Tanks - Damage improvements

[SuicideKing 233]

23 hours ago, Markle said:

Hi I wonder what's the intended places of Titan AT and 9M135 Vorona? Titan system is a bit lighter than Vorona and support both IR homing and SACLOS guidance with both direct and top-down attack mode, where Vorona only support direct SACLOS attack. I guess maybe Vorona is supposed to deal more damage than Titan AT, but didn't observe much difference in current build.

Vorona is heavier but deals slightly less damage (700 vs 750) when we checked last.

 

22 hours ago, Markle said:

 

But since Vorona is CSAT-specific... Does that mean NATO and AAF infantries will have to use bunch of MAAWS / PCML to take down static & cold MBTs? May sound acceptable, but not that faction-balanced I think...

All regular factions have access to Titan AT. And Titan AT has SACLOS for the cold stuff. I don't know why "faction balance" is desirable, factions having quirks keeps things interesting. Scenario balancing is down to mission makers. The slightly strange thing about CSAT is that all of their AT assets are on the heavier side (RPG42 does slightly more damage than MAAWS/PCML - 600 vs 500), but that usually means the can carry less stuff. As you can see though, the RPG42, Vorona and Titan are pretty close together.

 

Anyway, this is mostly a moot discussion, since 

14 hours ago, scavenjer said:

They are still not using HEAT/tandem HEAT simulation IIRC.

so things will change.

[scavenjer 112]

Yeah, I just meant to clarify this to the masses.

[Yoshi_E 179]

The changes are more noticeable now. The T-140 can no longer easily be penetrated by 40MM from the front anymore. Also Tanks side armor (slammer) seems to be better protected against it.

 

 

I like where the t-100 is going, with awesome front armor, and the weak side armor (compared to Kuma or slammer).

 

The Kuma still has a big issue with its lack of armor on the turret ring. Also it should offer more protection on the side (due to additional modular armor)

[scavenjer 112]

50 minutes ago, Yoshi_E said:

The changes are more noticeable now. The T-140 can no longer easily be penetrated by 40MM from the front anymore. Also Tanks side armor (slammer) seems to be better protected against it.

 

 

Also I like where the t-100 is going, with awesome front armor, and the weak side armor (compared to Kuma or slammer).

 

The Kuma still has a big issue with its lack of armor on the turret ring. Also it should offer more protection on the side (due to additional modular armor)

Yes, except the rear part where the engine is located, though I think that part is fine as is now.

[fallschirmjgergewehr 1]

T-140's turret became tough(fired turret right by t-140's apfsds 20 times but not boom) .Crew will be more safe than other tanks.but gun shield is still too weak.

I fired gun shield of t-140 by BTR-K's 30mm round 5 shot, it did desable gun.

 

[Strike_NOR 898]

Just thought I'd try testing penetration yesterday, to see if I could see any changes.

 

The good news is that it was the first time I experienced a ricochet from a Sabot round, where the ricochet did not damage the Hull of the vehicle! :) Don't know if it was random, but I was pleased to see it happen!

 

Shot from Kuma, at about 1km.

The shot strikes and detonates the front/right turret ERA of the Varsuk, then ricochets into the sky!

 

Second shot, in the same area (although a less oblique angle), penetrates and deals damage to the crew and tank.

 

 

 

Before, the first shot would usually deal full damage potential to the vehicles hull :) Don't know exactly what's going on "math-wise" at the point of impact with regards to ricochet, but it seems as if the shot ricochets because of hitting the ERA, and does not even touch the armor behind the ERA. So the question remains, would the hull receive damage, if the bounce happened on the surface of the turret, instead of the ERA panel?

[scavenjer 112]

So, doing some more testing:

1. Destroying vehicles next to each other by blowing one up seems quite easy, though the vehicles in question are light vehicles. https://streamable.com/s52bn
2. The T-140 turret against APFSDS has some weird things going on, the front only manages to slow a 120mm projectile by 10% and so does the rear, but the "bustle" in the back nearly stops the shell?? https://streamable.com/9p71d also note the lack of overall damage dealt to the vehicle by hitting the turret.
3. The hull of the T-140 seems quite weak against APFSDS only substracting approx 26% of the velocity, the midplate (behind the crew) seems approprioate, but after that the shell stopped/disappeared? https://streamable.com/zq6x9
4. The lower part of the front hull (LFP) seems equally armoured as the upper hull and again we see the shell stopping/disappearing while still in the hull.https://streamable.com/1m9nf
5. The T-100 seems to have some of the same issues: https://streamable.com/tiba9
6. Also note how the ERA on the hull did explode while the ERA on the turret, namely this part, did not.
7. SLAT armour on the Rhino no longer gets instantly destroyed and absorbs APFSDS! Huray! But.... https://streamable.com/dd5wz  Somehow the Rhino managed to nearly stop a 120mm APFSDS round with it's side armour... didn't ricochet though! :)

More testing soon to follow. 

Overall thumbs up for much more realistic behaviour of shells and improved damage modelling, still more adjustments are necessary.

[mickeymen 324]

8 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

The good news is that it was the first time I experienced a ricochet from a Sabot round, where the ricochet did not damage the Hull of the vehicle! :) Don't know if it was random, but I was pleased to see it happen!

 

What is your joy based on?

As seems to me, even with a tangential hit, the vehicle still should receive a small amount of damages. For example, if you hit the tower, this could affect its functionality. (slightly slow rotation or decrease hit points)

Zero damage should only be if the vehicle receives 0 hits. (of course I mean heavy projectiles)

[SuicideKing 233]

2 hours ago, scavenjer said:

also note the lack of overall damage dealt to the vehicle by hitting the turret.

Isn't that because people were arguing for there to be less overall damage and more component damage in general?

[scavenjer 112]

34 minutes ago, SuicideKing said:

Isn't that because people were arguing for there to be less overall damage and more component damage in general?

Yes, indeed, I should've worded it differently.

I meant that the devs listened to our feedback (good) and as "evidence" that it's working, though no damage at all IMO is a bit "overkill" (pretty ironic I know).

[Strike_NOR 898]

4 hours ago, mickeymen said:

 

What is your joy based on?

As seems to me, even with a tangential hit, the vehicle still should receive a small amount of damages. For example, if you hit the tower, this could affect its functionality. (slightly slow rotation or decrease hit points)

Zero damage should only be if the vehicle receives 0 hits. (of course I mean heavy projectiles)

 

I'll explain. If a shot is deflected, then it did not reach the inside of the vehicle. Ergo: the shot does not hit the crew, modules or anything else inside.

 

Main armor (thick steel/composite) has no moving parts or function other than stopping shots from penetrating. Ergo: damaging this is like shooting a block of wood with a BB gun. Even if it gets dented, you are going to need astronomical amounts of BB's to get through it.

 

The exception arises when the shot reaches so deep, that the surface on the opposite side bulges and cracks, creating "spall".

 

High-Explosive Squash Head (HESH) coined this method by smearing plastic explosives on the armor surface, before detonating it. This causes the shock to travel through the armor block and make the inside wall "explode" into metal shards.

 

In either way: what bothers me is that in ArmA3, the hitpoint "hitHull" which is the vehicles global health pool took a crazy hit from even a glancing ricochet. Imagine a steel block of armor about 10cm thick. Imagine a shell dipping 2 cm into it, causing a "cut" before ricoheting out again. Is it fair that this kind of shot deals ~15% damage to the health?

 

Which in turn brings me to;

 

What is actually vehicle health? It's actually a game phenomenon. It's a way of easily handling damage with maths.

 

We both know real life is far from it. ArmA strives to be realistic/authentic while keeping the perfect balance of interesting and engaging gameplay.

 

So why do I even care? Well. The damage mechanics are being worked on. This is the time to make suggestions. A ways back I already suggested that devs don't remove damage to the hull when ricochets occur, but lessen its influence on the global health. It used to be that 6-7 grazing hits (ricochets with 0 pen) caused an MBT to detonate. It'd be more realistic if it were tenfold.

 

Armor is to the tank, what the ribcage is to our body. Or the skull to our brain. The armor protects the pieces of the tank that are required to operate it. Namely crew and modules (tank systems).

 

So here's hoping for less arcadey tank explosions, and more module/crew kills.

 

Think about it. If you shot your car 500 times in the door. Would it explode? No. But how arma does it, every hit - even non penetrating will eat a good chunk out of the vehicles health and when that reaches 100% dmg - boom.

[mickeymen 324]

34 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

 

I'll explain. If a shot is deflected, then it did not reach the inside of the vehicle. Ergo: the shot does not hit the crew, modules or anything else inside.

 

Main armor (thick steel/composite) has no moving parts or function other than stopping shots from penetrating. Ergo: damaging this is like shooting a block of wood with a BB gun. Even if it gets dented, you are going to need astronomical amounts of BB's to get through it.

 

The exception arises when the shot reaches so deep, that the surface on the opposite side bulges and cracks, creating "spall".

 

High-Explosive Squash Head (HESH) coined this method by smearing plastic explosives on the armor surface, before detonating it. This causes the shock to travel through the armor block and make the inside wall "explode" into metal shards.

 

In either way: what bothers me is that in ArmA3, the hitpoint "hitHull" which is the vehicles global health pool took a crazy hit from even a glancing ricochet. Imagine a steel block of armor about 10cm thick. Imagine a shell dipping 2 cm into it, causing a "cut" before ricoheting out again. Is it fair that this kind of shot deals ~15% damage to the health?

 

Which in turn brings me to;

 

What is actually vehicle health? It's actually a game phenomenon. It's a way of easily handling damage with maths.

 

We both know real life is far from it. ArmA strives to be realistic/authentic while keeping the perfect balance of interesting and engaging gameplay.

 

So why do I even care? Well. The damage mechanics are being worked on. This is the time to make suggestions. A ways back I already suggested that devs don't remove damage to the hull when ricochets occur, but lessen its influence on the global health. It used to be that 6-7 grazing hits (ricochets with 0 pen) caused an MBT to detonate. It'd be more realistic if it were tenfold.

 

Armor is to the tank, what the ribcage is to our body. Or the skull to our brain. The armor protects the pieces of the tank that are required to operate it. Namely crew and modules (tank systems).

 

So here's hoping for less arcadey tank explosions, and more module/crew kills.

 

Think about it. If you shot your car 500 times in the door. Would it explode? No. But how arma does it, every hit - even non penetrating will eat a good chunk out of the vehicles health and ehen that reaches 100% dmg - boom.

 

Thank you for clarifying. I agree with you

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Crew in the T-140 take splash damage from nearby explosions, almost as if they are not sitting in a tank. Tank itself takes no damage while crew is dead.

 

Example of lethal splash damage:

 

 

crew of T-140 will take 50% damage when the APC nearby explodes

 

 

[instagoat 133]

An explosion sufficiently large should also damage the tank, not just the crew, especially vulnerable auxilary parts. Blow off slat armor and ERA fixtures, destroy gun turrets and tracks. Is there any real world data suggesting how large an explosion needs to be before the crew inside feel it? A tank blowing up is a pretty huge explosion, typically.

[Beagle 684]

1 hour ago, instagoat said:

An explosion sufficiently large should also damage the tank, not just the crew, especially vulnerable auxilary parts. Blow off slat armor and ERA fixtures, destroy gun turrets and tracks. Is there any real world data suggesting how large an explosion needs to be before the crew inside feel it? A tank blowing up is a pretty huge explosion, typically.

Tanks rarely explode, they cook off and then burn out.  The blow out is mainly containes by the hull, sometimes the turret flies off. The tanks itself is destroyed by burning out. All of this does not produce a shockwave like a Bomb.  It is more like a powerfull flagration

 

 

There is also life footage from Syria, just google "Syria T 72 gets hit by RPG 29" im not linking it here since it is real war footage.

[EDcase 87]

1 hour ago, instagoat said:

An explosion sufficiently large should also damage the tank, not just the crew, especially vulnerable auxilary parts. Blow off slat armor and ERA fixtures, destroy gun turrets and tracks. Is there any real world data suggesting how large an explosion needs to be before the crew inside feel it? A tank blowing up is a pretty huge explosion, typically.

A tank is designed to withstand direct impacts from high velocity shells.

A vehicle exploding next to a tank or any indirect explosion would do little damage to its structure other than mounted machine guns etc.

It would take a HUGE explosion to kill the crew.

[instagoat 133]

1 minute ago, Beagle said:

Tanks rarely explode, they cook off and then burn out.  The blow out is mainly containes by the hull, sometimes the turret flies off. The tanks itself is destroyed by burning out. All of this does not produce a showwave like a Bomb. 

 

 

Which is why I said explode, not burn out. For example, an ammunition explosion (such as a HE shell detonating when struck by a AP fragment or a HEAT jet) in a T-type tank is sufficiently strong to rip out one side of the hull and throw the turret dozens of meters aside. It should only happen if a shell explodes, not when the propellant burns, but being in the way of a blast like that will do hell to the equipment on the outside of your tank if it happens right next to you. A slight distance should already greatly diminish the damage.

 

However, I just saw a chain-reaction with a couple of nyxes standing next to each other. One got hit, blew up, and then one popped after the other. This shouldn't really happen.

 

The vehicle fire simulation in Arma is flawed, though, it is very simplicistic. Maybe screwing down the damage is a good fix.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

The main point is that the destruction of nearby vehicles probably should not be killing the crew in the tank while doing no damage to the tank itself, at least in ArmA.

 

At the moment you can be killed by 40mm due to the splash damage

[SuicideKing 233]

16 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

Crew in the T-140 take splash damage from nearby explosions, almost as if they are not sitting in a tank. Tank itself takes no damage while crew is dead

 

9 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

The main point is that the destruction of nearby vehicles probably should not be killing the crew in the tank while doing no damage to the tank itself, at least in ArmA.

Yeah this has been an issue for a long time. It's absurd and I hope they fix it.

 

11 hours ago, instagoat said:

Is there any real world data suggesting how large an explosion needs to be before the crew inside feel it?

Tanks can apparently be built to survive nuclear explosions so...

[bars91 956]

1 hour ago, SuicideKing said:

Tanks can apparently be built to survive nuclear explosions so...

 

*writes in BI logic

 

"But, but exploding cars are not nukes." 

[Strike_NOR 898]

@oukej @Asheara and to whom it may concern (whoever has been sweating their butts off to recommend, design and program this into the game).

 

My deepest, most sincere thank you :) The addition of HEAT shaped charge simulation to the game is something fundamentally important in order to re-create realistic results in armored warfare.

 

I got my hopes up when the PCML had this introduced, but I feared for a while that it was a "test-case" to see if one should move forward with it or not. I'm happy you chose to move forward with it!

 

 

In case anyone was wondering why this is important? Have a look at these screens (warning: viewer discretion is advised!)

 

Spoiler

Scalpel ATGM launched from Blackfoot, impacting the front/right ERA of the Varsuk.

 

The Tandem HEAT warhead, means that the small precursor in the front will remove the ERA (rendering it useless) before the main HEAT charge strikes the armor plating.

 

The results are successful penetration. Like a needle, the shaped charge jet pierces the thick armor of the Varsuk, and rips through the turret. Unfortunately for the commander....

 

The shot exits the rear turret base, and stops in the engine ceiling. At this point, the hull damage to the tank is a mere ~3%, but the crew should be pretty traumatized ;) .

 

I proceeded to fire the next Scalpel into the front ERA armor, trying to "snipe" the driver. Well, a picture says more than 1000 words?:

 

 

These things were not possible previously, but now you can use HEAT weaponry to target vital modules and crew, rather than just dealing a fixed amount of damage no matter where you hit! FAN-TASTIC! :D

 

 

I see the damage values are WIP, and I think that the mechanics still need some tweaking to be game-friendly and realistic at the same time. Because right now, I can't seem to find a weak spot in the vehicle that will deal massive damage to it (ie. ammo rack-ish things). It's great that penetration from HEAT doesn't deal a crazy amount of hull damage, but now we need those vulnerable hitpoints (well protected by armor) that will send the hithull to 100 in few shots (simulating ammunition or fuel etc).

 

Also, there is no spalling/fragmentation post-penetration, so you still have to score a direct hit at the crew/module to significantly damage them. 

 

But nonetheless! This is fantastic news! I also noted that the missile does explode and do HE damage, while the projectile does AP/penetration damage. Absolutely fantastic!

 

I'm in love right now!

[scavenjer 112]

Short post as I currently don't have much time:

1. https://streamable.com/tm0eo titan AT is single HEAT warhead but ignores ERA and often doesn't detonate ERA, more testing needed.
2. RPG-42 in-game is called RPG-42 but filename and actual codename is RPG-32, on Changelog it's also called RPG-32. Could be confusing for your average user.
3. RPG-42 has similar issue as titan AT and sometimes doesn't detonate ERA or ignores it completely.
4. Damage values are WIP, but please consider (if at all possible within the given timeframe) to generate a "cone" of "splash" damage when the HEAT submunition penetrates the firegeometry and hitbox of the tank, instead of a single "needle" like projectile path.

 

IMO generating a "splash" damage cone when the submunition penetrates the actual tank is probably the best solution to simulate HEAT damage inside a tank, this cone would stop when hitting internal armour plates but the projectile would not, and possibly generate a second cone upon penetration of said internal armour plate (cone/damage dependant on velocity of the penetrator).

 

 

Huge thanks for making this even a thing, I realise how pressed for time you guys are, this is quite frankly beyond my realistic expectations of what could be done in the given timeframe.

[fallschirmjgergewehr 1]

What about do you think MBTs gun shield's weak spot

is this a problem that gun shield 2~5 hit by autocanon disable gun?

 

[scavenjer 112]

Just now, fallschirmjgergewehr said:

What about do you think MBTs gun shield's weak spot

is this a problem that gun shield 2~5 hit by autocanon disable gun?

 

Not entirely sure what you mean, do you mean that 30mm autocannons hitting the cannon mantlet take out the gun too quickly?

 

[fallschirmjgergewehr 1]

4 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Not entirely sure what you mean, do you mean that 30mm autocannons hitting the cannon mantlet take out the gun too quickly?

 

Yes, there will be an armor to prevent autocanon(Leo2 has 350mm RHA)

past 3gen some tank will prevent 120mm apfsds there.