Tank combat simulation

[Jezz 0]

if you look at my earlier post you will see i made exactly that point that penetration figures are normaly averages or estimates

[Beagle 684]

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?

Never heard of capsize, but of damaged suspensions because of 70km/h cross terrain driving...and of an incident in driving school.

The driver approached a steep hilltop. The Instructor sait "Stop"...

The Driver missheard this for "Stoff" which ist german slang for "Full Throttle"...well, the barrel dig deep into the ground and the turret was pushed a bit out of the turret ring.

It is quite easy to do harm to a tank if you're inside of it.

[frederf 0]

I like how if you're driving a T-72 at top speed and turn to the side roughly you can drift like in InitialD. Whee.

[D-scythe 0]

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.

All KE/HEAT weapons "partially" penetrate - the damage occurs if it fully drives through the tank armour with enough energy left over to kill/damage whatever is on the other side. Saying that a "penetrating hit does not always result in a total write-off of the tank, especially in the case of a partial penetration" is an obvious statement - HEAT/KE rounds almost never just bounce off tank armour without penetrating at all.

In any case, back to your original point of the M1 being "disabled" by an 80s tank round despite "having a good chance of surviving"...yeah, don't agree with it. There aren't even weapons now that can reliably disable/destroy an Abrams from the frontal aspect. According to the best guesses extrapolated from public-accessible data, the rounds with the best chance to penetrate the M1A1/A2/SEP's armour are the M829E3 or DM-63 fired from an L55.

Even then, you're looking at ~800 mm of RHAe penetration @2km versus 900-960 mm of KE RHAe protection. Sure, these numbers are just guesses, but it tells you that even current rounds would have trouble punching through the M1's armour. It's therefore completely justified to be doubtful that a T-72 would be able to reliably destroy an Abrams with one shot.

[max power 21]

I saw a video that I can't locate again, unfortunately, depticting some m1 abrams armour tests vs. shaped charges. After the blast, a jet of flame lept from the armour and continued to burn like a rocket motor. The flames lasted longer than the end of the (short) video. It stands to reason that if this effect is possible, and that if that test was indeed a shaped charge, that some kind of welding could be possible if the melting point of chobham is lower than the temperature that it (or whatever it was that was burning) burns at.

It is also possible that that cautionary tale was simply describing damage to the turret ring.

[Second 0]

Even then, you're looking at ~800 mm of RHAe penetration @2km versus 900-960 mm of KE RHAe protection. Sure, these numbers are just guesses, but it tells you that even current rounds would have trouble punching through the M1's armour. It's therefore completely justified to be doubtful that a T-72 would be able to reliably destroy an Abrams with one shot.

What parts of frontal side of turret are protected by this amount of protection? I know cases that T-72's has been penetrated with BMP-2s 30mm cannon, when it hits weak parts of frontal turret. The question is which are weakest points in M1A1's frontal turret? And don't forget that latest M1A1's still has (if i remeber correctly) under 600 RHA protection on their frontal hull.

Then again some T-72s have most modern russian guns (it's hard to talk about T-72 only as there's massive variety of different models of T-72s: i can't remeber even half of them)... Hell some of them even have 120mm L47 or L55. I don't know which model of T-72 the SLA has, or which model of M1A1-series USMC has in ArmA? Maybe it's HA with something about 600-700 RHA.

And then again T-72 in ArmA can't destroy M1A1 with single shot (crew just bails out and so M1A1 becomes disabled)... It takes two shots... Which is too few when we are talking about destroying armor, but maybe not when talking about knocking out armor (when it shouldn't catch fire, only become "broken" or maybe crew just panics and rushes out from tank).

D-scythe:

Btw... Are you a IRL tanker? Just asking so that i know am i talking to real expert or just to wikipedia "expert". There is big difference between those two.

[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.

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.

I should have clarified my statement. The current list of MANPORT HEAT rounds and the AT5 (in-game) does not penetrate the frontal arcs on the M1A1 or Challenger (I & II) in real-life.

We did some large scale tests at Warminster using MILAN and older gen RPG's whilst testing Chobham in the mid 1980's. The external metal sheath of the Chobham armour was pitted but not penetrated. Further tests showed the ceramics resisted the super-hot gases as was expected.

I did not say that main gun rounds would not pierce. The armour does have a very high resistance on the frontal arcs at certain ranges. That information is however classified.

The effectiveness of Chobham armour was demonstrated in the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003, where no Coalition tank was destroyed by either the obsolete Iraqi armour or ATGWs. In some cases the tanks in question were subject to multiple hits by both KE-penetrators and HEAT rounds, but the old Russian ammunition used by the Iraqis, in their Polish licence built T-72s, their old T-55s bought from Russia and upgraded with "Enigma" type armour, and T-62 tanks left them completely incapable of penetrating the front armour of Coalition tanks. It is also worth noting that the Iraqis rarely actually hit the Coalition tanks, because of lack of training and inferior optics. To date, only 5-10 Chobham-protected tanks have been defeated by enemy fire in combat, including an M1 that was hit on the side skirts, below the turret ring by a PG-7VR, a tandem charge RPG, in the Iraq War. The jet penetrated the skirting armour and side hull armour, then traversed across the tank's interior and finally penetrated 1.5 to 2 inches into the hull armour on the other side.

Let's not even go into the much more effective British 'Dorchester' armour that has now replaced Chobham as the Challenger II's protection.

[M9ACE 0]

…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...

That is similar to the M1A1.  In real life the M1A1 can traverse 100 degrees to the left and to the right of the tank's centerline and depress the main gun (and of course the COAX) 9.5 degrees.  

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

M1A1 and all later models are well over 60 tons.

Please refrain from going off topic, next thing we know this thread will devolve into a best tank in the world thread (I hate those threads).

On Topic:

I am disappointed that the only functional improvement that armored vehicles are portrayed with as having a working commander's weapon.  I had been hoping that they would include the ability of armored vehicles to lay their own smoke screen that is effective against not only human opponents, but also AI opponents.  

Admittedly I have been enjoying the game overall, it just makes it easier for me to promote ArmA to certain individuals I know when various subtleties are modeled in the game.

[HamishUK 0]

@ Mar. 16 2007,15:48)]On Topic:

I am disappointed that the only functional improvement that armored vehicles are portrayed with as having a working commander's weapon.  I had been hoping that they would include the ability of armored vehicles to lay their own smoke screen that is effective against not only human opponents, but also AI opponents.  

Admittedly I have been enjoying the game overall, it just makes it easier for me to promote ArmA to certain individuals I know when various subtleties are modeled in the game.

+1

A few fixes to the Armoured vehicles would actually make them much more useful in all-arms combat.

Maybe these are forthcoming?

[D-scythe 0]

Quote[/b] ]What parts of frontal side of turret are protected by this amount of protection? I know cases that T-72's has been penetrated with BMP-2s 30mm cannon,when it hits weak parts of frontal turret. The question is which are weakest points in M1A1's frontal turret? And don't forget that latest M1A1's still has (if i remeber correctly) under 600 RHA protection on their frontal hull.

No, even the baseline M1A1 today has been vamped up to M1A2 armour specs. The current version of the M1A1 is the M1A1HA+/HC - armour "rated" @ around 900/1300 mm RHAe against KE/CE.

And I've stated that of course it's possible to destroy/disable *any* tank from *any* aspect with *any* (hard-hitting) weapon. The question is if a weapon can reliably accomplish this. Yes, the M1 Abrams does not have uniform protection in its frontal arc, but that doesn't give a T-72 reason to *reliably* disable/destroy it in one shot.

Quote[/b] ]Then again some T-72s have most modern russian guns (it's hard to talk about T-72 only as there's massive variety of different models of T-72s: i can't remeber even half of them)... Hell some of them even have 120mm L47 or L55. I don't know which model of T-72 the SLA has,or which model of M1A1-series USMC has in ArmA? Maybe it's HA with something about 600-700 RHA. <!--QuoteEnd]Btw... Are you a IRL tanker? Just asking so that i know am i talking to real expert or just to wikipedia "expert". There is big difference between those two.

My answer's irrelevent - I could tell you that I'm a tanker, but I could be a fake and you wouldn't be able to tell. Or I could be a real tanker and just bs'ing you and you'd also be none the wiser. Experience has taught me to look for facts, not a personal resume.  

FYI, not a tanker. Arm-chair wannabe for sure, also probable enthusiast. And I have no problem admitting that - I can think of few things more dangerous than driving a tank into battle. Those things are magnets for enemy weapons, and the crews that ride 'em have my respect.

My only point is that an M1A1 being repeatedly disabled from the frontal aspect by a T-72 of any model is not realistic.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

Funny how people who habe virtually no idea about armoury, penetration values and tank rounds are discussing such a complicated issue

[MugHug 0]

Just an informed ArmA player here.

It seems that the decision to not upgrade the T-72 in OFP to either the T-80 or T-90 in ArmA was short-sighted. While not being an expert, I suspect that the alternatives would at least be more balanced.

I know there are various views on the realistic aspect of tanks in ArmA, but I did expect more improvement to this aspect of the game.

From BIS's point of view, maybe it's an issue of game play balance such as the class issue in games such as Everquest or SWG!! Think about it before you dismiss the idea because there are similarities. Do we really know what motivated BIS to have it the way it is?

If this is the case, maybe the message to BIS is that many of us play ArmA because of what it simulates and would accept an adjustment in the game play balance if it takes us one step closer to the real experience.

Just my view, but hopefully something to think about.

[Second 0]

My only point is that an M1A1 being repeatedly disabled from the frontal aspect by a T-72 of any model is not realistic.

That's most likely true. If It's latest M1A1... SLA has SU-37s so why couldn't USMC have M1A1 (not HA or later version)

Quote[/b] ]Or I could be a real tanker and just bs'ing you and you'd also be none the wiser. Experience has taught me to look for facts, not a personal resume.

Just asked as usually when i start to argue with someone who has been trained in armored unit, he usually crushes me with hard based facts. So i try not to poke in their area of expertiece... Ofcourse some times i can't resist temptation and i end-up crushed again. Well anyways your points are true, it is probably too usual that M1A1 ends up disabled after one hit.

Then again one point is that if ArmA doesn't have side or back of turret modelled (as Armored Sheep said), then this would be somekind compromice, insuficcent thou.

[Second 0]

EDIT: Douple

[SHWiiNG 0]

well i dont know much about Tanks but i still think the Tanks in ARMA feel too light.. too quick, too slippery when moving..

[Second 0]

well i dont know much about Tanks but i still think the Tanks in ARMA feel too light.. too quick, too slippery when moving..

And they can drive about 80 km/h in every terrain...