M1A1 Cheese tank?

[skimbo 0]

Hi all

Was recently playing and I came face to face with a BRDM (MG mounted variant). I ordered my gunner to fire and the halfwit used the MG instead of HE or SABOT.

So theres me and my Abrams duking it out across 30m of fresh air with this BRDM and them bammo - it shows up that my main gun turret has been hit and is status red?!

I mean wtf? How can MG rounds bugger up a tank main gun?

I've also had the same with Shilkas. They return fire and then suddenly its status red and everyone is leaping from their tanks - c'mon this can't be right?

I'm probably mis-informed (I'm not an army guy) but is this possible?

Thanks in advance for replies!

Skimbo

[walker 0]

Hi skimbo

As I understand it can. Heavy machine guns can take out optics thus blinding a tank turret and making it combat ineffective.

So yes it is simulating a real effect.

To avoid this in the future press the switch weapon key (Default [F]) to switch from MG to Tank main gun.

Also as commander you have a gun you can use. Or you can switch to the gunner position  

Kind Regards walker

[Metal Heart 0]

Perhaps it was the BRDM with a missile launcher. Or a RPG soldier. I don't think the AI even shoots tanks with MGs.

[Adv 0]

The AI does not shoot tanks with MG but it will fire small arms at the BRDM's in addition to M136 rockets. I noticed this in a mission I made a few months ago. I assumed my impression that the BRDM was immue to small caliber fire was false and thought nothing more of it. Perhaps the BRDM is that thin skinned I'm not sure.

It is a little strange to see troops firing 5.56 ammo at an armored target reguardless of its type, it would seem to me the first thought should always be to grab whatever anti tank weapon was avalible first before trying to drill into it with rifles.

[Jack-UK 0]

Yeah in the demo everyone was complaining on west that the BRDMs were only vulnerable to M136's and i took advantage of that and wasted loads of BRDMS with M249's... and if ur limited on ammo you could just waste the tires.

And ive seen BRDMs engaging tanks with MG fire...

[TheElite 0]

Its the game Way,

Somewhere along the line either through design or workaround price, the driver or pilot is taking priority over the gunner and on other vehicles vice versa.

It would seem to be a price over mutiple turrets or something to do with pilot firing ka-50. Ai v Ai maps show alot of no firing, as a result altho gunner should choose, the pilot/driver ai wants control and would like to fire but option is not avaialble, at which point i presume a big loop of fsm locks in and the AI sit there scratching head .

hopefully fixed in 1.06/7

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

As I understand it can. Heavy machine guns can take out optics thus blinding a tank turret an making it combat inefective.

So yes it is simulating a real effect.

Sorry for using the word but this bullshit !!

Simulating a real effect ? ArmA can not handle some simple principles and you want to say that disabling the main gun of a MBT is possible at all ? (especially in ArmA!!

I tell you the real reason. ArmA has messed up armoury and penetration values. Almost everything possible in this game, it is poorly done.

Although for some reason I can not picture that this really happened. Did the BRDM really turn your main gun to "red" with ths 14.5 mm ?

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Erm, remember that the BRDM may have been using its KPVT, which is one of the largest calibre (14.5mm, in fact) machineguns in the world. Though it's never happened to me, I'll admit, and in real life I doubt even 14.5mm bullets would do diddlyshite on an M1.

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

Erm, remember that the BRDM may have been using its KPVT, which is one of the largest calibre (14.5mm, in fact) machineguns in the world. Though it's never happened to me, I'll admit.

Yeah true... still it doesnt make sense to fire at a MBT with that calibre. In fact IFVs (I know from first hand) are ordered to get the fuck out ASAP when they face a MBT and IFVs are equipped with 20, 30 or 40 mm AP rounds which have many times the lethality of the KPVT.

But even if the BRDM gunner should fire at the M1A1 ... the gun shouldnt be damaged.

[walker 0]

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

You seem to be under the mistaken gamers viewpoint that tanks are invulnerable. This is not the case here in the real world as in ArmA. No tank is invulnerable. If they were, there would be no infantry in Iraq.

A gun can only fire at what it can see.

Optics are made of glass not armor and are a very vulnerable part of any tank to MG fire. I am not disputing that if the main gun was brought to bear on the BRDM it would be toast in real life, as in ArmA but in this case the Human commander failed to tell the gunner to switch from coaxial to main gun. In real life people are that stupid. Witness the guys who said about orange panels then decided that they were looking at orange rockets on the back of camouflaged vehicles, what nation camouflages their rockets with fluorescent orange?

Your own reaction proves you would make the same error of thinking you were invulnerable, and not think it necessary to tell your gunner switch to main gun. In real life anyone with that reaction would make a very successful tank commander but only for their enemy.

In an urban environment, determined OPFOR with a few smoke grenades, and flares to take out IR and night vision, can blind a tank. The worlds largest calibre MG would do it too. Then use Flash bangs and lots of automatic fire to keep the crew buttoned up. It is then simple matter of mines and satchel charges at tracks and wheels to immobilise it.  RPGs to turret ring and engine or ammunition compartments to kill it. Enough Molotov's will do it. Or something as low tec as a tire and inner tube full of petrol thrown onto the engine compartment. Yes it has been done even to the M1A1.

That is why in an urban environment Tanks work together and with infantry to protect each other.

Tanks are very vulnerable nowadays with the advances in AT weapons. Tanks are especially vulnerable in the wrong ground such as urban or hills or rocky ground with lots of wrong sized pebbles. The Israeli army lost a lot more MBTs in Lebanon than they are admitting. They lost them because they made fundamental errors in choice of ground and failing to support with infantry.

Kind Regards walker

[Metal Heart 0]

Maybe there was a HEAT loaded and the MG rounds hit it via the barrel.

[Second 0]

I've also had the same with Shilkas. They return fire and then suddenly its status red and everyone is leaping from their tanks - c'mon this can't be right?

Well it takes about 800 rounds to make M1A1's team to bail out (i just tested that ) Cannon notches earlier (if all rounds hit cannon or it's shield)... AI fires awfully accurately and from front it aims to cannon (against AI i usually loose cannon first).

Just remeber that Shilkas rate-of-fire is awesome

[MehMan 0]

@Walker: [CS]SOBR[1st-I-R] is talking about the fact that ArmA can't properly simulate directional armour or any of the many real life tank features, yet you think it can simulate busted optics that a lucky shot might have caused.

[Metal Heart 0]

There would still be the auxiliary sight even if the optics would be damaged so the gun shouldn't be disabled altogether anyways, just the lead and elevation computing and thermal imaging.

[Second 0]

Hi all

Was recently playing and I came face to face with a BRDM (MG mounted variant). I ordered my gunner to fire and the halfwit used the MG instead of HE or SABOT.

So theres me and my Abrams duking it out across 30m of fresh air with this BRDM and them bammo - it shows up that my main gun turret has been hit and is status red?!

I mean wtf? How can MG rounds bugger up a tank main gun?

Skimbo

It hitted your cannon with 250 rounds (yup. i tested it as well as shilka). That is awfully lot of rounds... Each of them capable to penetrate about 4-6 centimeters of steel IRL. So mostlikely cannon would have reminded a cheese with holes, barrel filled with pieces of metal and twisted bullets, some of them would have stucked cannon's lock etc..

I fired almost all rounds what can be fired from BRDM (saved 1000 PKT rounds, as my ears were bleeding already), but crew remained inside MBT with broken cannon. So you were hitten by something else also. Or i'm not sure, i didn't try that test to back of tank.

EDIT: Oh, sorry. You didn't speak anything about bailing out.

[walker 0]

Hi MehMan

It depends if you do a statistical model for that part of the simulation of the damage model or go to detailed sectional armour modeling. You then come into questions of value of the work.

If the military wanted it and could pay for the extra hours they would get it in VBS2 and a dumbed down variant might even transfer to ArmA.

If you are making a game and wish to make a profit you have to cut you cloth accordingly. BIS is simulating the whole universe some thing which is probably infinite and it is doing so with finite resources.

It is of course something we as a community can add as a mod or it might come out as an expansion pack.

Though there are obvious security and arms control questions. Should BIS really do a model that is so accurate it trains real life OPFOR exactly to the inch where the weaknesses on a weapons system are? I think not and I think BIS know this. BIS has to walk a fine line here. Hence the stinger will never be 100% correct in ArmA or any other game or mod for that matter unless people want to go to jail.

Kind Regards walker

[MehMan 0]

I think you're missing the point. ArmA currently doesn't have a decent simulation of directional and sloped armour.

Do you really think that if something as essential as directional armour(gonna take sloped away) isn't simulated properly on a tank that destroying optics will be simulated?

I think that's a bit too much to expect, but if that is the case, then BIS has strange prioroties.

[Jezz 0]

Quote[/b] ]It is of course something we as a community can add as a mod

im not so sure its something communtiy can fix as the armour system is pretty much hard coded and would require fairly massive workarounds or heavy scripting

[Second 0]

I think you're missing the point. ArmA currently doesn't have a decent simulation of directional and sloped armour.

Do you really think that if something as essential as directional armour(gonna take sloped away) isn't simulated properly on a tank that destroying optics will be simulated?

Why not? If some guy calculates that it takes this amount of rounds (14.5 mm) to hit this area (frontal section of turret) so that it can hit this spot (all optics + things which my english can't spell etc...). Then we have somekind simulation, right?

Did anybody undertand? Another example: If i take step in field where has been herd of cows for two days, i have this amout of luck not to step to cow's shit for every step i take. Did this make anything clearer? (idiot's smile)

[walker 0]

Hi MehMan

Let me simplify it for you.

As I said it is a compartmentalised statistical damage model.

So X amount of damage to the turret results in decreasing effectiveness.

High caliber MGs are capable of achieving a combat ineffectiveness in a turret by damaging optics.

Other weapons would achieve this level of damage in other ways.

It is a statistical model because:

1) It costs time and money to do a full physical damage model and in the real world resources like time and money are not infinite and there are other calls on both.

2) Too accurate a physical damage model takes you over the line as far as security and arms control laws go. There will always be certain aspects of certain weapons systems that will never be modeled accurately. Get used to it.

Kind Regards walker

[Jezz 0]

probably just a random idea but i wonder if its possible to build a tank/apc class veihical armour out of sections using proxies. i seem to remeber somewhere that proxies in arma can have gementary models now if they can also have there own armour values it may be possible to improve the armour simulation a bit

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

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

You seem to be under the mistaken gamers viewpoint that tanks are invulnerable. This is not the case here in the real world as in ArmA. No tank is invulnerable. If they were, there would be no infantry in Iraq.

A gun can only fire at what it can see.

Optics are made of glass not armor and are a very vulnerable part of any tank to MG fire. I am not disputing that if the main gun was brought to bear on the BRDM it would be toast in real life, as in ArmA but in this case the Human commander failed to tell the gunner to switch from coaxial to main gun. In real life people are that stupid. Witness the guys who said about orange panels then decided that they were looking at orange rockets on the back of camouflaged vehicles, what nation camouflages their rockets with fluorescent orange?

Your own reaction proves you would make the same error of thinking you were invulnerable, and not think it necessary to tell your gunner switch to main gun. In real life anyone with that reaction would make a very successful tank commander but only for their enemy.

In an urban environment, determined OPFOR with a few smoke grenades, and flares to take out IR and night vision, can blind a tank. The worlds largest calibre MG would do it too. Then use Flash bangs and lots of automatic fire to keep the crew buttoned up. It is then simple matter of mines and satchel charges at tracks and wheels to immobilise it. RPGs to turret ring and engine or ammunition compartments to kill it. Enough Molotov's will do it. Or something as low tec as a tire and inner tube full of petrol thrown onto the engine compartment. Yes it has been done even to the M1A1.

That is why in an urban environment Tanks work together and with infantry to protect each other.

Tanks are very vulnerable nowadays with the advances in AT weapons. Tanks are especially vulnerable in the wrong ground such as urban or hills or rocky ground with lots of wrong sized pebbles. The Israeli army lost a lot more MBTs in Lebanon than they are admitting. They lost them because they made fundamental errors in choice of ground and failing to support with infantry.

Kind Regards walker

I am very much aware of the vulnerability of tanks - especially in urban areas. And I agree to every single point you mentioned here. I have a friend of mine as a gunner of the Marder 1A3 IFV and learnt pretty much from him and have also seen knocked out or disbandend tanks in Iran from the Iraq/Iran war.

I know that disabling the optics makes a tank virtually blind, but I seem to have put my text down wrongly. I meant that this does not work in Armed Assault.

There is no such thing implemended in ArmA and thus no logical way how the BRDM gunner could have disabled the M256 of the M1A1.

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

It depends if you do a statistical model for that part of the simulation of the damage model or go to detailed sectional armour modeling. You then come into questions of value of the work.

Well... thats the point.

ArmA is supposed to be the most realistic combat simulator and in fact you can have all sorts of vehicles and units in all possible environments but these vehicles engaged do not coform with real life values.

So ... it kind of displays the reality but in a wrong colour so to speak.

Have a look at this tables:

Humvee Armour

BMP2 armour

I further share the same opinion as MehMan. Expecting that the optics would give away but the armoury itself be messed up, doesnt make much sense.

As you can see from the tables many values are simply ridiculous, so before we take any further steps to improve the tank (ie. adding optics that can be damaged by MG rounds) we should get this basic, selfexplaining values sorted.

Edit: Those tests were made with 1.02 not 1.05 and some values should definetely be changed!

[Fekin-Detri 0]

In my opinion, it is the armour\damage values that are simply wrong, and not the optics being destroyed, as I don't see them actually adding such a small feature while ignoring other glaring issues that need addressing.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I said you cut your cloth accordingly. BIS works under constraints of time, money and the law. BIS has to choose what it thinks is important enough to spend its limited resources on; as well as not break the law. Inevitably some of the constraints lead to compromises.

I will not dispute that it would be nice to have accurate modeling of armor values. So what is you plan to achieve this?

1) First explain how you will pay BIS to do this work or what financial motivation BIS have to do the work.

I can actually come up with a solution to this.  

2) Then explain how you will provide the people to do the work.

I can actually come up with a solution to this too.  

3) Finally explain what compromises you will accept in order not to break the law.

Now this is the show stopper inevitably the armor values I would produce would have to be wrong.  

Solutions

Your project plan is of great interest to me MehMan and [CS]SOBR[1st-I-R].

Failing this why don't you set up a Mod team and do it.

BUT bearing mind factor 3) how would the inevitably inaccurate model of damage produced; to comply with security and arms control laws, be any better than a compartmentalised statistical damage model. Do a cost benefit analysis.

Kind Regards walker