Common Armour Values System

[hellfish6 7]

I think I'd take those armor values with a grain of salt unless backed up elsewhere.

[DKM Jaguar 0]

Especially as from what I can gather Challenger 2 is widely regarded as the most protected tank in regards to conventional armour and from what I have read Leopard 2 is not that well protected (their balance leaning toward speed and firepower). But this shouldn't turn into a pissing contest so...

We all know the Trabrant is by far the best tank ever.

[stgn 39]

Can this be of any use?

Protection:

M1- 400 vs KE 600 vs HEAT

M1A1- 450 vs KE 700 vs HEAT

M1A1HA- 600 vs KE 1150 vs HEAT

Leopard 2A4 - 700 vs KE 1000 vs HEAT

M1A2- 760 vs KE 1400 vs HEAT

Lacrec- 800 vs KE 1600 vs HEAT

M1A2SEP- 840 vs KE 1400 vs HEAT

Leopard 2A5- 870 vs KE 1500 vs HEAT

Challanger 2- 960 vs KE 1700 vs HEAT

Leo 2A6 may be as high as 1000mm vs KE.

Now compare to Russian tanks:

T-72B - 530 vs KE 620 vs HEAT

T-72BV- 580 vs KE 1120 vs HEAT

T-80B- 550 vs KE 650 vs HEAT

T-80BV- 600 vs KE 1150 vs HEAT

T-72BM- 780 vs KE 1220 vs HEAT

T-80U- 820 vs KE 1350 vs HEAT

T-90- 1000 vs KE 1600 vs HEAT

http://community.discovery.com/groupee....1104906

Not realy as it dosen't state what these numbers are calculated in besides shouch numbers vary alot depending on who has made em. If I remmember correct steel beast's has a index which state that the M1A2(SEP?) Abrams has around 1000 RHA on the front hull and 1100-1200 RHA on the front turret the Leo2A6 has 800-900 ont the front hull and around 1500 on the front turret. all numbers are vs KE.

STGN

[stgn 39]

Especially as from what I can gather Challenger 2 is widely regarded as the most protected tank in regards to conventional armour and from what I have read Leopard 2 is not that well protected (their balance leaning toward speed and firepower). But this shouldn't turn into a pissing contest so...

We all know the Trabrant is by far the best tank ever.  

The leo 2 like the leo1 is build so it has very tough front turret its hull is not as well protected it is a balance between speed and protection. I think the challanger has thiger protection on the sides and rear relative to the LEO but some of the TANK informed can clear this up.

STGN

[Przezdzieblo 0]

I think I'd take those armor values with a grain of salt unless backed up elsewhere.

Just like all estimates...

Probably the best source for such data is Paul Lakowski`s ArmorBasics.pdf file. It is not the newest, but still cannot see better one - and it is also base for tank lovers. Also Vasili Fofanov`s page seem to be nice source of estimates.

The problem is that CAVS HAVE TO use some estimates and values... or it would be Common Armour System With No Values - and with no value...

One more thing - localised parts. OFP dammage system seems to be far from perfect and it is hard way to go to deal with it. But let me link here two small links...

http://www.flashpoint.pl/om/public_download/PP/ALDI_TestAStruct.zip

This is small Abrams pack (BIS models) reconfigured by alderous, using few different armor structural value (very, very low and very, very high). It could be seen there how those values make tank hard to kill (hard-kill, with explosion) without making it invincible (m-kill/f-kill still possible). I must confess that I see today much more right in using high `AS` by LoBo team... (but still think it needs some `codified` system).

And one more file (many thanks to alderous and Panda_PL):

http://www.flashpoint.pl/om/public_download/PP/TTank.rar

This is one more standard BIS tank, but with heavy modified Hit-Points LOD. It is still at stage of testing, but could show some direction in dealing with armor models.

Firstly - there are some parts with low armour (f.e. armorTracks=0.2), which are sligtly more vulnerable to enemy fire - so it would be easier to make m-kill than hard-kill.

Secondly - new armor parts (fronthull, fronthullP, fronthullL, frontturret), screens that protect "normal" elements.

Thirdly - engine was removed. In standard BIS tanks there are three ways for vehicle to blow:

- when Armor ("global") reaches zero

- when ArmorEngine reaches zero

- when ArmorHull reaches zero

I decided that two ways are enough.

Tank was tested against CAVS compatible JAM3 weapons. New "screens" also works against Sigma`s APFSDS rounds, making enough frontal protection (with more vulnerable sides and rear).

It do NOT work good against weapons with high indirect dammages (Sucheys and ORCS AT weapons) - but it was CAVS idea to make it lower.

Simplified scheme of new HP LOD proposition for Abrams:

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

[TermiPete 0]

Does anyone know the belt size used with the M240Cs in the M60A3 and M1A1?

TP

[R3MF 0]

Hooray for common sense, CAVS is the best thing to happen to the modding community since JAM showed up.

Hoorah i say.

now, what i really want is mod-makers to adopt CAVS values when they import their mods into Armed Assault.

[Ironsight 1]

Does anyone know the belt size used with the M240Cs in the M60A3 and M1A1?

TP

My guess would be:

5950/850=7

5950 is the amount of M240 rounds carried by M60 tanks.

850 is the amount of rounds on the belt.

7 is the amount of belts.

EDIT:

850 is the only round number that comes close and I believe I heard the number 850 before

[max power 21]

This is sort of irrelevent to the discussion at hand, but I think that this is a well conceived, and from what I've read, spectacularly implemented idea. It's a shame that OFP makes putting realistic armour penetration into effect so difficult, but the detail you guys are getting into is spectacular. Get down with your bad selves.

[TermiPete 0]

Hi all

I'll post the jam_vehicles.pbo, a readme and the spreadsheet up later today. While this file is great for testing CAVs out, I'm hoping that it can become a reference file for addons - they can inherit from the relevant classes and add their own sounds, models etc. Kinda like JAM

I've done the vehicles to be consistent with late 85-early 86.

* M1A1

* M60A3

* M113A2

* M2A0

* T80BV

* T72A

* BMP-1P

* BMP-2

For these vehicles i have defined all the weapons and (almost) all compatible rounds.

I have endeavoured to provide realism for:

* damage (according to CAVS system)

* velocity

* number of rounds

* magazine sizes

* reload times

* ROF

This has meant defining a 2A46 (and all rounds) for the T-72 series and another for the T-64/80 series with faster reload times. If someone knows how define magazine types that defer to the weapon that would be great!

Compiling all the info has been very time consuming, and there are still a fair few gaps.

I haven't done a lot of testing, but some early thoughts are:

* maybe the indirect damage ranges on HE Fragss are too big (is indirect damage range radius or diameter?)

* the slow reload times on the Russian MBTs are a real disadvantage

* autocannons are BAD news for anybody

* I'm getting a JAM recoil error from the M240c

Ironsight - thanks for the info - i haven't tweaked this yet.

Hope you guys have fun with it.

TP

[TermiPete 0]

Here we go:

JAM_VEHICLES.ZIP (zipped)

and CAVS readme.

Keen to get some feedback.

heh - just noticed that unit skill significantly affects reload times - even on the Russian MBTs with autoloaders :P

TP

PS - here is copy of readme:

Quote[/b] ]CAVS / JAM VEHICLES README

Prepared by TermiPete

9th October 2005

All test vehicles are appropiate for late 1985 - early 1986.

AMMO TYPES:

MGS:

* CAVS_12_7BALL 12.7MM BALL

* CAVS_12_7AP 12.7MM AP

* CAVS_14_5AP 14.5MM AP

SMALL-CALIBRE CANNONS:

* CAVS_M792 M792 25MM HEI

* CAVS_M791 M791 25MM APDS

* CAVS_M919 M919 25MM APFSDS DU

* CAVS_M929 M929 30MM APFSDS

* CAVS_2A42_30HEF 30MM HE-FRAG FOR 2A42

LARGE-CALIBRE CANNONS:

* CAVS_M735 M735 105MM APFSDS-T

* CAVS_M774 M774 105MM APFSDS-T

* CAVS_M833 M833 105MM APFSDS-T

* CAVS_M900 M900 105MM APFSDS DU

* CAVS_M827 M827 120MM APFSDS-T

* CAVS_M829 M829 120MM APFSDS-T

* CAVS_M829A1 M829 120MM APFSDS DU

* CAVS_M829A2 M829 120MM APFSDS DU

* CAVS_M829A3 M829 120MM APFSDS DU

* CAVS_3BM26 3BM26 125MM APFSDS

* CAVS_3BM29 3BM29 125MM APFSDS DU

* CAVS_3BM32 3BM32 125MM APFSDS DU

* CAVS_3BM42 3BM42 125MM APFSDS

* CAVS_3BM42M 3BM42M 125MM APFSDS-T

* CAVS_3BM44M 3BM44M 125MM APFSDS-T

* CAVS_PG9 PG-9 73MM HEAT

* CAVS_0G15 OG-15 73MM HE-FRAG

* CAVS_M456A2 M456A2 105MM HEAT

* CAVS_M830 M830 120MM HEAT-MP

* CAVS_M830A1 M830A1 120MM HEAT-MP-T

* CAVS_3OF26 3OF-26 125MM HE-FRAG

* CAVS_3BK12 3BK12 125MM HEAT

* CAVS_3BK21 3BK21 125MM HEAT

* CAVS_3BK21B 3BK21B 125MM HEAT DU

* CAVS_3BK29 3BK29 125MM TANDEM HEAT

* CAVS_3BK29M 3BK29M 125MM TRIPLE HEAT

AT ROCKETS

* CAVS_M72A3 M72A3 66MM LAW HEAT

* CAVS_M72A4 M72A4 66MM LAW HEAT

* CAVS_M72A6 M72A6 66MM LAW HEAT MP

* CAVS_FFV551 FFV551 84MM CARL GUSTAV HEAT

* CAVS_FFV751 FFV751 84MM CARL GUSTAV TANDEM HEAT

* CAVS_FFV502 FFV502 84MM CARL GUSTAV HEDP

AT MISSILES

* CAVS_9M14P1 9M14-P1 AT3 MALYUTKA-P HEAT ATGM

* CAVS_9M14_2 9M14-2 AT3 MALYUTKA 2 HEAT ATGM

* CAVS_9M14_2M 9M14-2M AT3 MALYUTKA 2M TANDEM HEAT ATGM

* CAVS_9M113 9M113 AT5 KONKURS HEAT ATGM

* CAVS_9M113M 9M113M AT5B KONKURS M TANDEM HEAT ATGM

* CAVS_9M117 9M117 AT8 KOBRA HEAT ATGM

* CAVS_9M119 9M119 AT11 SVIR/REFLEKS HEAT ATGM

* CAVS_9M119M 9M119M AT11 REFLEKS-M TANDEM HEAT ATGM

* CAVS_BGM71C BGM71C ITOW HEAT ATGM

* CAVS_BGM71D BGM71D TOW-2 HEAT ATGM

* CAVS_BGM71E BGM71E TOW-2A TANDEM HEAT ATGM

WEAPON TYPES:

MGS:

* CAVS_M240C

- CAVS_W762M_Mounted_1200mag

- CAVS_W762M_Mounted_850mag

- CAVS_W762M_Mounted_200mag

* CAVS_PKT

- JAM_E762M_Mounted_200mag

- CAVS_E762M_Mounted_250mag

* CAVS_NSVT

- CAVS_NSVT_BALL

- CAVS_NSVT_AP

* CAVS_M2HB

- CAVS_M2HB_SLAP

- CAVS_M2HB_BALL

SMALL-CALIBRE CANNONS:

* CAVS_M242

- CAVS_M792MAG

- CAVS_M791MAG

- CAVS_M919MAG

* CAVS_2A42

- CAVS_2A42_30HEFMAG

- CAVS_M929MAG

LARGE-CALIBRE CANNONS:

* CAVS_2A28

- CAVS_PG9MAG

- CAVS_OG15MAG

* CAVS_M68

- CAVS_M833

- CAVS_M900

- CAVS_M456A2

* CAVS_M256

- CAVS_M827

- CAVS_M829

- CAVS_M829A1

- CAVS_M829A2

- CAVS_M829A3

- CAVS_M830

- CAVS_M830A1

* CAVS_2A46M_T72

- CAVS_3BM26_T72

- CAVS_3BM29_T72

- CAVS_3BM32_T72

- CAVS_3BM42_T72

- CAVS_3BM42M_T72

- CAVS_3BM44M_T72

- CAVS_3BK21_T72

- CAVS_3BK21B_T72

- CAVS_3BK29_T72

- CAVS_3BK29M_T72

- CAVS_3OF26_T72

* CAVS_2A46M_T80

- CAVS_3BM26_T80

- CAVS_3BM29_T80

- CAVS_3BM32_T80

- CAVS_3BM42_T80

- CAVS_3BM42M_T80

- CAVS_3BM44M_T80

- CAVS_3BK21_T80

- CAVS_3BK21B_T80

- CAVS_3BK29_T80

- CAVS_3BK29M_T80

- CAVS_3OF26_T80

- CAVS_9M117

AT ROCKETS:

* CAVS_M72A3

* CAVS_M72A4

* CAVS_M72A6

* CAVS_M3CG

- CAVS_FFV751MAG

- CAVS_FFV551MAG

- CAVS_FFV502MAG

ATGMS:

* CAVS_9M14LAUNCHER

- CAVS_9M14P1

- CAVS_9M14_2

* CAVS_9M113LAUNCHER

- CAVS_9M113

- CAVS_9M113M

* CAVS_TOWLAUNCHER

- CAVS_BGM71D

CONFIGURED VEHICLES:

WEST:

* M1A1

* M60A3

* M113A2

* M2A0

EAST:

* T80BV

* T72A

* BMP-1P

* BMP-2

[Oeil2Lynx 0]

damn can't dl

[TermiPete 0]

I've edited the post - my Frontpage site wouldn't serve a .pbo file so now it is zipped. Refresh the page.

CAVS JAM Vehicles test file.

TP

[stgn 39]

prity cool I think Havn't tryed all tanks but the abrams has a bug when you fire the 7.62mm somthing about recoile.

STGN

[.kju 3241]

thanks a lot mate !

[TermiPete 0]

Hi STGN - the recoil issues appears to be in the JAM base class for the M240C.

TP

[cornhelium 0]

Quote[/b] ]the recoil issues appears to be in the JAM base class

D*mn, you're right TP. Error in the JAM config.  

Fixed it - an updated JAM3 download will be on the OFPEC JAM page soon.

Fantastic work btw mate - you rock  

Cheers,

CH

[TermiPete 0]

Hi there

I guess at this point there needs to be some interest expressed by the broader community and some of the leading mod/add-on makers.

Like Cornhelium, I can ill afford the time involved in battling away with this kind of text editing madness What do you all want to see happen next?

* EECP using CAVS?

* RHS using CAVS?

* PUKF using CAVS?

* Operation Northstar (Canadian units) re-done to use CAVS?

* Operation Frenchpoint using CAVS?

I think we've got a good system, it just needs to get (tested and) used now!

TP

[whisper 0]

I'm passing the word to OFrP team, TP, even if they're not really active atm . Truely thks for the great effort.

[AgentFox2 0]

Awesome work, TermiPete and the rest of the CAVS contributors!

The new vehicle config for JAM adds a lot to the gameplay.

Quote[/b] ]What do you all want to see happen next?

* EECP using CAVS?

* RHS using CAVS?

* PUKF using CAVS?

* Operation Northstar (Canadian units) re-done to use CAVS?

* Operation Frenchpoint using CAVS?

A CAVS-compliant EECP would give us a good starting point to base everything on. RHS, PUKF, etc. would be great, too, but that's up to them.

Would it be possible to do these sort of calculations to cover other vehicles, as well? For example, with trucks or wheeled ICVs versus, say .50 SLAP or .50 inciendiary from an XM107?

Thanks for all your efforts.

[TermiPete 0]

Cheers- thanks for the feedback fox.

I see EECP as key too. I have PMed Kuriyami and popped a post in his thread too.

We haven't considered soft-skin vehicles as they don't really have a 'penetration' issue. (I'm also an armour fan too :P)

Wheeled APC/ICVs are already covered in the system in the same way as tracked equivalents, so there is no prob with BTR/LAV etc (except for the inherent OFP engine limitations).

TP

[AgentFox2 0]

Awesome.

I tried out that tank for model testing that Przezdzieblo mentioned. The tank was actually harder to take out from the front than the back! It took two shots from an M1 Abrams to the back to explode and upwards of 7+ on the front! What are the chances this sort of model editing could become part of CAVS? Or maybe just providing addon makers with tutorials, etc. on how to give their addons this feature?

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Awesome.

I tried out that tank for model testing that Przezdzieblo mentioned. The tank was actually harder to take out from the front than the back! It took two shots from an M1 Abrams to the back to explode and upwards of 7+ on the front! What are the chances this sort of model editing could become part of CAVS? Or maybe just providing addon makers with tutorials, etc. on how to give their addons this feature?

It is combination of differing localized parts armor and changing model`s Hit-Points LOD by resizing some components, deleting others (engine) and finally adding new ones. (I would reccomend to see how does it look like in o2 and try to modify it )

Free Image Hosting

The problem is that f.e. part armorTracks=0.25 is NOT 4 times weaker than armorHull=1.00. So it is very hard to find balance for Abrams to be almost immune against light AT intantry weapons from front and vulnerabile to RPG from behind/side. (It is much more easier to find good balance against tank weapons - I still do not know why).

The latest ideas:

- to make hull armor differ for tanks with different "survivability", something like `AS` once more - high value in case of tanks with all ammo isolated (Abrams), a little lower for vehicles with some ammo in hull/turret, where critical explosion is possible (Chally 2, Leopard 2) and moch more lower for tanks with ammo that would blow easier;

- to double armor and armor structural (calculated by CAVS) values; then tanks would be disabled before global armor reaches zero, with crew bailed out before tank explodes - tank would blow then only if very, very heavy pounding or if it`s armorHull (varying with tank "survivability") reaches zero.

Because mostly aiming point for AI (zamerny) in most models is in the middle of turret, it would be needed to add some Tracks (the only part which destruction leads to crew bail out) localized parts into turret (sounds odd but it works). I also think about using only one Track selection (f.e. pasL with armor=20-40) for tank MOBILITY (placed in tank rear, vulnerabile to hits from behind and into rear sides) and another (f.e. pasP) into turret, vulnerabile to hits from sides and above... any questions? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif' alt='biggrin_o.gif'>

[akd 0]

Awesome.

The latest ideas:

Because mostly aiming point for AI (zamerny) in most models is in the middle of turret, it would be needed to add some Tracks (the only part which destruction leads to crew bail out) localized parts into turret (sounds odd but it works). I also think about using only one Track selection (f.e. pasL with armor=20-40) for tank MOBILITY (placed in tank rear, vulnerabile to hits from behind and into rear sides) and another (f.e. pasP) into turret, vulnerabile to hits from sides and above... any questions?

Hmm...my only comment would be that unless the turret was penetrated, I don't think the crew of a modern tank (assuming proper training) would bail. And if the turret was penetrated, then casualties would be very likely. Crews bail mostly because their tanks mobility and consequently the ability to respond to threats or maneuver if needed. Losing tracks, losing the engine, becoming mired or entangled. I guess a penetration resulting in a non-catastrophic internal fire would be the most plausible situation.

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Well, it might be a little problem to make AI crew smart enough to bail out only if needed - without scripts which CAVS as far avoid to use.

So there are many situations to simulate and limited way to do it; armor, `AS`, localized parts.

The clue is to use those possibilities and reach the target - more realism, with (if needed and if close to realism) tanks rather abandoned than smashed into a pulp with all crewmembers.

It seems that OFP crew leaves vehicle when:

- hull/engine/global armor (?) reaches zero; tankers bail out few seconds before vehicle explosion - or not

- there was m-kill (armorTracks reaches zero)

And that might be only reasons (plus leader order by menu or editor trigger) for OFP tankers to bail out.

You say that crew of modern tank probably would not bail out unless turret (or just armor) is penetrated. So, how to force OFP crew to abandon their tank in that way? Simple, add some Tracks to otocvez in Hit-Points LOD. But then you`ll find that hitting turret would have another, secondary effect - m-kill. Odd, isn`t it? (not enough - as I said before I think about those additional selection inside turret )

If you have any idea how to improve tank realism in OFP without heavy scripting and add something to CAVS, be welcome. It is very good topic for that.

If anyone want to make own experiments with HP LOD, remember - faces in that LOD does not matter. Only vertrices (named as f.e. hull, gun, turet etc.) matters. So make sure that in medium of f.e. hitturet zone there is turet vertex - or dammage will go to another, nearer (in line of sight?) vertex (f.e. hull or tracks). But how does it really work remains enigmatic for me... and (according to SPQR) very fast OFP projectiles sometimes could ignore FG (or HP?) LOD and make all system not working good enough.