Tank combat simulation

[Jezz 0]

the problem is its a script mate

look at the lib mod its fine with one or two tanks but as soon as you start having alot of them you start to get major lag as these type of scripts activate everytime a tank is struck.

basicaly if its something that has to be done by bis

[causticwindow911 0]

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

and you do realize that the wwii mods for OFP, including the FDF eastern front mod, all worked with the system fairly well regardless. crew could die inside tanks, tanks could be disabled, etc. personally i don't feel abstraction with a hitpoint system is fatal to any kind of reality people have made up in their heads.

and like most developement crap, you can have this and that but not everything. i'd rather have a robust system than something like wwiiol, where you can't bail out of your tank, switch crew members around, etc.

[Baff1 0]

Counter measures please.

Smoke that AI can't see through.

Dsipensers and engine produced smoke.

[armored_sheep 56]

Just to clear things up:

Tanks do have hitzones called Hull, Turret, Gun, Engine, L track, R track. Those have defined various armor in config.

This way it is possible to blow tanks faster if you hit them from back (engine hit) or disable them by hiting tracks. T72 can be also blown by single RPG shot if you manage to hit the seam between turret and hull. Abrams has vulnerable back side of the turret too.

[HamishUK 0]

Just to clear things up:

Tanks do have hitzones called Hull, Turret, Gun, Engine, L track, R track. Those have defined various armor in config.

This way it is possible to blow tanks faster if you hit them from back (engine hit) or disable them by hiting tracks. T72 can be also blown by single RPG shot if you manage to hit the seam between turret and hull. Abrams has vulnerable back side of the turret too.

I would add that the Improved Chobham that the M1A1 uses it virtually impervious to MANPORT and AT5 HEAT rounds on the front of the turret and Glacis.

[Beagle 684]

Just to clear things up:

Tanks do have hitzones called Hull, Turret, Gun, Engine, L track, R track. Those have defined various armor in config.

This way it is possible to blow tanks faster if you hit them from back (engine hit) or disable them by hiting tracks. T72 can be also blown by single RPG shot if you manage to hit the seam between turret and hull. Abrams has vulnerable back side of the turret too.

I would add that the Improved Chobham that the M1A1 uses it virtually impervious to MANPORT and AT5 HEAT rounds on the front of the turret and Glacis.

Is this a hard fact or is this propaganda, like US Helos can't be shot down by russian made MANPADS ?

How comes that we were always told to keep in mind that our Leopard IIs A4 were not invulnerable to 125mm KE munitions.

And don't say Leopard IIs A4 dont play in the same League als M1A1s

Fact ist, that no M1A1 was ever shot at with high performance ammunitions.

[Sergei_Q 0]

At least they've fixed the 'feature' in OFP by which the most effective inf AT weapon were AA missiles, par AT missiles. Now a Stinger still does damage to a T-72 - unrealistic, but it does only slight damage, not the "two hits and kaboom!" surrealism.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Fact ist, that no M1A1 was ever shot at with high performance ammunitions.

Apart from the several hit by "friendly" 120mm DU rounds and

[most likely] a Hellfire missile in GW1, you mean?

[Baff1 0]

They shot up that abandoned one in Najaf or somewhere too.

you could see the sabot holes in the turret and Maverick holes with burn marks.

Embarrassingly, the reason they had to abandon it mid thunder run was because it had been knocked out by an AK-47 round to the radiator.

Abrams have been reported destroyed by C5k, RPg7 and RPG 8 shoulder launched rockets.

Including face on.

It's an old tank, but even new tanks aren't invulnerable to anti tank weapons.

[Beagle 684]

Fact ist, that no M1A1 was ever shot at with high performance ammunitions.

Apart from the several hit by "friendly" 120mm DU rounds and

[most likely] a Hellfire missile in GW1, you mean?

Yes, exept for friendly fire and testing.

Thats exacly what I never understood.

We have two Tanks (Leo II Ax & M1Ax) of very similary construction, armament and weight, similar armour configuration but the US one ist considered "invulnerable", while we were tought that a direct hit from a 125mm Maingun in the turret-front, glacier etc. might not kill us, but will definitely take the tank out of action.

[Sergei_Q 0]

From the little that I know, I think what you've been told is correct. No tank is totally invulnerable, not even from the frontal aspect if fired at with modern, powerful ammunition like tandem HEAT or improved SABOT - which is something that most 3rd world countries don't have. And then there's top attack weapons like Javelin.

I would hazard to guess that a modernized Abrams has a good chance to survive a frontal hit by a 1980's Warsaw Pact missile or SABOT, but there's also a high chance that it will be effectively disabled by that. No tanker likes to get hit, that's for sure.

[Beagle 684]

No tanker likes to get hit, that's for sure.

Here comes another weakness of ArmA as a Tank Sim, it's a single little issue with a big impact.

Main gun barrel depression is limited at something like 3 degrees.

The real thing has 9° of Depression (Leopard II), and can that for take advantage of higher Positions in a "hull down" position.

Driver would roll near the top of a hill, expose the turret only, Gunner would fire a round at target, and tank would roll back, eventually changing position if there is room for manouvering.

[D-scythe 0]

I would hazard to guess that a modernized Abrams has a good chance to survive a frontal hit by a 1980's Warsaw Pact missile or SABOT, but there's also a high chance that it will be effectively disabled by that. No tanker likes to get hit, that's for sure.

The disabled part...that's based on what...you're imagination? Sure, a tank can get disabled from just about every aspect, but if a tank gets hit and its armour *doesn't* get penetrated, what on earth would give you the idea that it would be "disabled"?

A 70 ton tank is barely going to shudder if hit by a sabot with 20 MJs of energy. The only way a tank would get disabled/destroyed is if the round *penetrates* and hits a track, engine, or something else vulnerable, like the crew. And back to the original point, the M1A1/A2 has exceptional protection in its frontal arc - the fact that the T-72 in ArmA can reliably kill it from the front in one shot is unrealistic, IMO.

Anyone know what kind of round the -72 fires in ArmA? It better be state of the art. Tanknet's numbers for tank protection levels (a useful guide, if nothing else) doesn't indicate any SABOT/HEAT rounds that can reliably penetrate the 900/1300+ mm RHAe armour of the M1A1/A2's front turret.

[max power 21]

I would hazard to guess that a modernized Abrams has a good chance to survive a frontal hit by a 1980's Warsaw Pact missile or SABOT, but there's also a high chance that it will be effectively disabled by that. No tanker likes to get hit, that's for sure.

And that's based on what...you're imagination? Sure, a tank can get disabled from just about every aspect, but if a tank gets hit and its armour *doesn't* get penetrated, what on earth would give you the idea that it would be "disabled"?

A 70 ton tank is barely going to shudder if hit by a sabot with 20 MJs of energy. The only way a tank would get disabled/destroyed is if the round *penetrates* and hits a track, engine, or something else vulnerable, like the crew. And back to the original point, the M1A1/A2 has exceptional protection in its frontal arc - the fact that the T-72 in ArmA can reliably kill it from the front in one shot is unrealistic, IMO.

Anyone know what kind of round the -72 fires in ArmA?

This is wikipedia, but it's information for your consideration:

Quote[/b] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Operation_Desert_Storm

Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but the damage was enough to send the tank to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 knocked out by an Iraqi MBT.[3]

So what he was saying was correct, according to that article.

In arma, the T72 uses ammo that BIS calls SABOT and HE, with BIS specified damage values.

[D-scythe 0]

So what he was saying was correct, according to that article.

In arma, the T72 uses ammo that BIS calls SABOT and HE, with BIS specified damage values.

Faulty. Assuming that we take Wikipedia as a reliable source, it still took 3 rounds to "disable" that M1. Three.

Secondly, that article makes no mention of which aspect the M1 was hit, nor the exact Abrams model.

[Beagle 684]

Because ist a real pain to do the fighting with the manual backup turret drive, no STAB, no Thermal Imaging etc.

Somethimes a HEAT round or warhead would not penetrate, but "weld" the Turret with the Hull...The optics and periscope might be blind oder broken... and on and on...!

You may have to restart the engine, and reallign the main gun... the Track may get broken, the engine might be on Fire etc...

Hey...tank systems cease to function often enough even in peace time conditions.

In a combat situation after a direct hit, you will be glad if you can turn around and drive back to your platoons TOC.

well...at least this are typical manouver scenarios...get your simulated hit an open the envelope...surprise!

Oh...did i mention that there are men inside that tank when it gets hit...humans, not X-men.

[max power 21]

Faulty. Assuming that we take Wikipedia as a reliable source, it still took 3 rounds to "disable" that M1. Three.

Secondly, that article makes no mention of which aspect the M1 was hit, nor the exact Abrams model.

It implies m1a1. It said the abrams was hit 3 times, it didn't say which one disabled it

"Unknown number

Turret number:5840U

Hull number:D10060[18]

Three conventional KE rounds from an Iraqi T-72 Unknown date/location Two partial penetrations on the rear turret right side (possible fire in the storage area). Cosmetical damage on the turret front DU left armor plate."

This information and much more is listed on that article, by which you could use the magic of google to find a more direct source. This entry seems to have the least information. Most of the other damaged or destroyed abrams list their serial number and details on that article.

[D-scythe 0]

Because ist a real pain to do the fighting with the manual backup turret drive, no STAB, no Thermal Imaging etc.

Somethimes a HEAT round or warhead would not penetrate, but "weld" the Turret with the Hull...The optics and periscope might be blind oder broken... and on and on...!

You may have to restart the engine, and reallign the main gun... the Track may get broken, the engine might be on Fire etc...

Hey...tank systems cease to function often enough even in peace time conditions.

In a combat situation after a direct hit, you will be glad if you can turn around and drive back to your platoons TOC.

well...at least this are typical manouver scenarios...get your simulated hit an open the envelope...surprise!

Obviously, it is bad to be hit, but you're exaggerating. As I stated before, the crew is not going to feel more than a little bump when their tank is hit by an enemy SABOT/heat round. Do the momentum/energy calculations yourself. A 70 ton tank versus a 10 kg SABOT dart going at 1700 m/s (about 20 MJ). Gee, I wonder who is going to win.

And there will be no "welding" going on. HEAT rounds don't actually use heat to penetrate - the theory is a bit complicated, but basically the HEAT warhead forms a superplastic jet that acts as a hyper-fast projectile to achieve penetration. The optics probably won't get broken, because again, the actual force imparted by an enemy weapon is not going to "jolt" a 70 ton tank that much. The engine/fuel cells actually have to be hit in order to catch fire, and most tank fuels don't catch fire when penetrated by HEAT (cause there's not really any heat, remember?). In fact, the M1 actually has fuel cells in its front hull that acts as additional protection in case the hull armour is penetrated (one to each side of the driver).

And with regards to the disabled M1 in Iraq - wow, 2 hits into the rear armour and STILL no (full) penetration. Is that bad for the M1A1?

[Beagle 684]

Quote[/b] ]Three conventional KE rounds from an Iraqi T-72.

Not very impressive this home made iraqi KEs...next time try modern russian ones.

AND...your M1A2 is "only" 60 tons...like a Leopard II A6

And I would not underestimate the follows of an impact.

O.K. the welding might be one of this sergeants tales they tell to scare you... but i dont know...they did.

[D-scythe 0]

Not very impressive this home made iraqi KEs...next time try modern russian ones.

If anything, they were outdated Russian KEs. Good guess though.

Quote[/b] ]AND...your M1A2 is "only" 60 tons...like a Leopard II A6

And I would not underestimate the follows of an impact.

Depends on whether you use metric or not. And furthermore, not gonna make a difference. 20 MJs hitting a 60 ton object is not much different from one hitting a 70 ton object. Unless you penetrate or actually hit the optics/vulnerable areas, the tank is not gonna feel it much.

[Beagle 684]

can we switch back to discuss ArmA as a tank sim...

Maybe we have some suggestions to improve the overall "feel" oft it.

Well...the driving ist good as it is...but a little to slow uphill.

[Sergei_Q 0]

I would hazard to guess that a modernized Abrams has a good chance to survive a frontal hit by a 1980's Warsaw Pact missile or SABOT, but there's also a high chance that it will be effectively disabled by that. No tanker likes to get hit, that's for sure.

The disabled part...that's based on what...you're imagination? Sure, a tank can get disabled from just about every aspect, but if a tank gets hit and its armour *doesn't* get penetrated, what on earth would give you the idea that it would be "disabled"?

I said "has a good chance to survive."

I didn't say "there is a good chance that no penetration occurs." A penetrating hit does not always result in a total write-off of the tank, especially in the case of a partial penetration.

[Jezz 0]

this may help

http://www.russianarmor.info/ check the apfsds Nomenclature page

if i remmber correctly the iraqi rounds were 3bm15 which gives penetration 340mm at 2000m

I would really like to know where bis got its data on there mythical 125mm abrams killer even 3bm46 and 3bm42m only do 650mm

[Beagle 684]

this may help

http://www.russianarmor.info/ check the apfsds Nomenclature page

if i remmber correctly the iraqi rounds were 3bm15 which gives penetration 340mm at 2000m

I would really like to know where bis got its data on there mythical 125mm abrams killer even 3bm46 and 3bm42m only do 650mm

This numbers are all very rough approximations...even the crews often don't really know the "true" numbers in armour protection/penetration...and those numbers often represent optimum conditions.

the truth is still secret...like diving deepths of submarines etc.

Modern NATO KE are rated at above 1000mm RHA...but who knows for real?

[Sergei_Q 0]

Well...the driving ist good as it is...but a little to slow uphill.

It's also crazy when going downhill - the tank can accelerate to warp speed when you drive down a steep slope. I know that MBT's can drive fast, but that's on road - off road it's a bit less practical, and suspension would be having a rough time at the kind of speed they can achieve in ArmA.

Not only that, but if at that speed you turn the tank 90 degrees, it stops almost instantly. Not surprising, but when you do this quick stop on a steep mountain slope, the tank would in reality capsize (can a tank capsize?). As it IRL would if you just parked it sideways on that same slope. Right now in game, tanks never fall over like cars sometimes do (unless assisted 'little' with explosives). But that's a minor point.

The tank steering in OFP/ArmA feels a little bit hyper sensitive to me. T-72 can rotate a full 360 degree turn on place in less than 5 seconds. I don't know if that's possible IRL, but I would think the transmission would be hard pressed to react so quickly to the driver's controlling?