Tank damage modelling in OA?

[*NOB*Perica 10]

Has it been improved?

In current Arma2 1.7 t72 can kill Abrams with 2 frontal shots and you can do the same with couple of RPG7 hits.

Is this still the same in OA or have they made the damage modelling a bit more realistic?

Thanks in advance.

[S-GERAT 10]

Yesterday I do a user mission with the editor, and with a T55 tank I can destroy the M1A1 with HE and HEAT rounds at long distances.. :eek:

[Alaric -ITA- 10]

I recall that in campaign t55s and RPGs barely scratched hull armor, but it was the campaign. And if really they can destroy M1s from afar.. lol @ BIS. Altho it seems very weird to me.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Alaric [ITA]

[Beagle 684]

It took me 6 VRs to kill a damned M1A2 TUSK last time I encounterd one in MP Warfare BE. Had to take them all into the side because the rear had no cover for me.

2 hits for a killl from a 125mm 2A46M-2 Maingun are well and fair enought, no need to change this. Even after this two hits you have a few seconds time to eject and escape the self detruction of your tank. Compare this to "steel beast", your M1A1 would not have survived more in this dedicated MBT sim.

Dont forget, in the ArmAverse T-72 are always equiped with the latest in russian ammunition technology.

[Alaric -ITA- 10]

Well, if T72s fire lastest-gen SABOT rounds then it's right they can pierce in 2 shots the M1's armor.

[Tangox5 10]

Number of shots isn't the issue in real life, and no the T-72 won't destroy an M1A2 from the front with two rounds.

The Armor model leaves a fair bit to be desired in many, many ways. AFVs simply have hitpoints and it's a matter of shooting them enough.

Try this - Place a T34 about 1km away from a DshK. Man the DshK and empty some clips into the flank of the T34. You should be able to brew it up. :rolleyes:

However it seems the engine is there, it is merely a matter of tweaking this. For example, take the same sitution and shoot at the front of the T34. You can empty your entire ammo loadout and not hurt it.

---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------

Yesterday I do a user mission with the editor, and with a T55 tank I can destroy the M1A1 with HE and HEAT rounds at long distances.. :eek:

No AFV can take an infinite amount of HEAT and HE type hits without eventually being knocked out. But it is an incremental thing, with damage to radios and such coming first, tracks being thrown and so forth. There is NO "knock out" punch. The hull should be relatively fine, as with the crew. It is all the equipment - the main gun, the computers and stabilization, the engine and tracks - that should die, and the crew abandon as a result -- when it is safe.

[S-GERAT 10]

Yes, I know that in real life if a shell can't pierce an armor the tank can't be destroyed, and I know that a armor suffering several impacts of high explosive can be inutilized. But I'm talking that with a T-55 can destroy a M1A1 with two HE shells at a distance of 1 km.. and yes, the crew abandon the tank, but after a few seconds it explodes.

[Baff1 0]

;1671715']Well' date=' if T72s fire lastest-gen SABOT rounds then it's right they can pierce in 2 shots the M1's armor.[/quote']

Try the missile rounds Mr. That's the biggest munition a T72 can fire.

Sabot rounds aren't as good.

The T72 has a much more effective weapon system than the Abrams.

Longer range, greater penetration, but the sabot isn't it. It's the guided missile. I think they call it Reflecks.

If you are in the Abrams, then you should use the sabot.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Baff1

[walker 0]

HELP!

Ahrg not the (insert tank) is invulnerable myth again! No tank is invulnerable!

Can we please have the childish my countries guns/tanks/air craft/missiles are better than yours discussion in another thread.

I can kill a tank with a sledge hammer and cold chisel given time. Ergo hit it enough times in vulnerable spots and you can disable a tank.

Once it is not moving; a Molotov cocktail or even a car tyre inner-tube full of petrol or diesel thrown on the engine compartment is enough to destroy any Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV). Heck thermite is the easiest thing in the world to make and again thrown on the engine compartment and any AFV is just so much scap metal.

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 5, 2010 by walker

[mchide 0]

Sniper with 12.7 mm sniper riffle can disable tank... they are blind and useles when he brakes all their periscope windows ... in RL.

[Alaric -ITA- 10]

Try the missile rounds Mr. That's the biggest munition a T72 can fire.

Sabot rounds aren't as good.

The T72 has a much more effective weapon system than the Abrams.

Longer range, greater penetration, but the sabot isn't it. It's the guided missile. I think they call it Reflecks.

If you are in the Abrams, then you should use the sabot.

Honestly, i struggle to belive a several decades old tank like the t72, no matter how refitted, can have more rough firepower than one of the most modern tanks around, plus that just been refitted.

REFLEKs are more powerful than sabots, yes, and can actually hit low-flying aircrafts too, but iirc have a much much longer reloading time (they did in Arma 2) and i belive the M1's sabots are considerably stronger than the T72's ones. So all around i still belive an M1 has more firepower, while it lacks the advantages of missles the cannon (iirc) should have more than enough range for most engagements. More advanced electronics and sights should help tipping the balance too.

Still i have to admit, REFLEKs do offer an advantage, provided it's the T72 that fires first, since i'm prety sure a single sabot from an M1 would manage to take out the T72 for good.

Actually, i wonder how would a T90's armor fare compared to that of the Abrams.

[pj[cz] 2]

The hitpoint system may seem obsolete, but BIS did some nice upgrades to it in OA and statements like "I can throw 20 million rocks in the editor with my rock supply script to knock out a T90 MBT" are really stupid if you ask me, because in the heat of the battle you dont have time to make "exploits" like that work, because after the first hit by -insert name of a weapon not designed to kill tanks-, the tank will get extremely pissed at you and BBQ your A**. OpF/ARMA was never meant to be a strict tank simulator and you cant expect it to calculate the dents a T34s main gun does to your Abrams hull to eventually add up and kill your crew. Im not saying there isnt room for improvement but i find the current system really good except few obvious bugs e.g. HEAT rounds not evaporating a taskitani bicycle in one hit :)

[TristanYockell 0]

I think the current system is complete Crap to be honest and BIS needs to fix it. The engine is capable of portraying semi realistic Armour Values, hitpoints are a pathetic excuse for vehicle armour.

Come on BIS enough with the arcadish damage already, this is a combat simulator after all....:mad:.

[Laqueesha 474]

Case in point: Keep shooting an LAV-25 in its frontal armor with a Makarov PM. Eventually, it will explode in a giant fireball. :D

[DruidB 10]

;1671972']Honestly' date=' i struggle to belive a several decades old tank like the t72, no matter how refitted, can have more rough firepower than one of the most modern tanks around, plus that just been refitted.

[/quote']

The abrams is 30 years old... so its also decades old.

[Laqueesha 474]

The Abrams is 30 years old.

Yes, but it is lightyears ahead of the T-72 in design terms.

[ray243 11]

Case in point: Keep shooting an LAV-25 in its frontal armor with a Makarov PM. Eventually, it will explode in a giant fireball. :D

You serious bro?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Ouch, that is just... Sad :(

[Beagle 684]

Yes, but it is lightyears ahead of the T-72 in design terms.

Indeed not...the M1 and other Tanks like Leopard II, Challanger etc. was the answer to the introduction of the T-72. On introduction day it was the most advanced Tank on this Planet just behind the T-64 and NATO was driving mainly M48s, M-60s into the 80s.

[Deadfast 43]

Case in point: Keep shooting an LAV-25 in its frontal armor with a Makarov PM. Eventually, it will explode in a giant fireball. :D

Eventually = 4000 shots. Have fun.

[TKTom 10]

Eventually = 4000 shots. Have fun.

The principle it represents is that you could get a team of 7 guys together with weak RPGs and shoot the tank simultaneously and kill it. Real life combat engagements have shown that that will not happen (with any regularity) in real life.

[LJF 0]

The principle it represents is that you could get a team of 7 guys together with weak RPGs and shoot the tank simultaneously and kill it. Real life combat engagements have shown that that will not happen (with any regularity) in real life.

Indeed, which is the problem. A nuke detonating inside an Abrams will destroy it in ArmA2 and in real life, but that doesn't mean for a second that ArmA2 properly simulates that, it's a coincidence.

[Tangox5 10]

HELP!

Ahrg not the (insert tank) is invulnerable myth again! No tank is invulnerable!

Can we please have the childish my countries guns/tanks/air craft/missiles are better than yours discussion in another thread.

I can kill a tank with a sledge hammer and cold chisel given time. Ergo hit it enough times in vulnerable spots and you can disable a tank.

Once it is not moving; a Molotov cocktail or even a car tyre inner-tube full of petrol or diesel thrown on the engine compartment is enough to destroy any Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV). Heck thermite is the easiest thing in the world to make and again thrown on the engine compartment and any AFV is just so much scap metal.

Kind Regards walker

I think you're the one on a childish rant. Nobody is talking about nationalist anything here. We're talking about a tank 50 years older than another one taking it out frontally with 2 HE shots.

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------

Indeed not...the M1 and other Tanks like Leopard II, Challanger etc. was the answer to the introduction of the T-72. On introduction day it was the most advanced Tank on this Planet just behind the T-64 and NATO was driving mainly M48s, M-60s into the 80s.

Sorry no, the T-72 is not remotely comparable to the M1. The M1 was a big jump in technology for armor, far far ahead of the T-72 -- even the most modern updated versions.

---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

Case in point: Keep shooting an LAV-25 in its frontal armor with a Makarov PM. Eventually, it will explode in a giant fireball. :D

At least useful to show how the system is modeling things, i.e., hitpoints.

But we're not just examining strange cases that never occur in combat. I pointed out that a T34 can be destroyed by flanking fire from heavy machine guns, modestly quickly too. HE and HEAT from T55's shouldn't brew up M1A2's.

The stuff that we're seeing is significant for gameplay and tactics. It removes realism from how the battle unfolds and forces the commander to use his forces in unrealistic ways, or avoid using them in specific situations where they are supposed to excel.

One guy says if you don't want to die, don't get in a vehicle. And with the radar all the vehicles have that see's through terrain and sometimes hillsides, what can possibly be considered a "simulation" about this?

The infantry stuff is top notch. Wish the vehicles were as well done.

[whisper 0]

Arg! There are modern T72 with modern features, as modern as western counterparts.

The Ruskies running tanks from 70's-80's is now urban legend, plz.....

Stop talking like T72 in general is crap, it ain't, latest versions in Russian army are modern tanks.

Most sources about T72 in west are years old and out of date.

Now, the Takistani T72 is not the russian one and really open to debate, I doubt it would match latest russian versions.

OTOH, when you see some of the Takistani army gear, guns with TI optics, Metis launchers... , it looks like they are backed up by russian resellers having access to advanced toys :) Which means one could imagine (afterall, it's not RL, it's the ArmaVerse) they may have some of the modern russian tanks in their arsenal, even though most of it would be made of old stuff ....

[TristanYockell 0]

I think you're the one on a childish rant. Nobody is talking about nationalist anything here. We're talking about a tank 50 years older than another one taking it out frontally with 2 HE shots.

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------

Sorry no, the T-72 is not remotely comparable to the M1. The M1 was a big jump in technology for armor, far far ahead of the T-72 -- even the most modern updated versions.

---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

At least useful to show how the system is modeling things, i.e., hitpoints.

But we're not just examining strange cases that never occur in combat. I pointed out that a T34 can be destroyed by flanking fire from heavy machine guns, modestly quickly too. HE and HEAT from T55's shouldn't brew up M1A2's.

The stuff that we're seeing is significant for gameplay and tactics. It removes realism from how the battle unfolds and forces the commander to use his forces in unrealistic ways, or avoid using them in specific situations where they are supposed to excel.

One guy says if you don't want to die, don't get in a vehicle. And with the radar all the vehicles have that see's through terrain and sometimes hillsides, what can possibly be considered a "simulation" about this?

The infantry stuff is top notch. Wish the vehicles were as well done.

^^^.... this, Please say your listening BIS, its time to fix this GIGANTIC flaw. Please. I don't mind dishing out and buying your software, but when it says realistic combat simulator, I want just that, not awesome infantry combat mixed with crappy arcadish BF2 vehicles.