More Armor to Abrams

[Beagle 684]

There is a demo of the original "steel beast "out there...check it out...im at work currently, can't do that.

But the M1A1(HA) was not undefeatable...somewhat stronger than the LeoA4...if hit 2-3 times your platform was pretty fast rendered unable to fight back or even retreat. (M1A1)

T-72 are often toasted by first direct hit but definitely by second one

Just like in the "Big" Simulator.

Found it!

only 21MB, no 3DAccelated graphics but true hardcore.

http://www.gamershell.com/download_4211.shtml

[D-scythe 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...

The latest version is SB Pro PE.

[Beagle 684]

The latest version is SB Pro PE.

That is basically a graphical network and environmental enhanced Version with more and more modern Platforms.

Shooting is the same.

[D-scythe 0]

The latest version is SB Pro PE.

That is basically a graphical network and environmental enhanced Version with more and more modern Platforms.

Shooting is the same.

No, it's not just a graphics improvement. SB Pro PE is the simulation version of Steel Beasts. It's the version being used to train militaries. Steel Beasts is only a game in comparison - in terms of realism it doesn't even compare.

[Beagle 684]

Should be good enough, since ArmA is a game too.

I've still got a copy of it somewhere deeply buried at home... I will report test comeouts later.

But for now, to come closer to a consensus, I admitt that the Abrams in ArmA is to easily destroyed.

But that does just mean that the Sabot 125 ist to strong.

@ D-scythe: do you own SB Pro?

Aditionally I will consult buddy of mine which is still a active LeoIIA6 tank commander regarding how the actual used tank combat simulator (the big one) handles this.

For so long... enjoy the german answer to Tank Girl

[Heatseeker 0]

The more i play with the more i dislike the Arma tanks .

If my abrams is hit i cant even tell, i dont hear the sound of the shell/rocket hitting my tank. There is no noticeable visual effect of the shell impact (in first person). If im injured in the process there is no visual effect either. I just hear a loud bip, bip, bip...

I've been doing some comparisons/experiences with both OPF and Arma... OPF wins! .

[Hostilian 11]

Correct me if I'm wrong (Im not a tank junkie like some here) but I don't think ricochets are modelled in ArmA (for tank ammo anyway) .

You can hit a tank anywhere, at any angle, and it will damage the tank as if it was hit perpendicularly to the armour (ie. Full on).

Simply put, sloped armour has no value in ArmA.

There should be some chance of a HEAT or Sabot round bouncing off the sloped armour or doing vastly less damage (rather than full force hit every time).

#Cakes

ps.. If it's been said before, I havent seen it.

[D-scythe 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong (Im not a tank junkie like some here) but I don't think ricochets are modelled in ArmA (for tank ammo anyway) .

You can hit a tank anywhere, at any angle, and it will damage the tank as if it was hit perpendicularly to the armour (ie. Full on).

Simply put, sloped armour has no value in ArmA.  

There should be some chance of a HEAT or Sabot round bouncing off the sloped armour or doing vastly less damage (rather than full force hit every time).

#Cakes  

ps.. If it's been said before, I havent seen it.

Well, ideally, to neutralize sloped armour, you would WANT to hit the armour at right angles. Modern APFSDS penetrators tend to "dig" into the armour - ricochets generally aren't likely. However, sloped armour does have the effect of presenting more material for the penetrator to pass through relative to its thickness when hit from certain angles.

For example, if a penetrator hit a 1000 mm thick metal plate angled at 60 degrees, it would have to pierce through over 1150 mm of metal to completely pass through the plate. However, the extra armour provided by sloping would be neutralized if the rounds hit at a more favorable angle (like 90 degrees, or "full on" as you put it) - using our example above, if the penetrator was fired from above down onto the armour plate at an angle of 60 degrees (down), so that it hits the armour perpendicularly, then it would only have to penetrate 1000 mm of armour rather than 1150+.

So simply, since ArmA is not SB ProPE, sloped armour should really have no relevence with regards to how a tank is hit - the sloping should already be taken into account by the increased protection in the frontal arc of the tank. However, the problem in ArmA is that you basically die in one shot when hit from ANY angle (even the front), so in that respect - where there is effectively NO increased frontal arc protection - sloped armour is not taken into account.

[zinc 0]

Well, currently its like "TANK GOT HIT! WHOOOOSH! BIG EXPLOSION AND EVERYONE IN A 15M RADIUS INSTANTLY DIES MUAHAHHA!"

Exactly, but make your radius a little bit bigger and don't forget the sun cream... Factor 5000 I think.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=919_1176568892

[Beagle 684]

Hello I'm back again

I dug deeper into the Topic

The current representation of MBTs in ArmA shouls be called armored frustration.

It's not only the representation of M1A1 but also of my all time favorite Adversary the formerly dreaded T-72M.

Both suffer from the adversarys to strong ammo value.

At present, shooting with M256 sabot at T-72's track results in T-72s immediately exploding.

A more subtle damage model should be applied, same with M1A1. First direct hit with D81 sabot makes crew bail out, second makes it explode...same here, a more subtle damage model should be applied.

I would suggest something in numbers (since we talk about hitpoints) like 1,5 hits to the front for destruction for the T-72 and 3 to the front hits for the M1A1. (same should be applied for BMP-2s and BRDMs AT missiles at least.)

Second hit should make the M1A1 unable to fight on, but crew survivability would be much more improved.

This can all be done by changing ammunition damage values, not by changing armor values which could throw off the whole chart systems for all other weapons.

Next issue regarding ammo damage values is the near useless HE round on both MBTs.

Currently it needs 5 of them to destroy a BMP-2 and 8-10 of them to destroy a T-72...that way of.

At least to triple its damage value is the right way since it has no significant blast radius what makes it behave like a HEAT.

Next issue:

The commanders office.

Since neither M1A1 nor T-72 have a commanders independendent sighting system, the commanders should always look where the gunner looks but since this would destroy thze commandability in game this is a concession to gameplay.

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

Next issue:

Gunners workplace

The game will not give us IR detection and aiming systems, o.k. but at least, to emulate this, the gunner (which is replacement commander) needs to have the "radar" band that the commander has.

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.

And by the way...please remove that anoying gun out of the BMP-2s optics.

The cal .50 ammo count in store for the M2HB should be 800.

I my eyes as a former MBT and later armored recon vehicle crewman, this would improve the "armored part" of the game tenfold.

[Beagle 684]

Question: How can this issues be brought to the game designers/developers attention...?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Well, currently its like "TANK GOT HIT! WHOOOOSH! BIG EXPLOSION AND EVERYONE IN A 15M RADIUS INSTANTLY DIES MUAHAHHA!"

Exactly, but make your radius a little bit bigger and don't forget the sun cream... Factor 5000 I think.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=919_1176568892

Yeah, good job on finding a vid where all the ammo explodes

Currently M113's and Strykers are very dangerous for their own squad, when they get hit and explode most of the squad dies and i dont think its supposed to be that way...

[Beagle 684]

Oh yes. I just forgot to point at this problem too.

The ArmA chain reaction of destruction.

[avi13 0]

Tank battles are not clash of titans that last hours, first tank to hit the other one 99% of time wins.

Why?When you get hit you generally get tossed around in the tank, You'll be lucky to survive a shell hitting the part where the hull and turret meet[joint, not sure of the word] which everyone aim at.

And even if you survive you wont be in a condition[the tank itself AND the people inside] to fight back.

But since this is a game, Its needed to be taken with moderation, Right now tank vs tank is fine game wise, however infantry[RPG etc] vs tank is not.

No visual indication of where the RPG came from, and RPGs cause to much destruction to tanks - Its extremely hard to blow up a tank using an RPG irl, my assumption it would take at least 30 rounds to do such a thing because RPG does not penetrate the tank's thick armor.

RPGs disable tanks, they ruin the wheels, or turret and such - making the tank enable to fight and the crew to bail out.

Now that we covered that, The only way to balance it is to implement a better modeled hit-points system or just leave it as it is right now.

[LoFFeN 0]

The more i play with the more i dislike the Arma tanks .

If my abrams is hit i cant even tell, i dont hear the sound of the shell/rocket hitting my tank. There is no noticeable visual effect of the shell impact (in first person). If im injured in the process there is no visual effect either. I just hear a loud bip, bip, bip.

Yeah I think that's annoying too. I miss the impact sounds from OFP.

It's pretty messed up when you encounter RPG Teams. The only thing you hear is a "Swoosh" sound from the Warhead coming towards your direction and If it hits, you can't hear the impact. 

I hope this issue will be fixed in a later patch though.

But anyway, I love this game.

Cheers.

[zinc 0]

It's pretty messed up when you encounter RPG Teams. The only thing you hear is a "Swoosh" sound from the Warhead coming towards your direction and If it hits, you can't hear the impact.

I hope this issue will be fixed in a later patch though.

Would be good to also 'hear' the actual direction of the impact from inside the tank, I'm sure the occupants would be able to detect that in real life anyway.

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

and RPGs cause to much destruction to tanks - Its extremely hard to blow up a tank using an RPG irl, my assumption it would take at least 30 rounds to do such a thing because RPG does not penetrate the tank's thick armor.

RPGs disable tanks, they ruin the wheels, or turret and such - making the tank enable to fight and the crew to bail out.

Thanks very much for the unprofessional and simply wrong statement.

RPGs can pretty much easily destory a tank, especially in urban combat and when infantry support for the armour is not given.

Talking about the RPG, the PG7VL can penetrate up to 650 mm RHA and most other "standard" rocket propelled grenades (M136, M3, PzF 3) do at least 500mm and above.

Of course almost nothing can penetrate the front arc of a tank or the 60° welded parts but the side (which makes most of m² of the tank) and the back are pretty thin and thus easily to penetrate.

The HEAT round of a PG7VL will dead sure penetrate the side armour of any modern tank to some good extent. This is why the RPG is so renown.... cheap, easy to use and damn powerful.

Tanks are no Goliath... yes the can also be treated with a $300 RPG. And the reason that not many tanks have been lost in the third gulf war is simply due to the good tactics of the US and the bad range of the RPG.

I would like to approach a tank with infantry and IFVs in the aread to 100m to take a shot and disappear again.

Edit:

Oh and by the way... concerning that Video, it is NOT a TOW but a Swedish Bill 2:

And as for the penetration of the side armour

@ 35 seconds

[avi13 0]

I'm not pulling facts out of my ass, firstly i was talking about M1A1 and not the type of tanks you see getting blown up.

Secondly, I was talking about RPGs and not about Swedish weapons.

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

(look at the picture..)

Thirdly, my real life friend in the latest lebanon war is a tankist, his mark4 took 7 RPG hits and kept rolling fine, his words "These RPGs barely scratched my tank"

Now last, heres a short video showing hezbollah hitting a israeli Merkava Mark4 tank with several missiles[Note, NOT RPG] and as you see, it keeps moving and attempting to dodge after taking 2 hits.

Mind you, these rockets are alot more powerful then RPGs and this tank is alot stronger then M1A1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCxHIWj658.

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

I'm not pulling facts out of my ass, firstly i was talking about M1A1 and not the type of tanks you see getting blown up.

Secondly, I was talking about RPGs and not about Swedish weapons.

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

(look at the picture..)

Thirdly, my real life friend in the latest lebanon war is a tankist, his mark4 took 7 RPG hits and kept rolling fine, his words "These RPGs barely scratched my tank"

Now last, heres a short video showing hezbollah hitting a israeli Merkava Mark4 tank with several missiles[Note, NOT RPG] and as you see, it keeps moving and attempting to dodge after taking 2 hits.

Mind you, these rockets are alot more powerful then RPGs and this tank is alot stronger then M1A1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCxHIWj658.

Yeah talking about the M1A1 ... surely they and any other modern MBT (Lecrec, Leo II, Challenger II, T80, T90) can be pierced from the side and back from an RPG. A PG7VL warhead has just the same penetration power as the Swedish Bill2 you've seen and more than the MBT LAW.

The "Type of tanks" we've seen blowing up were just IFVs ... hence no tanks.

Quote[/b] ]these rockets are alot more powerful then RPGs and this tank is alot stronger then M1A1

Well ... I couldnt watch the video, but you obvioulsy could... so if you dont know them missiles, how can you judge that they are alot more powerful than the RPG ?

Quote[/b] ]and this tank is alot stronger then M1A1

Son ... how do you put it ? You cant say a Merkava is stronger than an M1A1. You can not compare tanks like this.

You think the RPG7 is obsolete because its old and soviet anyway ? Most modern (Helicoper) guided ATGMs perform lightly over 800mm and some only 1000-1200 mm and the RPG still does 650mm (more than some APDS round at 1 or 2 km distance).

So please only post if you have information that are true and based on something. The story with your Merkava friend.... well put it somewhere else.

[Second 0]

I've heard same conclusions conserning Merkava's toughness against infantry AT-weapons and sources were pretty much reliable... i don't remeber what missiles and RPG-models, but it was quite new quality stuff they had there. RPG-2-something and was there used Konkurs-missiles?

Then again, i don't know terrain and possibilities of infantry-AT in there (Video wasn't there ), as they have to get hit to sides of MBT... And i doupt that Israelis gave much changes to do that.

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

I've heard same conclusions conserning Merkava's toughness against infantry AT-weapons and sources were pretty much reliable... i don't remeber what missiles and RPG-models, but it was quite new quality stuff they had there. RPG-2-something and was there used Konkurs-missiles?

Then again, i don't know terrain and possibilities of infantry-AT in there (Video wasn't there ), as they have to get hit to sides of MBT... And i doupt that Israelis gave much changes to do that.

Yeah thats true.... modern, well trained armies are pretty good prepaired for urban fights and I also doubt that the Hizbollah had much of a chance to hit many tanks in the sides.

RPG-2 was used in the Vietnam Era though... none are in use, all replaced by RPG7 - even by guerillas.

The Kornet... well, I dont want to be in no tank when hit by a Kornet... It has a tandem-HEAT warhead and is very agile and un-jammable.. and the penetration is believed to be 1200 mm RHA.

If a missile can pierce (or even destroy) a Merkava, than it would be the Kornet.

[HamishUK 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 22 2007,18:43)]

Quote[/b] ]

Yeah talking about the M1A1 ... surely they and any other modern MBT (Lecrec, Leo II, Challenger II, T80, T90) can be pierced from the side and back from an RPG. A PG7VL warhead has just the same penetration power as the Swedish Bill2 you've seen and more than the MBT LAW.

You will be surprised at just how resistant Chobham and Dorchester is on the side armour of a tank.

As for the rear, this is naturally a tanks weak point.

[avi13 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]

[max power 21]

[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]

The link you posted before has a period at the end. That was the problem. If you remove the period it will work.

And with all due respect, you can't know what that was emerging from the explosion. It could be a piece of armour, another part of the tank, part of the rocket.. it could be anything. Let's not assume that the rocket was bouncing off and the tank did not receive the full effect of the weapon.

[walker 0]

Hi All

AFAIK Israel lost many more tanks than they first admitted. According to the Israeli General who assessed it 10% were hit and under 50% of those were penetrated. That under 50% effectiveness of warheads is the death knell for MBTs until there is a serious improvement in armor.

The fact that multiple battalions of infantry and Israel's best tank were held up by as few as 200 and at most 1000 AT operators according to Israeli intelligence assessment tells its own story.

The AT weapons ranged against them included AT mines, IEDs, US made TOWs sold to the Iranians by Ronald Reagan and George Bush senior, RPGs various forms including tandem war heads,  Kornet-E 9P133 (AT-14), Metis-M 9M131 (AT-13), the 9K113 Konkurs (AT-5 'Spandrel' ), AT-3 'Sagger' and the 9K111 Fagot (AT-4 'Spigot' ) it is believed the wire and laser guided weapons such as the TOW and Kornet, Sagger, and Fagot caused the majority of penetrations.

Other problems were fighting with tanks on bad ground, steep hills and valleys with lots of loose rock.

In Iraq the integration of infantry and tanks has been far better but Abrams have been taken out including the so called golden shot already mentioned. That said standard RPG and even an AK have immobilized Abrams. It is possible to take out an MBT in an urban environment with Molotov's if there is not integration with Infantry. A tyre/inner-tube full of petrol dropped on the engine or Ammo compartment will also take out any MBT although the US military prefers thermite to do this.

All MBT have weak spots such as the turret ring, engine block, tracks and ammo store. All MBT without exception are vulnerable from top down attack. A well placed large IED will destroy any MBT and well placed AT mine will immobilize them.

Put a tank in the wrong spot and like the flower of French chivalry at Agincourt it is just some guy locked in a tin can stuck in the mud waiting for the guy with the sharp knife.

Kind Regards walker