Mateck's M1A1 (HA)

[Rak 0]

I think T-72 hasn't gotten any proper detail work yet, so no wonder the one that was worked upon wins every time.

Speaking of RL though, it should be a fair fight in close range. It's a matter of "who takes the first shot".

[einsena 0]

I think T-72 hasn't gotten any proper detail work yet, so no wonder the one that was worked upon wins every time.

Speaking of RL though, it should be a fair fight in close range. It's a matter of "who takes the first shot".

i tried vanilla ArmA 1.12 + QB, it would seem that even in that state the T-72s are still at a disadvantage, maybe that's the way things are IRL.

[GatorMarineDiaz 0]

M1A1 HAs are vastly superior to T-72s, and some would argue, T-80s and T-90s as well.

Even in close range a T-72 stands no chance. There was an engagement of M1A1s (they may have been A2s, but the armor is virtually the same) and Iraqi T-72s (Assad Babbils[sp?]) In the beginning of OIF of equal numbers of tanks. Mind you this fight was at 50 meters, that's point-blank range for tank combat. Leaving out most of the details, as I can't remember who was on the offense and if they were Marines or Soldiers in the M1s, the end result was 7 destroyed T-72s and 0 losses or injuries to the Americans.

Also the only penetrations of an Abrams by a 125mm round was on the side armor (I think on the side of the turret, but the source for my info didn't specify) was at extremely close range in urban combat in the first Gulf War. The Abrams was hit thrice and none of the rounds fully penetrated, they only hit the armor and got stuck in it, causing no damage outside of temporary cosmetic damage. Which is also important to note because no Abrams has been destroyed by enemy tank fire, in fact very few have been destroyed ever (most that have been knocked out [which again is very few] have been repairable in theatre) while many T-72s have been irrepairably destroyed by M1s.

Some would say this is because Iraqis used older T-72s and older ammunition, but even modern 125mm ammunition isn't as potent as modern 120mm, and if an Abrams can hardly damage another Abrams with front and side shots with it's 120mm, I am completely sure that even modern 125mms would fair no better.

Also I believe the T-72 ingame is a T-72A which would mean it is one of the oldest T-72 models anyway and would probably have older ammunition.

To put it simply, M1A1s have far more armor and a much more potent weapon than T-72s.

And please, no one start a "this is better than that" argument over this, really all I am saying is that history has shown us that OLD T-72s can't stand toe to toe with NEW M1A1s, so ingame they don't.

[malick 0]

The problem is, we don't need a steamroller that can't even be scratched. Even if realistic, it's utterly NOT fun.

Superior firepower, superior armour, superior mobility, superior electronics, superior tactics, superior training : how could iraqi 2nd generation T72 stand any chance against a horde of 3rd generation M1A1 ? Of course they got completely wiped out... If realism matters, then you would cry just knowing that several M1 Abrams got their ass kicked in Iraq by well placed RPG, which represents the best ratio between ammo and target cost (several millions $ for one M1, some hundreds of $ for a RPG, maybe even less).

It's a game, even if it's trying to be realistic, fun remains the main factor.

Malick

[GatorMarineDiaz 0]

But this is a game where realism is equally a factor, hence the lack of the ability to jump etc.

No one would cry if a well placed RPG took out an M1A1, that's how it should be because that's how it is IRL, but the fact is that has to be a very well placed RPG to do so even IRL, many M1A1s have been hit with many RPGs and come away with little more than scratches in the paint. In fact the majority of tankers I have conversed with have been hit by RPGs and none of them have ever been in a tank that was disabled or destroyed. Even AAVs get hit by RPGs and walk away from them pretty commonly. There was even a Challenger 2 tank that was hit 71 times in one engagement by RPGs and other AT weaponry that was able to continue fighting until rescued.

M1A1s will always win in head to head fights with T72s like these, that's why you have to fight them more intelligently, sneak up from behind, hit them in the sides. I have been playing around with Mateck's M1A1s for a while now and have seen them blown up by anywhere from 1 to 5 RPGs, so just like in real life, hitting it in the front won't cut it, and if you really want a quick kill aim for the tracks and/or engine. You CAN take it out quickly, but only if you attack skillfully.

Just last night I set up a quick test with two M1A1s (commanded by me and the AI) and I put several guys with rifles and RPGs in Sakakah Al Jawf on buildings and alleys. We got raped by those handful of RPGs, couldn't find where they were coming from. The other was dead after 2 or 3 hits and myself after 3 (mostly because I kept trying to turn to face the incoming rockets). I thought that was wonderful and a great representation of how it should be.

Think of it like FH mod on BF1942, if you're playing allies you're probably not going to do much damage to a Tiger hitting it in the front, you have to play smarter than that and try to hit it where it's weaker, even if it takes a few hits, you can probably hit it multiple times before it gets to you. It's a challenge, and a lot of times it's more fun to have to fight smarter.

I'd also like to add that an AT4 with Mateck's (and NWD's) setup won't knock-out a T-72 in the front either without multiple shots. This setup is much more accurate and adds a new dimension to tank combat in Arma by finally including different amounts of armor on different areas.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

An interesting discussion. I can imagine that in the context of a US vs. SLAg fight, SLA command would most likely try to swarm an attacking Abrams with whatever they have, since superior numbers are essentially all they have in this battle. They would also put a massive emphasis on manportable AT teams (enter our good friend the RPG7, doubly so if armed with PG7Vs) and the limited numbers of BMP2 mounted ATGMs they have. As such, I don't think the toughness of Mateck's M1A1 is a bad thing, as it can be (and often is) overcome by these tactics ingame.

I find it usually takes me at least 2 cheap RPG shots by the enemy to actually see where the firer is firing from (1 if from the frontal arc). This number is, of course, taking into account general combat carnage around the tank. In a situation like this, it isn't surprising that the US did lose (meaning disabled or combat non-operational) several Abrams to RPG fire, since apparently during those thunder runs into Baghdad the RPG fire was so thick you probably could have held up an arm and caught one.

[Gedis 0]

M1A1 HAs are vastly superior to T-72s, and some would argue, T-80s and T-90s as well.

Even in close range a T-72 stands no chance. There was an engagement of M1A1s (they may have been A2s, but the armor is virtually the same) and Iraqi T-72s (Assad Babbils[sp?]) In the beginning of OIF of equal numbers of tanks. Mind you this fight was at 50 meters, that's point-blank range for tank combat. Leaving out most of the details, as I can't remember who was on the offense and if they were Marines or Soldiers in the M1s, the end result was 7 destroyed T-72s and 0 losses or injuries to the Americans.

Also the only penetrations of an Abrams by a 125mm round was on the side armor (I think on the side of the turret, but the source for my info didn't specify) was at extremely close range in urban combat in the first Gulf War. The Abrams was hit thrice and none of the rounds fully penetrated, they only hit the armor and got stuck in it, causing no damage outside of temporary cosmetic damage. Which is also important to note because no Abrams has been destroyed by enemy tank fire, in fact very few have been destroyed ever (most that have been knocked out [which again is very few] have been repairable in theatre) while many T-72s have been irrepairably destroyed by M1s.

Some would say this is because Iraqis used older T-72s and older ammunition, but even modern 125mm ammunition isn't as potent as modern 120mm, and if an Abrams can hardly damage another Abrams with front and side shots with it's 120mm, I am completely sure that even modern 125mms would fair no better.

Also I believe the T-72 ingame is a T-72A which would mean it is one of the oldest T-72 models anyway and would probably have older ammunition.

To put it simply, M1A1s have far more armor and a much more potent weapon than T-72s.

And please, no one start a "this is better than that" argument over this, really all I am saying is that history has shown us that OLD T-72s can't stand toe to toe with NEW M1A1s, so ingame they don't.

i see here lots of abrams lovers, western propaganda rocks, right?

i'll just watch how abramses "owns" T tank counterparts.

you would be quite amazed by the correct data, but let's keep the sleeping bear alone. Sh...

Nice looking abramses, these gonna be good looking targets when/if T-90 will be released

[CameronMcDonald 146]

There's no Western propaganda in it - the whole thing was a mismatch in any case. The M1 is a more modern tank than the T72, and it was used by a force which kept its tanks in far better condition than the enemy, and most likely had far superior tank crews, not to mention the other advantages the US had in that scenario (e.g. the Iraqis use of outdated ammo, etc etc ad infinitum). It's a very poor example of the T72s capabilities, 'nuff said.

The T72, if operated by say, Russian operators, and maintained in the style of an elite Russian division, would definitely put some heat among the Yanks, I imagine. But in this scenario, which is what most people go off (since where else have T72s faced up to Abrams recently?) the T72 came off second best.

In any case, it's a moot point. The M1A1 HA is an improved variant of the M1, remember, while the SLAgs are operating the base '72 model. There's a bit of an age gap there.

[Gedis 0]

SLAs are operating T-72M1(export version). For soviets, this version was T-72A, just with few inside technological advantages. Meaning SLAs are operating almost same tanks used by iraqis(except, iraqis built them by them selves having a license, but guns were worst than warshaw pact or soviet built T-72M1s and some other things that iraqis were not good enough).

The post i wrote above, was ment to correct the thinking that modern russian tanks at least are good as Abrams.

And yes, Abramses were developed to destroy T-72 fleets, but they failed. So upgrade program came along and abrams now was capable of destroying T-72s with new 120mm gun, this version is know as m1a1 - just a bit of history.

[T_bone 0]

Ok, i need your opinion on this slightly reworked NATO texture. I changed green colour a bit (IFF panel is painted with old 0.95 green for comparison) and added some mud.

[einsena 0]

The problem is, we don't need a steamroller that can't even be scratched. Even if realistic, it's utterly NOT fun.

well for me i'd rather have realistic capabilities and such for every vehicles in ArmA. i don't like any artificially balanced hardwares, for me that wouldn't be fun!

it would be better to add another tank that is somewhat balanced to the M1A1, in order to balance the theater. for example the T-90s or some other modern MBTs. i'd prefer this compared to a tweak of the T-72s that enables it to have unrealisticish performance, but that's just me.

[malick 0]

I say this because, within the hitpoints system, it is very hard to simulate a fight between armored vehicles.

Every fan of the M1A1/A2 will say that it should own everything on the battlefield, so it should have more hitpoints, and make more damage. Then, fans of the T90 will say that its non sense, the T90 should have even more hitpoints and make even more damage. Then, fans of the Leopard 2A6 will say the same thing, then fans of the Leclerc, then fans of the M1A2...

At the end, we will have overpowered steam rollers, unusable with each other because none of them will be standardised. That's why a config based on BIS values is the best solution, for compatibility reasons. Or a CAVS-like system, that was never developed or released because of misplaced pride (mine is better than yours).

Malick

[Tigernan 0]

Looks great to me T Bone. I like the dirt on the skirt. Only thing that looks odd is that God awful US Army on the rear hull.

Tigernan

Not as lean, or as mean but always a Marine.

[Mateck 0]

Looks great to me T Bone. I like the dirt on the skirt. Only thing that looks odd is that God awful US Army on the rear hull.

Tigernan

Not as lean, or as mean but always a Marine.

Dirt on the skirt and US Army sign is the same as in v0.95

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Yeah, he's just being a leatherneck (interbranch rivalry).

[wipman 1]

Hi, be able of add the same chevrons that it shows in the skirts,

to the IFF pannels will be pimp, so we could add our own custom

logos or whatever to the IFF pannels. Let's C ya

[bospor 0]

T-72 was not designed as a tank-killer like Abrams. Russians have a very different tank strategy than the Americans. Americans got their idea from the German super tanks of WW2. Russian however had a different experience. Less armored, more manuverable and simple to use T-34 tanks won the WW2 in Europe. Since than, the Russian built their tanks to be fast, manuverable, easy to build and operate. They don't attack enemy positions head-on, don't believe everything you read fron Clancy. Enemy strong-hold positions are first get hammered with artillery and arial bombardment, and than the tank groups go AROUND the positions and attack them from the flanks. They avoid head-on battles with the western tanks due to lighter armor, they use tactics and attack from the flanks, that was a very standard Soviet tank doctrine. So there is nothing wrong with having T-72 less armored in Arma. Just use tactics, look how well it worked for Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, when mobile groups with RPG-29 and Metis AT rockets were able to halt the Israeli armored thrust. Mercavas are very well armored tanks, just as armored as M1A1, but had a very hard time agains mobile AT groups inside the city. Tactics!

[Rak 0]

But still, Russian tank strategy also includes building simple tanks with a powerfull gun.

T-72's 125mm 2A46 gun is well capable of penetrating the armor of an Abrams. Some sources even say that it can easily penetrate front armor well beyond 1000 meters.

[MehMan 0]

That probably depends on the ammunition used. Also the 2A46 can launch ATGMs.

But still, even if it can penetrate, can it hit it? That depends wildy on the status of the tank(maintainance, etc) and crew expirence and training. Even then, the T-72 must fire the first shot at a very close range at the side or back of the abrams. It's a rather hard task to do, but I believe it's more viable to happen in a non desert enviroment, where there's more concealment.

[GatorMarineDiaz 0]

The new green texture looks really great.

Those sources that say a 2A46 can penetrate Abrams armor are speculation, and because Abrams have been hit by 125mm rounds everywhere from 2000m to 50m, and on the front and sides, if you look at the results you will see that NO Abrams has ever been fully penetrated a 125mm.

The fact that 7 Abrams against 7 T-72s faced off at 50m with all T-72s destroyed and no Abrams damaged speaks loudly.

I feel like some people are arguing here without fully understanding how Mateck's mod has changed the armor stats. Yes the tank is still based on hitpoints, but it simulates the less armor on the sides and rear, so even if you test it out in game you won't find the Abrams weakness unless you're attacking the rear from various angles. This (and NWDs) is the only mod I have played that has simulated the Abrams REAL weakness as well as it's REAL strength.

Regardless, I'm not posting anymore on this subject, as people won't change peoples minds when arguing over favorites. I, and other people here, have posted factual information and real world combat examples and compared them to how they are modeled ingame (quite accurately), others have deemed it unfair because of circumstance or blown it off as propaganda. I propose everyone drop this debate and stick to Mateck's addon, he will do with the stats what he pleases

And back to the color, the new green looks really great, as does the mud. I thought the old green looked a bit off, but this looks about spot on. Remember to add Panels to the front of the turret too.

[Apache-Cobra 0]

I say this because, within the hitpoints system, it is very hard to simulate a fight between armored vehicles.

Every fan of the M1A1/A2 will say that it should own everything on the battlefield, so it should have more hitpoints, and make more damage. Then, fans of the T90 will say that its non sense, the T90 should have even more hitpoints and make even more damage. Then, fans of the Leopard 2A6 will say the same thing, then fans of the Leclerc, then fans of the M1A2...

At the end, we will have overpowered steam rollers, unusable with each other because none of them will be standardised. That's why a config based on BIS values is the best solution, for compatibility reasons. Or a CAVS-like system, that was never developed or released because of misplaced pride (mine is better than yours).

Malick

The values are based on real life. If my memory serves me correctly this mod includes NWD's armor values, which are based on the best possible approximations on the armor strength and thickness on both tanks. If you can't destroy it, guess that's too bad for you  

By the way, about that point-blank engagement... I believe it was three M1A2s vs. seven T72s

[GatorMarineDiaz 0]

"three M1A2s vs . . ."

Thanks for that correction I couldn't remember the setup, only that the end result was 7 destroyed T72s and no US losses.

[Gedis 0]

Those sources that say a 2A46 can penetrate Abrams armor are speculation, and because Abrams have been hit by 125mm rounds everywhere from  2000m to 50m, and on the front and sides, if you look at the results you will see that NO Abrams has ever been fully penetrated a 125mm.

The fact that 7 Abrams against 7 T-72s faced off at 50m with all T-72s destroyed and no Abrams damaged speaks loudly.

no shit? OMG abramses ownt T-72s! huray  

now the real thing:

Sure they ownt. With most advanced DU rounds (1st generation 120mm DU rounds) against what? 1973 production rounds (and not only rounds were outdated)? LOL, someone got pwnd  

BTW, if RPG-7's rocket propeled grenade can penetrate abrams, why can't 125mm fin stabilized armor piercing round do that?

P.S. i was always against DU usage in military, look how much ppl died after first gulf because of leucemia... U.S. realy likes to fight dirty war. why use DU ammunition when you can nuke the whole place with single button? i find it kinda strange, but the "reds" are way more better in this, none DU rounds almost match DU rounds by characteristics. That's how soviet union collapsed, because of high costly but more friendly to human weapons

LOLz

[NonWonderDog 0]

"The Iraqis were using training ammo," is the official Russian line. Believe it if you want, but if true it's no wonder they couldn't do anything against US tanks. The BM-15 rounds in Iraqi inventory have less than half the penetrating power of modern Russian BM-46 rounds, anyway.

I'll try to (finally) finish up my FCS, so you'll have something less buggy for this. One thing, though... why no M1A1 CWS? The commander weapons station in my mod looks like crap, but it's at least a start. This and the default tank use the M1A2 pintle mounted gun -- but the M1A2's pintle mounted .50 can't be fired from inside the tank!

[NoRailgunner 0]

What a kid cardplay "I've got M1A1 with 15000 hitpoints"

Sorry but during time all tanks got upgrades and development goes on. "Tank vs. Tank" or "head on head" are nice in some kind of entertainment "documentations". In modern combat you have more such things like combined arms, CAS, arty and missiles, hidden AT mines etc.

Would be really nice to see M1A2 and T72S with different values and camos from Mateck ingame too!!