An observation about tanks.

[rabs 10]

I dont have the game yet, wont for a few more weeks but just form watching videos, the T-72 seems to be an equal to a M1A2, and to the Russian's credit they build good tanks, but history just seems to say that is not true. (Battle of Medina Ridge comes to mind )

Is this just inaccurate observation from you tube videos or what because even at close range, you just dont see those types of catastrophic kills on M1s, they are not designed that way.

And a long range engagement between M1s and T-72s (even upgraded ones) should not even be a contest.

[celery 8]

Are you sure you're not confusing it with T-90?

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Even with the T-90. You wouldn't get that high rate of kills between the two. The armor would not allow it. The M1A2 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Abrams-transparent.png "The Abrams is protected by the British designed Chobham armor, a further development of the British 'Burlington' armor. Chobham is a composite armor formed by spacing multiple layers of various alloys of steel, ceramics, plastic composites, and kevlar, giving an estimated maximum (frontal turret) 1320-1620 millimeters of RHAe versus HEAT (and other chemical energy rounds) and 940–960 mm versus kinetic energy penetrators. It may also be fitted with reactive armor over the track skirts if needed (as in the Urban Survival Kit) and Slat armor over the rear of the tank and rear fuel cells to protect against ATGMs. Fuel and ammunition are in armored compartments with blowout panels to protect the crew from the risk of the tank's own ammunition cooking off if the tank is damaged. Protection against spalling is provided by a kevlar liner. Beginning in 1987, M1A1 tanks received improved armor packages that incorporated depleted uranium (DU) mesh in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Armor reinforced in this manner offers significantly increased resistance towards all types of anti-tank weaponry, but at the expense of adding considerable weight to the tank, as depleted uranium is 1.7 times denser than lead."

As for the T-90 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/T-90_Bhisma_cropped.jpg "The T-90 is fitted with a "three-tiered" protection systems: the first tier is the Russian version of Chobham armour in the turret; consisting of basic armour shell with an insert of alternating layers of aluminum and plastics and a controlled deformation section, composite armour. The second tier is third generation Kontakt-5 ERA explosive reactive armor which significantly degrade the penetrating power of kinetic-energy APFSDS ammunition and also these ERA blocks give the turret its distinctive angled "clam shell" appearance. ERA bricks are also located on the turret roof and provide protection from top-attack weapons. The turrets forward armour package in addition to the ERA and steel plating contains a composite filler sandwiched of Russian version of Chobham armour between upper and lower steel plates, the composite armour results in a lower weight and improved protection when compared with steel-only armour. The third tier is a Shtora-1 (Russian: Штора-1 or "curtain" in English) countermeasures suite, produced by Elektromashina of Russia. This system includes two infrared jammers on the front of the turret, four laser warning receivers, two 3D6 aerosol grenade discharging systems and a computerized control system. The Shtora-1 warns the tank's crew when the tank has been 'painted' by a weapon-guidance laser and allows the crew to slew the turret to face the threat. The infrared jammer, the TShU1-7 EOCMDAS, jams the semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) guidance system of some anti-tank guided missiles. The aerosol grenades can be used to mask the tank from laser rangefinders and designators as well as the optics of other weapons systems. Indian T-90S tanks are not equipped with the Shtora-1 countermeasures suite. Also in addition to the passive and active protection systems the T-90 is also fitted with nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection equipment, KMT mine sweeps and an automatic fire fighting system. During a reported test conducted by the Russian military in 1999 the T-90 was exposed to a variety of RPG, ATGM and APFSDS munitions. When equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA the T-90 could not be penetrated with any of the APFSDS or ATGM used during the trial and outperformed a T-80U which also took part."

[galzohar 31]

Yeah both are very good tanks, and are virtually indestructible from the front.

Just an FYI, the laser warnings (that exist in both tanks) don't only work against lasers used to guide missiles, they also detect laser range finders of other tanks when those are used on you. In real tank combat lasing the target is vital for scoring a hit at ranges over 800m for HEAT and 1500m for SABOT (and even at those ranges lasing helps accuracy, but the trajectory is flat enough to manage even if your laser is failing). I wonder why it isn't in-game, it's just an extra keybinding and calculation that makes tank combat many times more realistic. Then again, in Arma 2 they simplified tanks so badly that they're basically just a piece of metal with a cannon and high HP...

[odjob 0]

Then again, in Arma 2 they simplified tanks so badly that they're basically just a piece of metal with a cannon and high HP...

I can recomend the "Steal Beasts" series if you want realistic tank battles, although you cant play as infantry, or fly planes, or fly helicopters, or drive cars, or ride bikes, or .........................:j:

[Nemesis_wales 0]

im pretty sure the chobham armour has not been sold to the yanks at all, its a very closely guarded secret which the MOd has no interest in sharing the last i heard from my m8 (a 22 year career soldier in a british tank regiment) maybe when we need something important from the US we will swap secrets :)

[galzohar 31]

Sure, you can't have everything perfect, but at least some reasonable level of realism is expected... At least in a game that took the time to implement ballistics you could implement a laser range finder, a computer to adjust accordingly and a laser warning. And of course realistic damage and not some silly HP system, just like infantry should have.

[Simon C 0]

im pretty sure the chobham armour has not been sold to the yanks at all, its a very closely guarded secret which the MOd has no interest in sharing the last i heard from my m8 (a 22 year career soldier in a british tank regiment) maybe when we need something important from the US we will swap secrets :)

The armour isn't Chobham, but it's very similar.

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1.html

Note the line that reads: "Armor: 'Special armor.' Classified. Similar to the English Chobham armor."

[Spokesperson 0]

The shape of the tank is also important, not just the material.

[An Fiach 10]

Sure, you can't have everything perfect, but at least some reasonable level of realism is expected... At least in a game that took the time to implement ballistics you could implement a laser range finder, a computer to adjust accordingly and a laser warning. And of course realistic damage and not some silly HP system, just like infantry should have.

The CPU cost of a true ballistics engine would result in low performance and would kill this game.

[mcvittees 0]

The CPU cost of a true ballistics engine would result in low performance and would kill this game.

Err...ever heard of Steel Beasts Pro? :p Properly modeling tank combat does not cripple the CPU.:)

[lapa 1]

Err...ever heard of Steel Beasts Pro? :p Properly modeling tank combat does not cripple the CPU.:)

Ever seen Steel Beasts Pro? :p

The uber precise simulation of weapons systems and ballistics takes its toll on the visual aspect of the game. I think we don't want sprite infantry in Arma2 :D

[Farr612 10]

Anytime tanks close in for a close range fight it's anybody's game thats why the M1 engages targets at long distances and while on the move preferably. The Battle at Medina Ridge was a long distance fight as well. And yes the Chobham armor is very resistant to direct hits at extreme distances.

[rabs 10]

The Battle at Medina Ridge was a long distance fight as well. And yes the Chobham armor is very resistant to direct hits at extreme distances.

The battle of medina ridge was spectacular cause it was tactically well planned by the Iraqis, the M1-s were well within the optimum range for their guns, they just could not punch through the M-1s armor, or fire on the move as well, or fire as quickly.

150+ Iraqi tanks destroyed

0 M1s rendered non-repairable.

Im not asking for a realistic representation of tank physics in this game but seriously, how about a little more love for the M-1.

As Tom Clancy said in something i dont remember

"The quickest way to kill three Russians is to put them in a T-72."

[Baff1 0]

A few notes.

The British share secrets with the U.S. They are one of our best customers.

Chobam Armour is based on the Soviet design found in the T55.

The Abrams only has it on the front. The T72 all over.

Both tanks of current generation cannot expect to penetrate each other nose on. From every other angle they can both expect to.

@ Medina Ridge latest variant M1's, destroyed earliest variant T72's. Each tank is as old as eachother. Each tank has had as many upgrades.

@Medina Ridge, 3,000 vehicles (plus close air support) attacked 250.

@Medina Ridge Abrams tanks were unable to destroy the enemy armour at range because they were dug in. They had to get in close.

@Medina Ridge no T72's attempted to fire on the move. They were all dug in on the defensive ridgeline

@Medina Ridge, T72's were penetrating Abrams armour with steel sabot rounds made in the 1960's.

T72's weapon system has a 4km range advantage over the M1's. It packs a 25% greater punch too.

The M1 and the T72 are very closely matched weapon systems. They were developed in parallel to be each others direct counter or to fulfill the same roles. Also the T80.

More love for the M1? It's about time it got properly balanced in a video game.

Ballistics engine? Steel Panthers, T-72 fire over the Balklans, Tiger vs T34, Red Orchestra, WW2 online, all of them have very decent tank ballistics that run on 1.5 ghz processors.

Frankly BF2's tank ballistics are superior to ArmA's.

I haven't tried ArmA 2's.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Baff1

[MehMan 0]

Hmm, gonna go dig up the janes article I saw posted on battlefront.com, it was about the t-72 and it's front armour. A very interesting read about tests done with either an M1 or an M1A1 firing on abandoned east german t-72s.

[galzohar 31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Tank_Platoon

1989 game that makes an awesome tank simulation. The DOS graphics suck though, but it's the most realism DOS game every made I think. Yes, I still have its 5.25" floppy disks (the orange one in the middle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Floppy_disk_2009_G1.jpg). At 1998 the sequal came out, and had all the awesomeness of the first updated with 1998 graphics.

If an 1989 game can do proper tank simulation, I think 20 years later at 2009 it shouldn't be an issue. I mean back then CPU speed was measured in MHz.

Those games (yes including the 1989 DOS game) also had decent simulation of different protection levels of the armor of different tanks from different directions, and simulated the actual damage (no damage, mobility track/engine damage, specific system damage, full destruction) that can happen as a result of a hit.

The second game also had the combat computer lead the target for you if it was moving and you were keeping your sights on it. Plus it had other vehicles (which only the AI could control but still they were realistically modeled, probably more realistically than in arma 2).

I still wish I could make M1TP2 (the 1998 game) run, but after installing it just refuses to load on my PC.

Is that enough to kill the "decent tank ballistics and ballistic computers (or any kind of realistic simulation) taking too much processing power" argument?!?

[mr_centipede 31]

The problem with ARMA is, it is an Infantry simulation at its core, and simplified simulation of the others (tanks, aircraft)

Steel beast is a Tank sim... it got Air support, infantry support, all the nuts and bolts of a war simulator. but it is a tank simulator at its core. tank FCS and balistic computer are the core and everything else is simplified. If you can fly an A10 in that game, im sure ppl will cry realism. "They can do it with Falcon 4 etc etc

Falcon 4 is a flight sim... it also have ground warfare. The avionics takes much of its processor. not to mention the ground campaign down below. if you can play as a tanker or infantryman there, well you would probably point to OFP or steel beast

Now, ARMA is an infantry sim. But you could drive tanks and planes as well, but the simulation part is simplified. Sure it would be nice if we have a proper FCS, but the game simplified it with the radar on top.

What I'm trying to say is, just because game X can do Y, it doesnt necessarily can be done in ARMA. It can be done, but maybe more processing power is needed, because of the multi simulation

[galzohar 31]

It's in no way a matter of processing power, as like I said the whole extra processing power that is needed is that of a 20 year old DOS game, which I bet nobody would ever notice if it was running in the background while playing Arma. The only excuse to not have at least minimal tank realism is simply game developers not having time to implement it.

To be honest, with the lack of realism for vehicles, I'm considering avoiding servers that aren't pure infantry. Once all those unrealistic vehicles get in the game it turns from an awesome realistic simulation to some weird arcade game. The vehicle simulation doesn't have to be perfect, but it at least needs to feel, behave and have the capabilities of the real vehicle.

[frederf 0]

I agree with Centipede in identifying the core of ArmA1 and ArmA2. However I'd like to say emphatically "Poppycock!" to either the notion that improvements to tank combat require CPU-crippling complexity or that improvements to this non-focused area are unjustified.

Engagement distance is of course a major and difficult to avoid concern in the ArmA2 world. View distance is only so far typically. 4000m engagements simply do not happen in ArmA2. I would hazard that a typical "at arm's reach" scuffle is more like 1000m, 2000m tops.

When seeking improvement I would suggest identifying aspects of ArmA2 where improvements to that system foster similar abilities globally to help justify the effort as well as focusing on end-result behavior and not the minutia of process.

Primary improvements (suggested):

• Damage threshold-based armor
  
• AI capable of hull down state and standoff positioning
  
• Rangefinder adjusted vehicle weaponry
  

Damage threshold-based armor would allow all manner of improvement across the game from body armor to armored glass to tank resistance to heavy weaponry. AI improvements alone would generate more believable results with the current hardware. Rangefinder weapon elevation adjustment is something that could be used on a large number of vehicles from LAV-25s to AH-1s to T-90s.

[richardg 10]

The reason 1000k-2000k engagemenst don't happen in ARMA (and what I hate about tanks in the game) is because of no fire control computer for the tanks main gun.

Trying to hit a vehicle that far in ARMA is no different than WW2 style tank combat, using spotting rounds.

This is deliberate, but I don't know why. They can model a hellfire taking out a tank 8K away, but did not impliment FC aided gunning for armored warfare.

An M1A1 should be able to gun a moving target at 2K on the first shot.

[metsapeikkoo 10]

A few notes.

T72's weapon system has a 4km range advantage over the M1's. It packs a 25% greater punch too.

More love for the M1? It's about time it got properly balanced in a video game.

Ballistics engine? Steel Panthers, T-72 fire over the Balklans, Tiger vs T34, Red Orchestra, WW2 online, all of them have very decent tank ballistics that run on 1.5 ghz processors.

Frankly BF2's tank ballistics are superior to ArmA's.

I haven't tried ArmA 2's.

HAHA.

No.

T72's FCS nor the main-gun's sure didn't help Iraqis.

Steel Panthers - Turn based game.

T-72 Balkans on Fire - Only three usable vehicles. And not a single combat involving 1500 AI-units or over 50 vehicles at the same time.

Tiger vs T34 - Only two usable vehicles. Again, rather small scale battles involved.

Red Orchestra Ostrfont 1941-1945 - So by your logic, it's a good or atleast decent to have T34-76 destroying a tiger with two shots to the frontal armor from 700-900 meters away? Or having a PTRD-anti tank rifle blowing up a tiger with one or two shots?

WW2 Online - It's a server-side calculation. Also, you can't get out from the tanks.

BF2 - Last time I checked you didn't have maps with armor combat involving LOS ranges over 2km.

Oh wait, maybe you were just trolling.

[Baldman 10]

If you're a real sim junky go take a look at World War 2 online. It has everything you're after only set in WW2. MMO with 1000s of players in the battle in air sea land and armour. Though at most times you're looking at 4-500 in the battle.

Sure you can't get out of the tanks but why would you want to? Also, I'm not so sure that the ballistics are STO's.

[That guy 10]

BF2 ballistics more realistic than ArmA? I wonder if you played either game

I personally would like to see WW2Online type vehicle handling and damage modeling in ArmA II, but of course in WW2O you dont have to worry about AIs

...and proper interiors for armored vehicles with working parascopes and that kind of stuff.

but BIS are not making an armor sim, they are making a combat sim. Roll on the armored vehicles improvement/realism mod! :D

[pogoman979 10]

one thing that PR did for bf2 that seems much better than in arma, the sabot rounds travel much faster and so dont have as significant bullet drop. i got no idea but i assume that in arma the shells were moving unrealistically slowly? (as you could see them moving in midflight)