More Armor to Abrams

[Beagle 684]

@ Heatseeker

MBT vs. MBT (if both are of comparable class) ist in fact just like gunman vs. gunman, and should be that way...i always hated the "seafight style" tankbattles in OFP.

The different kind of damage still happens.

But the useless Commander view, and the useless HEAT are really somthing that needs to be changed.

[Heatseeker 0]

@ Heatseeker

MBT vs. MBT (if both are of comparable class) ist in fact just like gunman vs. gunman, and should be that way...i always hated the "seafight style" tankbattles in OFP.

The different kind of damage still happens.

Could you elaborate on this a little more? .

[Beagle 684]

@ Heatseeker

MBT vs. MBT (if both are of comparable class) ist in fact just like gunman vs. gunman, and should be that way...i always hated the "seafight style" tankbattles in OFP.

The different kind of damage still happens.

Could you elaborate on this a little more? .

What exactly is so unclear in my above statement...?

[zyklone 1]

Where do people keep getting the idea that tank battles are huge affairs where hit after hit is scored but the tank keeps going?

The first one to hit wins, It's that simple.

The difference between vehicles is mainly if the crew is alive after a hit or not and if the vehicle can be repared.

[HamishUK 0]

Where do people keep getting the idea that tank battles are huge affairs where hit after hit is scored but the tank keeps going?

The first one to hit wins, It's that simple.

The difference between vehicles is mainly if the crew is alive after a hit or not and if the vehicle can be repared.

Probably because M1A1's and Challengers were hit a number of times on the front glacis and avoided any significant damage.

[Heatseeker 0]

@ Heatseeker

MBT vs. MBT (if both are of comparable class) ist in fact just like gunman vs. gunman, and should be that way...i always hated the "seafight style" tankbattles in OFP.

The different kind of damage still happens.

Could you elaborate on this a little more? .

What exactly is so unclear in my above statement...?

If you score a hit on a T72 will it blow up in flames just like that, can 1 single hit completely kill/disable a tank no matter where it hits?

edit: My experiences ingame...

Both T72 and M1 have the same armour but the M1 fires a more powerfull round.

The M1 can kill another M1 with one hit.

The T72 can completely kill one M1 with one shot in the ass but it doesnt matter because no matter where you hit you will disable it.

I placed one M1 sideways and shot its main gun with another M1, it blew up in flames just like that .

[Beagle 684]

Where do people keep getting the idea that tank battles are huge affairs where hit after hit is scored but the tank keeps going?

The first one to hit wins, It's that simple.

The difference between vehicles is mainly if the crew is alive after a hit or not and if the vehicle can be repared.

Probably because M1A1's and Challengers were hit a number of times on the front glacis and avoided any significant damage.

Hit by what...?

High grade KE Penetrators, triple HEAT rounds...?

I doubt that because non of the coalition forces in thas last decades was confronten with high grade equipment.

I've served with a german heavy armoured recon battalion (LeoIIA4 & Luchs ARV) in the "Fulda gap" area for 18 months till 1994...we manly still trained in the good old cold war fashion in this times.

Since tha collapse of the DDR our army had access to all kind of russian hardware...some of that hardware was good enough to serve on the "blue" side for some years.

The so called "western technological superiority" on the battlefield turned out to be just Propaganda...this kind of superiority was never reached because of the sheer number of MBTs and IFVs we were faced against.

And you have to keep in mind that anything the western military industrie develops, forces the development of a russian or chinese counterpart.

In fact this makes balancing easy for BIS, since you are not faced by old iraqui export Hardware in this game...just consider it the newest and hottes stuff the red side has... as we as soldiers actually did in cold war.

O.K....they could have made that T-72 a T-90 and all that wining would be less.

[Sugsilla 0]

O.K....they could have made that T-72 a T-90 and all that wining would be less.

How about T72 vs M1, T80 vs M1A1 and T90 vs M1A2?

But mainly I must agree what Beagle already say’s in first page of this conversation. There is lots of things that are missing in Arma’s tanks. Some of them should be even nice add for this game, adding some realism and adding some challenge for players. Now I get feeling that tanks are kind of addon for a infantry game. Of course if they are modelled too detailed this will be tank game so finding nice balance out there is challenging. Those sub systems would also make nice add for damaged equipment lists, that its not only armour or tracks that can fail under firefight.

[max power 21]

Where do people keep getting the idea that tank battles are huge affairs where hit after hit is scored but the tank keeps going?

The first one to hit wins, It's that simple.

The difference between vehicles is mainly if the crew is alive after a hit or not and if the vehicle can be repared.

Probably because M1A1's and Challengers were hit a number of times on the front glacis and avoided any significant damage.

Hit by what...?

High grade KE Penetrators, triple HEAT rounds...?

I doubt that because non of the coalition forces in thas last decades was confronten with high grade equipment.

Wikipedia claims that the m1a2's (or whatever) they were using in the gulf conflict and the iraw war were hit by non-radioactive KE penetrators fire by t72's that achieved partial penetration, but no internal damage or injuries.

[Beagle 684]

Where do people keep getting the idea that tank battles are huge affairs where hit after hit is scored but the tank keeps going?

The first one to hit wins, It's that simple.

The difference between vehicles is mainly if the crew is alive after a hit or not and if the vehicle can be repared.

Probably because M1A1's and Challengers were hit a number of times on the front glacis and avoided any significant damage.

Hit by what...?

High grade KE Penetrators, triple HEAT rounds...?

I doubt that because non of the coalition forces in thas last decades was confronten with high grade equipment.

Wikipedia claims that the m1a2's (or whatever) they were using in the gulf conflict and the iraw war were hit by non-radioactive KE penetrators fire by t72's that achieved partial penetration, but no internal damage or injuries.

M1A2 compares to M1A1 like a original 79er Porsche 911 to a 2007er one.

Non radioactive KE penetrators...that part alone is like a joke...!

Ranges from something like hardened HSS steel to hardmetal tungsten carbide (DM-53 APDFS)

O.K. Just before you ask, who is that "Beagle-guy" and where does he get his (slightly outdatet) infos regarding armoured operations and technologie from...Not from Wikipedia !

I have already mentioned that I served als crew in the armored branch. however thats not all. Additionally after my serving time I worked at KMW (the manufacturer of nearly all armoured vehicles of the Bundeswehr)as trainee and afterwards for a company that made the engeneering for the climatic system for the first leopard II tanks, which got upgraded for thr KFOR Missions. I rise my informations from my time serving als soldier and from my later work with armored vehicles. This gossip of unpenetratable armor applies only if one from our nice end new MBTs is shot at with old ammunition from old Guns... we won't uparmor the vehicles every few years at high financial expenditure if it would still be sufficient to the improved ammunitions on the world wide Weapons market (primary russian made ones). The real data from shooting tests is top secret as is the real armour thickness and composition.

[Jack-UK 0]

Well seeing as im not too knowledgeable on what should destroy an abrams or something i cant really comment as a fact...

But should an Abrams really survive 3/4 AT4s before exploding?

[Beagle 684]

Well seeing as im not too knowledgeable on what should destroy an abrams or something i cant really comment as a fact...

But should an Abrams really survive 3/4 AT4s before exploding?  

It is at least O.K. for the hitpoint/hitzone based damage system in this game.

OFP was definitely worse...the whole "exploding immediately when armour is at zero" thing is not a very good depiction of a tank taken out of action anyway...but hey..this is a game.

A game that needs a bit tweaking to have at least a bit more life-like mission outcome.

BTW: I'am taking over the data from Leopard II to M1 since even the US-Army settles them in the same class and they use the same Gun and STAB System.

[D-scythe 0]

Where do people keep getting the idea that tank battles are huge affairs where hit after hit is scored but the tank keeps going?

Cause that's what tanks are armoured for...?

Hit by what...?

High grade KE Penetrators, triple HEAT rounds...?

I doubt that because non of the coalition forces in thas last decades was confronten with high grade equipment.

Hit by their OWN weapons. On several occasions Abrams were shot at by other Abrams, and Hellfire/Maverick missiles. None were penetrated in their frontal arc.  

The so called "western technological superiority" on the battlefield turned out to be just Propaganda...this kind of superiority was never reached because of the sheer number of MBTs and IFVs we were faced against.

What on earth are you saying here?

Your first sentence: there is NO western technological superiority.

Your second sentence: this technological superiority was neutralized by the Russian strength in numbers.

So...what is it? Was there or was there not a technological superiority?

[Heatseeker 0]

Back to square zero..

Quote[/b] ]

OFP was definitely worse...the whole "exploding immediately when armour is at zero" thing is not a very good depiction of a tank taken out of action anyway...but hey..this is a game.

Thats the point im trying to make, in OPF there were numerous times where a tank would look 100% destroyed but it wasnt.

A tank could survive one hit or even 2 but a turret hit could disable the turret, the main gun and kill the gunner or the commander while damaging other parts.

In Arma 1 shot = Adios tank! Gameplay wise it kinda sucks, realism wise <span style='color:red'>i dont know</span>, but i would like to know... .

[max power 21]

Where do people keep getting the idea that tank battles are huge affairs where hit after hit is scored but the tank keeps going?

The first one to hit wins, It's that simple.

The difference between vehicles is mainly if the crew is alive after a hit or not and if the vehicle can be repared.

Probably because M1A1's and Challengers were hit a number of times on the front glacis and avoided any significant damage.

Hit by what...?

High grade KE Penetrators, triple HEAT rounds...?

I doubt that because non of the coalition forces in thas last decades was confronten with high grade equipment.

Wikipedia claims that the m1a2's (or whatever) they were using in the gulf conflict and the iraw war were hit by non-radioactive KE penetrators fire by t72's that achieved partial penetration, but no internal damage or injuries.

M1A2 compares to M1A1 like a original 79er Porsche 911 to a 2007er one.

Non radioactive KE penetrators...that part alone is like a joke...!

Ranges from something like hardened HSS steel to hardmetal tungsten carbide (DM-53 APDFS)

O.K. Just before you ask, who is that "Beagle-guy" and where does he get his (slightly outdatet) infos regarding armoured operations and technologie from...Not from Wikipedia !

I have already mentioned that I served als crew in the armored branch. however thats not all. Additionally after my serving time I worked at KMW (the manufacturer of nearly all armoured vehicles of the Bundeswehr)as trainee and afterwards for a company that made the engeneering for the climatic system for the first leopard II tanks, which got upgraded for thr KFOR Missions. I rise my informations from my time serving als soldier and from my later work with armored vehicles. This gossip of unpenetratable armor applies only if one from our nice end new MBTs is shot at with old ammunition from old Guns... we won't uparmor the vehicles every few years at high financial expenditure if it would still be sufficient to the improved ammunitions on the world wide Weapons market (primary russian made ones). The real data from shooting tests is top secret as is the real armour thickness and composition.

Well, at least it eliminates depleted uranium. I don't know of they're going to do a metallurgic analysis on every round they get hit by.

The poster said that some m1's and challengers were hit in direct action and weren't damaged. I'm simply providing you with an example of what he might be talking about.

So regardless of the truth of your statement, what he's saying is absolutely true... however that truth may not be transferable to the vehicles we see in armed assault.

[Beagle 684]

@ D-scythe

I wanted to say that the battlefield dominance throug technology wold not have worked back in the 80s.

@ Heatseker

There comes the old OPF problem...if you just increase the Hitpoints in general it would also streghten the back to much.

This was always the problem why we did never took our Tanks for unbeatable...middle europe is not a flat desert and the evil empire will not always shoot at your front.

I think the whole problem here ist that BIS hast choosen to call the OPFOR MBT T-72... just T-72

btw. they have choosen to name the NATO MBT M1A1...not M1A1HA or M1A2SEP

I'm sure that M1A1 vs. T-90 would be considered more "balanced"...but in fact both can use the same ammunition.

The main problem in ArmA is that they have stripped anything from the M1A1 that make it superior to an old T-72...and thats not just armor rating.

It would not make the game better in terms of "realism" to make the M1A1 a sabot eating Knife to cut through anything else.

Btw. that M1 hit by maverick was scrap metal...the picture floated around the internet for some times like the story of that M1A2 that got penetrated from the side by "something unindentified" in Iraq last Year.

We have to forget about this diametrical Comfrontation thing in this game...this is not Coallition vs. Iraq.

It's rather Old US MBTs against upgraded T-72 (but why dont they look like...?)

My fear is that changing the armour values would bring back the old OPF Problem...Someone remember "M1 Tank Platoon II" vs. "Steel Beasts"...in Tank platoon the M1 was overrated, in Steel Beast ist seems right.

My suggestion is to reduce the 125mm Sabot value, and to increase the 125mm Heat Value more than the 120mm HEAT value since russian HEATS tend to be the primary Round...triple hollow charge HEAT Warhead vs. Western single and double Hollow charge.

The M1 ist not to weak. The T-72 is to strong.

Just pumping up the M1 armour value would screw anything up.

And this "hit but not damaged"...I said it before...this would not happen with high grade ammunition..and i just pretend that SLA Tanks use the new hot and fresh russian imports for their T-72.

[D-scythe 0]

I wanted to say that the battlefield dominance throug technology wold not have worked back in the 80s.

So you're saying, it wouldn't have worked...because the Soviets had greater numbers to balance that out the technology gap that existed?

Btw. that M1 hit by maverick was scrap metal...the picture floated around the internet for some times like the story of that M1A2 that got penetrated from the side by "something unindentified" in Iraq last Year.

That is absolutely false. The Maverick just made a tiny little hole. I would dig up the picture, but I'm sure you can use google.

BTW, that Abrams was hit not only by a Maverick. It got some SABOTs and laser-guided bombs as well.

And something did penetrate an M1 in Iraq - through its side skirt. It was believed to be a lucky hit from an PG-7V-series weapon. In the end, it doesn't matter - the tank was fully functional and the crew was fully capable.

[Beagle 684]

I wanted to say that the battlefield dominance throug technology wold not have worked back in the 80s.

So you're saying, it wouldn't have worked...because the Soviets had greater numbers to balance that out the technology gap that existed?

Exactly. This and the fact that neither Leos or Abrams are completly invulnerable to Russian MBTs.

When did T-72, T-80 and T-90 open fire on Nato Tanks the last time...?

Why was I alway told that a hit can take the tank out of combat action...just for scaring the crew...?

Why did the Leo and the M1 got heavily uparmored twice in the last 10 Years ?

Because armour and weapons technologie advances...not only in NATO countries...!

A tank is not a solid block of steel, but a sophisticated machine that can be taken out of action quite fast by breaking its weakest parts...something that can't be simulated in this game I think.

[max power 21]

Btw. that M1 hit by maverick was scrap metal...the picture floated around the internet for some times like the story of that M1A2 that got penetrated from the side by "something unindentified" in Iraq last Year.

That is absolutely false. The Maverick just made a tiny little hole. I would dig up the picture, but I'm sure you can use google.

BTW, that Abrams was hit not only by a Maverick. It got some SABOTs and laser-guided bombs as well.

And something did penetrate an M1 in Iraq - through its side skirt. It was believed to be a lucky hit from an PG-7V-series weapon. In the end, it doesn't matter - the tank was fully functional and the crew was fully capable.

You can find some great stuff on wikipedia very easily, even if it's not to be trusted as a primary source.

Quote[/b] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_tank

This is the summary (scan) detailing Abrams B-23's damage. Note that this text mentions two rounds hitting the Abrams, the first of them (a shaped charge weapon) being probably an AGM-114 Hellfire missile blast through the rear grill doors, while the second unknown round is almost certainly that depicted in the ballistic's sketch, likely from an Asad Babil gun. The damage taken from this second hit, as is described in this unclassified article, was catastrophic. In effect, other sources hint that, besides C-12, at least another tank was penetrated by APFSDS shells[12].

This quote is a little in terms of clarity but I thought I would give some context as to what they're attempting to use that scanned document to say.

[Beagle 684]

Crew survivability is and was always the heel point in this games series.

The T-72 alway had weak cast and welded armor, a single hit should always disable it and set it on fire.

Some OPF Mods had it balanced quite good..don't remember the names of them.

@ plainstiff

Nice findings

Nachtrag:

The present setting is that we have a 1986 M1A1 without precipitant uranium increased armor vs. a late 1970s T-72B with latest APDSF Rounds.

The russian 2A26M2 125-mm Smoothbore Gun is despite its age, still considered high ballistic with high armor-piercing performance depending on ammunition.

Seems fair so far...but Crew survivability of the M1A1 is badly modeled.

How could Tankig be made more real besindes playing with hitpoints...?

Give commander back the OPF zoom option.

Give the "radar" to the gunner to emulate thermal Imaging.

Give the M1A1 9° of main gun depression and 6° to the T-72 so that both can take advantage of hull down positions on higher gound.

Give M1A1 higher sensor range than T-72.

Don't make M1A1 the invulnerable fortress it never was

something else...?

[Heatseeker 0]

A concensus?

For the improvement of tank gameplay in Arma BIS could:

[*] Slight increase in M1A1 armour.

[*] Increase the damage of the heat shell.

[*] Decrease the damage caused by the sabot shell.

[*] Clean those damn sights/optics!

[*] Add zoom to the commanders optics.

The external view of the T72 turret MG is terrible.

The T72 as a 125mm cannon, the M1A1 a 120mm. I dont know the diference betwean the shells used in M1 and T72 tanks... ingame the M1 cannon is more... powerfull, armour wise they seem to be the same, i havent checked the config.

T-72

M1A1

hmm...

[Beagle 684]

I've read something like M1A1=1000, vs. T-72=750...like in OFP.

Exept increase of M1A1 I agree with you.

oh...and remove the gun barrel from the BMP-2 Optics.

By the way...this site has nicer Picturs than FAS

http://www.enemyforces.com/tanks.htm

[lilwillie 47]

The Abrams discussion again. Well, I might as well put my .02 worth in.

I think for gameplay the Abrams has been "dumbed down" or "unarmored" to equalize it in the field. Even the fourth tanker is removed since it is the loader I guess they where deemed unnecessary for gameplay even though that loader runs the left side/driver 240 gulf when they are turned out which is aside the TC .50 cal. We also are missing Thermals...which is something that possibly has to do with the game engine.

With the T-72, it has been upped some. If memory serves the older T series does not have a load system that allows the turret to stay travesed during reloading. It must go back to the straight forward to reload it's main gun.

Quote[/b] ]

The actual numbers of Abrams M1 and M1A1 tanks deployed to the Gulf War (according to official DOD sources) are as follows: A total of 1,848 M1A1 and M1A1 "Heavy Armor" (or HA) tanks were deployed between the US Army and Marine Corp (who fielded 16 M1A1's and 60 M1A1(HA) tanks).

During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

That's just A1's. Which is what we get to play with so that's all the focus I'm using in the quote above from globalsecurity.com . I'm not saying it's the greatest tank in the field today, but it has a impressive track record in battle. The platform is so good that General Dynamics refurbishes the old. Any Abrams damaged in battle or it's service life used up is sent back and completely overhauled with whatever systems the branch of service uses. That itself shows that the powers that be have confidence in it's survivability rate.

[Beagle 684]

I'm not saying it's the greatest tank in the field today, but it has a impressive track record in battle.

...against a smaller number of old and malequipped and undertrained iraqi export and license build T-72s & T-55s...it never met something of it's class in the field...thats makes the M1A1 look so impressiv on the paper.

In this terms even the M-60 was impressive...in Israeli service.

[lilwillie 47]

I'm not saying it's the greatest tank in the field today, but it has a impressive track record in battle.

...against a smaller number of old and malequipped and undertrained iraqi export and license build T-72s & T-55s...it never met something of it's class in the field...thats makes the M1A1 look so impressiv on the paper.

In this terms even the M-60 was impressive...in Israeli service.

Nor arguement. Which was why I didn't call it the greates tank in the field. That hasn't been determined IMO.

But T-72's is what we are fighting against in ArmA so the track record stands. I'm sure the Iraqi T's are down armored and not as well equiped and built as the Russian versions.

Just as the Abrams systems sold to other countries are down built.

So with your statement above it could be safe to say the SLA T-72's wouldn't be top notch when compared to Russia's T-72?