Tactics beat Technology

[walker 0]

Hi all

I was doing an experiment in the editor. Very simple anyone can repeat it.

For the attention of:

The ArmA II community

Name of the Experiment

Tactics versus Technology

Required Resources:

ArmA II 1.02.58134 patch

Player Settings Used:

1600 view distance.

Summary

By varying the tactical position you should find that this influences the results

Method

Using Utes island

I placed the player as a civilian on map on the airfield control tower in order to be able to observe.

I set Independents friendly to everyone.

I placed two opposing groups of Armor at opposite ends of the airfield.

BLUEFOR Group 4 M1A2 Tusk

OPFOR Group 4 T90.

Both group leaders have a single Guard waypoint placed on top of them

There is a Guarded by BLUEFOR trigger at the center of the airfield

There is a Guarded by OPFOR trigger at the center of the airfield

The guarded by triggers draw the forces in to perform a classic meeting engagement.

Observations

What you have observed to happen

In my first few tests the T90's won. That is incorrect I think, then I spot it the T90s are comming up from below a crest, they are getting in the first shots from a hull down position.

So I corrected the experiment both sides now start on on the flat.

T90s are still winning :mad: this is wrong!

Then I notice something. I placed both groups from the [F2] insert group side armor function in editor. In order to make the groups even I had had to add an extra T90 from the [F1] units section of the editor. I was not exact with the placement so it created a wider initial formation on the OPFOR side.

So I re-edited the experiment mission removing all the none technical variables as best I could. All units the same captain rank. All skill levels to maximum. All tanks on the runway and evenly spaced, with formation via "Special" set to "None" in the initial parameters of each unit.

I then repeated the experiment with T72s

Results

I retested several times honours are about even with the T90s having a slight advantage due I think to their better use of the commanders MG.

The T72s The technological differences means a 3 live Tusk at the end of most tests.

I decide to test the effect of a wider line on one side. With the T90's and TUSK the effect is dramatic. An average of 3 tanks surviving on the wide line side.

With the T72s the effect is the reverse as the units turn side on to get into formation

I then repeated the experiment with the T72s but this time moved them in to a reverse slope defense to the west of the airfield and placed the guarded by triggers over them.

Once again the results were dramatic 2x T72 surviving at the end.

Conclusion

Tactics are a far more important than Technology in ArmA II

Further:

It would be worth trying some more experiments LAV versus BMP etc.

Download Experiments

http://www.thechainofcommand.net/downloads/zips/Tank_Experiment.zip

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 18, 2009 by walker

[Baff1 0]

Why is this wrong?

T72 vs Abrams should be close to 50/50.

Same for T90.

At greater range (4Km perhaps) T72 and T90 should be the clear winners with 0 casualties.

The Tusk variant should make no discernable difference vs MBT's. It's technological enhancements are all anti-infantry.

It has greater side armour, enough to defeat RPG 7, but not enough to defeat tank rounds.

What is the "side armour function" please Mr?

Does it keep them nose on to the enemy perhaps?

Edited July 18, 2009 by Baff1

[walker 0]

Why is this wrong?

T72 vs Abrams should be close to 50/50.

Same for T90...

It was wrong because it was not 50/50. T90's in the intial experiment won every time and by 1 or 2 tank margin. So I then did my best to remove all other variables. Refining the experiment to get the baseline.

Once I had that baseline I then started varying the tactical factors 1 at a time to determine their effect.

...What is the "side armour function" please Mr?

Does it keep them nose on to the enemy perhaps?

As I pointed out honours are about even face to face for the T90 and Tusk, a slight advantage to the T90.

The side armor advantage seems to have some effect on crew survivability.

[Edit] Ah you mean the formation from the group. Yes it does hense why I altered it to make them all the same width apart, so that both sides had to maneuver to get to position, thus making the two base line experiments for the T90 and the T72 all about the technology [/Edit]

For the T72 the Tusk has a big advantage with far more 1 shot kills.

Try a variation with the M1A1 the experiment is very easy to change.

Then post up your results and version of the experiment.

A more useful statistical value might be to use multiple platoons on a wide plane.

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 18, 2009 by walker

[Rommel 2]

I'd like to share some insight into your ArmA difficulty settings, and tell you that there is skillFriendly, and skillEnemy, both of which are completely different by default.

If you became a East observer, US will probably win, and if a US observer, East will probably win.

Try that out.

[USSRsniper 0]

Walker

I tried something different first, 3 vs 3 tanks with no groups, M1's always win, but when I group T-90's and M1's together, T-90's win more often. But if AI used Refleks ATGM, then T-90's would always win.

Edited August 27, 2009 by USSRsniper

[koroush47 10]

weird...

I spawned a bunch of M1A1s in one side of the airfield and a bunch of T90s on the other side.. (i think about 20 each)

The M1A1s always won...

???

[USSRsniper 0]

Did a test with M1's Guard way point with Open fire and Combat mode. While T-90's On HOLD with same modes. When M1's were in sight The T-90's actually used tactics :eek: One tank was moving from left to right so it's hard to hit and charged toward the M1's, while two others flanked from two different sides. T-90's won with no casualties and minimal damage. I know I moved away from the airfield test, but I got carried away with all those tests :)

weird...

I spawned a bunch of M1A1s in one side of the airfield and a bunch of T90s on the other side.. (i think about 20 each)

The M1A1s always won...

???

Make sure that in difficulty settings skill for enemy and friendly units is at 1.

Edited August 27, 2009 by USSRsniper

[Ferrando 10]

Why is this wrong?

T72 vs Abrams should be close to 50/50.

Same for T90.

Are we talking about real life or Arma2???

Man, in real life M1 just toasts T72 in every respect.

1. M1A2 has infinitely better armor.

2. M1A2 has far superior sights, T90 doesn't come close let alone T72 which is a 40 years old design

3. M1A2 has a crewmember-loader, who if properly trained (and they are) is at least 15 seconds faster in reloading the gun than T72/T90 automatic loader.

4. M1A2 is powered by gas turbine which makes it faster and quiter than T72/90 powered by diesel engine.

5. Finally, M1A2 is fully digitized, with BLUETRACKER and other goodies that allow for complete situational awareness

Overall, this means that M1 shoots farther, faster and is more accurate than T72/T90.

The M1 vs. T72 debate was resolved in Desert Storm when Iraqi tanks seldom even saw Abrams tanks before they were destroyed. Abrams' slated armor plates are so effective that few tank rounds fired at them were deflected upwards. These facts were documented in great detail in numerous books on the operation (my favorite is the account by General Freddy Franks, VII Corps CG, co-written with Tom Clancy). Granted, Iraqis were poorly trained, but remember, US training standards are far superior to Russian or Chinese or whoever.

Bottom line is, even with T72 or T90 crewed by Russians, my money is still on M1. The odds are 90-10 in its favor, not 50-50.

[dogz 10]

Ferrando I have seen and read the same...

I saw an interview with a M1 tank commander from the gulf war and he said they just lined up on a crest out of range of a whole battery of dug in T72s and killed them at will because the opfor rnds were falling well short of the US position.

He said it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

[MehMan 0]

The T-72s that the Iraqis used were complete and utter shit. They did do some test with regular T72s, the ones russians had, and the results were VERY different from desert storm.

[Relemar 10]

meh, link? source?

[MehMan 0]

Trying to dig it up right now. It was brought up on the Battlefront forums and here. I'll try digigng through my posts and see where that gets me.

[Shadow NX 1]

Thanks for these insights on your knowledge.

That the Iraqi armys T-72s were complete junk with inferior armor no reactive extra armor, bad electrical systems and especially badly trained crews shouldnt be forgotten.

Still it was shown that with good tactics even these old buckets can take out the Abrams, it rarely happend but it did happen in at least two cases, in one case the iraqi commander use a hill as advantage so his tanks could shoot at longer range.

In the end the T-72 offcourse are cheap to produce and easy to operate so you can equip them in masses and use their sheer number as advantage over the not so great armor and technology.

T-90 closes many of these gaps especially the better armor and electronics part.

If its equal to a M1A2/3 and especially a Tusk, i dunno guess not but we hopefully never find out.

In the end both tanks got pro and contras and the T-90s plus also include a lot smaller silouette which in some cases also isnt a bad thing.

In the end both tanks can take each other out with the right tactics, in a direct frontal assault a Abrams might win but BIS had to balance units a bit so they decided to give them similar values i guess.

Shame the didnt add modern U variant T-80s.

[Inkompetent 0]

Indeed for the first shots an Abrams is vastly superior in rate of fire IRL. With a rested loader they can practically shoot two shots like BAM-BAM, because the loader can insert another round the very instant the breach opens. For the first few minutes of fighting there's no chance the auto loader in the T72/90 can keep up. It's only in prolonged engagements where it can, and possibly become superior due to the loader in the Abrams getting tired.

One of the best moves the Iraqi ever did with their crappy export-versions of the T-72s and their poorly trained crews was to drive into the american tank formations to cause confusion. In the thick clouds of smoke and dust it was near impossible to distinguish friend from foe even for the Abrams.

Even though the T-90 has come far since the T-72 in regards of engine power, sensors and gyros for the cannon the only things that *are* better with a T-90 is its smaller size and its longer range and speed.

The Abrams has a better cannon, more armour, better sensors, better ammunition.

At close range I'd expect them to be fairly equal though. Up to who shoots first in a situation like that.

But non the less the in-game tests looks interesting. Would be interesting to see the results of what Rommel mentions.

[Andi 10]

I'm with MehMan.

And besides, you are comparing Iraqi tank crew members with Russian tank crew members...

[MehMan 0]

Ah, here we go:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74232

Although with old ammo, it used old tanks and old ERA.

And the russians haven't been sleeping either, so the US isn't the only one who advanced their armour.

[Inkompetent 0]

Ohhh! Thanks for that! Interesting read indeed. I've been a bit lazy in reading the CMSF forum lately.

Then that is one less factor where the Russian tanks are inferior, and I'd personally say that with equal protection, but with higher speed and 15 tonnes lighter the T-90 definitely is a match to the M1A2 in terrain where its speed can be utilized (i.e. not flat desert, but more uneven terrain)

[walker 0]

Hi all

While the experiments of shot against armor in the real world are interesting, and should inform config settings in ArmA; the post I made was to test tactics.

In other words I established a baseline that in ArmA a TUSK would beat T72s 4 kills to perhaps 1 on a flat open airfield, that for the T90 the honours were about even.

I then went on to the actual question of the experiment.

Does good tactics have an effect in ArmA?

The results from my experiment indicate that they do. I made the experiment available to others to test and to use as a basis for their own experments.

weird...

I spawned a bunch of M1A1s in one side of the airfield and a bunch of T90s on the other side.. (i think about 20 each)

The M1A1s always won...

???

I am guessing other variables intruding. I suggest downloading the original experiment then altering the TUSK's to M1A1's and repeating. As I pointed out in the experiment description I got fooled to begin with by other factors like formation and hull down position. The base line experiment eliminates them; then you can vary from that to see tactical effects.

As I pointed out to do the experiment with larger numbers an open plane is needed.

The problem with varying the numbers is that the airfield on Utes is not big enough. By placing units further out you inevitably place some in hull down positions.

The alternative and better solution is to swap locations for each side by slecting all units and triggers on map and spinning them round with shift left mouse, so as to rotate the whole experiment but that may not produce the same results as positions would have to be mirrored rather than merely rotated 180 in the method I just sugested.

So the proper way would be to swap position for position with each individual vehicle while maintaining unit formation. Marker dots at the center of each units position may work.

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 27, 2009 by walker

[NoRailgunner 0]

Walker thats a pretty academic experiment. With air support and more troops (combined arms) this scenario will have a different end.

For sure with good tactics its possible to win against hi-tech army or at least slow them significantly down.

some specifications

T-90:

Main Gun - 125mm 2A46M + 9M119 Refleks missile system

Self protection - armour plating, ERA, Shtora system (infrared jammer, laser warning system, grenade discharging system...)

M1 Abrams:

Main gun - 120mm M256

Self protection - steel-encased depleted uranium armour, TUSK with ERA tiles

[STALKERGB 6]

Either way.... a Challenger 2 would beat the lot :p

I always seem to find the M1's winning but i am always on their side as an observer, dunno if that effects it...

[Baff1 0]

Why is this wrong?

T72 vs Abrams should be close to 50/50.

Same for T90.

Are we talking about real life or Arma2???

Man, in real life M1 just toasts T72 in every respect.

1. M1A2 has infinitely better armor.

2. M1A2 has far superior sights, T90 doesn't come close let alone T72 which is a 40 years old design

3. M1A2 has a crewmember-loader, who if properly trained (and they are) is at least 15 seconds faster in reloading the gun than T72/T90 automatic loader.

4. M1A2 is powered by gas turbine which makes it faster and quiter than T72/90 powered by diesel engine.

5. Finally, M1A2 is fully digitized, with BLUETRACKER and other goodies that allow for complete situational awareness

Overall, this means that M1 shoots farther, faster and is more accurate than T72/T90.

The M1 vs. T72 debate was resolved in Desert Storm when Iraqi tanks seldom even saw Abrams tanks before they were destroyed. Abrams' slated armor plates are so effective that few tank rounds fired at them were deflected upwards. These facts were documented in great detail in numerous books on the operation (my favorite is the account by General Freddy Franks, VII Corps CG, co-written with Tom Clancy). Granted, Iraqis were poorly trained, but remember, US training standards are far superior to Russian or Chinese or whoever.

Bottom line is, even with T72 or T90 crewed by Russians, my money is still on M1. The odds are 90-10 in its favor, not 50-50.

The difference in Armour is irrelevant vs tank weapon systems. Neither can penetrate each other face on in one shot, both can penetrate each other in one shot from any other direction.

The T72 counters any Abrams frontal armour advantage by using a more penetrative weapon system.

They are to all intents and purposes identically matched.

It also has twice the effective range of an Abrams weapon system and 50% more penetration, so in open terrain it can expect to destroy the Abrams without even being fired upon.

The T72 autoloader is faster than a human and can load while bouncing around over heavy terrain at full speed.

Instead of comparing the newest and best equiped variant of an M1 (also a 35 year old tank) to the very oldest and very worst equiped variant of the the T72, why not compare it to the ones featured in the game.

The M1 has significantly upgraded sinces it's introduction 35 years ago. So has the T72.

Russia is not Iraq.

Russia is the worlds most prolific and successful tank manufacturer.

Iraq is a third world country.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Baff1

[walker 0]

Hi all

It is very specific experiment.

It is not about who has the biggest willy.

It is about even if you have the biggest willy is the way you use it more important?

Nor is it about are gangbangs better?

The experimental data so far in proves that in ArmA despite a tank having less capability in the baseline when placed in a tactically superior formation or terrain setting that results in better kill ratios.

For all you T90 is better, M1A1 is better, Challenger 2 is better, Russian T72s are not the same as Iraqi T72s and are better, etc. All better described as my willy is bigger than yours fanatics.

In ArmA tactics seem to beat technology!

In reality this is also the case hence Hezbollah won in Lebanon.

Superior tactics beats superior tech.

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 27, 2009 by walker

[Spindry69 0]

Whoops nvm

Edited August 27, 2009 by Spindry69

[Baff1 0]

Hi all

While the experiments of shot against armor in the real world are interesting, and should inform config settings in ArmA; the post I made was to test tactics.

In other words I established a baseline that in ArmA a TUSK would beat T72s 4 kills to perhaps 1 on a flat open airfield, that for the T90 the honours were about even.

I then went on to the actual question of the experiment.

Does good tactics have an effect in ArmA?

The results from my experiment indicate that they do. I made the experiment available to others to test and to use as a basis for their own experments.

I am guessing other variables intruding. I suggest downloading the original experiment then altering the TUSK's to M1A1's and repeating. As I pointed out in the experiment description I got fooled to begin with by other factors like formation and hull down position. The base line experiment eliminates them; then you can vary from that to see tactical effects.

As I pointed out to do the experiment with larger numbers an open plane is needed.

The problem with varying the numbers is that the airfield on Utes is not big enough. By placing units further out you inevitably place some in hull down positions.

The alternative and better solution is to swap locations for each side by slecting all units and triggers on map and spinning them round with shift left mouse, so as to rotate the whole experiment but that may not produce the same results as positions would have to be mirrored rather than merely rotated 180 in the method I just sugested.

So the proper way would be to swap position for position with each individual vehicle while maintaining unit formation. Marker dots at the center of each units position may work.

Kind Regards walker

The problem is ArmA AI doesn't use the Reflex missile vs enemy tanks.

It ignores it's primary AT weapon system completely.

It's a bigger version of the infantry deployed missiles Hesbollah used in Lebanon FYI.

I think you may need to take manual control of them to get a good idea of how well modelled they are.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Baff1

[Ferrando 10]

The difference in Armour is irrelevant vs tank weapon systems. Neither can penetrate each other face on in one shot, both can penetrate each other in one shot from any other direction.

The T72 counters the Abrams frontal armour advantage by using a more penetrative weapon system.

They are to all intents and purposes identically matched.

It also has twice the effective range of an Abrams weapon system and 50% more penetration, so in open terrain it can expect to destroy the Abrams without even being fired upon.

The T72 autoloader is faster than a human and can load while bouncing around over heavy terrain at full speed.

Instead of comparing the newest and best equiped variant of an M1 (also a 35 year old tank) to the very oldest and very worst equiped variant of the the T72, why not compare it to the ones featured in the game.

The M1 has significantly upgraded sinces it's introduction 35 years ago. So has the T72.

Russia is not Iraq.

Russia is the worlds most prolific and successful tank manufacturer.

Iraq is a third world country.

What do you mean by a more penetrative weapons system? More penetrative than US SABOT round?

You are wrong in stating that neither can penetrate each other in the frontal shot. Frontal kills were documented in Desert Storrm, and apparently, SABOT rounds cut through T-72 like a knife through hot butter.

Of course, T-72 has been subsequently upgraded, but I did not start the comparison. You said T-72 vs. M1A2 is 50/50. I would so like you in my poker game :)

As to Iraqi v. Russian crew performance, I don't think the amount of training in the Russian Army is sufficient enough to bring ANY ADVANTAGE that T-72/90 may have over M1. I mean, just read the news reports from 00s about the degradation of standards in their military and bullying of young conscripts. When you factor in the general decline and the lack of funds in the 1990s., it is more likely that RF tank crews would not be very well trained.

And remember guys, US armor troops rotate every now and then to a place called NTCCC in Californian desert, where a simulated OPFOR battalion awaits. All get killed and humbled there - simulated, of course. Every US tanker will tell you that the training is actually more difficult than combat.

Apologies to the original poster, this is straying from the subject but I think it's relevant as Arma2 after all, is advertised as a military simulator. And kudos for the experiment.