More Armor to Abrams

[Jezz 0]

the SLA T-72's are either export T-72M1(most likely) or russian T-72A niether of which are particularly good against any modern mbt.

Both the t-72M1 and A versions are essentially the same with notable exception of armour inserts being of higher quality on the russian varients but this is no where near enough to bridge the gulf between it and the M1A1. For that you really need a T-80U or T-72B(1988) aka T-72BM but even then there not fully a match.

Quote[/b] ]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.

You are confuseing main gun elevation with turret traverse in your memory i think.

Early T-62's had a problem where during the shell ejection cycle the main gun was raised in elevation but the gunner sight was also raised which made it impossible to watch the shot land unless the shell ejection system was deactivated, this was solved on on later production varients by disconecting the gun sight from the guns elevation during the ejection cycle and then relinking the two after it was complete. The T-64/72/80 all had a similar system from the very first production models.

[Beagle 684]

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?

Of course it is. Since North Sarahni is the one and only nation to get the hottes Russian equipment even before the russian army itself

Hey...they have Ka-50 Hokums and Su-34s

Of couse this is fictional...hey..the whole ArmA world is fictional..so they can put together what serves the game balance best...at least we do not see some SciFi Hardware.

[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?

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.

Beagle, lemme get this straight...you're saying in the Cold War, Western tanks did have the quality, but the Soviets had more than enough quantity to make up for it.

But in ArmA, you're advocating that we keep the T-72 and M1A1 exactly the same quality-wise? Why can't the T-72 make up for its lack in quality with quantity?

To throw in my 2 cents, the whole hit point system is obsolete and outdated - a new damage system that takes into account penetration should be implemented IMO. Something like Steel Beasts Pro PE, but obviously less complicated and detailed.

The hit point system is what I'd expect to find in Pokemon, not ArmA.

[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.

Beagle, lemme get this straight...you're saying in the Cold War, Western tanks did have the quality, but the Soviets had more than enough quantity to make up for it.

But in ArmA, you're advocating that we keep the T-72 and M1A1 exactly the same quality-wise? Why can't the T-72 make up for its lack in quality with quantity?

To throw in my 2 cents, the whole hit point system is obsolete and outdated - a new damage system that takes into account penetration should be implemented IMO. Something like Steel Beasts Pro PE, but obviously less complicated and detailed.

The hit point system is what I'd expect to find in Pokemon, not ArmA.

But I doubt that this hitpoint system will be droped.

I have allready said what i had to say.

I also admitted that they picked the best from "modern" Russia (Uhm..why the hell a T-72...I really cant defend that any longer) and the mediocre from west to keep the game in balance.

Seems fair from the gaming point of view...

I also pointed at a solution for the problem, without dropping the game engine or bumping up armor values, that would screw up the portable AT-Weapons.

I'm sure there will bee soon some LeoIIA6 and M1A2SEP Addons...then you have your rollinf fortesses...but still the crappy ArmA limitations that are worse than armour values.

at current state the M1 is already superior to the T-72...!

btw...this was always subject to change with every second patch in OPF. Let's just see what the future brings. I consider this game as still in development but not as o far off from real world comparable values as OFP in the beginning.

[funnyguy1 0]

The problem with ArmA and it's tanks is nor armour values, its missing capabillities that would make the difference.

like:

~thermal imaging systems

~computer assisted main gun system with Laser range finder

~real horizontal & vertical stabilisation depending an computed point of impact

~real main gun depression values like 9° for taking advantage of hull down positions.

~faster speed uphill

~maximum governed speed on flat and downhill terrain

~water fording ability without "exploding"

~and on and on and on

Armour values would be much less of a problem then, because in real life you avoid to be hit anyway.

If you are hit, the show ist probably over for you, even if the tank ist not destroyed.

marry me

With missions and gameplay like that It's hard to complain about the armor...

The engagement ranges are too low for modern MBTs, and tanks usually pop up 3m behind or in front of you. So it's kinda hard to kill them anyway. Besides, the AI isn't able to spot anything within a decent range.

It's like: Hey Northern guys, we have quite modern gear here, but would you like to play a little WW2 with us? We'll throw away everything what's useful from our tanks, except for the main gun, engine, tracks, the nomatterwheretheyhit lethal sabot rounds and some armor. Also we have some retired staff here, they're almost blind but want to play the old good ww2 again.

Evil voice of a unnaturally excited commentator, speaking fast with the mood hardrock-like music in the background:

Two teams, north and the southern coalition, have just begun a war... They got rid of the hi-tech equipment, to fight for their lives like a R-E-A-L tough guys...Blind...Deaf...Aaand totally mad. Watch it everyday, on ArmA TV.

[lilwillie 47]

Evil voice of a unnaturally excited commentator, speaking fast with the mood hardrock-like music in the background:

Two teams, north and the southern coalition, have just begun a war... They got rid of the hi-tech equipment, to fight for their lives like a R-E-A-L tough guys...Blind...Deaf...Aaand totally mad. Watch it everyday, on ArmA TV.

That's pretty good, thanks for the laugh this morning

[whisper 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?

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.

Beagle, lemme get this straight...you're saying in the Cold War, Western tanks did have the quality, but the Soviets had more than enough quantity to make up for it.

But in ArmA, you're advocating that we keep the T-72 and M1A1 exactly the same quality-wise? Why can't the T-72 make up for its lack in quality with quantity?

We cannot keep them the same because at the moment they are absolutely not equal.

M1 is faster, has a better ammunition, a better armor, reloads faster.

The only equivalences are detection ranges. In every other aspect the M1 is better, and by a fair margin. There's only 1 point where T-72 has the upper hand, it's the number of ammos.

So currently in ArmA, you better balance OPFOR by numbers, because their tanks are inferior.

I'm not saying it's bad, it's a rather good depiction of what you'd see IRL.

1 shot-kill in tanks vs tanks fights today are common. Tank armor are mainly helping against infantry and light calibers, today. In a tank vs tank confrontation (between nearly equal opponents), the winner is not the best armor, it's the one that avoids being shot at.

And most of the current tactics in modern tank fighting currently can't be done. ArmA Tank fighting is WWII-style. THIS is the real problem

[Beagle 684]

marry me

Oh...sorry but I'm already married

[D-scythe 0]

Quote[/b] ]We cannot keep them the same because at the moment they are absolutely not equal.

M1 is faster, has a better ammunition, a better armor, reloads faster.

The only equivalences are detection ranges. In every other aspect the M1 is better, and by a fair margin. There's only 1 point where T-72 has the upper hand, it's the number of ammos.

So currently in ArmA, you better balance OPFOR by numbers, because their tanks are inferior.

I'm not saying it's bad, it's a rather good depiction of what you'd see IRL.

1 shot-kill in tanks vs tanks fights today are common. Tank armor are mainly helping against infantry and light calibers, today. In a tank vs tank confrontation (between nearly equal opponents), the winner is not the best armor, it's the one that avoids being shot at.

And most of the current tactics in modern tank fighting currently can't be done. ArmA Tank fighting is WWII-style. THIS is the real problem

I disagree - it's not always one shot one kill. Sure, EVERYONE wants to avoid getting shot at, and that SHOULD be the number 1 priority, but getting shot at (especially at the frontal aspect) doesn't automatically mean game-over for the tank crew.

Tanks are ARMOURED for a reason. They are DESIGNED to take a beating (usually from the front) and either fight back or retreat. Saying that tanks are mainly armoured against infantry weapons is, no offense, a stupid and fact-less statement. There is absolutely NO evidence that one shot always equal one kill - sure, the guy who gets the first shot would have the overwhelming advantage, but this is a tactical advantage, not a physical one with regards to armour.

Abrams' SABOTs cannot even penetrate contemporary Abrams' armour from the frontal aspect during Desert Storm. In fact, if you go to Tanknet and look at their numbers, you'd see that the neither the T-90, M1A2, Chally II or Leo 2A6 has any weapon to penetrate THEMSELVES 100%.

[Baff1 0]

A small note on numerical superiority.

In the historical engagements of M1's vs T72, it was the M1's that had numerical superiority. Not the T72.

Not to mention air, artillery and LAV support.

They were unable to ascertain what killed the enemy tanks in the gulf as they had all been hit by an overwhelming amount of various different ordinances.

Weight would be a nice thing to model. M1's collapse bridges that T72's don't.

I would like to see longer zooms on the tank optics. I should be able to engage my targets at 4 km.

[Barely-injured 0]

Ok guys i know that the armor and penetration values are a bit off in ArmA but dont you think that in the current tank combat situations these things are kind of irrelivant.

I mean as mentioned before tank combat now is almost on WWII standards. I think we should fouces more on getting proper laser range finders and computer aided aiming simulation, maybe using scripts or any other clever solution.

You see once we get these things working we will be able to have proper tank engagments with proper ranges, and only THEN will these things that you guys are fighting about will be able to play a more significant role in deciding the outcome of a tank battle.

All I am trying to say here is that we should get our priorities .... checked.

[Beagle 684]

We In fact, if you go to Tanknet and look at their numbers, you'd see that the neither the T-90, M1A2, Chally II or Leo 2A6 has any weapon to penetrate THEMSELVES 100%.

But if you go to "Rheimmetall" you would find out that this is not true anymore.

120 mm L55 Tank Gun

And of course...this is typical corporate propaganda.

[Rhodite 3]

Thought I would toss in something for the debate.

1. Engagement ranges of Western and Eastern Block kit

2. If you want to modify armour values.. shouldnt it be balanced accross the board? a unified Armour Value System?

[max power 21]

Ok guys i know that the armor and penetration values are a bit off in ArmA but dont you think that in the current tank combat situations these things are kind of irrelivant.

I mean as mentioned before tank combat now is almost on WWII standards. I think we should fouces more on getting proper laser range finders and computer aided aiming simulation, maybe using scripts or any other clever solution.

You see once we get these things working we will be able to have proper tank engagments with proper ranges, and only THEN will these things that you guys are fighting about will be able to play a more significant role in deciding the outcome of a tank battle.

All I am trying to say here is that we should get our priorities .... checked.

I disagree with you. Everything would be nice but I don't think we should hault this discussion because of some other problem.

[Beagle 684]

The end of any discusson should ideally be a consensus...!

[Barely-injured 0]

Ok guys i know that the armor and penetration values are a bit off in ArmA but dont you think that in the current tank combat situations these things are kind of irrelivant.

I mean as mentioned before tank combat now is almost on WWII standards. I think we should fouces more on getting proper laser range finders and computer aided aiming simulation, maybe using scripts or any other clever solution.

You see once we get these things working we will be able to have proper tank engagments with proper ranges, and only THEN will these things that you guys are fighting about will be able to play a more significant role in deciding the outcome of a tank battle.

All I am trying to say here is that we should get our priorities .... checked.

I disagree with you. Everything would be nice but I don't think we should hault this discussion because of some other problem.

I am sorry if I didnt make my post clear, I am merely saying that taking care of those "other problems" as you call them will make the current discussion actually worth while but that doesnt mean that we should end it, hault it or ignore it altogether.

[og.. 0]

Would editing the shell config so that they fly straight emulate the lase/shoot feature? Thoughts?

[D-scythe 0]

Quote[/b] ]But if you go to "Rheimmetall" you would find out that this is not true anymore.

120 mm L55 Tank Gun

Just for the sake of being argumentative, how is this not true? Yes, I know this is all classified, but let's go on what little information/speculation that the public has to go on. I said that according to Tanknet, the Leo 2A6 cannot penetrate itself - this implies that using the L55 120mm gun that comes standard to ALL Leo 2A6s, one 2A6 cannot penetrate/destroy another 2A6 with a single shot 100% of the time. (Note I did NOT say it would NEVER penetrate on the first shot, just that it's not likely).

In fact, although the figures are classified, there isn't really any solid evidence that the DM53/63 tungsten SABOT is even competitive with the Leo 2A6's armor - it's physical properties (length, diameter, mass, etc.) just don't measure up, even considering the increased muzzle velocity (from the L55) and adiabatic shear characteristics of the tungsten penetrator.

And then you consider the Chally II, which really doesn't have an outstanding APFSDS round; and the Ukrainian T-80-derivatives or Russian T-90 (where there's not really any substantial information of any SABOTs after the 3BM42M) and you're left with the M1A2 SEP and the M829A3 DU round, widely believed to be the most powerful SABOT in service. However, according to the numbers, even the M829A3 should not be able to kill a M1A2 or Leo 2A5/6 in one shot from the front 100% of the time.

I'm not saying that one shot kills don't happen - just that it's not likely to happen EVERY single time when hit from the FRONT. Again, getting your round on target before the enemy should give you an advantage, but a tactical one (rather than physical) if that first round doesn't penetrate and destroy your target.

[Beagle 684]

Would editing the shell config so that they fly straight emulate the lase/shoot feature? Thoughts?

No...would not.

Remember... the L44/M256 has high hit probability at full speed terrain manouvering against fast moving targets, in fact you dont aim the Gun...you just mark the target.

and a laser like trajectory is as far off as the whole hitpoint problem that make only minimum difference between front side or rear hits...it just substracts the hit value from the whole tank.

becaus of this fact higher armour values are the wronmg way...this turns the Tank into a rolling fortress from all aspects.

[Beagle 684]

Quote[/b] ]But if you go to "Rheimmetall" you would find out that this is not true anymore.

120 mm L55 Tank Gun

Just for the sake of being argumentative, how is this not true? Yes, I know this is all classified, but let's go on what little information/speculation that the public has to go on. I said that according to Tanknet, the Leo 2A6 cannot penetrate itself - this implies that using the L55 120mm gun that comes standard to ALL Leo 2A6s, one 2A6 cannot penetrate/destroy another 2A6 with a single shot 100% of the time. (Note I did NOT say it would NEVER penetrate on the first shot, just that it's not likely).

In fact, although the figures are classified, there isn't really any solid evidence that the DM53/63 tungsten SABOT is even competitive with the Leo 2A6's armor - it's physical properties (length, diameter, mass, etc.) just don't measure up, even considering the increased muzzle velocity (from the L55) and adiabatic shear characteristics of the tungsten penetrator.

And then you consider the Chally II, which really doesn't have an outstanding APFSDS round; and the Ukrainian T-80-derivatives or Russian T-90 (where there's not really any substantial information of any SABOTs after the 3BM42M) and you're left with the M1A2 SEP and the M829A3 DU round, widely believed to be the most powerful SABOT in service. However, according to the numbers, even the M829A3 should not be able to kill a M1A2 or Leo 2A5/6 in one shot from the front 100% of the time.

I'm not saying that one shot kills don't happen - just that it's not likely to happen EVERY single time when hit from the FRONT. Again, getting your round on target before the enemy should give you an advantage, but a tactical one (rather than physical) if that first round doesn't penetrate and destroy your target.

O.K. heren comes a tanker tale...!

There is still a weakness in alle modern tanks also from the front aspect..just another thing that ArmA cant model...the archilles heel of all tanks...the joint (dont know the right english expression) beetween Hull and Turret...!

My sergeant always said that this is the best spot to aim at... and the L44,L55,M256 has the precision to do so...!

[og.. 0]

Quote[/b] ]No...would not.

Remember... the L44/M256 has high hit probability at full speed terrain manouvering against fast moving targets, in fact you dont aim the Gun...you just mark the target.

and a laser like trajectory is as far off as the whole hitpoint problem that make only minimum difference between front side or rear hits...it just substracts the hit value from the whole tank.

becaus of this fact higher armour values are the wronmg way...this turns the Tank into a rolling fortress from all aspects.

Think you missed my point m8, nvm.

[Beagle 684]

Quote[/b] ]No...would not.

Remember... the L44/M256 has high hit probability at full speed terrain manouvering against fast moving targets, in fact you dont aim the Gun...you just mark the target.

and a laser like trajectory is as far off as the whole hitpoint problem that make only minimum difference between front side or rear hits...it just substracts the hit value from the whole tank.

becaus of this fact higher armour values are the wronmg way...this turns the Tank into a rolling fortress from all aspects.

Think you missed my point m8, nvm.

Im sorry...!

What was your point ?

[og.. 0]

Ok, let me rephrase; would people rather have the old "bracket fire, adjust elevation" shooting we have now, or replace it with a feature that simulates the lase/shoot-hit option (which I assume could be simulated ingame by having very flat trajectories).

If there actually are features that can simulate the lase accuratly ala Steel Beasts id love to have that of course, but as we know, compromises between actual 100 percent realistic features and what we have ingame do exist....... so, would the compromise do?

(I mention nothing about armour values in here btw).

[Beagle 684]

Ok, let me rephrase; would people rather have the old "bracket fire, adjust elevation" shooting we have now, or replace it with a feature that simulates the lase/shoot-hit option (which I assume could be simulated ingame by having very flat trajectories).

If there actually are features that can simulate the lase accuratly ala Steel Beasts id love to have that of course, but as we know, compromises between actual 100 percent realistic features and what we have ingame do exist....... so, would the compromise do?

(I mention nothing about armour values in here btw).

I really like the fact that the Projectiles have a physical trajectory...there is nothig wrong with this.

It's just like aiming with the Auxiliary sight, but without the range marks.

This would ruin one of the few good parts of this game.

Misfire could not happen any more and high forward flanking would be no good tactic agaist "entrenched" or otherwise stationary tanks anymore.

There we habe another fault... in this game you are often forced to stop and shoot...

[Heatseeker 0]

Ok, its impossible to reach a consensus...

I dont have SB... but im sure many of you armoured maniacs do and im going to presume that SB is a great and relatively acurate simulation (heck, the military use it).

Can anyone do some tests and post the results here?

Armour/damage and shell penetration using both the M1A1 and the T72...