Przezdzieblo

Sorry for moving up that old topic, but I just played with TOW Humvees and found that TOW-2A behave as TOW-2B In reality only TOW-2B is top-attack weapon (with two EFP warheads hitting top armour of tank), TOW-2A strikes directly and use brutal power of tandem warhead to penetrate armour protected even by ERA. So probably TOW-2A need some changes (good penetration but no bonus of top-attack). TOW-2B seems to explode to high from it`s target (much more higher than INQ STAFF) and those explosion is very small...

SM_Azazel, same thing what happened to few Merkavas, IED. Under that Pappy Boyington`s link many more pics of those destroyed tank. 28 Oct 2003, Balad, 2 KIA, one seriously injured. It looks like Abrams with CITV, so M1A2.

Super Dolly Parton Well, rubber and steel instead of silicon, but this is better (and bigger) than T72M1`s Dolly Parton. 2nd pic - I agree, some T80U, not older. Llauma, not all T90s have Shtora (that jammers you were talking about).

And probably you have right ;) It looks like T72B with I gen. ERA (K3?) so it is T72BW. Note characteristic for T72Bs Super Dolly Parton armour shape near the bottom horizontal row of ERA.

TermiPete Ok, I save those initial values. I tested it on "upgraded" SIG T72 model. Initial value, HP=600: 1 BIS AT-4/CGustav + 1 BIS RPG/LAW blow it up 1st test, HP= 600, ArmorStructural=2.0: effect almost the same, 1AT-4 + 1 RPG = wreck Then 2nd test, HP=600, ArmorStructural=6.0: tank survived 1 AT + 4 RPG without much reduced firepower; 5th RPG killed one of the crew and severly dammaged tank, 6th blow it up There was no diversity of tank parts (coz I still do not have idea how does it works and will changes in config only activate it: probably CAVS when finaly defined needs some idioten-friendly tutorial how to implement it`s ideas into config and model itself). I thing 2nd test proved good simulation of ERA-uparmoured tank against even to powerful BIS AT weapons. Against Suchey or ORCS weapons (with seem to be highly overpowered and can make target upside down) it is not so good, but much more better than in "base" model or than 1st test model. So ArmorStructural seems to work and now there is question how to differ armour types. There is a chance to simulate many subgrouppes (f.e. Chobham vertical and Chobham sloped, ERA K5, slightly improved K5, Kaktus and others by small increasing ArmorS value; OTOH LoBo "teen" values seems to be too high - 8-10 works fine but 16 it is Ubertank against OFP weapons). But it also seems that KE projectiles, at least from 3 class (the newest), maybe even some older (DM43, M111, BM32 etc.) would need some power bonus to deal with high ArmorS values. About round type recognition: I do not know config tricks, but situation is not so bad as it seems. From the newest MBTs probably only Russian use specialised APERS rounds (f.e. AFAIR American are still in "X" stage, Israeli round with darts too, Brits have APFSDS and HESH only; if someone have better data about this and others countries please add a few words). So if armour and infantry is the main opponent at OFP battlefields, base ammo for Russian tanks would be HE-FRAG and APFSDS. HEAT (not in MP variant), however it has some APERS capabilities, it is not the best weapon against both tanks and infantry. If AI could choose between those two (APFSDS/HE - when HE means APERS or HEAT-MP) types, it is ok. East have here an advantage in using tanks against infantry. The problem appears when we use some "future" stuff, with specialised APERS rounds on Western tanks (+ of course KE rounds of 3rd class, PROCIPAC and another killing needles). So, does AI differs ammo types (only between those two, AP/HE)???

It looks like T72B(M) or early T90 without Shtora. Interesting, that tank seems to not have front mudguards - or even front plate (model is unfinished?).

New RHS T80 Interesting Do not be so pesimistic. LoBo tanks seems tough against ATGMs and other HEAT stuff and can survive multiple hits and crew bails out when tank is severly dammaged. The only problem is with low KE round performance, but after add modificators wroten by SQPR this problem would be solved. So probably there is a chance to simulate vs HEAT perfmormance (of course still not perfect) against increased (when compared with that real) BIS`s, ORCS`s and Suchey`s values, and then to deal with vs KE permormance by increasing rounds values. Cannot wait for 2.0 ;)

King Homer What about your tanks values? I am far here to make an advertisement for undefined and unfinished standard (CAVS), but probably there would be some usefull suggestions. Already published Abrams seems nice balanced against standard BIS and RHS addons, but AT weapons from both ORCS`s and Suchey`s pack tear them to pieces. Probably tested by LoBo system with `structural` parameters would be better here in increasing tank survivability... but I do not know would that interfere with  bailing out crew from your addon. Did you find any good way to deal with it that could be used in another addons as some standard? P.S. manhunter09 This is one of differences between US and Russian ammo loads. T-.. tanks have some antipersonal HE-FRAG rounds (OF- family), similar ammo for Abramses is probably still experimental (situation in Iraq showed those lacks). US multipurpose M830A1 round have some apers performance, but main idea of those projectile is to destroy buildings, bunkers, light armored vehicles and helis.

Great work, TermiPete!!! So now the only things CAVS do not have are CAVS addons  Which team would publish first reconfigurated addon? The closest to CAVS seems to be LoBo tanks - because of vs CE value as base and using of `structure` values. But after tank vs tank battle tests it also seems that KE values are lowered. IMHO `structure` values need some frame that would help addonmakers to give their models right parameters. So again proposal, this time with some numbers for better example: -normal, steel armour would be armourstructural=1.0 -1st gen. laminated armour would be 2.0 (as in RHS T64s) -same laminated armour with additional 1st. gen ERA would be 3.0, with gen. 1.5 ERA =3.5, and 2nd gen. heavy ERA =4.0 -Chobham and others laminated armours would have 4.0-4.5, Chobham 2 =5.0-6.0 This numbers are only unsciencic proposals Lets say we got Challanger 2 in Iraq variant. We take vs CE value as base armour and armourstructural=4.0 (or more - now I do not remember if the newest Challs have improved Chobham or not). Those tanks have also additional ERA cells (sides, low hull plate), but we count only the best quality armour (front turret) as `structural` and only the highest vs CE value as tank hit points. All aplique spaced or reactive armours would be simulated f.e. in armortracks=... values. High `structure` values might decrease KE round performance. So probably there would be needed some another modificator than x1.35 proposed by SPQR. There can be also some subdivisions of APFSDS round, f.e. x 1.35 for old ones, x1.40 (number just from air :P) for thinner rounds like DM43, x1.45 for the newest generations of projectiles, + one more bonus if round is DU. There would be some maths here, but it is better than changing all vs CE values. P.S. Added after lecture of SPopulusQueR`s post: the only good thing about ATGMs that strike from above is that there are not many With high `structural` values x2 might be not enough... but probably some tests would give right answer. P.P.S. OTOH there seem to be needed few more subdivisions for HEATs. I see 3 groups: -HEATs -tandem HEATs -projectiles which attack from above If first group inflict x1 damage and 3rd x2, what to do with 2nd group of tandem warheads? x1.5 seems to much, so maybe add additional 150-200 mm to RHAe penetration (coz those are estimates of extra protection of some ERA cells) or 15-30%? Another idea to differ extra crew protection of tanks with separated ammo from men inside: if tank HP is it`s vs CE protection + some extra points (to let crew bail out and prevent instant explosion) older tanks with ammo near crew and old extinguishers system would have decreased those values, f.e. T72M1 HP= 490 + lets say 1 x some value (to simulate that fire after hit could easy blow it up) T55 HP= 210 + lets say 1.25 x same value (coz those tanks seems not so vulnerable to fire as T72s) T90 HP= 1120 + lets say 1,5 x some value (still ammo near crew but better extinguishers system) M1A2 HP=1600 + lets say 2 x some value (well protected crew, small probability of dangerous ammo blow) P.P.P.S. calm_terror, could you paste part of Merkavas config with all that HP and `structural` values?

More ideas Still waiting for some researches results, but lets say that now there are two ways to simulate tanks vs projectiles performance: by increasing HP or `structure` values. We have few armour types that probably could be included in CAVS: -spaced armour -laminated armour -1st generation ERA -1.5 generation ERA -2nd generation ERA spaced armour It gives reduced protection against KE and better against HEATs, f.e. a plate protecting tank hull sometimes gives even 300 mm RHA additional protection against old HEAT warhead, but many times less against new ones. But it would be hard to simulate those values, because so big difference in KE and CE values. laminated armour Generally, good performance against HEATs and a bit less than KE. But there would be some subclasses: - 1st generation laminated armour, as Soviet "K" armour, gives aprox. +30-40% of CE protection compared to KE protection, f.e. 335 mm RHAe (vs KE) of T80 gives 420-450 mm RHAe (vs CE) - Chobham and Chobham-like laminated armour, up to +100% RHAe (vs CE compared to vs KE values) - Chobham + DU laminated armour, + 50-100% vs KE (comparing M1A1 with M1A2), +70% (if vs CE values compared to vs KE of M1A2; or +300% if M1A2`s vs CE value with M1`s vs KE). - Chobham 2nd generation (and new laminated armours): probably silimar to Chobham + DU vs KE and better vs CE 1st generation ERA Low protection against KE and good against CE - up to +50-70% (compared with vs KE values) f.e. Blazer, Kontakt-1 generation 1+ (or 1.5) ERA Additional protection against KE rounds, f.e. modified Kontakt-1, Israeli Super Blazer, Polish ERAWA-1 protection level vs KE +50% (against old rounds) Â vs CE +80-100% 2nd generation ERA More protection against KE round and versus tandem warheads (two layers ERA), f.e. Kontakt-5, protection level vs KE +50% vs CE +100% I do not what to do with Czech/Slovakian Dyna-72 and ERAWA-2. Some of Dyna cells might has two layers, ERAWA-2 has for sure. So those ERAs are probably effective against tandem warheads - and ERAWA-2 also against some of KE rounds. Anybody knows something about French Brenus (Brennus?) ERA? Probably there is a chance to simulate those values by modifying HP or `structure` values. In first case just adding some RHAe approximates, f.e. it is believed that against some rounds Russian K-1 ERA gives + 30 mm RHAe vs KE and + 400 mm RHAe vs HEAT; and 2nd gen. K-5 gives + 250 mm RHAe vs KE and + 600 mm RHAe vs CE. All those values are included www webs like http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm In the second case (`structure`) I believe thing gets more complicated. But maybe those stuff (armour classes) above would help to make some common agreement and idea how to deal with it. Here I see again great idea of changing vs KE values into vs CE... Â So, in very simple example (no maths here): - RHAe (simulating good, tradicional steel armour) - spaced armour - 1st gen. ERA - 1st generation laminated armour - 1.5 gen ERA - Chobham / 2nd gen ERA - Chobham + DU/Chobham 2 and Chobham 2-like newer laminated armours Probably all ERAs, even those much sofisticated and new, would have "worse" `structure` value, because explosion of cell would decrease tank combat efficiency (f.e. by dammaging sights, quake etc.). All ERAs but Russian K-5 and newer, which seems more "sight-friendly" than others. I hope that I would be understood, even with this not the best English ever wrote Â

DKM Jaguar First a little OT: IMHO all gun radar guided AA systems are extremaly dangerous for everything flying. Probably jammers give planes and helis a chance against older AA systems, as Shilkas, but new ones, as Tunguska, would tear appart everything in range of it`s guns. That is why after Kosovo Americans use more smart ammo and fly above altitude, where AA guns and portable AA missiles can get it. So great performance of Tunguskas or Adats against modern flying objects is realistic - now AA systems ahead, waiting for better countermeasures. Of course if someone makes model of future heli (as DKMs Commanche) or plane he could add some jammers making it less vulnerable. In OFP, when the most of fights are at range (or altitude) less than 1.5 km, planes have problem... but it is more realistic than one Cobra destroying 5 Shilkas in one mission, because live player was faster in targeting and fire than AI. Kurayami IMHO balance in OFP MP is a task for missionmaker, not addonmaker. Symmetry is foe of art OTOH see that Russian can have some advantages because of OFP armour system (3 hits of more lethal weapon could make more dammages than one hit of powerfull missile). Many West AT portable weapons are, like LAW, can fire once or their ammo is heavy and there is no vacant slots for more (f.e. Javelin). So that weapons can fire once and the most of Russian RPGs can fire many times, making more dammages and could be used against infantry or light vehicles (in comparison shooting a Jav against jeep is a little, erm, overkill). Difference between East and West weapons is IMHO one more thing that makes (or could make) OFP interesting. Russian still don`t have operable top-attack ATGM, but the newest of their tanks have actve protections systems that Americans have not. So still there is a chance to find a balance in many kind of effective weapons and countermeasures, and it is way better for me than makes everything values and act the same. TermiPete I like the way LoBo team made their tanks high armoured against HEATs, but long firefights between tanks with multiple hits is not so good for me. There is still need to find a good balance (one more good balance) between amour and round values. Maybe some values to think about. There is PT-91 Twardy MBT. Polish MBT. It is rather deep (but there are deeper) modification of T72M1, included better protection because of ERA (one-layer ERAWA-1 and two-layers ERAWA-2 with increased performance agains tandem warheads). Lets compare aprox. armour values: T72M1 vs KE turret: 250-380 glacis: 400 vs CE turret: 320-490 glacis: 490 PT-91 vs KE turret: ~500 glacis: ~500 (it means that there is low probability that KE round with penetration ratio about 500 mm RHAe would deal with armour) vs CE turret: ~800 glacis: ~800 (it means that there is low probability that CE round with penetration ratio about 800 mm RHAe +ERA would deal with this armour) Do you have any ideas how in this case values should look like? I like the move here

TermiPete Ad "Add-on / value information" - this is for people who understand what they see. I supposed that sumary would be helpful for addonmakers. Now, after I opened (almost for the first time) RHS configs I found it more complicated than I thought before. So it is up to addonmakers (who are interested in this thread of common armour values system) if they are interested in that summary, would it help, or they prefer fight with numbers alone  So I opened those config file and saw many dead people... I suppose important values are f.e.: [This is part of RHS T64 config file, all right reserved, all credits deserved] If move this and remaied configs to one Excel table, it would be rather big Now I believe that RHS developers choosed armour vs KE value, which make those addons "a little" inferior to f.e. latest INQ tanks. Of course it would be normal that M1A2 is better protected and have more firepower than T64B, but in this case there are major config differences which in ideal world of CAVS would not be (both tanks are vehicles of combined laminated armours and ERA era, so this is important to simulate difference between KE and CE protection level). I suppose that without increasing HP number only those mentioned before "magic" Structure value might help to balance those addons...   Still don`t understand much and even I am interested in some strange values (laserscanner? laserscanrange? interesting, =1 increasing accuracy? or it`s laser tracker for LGBs?), I would not ask here. The more important thing is what to do now. We got some ideas, there are still (I hope) some researches... Presence of people from Frenchpoint, Lost Brothers and Operation Northstar gives some hopes to spread those ideas (and make some system), but CAVS need more (newborn monster that is always hungry).

For me now works fine. It`s path is not straght but it goes close to bullet`s path so using tracers to trace a bullet is possible Still sometimes appear one more tracer - ricochet - before bullets and it`s tracer hit target. Oh, and it looks like tracer is still slower. To maximum fun turn off BIS `lasers` first

SPQR, full agree about BM42M, I was to fast. But there is a question will Russian tanks addonmakers agree to lower their weapons performance... One question about DU hit explosive=true: is there any need to do that? That special effect (hm, pirophoric?) probably is not very spectacular for spotter, just few more sparks. The main effect is inside penetrated target... calm_terror, probably there would be no problem with the newest Russian DU rounds, because Russian do not longer support DU. BM32 probably was only DU projectile in Russian tanks loading carousels. Quality of round is factor that is hard to simulate. Do you have any easy to see (so: WWW) sources about estimates of Syria or Egypt rounds quality? Despite of lower performance of shorter Russian rounds there must be remembered differences between methods of penetration estimates on West (f.e. if 50% of rounds penetrate 500 mm RHA, it is said that round penetrate 500 mm RHA) and East (f.e. 80% must penetrate 500 mm RHA to be said that round penetrate 500 mm RHA) and fast deceleration of shorter and not so thin rounds - another thing hard to simulate in OFP. I do not thing that sloped plates could help much against high density DU or tungsten rounds... About IEDs which KOed Merkavas - almost sure it was just a pile of explosives, not shaped charges. Tanks where destroyed by impact and inertion of masses inside (f.e. engine pack), crew killed from quake or smashed under turret when it blow into air - probably there was no ammo explosion. The only way to made a tank invulnerable for such an attack is to make it much more heavier, that even 100 kg would not throw turret and blow engine off hull... so there is no way.

Well, actually it might be good way. Probably it is better to let players to see any bugs in late beta version than to find it in early final version. For me experience with T54/T55 and T64 patches was ok, even if T64B still lacks some barrel.something ;) Even little bugged addons might be a great joy, bugs that are found are easier to kill

Damn, PC crash just before posting... Firstly, I thing there is not good idea to compare Sigma-6`s addons from old packs with new tank addons. SIG T90s are IMHO overpowered (BM32 DU round as "Abrams killer") and undearmoured. It is better to compare RHS T54s/T55s and T64s (T64B with BM42, Russian standard APFSDS for many years). I do not exactly know values of RHS addons, but it seems balanced against both BIS and new INQ tanks. Secondly, important for CAVS might be agreement what values (KE or CE) would be base values - and what kind of projectiles would have increased or decreased power. SPQR propositions to choice CE have many advantages, but even then there would be still some problems with balance. RPG16 frompopular suchrus.pbo addon is dangerous even for thick armour of INQ M1A2. It may not kill it, but force crew to bail out after one (AFAIR) hit. Just increasing tank`s HP value might not be the good way to go. The good idea might be some researches, as whisperFFW06 and orson showed (it could be great if in-game RPG7 could severly damage M1A2 when attack from side of rear, and do only a little scratch when hit front; in this situation of close urban combat I see advantages of Merkavas which, I believe, are not better protected against tank KE rounds than another generation 3+ tanks). But if those tries fail, there should be another way, just in increasing some HP and structure values. Everyone with UNPBO could unpbo addon and see values in config. But, to faster and easier acces to all this stuff maybe would be good to summarise it here? Compare all values, f.e. structure, base armour, rounds power etc. of the most popular addons - BIS, RHS, INQ, LoBo. There should be easier to talk about numbers when it will be before eyes. There are few things that IMHO needs to discuss and to make an agreement about it. I know that some mods believe, that in moder tank warfare one hit=one kill (but rather with crew bail out than tank blow up), another prefer longer battles with many hits. In my point of view in OFP: - standard KE rounds (as BM32/42, M829 up to A1 version, OFL120E2, even DM53) should not KO high-end enemy tank with one hit - and force crew to bail out after multiply hits - the newest KE round (BM42M, M829A3, PROCIPAC etc.) should KO enemy tanks with one hit, but without destroying vehicle, only forcing crew to bail out - the newest CE rounds and ATGMs should not KO enemy tanks (except older vehicles) with one hit - ATGMs that attacks from above should KO enemy tank even with one hit (so I think there must be some + modificator for Javelins, Bills etc.) SPQR, I got datas, that tank destroyed by 100 kg of hexolit 15th February 2003 in Gaza was Merkava mk. 3. Plus one more Merkava mk. 3 destroyed 5th Sept. 2002 by 70-kg IED, driver was killed

It depends on the type of bullet. Â Tracer bullets on 5.56mm ammunition actually burn out after like 100 meters and there is a big arc at 300 meters. Â Its definitely not flat. Â Now if you're talking 7.62x51mm or 7.62x54mm rounds then yes, they have a relatively flat trajectory at 300 meters. Â But at 600 meters they shouldn't go above a target that is hit. However in combat most people tend to overshoot their targets which is why often you see tracer bullets going up in the air. Â Not very many soldiers seem to be able to use tracers accurately. Â Even on firing ranges I noticed that during nightfire training, most soldiers shot high and did not learn the technique of "walking" tracers onto a target. Â On the M60 machine gun, with the assistance of an assistant gunner with binoculars (serving as a spotter) I was able to hit 800 meter targets at Ft. Hood, Texas, by having him watch the fall of my tracers and telling me where to move my aim. Also as far as I know, tracer rounds do go as fast as regular bullets as essentially they are bullets with a hollowed out core containing phosphorous in the base of the bullet. Â Their accuracy may be slightly worse but overall they are very similar in ballistics from my experience firing 5.56mm and 7.62mmx51mm tracers. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> Hm, great. But this time I was talking about that I saw in-game. There is big difference about two trajectories: - path of bullet, which is parabolic and at >300 meters you can see in OFP an arc - path of wolfbane`s tracer, which is flat And here we have situation, where hitting far targets is hard, because of tracers, which we see, gives us no information where our bullets hit. And it can even mislead us. That is what I was talking about

Maybe fast release of Fennek-prototype? Â

One more thing - tracers go straight. At 300 meters there is no difference, but at 600 - there is big. Tracers goes even few meters above target which is hit. Cpt. FrostBite said about two tracers instead of one - bullet is faster than tracer. But sometimes at the moment of hit there is no additional bouncing tracer - but one which gone straight now change it`s trajectory (if target was far - all it happens few meters above and looks like ufo).

Fennek looks great and cannot wait for this vehicle!! Â Some good Fennek links: click 1 click 2 click 3 movie part 1 movie part 2

It works One thing, that "red" looks rather "pink", is it possible to make it more "NATO-red"? "Green" on East works fine - only need to turn off standard BIS tracers and do not put to many MGs with new one I can see shiny future for this thing.

SPQR, add HE-FRAGs to list. Any idea how to simulate differences between this list and normal HE? HESH/HEP rounds might not be the problem. Values has to be so high, that one hit KO all 2, 2+ gen. tanks, with steel armour. So probably power 200-250 would be enough - it will hurt all T55s and M60s (which IRW would be vulnerable to those rounds too) and make a little scratch to "beasts". Damn, I regret I do not know about addon configs ;) OT calm_terror, did you saw uparmoured Challengers 2 in Iraqi? Really, I would not bet which tank, British or Israeli, is better armoured. Merkava 4 has thick side turret and hull protection, probably better than any other tank, due to urban warfare. But it is hard to say if it was possible to make front armour thicker than f.e. Strv 122 (for me absolute high-end) and mount all this heavy stuff into tank, which is probably not much heavier than Merkava mk. 3B or so called mk. 3D.

DKM Jaguar, I suppose that non-negative word are nice - and only nice, and some negative can be only helpful It is great (non-negative!) that INQ M1A2 crew bail out and there remain normal looking abandoned wreck on the battlefield. But now crew leaving tank after, about, 50-60% of dammage taken. It sometimes looks odd: I tested 4 M1A2 against many, many RHS T54/T55/Type 69 and SIG T72M1 (Iraq). Range about 3000-4000 meters, pretty clouds of dense smoke, smell of napalm and thats stuff. But few times Iraqi tanks were able to hit all Abramses and force all crews to bail out. Tankers left vehicles and, almost unhurt, started to assault far (still more than 2.5 km) foe positions... on foot. Strange to see 16 tankers running bravely into fire when around stays four almost untouched mighty Abramses

Few ideas. INQ M1A2 is extremaly hard to kill - it is easier to dammage it hardly and force crew to bail out. Way how it is made in that addon is great. AFAIR there were no battles between tanks of generations 3 and 3+. But some thoughts it would be match to one hit (remember that data about round penetrations often say about round pefrormance at 2000 meters; in OFP tanks battles are mostly on lower distances). Uparmoured 3+ tanks have impressive level of protection, but new generations of rounds probably are (or will be) good enough to penetrate it. So I thing, there are same reasons to make tanks of the same generations vulnerable to own fire. However "one shot one kill" with blowing tank after hit would not be realistic. Better would be knock out - in a way that INQ M1A2 showed. ex.: M1A2 vs M1A2, one, which lost, is KOed but crew alive, even if hurt http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-90_armor.html http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-80u_armor.html Those values above are approximities (and made from another approximities), but I suppose that there is nothing better. If we will take high second value ( how probably did INQ and King Homer) - RHA vs CE. ex.: M1A2 HP: 1620 Then it`s M829A3 power ~950 (after mentioned table) It is easy to see that one round will not kill M1A2. But it can severly dammage it and, last but not least, force crew to bail out. M829 "silver bullet" still will be deadly to 2, 2+ gen. tanks, but would not kill newer with one lucky hit. Another problem are HEATs. If tank HEAT round are not killers, ATGMs are. All this reactive or passive stuff on/in armour reducing power of HEATs more than KE rounds. So when counting HEAT power add some modificator? Let say, very unscientic, -30% for HEATs and -15% for tandem HEATs. Then f.e. 2 9M119 Svir ATGMs (650- 30% of 650) would not kill M1A2 - simulating it`s heavy Chobham - but probably second or third hit will make crew bailing out. And RPG29 Vampire (750 - 15% of 750) would highly reduce tanks HP. Reducing HEATs would not affect battles between older tanks. 100mm BK-17 HEAT (380 - 30% of 380) hit would be as dangerous for M60A1 (HP:~250; maybe little more to make hit tank severly dammaged, not fried) as in reality. P.S. SPQR, IMHO reducing CE power is better that increasing KE. Not all HEAT rounds are multipurpose, but in OFP are often used in this way. Also sometimes are used as "building" crushers. Reducing it`s power can only help ;) In thas case part of tank HP would be "sacrificed" for round hit, that HP what remain will allow crew to bail out and tank to become abandoned wreck, not piece of twisted and fried metal. And increased survivability would be more player-friendly One more thing - good idea might be reducing range of dammage (hm, radius?) of HEATs (unless there are, as M830A1, MP). And increasing performance of ATGMs atacking from above, Bill, Tow-2b, Javelin, Spike (?) and Staff... maybe +30%?

I suppose that direct HEAT warhead hit in armour of tank with some soldiers sitting on it would be also... unhealthy. In this case ERA cell explosion would be only some kind of overkill. From the other hand tank gives sitting on it soldiers a little protection (and would not explode after MG bullet/splinter) and transport. So nothing strange. One more thing - Russian K5 probably is more "desant-friendly" than other ERAs, because front plate of cell stays on place after explosion. http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.html