More Armor to Abrams

[gregorygreghalstead 0]

With all due disrespect to anyone who didn't understood the M1A1 Abrams.

I recalled reading an autobiography of General Fred Franks done by Tom Clancy, the VII corps commader in the frst gulf war and in one of the chapters it stated clearly "RPG rounds were bouncing off the tanks armour", "Most Iraqi tank rounds were just scratching the pain off the abrams"

These were real after action reports...but thean again that's real life,

this IS just a game....

[Beagle 684]

I suggest you read the older posts.

Iraqi Euqipment doesn't count since this is not a "USA invading Iraq" game.

AND reality has shown often enough that M1Axs can be taken out as any other modern MBT can.

Aditionaly, as statet before, both Iraq campaings were a "reversed Fulda gap" szenario.

[max power 21]

With all due disrespect to anyone who didn't understood the M1A1 Abrams.

I recalled reading an autobiography of General Fred Franks done by Tom Clancy, the VII corps commader in the frst gulf war and in one of the chapters it stated clearly "RPG rounds were bouncing off the tanks armour", "Most Iraqi tank rounds were just scratching the pain off the abrams"

These were real after action reports...but thean again that's real life,

this IS just a game....

What rounds, what tanks, what angle? Earlier in the thread I found an excerpt from a report that clearly showed an iraqi sabot round going inside the side of an m1a1 abrams and out the other.

[NoRailgunner 0]

The RPG-7 was first delivered to the Soviet Army in 1961. Why BIS taking such "old" weapons?

Maybe this weapon fits more:

The RPG-29 entered service with the Soviet army in 1989.

More Armor to Abrams?? You still need 3-4 RPG-7Vs to take this vehicle "out of duty" in ArmA.

Tank battles (+50MBTs on each side) on sahrani - dream on. Where they came from ("Scotty...beam me up"?! and the last great tank battles were in WW2.

[Beagle 684]

The RPG-7 was first delivered to the Soviet Army in 1961. Why BIS taking such "old" weapons?

Maybe this weapon fits more:

The RPG-29 entered service with the Soviet army in 1989.

More Armor to Abrams?? You still need 3-4 RPG-7Vs to take this vehicle "out of duty" in ArmA.

Tank battles (+50MBTs on each side) on sahrani - dream on. Where they came from ("Scotty...beam me up"?! and the last great tank battles were in WW2.

In 1988 the State Research and Production Enterprise "Bazalt" was the first in Russian and the world practice to solve the problem of creating antitank grenade launcher rounds capable of engaging combined (composite), screened and explosive reactive armor protection through the development of a radically new tandem warhead and a new PG-7VR round comprising this type of WH for firing from the RPG-7V grenade launcher. So far the PG-7VR does not have analogs in the world.

Maybe that why it is still in Service.

The launcher has not developed much since the 1960s but he round has.

[frederf 0]

I suggest you read the older posts.

Iraqi Euqipment doesn't count since this is not a "USA invading Iraq" game.

AND reality has shown often enough that M1Axs can be taken out as any other modern MBT can.

Aditionaly, as statet before, both Iraq campaings were a "reversed Fulda gap" szenario.

Why not? The SLA is equipped as well if not more poorly than iraqis when it comes to RPGs.

We're arguing that a M1A1 is invincible... just that this particular anti tank weapon made in the 70s is not as lethal against one of the most advanced MBTs ever made as the game makes out.

[Beagle 684]

I suggest you read the older posts.

Iraqi Euqipment doesn't count since this is not a "USA invading Iraq" game.

AND reality has shown often enough that M1Axs can be taken out as any other modern MBT can.

Aditionaly, as statet before, both Iraq campaings were a "reversed Fulda gap" szenario.

Why not? The SLA is equipped as well if not more poorly than iraqis when it comes to RPGs.

We're arguing that a M1A1 is invincible... just that this particular anti tank weapon made in the 70s is not as lethal against one of the most advanced MBTs ever made as the game makes out.

The fictional SLA has Kamov 50 and Sukhoi 34...they are not poorly equiped.

This would also mean they have the newest RPGs and 125mm Ammunitions.

Don't forget, M1A1 is a old tank with very conventional armor layout. It's no M1A1HA or M1A2.

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

With all due disrespect to anyone who didn't understood the M1A1 Abrams.

I recalled reading an autobiography of General Fred Franks done by Tom Clancy, the VII corps commader in the frst gulf war and in one of the chapters it stated clearly "RPG rounds were bouncing off the tanks armour", "Most Iraqi tank rounds were just scratching the pain off the abrams"

These were real after action reports...but thean again that's real life,

this IS just a game....

What rounds, what tanks, what angle? Earlier in the thread I found an excerpt from a report that clearly showed an iraqi sabot round going inside the side of an m1a1 abrams and out the other.

Hey Plain can you please post that post again or PM me the link, Id like to have a look at that. Thanks.

[max power 21]

It's on page 3 of this thread.

[mechastalin 0]

80s era Russian ammo in a T-72S export tank can penetrate anywhere on the M1A1 and M1A1HA at several km. And the T-72S can be penetrated anywhere by the M1A1's gun with the exception of those with ERA upgrade kits which can have a 100% chance of deflecting the shell depending on the ammo used by the Abrams.

The tank balancing in ArmA seems fairly realistic to me.

[4 IN 1 0]

morden tank are designed to the point that it could take very heavy punch but not invincible(which is very very unrealistic TBH), but if shits really happens, the crew safity came first, tank itself, orthrough expensive, is a machine after all

if i am the crew of that poor M1 i would take atless one thing even a small piece of armor fragments with me just to say "thx buddy, you saved my life."

[Second 0]

The fictional SLA has Kamov 50 and Sukhoi 34...they are not poorly equiped.

This would also mean they have the newest RPGs and 125mm Ammunitions.

Not if they have wasted their hardware-budget to couple of Kamovs and SU-34s

[Beagle 684]

The tank balancing in ArmA seems fairly realistic to me.

You are on the right point it's just the big difference in the grade of technologie that ist not depicted right in ArmA, like gunner thermal sight and full 3 axis gun stabilisation and compensation at full speed.

But let's see what the new Patch will bring, and how far Tanking has improved with it.

[Second 0]

I doupt that thermals make their way to ArmA. And if they do: Because most likely nothing can't hide from tanks after that.

It would be necessary that infantry can have more and better ways to "actively" camoflage themselves. Right now things go somewhat in balance, but after that

[Beagle 684]

I doupt that thermals make their way to ArmA. And if they do:       Because most likely nothing can't hide from tanks after that.

It would be necessary that infantry can have more and better ways to "actively" camoflage themselves. Right now things go somewhat in balance, but after that  

Thermal sight are no X-ray scopes.

You can hide pretty easy from them...just stay out of line of sight.

Vegetation is enough cover to hind a human from thermal sight of MBTs...those on modern recon verhicles are of another class.

[max power 21]

I think it was discussed earlier in this thread... The armour balancing is quite adequate for the system they are using from my point of view. In terms of overall tank balance, it's not that realistic because the m1a1 would be more accurate given its ballistics suite, if I understand correctly.

Even more terrible than tanks with thermal nightvision would be helicopters. Either would be quite disgusting, though. I have a problem seeing little guys who are standing still at 1.5 km. With FLIR, they would be lit up like little christmas trees. Their own body heat would be each their own little 'shoot me' sign.

[Second 0]

Thermal sight are no X-ray scopes.

You can hide pretty easy from them...just stay out of line of sight.

Vegetation is enough cover to hind a human from thermal sight of MBTs...those on modern recon verhicles are of another class.

AI would prove to be easy prey to human with tank, as AI's taking cover skills have their limits already. Let's just say that if mission editor doesn't lock and nail AI to some spot, result is (like Plaintiff1 said):

Quote[/b] ]they would be lit up like little christmas trees.

ArmA doesn't present many ways to get hid from thermals. There should be long list of items and possibilities to get hid from thermals and most of all AI should be able to use them.

EDIT: Well if infantry would be made visible only at short ranges (less than 100-200 meters?) to thermals. Then there are still vehicle issues... Chopping down trees and covering vehicles with them, forexample.

[max power 21]

Thermal sight are no X-ray scopes.

You can hide pretty easy from them...just stay out of line of sight.

Vegetation is enough cover to hind a human from thermal sight of MBTs...those on modern recon verhicles are of another class.

AI would prove to be easy prey to human with tank, as AI's taking cover skills have their limits already. Let's just say that if mission editor doesn't lock and nail AI to some spot, result is (like Plaintiff1 said):

Quote[/b] ]they would be lit up like little christmas trees.

ArmA doesn't present many ways to get hid from thermals. There should be long list of items and possibilities to get hid from thermals and most of all AI should be able to use them.

EDIT: Well if infantry would be made visible only at short ranges (less than 100-200 meters?) to thermals. Then there are still vehicle issues... Chopping down trees and covering vehicles with them, forexample.

I don't think that that's true. You're telling me that f15 that bombed those civilians was flying less than 100 meters from the rooftops? Not likely.

[Second 0]

It would ease the problems with AI... As there will be problems if thremals are brought to ArmA. AI is too stupid to hide from thermals.

I've watched thru thermals lots, human who uses little amout of his energy and brains to get cover from thermals can hide from it very easily. But ofcourse that is up to terrain and possibilities.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why not? The SLA is equipped as well if not more poorly than iraqis when it comes to RPGs.

Quote[/b] ]The fictional SLA has Kamov 50 and Sukhoi 34...they are not poorly equiped.

This would also mean they have the newest RPGs and 125mm Ammunitions.

Are you blind or just stupid? Did I ever say the SLA was poorly equipped? Noooo. I said it was on par or less well equipped than Iraqis WHEN IT COMES TO RPGs.

A newest RPG would be like a RPG-29. SLA doesn't have these.

"they would have the newest RPGs" you say... really? Because in game they CLEARLY have RPG-7V and RPG-7Rs (or is that VL and VR? I forget), pretty much Iraqi insurgent standard issue.

RPGs don't kill tanks in 3 shots. Especially not:

1. Frontal armor

2. From freaking huge distances like 200-300m

3. From same elevation as the tank

[Beagle 684]

The RPG-7V penetrates 330mm RHA

the AT-4 penetrates 400mm RHA

The RPG-29 penetrates 750mm RHA

OVERKILL in sense of a game that tries to keep a balance by choosing adequate units.

[zinc 0]

The RPG-7V penetrates 330mm RHA

the AT-4 penetrates 400mm RHA

The RPG-29 penetrates 750mm RHA

OVERKILL in sense of a game that tries to keep a balance by choosing adequate units.

Here's an extremely small shaped charge and it's

effect on 50mm steel plates angled at 30 degrees.

(equal to 100mm of armour)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f27_1178594522

That's why RPGs are so effective.

[-Soviet- 0]

Hi,

Some useful informations:

T-72 explanation guide

-Soviet-

[Beagle 684]

Thanks for the link, komrade soviet.

THIS ist the T-72 that most tank crews in Central Europe were expecting, not those 30 year old cast iron cans with half loaded homemade ammunition that the US-tanks faced in Iraq.

[mechastalin 0]

Thanks for the link, komrade soviet.

THIS ist the T-72 that most tank crews in Central Europe were expecting, not those 30 year old cast iron cans with half loaded homemade ammunition that the US-tanks faced in Iraq.

The Iraqi tanks were early export versions without ERA or even composite armor I think. Their ammo was equally poor which used steel penetrators and half charges of propellant.