are these hidden weak points causing this, or is it glitched?

Edit: I'm just going to keep editing this post until RHS gets a bug tracker or some helpful way of pointing out issues.

* The M136 is zeroed for like 50m, making the already-obstructive iron sight pretty much useless

* Is the AK-74 supposed to be zeroed for 440m? My range of zeroing goes from 440m, down to 100m, then in steps of 100 to 1km.

Edited November 2, 2014 by maturin

[[kgb]cartman 10]

commy2;2808808']I did take a look at this and this doesn't fix the autoloader issue at all. Please be patient' date=' there will be an official fix.[/quote']

It wasn't a fix. It just disables the problem, like RHS advised. ;)

[soul_assassin 1750]

* The political decals on the tanks are pretty stupid. Why not have rainbow flags on the Russian vehicles while you're adding humorous stickers that would get you discharged?

Because we don't want to :o We gathered our favorite texts from a poll we had among our Facebook fans. Sort of like easter eggs. Turn off or set decals manually if it bothers you enough to make a comment.

[redarmy 422]

Soul_assasin

In the coming updates,are RHS team planning to make the groups recongnizable by MCC.Cureently they armour/air/arty etc are being recognized as infantry.

Apoligies,i did already post this information.But so many posts it may have been overlooked.

[theopolus 69]

I am working on a mission and hope to use these excellent units, well done to the RHS Devs.

I am not an advanced coder, typically borrow and steal everything from people much better than myself. The script I'm working with calls groups using the BIS_fnc_spawnGroup function and requires group names from the config file. For example see below;

grp1C = [getMarkerPos _markerCO, EAST, (configfile >> "CfgGroups" >> "East" >> "OPF_F" >> "Infantry" >> "OIA_InfSquad")] call BIS_fnc_spawnGroup;

In this current form, the above bit will spawn a group of ArmA 3 units at the marker indicated in the mission. Works fine currently and all I need (I think) is the name of the RHS AFRF group names.

Can anyone point me where i can find the names of the groups so I can swap them out with the vanilla A3 ones?

Thanks.

[Damian90 697]

I think the T-72B's (1984 version) ATGM just flat out doesn't work half the time. It did nothing to the front lower hull of the Abrams, which may be due to penetration values. But I've also had it fail to scratch the turret of a T-72B (no ERA), and even three missiles to the rear turret of the M1A2SEP did nothing.

Also, can't seem to damage the M1A2 SEP's rear turret with the T-72B's HEAT rounds. Is that SLAT armor working at 100% efficiency or something?

Edit: Also, the M1A2 SEP, with its supposed 1000mm+ RHA armor, can be blown up six ways to sunday by a few 500mm RHA PG-7VL or even RPG-26. Hits to a wide swathe of the frontal turret disable the gun and turret with a single hit, while it is also possible to somehow blow up the tank with direct damage to its hitpoints in a single frontal shot.

Are these hidden weak points causing this, or is it glitched?

1) I hope I won't need to repeat this again and again that armor system and penetration system for rounds are not 100% completed yet? Also due to my calculations it become more than obvious that frontal armor of modern tanks, is very, very tough, and it will be rather comparable with other estimations avaiable in the net. As for T-72's, their armor system is not ready yet, I finished calculations in Friday I believe and provided them to Reyhard, so proper armor system for then and T-80's is not implemented yet.

However before enthusiasts of Russian armor kill me, I must say that indeed without ERA T tanks are not going to have very favourable armor protection. It is not my invention, it is just what came up with TE calculations based on real armor design of these tanks (I have access to such data, which is not a mystery these days anyway). However variants with ERA will definately had better protection, comparable with American tanks.

As for American tanks, calculating their armor was pain in arse, first because we do not know exact armor design, so I needed to use a known declassified informations from R&D documentation that was avaiable in UK, and this meant a very complex armor design, with lots and lots of layers of different materials. Another problem is thickness of that armor, modern NATO MBT's have just insanely thick front hull and turret armor, so I needed to fully use that space to create armor model and calculate protection, not easy task!

Also this work is difficult and I needed a day off from maths, so I will start working on T-80's today.

2) Proper Abrams armor model is not implemented yet, I finished it, Reyhard is probably implementing proper armor values to the model, and it will be probably in next release (probably because I am only supporting guy and not member of team and I don't know what will happen, so take a note about that).

So if you plan to play with vehicles more, I strongly advise to learn their strong and weak sides, but with next release when more things will be probably finished.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Damian90

[Raytesh 10]

With the armor system the way it is spawning more than 1 or 2 armored vehicles if your playing as infantry makes the game extremely terrifying. It's much nicer than that of the vanilla Arma 3 system. I look forward to cowering in fear more.

[Damian90 697]

With the armor system the way it is spawning more than 1 or 2 armored vehicles if your playing as infantry makes the game extremely terrifying. It's much nicer than that of the vanilla Arma 3 system. I look forward to cowering in fear more.

I am sure that vehicle players and infantry players will appreciate it.

As I said, learn about vehicles more, they are tough but not invincible, they have both strong and weak sides.

Some vehicles have very tough armor, some have no armor at all (or "paper" armor).

But armor is not everything, learn about their sights, how good they are (and take a note that Abrams FCS and sights for example are still WIP), if vehicles have thermals, what is their mobility.

Actually in this case you need to think, use tactics. There is really no point in firing at Abrams front unless you want to commit suicide, the same applies to T-80U. On the other hand their side armor... well here also will be a trick, Abrams have very good side armor against CE warheads, but it is not perfect, and some CE warheads will be capable to defeat it, just like in real life. However T-80U like all T tanks have much, much weaker side armor, and most of the surface of that side armor is not protected by ERA.

That is another thing, try to learn where ERA is placed on tanks, if possible avoid to fire at such protected surfaces, or use tactics, like volley fire in to the same spot, difficult but possible, just like in real life.

Of course infantry will have tools to at least have some chance against heavy armor... well US infantry have it allready although not finished yet. Yes it is FGM-148 Javelin ATGM. Actually without active protection system you can't as a vehicular player, count that you will survive a meeting with Javelin. ;)

I heard about tactics for vehicles that can increase their survivability against Javelin however I don't know if they are possible to use in ArmA3. And tactics are simple - find a dense forest, drive between trees, and pray that warhead will detonate by hitting them. ;)

However make no mistake, ArmA3 and it's engine are not simulators and neither real life, RHS team made a wonderfull thing to change ArmA3 a bit but it is not easy, and effects never will be perfect, so there are limitations to be expected.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Damian90

[Wilco 944]

Not sure if this has been brought up before or not, but does anyone else get a terrible framerate with HE rounds (BMP/M2A3's)? I thought it was Blastcore so I removed it but I'm still getting a nasty drop.

[Damian90 697]

I do not have such bug, try to use different graphics settings, might be problem with your hardware, but mods bug can't be excluded right now.

Also, how many vehicles are firing? Single? More?

[zio sam 77]

Just downloaded the mod...It's really outstanding!Thx so much to RHS team for bringing us real ARMA3 content wise!!!

A question since there are real expert here like Damian:Reading your last post about NATO tanks vs Russians ones it seems that during night time assault,Nato Tanks could swipe their opponents pretty easy(better frontal armour+better thermal/night sights).So my question is if there is some known plan to attack russians tanks divisions only by night?

I always tought that best tanks from NATO and PACT were very similar referring to technological capabilities...

Sorry for my poor english

[Wilco 944]

I do not have such bug, try to use different graphics settings, might be problem with your hardware, but mods bug can't be excluded right now.

Also, how many vehicles are firing? Single? More?

Multiple vehicles firing (Usually not an issue). Going to go nothing but RHS right now and see how that turns out.

[zenith777 0]

Can anyone point me where i can find the names of the groups so I can swap them out with the vanilla A3 ones?

Thanks.

I needed to find the groupnames too so I took the liberty to find em myself.

Groups can be manually found by opening rhs_c_troops.pbo and looking up from .hpp files in groups folder. Here's group names for russian infantry squads:

VDV:

East
-> rhs_faction_vdv
-> rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry
->
rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry_chq
rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry_squad
rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry_squad_2mg
rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry_squad_sniper
rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry_squad_mg_sniper
rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry_section_mg
rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry_section_marksman
rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry_section_AT
rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry_section_AA
rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry_fireteam
rhs_group_rus_vdv_infantry_MANEUVER

->rhs_group_rus_vdv_mi8 (you can replace mi8 with mi8, mi24, bmd1, bmd2, bmd4, bmd4m, bmd4ma, bmp1, bmp2, btr60, btr70, btr80, btr80a, gaz66 or ural. Note that mi8 and mi24 don't have AA squads.)
->
rhs_group_rus_vdv_mi8_chq
rhs_group_rus_vdv_mi8_squad
rhs_group_rus_vdv_mi8_squad_2mg
rhs_group_rus_vdv_mi8_squad_sniper
rhs_group_rus_vdv_mi8_squad_mg_sniper
rhs_group_rus_vdv_bmd2_squad_aa

MSV:

East
-> rhs_faction_msv 
-> rhs_group_rus_msv_infantry
->
rhs_group_rus_msv_infantry_squad
rhs_group_rus_msv_infantry_squad_2mg
rhs_group_rus_msv_infantry_squad_sniper
rhs_group_rus_msv_infantry_squad_mg_sniper
rhs_group_rus_msv_infantry_section_mg
rhs_group_rus_msv_infantry_section_marksman
rhs_group_rus_msv_infantry_section_AT
rhs_group_rus_msv_infantry_section_AA
rhs_group_rus_msv_infantry_fireteam
rhs_group_rus_msv_infantry_MANEUVER

->rhs_group_rus_msv_bmp1 (you can replace bmp1 with bmp1, bmp2, btr70, btr80, btr80a, gaz66 or ural)
->
rhs_group_rus_msv_bmp1_chq
rhs_group_rus_msv_bmp1_squad
rhs_group_rus_msv_bmp1_squad_2mg
rhs_group_rus_msv_bmp1_squad_sniper
rhs_group_rus_msv_bmp1_squad_mg_sniper
rhs_group_rus_msv_bmp1_squad_aa
rhs_group_rus_msv_bmp1_squad_aa

Also the documentation contains few errors in classnames, rhs_uh60 should be rhs_uh60m and rhs_ural_XX should be rhs_ural_XX_01, same with rhs_ural_open_XX.

Edited November 2, 2014 by zenith777

[Wilco 944]

Found this guy while messing around also. Again not sure if it's been posted. Floating goggles on the crewman, LOD issue I believe because it obviously disappears after a certain distance.

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/536253398236195864/4BA4450210F69B5B5B669D9F5C829A7DB1CAE62A/

[Damian90 697]

Just downloaded the mod...It's really outstanding!Thx so much to RHS team for bringing us real ARMA3 content wise!!!

A question since there are real expert here like Damian:Reading your last post about NATO tanks vs Russians ones it seems that during night time assault,Nato Tanks could swipe their opponents pretty easy(better frontal armour+better thermal/night sights).So my question is if there is some known plan to attack russians tanks divisions only by night?

I always tought that best tanks from NATO and PACT were very similar referring to technological capabilities...

Sorry for my poor english

There are some things that are needed to be explained.

1) Russian tanks currently being in the mod are actually mostly older designs, for example T-80 series excluding T-80A and T-80U represents late 1960's and early to late 1970's technology level. Which means for example that T-80B have excellent armor protection against threats (NATO anti tank weapons and ammunition) of that period. In the 1960's and 1970's T tanks like T-64 series, T-72 series, and T-80 series were preatty much impenetrable for NATO 105mm APDS and APFSDS as well as 120mm APDS and APFSDS fired from British 120mm L11 rifled gun.

Same goes for T-72B, T-80A and T-80U that are currently in game, they are very well protected against NATO 120mm APFSDS ammo fired from 120mm smoothbore guns, in early to mid 1980's period.

So it does not mean that these tanks are badly protected, to the contrary, for the period these were designed, their protection is excellent, also considering Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) armed forces requirements for vehicles size, weight and internal volume that are very restrictive.

However the mod also contains more modern US Armed Forces, which just have and use vehicles and ammunition more up to todays standards.

But don't be affraid, if RHS team will include more modern Russian tanks, it will not look that bad. For example T-90A have much better protection, especially on turret, because it's turret is welded from rolled armor plates and not cast.

That's actually the biggest problem of Russian tanks, cast turrets. Steel armor castings have actually relatively poor protection characteristics (Soviets choosen to cast turrets of their tanks because at the time it was cheaper and faster than rolling and cutting plates that are later welded), also that steel did not had very large hardness, for example on avarage it was 270-300BHN, while for example M1 is welded from plates that have hardness no less than 400BHN, and this is huge difference.

The T-90A have a turret and hull front armor made from SHS and HHS steel armor plates, so their harndess should be larger than 300BHN, probably comparable to M1, however do not expect the same protection as there are significant differences in armor designs of these tanks.

Also a lot of protection is added by ERA on Russian tanks. Why ERA is used by Russians, and how it is used?

Well first things first. Again Russian Army have very strict requirements for vehicles size and weight, so the special armor of their tanks have in general lesser physical thickness and overall volume than their NATO counterparts. However line of sight thickness is similiar because Russian designers just love to play with geometry and angle armor as much as possible. This adds protection but not to the same levels as on NATO tanks because still, even if extremely angled, armor volume is smaller, which means that there is less materials, and less layers on projectile path during penetration process.

And believe me, not matters how much I tried, M1's armor model allways had higher results of calculations than T tanks armor models.

But then again there is ERA, and now, Russians do not treat ERA the same way as NATO do, for them this is not addon to the tank, but it is integral part of tanks armor, and this ERA actually adds a lot of protection + it's simple, cheap, easy and fast in production, light and effective.

Then again it is not perfect either. ERA is a one hit armor, it means that if ERA casette or module is hit, it explodes, disintegrates, and no longer protects the same spot untill new casette or module will be installed. Also there is one particular problem, some design bureaus like LKZ/KBTM (gas turbine powered T-80 variants) or UKBTM (T-72 and T-90 series), have a problem with ERA coverage on some of their tanks.

For example let's take T-80U and T-72B obr.1989, both of these tanks have "Kontakt-5" ERA mounted on turret and hull. However note that T-80U have much less gaps between it's ERA modules, and much more of it's armor surface is covered by K-5 compared to T-72B obr.1989.

So in case of the latter, it might happen that enemy projectile won't even hit ERA modules, and will penetrate through base armor which without K-5 is weaker.

Of course there are T tanks (not included in to the mod) with much better ERA coverage, for example KMDB designs like T-64BV which have much better ERA coverage and mounting system than T-80BV and T-72B obr.1985, on the other hand T-72B obr.1985 have much better base armor than T-64BV and T-80BV.

So like in real life, you must learn about vehicles, because it is not that a tank with higher code number is better.

For example T-80B is not better than T-72B obr.1984 in terms of armor protection, both do not have ERA but T-72B will be better protected. On the other hand T-80B is much more mobile and have much much better FCS and optics.

Also when it comes to ammunition, because of autoloaders design (yes there are different autoloaders in different T tanks, not a single unified design, for example T-64 and T-80 series use 6ETs series of autoloaders, while T-72's and T-90's use AZ series of autoloaders), there is actuall limit of how long APFSDS rounds can be fitted in, so shorter penetrator = less penetration. Still tough 3BM46 round is comparable to M829A2. So might be a very dangerous threat to M1's or other armor.

On the other hand, these tanks have very good HEAT rounds, the later models of these rounds have penetration much more higher than HEAT rounds used by NATO, and HEAT is actually preffered anti tank round by Russians, while APFSDS is used mostly "on special occasions" and in general, T tanks have much less APFSDS rounds carried than HEAT and HE.

While currently NATO slowly changes loadout from APFSDS + HEAT to APFSDS + HE (if possible with programmable fuze). So for let's say 2014 scenario, M1 will have M829A3 APFSDS + M830/M830A1 HEAT/MPAT loadout, while for 2018 it will be M829A4 APFSDS + M1069 HE (with programmable fuze, and yes, Americans developed HE round for M1's armed with 120mm guns, however it is not fielded yet, but soon ;)).

2) The American tanks currently in the mod represent mostly XXI century standards of protection and firepower, in future older M1 variants might be added, I don't know, but if such thing will happen, I will made proper armor calculations for them, and believe me, they will be far more comparable to Russian T tanks.

Of course what is important to mention here, American M1 tanks used variety of armor systems developed through years. Americans much more often improved their tanks protection than many other nations.

So you will have the basic M1 from 1980 which used armor developed with program codenamed "Burlington/Starflower" (this is why M1's, Challenger 1 and Leopard 2 tanks from that period, use "Burlington" armor, however specific armor variants used in these tanks never had any codename, and "Chobham" armor is someones creation, in all declassified documents about the program, the only codename is "Burlington" or "Starflower" for it's American part, while each specific armor design is only reffered as "Special Armor No.1" or "Buiscuitt No.5", and believe me, Americans and British developed within that program many different armor designs, I even seen a reference of special composite armor with integral explosive reactive armor elements builded in to it's structure), and the specific armor package developed by Ballistic Research Laboratory (today known as Army Research Laboratory) for the M1 was known as BRL-1.

Then we had improved M1IP (Improved Performance) and M1A1, which were said to use improved heavier BRL-2 armor design.

In the mid 1980's in USA there was started R&D work to replace BRL-1 and BRL-2 with new, this time 100% American special armor design. This armor design again do not have any codename, but we know it as Heavy Armor Package, and only certain thing we know about it, is that there are layers in it, made from Depleted Uranium Alloy (make a note, this is not pure Depleted Uranium, but it's alloy, such alloys are mostly called Staballoys, and the one made from DU is said to have very good protection characteristics).

The 1st generation of the HAP armor was first used on M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) tank which production started in 1986/87 and fielding to the units started around 1988.

In the early 1990's, new 2nd generation HAP armor was developed and fielded on late production M1A1HA's, but also on new M1A1HC (Heavy Common - a variant that estabilished common components between US Army/ARNG and USMC M1's) and M1A2.

In 1999 even newer 3rd generation HAP armor was developed and first fielded on M1A2SEPv1, this armor is currently standard on all modern M1 variants, which are - M1A1SA (Situational Awareness), M1A1FEP (Firepower Enhancement Package) and M1A2SEP v1/v2 (Systems Enhancement Package version 1/version 2).

The M1A1AIM was just a simple modernization and overhaul program, these tanks have mostly 2nd generation HAP armor.

Currently in development is even newer armor package for M1 tanks, known as Next Generation Armor Package (or NGAP for short if you will), which will be implemented to all tanks that will be modernized within Engineering Change Proposal - 1 modernization program.

So as you can see, M1's received improvements to armor protection 4 times from the initial fielding and 5th armor modernization will soon be started (I seen official documents stating that actually armor packages for first modernization batch of ~2000 tanks, were just ordered for production).

And there is ammunition, however I have a good news. If you play as Russians, you can actually adjust M1's ammo loadout so they won't be as deadly. Of course currently mod have only 120mm armed variants of M1, but there are avaiable older and more modern rounds for it.

APFSDS:

M829 this is is the oldest 120mm APFSDS avaiable for M1's, it have very low penetration capability of ~500-550mm RHA.

M829A1 this is a bit newer, developed and fielded in the late 1980's, and is capable to penetrate ~600-650mm RHA.

M829A2 his is currently one of two standard rounds used today, developed to defeat T tanks protected with Kontakt-5 heavy ERA, penetrations capabilities ~700-750mm RHA.

M829A3, the most modern 120mm APFSDS in the mod, also developed to defeat tanks protected by advanced special armor and heavy ERA, penetration capabilities ~800-850mm RHA.

M829A4, this monster just entered production as we speak, developed to further increase capabilities in defeating the most heavy armored targets on the battlefield, penetration capabilities - uknown, no known estimations are avaiable, exact data about the round is unknown and most likely classified.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Damian90

[theopolus 69]

Zenith77,

Thanks, that exactly what I was looking for.

Theopolus.