T80 vs m1a1

[MDRZulu 0]

I actually think the cobra is the best in the game because the armament seems about equalt with the apache but the thing that does it for me is how much more visibilitly you have in the cobra and its a smaller targer from head on and behind.

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ Mar. 31 2002,09:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I actually think the cobra is the best in the game because the armament seems about equalt with the apache but the thing that does it for me is how much more visibilitly you have in the cobra and its a smaller targer from head on and behind.<span id='postcolor'>

Cobra is nice too, but apache visibility is still better. apache also has better targeting.

Ai is shooting at cobra. Even machine gunners lol.

[N.o.R.S.u 0]

BIS should increase the accurasy of Hinds AT6 missiles because even if you lock up the target the missile wont hit very well. I don't know if this so IRL but it should be more accurate because the balance is already way off for the choppers. Or just add another chopper for East .

And for the AA-tanks, I tested it and I think that AI uses Vulcan much better than Shilka. I also noticed that when the skill settings are at max for AI, their tanks are reloading much faster, and if you are the gunner in AI tank which has skill at max your gun reloads normally without boosting.

[Mask 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BIS should increase the accurasy of Hinds AT6 missiles because even if you lock up the target the missile wont hit very well. I don't know if this so IRL but it should be more accurate because the balance is already way off for the choppers<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with u on this one, but on the other hand it also depends on the way u attack the target. When using auto-hover it doesn't hit the target directly, but when flying above them at normal speed it does the job perfectly .

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmike @ Mar. 31 2002,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is this the same “low quality†stuff which kills 17 Panzers on first encounter near Moskow in 1941?

BTW

<span id='postcolor'>

yeah it was low quality, you will probably find that the Germans were outnumbered so they were bound to lose.<span id='postcolor'>

Uh, could we at least have read something about the T-34 before calling it "low quality"?

During WW2 there where several German commanding officers that commented that the T-34 was the best tank in world at that time. It was the first tank to use sloped armor plate. It could do about 32mph flat out and housed a effective cannon against german tanks for the time.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-34.htm

And don't knock numbers. The Sherman tank was pathetic in even numbers against any current production tank in the European theater. Its when you build 50,000 tanks vs. 18,000 tanks that makes the difference.

[Guest]

IMO the T-34 is the best tank produced in WW2 as goes for performance/price. The German Tiger tanks were the best, if you just look at the performance, but they were much more expensive and hard to manufacture. The deciding question in a war is not just who has the best tanks, but at least as much who has the greater number of tanks.

The T-34 was truly the great tank of the era since it was good and it was simple to produce. It is also the root of modern tank design.

[N.o.R.S.u 0]

I made some interesting researching about T72, T55 and M60.

T72 vs M60

M60 front: 2x sabot (from T72)

M60 side: 2x sabot (first usually kills some of the crew)

M60 back: one sabot (tank blows up few seconds after hit)

M60 vs T72

T72 front: 3x sabot (from M60)

T72 side: 3x sabot (second hit kills sometimes the crew)

T72 back 2x sabot

I also compared T55 and M60 and here are the results:

M60 vs T55

T55 front: 2x sabot (from M60)

T55 side: 2x sabot

T55 back: one sabot (tank blows up few seconds after hit)

T55 vs M60 is the same as M60 vs T55 so these two tanks are equal except for the reloading time.

I also tested this:

BMP vs M60

M60 front: 3x sabot or 2x HEAT or sabot+AT3 combo

M60 side: same as above

M60 back: one sabot or one AT3 (tank blows up in 3-5 secs)

BMP vs T55 was the same as BMP vs M60.

[Mask 0]

Thanks alot N.o.R.S.u, that's really good and valueable information. Keep up the good work .Thanks again, later!

[Mask 0]

Actualy I also tested M1A1, T72 and T80 on satchel charges and it takes only 1 for the russian tanks, but Abrams cannon still works . Kinda cool!

[Hardliner 0]

One easy way to fix this western superior armor is to out number them. I have been the gunner in a T80 platoon Vs M1A1 platoon and by a margin we managed to destroy the M1s altho my tank was the sole surviver of the whole thing. But when the M1A1 platoon is faced with 2 T80 platoons OR a T80 platoon and a T72 platoon, then the game gets good    After all that was the Russian plan, to out number the enemy. In an SU25 you can destroy a platoon of M1A1s on the first pass easy providing that there is not much trees and buildings in the way. As for the satchel charges just place more than one.

The M1A1 seems to be weaker when I am in it but when the AI is in it it can take like 4 or 5 hits depending on the range. If T72s hit it in the right area it messes my tank up with 2 or 3 shots almost, altho hitting the main gun would put any tank out of action no matter how good the armor is making a super tough Abrams just another statistic. I seen many M1A1s with only a ruined main gun but the tank is fine only it cannot fire, likewise with every other tank. Gunless tanks are a free, easy kill.

[N.o.R.S.u 0]

More testing, this time with infantry carriers:

M2A2 (Bradley) vs BMP2

BMP2 can take 24 HE rounds from M2A2 before it blows up

M2A2 can take 38 AP rounds or 20 HE rounds from BMP2 before it blows up

Bradleys TOW launcher is quite deadly, two TOWs can destroy T72 and everything that is weaker, T80s gun is disabled after two hits.

I also tested the accyracy of the choppers quided missiles:

TOW 8/8 missiles hit the target

Hellfire 8/8 missiles hit the target even from small angles, so it's VERY accurate

AT6 3/8 4/8 hit the target even from far away with straight sight, this needs to be fixed, Hinds missiles are already weaker than Wests choppers. I know that Hinds armour is good but it doesn't matter if the weapons are so inaccurate and weak.

[Chernaya Akula 0]

In OFP we have the M1A1, since the M1 have a 105mm gun, in the game we have a 120mm gun in the Abrams.

T-80BV - 125mm+ ATGM (AT-11/SVIR)

(better for close combat -> powerfull)

T-72 - 125mm

T-55 - 105mm

M1A1 - 120mm

(better for long range combat -> faster)

M60 - 105mm

..

[Ether Dragon 0]

Having been an actual crew member on an M1 and M1A1 tank, I'd like to add in my opinion on some of this.  Mind you, this isn't game mechanics, but real life I'm talking about.  First up, the M1 and T80 are fairly closely matched in combat effectiveness.  Both used a turbine engine, making them fast and maneuverable.  Both could destroy one another with a single solid hit with their main gun.  Neither one would survive a hit from an anti-tank missile like a Hellfire.  The T80 uses reactive armor, which ads more protection than what the M1/M1A1 comes with standard.  Survivability really comes down to where the tank gets hit - and that in turn relies heavily on accuracy and range.  In that catagory, the M1/M1A1 wins.  US doctrine has always placed importance on technology to beat superior numbers.  Thus, the M1 tanks are meant to take out the enemy tanks before they get in range to return fire.

On another subject, saying that the T-34 was anything less than the best tank of WW2 is a huge mistake.  It was a technological marvel, incorporating many of the ingenious features developed by (the American designer ) Walter Christie.  It introduced sloped armor to deflect rounds, the innovative Christie suspension that is still in use in many armored vehicles today, wide tracks to handle the large variety of Russian climates and terrain, a diesel engine that reduced the risk of gasoline fires (made famous by American Shermans,) and a powerful main gun.  Wherever the tank appeared, it stalled or turned back the German advance.

[DodgeME 0]

I was always wondering about this. I was in an Abrams platoon in a single player mission and my leader hitted this T-80 for the side and l shoot from about 100m at the back of the tank. It was only finished by a 3rd shot from another allied tank.

One shot one kill would be fine

M1A1 will be the choise in flat terrain like Malden and maybe Everon but in the 3rd Russian island T-80 are gonna own.

[InRange 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ Mar. 31 2002,11:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmike @ Mar. 31 2002,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is this the same “low quality†stuff which kills 17 Panzers on first encounter near Moskow in 1941?

BTW

<span id='postcolor'>

yeah it was low quality, you will probably find that the Germans were outnumbered so they were bound to lose.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Well, in 1941, when the Germans first encountered the T-34 they only had Panzer III's and IV's to fight it. Those tanks were inferior to the T-34, which wasn't low quality but just had very simple technique so it could be fixed easily on the battlefield.

It wasn't until late 1941, when the Germans came up with the Panzer V or Tiger, which was based on the T-34, that they had a chance against them. And later, when the Panthers and in the end King Tigers appeared they had technically superior machines but found themselves outnumbered.

[Benze 0]

Read the OFP FAQ. Several actual tank crew members of the M1 in real life have recognized that the design is actually of the M1, not the M1A1. Second, There was no way to deploy a M1A1 to an island no one has heard about. Third, I said so. Fourth, my mommy said so.