American tanks

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Quote[/b] ]"P.S. Another thing. Ballistic of 2A46M looks better than 120 mm Rheinmetall. Both guns are comparable, there would not be any percetible difference, but there is"

There's a substantial difference. . . several actually. . .

1. The 2A46 is rifled, the Rheinmetall 120mm is smoothbore

Well, if we speak about main armament of T72/T80/T90 and even T62/T64, I do not remember those tanks had rifled guns. Are you sure that 2A46 is rifled? All these guns (various types) are smoothbore. From the other hand - your T90`s (indeed old model, I do not DL addons that are not published) armament has better balistics than M256... strange for me.

Quote[/b] ]2. The 2A46' sabot ammo has several fin-contact points, the 120mm smoothbore's sabot rounds' fins do not contact the barrel.

As above, with all consequences.

Quote[/b] ]both of these differences (and there are more, but these are primary) have a *substantial* effect on the single key factor in an APFSDS round's penetration rate (as in, the one that can display the largest variance) :

inflight stability. The 120mm's APFSDS rounds are substantially more stable. For this reason, the rounds don't have to be as well manufactured to achieve fantastic penetration. Beyond that, the main problem both of these barrels have is that they are both too short. The Ukranians have extended the 2A46 with excellent results (increased stability) and the Germans have done so with the Rheinmetall also with excellent results).

You have right, 120 mm`s APFSDS are more stable. For today have also better penetration ratio, which is caused that the most od Western APFSDS are more slim. Compare dimensions of for example M829A1 penetrator and BM32. American APFSDS` have better sabots and are slimer. Why? maybe because of autoloader dimensions... With better ammo T72`s 2A46 would have better penetrate ratio.

Quote[/b] ]I'm concerned nonetheless with the fact that you're using my old T-90 set. Please save the (well taken) critique until the RHS version is released. Much has changed.

On top of that, the question you have about an M829E3 penetrating a T-90. . . I feel that it is important to establish that you must be careful which tanks you use. If you choose an M1A2 with the E3, you're getting the newest SEP with the ammo round that has not yet been fielded. Form the information that I have, the E3 will easily penetrate a T-90S from the front (especially since the K5 only covers 60% of that aspect), whereas on a T-90M this is more doubtful.

A more equal battle for the T-90S might be the 2003 M1A1. This is much more common.

In any case, I respect your concerns, but it's well known that the *latest* (and you're using the latest) APFSDS rounds have slightly outpaced armour development.

I simply cannot wait untill final version of T72/T80/T90 pack is published

If the newest T90`s has front turret armour above 750 RHA and the best (today) APFSDS round, German DM53 (fired from Rh 120 mm L/55) could penetrate about 700 RHA at 2000 meter, I think that M829E3 fired from shorter barrel cannot deal with Russian armour. BM32 could penetrate about 500 RHA at 2000 meters, are you sure that T90S (even when hit where there is no reactive armour) could be destroyed with one hit in front of turret? Has it less than 500 RHA there? In my oppinion not with BM32 (and BM42 too). M1A1HA front turret armour is also untouchable for those rounds...

Quote[/b] ]I plan to do one update, and I'll take into account as many of your issues as I can. I've been busy recently (just moved 2500km) so I don't know what time I have.

As I just said I cannot wait. Many, many months ago there was an idea of making Polish T72M1 modification, PT-91 Twardy (this is also a new MBT of Malesia), I hope someday it would appear.

[da_ofp_man 0]

As I just said I cannot wait. Many, many months ago there was an idea of making Polish T72M1 modification, PT-91 Twardy (this is also a new MBT of Malesia), I hope someday it would appear.

But it is now in prototype stage under testing the tank is named PT-91M and Malesia buyed those tanks about 64 as I remember

EDIT if you want i can show you pics

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Indeed, there are some changes, new FCS, maybe new ammo (Polish tankist still use BM15, old steel penetrator), new camo... I know how does PT-91/PT-91M looks like, but if you want to show this MBT... please ;)

[da_ofp_man 0]

Here you are:

interior:

Now its just a prototype the finale version will look difrent.

BTW:do you know that another modernization of ouers PT-91 is coming this time they want to put in those tanks L-44 or L-55  gun I wonder how it is going to look ??

[Wick_105 0]

I just talked to one of my arty intel guys that just got back from iraq. he got to see the aftermath of a battle in wich a platoon of M1A2's with M3's hit a dug in battalion(by accident) they then called in artillery and fast air. after about an hour the yanks went in hard with a regt- and took out what the arty and fast air did'nt....well it was over in like 2 mins but the cool thing is my friend got to inspect the t72's, he said that all the gunners were hand cranking the turrets and most of them had TPT rounds....for those of you who dont know: thats a big ass solid round that couldnt take out a m113.....one of the M1's took a hit from a tpt rnd and the commandr said that it moved the tank 3 feet backwards

[Sigma-6 29]

hehe. . . the force is like as that of being hit by a freight train. . .

anything that can move a 72 ton vehicle back 3 feet is packing a hell of a punch. . .    now imagine it were a modern 3BM42M sabot instead of a 20 year old TPT round.

The hand-cranked turret (and the godawful state of the electrics) should give you an idea what a POS the Asad Babyl is in comparison with a current Russian T-72B. . .

Quote[/b] ]Out of interest, how CAN you update a "simple" dense DU/Tungsten bar? Isn't it like re-inventing the wheel?

Ask that of the guys who improved the M829 to the A1, A2 and E3 standard, (or the same for the 125mm series) each with a substantial gain in penetration. The differences (supposedly) are the shape of the penetrator, the composition of the, alloys (DU/Titanium) the shape of the fins, the composition of the sabots. . . there are a lot of ways to improve a KE round. It's a lot more than a bar. The main issues are stability, weight, hardness and sharpness, and there's a lot of leeway there in any of those.

Yes, BTW, there is a guy who'se going to do the PT-91. I will be sending him a model. He worked on the previous PT-91 based on my first T-72 set (if I recall correctly).

also. . . yes, true. . . the 2A46 is not rifled. my mistake. I was confused with the T-55's 100mm, after all the hours of working on the RHS T-55 series. . .

funny, because I've written about the 2A46 recently, and specified clearly that it was a smoothbore. . . again, my mistake. . . spend too long on one and they all start to look the same. . .

In any sae, the issue is the same, stability, mainly because of fin-contact and the shape of the round. Moreso for the 100mm and 115mm. . .

[hellfish6 7]

Is there a way to decrease tank accuracy in OFP? I know I'm having zero-skill T-55 crews getting first-round hits at 700m in OFP. It's kinda weird... and kinda frightning when you're looking forward to shooting some easy targets.

[aj_addons 0]

just arm them with heats mate that will make things easyier as they dont do as much damage.

Ive got to say that my favorite abrahms killer is a t-62MVK, its sheshkna missile becomes nice and handy at range

[hellfish6 7]

What game are you playing with a T-62 in it? You mean T-64?

[aj_addons 0]

nope take a look at the rhs site projects list

[TeuFelKreiger 0]

Can i have a link please?

[aj_addons 0]

try this one ftp://www.gamezone.cz/ofpd/unofaddons2/ustanks.zip

[TeuFelKreiger 0]

Nope,sorry it didn't work.

[hellfish6 7]

With OFP.cz downloads, you have to try several times before it'll work. You might also try right-clicking the link, select "Save As..." and try downloading it that way.

[TeuFelKreiger 0]

Ahh very wise,thank you sir.

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, BTW, there is a guy who'se going to do the PT-91. I will be sending him a model. He worked on the previous PT-91 based on my first T-72 set (if I recall correctly).

Nice to hear it, hope it would appear soon, nice and shiny... Was there "previous PT-91" model? Never published, I suppose.

Sigma-6, I now that there is no need to talk about old T72/T80/T90 packs untill you will publish new addons. But there is a chance to say something about M1/M1A1/M1A2/M60 pack.

I agree that one M829 and M829A1 hit would destroy M1/M1A1. Front armour of those tanks was not untouchable for those projectiles. In this case the winner in duel M1A1 vs M1A1 would be tank which first succes to hit opponent.

M829E3 has better penetrate ability but M1A2 has also better armour. If you have any www sources about M1A2`s front turret RHA equivalent I would like a lot to see it. In my, "paper" sources, the newest tanks from T90 family have front turret armour protection more than 750 mm. I do not think M1A2 has less. So even with superb M829E3, the newest generation DU round in my oppinion, M1A2 would not be able to penetrate front turret armour of another M1A2 (or T90) with one shot. With your addons in OFP it is possible. Still I cannot see the reason for making M829E3 so powerful when DK53 fired from longer barrel still rather would not penetrate T90`s (and comparable M1A2`s) front turret armour. So please consider this arguments which in my oppinion lead to make power of those tanks in OFP more balanced and eventually decrease power of hi-end projectiles (increasing number of "hit ponts" of M1A2s would destroy the balance, making those tanks invunerable for RPGs fire).

[Sigma-6 29]

The previous PT-91 was published. Difficult to find, and based on my original model and textures, so I don't think it's currently available.

The numbers I have used are the closest to actual that I could find.

Incidentally, the T-90 has better than 1000mm vs KE.

My M1A2 (as does the real M1A2) has better than 1000mm vs. KE.

The DM-53 fired from the extended barrel probably *would* penetrate the T-90 if it struck an area not covered by Kontakt-5 (40% of the total frontal area).

[da_ofp_man 0]

Przezdzieblo here is the first version of PT-91 for ofp based on the Sigmas t-72b model 

[Przezdzieblo 0]

da_ofp_man, if you have a link to DL... I did not see this model on ofp.gamezone.cz, strange.

Sigma-6, now I see we have different data and its interpretation. If M1A2 has those 1000 mm RHA, no modern APFSDS can penetrate it (and in OFP destroying of tank with one shot should be not possible to balance the game).

Indeed, ERA has some influence on tank survival ability when hit by APFSDS, but not as big as against HEAT. Do you hava another data about DM53 penetration ratio? Because now it looks like APFSDS with 700 mm RHA penetration could penetrate more than 750 mm RHA tank armour and in 40% of cases it could penetrate more than 750 mm RHA + additional ERA...  Strange, but this are still calculations and discussion about not published final T72/T80/T90 addon pack.

Do you agree that M1A2 has better front turret protection that the newest projectioles could penetrate? Or maybe you have another data where M829E3 rounds has much better perfermance than DM53 (and French round for their L55), even when fired from shorter barrel, and could penetrate those 1000 mm RHA (one meter :o) at 2000 meters?

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]Sigma-6, now I see we have different data and its interpretation. If M1A2 has those 1000 mm RHA, no modern APFSDS can penetrate it (and in OFP destroying of tank with one shot should be not possible to balance the game).

Sure, except that there are a lot of places where you can hit it. That armour only exists on the front of the turret. That's hardly more than 30% of the frontal aspect. if you hit an Abrams from the side, you can kill it pretty easily. Remember, OFP only allows you to set umbrella values for everything. I have no desire to have tanks surrounded completely by massively thick armour.

To take it further, it's next to impossible to have these tanks perform 'realistically'. I've settled for 'as realistic as OFP will let me make them'. Put simply, I'm not adding my personal slant to these values. I'm doing constant research, and I'm plugging in what I believe to be the most reliable numbers. (as in, from the most reliable sources I can find/read/speak to).

Quote[/b] ]Indeed, ERA has some influence on tank survival ability when hit by APFSDS, but not as big as against HEAT.

Quite the opposite. ERA has much greater protective action against HEAT. It makes it ineffective.

Quote[/b] ]Or maybe you have another data where M829E3 rounds has much better perfermance than DM53 (and French round for their L55), even when fired from shorter barrel, and could penetrate those 1000 mm RHA (one meter :o) at 2000 meters?

The M829E3, as far as I can tell, outperforms both of those rounds substantially. of course, we won't know for sure until an M1A2 with the M829E3 goes toe to toe with a Leopard 2. . .

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Sigma-6, now I see we have different data and its interpretation. If M1A2 has those 1000 mm RHA, no modern APFSDS can penetrate it (and in OFP destroying of tank with one shot should be not possible to balance the game).

Sure, except that there are a lot of places where you can hit it. That armour only exists on the front of the turret. That's hardly more than 30% of the frontal aspect. if you hit an Abrams from the side, you can kill it pretty easily. Remember, OFP only allows you to set umbrella values for everything. I have no desire to have tanks surrounded completely by massively thick armour.

To take it further, it's next to impossible to have these tanks perform 'realistically'. I've settled for 'as realistic as OFP will let me make them'. Put simply, I'm not adding my personal slant to these values. I'm doing constant research, and I'm plugging in what I believe to be the most reliable numbers. (as in, from the most reliable sources I can find/read/speak to).

Here is the clue. I agree, OFP engine cannot simulate those various hit areas, for today `realistic` tanking is not possible.

But please remember that even simple LAW could knock out even the newest M1A2 in some situations. Do you want also to simulate this possibility? To be consequent modeler would have to decrease his tank "hit points" to some strange average (how to count it? %, +, -, blablabla)... or take for HP value the lowest armour protection... or take for HP value the highest armour protection. In my oppinion the best of those three not realistic ways is that third.

The most of tank vs tank duels in OFP are also face to face. Situations where human player can surprise AI tank from side or rear are rare. Sometimes it happens in MP, but... only sometimes. So those heavy armoured 30% are also those places, which are the most often hit by opponents tank (in OFP, and in real too). If we make some average HP values (or increase power of APFSDS above the armour performances) we would deprive a tank his main advantage - armour protection (from the other hand still against infantry this tank would be a beast).

History is full of examples of competition between armour and weapon inventors. I do believe that today, probably at the end of tanks (in XX century categories) era those guys, who are inventing protection systems, are winning. 10-15 years ago DU and Tungsten rounds could penetrate the most of heavy MBT armour. M1A1 with M829 rounds was not untouchable for its own weapon. But the newest generations of armour probably gave modern MBT resistence for its rounds from the most menaced directions.

Ok, after this hot statement (vote for me ;)) what is one possible way to deal with balance problems... The situation which in my oppinion is not realistic is "instant death" after one hit in M1A2 vs M1A2 duel (face to face, of course). As I wrote above increasing HP of tanks is bad way and it would make all AT soldiers cry. So maybe decrease APFSDS power? Not so, that mentioned M1A2 will survive direct 5, 10, 10432 APFSDS hits. But maybe those struck would knock out a tank without its destuction? Red/black barrel, turret malfunction, destroyed truck and crew forced to bail out. For M1 family it would be even more realistic, becouse of better crew survivalibility in those tanks (compared to Russian T72/T80/T90 family, where ammo explosion is fatal).

I understand you did not take those values `just from air`, but I think you choosed not the best of mentioned above three ways.

Quote[/b] ]The M829E3, as far as I can tell, outperforms both of those rounds substantially. of course, we won't know for sure until an M1A2 with the M829E3 goes toe to toe with a Leopard 2. . .

Well, I am not saying I am not curious abot the resoult of that duel.. but I hope I would not really see it soon ;) Not sooner than when the great voice from the sky tell us "I am Alpha and Omega, no more wars, game over, or I shall kick your asses etc." "imagine all the people living in peace" would test old wars relicts and shot M1A2 and Leopard 2 A6 each other.

[miles teg 1]

Geeze.... Sigma's armor values are fine.

Stick with those or with the BIS default values instead of arguing pointlessly about real life armor values when the fact of the matter is that, as Sigma pointed out, that you can not accurately simulate these armor values in OFP. All you can do is approximate which is exactly what he did with his tanks.

As long as they are roughly compatible with the BIS stuff then I'm a happy camper.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]I understand you did not take those values `just from air`, but I think you choosed not the best of mentioned above three ways.

I chose, in fact, the frontal armour values for turret/hull (respectively) unmodified. I didn't lower anything to account for rear/side hits.

the APFSDS rounds will probably not have their damage lowered. They're also using the straight numbers.

Given that, I don't think it's odd that the tanks react the way they do to each other. (and also, I've had M1A2s survive hits from each other, just not *often*.)

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Quote[/b] ]I chose, in fact, the frontal armour values for turret/hull (respectively) unmodified. I didn't lower anything to account for rear/side hits.

So talking about more than 30% of the frontal aspect was not needed.

Quote[/b] ]Given that, I don't think it's odd that the tanks react the way they do to each other. (and also, I've had M1A2s survive hits from each other, just not *often*.)

Not with M829E3. First hit always fatal. M829A2 - the second hit is fatal. On interestng thing - M1 can survive M829 hit...

Nevermind, I stop to, as Miles Teg said, "arguing pointlessly". I suppose I would DL upcoming Russian T-tank pack even if BM32 round blow up M1A2 with one hit...

[Sigma-6 29]

It won't. The best Russian APFSDS round in the new pack is the BM42M

Quote[/b] ]Not with M829E3. First hit always fatal. M829A2 - the second hit is fatal. On interestng thing - M1 can survive M829 hit...

Sounds accurate to me. . .

You might recall a story in which the M1A1HA was unable to be destroyed by one of its platoon-mates to avoid capture in 1991. . .