An observation about tanks.

[smeg head 10]

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

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.

Now now, there's no need to be army-snobs... Seeing as you have taken it upon yourselves to represent the 'militarily educated' then I am am going to have to ask what qualifies you more than me or Mr. kt187? Are you engineers? Are you weapons designers, intelligence officers, or tank crewman? Or have you simply read alot of books on the subject? Books are good, but you can only get so much from them. I have read books as well (I'm sure we've all read lots of books before!). They tell me that the US tanks destroyed the Iraqi tanks in the gulf war, and I believe that these books are true. Yet they do NOT tell me that a T-72 will NEVER penetrate an Abrams tank. There is simply no causative link between the proposition that "An M1 tank destroyed a T-72 in Iraq" and "A T'72 can never destroy an Abrams"

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.

The fact that they are written by ex-military might make them more credible in some respects. I know that as westerners we have this whole 'cult of the soldier' whereby the military is portrayed as a virtuous noble force who can do no wrong and tell no lies... But the military is not infallible, and has prejudices of its own. I would expect a book written by a US military general to harp on about how US Special Forces training is the best. And, I would expect a Russian general to do the same about Russian SF training. Who oh who do I believe? Both authors have presented evidence and most have vested interests in projecting a favourable image of the army they represent! A book is still a book. You are reading the opinion of someone else based upon what they have seen (and what they are paid to say) It is not the same as seeing for yourself and making up your OWN mind.

Even if you have served in a tank before, I wouldn't even trust your opinion (unless perhaps you have ALOT of combat experience against T-72's). A tankist is trained to use the weapons system, and he only needs a basic understanding of its capabilities in order to perform that duty. A tankist is trained to use a tank, not understand kinetics and thermal dynamics involved when a round goes flying into the enemy. The people who really understand what the shell will do when it hits something are the people who designed it, and performed countless tests as to what the shell will penetrate :)

For instance, I have fired alot of rifles. I know my muzzle-velocities and cailbre and effective range blah blah blah... I would say that I can use the rifle well, but I would cetainly NOT regard myself as knowelgeable of what happens when a round hits the human body. Sure, I know that it tumbles and hurts alot, but thats it. If I wanted a TRUE opinion on the effects of a rifle bullet hitting a person, I would NOT go to a soldier (again, unless he's got experience and seen alot of wounds) I would go to a medical practicioner, or the engineer who designed the bullet. They would better understand the scientific aspect of it than me, and the implications for the human body. Once the bullet hits the body of the baddie, the soldiers job is done. And once the shell hits the enemy tank, the tankist does not need to know how far it penetrated if the turret has flipped and is burning.

So you are saying the military don't know what they have. Are how it works. Wow you have some balls there bubby.

If you are able to point out exactly where I said this, I will apologise. If not, I don't like it when people put words in my mouth.

---------- Post added at 05:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 AM ----------

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

You think that THESE sites make you educated on military matters? HA!

These sites will only give you 'news bites' and basic tabulated data about weapons systems. The data is often wrong, and it does not provide enough information to make an assessment of a weapon's performance. For instance, an M1 Abrams has 'Chobham' armor. WTF is Chobham? How hard is it? What are it's physical properties?

You just don't know, and even if you did you couldn't make an accurate assesment of a shell's armor penetration of Chobham unless you have an advanced Engineering degree! I would not trust such sites to get the date right, let alone tell me about tanks!

Edited June 17, 2009 by smeg head

[mcvittees 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.

Oh wow, that brings back some memories! Man, I remember thinking the graphics were so awesome! I loved the way enemy tanks were red!:D

[CarlGustaffa 4]

You think that THESE sites make you educated on military matters? HA!

That's what we usually got. Any better suggestions?

[smeg head 10]

No, actually! They're probably the best source of information available to us 'civvies'... But nobody should pretend that they can get a firm grasp upon the subject of armor penetration from a daily skim through of globalfirepower.org! For heavens sake, this is highly classified stuff! We might as well be discussing the existence of martians and two-headed-elvis-clones!

I'm just saying that given that most of us are extremely ignorant regarding tank-matters (whether we admit it or not) I see no logical foundation for complaining that "the penetration system is not accurate enough"

How on earth can we even BEGIN to know what is accurate?

[Pranne 10]

Anyone played Steel Beasts PRO?

[wipman 1]

Hi, wouldn't be a better and more usefull idea to get back to the game discussion?, a T72

should be less powerfull and less armoured in the game than a M1A1 or M1A2 TUSK, a T90

should be for gaming/playability as powerfull and armoured as a M1A1 but a bit less strong

or armoured as a M1A2 doing the same damage with the cannon; in that way most of the

players will feel better and there will only few dissapointed ones. Let's C ya

[MQ-9 Reaper 10]

The T-72 should have less hitpoints than the M1 tanks and the T-90, definitely.

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!

Infantry can be very dangerous for tanks because it can be very sneaky (especially in urban environment) and modern anti tank weapons can go through the weak side armor like butter. But, nowadays, tanks have superior optics and T.I.S. (thermal imaging system) so if they can detect the infantry before things gets too close for comfort, the infantry will be slaughtered.

If some people are interested in tank warfare, they can try the Steelbeasts 'legacy' (the first version of steelbeasts, now unsupported) demo for free (here)

I tried it sometimes ago and it is quite good for an old and ugly game :eek: the demo has more depth than a lot of games released nowadays !

It is quite hard too, it is not only a tank sim but also an RTS, but it is very interesting.

[NoRailgunner 0]

It would be better if the AI could use the 9M119 missiles much more and sadly the Shtora system seems to be out of work on T90s.

Wipman - T90s with all upgrades are a serious threat to USMC Abrams. Its a old and wrong assumption that russian tanks are less armoured or cant be upgraded according to the mission plan. Modern time, modern technologies + development wont stop. ;)

Guess that BIS could make better & proper working (incl. AI) realistic tanks - at least to some degree. Now its a question of time, motivation and dedication for developers to improve tank combat and to add some typical vehicle features.

Btw infantry with ATs are quite dangerous in modern warfare - guess why all tanks are still equipped with at least one machinegun.

[Baff1 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 destroy T-80

Russian tanks are cheap tanks not designed to fight toe to toe agaisnt Heavy tanks. Russian tanks are heavy tanks. They are considerably lighter than the Abrams because they use more advanced armour and are smaller with one less crew member.

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.

T72 and T80 have the exact same weapon system. They should need identical amounts of hits to destroy anything.

The M1A1's cannon can be fitted to fire a missile, but only the Israeli tanks use one. (LAHAT).

T72 and T80 are heavy tanks. The reason they are lighter than an Abrams is because they use more modern armour and and smaller with one less crew member to protect.

Their low profile is one of their crew surviveability features. At the Battle of Medina Ridge we can see that this completely neutralised the M1A1's range advanatage in that battle. It simply could not hit so small an exposed target.

I suspect it is too much to ask for bis to allow tanks to dig in as they do in T72, Fire in the Balklans, but a good mission designer could place sandbags instead. Perhaps BIS might make us some custom tank sized Sandbag models please?. You know the sort of things, front and sides piled right up to the gun for minimum exposure.

Russian tanks are designed to fight against heavy tanks.

Russian tanks are designed to fight against the Abrams just as the Abrams is designed to fight against Russian tanks. in fact Russian tanks are designed to fight against not just the Abrams but the more advanced Leopard 2, and Challenger 2 also.

American tanks are designed to fight in overwhelming numbers also. They have a lot of battlefield networking to support this.

They have never fought 1 vs 15 against an enemy, as previously noted, at the Battle of Medina Ridge they fought 12 vs 1.

It is traditional theory for militaries to plan for a minimum 4-1 numerical advantage in any attack, and the American military has an expeditionary doctrine, not a defensive one.

You might also want to consider that the Sherman was an American tank and that America is the worlds most productive society.

The industrial advantage belongs to them.

After the Georgia War battlefield networking is one element of Russian tanking that they recognised needed an upgrade.

The Xm1111 round in development for the M1A1 is being developed to counter the current shortfall in Abram's fire power. Namely it's range.

And while Depleted Uranium is quite the thing, it is of note that the British weapon system which uses a bigger gun than the Abrams can achieve superior penetration with a Tungsten round, (L28), and the Russian Refleks missile (T64,T72, T80) is expected to achieve a 25% better penetration than the both of them at a 50% longer engagement range.

The M1A2 Tusk should have increased armour on it's front turret and sides. It's the anti-infantry version of the M1A2, which in Iraq suffered from vulnerability to RPG7 AT rounds from the sides, hence the new reactive panels. All modern tanks are vulnerable to the RPG29 from the front. Hence the up armouring of the Tusk's turret there.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Baff1

[mcvittees 0]

Their low profile is one of their crew surviveability features. At the Battle of Medina Ridge we can see that this completely neutralised the M1A1's range advanatage in that battle. It simply could not hit so small an exposed target.

Not true. It was because the Iraq's were positioned on the reverse side of a slope (i.e. the American's had no line-of-sight) so they had to drive over the slope to engage and thus were forced into a close range engagement.

Russian tanks are designed to fight against heavy tanks.

Russian tanks are designed to fight against the Abrams just as the Abrams is designed to fight against Russian tanks. in fact Russian tanks are designed to fight against not just the Abrams but the more advanced Leopard 2, and Challenger 2 also.

Just a small point. There is no such thing as a 'heavy tank' anymore - the concept was abandoned in favour of the Main battle Tank.

American tanks are designed to fight in overwhelming numbers also. They have a lot of battlefield networking to support this.

Every NATO tank in the last 50 years was designed to fight in Europe against a numerically superior Warsaw pack. The explicit assumption in there designs was absolutely that they would be out numbered. Superior weapons, armour, communications and crew training were meant to give them a capability that made up for their small numbers. American tactics may emphasise overmatching the enemy, but this is nothing special to the Americans! All military doctrines, as you say, aim for at least a 4:1 ratio, and any commander will if possible move this ratio further in his favour. The key thing to note though, is the design of nearly all western weapons systems emphasises superiority of capability rather superiority of numbers, as numbers alone mean very little.

Edited June 17, 2009 by mcvittees

[Baff1 0]

Thats correct.

They were positioned in such a way that they could fire over the ridge but presented a very small target to be returned fire against. The bulk of their tanks were not exposed, only the very hardest parts, their front turrets.

It's a common tactic.

Notice how small low and flat Russian turrets are. How little of it is above the line of the gun and the angle which it presents.

Compare this to an Abrams profile and imagine it in the same defensive position.

And a pic of an IFV dug in with only the turret exposed to fire.

Here is a photo of a russian tank in Afghanistan adopting the same type of ridgeline position as used @ Medina Ridge.

From the angle below the ridgeline most of the tank is simply not exposed to fire.

And another from the six day war.

Obviously that's not the Medina Ridgeline, but I hope it demonstrates the tactic of firing from an elevated defensive position all the same.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Baff1

[mcvittees 0]

Your absolutely right Baff1, Russian tanks do have a smaller turret and thus a smaller profile than the M1. But don't over estimate it's value. Anything an M1 can see it can most likely hit. From 3000m, an object 1m wider or taller than another isn't really a big deal.

Most tank battle positions involve having a slope that allows only the gunners (or commanders) optic sight to poke out, with the barrel and rest of the turret being hidden until the tank shifts forward to fire. Most of the time virtually none of the turret can be seen.

Also, western tanks have the ability to depress their barrels further than Russian tanks which are hampered by their autoloaders. Again, this allows them to assume better defilade positions.

Thus in defence, there is virtually no tactical difference in relative tank sizes. (On the move in the open, that might be a different matter).

[Baff1 0]

One metre? I suggest to you that far less than one metre is exposed. Perhaps 1/3 of a metre.

But the proof is in the pudding, at Medina Ridge the M1A1 tank was not able to hit* the Russian tanks at 3,000 metres. They had to rush the position.

(*)Or if it could hit them, it couldn't destroy the exposed part of them.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Baff1

[mcvittees 0]

But the proof is in the pudding, at Medina Ridge the M1 tank was not able to hit the Russian tanks at 3,000 metres. They had to rush the position.

...because they were on the other side of a slope! It had nothing to do with the size of the T-72s turrets! You can't shoot or see something if there's something between you and it - e.g. the earth! The Iraqs could have been in coaches painted bright yellow with flags on saying 'shoot me' and the Americans wouldn't have been able to hit them without crossing the ridge (and therefore ending up nearer!) :icon_rolleyes:

[Baff1 0]

Every NATO tank in the last 50 years was designed to fight in Europe against a numerically superior Warsaw pack. The explicit assumption in there designs was absolutely that they would be out numbered. Superior weapons, armour, communications and crew training were meant to give them a capability that made up for their small numbers. American tactics may emphasise overmatching the enemy, but this is nothing special to the Americans! All military doctrines, as you say, aim for at least a 4:1 ratio, and any commander will if possible move this ratio further in his favour. The key thing to note though, is the design of nearly all western weapons systems emphasises superiority of capability rather superiority of numbers, as numbers alone mean very little.

Likewise, this isn't a doctrine specific to the West.

What is special to the Americans is their ability to outnumber the enemy not their wish to.

Very few countries have this.

It is not necessary for an attacking force to outnumber then enemies forces in totality, only in individual engagements.

So in Iraq, although they did not have a 4-1 ratio against Saddam, they won the war of manouvre allowing them to have a 12-1 ratio in every battle.

Half of the Soviets forces weren't even in Europe.

[galzohar 31]

None of what was posted here brings any good arguments as to why the current system is any good. While a 100% real penetration system is not possible to simulate, I'd be very happy if at the very least they'd make the damage system as good as the one 1989 M1 Tank Platoon game had.

Whether or not the T72's profile is low or not, and the other stuff discussed, are pretty irrelevant for that discussion. Tanks don't have hit points, and tanks use a firing computer to make their rounds hit, not some overlay radar.

After we have some reasonably realistic ballistics and penetration/damage system we can discuss whether or not the M1A2 SABOT round should have 5% higher or lower chance to penetrate and destroy a T72 from the front at 2000m.

[Baff1 0]

...because they were on the other side of a slope! It had nothing to do with the size of the T-72s turrets! You can't shoot or see something if there's something between you and it - e.g. the earth! The Iraqs could have been in coaches painted bright yellow with flags on saying 'shoot me' and the Americans wouldn't have been able to hit them without crossing the ridge (and therefore ending up nearer!) :icon_rolleyes:

Sorry, sorry, I get it now.

The Iraqi emplacements were 500 metres behind the ridge, not 2 metres. Now I understand.

Thank you for your patience.

@ Galzohar I'd like to see the inclusion of defensive sandbags models, this is where I'm coming from with the turret sizes. I think it would improve the tank combat to be able to make defensive emplacements. To dig the tanks in so to speak.

I think it's a realisitically achieveable upgrade that BIS could impliment quickly.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Baff1

[mcvittees 0]

Sorry, sorry, I get it now.

Cool! :p

[RedRage 0]

If anyone played Combat Mission series - Battlefront came up with nearly perfect armor simulation system, based on real life ballistics and taking into account armor thickness, angle, velocity of incoming round, type of round, and even material out of which the round is made. Tanks had essential systems like optics, FCS, tracks, engine, and etc modeled in as well - all of those systems could be damaged by penetrating rounds. Battlefront's model was as close as one can get to a tank testing range behind the computer monitor, and it was done as early as 1999 (I believe first CM came out around then).

It boggles my mind that nothing similar was done for Arma2, considering the realism of infantry part of simulation. Hit point system is outdated to say the least.

[galzohar 31]

Nobody really uses sandbags to defend tanks. Usually it's more like a position made by a bulldozer (at least in the IDF generally a D9 bulldozer), but again those are only for fixed DEFENSIVE positions. You're not going to bring a D9 into the line of fire as it's not nearly as well protected as MBTs. Of course the engine doesn't support these kinds of actions, and they would rarely get used in game (since who the hell wants to sit in a defensive position in a tactical game?). At the end, hull-down positions are merely a map designer's job - allowing the classic holl-down positions to be taken behind hills: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull-down - this is the one of the most basic techniques in tank warfare.

[Baff1 0]

I want to sit in a defensive position in a tactical game. Assault isn't the only tactic I enjoy.

I love creating killing fields.

I also want to counter defensive positions.

The reason I ask for this as an improvement is that I know it's one that can easily be done.

If the thought of sandbag defensives offends you, they could model mud ones instead. Or concrete or all three and anything you prefer.

In ArmA they used sandbag walls instead of trenches to dig the troops in. It's an easy model to make and serves it's purpose.

Don't get me wrong I'd love a penetration systyem too, but I've no idea how to make one.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Baff1

[RedRage 0]

Don't get me wrong I'd love a penetration systyem too, but I've no idea how to make one.

Lots of research by developers on vihicle and ammo specs and a working ballistics engine resulting from that research. Battlefront is a two man team, a definition of an Indie developer, and they managed to pull it off as early as '99 (and not just pull it off, their ballistics model is still unmatched by any game). Battlefront are certainly not programming geniuses, their games do have alot of flaws, but they are really passionate about making the games as realistic as possible. Now BIS is a much bigger team and i have hard believing that they cannot afford to commit one programmer to creating a vihicular ballistics engine.

Hit point system was a lazy decision, and a very bad one too. We are not playing Call of Duty here, realistic armour modeling is a must-have for any milsim (especially is 2009). Vihicles in ARMA are more of an eye candy right now, sometimes very annoying eye candy with weird physics and gamey behavior.

I suspect that problems with implementing a vihicle ballistic system go deeper, and have to do with recycled OFP code.

p.s.: If anyone has had any experience with BIS's VBS - does it have such a system or is it gamey hit points as well?

[ScorpionGuard 10]

p.s.: If anyone has had any experience with BIS's VBS - does it have such a system or is it gamey hit points as well?

I can tell you without playing the VBS 1/2 simulation. Negative. It would be unsellable to Armed Force around the World if the physicists where not spot on. VBS has to be as close to RL as possible. You can’t have a simulation trainer where tanks are flying around like toys. VBS has hard core ballistics provide by the military itself. Just by reading the specs you can tell this.

Don't get me wrong I'd love a penetration systyem too, but I've no idea how to make one.

It takes Mathematics. Lots of it.

Edited June 18, 2009 by ScorpionGuard

[An Fiach 10]

None of what was posted here brings any good arguments as to why the current system is any good.

Why do you think the players owe you an explanation of why it is good?

@RED Rage: Got any video examples of this 'fantastic ballistics engine that is unmatched' which you speak of?

[Flanker15 0]

VBS1/2 used the same system as OFP/ARMA last time I checked, it was tweaked but still not a realistic system.