An observation about tanks.

[galzohar 31]

(Don't ask me where I got this... Though I do have a lot more where this came from)

I don't have data for top armor, though it's generally approximately as powerful as the rear armor.

T-80m84:

Turret front: 400mm reactive

Hull front: 250mm reactive

Turret side: 350mm reactive (approximately)

Hull side: 60mm reactive

Rear: 45mm

Weapons: 125mm smooth bore fully stabilized cannon, fires 125mm SABOT, HEAT, AT-8 ATGMs. Capacity: 40 rounds total, can swap ~2 rounds per 1 ATGM. 7.62mm coaxial and .50" (12.7mm) on top of the tank. Laser range finder.

T-72m1:

Turret front: 350mm reactive

Hull front: 250mm reactive

Turret side: 300mm reactive (approximately)

Hull side: 60mm (angled)

Rear: 45mm

Weapons: Same as T80 but only 39 rounds and no ATGMs

BMP-2

Turret front: 25mm (angeld)

Hull front: 20mm (angled, "sharp")

Turret side: 20mm (angled, approximately)

Hull side: 16mm

Rear: 16mm

BTR-80

Turret front: 7mm (angled)

Hull front: 10mm (angled, "sharp")

Turret side: 7mm (angled, approximately)

Hull side: 6mm (angled)

Rear: 5mm (angled)

Weapons: 14.5 heavy machingun, 7.62 coaxial machinegun. Stadiametric range finder.

M1A1 "Abrams":

Turret front: 380mm (Chobham)

Hull front: 410mm (Chobham/depleted uranium)

Turret side: 300mm (Chobham, approximately)

Hull side: 200mm (Chobham)

Rear: 75mm

M2A1 "BRADLEY"

Turret front: 60mm (angled)

Hull front: 60mm (reactive)

Turret side: 40mm (reactive, approximately)

Hull side: 40mm (reactive)

Rear: 50mm

Weapons: 25mm chaingun firing either SABOT or HE rounds, total 900 capacity. 2 TOW missiles ready for launch from turret and up to 5 more in stock. Stadiametric range finder.

M113A1:

Turret front:

Hull front:

Turret side:

Hull side:

Rear:

All listed vehicles also have smoke grenade launchers on the turret. Other than the BTR, all also have an engine smoke generator.

Reactive armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour

Stadiametric range finder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadiametric_rangefinding

120mm:

SABOT:

Velocity: 1661 m/s

Typical steel penetration at 500m: 399mm

1000m: 368mm

1500m: 336mm

2000m: 305mm

3000m: 243mm

HEAT:

Velocity: 1330 m/s

Typical penetration (independent on range!):

Flat steel: 455mm

Angled steel: 369mm

Rounded steel: 292mm

Steel+reactive: 202mm

Composite (aka "Chobham"): 180mm

25mm (M2A1's cannon) with SABOT:

Velocity: 1100 m/s

Typical armor steel penetration at 500m: 27mm

1000m: 1mm

1500m: None.

M2HB 0.5":

Velocity: 890 m/s

Typical steel armor penetration at 250m: 8mm

500m: 1mm

1000m: None

M240B 7.62 penetration listed as "none", which generally means <1mm too. velocity: 840 m/s.

HELLFIRE AGM-114A 178mm:

Average speed: 170 m/s

Max range: 7000m

Guidance: Laser or radar.

Typical armor penetration (independent of range) against:

Flat steel: 650mm

Angled steel: 527mm

Rounded steel: 417mm

Steel+reactive: 288mm

Composite armor: 257mm

TAU 2A BGM-71D 152mm ATGM:

Average speed: 190 m/s

Max range: 4000m

Guidance: SACLOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SACLOS

Typical penetration (independent of range) against:

Flat steel: 600mm

Angled steel: 487mm

Rounded steel: 385mm

Steel+reactive: 266mm

Composite armor: 237mm

M72A3 66mm LAW:

Average speed: 115 m/s

Max range: 135m

Not guided

Typical penetration (independent of range) against:

Flat steel: 250mm

Angled steel: 203mm

Rounded steel: 161mm

Steel+reactive: 111mm

Composite armor: 99mm

AT4: Not as much info, but:

Range: 300m

Penetration: 508mm

Average speed: 290 m/s

125mm:

SABOT:

Velocity: 1680 m/s

Typical steel penetration at 500m: 397mm

1000m: 363mm

1500m: 330mm

2000m: 297mm

3000m: 230mm

HEAT:

Velocity: 905 m/s

Typical armor penetration against:

Flat steel: 475mm

Angled steel: 385mm

Rounded steel: 305mm

Steel+reactive: 210mm

Composite armor: 188mm

AT-8 "Songster" 125mm ATGM (do not confuse Russian AT series with the M136 AT4):

Average flight speed: 250 m/s

Max range: 4000m

Guidance system: Optical/UHF radio

Typical penetration against:

Flat steel: 550mm

Angled steel: 446mm

Rounded steel: 353mm

Steel+reactive: 244mm

Composite armor: 217mm

Note that both T80 and T64 use this. T90 uses AT-11.

Javelin:

Range: 2500m

Penetration 737mm

Average speed: 290 m/s

Guidance: Thermal fire and forget

Top attack ability, tandem warhead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_warhead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

I hope this is more than enough to show you that there are a lot of things in this game that are not just "approximated for the sake of simplicity/gameplay", but rather completely ignored and pretty much ruin the experience whenever tanks are present in the battlefield. Some weapons penetrate tanks only from rear/top. Some weapons against some tanks can penetrate from the side as well. Very few weapons can actually penetrate modern tanks' front armor. Against a T80/90 the only real chance in destroying them from the front (other than a top attack or direct hit between the hull and the turret) is by a SABOT round at short range in the hull. M1s are practically indestructible from the front (again other than a direct hit between the turret and the hull or top attack). Of course all tanks can get their tracks broken by getting hit from any direction, depending on place of impact and type of weapon.

The whole HP system is simply dumb. If something penetrates, it should have a chance, based on the amount of "energy" left, to do anywhere between no damage to specific system damage and/or people wounded/killed up to completely destroying the tank. Just about anything that penetrates should have at least some chance to completely destroy the tank, though. The chances of the different results should not have anything to do with prior damage! If a tank actually took so little damage from a penetrated or non-penetrated shot that it can continue fighting, then it is practically no more vulnerable to the next hit as a fresh tank. This is really a rather simple system, I don't see why it can't be implemented to at least some degree instead of the stupid HP system. It is necessary in order to have tanks behave anywhere near what they do IRL.

As for view distance, I seriously don't understand why a 10X zoomed tank can't get increased view distance without a performance hit - you should have a lot less "close by" items to render due to the lower FOV and thus should be able to see at least somewhat further...

Do they even have their 10X zoom in game? I know I couldn't choose my zoom mode when I tried it, but IRL M1s have a 4X and 10X zoom mode.

[mcvittees 0]

I'd definitely like to see damage threshold armour - it would make a tremendous difference to ArmA2 (assuming damage modeling works the same as ArmA - and it sounds like it does), not just for tanks but helicopters, trucks the works. It strange (to me) why such a serious simulation doesn't include such a feature. :confused:

I would also like to see a simpler steering interface when in the commanders or gunners seat. In SB Pro it is seamless: WASD+Z does it all with no OFP/AtmA lurching left or right. Oh, hang on this isn't a wish list... :o

[lapa 1]

I hope this is more than enough to show you that there are a lot of things in this game that are not just "approximated for the sake of simplicity/gameplay", but rather completely ignored and pretty much ruin the experience whenever tanks are present in the battlefield.

To a degree I agree, but the other side of the coin is that if the tanks were realistically implemented à la Steel Beasts they would completely dominate the battlefield. The gameplay would be totally tank centered, which would throw the game out of balance. The same goes with realistic helos and jets. After all, Arma2 is - at its heart - an infantry sim.

The above doesn't not mean, however, that the tanks (or helos and jets) couldn't do with some improvements. They cravely need a few. What it tries to say is that realism is not always the best option in terms of the whole gameplay. Even though it might significantly improve a single aspect of the game, one has to look at the big picture. Every change has far reaching consequences and the minute details and features start adding up quickly, if you want to keep the game balanced.

[mcvittees 0]

To a degree I agree, but the other side of the coin is that if the tanks were realistically implemented à la Steel Beasts they would completely dominate the battlefield. The gameplay would be totally tank centered, which would throw the game out of balance. The same goes with realistic helos and jets. After all, Arma2 is - at its heart - an infantry sim.

The above doesn't not mean, however, that the tanks (or helos and jets) couldn't do with some improvements. They cravely need a few. What it tries to say is that realism is not always the best option in terms of the whole gameplay. Even though it might significantly improve a single aspect of the game, one has to look at the big picture. Every change has far reaching consequences and the minute details and features start adding up quickly, if you want to keep the game balanced.

I disagree. Firstly it is a historical fact that tanks unsupported by infantry are totally at the mercy of enemy infantry, therefore there is no imbalance to fear from more realisticly modeled tanks! Secondly, it is the unrealistic depiction of tanks at the moment that makes the game unbalanced against infantry because of all the unrealistic/absent features discussed in this thread. IMHO things should be simplified but realisticially modeled, so you can employ real life tactics and get real life results. That's what playing ArmA should be all about. Save 'balance' for games like Unreal Tournament or BF2!:)

[galzohar 31]

I disagree. Firstly it is a historical fact that tanks unsupported by infantry are totally at the mercy of enemy infantry, therefore there is no imbalance to fear from more realisticly modeled tanks! Secondly, it is the unrealistic depiction of tanks at the moment that makes the game unbalanced against infantry because of all the unrealistic/absent features discussed in this thread. IMHO things should be simplified but realisticially modeled, so you can employ real life tactics and get real life results. That's what playing ArmA should be all about. Save 'balance' for games like Unreal Tournament or BF2!:)

Exactly. Tanks *should*, in general, dominate the battlefield (when the enemy has no air support). They should also, though, be vulnerable to AT infantry - after all it's much easier for the AT team to spot a tank than it is for the tank to spot the AT team, at least if they are in a good position. Plus infantrymen abmushing tanks from behind (or from above) can destroy them even with a LAW or AT4. In one shot of course, unless they get very unlucky. Remember, while realistic tanks are a bit deadlier than the Arma 2 tanks, they're also much easier to ambush.

Let mission designers make the balance, while keeping the game mechanics as real as possible.

[lapa 1]

I disagree. Firstly it is a historical fact that tanks unsupported by infantry are totally at the mercy of enemy infantry, therefore there is no imbalance to fear from more realisticly modeled tanks!

Perhaps balance is the wrong word. What is essentially the core of Arma2 is infantry. Modern battlefield is de facto dominated by military vehicles and equipment, in the sense that the ones with the better war equipment and vehicles win. Of course infantry has a significant role and role might be the issue here, rather than balance. What is Arma2's core? IMO it's infantry. They core can't be simulating the whole battlefield. Ideally maybe, but in real life you have to make certain amendments. You can't base the game on every aspect of real life. That's why simulations tend to focus on one aspect (Steel Beasts, Falcon 4.0, DCS: Black Shark, Sturmovik, OFP).

Secondly, it is the unrealistic depiction of tanks at the moment that makes the game unbalanced against infantry because of all the unrealistic/absent features discussed in this thread. IMHO things should be simplified but realisticially modeled, so you can employ real life tactics and get real life results. That's what playing ArmA should be all about. Save 'balance' for games like Unreal Tournament or BF2!:)

If I catch your drift correctly, I agree. You say that "things should be simplified but realisticially modeled" which contains an obvious paradox, which is one reason why I indeed said that realism isn't always the best (or more appropriately, only) guideline if you can't go all the way. Some improvements are cravely necessary, but compromises have to be made lest we need to make game that combines all the abovementioned sims. That would be every community members' wet dream (theehee, member), but not attainable.

If we return to the word role, and perhaps to games like Unreal Tournament or BF2, it needs to be recognized that if the military vechicles in Arma2 would have the role they have in real life (or in the abovementioned sims), it would put the players in different roles and pull the focus away from infantry. The gameplay would fall apart. Naturally, having different roles in the game is important, essential even. However, what I mean in this case is that few people want to play less significant roles. Majority of players would want to only play tank crews and jet/helo crews. Does Arma2 have enough players who want to play roles that are a lot less significant compared to others?

Games like UT and BF2 are fun to play. We need to bear in mind that Arma2 should also be fun, though perhaps not in the quite same sense. In my opinion, that means that every player should feel that he/she can affect the game's outcome and not feel like a mere pawn. What's the best method of going about to achieve that? I'd follow your sentiment "things should be simplified but realistically modelled", whatever its exact meaning might be. Certain amendments have to be made in the name of functional gameplay and to maintain the sim's core focus (infantry).

Edited June 15, 2009 by lapa

[galzohar 31]

Lapa, that is what mission designers need to achieve, not game mechanics. Infantry have great uses IRL, make missions where they would have great uses in game, while keeping vehicles realistic. You're basically asking for vehicles to stay toned down so that they're not overpowered, I'm asking to make them both realistically powerful and realistically vulnerable (I mean, being able to take an AT-4 to the rear/top and survive EVERY time is just stupid), while leaving the balance for mission designers.

[olro 0]

^ What galzohar said.

Lapa, your arguments run along the lines of "if you want realism, join the army".

Give me the name of one game that had so much realism that the gameplay "fell apart".

[lapa 1]

Lapa, your arguments run along the lines of "if you want realism, join the army".

Not quite. More along the lines of "if you want your battlefield experience to be as realistic as possible in every aspect, you have to buy several sims (each dedicated its particular branch of warfare)".

Give me the name of one game that had so much realism that the gameplay "fell apart".

Maybe once you name one game that includes an equally realistic simulation of infantry, tank and air warfare. My point, there has to be compromises. That's a sad reality.

[galzohar 31]

Nobody here asked for some extremely complicated tank simulation. All of these things are very basic facts about armor that are crucial to get any kind of realism out of it. Again, with its current state, I'd rather stick to missions that don't have any vehicles...

[olro 0]

The compromises made are due to cpu limitations and cost benefits vs development time + catering to the masses who have money. Not due to the developers making careful decisions cutting out realism to make a "balanced arms simulator".

Again, balance is up to the mission makers.

[galzohar 31]

That whole "CPU power" argument is total BS. Been explained many times, a full tank simulation game with enough features was made 20 years ago, when computers' CPU clocks were measured in MHz. Developement time is another issue, though, which is exactly what this thread is about - claiming they could put just a tad more effort in tank mechanics for it to be realistic - it's not all that complicated.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

In ArmA 2 there is a basic FCS simulation. Target an enemy tank and notice the sights adjust to show you where to aim.

I think the above quote will be sufficient for a basic FCS simulation.

[frederf 0]

Yeah, unless it's moving.

[mcvittees 0]

Nobody here asked for some extremely complicated tank simulation. All of these things are very basic facts about armor that are crucial to get any kind of realism out of it. Again, with its current state, I'd rather stick to missions that don't have any vehicles...

I have often felt this way too! The problem with poorly, no that's unfair, over simplified vehicles is when they enter the mission they behave in highly unrealistic manners (sniper BRDMs, tanks that the chase you round buildings and up mountains, have turrets that spin like round like Darleks...well, I'm sure we all know about this stuff) and it killls the immersion and thus the fun of playing as an infantryman.

[smeg head 10]

Both US and Russian shells are filled with 10kg of explosives and travelling at 1,700 metres per second. They are obviously going to do some damage when they hit, and that the fact that they do is enough for me.

I dont care how many books you read on Gulf War 1 or wikipedia penetration values... They are books written by academics with opinions and agendas to push, they are not the same as seeing a tank shoot at another tank with your own eyes. Even engineering programs that run on NASA supercomputers are not able to simulate real world properties, so I highly doubt that a GAME (even if BIS did have access to al the confidential information required!) could develop a penetration system that would be any more accurate than the one in the original OFP! It would be more complex and intricate, yes... But it would still not be a credible representation by any stretch of the imagination... Let's just say that no army would rely on ARMA II in determining 'which tank to buy' :rolleyes: They would still go out and perform proper engineering tests

The only gripe I have is with the tank targeting. Do real tanks have a magic radar that shows the enemy as little red squares for you to click TAB and target? I'm not a tanker, but I highly doubt it. In the only tank sim I have played (T-72 Balkans), you needed to use a 'laser range finder' to ping the target, and then adjust elevation according to distance... It would be nice to see something like that instead of 'magical red squares'

The only real difference between a true 'tank sim' (T 72 Balkans) and tank driving in OFP was the way the gunner acquired targets. You still push W to go forward and the commander scans and clicks. If that one minor detail was changed then I would see no real difference

[mcvittees 0]

I highly doubt that a GAME (even if BIS did have access to al the confidential information required!) could develop a penetration system that would be any more accurate than the one in the original OFP!

Erm...your joking right? You don't honestly believe that? I don't think even BIS would agree with you on that one. :butbut:

It would be more complex and intricate, yes... But it would still not be a credible representation by any stretch of the imagination...

No, there are better armour simulations which are not figments of anyones imagenation, that are heads and shoulders above ArmA's in their accuracey and do give 'creditable representations'. Of course they're not perfect - we don't expect or need that - but they are alot better.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Mr. smeg head. I to have to ask as Mr. mcvittees has. You’re joking right. Please tell me so. Other wise we (those of us that have dealings with the arm forces & study them as well) have to be dismissive of you. For your just another person who wish to be uninformed about how the military works. And wish us to do the same. I for one will not be ignorant of how things work and function do to people such as you. A lot of those book you are speaking of (ARTEP's, FM's, PM's, and TM's) are publish by the military branch (Air Forces, Armies, Marines, and Navies) itself. So you are saying the military don't know what they have. Are how it works. Wow you have some balls there bubby.

Edited June 16, 2009 by ScorpionGuard

[galzohar 31]

How many times do I have to mention M1 Tank Platoon - a dos game from 1989 that had a much much better damage/penetration system than Arma 2. It's really not complicated, but for a game that decides that "something dies when its HP hits 0" I agree it's not possible to have a proper system... But then again HP systems are meant for games like World of Warcraft, not Arma 2.

If you fire a round that cannot penetrate more than 400mm of steel at 600mm of steel, connected to a 50~90 ton base (depending on the tank), what do you think is going to happen?

The explosive rounds don't fly at 1700 m/s. Look back at my post with all the data, the only tank rounds that fly so fast are the SABOT rounds which penetrate purely based on high kinetic energy (but still blow up tanks just GREAT, similar to how a 5.56 bullet can blow your head).

Edited June 16, 2009 by galzohar

[Baff1 0]

I had Armored Fist as well as M1 Tank Platoon.

Three floppy discs. Three!

I don't think the 10 MHZ of CPU and 1MB of RAM needed to run it would really stretch any modern PC.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Baff1

[galzohar 31]

It wasn't just floppy disks, it was the OLD KIND (5.25"). ;)

That means the whole game was around 1MB btw (each disk was 350kb or 750kb IIRC, depending if it was the "better" 5.25" or the "older" one - don't remember which ones this game used).

Edited June 16, 2009 by galzohar

[Baff1 0]

I played M1 Tank Platoon on the Amiga that had the new kind.

http://www.classicamiga.com/content/view/2765/96/

Feel the awesome beauty of 256 colurs and the raw power of 320x240

Here is Armored Fist.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Baff1

[kt187 10]

Yeah I dont know what you guys read and get your information from but the M1A1's armor is classified, also they US DEPLETED UNRANIUM rounds, and the M1A1 cannon can fire missle's out of it.

Depleted uranium rounds can go straight through an M1A1 and probably 3 T-72 tanks.

OFP 1 had the right Idea 5 T-72 rounds agaisnt M1A1 and 4 T-80 rounds

while it Took 1 M1A1 round to disable a T-72/ 2 to destroy and it took 4 to distroy T-80

Russian tanks are cheap tanks not designed to fight toe to toe agaisnt Heavy tanks.

They were designed to be built in mass numbers to overwhelm the bigger tanks, same concept as the American sherman against Tigers. 15 shermans to one tiger.

[M9ACE 0]

Yeah I dont know what you guys read and get your information from but the M1A1's armor is classified, also they US DEPLETED UNRANIUM rounds, and the M1A1 cannon can fire missle's out of it.

Depleted uranium rounds can go straight through an M1A1 and probably 3 T-72 tanks.

OFP 1 had the right Idea 5 T-72 rounds agaisnt M1A1 and 4 T-80 rounds

while it Took 1 M1A1 round to disable a T-72/ 2 to destroy and it took 4 to distroy T-80

Russian tanks are cheap tanks not designed to fight toe to toe agaisnt Heavy tanks.

They were designed to be built in mass numbers to overwhelm the bigger tanks, same concept as the American sherman against Tigers. 15 shermans to one tiger.

I suggest that you do more in-depth research before posting about tank capabilities.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Yeah I dont know what you guys read and get your information from but the M1A1's armor is classified, also they US DEPLETED UNRANIUM rounds, and the M1A1 cannon can fire missle's out of it..

1) I receive my information from Army-technology, Global Security.Org, Military Analysis Network, Wikipedia, etc. Where do you get yours?

2) True that you can fire M829A3 APFSDS, M830A1 HEAT, M1028 Anti-Personnel Canister, and the XM1111 (Mid-Range-Munition Kinetic Energy) witch is also in development.