Suma look why does the t-80's have the 120mm gun?

[Rage_Frost 0]

Hello if you look at the config file for OFP the T-80 has the same gun as the M1A1 the 120mm gun also the 125mm which is "suppose" to be on the T-80 is a weaker Shell then the 120mm.

I thought The T-80 was suppose to have weaker arrmor and a stronger Gun which is not true so for you people saying the T-80 is no match for a M1A1 your dead right I had to check the config out for my self.

Maybe Suma or anyone from B.I.S. could look into this soon for the next patch the 125mm gun is in the game but need to be added to the T-80 and the 120mm gun removed from it and increase the fire power of the 125mm shells.

here is an example from the config if you don't get what im talking about.

class Shell120: Shell105    M1a1 and T-80

{

hit=200;

indirectHit=150;

cost=300;

class Heat120: Heat105    M1a1 and T-80

{

hit=700;

indirectHit=300;

cost=1000;

class Shell125: Shell120   Suppose to be on T-80 but is not and its weaker? Why

{

hit=180;

indirectHit=100;

cost=300

class Heat125: Heat120     Suppose to be on T-80 but is not and its weaker? Why

{

hit=600;

indirectHit=300;

cost=1000;

class M1Abrams: Tank

{

scope=2;

crew="SoldierWCrew";

picture="iabrams";

side=1;

displayName="$STR_DN_M1A1";

nameSound="Abrams";

accuracy=0.400000;

armor=900;

cost=4000000;

maxSpeed=72;

model="M1_abrams";

weapons[]={"Gun120","MachineGun12_7"};

magazines[]={"Heat120","Shell120","MachineGun12_7"};

class T80: RussianTank        If you look its the same gun and ammo as the M1A1 not the 125mm gun which it's suppose to have.

{

scope=2;

picture="it80";

side=0;

displayName="$STR_DN_T80";

nameSound="t80";

accuracy=0.500000;

armor=700;

cost=1500000;

maxSpeed=70;

model="t80";

weapons[]={"Gun120","MachineGun12_7"};

magazines[]={"Heat120","Shell120","MachineGun12_7"};

Well I hope this answer's alot of questions on this matter.

And i hope they look into this.

Thanks,

FragHaus Rage_Frost

[Satchel 0]

I assume they made it out of gamebalance purposes, so that every weapon has the 100% exact counterpart on the other side regarding specs.

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

Well maybe, but seeing how good the armor in M1A1 is compared to T80 this would be a nice correction.

[Rage_Frost 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N.o.R.S.u @ April 13 2002,13:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well maybe, but seeing how good the armor in M1A1 is compared to T80 this would be a nice correction.<span id='postcolor'>

Thanks for saying that cause their is a whole 200 points diffrence in armor.

[advocatexxx 0]

I think the Russian 125mm guns have the capability to launch ground-to-air rockets, primarily used against attack helicopters. I guess this wasn't implemented as it would make choppers pretty much obsolete.

But a Sabot shell 5 milimeters larger in diameter will hardly qualify as "Much Strong" than a 120mm one.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I dont think everything should be matched up exactly. I think that if the T80 isnt as good as an M1, big deal! Im not gonna just give up. Instead, Im gonna try and outsmart the enemy, instead of relying on armor points

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ April 13 2002,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the Russian 125mm guns have the capability to launch ground-to-air rockets, primarily used against attack helicopters.  I guess this wasn't implemented as it would make choppers pretty much obsolete.

But a Sabot shell 5 milimeters larger in diameter will hardly qualify as "Much Strong" than a 120mm one.<span id='postcolor'>

erm ..... not ground to air missiles but ground to ground to gound

[Rageman 0]

The Propellent on the 125mm gun is not of as high a quality as the 120mm rheinmetal, so any kinetic energy rounds (sabot) will not be as effective.

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 14 2002,01:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ April 13 2002,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the Russian 125mm guns have the capability to launch ground-to-air rockets, primarily used against attack helicopters.  I guess this wasn't implemented as it would make choppers pretty much obsolete.

But a Sabot shell 5 milimeters larger in diameter will hardly qualify as "Much Strong" than a 120mm one.<span id='postcolor'>

erm ..... not ground to air missiles but ground to ground to gound<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, at least the T90, can fire ground-to-air missiles from its main gun. It can be used againist low flying helicopters and such.

[Rage_Frost 0]

Well your missing the point lol the 125mm shell is more powerful then the 120mm shell it doesn't take that much Brain power to figure that out.

On the missle i think your talking about this.

The T-80U carries the 9M119 Refleks (NATO designation AT-11 Sniper) anti-tank guided missile system which is fired from the main gun. The range of the missile is 100 - 4,000 m. The system is intended to engage tanks fitted with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as low-flying air targets such as helicopters, at a range of up to 5 km. The missile system fires either the 9M119 or 9M119M missiles, which have semi-automatic laser beamriding guidance.

The tank is fitted with a 125 mm 2A46M-1 automatic smoothbore gun with thermal sleeve, which can fire between 6 and 8 rounds/minute. Loading is hydro-mechanical with a 28 round carousel container. 45 rounds are carried. The gun fires separate loading projectiles which have semi-combustible cartridge case and sabot. Ammunition can be AP (Armour Piercing), APDS (Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot), HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) and HE-FRAG (High Explosive-Fragmentation).

Armament also includes a 7.62 mm PKT coaxial machine gun and a 12.7 mm Utes (NSVT-12.7) air defence machine gun.

info was from this site http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/

Now the standard T-80 has.

Standard(cannon) of 125 mm, missile AT-8 Songster, at the Middle. 7,62 mm in coaxis of the standard(cannon), at the Middle. AA of 12,7 mm on the dome leader of tank

now for giggles lets look at the M1A1 weapons

ARMAMENT

The main armament is the 120 mm gun. The 120 mm gun fires the following ammunition: the M865 TPCSDS-T and M831 TP-T training rounds, the M8300 HEAT-MP-T and the M829 APFSDS-T which includes a depleted uranium penetrator. The commander has a 12.7 mm Browning M2 machine gun and the loader has a 7.62 mm M240 machine gun. A 7.62 mm M240 machine gun is also mounted coaxially on the right hand side of the main armament.

[Markov 0]

I've said that OFP has the perfect damage and threat model before (couple days back) but if this more deep technical problem is true, then I guess even the best part -- the tanks -- still need some correction.

O'well. As far as I'm aware the planet ain't gonna blow up anytime soon, so whatever, I can wait for the 125mm fix ::)

[advocatexxx 0]

Look guys, I know that "size does matter". Even for us, we want the biggest, more importantly thickest rods of iron we can get our hands on

But ultimately it comes down to tactics and technology. The DU Sabot KE rounds that M1A1 used during Desert Storm shredded T-72s 4 kilometers away. Hell, the Iraqui tank commander who luckily spoke English couldn't believe it was a round and not a rocket.

5mm of extra thickness won't get you too far, I'm afraid.

[timmy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rage_Frost @ April 13 2002,06:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">class M1Abrams: Tank

{

scope=2;

crew="SoldierWCrew";

picture="iabrams";

side=1;

displayName="$STR_DN_M1A1";

nameSound="Abrams";

accuracy=0.400000;

armor=900;

cost=4000000;

maxSpeed=72;

model="M1_abrams";

weapons[]={"Gun120","MachineGun12_7"};

magazines[]={"Heat120","Shell120","MachineGun12_7"};

scope=2;

picture="it80";

side=0;

displayName="$STR_DN_T80";

nameSound="t80";

accuracy=0.500000;

armor=700;

cost=1500000;

maxSpeed=70;

model="t80";

weapons[]={"Gun120","MachineGun12_7"};

magazines[]={"Heat120","Shell120","MachineGun12_7"};<span id='postcolor'>

the t80 has an accuracy of .5, where as the m1a1 only has the accuracy of .4

[Beagle 684]

Btw, the Sabot fired fron the T-80's 125mm Gun has a muzzle Velocity around 1450 meters/ sec. while that from the M1A2 has around 1800 meters/sec.

So now tell me that bigger Diameter means stronger firepower, it's just not true.

It's the kinetic energie that hurts, not the gauge.

[Rage_Frost 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Beagle @ April 14 2002,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Btw, the Sabot fired fron the T-80's 125mm Gun has a muzzle Velocity around 1450 meters/ sec. while that from the M1A2 has around 1800 meters/sec.

So now tell me that bigger Diameter means stronger firepower, it's just not true.

It's the kinetic energie that  hurts, not the gauge.<span id='postcolor'>

Who said anything about the newer M1A2 ?? i'm talking about the M1A1 that was active in 1980...

The M1A2 not even in the game lmao. I could be wrong i well check but the first M1A2 was built in 1987. not the time period of ofp is suppose to be in.

you have to look at the year of the stuff before you guys start saying their is no diffrence.

[Rage_Frost 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (timmy @ April 14 2002,06:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the t80 has an accuracy of .5, where as the m1a1 only has the accuracy of .4<span id='postcolor'>

I think that only goes for AI not human players...

Ever time I have played I had no problem aiming in both tanks at long distance and hitting stuff. lol

[Wobble 1]

Who said anything about the newer M1A2 ?? i'm talking about the M1A1 that was active in 1980...

the weapons are identicle, the only diff between the A1 and A2 is an electronics and slight targeting system upgrade.. the weapons and ammo are the same.

[Rage_Frost 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 14 2002,08:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the weapons are identicle, the only diff between the A1 and A2 is an electronics and slight targeting system upgrade..  the weapons and ammo are the same.<span id='postcolor'>

These were the shells used for the original M1A1 that are no longer in production. That would of been used during the time that this game takes place.

M829 120mm, APFSDS-T

M829 Projectile

Combustible Cartridge Case w/Case Base & Seal Assembly

M125 Primer

Propellant (JA-2)

M13 Tracer

The M829 is no longer in production. It was replaced by the M829A1 and more recently by the M829A2.

M830 High Explosive Anti-Tank-Multi Purpose

M830 Projectile

Combustible Cartridge Case w/Case Base & Seal Assembly

M123A1 Primer

Propellant (DIGL-RP)

M764 Fuze

The M830 was replaced by the M830A1 and is no longer in production.

The M830A1 was fielded in 1994 and is currently still in production.

If you dont trust me do your home work here is one of the many sites http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/120.htm

To: Beagle on his post.

Now the rounds your talking about is the round nick named the Silver Bullet. Which was not available when this game is suppose to be taking place...

[Beagle 684]

Well O.K. I don't know much about the M1A1, but I know the original Rheinmetall Gun that ist uses, as the same System is intalled on the Leopard 3 MBT.

The muzzle velocity did not change since it's Introduction in 1984, so I assume that it's the same with US made KE rounds.

We should just not forget was this discussion is about:

T-80 has less firepower than M1A1, despite of larger gun Diameter.

[advocatexxx 0]

There is no Leopard 3.

[Satchel 0]

The only munition sort theoretically giving OFP´s T-80/T-72 a minimal  advantage would be HE-FRAG/HEAT, as the damage potential rises parallel to the warhead diameter, and velocity doesn´t matter for these kinds of projectiles, assuming the manufacturing quality and materials used is equal to western standard.

However the difference would be virtually marginal.

Regarding west-east armor protection, here are some RL estimation figures for comparison.

As no valid source for the M1´s armor strength was available, i took the Leopard2A4 for this purpose, i´m assuming Rha armor strength of the M1A1 is somewhat close to the Leo, eventually less on some locations.

Also i´ve used the T-72B(M) model in this comparison, the T-72 modelled in OFP should have less armor protection, maybe about 8/10 of these values, or less.

It´s simplified, and instead listing over a dozen locations and respective armor strenghts for each part, just the weakest and strongest locations are listed:

T-72B(M)/T-90 Front turret:

540mm Rha - 760mm Rha vs APFSDS

800mm Rha - 1220mm Rha vs HEAT

T-72B(M)/T-90 Glacis:

670mm Rha - 710mm Rha vs APFSDS

900mm Rha - 980mm Rha vs HEAT

T-72B(M)/T-90 Turret Side:

260mm Rha - 400mm Rha vs APFSDS

310mm Rha - 610mm Rha vs HEAT (because of external storage boxes ~ 50cm thick, adding an effective 130mm Rha - 150mm Rha against HEAT)

T-72B(M)/T-90 Turret Rear:

100mm Rha - 130mm Rha vs APFSDS

120mm Rha - 300mm Rha vs HEAT (because of external storage boxes ~ 50cm thick, adding an effective 130mm Rha -150mm Rha against HEAT)

T-72B(M)/T-90  Hull Side:

60mm Rha - 170mm Rha vs APFSDS

60mm Rha - 260mm Rha vs HEAT (because of sideskirts, 60 cm airgap and fuel tanks along the sponsons that add  additional armor)

T-72B(M)/T-90 Hull Rear:

40mm Rha vs APFSDS

40mm Rha - 180mm Rha vs HEAT (because of external fuel tanks adding a max. of 140mm Rha vs HEAT)

==========================

T-80U Front Turret:

540mm Rha - 740mm Rha vs APFSDS

800mm Rha - 1320mm Rha vs HEAT

T-80U Glacis:

760mm Rha - 800mm Rha vs APFSDS

1040mm Rha - 1120mm Rha vs HEAT

T-80U Turret Side:

260mm Rha - 400mm Rha vs APFSDS

310mm Rha - 610mm Rha vs HEAT (because of external storage boxes ~50cm thick, adding an effective 130mm Rha - 150mm Rha against HEAT)

T-80U Turret Rear:

100mm Rha - 130mm Rha vs APFSDS

120mm Rha - 300mm Rha vs HEAT (because of external storage boxes ~ 50cm thick, adding an effective 130mm Rha - 150mm Rha against HEAT)

T-80U Hull Side:

60mm Rha - 170mm Rha vs APFSDS

60mm Rha - 260mm Rha vs HEAT (because of sideskirts, 60 cm airgap and fuel tanks along the sponsons that add  additional armor)

T-80U Hull Rear:

40mm Rha vs APFSDS

40mm Rha - 180mm Rha vs HEAT (because of external fuel tanks adding a max. of 140mm Rha vs HEAT)

For Kontakt- EDZ (1st Gen. ERA) protected locations (usually turret front/side/top, glacis, 3/4 of the side hull) of soviet tanks of this timeperiod, add

350mm-400mm additonal Rha protection vs HEAT, and a couple of cm vs APFSDS.  

=======================

Leopard 2A4 Front Turret

max ~ 870mm Rha vs APFSDS

max ~ 1600mm Rha vs HEAT

no data was available for other locations.

There are so many things that could be improved regarding realism of vehicles, and personally i couldn´t care less if gameplay balance is modified by altering these values, or through adding sophisticated new functions, if this means the game has a more realistic approach.

The AH-64, AH-1, MI-24 and A-10,SU-25 are basically using the same cannon, as most vehicles are sharing their weapons or have an equal that is 100% conform in specs, only difference are 3D model and textures.

[Beagle 684]

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ April 14 2002,163)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no Leopard 3.<span id='postcolor'>

Right... I meant Leopard II A3...just wrong typing

[Beagle 684]

And Satchels Data shows, that any tank could be killed by an single Shot to the rear, even with an WWII 80mm Gun...

In OFP hits to the rear are often less serious than frontal hits, because you wont lose the Gun....

[sgtvor 0]

Indeed, I find that I often prefer to aim for the front (and the main gun) more than anything else. A solid hit there with almost anything will make the tank a 3 man APC.

SgtVor

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rage_Frost @ April 14 2002,01:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well your missing the point lol the 125mm shell is more powerful then the 120mm shell it doesn't take that much Brain power to figure that out.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually no.

Kinetic energy = (0.5) * m * v^2

So doubling the mass will have less effect than doubling the velocity.

Therefor, you should focus on trading off mass to gain velocity, to achieve optimum kinetic energy.

It makes very little difference to my life which tank is better (since I have one of each sitting in my back garden ;-)), but as far as I recall, the above is true.