More Armor to Abrams

[Beagle 684]

This "my beloved Abrams tank is invulnerable" kind of discussion won't help to point to an gaming improvement with a future patch.

[4 IN 1 0]

i think the problem is that while many ppl say the M1 could withstand an RPG fire from different directions, they didnt know the fact that what kinds of warheads is being used, AFAIK the warheads we see the most is the HE and fragments type, which is, as it name, an RPG mainly to due with personal, and could do limited damage to a tank, but over the years there has been a lot more different types of warheads being made for the good old RPG like HEAT,

as a side note, if you know the way, with the total expolsives of one IEDs you could do much more damage then the IED itself

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

First of all I would like to have 4 men crew in M1A1/2s Commander+loader use AUX-MGs, Gunner the aligned MG.

They do not have auto-loaders like the russians.

The current Abrams is real like a single seat AH64...

The armor vs. warhead interaction discussion here is useless because:

- BI decided that they do not provide a "normalization" kind of value-set representing an exact value in the RL (e.g. that you could calc with speed (at impact) and bullet weight the impact energy. Hence it is almost impossible to bring addons of different addonmakers together in a (reality)-based way.

- Things like tandem heads vs layered armor are impossible to simulate with the current engine

- the damage models are to simple to address weak points like turret base as in RL.

So the old fashioned way:

like DVD-mod or WGL or FDF there will be an in itself fairly consistent config for all used weapons which are still far away from reality - but more is not possible - not with the ArmA engine.

[4 IN 1 0]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

First of all I would like to have 4 men crew in M1A1/2s Commander+loader use AUX-MGs, Gunner the aligned MG.

They do not have auto-loaders like the russians.

The current Abrams is real like a single seat AH64...

The armor vs. warhead interaction discussion here is useless because:

- BI decided that they do not provide a "normalization" kind of value-set representing an exact value in the RL (e.g. that you could calc with speed (at impact) and bullet weight the impact energy. Hence it is almost impossible to bring addons of different addonmakers together in a (reality)-based way.

- Things like tandem heads vs layered armor are impossible to simulate with the current engine

- the damage models are to simple to address weak points like turret base as in RL.

So the old fashioned way:

like DVD-mod or WGL or FDF there will be an in itself fairly consistent config for all used weapons which are still far away from reality - but more is not possible - not with the ArmA engine.

well its not a game design only as a tank sim

[HamishUK 0]

http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-to-kill-abrams-tank.html

And a possible solution we are working on for the future:

Quote[/b] ]Electric Armour

The threat – RPGs

Believe it or not the most prolific mobile threat to the UK’s armoured vehicles does not come from enemy tanks, fighter jet squadrons or ‘tank buster’ helicopters, but the humble shoulder-mounted rocket launcher.

A Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) can cause as much damage to an armoured vehicle as a heavy-duty landmine and may even destroy a £3m main battle tank outright if it penetrates the right areas.

Yet RPGs cost from $10 per unit for the most basic model to about $50 for a top-of-the-range example and have been devastatingly effective in hot spots such as Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone.

RPGs use a ‘shaped charge’ warhead, which explodes on contact with its intended target, shooting a rapier-like jet of hot copper into the target at several miles per second.

This jet can penetrate anything up to a foot (30cm) of solid armour steel - no mean feat for something no bigger than a pineapple.

But the real damage occurs as the jet emerges into the cabin, accompanied by shrapnel from the vehicle hull walls travelling at several times the speed of sound. Engines can be destroyed, fuel and ammunition can explode and, worse of all, lives can be lost.

“Personnel carriers and many tanks are simply unable to carry armour thick enough to prevent penetration from RPGs,†says Professor John Brown, leader of the Dstl’s armour specialists at Fort Halstead.

“No fighting vehicle is able to carry such impracticably thick plating. So, for many years scientists have sought to add extra protection to basic vehicles in the form of add-on material packs such as Chobham Armour, originally developed in the 1970s at Dstl Chertsey.â€

But purely ‘passive’ unpowered armours like Chobham are only effective to a certain point and the emphasis in modern warfare is shifting towards lighter, more manoeuvrable vehicles.

“The MOD has said it wants armoured vehicles that are 70% lighter and 50% smaller,†adds the group leader in the armour department.

“They need to be easily transportable by air and swift into battle on the ground. This is just not possible with the bulky armour we have today, so a new solution must be found – which is where our electric armour comes in.â€

The answer: Dstl electric armour

Researchers have long pondered the best way to protect fighting vehicles and the advent of Chobham armour was a milestone - the world's first workable measure restricting projectile damage.

Other add-on armour types include explosive armour, detonating on the outside of the tank when impacted and cancelling out the energy of the warhead. Its unfortunate side effect is to send debris in all directions, often towards troops and the impacted vehicle itself.

Composite armour is another example, using ultra-strong polymers and ceramics to protect vehicles. These composites are lighter than conventional armour, but are relatively costly and difficult to engineer at present.

Conventional advanced armour usually employs a two-layer system, where an incoming projectile explodes on the first layer and penetrates, emerges into an air space beyond and disperses before hitting the next layer. This greatly reduces damage compared with single stage armour, but Dstl has come up with a novel variation on this ‘spaced-plate’.

“With our electric armour, the outer skin of metal plates can be rapidly electrified to several thousand volts when danger threatens,†explains Prof. Brown. “When hit by an RPG or other shaped charge warhead, the incoming copper jet has to pass through the electrified layers. Once there it has to endure the passage of many thousands of amperes of current.

“As we all know, a current of just 13 amps is sufficient to 'blow' and disintegrate the fuse of a household electrical appliance. Similarly, the high-speed copper jet from the warhead is almost instantaneously dispersed by the high temperatures and powerful fields generated by the so-called 'Pulsed Power System' carried by the vehicle. Any residual debris is absorbed by the vehicle's ordinary armoured hull.â€

Despite the simplicity of the Dstl team’s theory, first mooted in the 1970s, perfecting the technology has set exacting scientific and engineering problems. Only now have sufficiently compact and powerful capacitors and other factors made electric armour workable.

The entire system, consisting of bulletproof metal plating, insulation, power distribution lines, and storage capacitors, weighs just a couple of tonnes, but delivers an equivalent of 10-20 tonnes’ extra armour plating.

And it is powered by the normal electrical supply of the vehicle - the electrical load imposed by stopping an RPG attack is only as much as starting the engine from cold!

Proving the concept

The MOD’s need for a more lightweight armour option led to collaboration with US defence colleagues and a demonstration to high level representatives from both sides of the Atlantic.

A target vehicle was subjected to heavy RPG attack, but sustained no internal damage and then drove away under its own power, despite force sufficient to destroy other vehicles many times over

[Richieb0y 0]

no just leave it how it is i test it so much and always theres a new outcome between M1A1 and T-72 so its fine whit me

[Second 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 22 2007,22:42)]RPG-2 was used in the Vietnam Era though... none are in use, all replaced by RPG7 - even by guerillas.

Sorry, i typed it wrong: i ment RPG-20 (place some number in place of 0 or keep it as it is ) Thanks for correction.

General mumbling:

That bounced off thing could have been tail of missile... And there is ERA in Merkava... And projectile was coming in steep angle (~45 degree), so it was not 90 degree hit.

And let's remeber that T-80 had to be shot average 6 times to destroy it with PRG-7... When 90% of those hit T-80's weak points without ERA-elements! So modern tanks are tough in general.

@INNOCENT&CLUELESS: You must be last person who knows that M1A1 isn't realistic in game... btw: Neither is T-72. No, go and have fun with Steel Beasts to get picture of how arcade ArmA is in area of armored combat. btw: You'll love that infantry part in Steel Beasts

[Beagle 684]

no just leave it how it is i test it so much and always theres a new outcome between M1A1 and T-72 so its fine whit me

Ähm...definitely no...there are still issues besides armor values that are much more anoying.

[avi13 0]

About the missile hitting the merkava, It was Metis-M[AT-13], Russian anti tank weapon which is allot more powerful then your typical 20$ RPG warhead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metis-M

But that discussion is fruitless, We're not talking about the game.

The only proper solution right now is to implement a modeled-damage system, Meaning your tank will never go kaboom when an RPG hits its wheels but rather disable it and only allow direct hits on the turret-joints to inflict a massive boom, And back-hits will cause the tank to catch fire and explode in a delayed matter.

[Beagle 684]

The only proper solution right now is to implement a modeled-damage system, Meaning your tank will never go kaboom when an RPG hits its wheels but rather disable it and only allow direct hits on the turret-joints to inflict a massive boom, And back-hits will cause the tank to catch fire and explode in a delayed matter.

That will never happen, so it has to be done with what is already in there.

[avi13 0]

Beagle this is 2007, this isnt 2001

I played OFP since day one, back then I was willing to accept its short-comings as technology difficulties but after so long, you can expect BI to change the damage models.

I don't see how exactly its hard to implement we're not asking for rocket weight or acceleration/deacceleration to be modeled in, Whats so hard about giving each part of the tank a different armor value, and only when certain parts combined or alone reach 0 then it explodes - Instead we get a "5-hits no matter where" system that feels like its a decade old..Is that a real combat simulation?

But /shrug, I still love this game.

[Beagle 684]

Currently it's 1 hit no matter where...!

Aim at the lowest part of T-72s Track and it will explode immedately.

This is because of to strong ammo values.

The damage Model in OFP apeered to be more subtle because no shell hat a higher damage value as a whole MBT.

[max power 21]

Is that a real combat simulation?

It's not a real combat simulator. It's a game. I'm not saying that what you're asking for is out to lunch, but this reason is irrelevent since ArmA is not a real simulator. It is software for entertainment.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

@ second: I am not the LAST one recognizing this, I am the ONLY one asking for this permanently.

I guess an addonstudio will do it finally. There is no problem with 4 men crew, only that the max platoon size would be 15 tanks for M1Ax compared with 20 tanks for an eastern tank with 3 men crew.

Basically with ArmA 4 men crew is possible, loader would just use one MG and a script must make sure that the loader does not fire its MG during and xx seconds after reload of the main gun. ANd of course if loader is dead, no main gun.

Quote[/b] ]

It's not a real combat simulator. It's a game. I'm not saying that what you're asking for is out to lunch, but this reason is irrelevent since ArmA is not a real simulator. It is software for entertainment.

Sounds 1:1 like Suma. But in advertisement every 2nd word is simulate or simulation...

[Beagle 684]

In fact it is still the ultimate combat simulation GAME.

Jack of all trades but excels at nothing.

[dm 9]

There is no problem with 4 men crew, only that the max platoon size would be 15 tanks for M1Ax compared with 20 tanks for an eastern tank with 3 men crew.

Where the hell did that "limit" come from?

I've tested with over 40 AI tanks under my control and had no problems.

[Second 0]

@ second: I am not the LAST one recognizing this, I am the ONLY one asking for this permanently.

I guess an addonstudio will do it finally. There is no problem with 4 men crew, only that the max platoon size would be 15 tanks for M1Ax compared with 20 tanks for an eastern tank with 3 men crew.

Sounds 1:1 like Suma. But in advertisement every 2nd word is simulate or simulation...

And what would that loader do? Press "r"-button, so that gunner can have his Sabot/HEAT-shot? That would be tiresome thing to do... Result: "Oh noes! our loader is sleeping or having smoke!" Think that in MP + Platoon has only 3-4 tanks...

And as Beagle just said: it's still the ultimate combat simulation aka game on the markets... ArmA is not military software or even better: military hardware simulator (turret of MBT attached to computers, laser-transmitters to rifles/AT-launchers etc...) So no problem with what Suma said... Or do you know anybetter game-simulation, i'm going to try that game-simulation imediatly if there is... But remeber: you cannot compare it to ArmA if it just one-trick-pony like flight sims. ArmA is something like: flight-halfsim + Tank-halfsim + infantry-almostsim. Steel Beasts is only (by my knowledge) which has those three in same package, but infatry- and flight-parts are very-very marginal in terms playablity in Steel Beasts...

[M9ACE 0]

But, the commander should have the same zoom levels as the gunner 4x and 10x magnification.

You are wrong on a few points here, but I will only address a couple of the things you have mentioned.  First, refer to my post in the following thread for the real and accurate values:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....4;st=75

And now my altimes favoriter since good old Operation Flashpoint...Main Gun Depression and Main Gun Depression and Main Gun Depression again.

I always tend to catch me a true mental depression because of this.

It makes me much to often helpless against a enemy popping up and close range (or far range or medium range) that is more than 3 degrees lower than me...!

Since firing from cover is a basic thing in tank combat, such a basic tactic is impossible to use in "the most realistic combat simulation".

I now what the problem is that made the Devs restrict the maximum depression...but since the Main Gun already digs into the rear this should not matter anymore.

Make it at least 5 Degrees (10° is the real Value for M1A1) to overcome the worst.

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.

...I my eyes as a former MBT and later armored recon vehicle crewman...

Yes, for German AFVs and not US.

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

[CS]SOBR[1st-I-R], I can assure you no single RPG will take out a Merkava Mark 4 tank or M1A1 and make it go kaboom like it does right now in ArmA - Thats what I'm talkin about if i got sidetracked.

About the movie, seems like i placed the wrong link..?

Anyway, it shows you a merkava mark 4 taking a hit from a missile aimed at its joint, and as you see it bounces off, not exploding fully - without causing it to go kaboom as shown in the link you posted above, and in ArmA right now.[the crew members survived but with some injuries]

I never said that a tank would fully explode when its penetrated. It always depends on what the HEAT copper jet hits inside the tank. Take my quote:

Quote[/b] ]If a missile can pierce (or even destroy) a Merkava, than it would be the Kornet.

You see that I make a difference between pierce and destroy ?

I by the way fully agree to walker and Innocent & Clueless. And concerning that video:

To me it looked like three ATGMs were fired at the tank and one RPG. The first two hits were ATGMs (due to speed and explosion power), the third was an RPG, and the fourth hit (last 1-2 seconds) was again an ATGM probably. And these rounds can not bounce of at all, because this is HEAT. Only SABOT rounds can in certain angles be deflected.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]

It's not a real combat simulator. It's a game. I'm not saying that what you're asking for is out to lunch, but this reason is irrelevent since ArmA is not a real simulator. It is software for entertainment.

Sounds 1:1 like Suma. But in advertisement every 2nd word is simulate or simulation...

It is the ultimate combat simulation for home entertainment (perhaps besides VBS1). There is nothing like it available to the electronic entertainment consumer. It is *more* simulator than other games but it's not a pure simulator.

It's the same for il2. Il2 1946 has some very complicated simulations. You should see the charts, graphs, device link readouts, and scientific experiments that their users use on the forums to help the devs make it more realistic. It's a fairly realistic game but at the end of the day it's game software.

[whisper 0]

Currently it's 1 hit no matter where...!

Aim at the lowest part of T-72s Track and it will explode immedately.

This is because of to strong ammo values.

The damage Model in OFP apeered to be more subtle because no shell hat a higher damage value as a whole MBT.

You mean a 1 hit with which ammo? Cause I don't see this behavior with man portable ArmA AT weapons, apart from Javelin.

Most AT weapons damage on tank tracks I've seen are like you described, ie disable tank movement.

Am I playing a wrong version of the game?

[Beagle 684]

...with M256 sabot !

[whisper 0]

Right! OK. Better have that precisely said because most of the discussions before talk about RPG hits and RPG videos, so it got me confused

[Beagle 684]

Would'nt it be nice to come to a conclusion on needed improvements within the restriction of the ArmA engine...

Somethign like ten points that should be improved by the views of some guys that at least have some basic practical knowlege of RL tank related things and form some kind of petition to the devs...!

[BLSmith2112 0]

I thought BIS learned the world of balancing issues with OFP.. I wonder what happened between now and then.