Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
king homer

M1A2 SEP 3.0

Recommended Posts

Guest
With regards to Thundermakers comments, it is possible to set up a tank so that parts can be disabled. Never got your gun knocked out and had the rest of your tank in perfect working order with the original BIS tanks? Or had a track destroyed? ect.

Havent tried SEP so i dont know if it happens with these.

Now, here's a really good point!

To be honest, I'm a russian tank lover, and I believe the latest russian technologies for tanks are far more superior than any other, even the Israeli. These techologies provide their tanks a status of multi-resistant machines; which, in fact, they are. Russian tanks with such devices, unlike any other, and despite their localised structural vulnerabilities, are able to face a large range of weapons, from unguided cumulative damage munitions to AT[sACLOS/LASER]GM's.

Well, an actually good subject to debate would be whether Russia or its clients are able to provide their tanks with the aforementioned technologies, and how many. I'm telling you this because a naked T-90 is cannon fodder against an M1A1/A2 -- that's obvious and inaccurate, since a naked T-90 is basicaly a T-72.

But how about a tank on its full gear? Like Bars? What is not being realised is that Bars, the Chiorny Oriol predecessor, is an highly improved superior T-64 scheme with all the russian stuff that makes us drool. Where's its combat experience? Can you base the T80UM1 Bars armour and firepower levels on the experience of an M1A1 against Iraqi T62's?...

I guess we'll never be able to tell who's strongest.

A point that's being clearly missed is the tank's role. Ever wondered why the ammunition loadout of a russian tank is mostly made of HE[AT] shells? And why doesn't the M1 have an autoloader?

Indeed, while the russian tank was designed to operate in hostile ground against all kind of threats and killing soft targets in its way, the M1 is definitely a tank killer -- in a few seconds combat experience, the human loader is faster than a constant autoloader, as the machine doesn't fear for its life. Also, the american AP technology is better. Therefore, I agree that an Abrams sabot firepower against armoured vehicles is superior than the Russian tanks and might be able to kill almost any tank in a shot, but it has to be good shot. Yeap, that's what's wrong with this game: if you shoot from King Homer's Abrams over the tracks of an RHS T80UM1 or any other structure, it's an instant kill, and that couldn't be more irrealistic. In real life, total destruction can be achieved from turret penetration, and seldom from hull penetration, although that's possible too. But from all angles???

Here I decide to get back on topic. I quoted Pathy as he points out the partial disabling of a tank. In real life, the Abrams has enough firepower to disable any tank, but ingame, it DESTROYS!

How about disabling the Abrams? I had an ingame combat experience with both ORCS T72 and RHS T64BV versus the Abrams. As human player, I'm more skilled than AI and could disable the INQ M1. However, for my surprise, it took me A LOT of shots to disable the cannon. I went for the cannon armour values and found it quite hipocrite that a gun barrel is as strong as the already impervious M1 turret...

I hope you, tank makers, realise the importance of providing realistic levels for armour and firepower. Most of the tank addons out there are extremely overpowered because the armour proportion for each structural component was higly disregarded. Creating too powerfull rounds isn't fair aswell. An AP round pierces armour and subjects the target to extreme heat, but it doesn't blow up the tank. Thus, its damage value should also consider the armour level of the foe's components.

Since the very begining, the editing community has been looking forward at improving the gameplay through enhancement of vehicle configuration and addition of effects and simulations. It's time for the same editing community focus on the tank simulation in a serious manner and leave behind their preferences and prejudices. I'm a T-XX lover, but the M1 is definately the ultimate tank killer, as long as its crew knows where to shoot at -- and that's not being considered when I hit a T80's antenna. whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well saying that I love this add on graphics and features I have to add that Abrams was "sold" on the military marketing as the ultimative almost undestructible MTB.

Events in Iraq have proven that the Abrams can be destroyed even by non conventional weapons.

M1 Abrams tank disabled by Iraq roadside explosion

DESTROYED_M1_ABRAMS.sized.jpg

Same goes to the Apache, the flying tank.

DESTROYED_APACHE.sized.jpg

Battlefield atrittion have not spared those two, and considering that they were not facing highly trained and equiped units with latest armour technoology but basically scum ragheads with car bombs and RPG.

There are reports of Abrams M1A1 (I know it is different than the M1A2  wink_o.gif  ) being destroyed by single AT shoots.

I do not mean the Abrams is a bad tank, because it is probably the best in the world after the Leopard 2 A6   inlove.gif  however I believe we should not think of it as something 10 time better than the T-80.

Anyway I tested the Full RHS t-80 pack versus the Lates version of the Abrams and it is quite balancec, of course on the Abarms favour but not as much as if you make it fight against any BIS unit or even the FFUR T-80.

So basically to have a capable counterpart for this excellent add on that can survive if properly skilled you need the RSH T-80 full pack, other tanks and vehicles are just cannon fodder for this Abrams

Read your comment, it only disabled it.  99/100 abrams that are disable are returned back to the field after a few maintenance checks.  They are not destroyed, the tracks just fall off.  I also believe someone is telling you a bunch of crap that a IDE did this to both of those tanks.  It might have been disable and then hit with a couple more IDE or RPGs.

Desert Strom 3,700 of 4,280 battle tanks

M1/M1A1 vs Mainly T-55,T-62, Republican Guard T-72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the M1A2 use the most modern US weapons and ammos, to get some decent opposition, i quickly configured a BIS T80 to use the same irscanrange as the M1A2 SEP, and gave it the most modern russian weapon and ammo values from CAVS , and added the CAVS armor structure.

You can get this test pbo here.

http://rapidshare.de/files/16795834/CAVST80.pbo.html

or there

http://www.freefileupload.net/file.ph....T80.pbo

(you can find the modified T80 into a T80UM1 under East -> TESTCAVS - Tanks -> T80UM1)

With the CAVS values setup in this pbo , a platoon of 4 of T80UM1 are now a good challenge against a platoon of 4 M1A2SEP.

On flat terrain, the M1A2 SEP platoon in such conditions will always prevail due to the higher rate of fire and the slighlty more powerfull ammunitions, but the US platoon should now lose 1 or 2 tanks in the process.

The other good things with those CAVS value is that a direct hit of the M1A2 SEP does not destroy automatically the T80 , but sometime totally disable or highly damage it , so the crew can survive if they abandon their MBT or can fire again .

But they will not survive a 2nd hit

If you put a numerical advantage in number of those T80UM1 over M1A2 SEP , the result will not be the same.

So it should be considered as balanced when using such CAVS compliant most modern russian MBT, but it is right that the majority of thanks addons can't be used in a mission with the M1A2 SEP, too bad CAVS came so late so too few people use their armor structure and ammo values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With regards to Thundermakers comments, it is possible to set up a tank so that parts can be disabled. Never got your gun knocked out and had the rest of your tank in perfect working order with the original BIS tanks? Or had a track destroyed? ect.

Havent tried SEP so i dont know if it happens with these.

Maybe I am a little unmodest, but try this one (veeeery beta, but you can catch an idea)

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

search for it in /West/Armor/TTANK

Frontal hits would not be very effective but one good hit into engine compartment or turret side could make Abrams knocked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]It's time for the same editing community focus on the tank simulation in a serious manner and leave behind their preferences and prejudices. I'm a T-XX lover, but the M1 is definately the ultimate tank killer, as long as its crew knows where to shoot at -- and that's not being considered when I hit a T80's antenna.

 That has been the goal of the CAVS program. I swear some times it seems as if no one has heard of them.

 As to the above posted pictures of demolished Abrams and Apaches. You all do realize that the US (and I'm sure most western forces) blow up disabled equipment right? I'd wager that 99% of these pictures all over the net of anhilated US equipment are pictures taken after US forces have demolished what's left. You can still keep dreaming though if you wish, doesn't change the fact the an RPG will not flip an Abrams over and explode it all over the desert.

Quote[/b] ]If you put a numerical advantage in number of those T80UM1 over M1A2 SEP , the result will not be the same.

 This is also how it is in real life. Russian doctrine is for massed armor, and it's a fact that the Russians have more tanks than the west. My data is old, but as of the 80's the USSR had a numerical advantage of 15/1 in terms of tanks vs NATO.

 It's because of that 15/1 ratio that NATO tanks such as the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard are such beast. NATO tanks had to be designed to be stand up against greater numbers of enemy tanks. NATO tanks could not simply be “equal†to eastern tanks, if they were they’d lose in the end do to the Soviets numerical advantage. One NATO tank had to be capable of standing it’s ground against 15 Soviet tanks.

 In the end though, the latest models of the T80 and T90 are probably damn close in terms of survivability to western tanks if not completely equal. While the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard eat T72s and earlier models for breakfast, none of the three have ever encountered T80s or T90s on the field of battle, (and I pray to god that never happens, the Russians are our friends now whether the youth of Russia and the youth of the west want to accept it or not).

  But something people do have to keep in mind is that the Challenger and Abrams use Chobram armor, Russian tanks don't. Russian tanks use reactive armor and counter measures like Arena, which is something that to my knowledge most western tanks do not use. It’s a difference in military philosophy and design. Western tanks are designed to smash other tanks and to take enemy fire on the chin so to speak. Russian tanks are designed to counter enemy fire with reactive armor and laser counter measures and so on.  Unfortunately reactive armor and arena are not possible in OFP with out heavy scripting that murders game performance.

 Basically I think the big misunderstanding is that people are trying to assume one tank is “better†than the other or that they are “equally†the same. If you want equally the same, IE the same tank with different skins, then play battlefield. A realistic mission scenario isn’t going to have one M1 for each T80, that is not a fair fight and the T80 isn’t designed for that situation. A realistic mission will have a numerical advantage in T80s vs M1s. A realistic mission will have the T80s operating in groups of five with crews of three each and the Abrams working in groups of 4 with crews of 4 each.

 Sorry to ramble but I think really think all the criticism all comes down to people creating sand box missions with mirror image OOBs (order of battle). Real war isn’t like that, it’s not chess the opposing forces equipment is not identical and the numbers aren’t identical.  Four Abrams vs four T80s isn’t a realistic scenario and it’s unimaginative and boring. If you want the T80s to have  a fair chance, then back them up with numerical advantage and support, don’t expect them to just duke it out “team deathmatch†style 4vs4 with the Abrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ King Hommer.

I am afraid you have not read my comments carefully otherwise you will have not answered this way.

1st. I am no Russian tank lover. As I said Leopard 2A6 is my preffered one followed by the Abrams.

2nd. My comments were not intended to move this thread from valid and useful comments about your add on to a contest about the most favourite tanks.

3rd. I already said that after testing the add on with the actual avalaible counterparts in OFP that is the RHS t-80 Pack I said it was realistically balanced because the Abrams is considered to be superior to the actual T-80 and I also recognized I made a mistake stating my initial oppinion on a previous post because I did the comparision with FFUR T-80.

4th. My post was an answer to the previous posts stating the almost invulnerability of the Abrams and total and absolute superiority regarding any other tanks on wich I do respectfully disagree, because IMHO the Abrams is one of the best actual MBT is the world no doubt but other modern MBT can pose a threat to it as well although in a 1 vs 1 I believe than Abrams will win most challenges.

5th My remarks about this were intended to give my best oppinion to help improve the add on with comments about the playability of this add on on the OFP games. Some add on creators are very interesed on listening to the comunity to provide balanced playability versus other add ons and my comments were aimed to provide just my honnest oppinion on this.

I want to thank you for your excellent add on which I will keep using and enjoying, and you do not need to call a moderator about my post because I will not post on this tread anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@b_ringer25... Think before posting, yeah? icon_rolleyes.gif

An IED, or Improvised Explosive Device, can be anything from a modified hand grenade, to a 155mm artillery shell, to a 1000lb iron bomb wired up to a detonator. Now think about it for even a second will you? Place a 1000lb bomb by the roadside, wire it up to explode on command, wait for an Abrams to drive past, plunger goes down, Abrams goes up wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one (it seams) do not have a problem with its power. Quite happy to take on BIS T80’s and take damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh.. King homer, you have my sympathy (for all the OT and armor 'puffing' )  tounge2.gif  banghead.gif

(And just because you seem a bit touchy on this subject Furia, I want to mention that I consider your statements and opinion balanced  smile_o.gif )

Just wanted to say, 'Sweet tank, get the typical tracer error, don't have the driver view error, and have occasional framerate issues.'  (working on what combination/number of units causes it for me)

Feels good to smash through the enemy's defences in this beast!

ECP 1.085

AMD 1700xp

Geforce 4200

Scrub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a question which doesnt concern Abrams vs T80, or which tank is better, or is it overpowered or not (dont feel too shocked just yet homer mate)

the picture of the destroyed abrams - am i correct in assuming that the spray painted message of 'NO RAD' refers to no radiation? i.e. no depleted uraniam left over? Or am i missing it completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much argument about the armour values here.

My 2cents

!!!OPFOR COMPATABILITY!!!

Remember DKM's BlackEagle (Another BEAUTIFUL (aesthetically - model/texture wise etc) tank with much speculation with regards to its real-life capability as a AFV?)  

An addon tank whose armnaments were basically an uparmoured BIS T-80, firing the same level shells as the BIS T-80?

Not as many people used it because its armour and gun values were deemed as too weak and people didn't agree that it was so easy to destroy.

The M1a2 seems to be suffering from the inverse problem.

The thing is, this tank is a beautiful piece to behold in Opflashpoint, there is no doubt about it.

A lot of effort and painstaking amount of detail was put into this amazingly accurate looking tank same way that DKM put detail into their tank.

However the armour and ammo values of this tank are a GAMING (We're not talking military fact or ficton here.. GAMING a completely different world) liability for anyone that wants to play SP against this tank, or MP in this tank.  Why?  Because this tank has no real OPFOR equivalent on the field.  It's like saying, because I'm in this tank, I am now playing God Mode.  I know it's a contentious issue, and I understand the reasons put forward by the creators.  But the armour values simply push this tank into an area where without end-user modification of the CPP file, no user in MP will want to play against it.  Meaning that anyone who wants to play with it, will have to play alone in SP games.

The development and implementation of CAVS (gameplay wise)is vital to this project, to prevent it from dying out of sheer - how do I say this?  Ummm ego-bashing/namecalling/tankfanboy grudge from either side.  

The only released equivalent of the CAVs project is the Sigma range of tanks. Released so many years ago.

When Sigma released that range of tanks T-72/T-80/T-90 (with slight visual modifications, nothing fancy, just so as you could recognise the outlines etc..) he payed ALOT of attention to the CPP armour and shell values of the tank.  It was as accurate as he could make it.  

In that pack a M1a2 could destroy a T-90 with one shot, yes - that as was true, however a T-90 had a longer engagement range thanks to its bore-launched REFLEKS missile.  This was the equaliser, not the dominator.  Specialisation vs Variation.  East vs West.

I'll be honest I'm a Sigma fanboy here.  For all it's visual indifference, that pack was PERFECT.

I cannot stress how many People STILL use this pack.  Regardless of its age.  The T-90 is beautifully matched against the M1A2.

Someone in the forum said it before.  Addon makers will always be biased to their own addons.  Thus the armour value "creep" in most addons.

Inq & Homer, ORCS, RHS, DKM et all should strive to cooperate or at least say have a IMPARTIAL THIRD PARTY deal with a config that covers all recently released tanks for OFP.

This should be a SEPARATE addon altogether, so addon-makers can still have their OWN versions used and loved by the general public.  But believe me, if someone not so much evened out, but put genuine unbiased armour values for all of these tanks - people would use it in DROVES.  Which is better for all Addon makers - because face it.  We all want to be loved for our work?  Ha!

Look at FFUR, Y2K3 etc.  People use these mods to play with already released addons because some else realised the disparity of some addons vs others.  So they create a unified CPP which governs over that Mod's virtual world which doesn't contained the inevitable bias of the original addon maker.  THIS IS NOT A BAD THING.  It makes the addons which were once incompatible - compatible.

Please don't forsake playability of your amazing addons for contentious side issues and ego.

I know there has been much attacking of ORCS, Homer etc.  It doesn't need to be this way.  We're a community of very different people.  In fact, it's funny, sappy, ironic, but old national enemies become great friends online thanks to being able to blow each other to pieces in this game.

Pull together and this addon, and this game will still be awesome.

Thanks for all your work.  These are beautiful tanks.  I hope it all gets sorted somehow.   biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My data is old, but as of the 80's the USSR had a numerical advantage of 15/1 in terms of tanks vs NATO.

In 1988 a document stated that the USSR had around 53000 tanks.

On those 53000 tanks, 19500 were directed to the NATO potential front.

Counting these in all the Warsaw pact had +/- 27,500 tanks ready in West Germany , facing 10,586 NATO tanks (around 7000 combat ready).

So in the OFP years, it would have been more around a +/ 4 vs 1 ratio if an open war occured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My data is old, but as of the 80's the USSR had a numerical advantage of 15/1 in terms of tanks vs NATO.

In 1988 a document stated that the USSR had around 53000 tanks.

On those 53000 tanks, 19500 were directed to the NATO potential front.

Counting these in all the Warsaw pact had +/- 27,500 tanks ready in West Germany , facing 10,586 NATO tanks (around 7000 combat ready).

So in the OFP years, it would have been more around a +/ 4 vs 1 ratio if an open war occured.

so tell me.  How many of those are T-54/55 or T-62's.  Those are more like APC's to the modern MBT.  So your number really don't mean a whole lot. You can also add the T-72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number tells you there was a 4 in 1 ratio in a possible open war in 1988, nothing more, nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The number tells you there was a 4 in 1 ratio in a possible open war in 1988, nothing more, nothing less.

a 4/1 ratio doesn't mean squat unless they are major MBT than can hold their own. 4 T-62's would have a hard time destroying 1 M1A1. I doubt they could cause if it was open war the abrams would see them first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, the M1 Abrams had a definitive advantage on early Warsaw Pact tanks, that's obvious.

The T80 serie went in service in 1981 in USSR, so it is not unreasonnable to think there were more than simple T64 or T55 in the ready Warsaw Pact divisions in Europe in 1988, as the east goal was to overwhelm the west side on the ground, but certainly T72 and the first generations of T80.

What this 4 to 1 ratio does not tell you is that, according to the document there was an estimation of an average of 17000 NATO anti-tank missile launchers and the double for the Warsaw Pact in the area.

And for your information the NATO tanks force present in 1988 wasn't composed of Abrams only, out of the NATO 10000 tanks present in the German area, half were from the usa in which there were M1 and M60, and in those 5000 US tanks, half only were not in combat ready state in 1988.

But in the document, there is no words on what kind of air and helicopter capacities , or AA possibilities there was in 1988 for both side in the area.

That's exactly situation like this , where a nuclear dissuade policy comes in handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]so tell me.  How many of those are T-54/55 or T-62's.  Those are more like APC's to the modern MBT.  So your number really don't mean a whole lot.  You can also add the T-72.

 The Soviet Union kept their best tanks in the west pointed towards Europe. T80s, T72s and T64s. If world war II would have broke out they were not going to have their best equipment in the rear. Also do not discount the T64, the T64 was never exported and also never saw action in Afghanistan as they were all placed in Europe. The T64 was not a piece of junk.

 Also keep in mind as Sanctuary pointed out the Abrams was a new tank in the 80s. Half the US tank force was still M60 Pattons. Also many of the Abrams still had the 105MM gun, same as on the Patton. There also was no Challenger 2 yet and very few Leopard 2s. The British and West German tank forces were mostly made up of Leopard 1s and Chieftans.

*edit*

Quote[/b] ]You can also add the T-72.

Keep in mind the west has only ever fought export T72s. Russian T72s would have better quality systems and ammunition and most importantly, Russian crews. Trust me a Russian tank crew is far and way more competent of an adversary than a 3rd world gaggle of illiterate peasants who can barely grasp the complexity of armored combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sputnik Monroe takes the biscuit:

Basically I think the big misunderstanding is that people are trying to assume one tank is “better†than the other or that they are “equally†the same. If you want equally the same, IE the same tank with different skins, then play battlefield.

Sorry to ramble but I think really think all the criticism all comes down to people creating sand box missions with mirror image OOBs (order of battle). Real war isn’t like that, it’s not chess the opposing forces equipment is not identical and the numbers aren’t identical.

War wasn't fair, isn't fair and won't be fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a suggestion but you know none of my suggestions have came threw yet. An added texture for the desert. I think it would be pretty cool to have the tank in the top right. Probably would not be that hard to do either. But hey i'm just anechusarmy4_fdesisto2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop the tank comparison debates, stop the East v West debates please, such discussions are not welcomed in this thread by the makers of the addon. This thread is for discussions strictly relating to the M1A2 SEP 3.0 addon, no more, no less, please respect the addon makers by not hijacking their thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i gotta suggestion for the update: how bout making the first lod a lil more PC freindly so you dont have to warn users that placing more than one tank on the map may cause a nuclear holocaust.

althou ive only tested with several abrams on everon. 4 tanks counting me. i got 12fps. which is bareable. however what would it be like if i added some enemy tanks? some soldiers? a few objects for mission sake.

im not liking this at all. can we have a slightly "lower res" tank model. mabe get rid of some unnessacarys. like that m240 on top. or something else we dont need?

ive been talkin about implementing this into Y2K3 and im getting alot of response telling me to keep the old one because the new one lags incredibly. now ive been unable to implement it into Y2K3 due to the pbo lock, and im sure ill find a way around that soon enough and test for myself but thus far im not liking what im reading. huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×