Tank combat simulation

[Txema 0]

Is the tank combat modelled realistically in ArmA?

Is the armor thickness properly modelled, taking into account that it is different in different parts of the tank?

Is the angle of impact of a shell taken into acount in the armor penetration calculations?

Thank you very much for the information !!!

Txema

[Axelsson 0]

My guess would be that armor front/side withstand more damage than the rear. I dont think angles and stuff are calculated, but i might be wrong =)

I think the tanks blow up way to easy. They shouldnt blow, they should just cease to function, forcing the crew out (if not already dead)

[Beagle 684]

Compared to a dedicadet tank simulations ("Steel Beasts" for example) ArmA is much to difficult because of the lack of anything that is important for tank combat.

The most significant thigs are commandability (is a true horror ingame) and missing thermal imaging, real gun stabilisation, maximun gun depression in front arc and on and on.

But driving ist quite nice.

In fact this is the only aspect improved over OFP.

[Duffers 0]

They shouldnt blow, they should just cease to function, forcing the crew out (if not already dead)

This does happen, and quite frequently. Especially if you're trying to take one out with an M136.

[JFK 0]

They shouldnt blow, they should just cease to function, forcing the crew out (if not already dead)

This does happen, and quite frequently.  Especially if you're trying to take one out with an M136.

Can confirm that. Just played Dolores mission and had to take out some tanks with M136. They didnt blow, but after the second hit, the crew disembarked. Too bad, they didnt see the flash of my M4!  

[mbv 0]

Txema wrote: Is the tank combat modelled realistically in ArmA?

Compared to a true tank combat simulator that tank crews actually use in the real world like Steel Beasts the answer is definately NO.

Txema: Is the armor thickness properly modelled, taking into account that it is different in different parts of the tank?

Difficult to tell. They seem to blow up too easily arcade style for me if tank rounds hit. AT rounds from a shoulder launcher seem fairly inaccurate in that I can be stood directly to the rear or side of BMP's at extremely short range and pump 3-4 rounds in with absolutely no effect  

Txema: Is the angle of impact of a shell taken into acount in the armor penetration calculations?

Possibly, difficult to tell. I have never seen ricochet rounds though or pre-ignition by explosive reactive armour.

[Duffers 0]

Tell you what. Fire up the editor, spawn yourself with an M136, a couple of T-72s, have a go and post the results here. I'll try myself in a bit.

[Duffers 0]

I've had a little stab as I posted.  No Tank on Tank action but using an M136 to see how the armour on a T-72 would gradually degrade.

I tried to keep everything constant, using flat terrain and a fire distance of 50m, aiming for a point just below where the tank head rotates.

Overall, I found that the front was the strongest.  No matter how many times I tried, it would always take 4 direct hits with an M136 to destroy it, even at angles of 45 degrees.  The rear and sides always took 3 hits.

I then tried mixing them up.  Shooting a left side, right side and then left side again would again be a kill, as would the side, the rear and the side again.  Now I tried 2 shots on the front but interestingly it took a further 2 shots to the rear to destroy the tank (4 hits).  Shooting the side, rear and then front however, caused it to blow (3 hits).

I then got geeky and, after each hit, I jumped into the tank to record the damage colour indicators.  They ranged from WHITE (Okay) to PALE YELLOW, ORANGE, DARK ORANGE then RED, with no further colours as the tank would have gone.  The damage was also divided up into; TURRET, TANK BODY, REAR SECTION (Fuel I presume), LEFT TRACK and RIGHT TRACK.

I found that a hit to the front would make the whole tank PALE YELLOW and turn the turret ORANGE.  Where similarly, a hit to the rear would also put the whole tank PALE YELLOW but with the rear section ORANGE.  Going back to the front, a second shot would turn the whole tank ORANGE and the turret RED.  Another would make the whole tank DARK ORANGE and the turret still RED (obviously the unuseable turret would not be enough to destroy a tank).  What was the key here was that the rear section (the fuel area) still had life in it.  One more hit to the front (the 4th) and BOOM.

Still with me?

Aiming for the side the track went RED (and inoperable), the rear section went ORANGE and the rest of the tank (including the other track) were a PALE YELLOW.  A second hit still had the hit track as RED, the rest of the tank as ORANGE, but the rear section DARK ORANGE.  One more hit blew it.

In conclusion it's as you'd expect.  The fuel area at the rear is more susceptible to shots and hitting hit will destroy the tank except, you don't have to hit IT exactly, just cause enough damage to blow it.  The whole tank seemed to last up until the rear area gave up... which seems logical.

Oh, and I tried my best at deflection shots, even skimming the side of the tank but the tank was always treated as being hit directly.

Phew.

If anyone else has any different or similar findings I'd be interested in reading them.

[Axelsson 0]

Nice test =).

I was mostly meaning tank vs tanks, where sabots seems so instantly blow them up.

And arma's damage are calculated like in any "Quake" game im afraid.. Every object has a health, and every weapon has a damage number. Try the M107, its supposed to penetrate 21mm of armor (irl that is), on 500m. It does however fail to penetrate the window of a humwee.

And IMO, year 2007, you could expect a little more advanced damage system. This one works, sure, but that about it.

[Jezz 0]

The entire tank damage system should have been ripped up and thrown in the fricken bin after ofp as like ofp its nothing more than a bloody joke. Its very sad that tanks and apcs are two of biggest things infantry interact with and yet there nothing more than bloody caractures of real life with almost no improvement over ofp(they even cacked up the comanders machine gun)

[Axelsson 0]

Yet, the same guys develop VBS?, I havent played or seen that myself, but since military forces use it, i bet it has a much better system. And also, the "tanks are more vulnerable from the rear" has been in computer games since BF1942. I would have liked a bit more creative thinking in this game than just a basic OFP upgrade, which it feels like now function wise.

And i dont think the system will ever change either, since its not any small thing to change. imo, they should not use the word realistic anywhere. We got M4A1 that fire burst fire too.

Im in a crappy mood, sry for whining, but i have to =)

Still enjoy the game tho

[frederf 0]

The most fun is shooting a T-72 with an AT4 and having the crew bail out and snipe you before you can switch from AT4->M16

[Monkwarrior 0]

And IMO, year 2007, you could expect a little more advanced damage system. This one works, sure, but that about it.

Agree.

For a simulator this is quite disturbing

[Dwarden 1125]

at least something like ROO uses ...

WW2o style is way beyond what can be added this year lol ...

and SBpro ... heh keep dreaming

[Killerwatt 0]

I think to many people are tending to forget that this isn't Game2. ArmA was never meant to be anything more than an enhancement to OFP, and as such it serves its purpose admirably. Yes I had issues with the 1.05 patch but nothing a little tweaking with the settings didnt help. Stop looking for so much out of ArmA that it was never intended to deliver. Game 2 is the one that will deliver the realism in spades and right now my glass is very definately half full in the knowledge that the best is yet to come. So just relax guys and stop looking for this game to be turned into Game2.

[Second 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yet, the same guys develop VBS?, I havent played or seen that myself, but since military forces use it, i bet it has a much better system. And also, the "tanks are more vulnerable from the rear" has been in computer games since BF1942. I would have liked a bit more creative thinking in this game than just a basic OFP upgrade, which it feels like now function wise.

VBS don't have much different system than in OFP. Hitpoints infact are littlebit what is used in militarys' figures to show/calculate which weapon/ammo destorys which vehicle in what prosent. Let's say that weapon x has 50% possibily to destroy APC y ... So it's taken in to acount that two weapon's x shots are needed to destroy APC y. That is how things are calculated with HEAT. Sabot needs distance aswell, i don't know if ArmA takes this into cosideration. And BTW... You can forget ROO's system, it about ww2 and AP-rounds. Modern SABOT rounds don't deflect, they just penetrate armor compelitely or partially (gets stuck inside armor). And usual tank-combat distances in ArmA are so low that both M1A1 and T-72 (i think SLA has T-72M1 or even more modern) can penetrate each others frontal armors.

Of course military don't work only with calulations, but they also (expacely with inf-AT) encourage to shoot to sides and rear as those places are more weak than front... Now some facts i've run into In ArmA: i've managed to hit T-72's top with M136: result crew adbandons their vehicle after one hit, same happens when shooting from rear, side takes two hits, hull more... I'm fine with that. It could be bit more comlicated or even randomized, but it's fine like it is (to me).

And rest (sabots shouldn't blow etc...) are pitiful nitchpitching... Experts don't whine, they know the facts and let small unimportant things be

[Second 0]

I have to correct one thing.

SABOTs in ArmA don't have distance modifier, so they deal same amout of damage no matter what is the distance...

EDIT: Oh and unlike Duffers who tested T-72 vs. M136 to point of total destruction (tank blows up), i talked about the point where crew bails out, if someone thinks that i told loads of bull*hit in previous post.

EDIT": And i think that Duffers caught all the facts correctly... That is same what i've exprienced, althought i haven't tested it that compelitely. Fine work Duffers

[Duffers 0]

Ta.

Enough testing for me I'm afraid but to reinforce your point... On Delores (blow the bridge mission) I hit 2 T-72s each with one shot from an M136.  Each shot was to the side and caused both crews to bail.

[Jester_UK 0]

Ta.

Enough testing for me I'm afraid but to reinforce your point... On Delores (blow the bridge mission) I hit 2 T-72s each with one shot from an M136.  Each shot was to the side and caused both crews to bail.

Chances are you took a track out, which doesn't seem to have a graphical representation in game.

I saw the same thing on that mission. After taking out the crew I jumped into the tank and sure enough the track was gone.

Seems to me that AI crews are programed to bail as soon as the vehicle is immobilised. This is pretty much a good thing for lighter vehicles I suppose, but for a tank crew it's a bit extreme (depending on circumstances).

[desertfox 2]

Here's what I think should be done to create an acceptable grade of tank realism.

- More damage zones. For engines, Turret, coax MG and CITV.

- Improved CITV ( Commanders View ) with zoom option and NV

- Smoke grenades launchable

- Improved front armour against RPGs

- Chance to take out tank with one shot from rear when a certain spot is hit

- Laser rangefinder that affects the firing angle of the main gun

[causticwindow911 0]

Ta.

Enough testing for me I'm afraid but to reinforce your point... On Delores (blow the bridge mission) I hit 2 T-72s each with one shot from an M136. Each shot was to the side and caused both crews to bail.

Chances are you took a track out, which doesn't seem to have a graphical representation in game.

I saw the same thing on that mission. After taking out the crew I jumped into the tank and sure enough the track was gone.

Seems to me that AI crews are programed to bail as soon as the vehicle is immobilised. This is pretty much a good thing for lighter vehicles I suppose, but for a tank crew it's a bit extreme (depending on circumstances).

They also bail when other parts of the tank are destroyed, such as the turret. It's not just limited to specific damage.

I'm not sure why people complain about the armor realism in a game where a confrontal engagement usually means instant death. Even in a simulator like Steel Beasts, which does not have crew bail (not counting Steel Beasts II), the engagements rarely last past the first shot if it's a hit.

Someone comparing penetrative values of WWIIOL to this game is absolutely asinine. WWII armored combat was a slug fest, especially at range when sometimes they wouldn't even bother to shoot at each other if no damage could be done. That sort of intricacy is needed in a WWII simulator, sure, but there's no reason to simulate it in ArmA.

I think for an infantry sim the game does armor pretty well. It's functional and doesn't need improvement beyond some bug fixes and some added features (such as popping smoke, which would be very nice).

[Banzai! 0]

T72: Balkans on Fire. Just implement its system.

[Jezz 0]

Being able to kill tanks given enough hand grenades or using a auto grenade launcher is not exactly what i call realistic.

The problem is the entire core armour system of hit points adding up

ie

tank armour = 400 front armour

AT round = 250 penetration

one strike hit by the At round will reduce the armour by 250 so the tank only has 150 hit points left, so the next strike will competely wipe out the remaining hit points rendering tank a black smoke wreck.

The problem with this is that it is no where near realistic for this cumalative damage system to be realistic. The AT round would have to hit the exact same hole the previous round had mad, this is possible but the chance of it happening is very unlikely.

What i would have hoped to see is a system based on probability of round penetrating the armour based on tanks armour v the At rounds penetrative abilites. like

Tank armour = 400mm

AT round1 = 250mm = 30% chance

AT round2 = 300mm = 40%

AT round3 = 350mm = 60%

AT round4 = 400mm = 80%

AT round5 = 450mm = 95%

AT round6 = 500mm = 100%

The reason chance is integral is that often penetration of a round can vary largely often a AT round apfsds/heat/hesh can over or under perform its penetration figures which are generaly an average. A good example of this are the few golden shot rpg-7 rounds that have penetrated m1's in iraq or a round hiting a weaked zone of the armour such as join between different armour plates.

Armour thickness zones such as front/side/rear/top come secondary to me whats important to me is the 2+2=4 effect should be removed.

ps: and tanks being able to drive through a forest like a lawn mower

pps:

Quote[/b] ]Someone comparing penetrative values of WWIIOL to this game is absolutely asinine. WWII armored combat was a slug fest, especially at range when sometimes they wouldn't even bother to shoot at each other if no damage could be done. That sort of intricacy is needed in a WWII simulator, sure, but there's no reason to simulate it in ArmA.

you do realise there will be a large amount of ww2 mods for arma

[Jester_UK 0]

T72: Balkans on Fire. Just implement its system.

Well apart from the fact it'd potentially count as a copyright infringement, I'm wondering which system in particular you're referring to since T-72-BOF was rubbish in many respects.

Offhand I can't think of a single thing from that title worthy of copying to be honest.

[frederf 0]

A decent way to simulate an armor hit?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Tank_health = 1000

Tank_armor = 500

Hit_1 = 1200 +/- 250 (variable random range)

If( Hit_1 > Tank_armor )

{

Health_Damage = Hit_1 - (Tank_health+Tank_armor)

Armor_Damage = (Hit_1 - (Tank_health+Tank_armor))*0.1

Tank_health = Tank_health - Health_Damage

Tank_armor = Tank_armor - Armor_Damage

}

Else

{ }

This would allow a "threshold" armor for vehicles (so you need to defeat the armor in order to do any health damage whatsoever. This kind of thinking can of course be modified a dozen ways to include more reaftures like armor degredation for slightly below threshold hits, etc.