Jump to content

t-80 quided missles advantage


oscar19681

Recommended Posts

Why does the t-80 always have an advantage in range over allied tanks like the m1a2 ? I know in real life t-80,s have guided missles but alled tanks always have a disadvantage in range because they dont in CA. To make matters worse its always instant death when being hit by one. Its one shot one kill. Surely in real life an m1a2 is definatly not killed instantly every single time when hit by the atgm,s from the t-80

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 9M119M has a maximum range of 8000m, handsomely outranging the M1. A reasonable counter would be the IAI's LAHAT. Not sure if the US has something similar in the pipeline. Definitely nothing operational as far as I am aware.

 

I'll have a look at the 'one-hit-kill' effect.

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@oscar.. range doesn't effect penetration capability of ATGM .. if they are designed to penetrate lets say 800 mm of such and such armor than yes it would be a kill every single time..

 

problem with simulation is terrain, in reality its very difficult to have a scenario where tanks are in the open like that.. only in a WW3 kinda scenario do i imagine hundreds if not thousands of tanks merging into a big fight over a flat terrain.. and in such situation Russian tanks could use the missiles to dilute the enemy tank numbers... but with all kind of smoke being fired from artillera to protect the tanks from enemy helicopter ATGM it would be hard to be very effective with tank fired ATGM..

 

of course if you are defending or trying to harass the enemy from the flanks then such t-80,90 are a nightmare as they could peck you all the time while staying out of range.. akin to cossack units pecking napoleon army from the flanks picking up the weakest members of the Grand Armee..

 

i think with this vision did RF employ such weapon on tanks.. its suited for Russian terrain, open spaces and with idea of defense in mind, where smaller tank units would be harassing the enemy while staying at a distance.. t-80,90 being lighter and more mobile means they could do that very well..

 

so its a part of whole doctrine thing...

 

in the game we can't see all that, so its just flat terrain and two tanks duking it out, where obviously in such situation abrams doesn't stand a chance..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, the M1A2 ingame is limited to 3500 for maximum gun engagement range. In SB Pro PE, I've gone out to 4500 with the LRF without problems :(

 

Hopefully thats something to be fixed in the way-down-the-road M1A2 module :P

 

TGM's were (from what I've been told) meant to be used as an anti-ATGM vehicle platform, as well as anti-heli. Not sniping out at absurd ranges, due to vehicle magnification limits etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TGM's were (from what I've been told) meant to be used as an anti-ATGM vehicle platform, as well as anti-heli. Not sniping out at absurd ranges, due to vehicle magnification limits etc.

 

Nope, the 9M119M is a dedicated Anti-Tank weapons system that does exactly that.

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can reach as above 4km with the guns the laser wont reach as much you can still use target lock to know where you need to shoot.

 

anyway from what i know the missile isnt a 1 hit kill against abrams tanks, from when i used its its a 3 hit kill in the front maybe one or 2 to the side.

 

Still it doesnt have any of the disadvantages it would have in real life, and the range, may be a bit too much, but it has one disadvantage, you cant shoot on the move if you are piloting the vehicle because ground stabilization isnt modeled in the tanks and that means the one using ap and HE shells is at a distinct advantage since he can keep moving.

 

Of course its all different when its AI vs AI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they are designed to penetrate lets say 800 mm of such and such armor than yes it would be a kill every single time..

An Abrams can shrug off a hit like that, over the frontal arc, according to any RHA estimate you'll see.

 

Anyways, the most important factor at work here is the heedlessness of the AI and the lack of detail in the environment. In real life, it would be extremely unlikely for a slow ATGM to cover 8000m before a tank could reach any sort of cover. And of course, it would be popping smoke as it skedaddled. Not to mention, even in flat, agricultural areas of the Georgia or the Kuban, you are unlikely to see engagement ranges of more than a few kilometers, because vegetation along the edges of roads and fields will provide concealment. In the hills and forests that make up most of the region, you are more likely to get the Western Europe average of 800m, at which point no one will be using missiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simulation vs modeling

 

Here is the problem, we want to stick to simulation. For reference, simulation is when you create an environment to test in with all the performance factors plugged in and allow the simulation to run and hope it comes out close to Real Life.

Modelling is when you start manipulating/simplifing the results so as the outcome is closer to expectations.

 

Particularly with damaging effects, we simplify and model the damage. Increasingly we see some simulated aspects but mostly its just approximated.

 

Imagine games where we deal with being detected by an enemy. It's a very complex affair so almost always we try to model this with a % chance at a certian range and modify with conditions like visibility.

 

The ground warfare has very little modelling to change the detection, Line of Sight, camouflage and damage effects. It is severely limited by the terrain, for which development has been in progress for years as far as I know. Thus over modelling right now would be a waste of resource and we should ask these same questions on DCS 2 terrain.

 

Still, player vs player would equalise these factors perfectly. What you see is a result of AI simulation with an oversimplified terrain.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea about the sources ED has access to, but according to Wikipedia and the source quoted there, the missile has a range of 5000M based on 350 meters per second for 14 seconds of flight time. between 700 - 900mm of armor can be penetrated..

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Commodore 64 | MOS6510 | VIC-II | SID6581 | DD 1541 | KCS Power Cartridge | 64Kb | 32Kb external | Arcade Turbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea about the sources ED has access to, but according to Wikipedia and the source quoted there, the missile has a range of 5000M based on 350 meters per second for 14 seconds of flight time. between 700 - 900mm of armor can be penetrated..

 

If i read about those missiles i ask myself how Optics work at those distances(Heatsight/magnification/stabilisation and so on).

It should be a hard jop for the missile operator to hit a moving Target.

"Blyat Naaaaa" - Izlom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be a hard jop for the missile operator to hit a moving Target.

 

It's a laser beam-rider, no different to the Vikhrs and they seem to work pretty well.

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@oscar.. range doesn't effect penetration capability of ATGM .. if they are designed to penetrate lets say 800 mm of such and such armor than yes it would be a kill every single time..

 

problem with simulation is terrain, in reality its very difficult to have a scenario where tanks are in the open like that.. only in a WW3 kinda scenario do i imagine hundreds if not thousands of tanks merging into a big fight over a flat terrain.. and in such situation Russian tanks could use the missiles to dilute the enemy tank numbers... but with all kind of smoke being fired from artillera to protect the tanks from enemy helicopter ATGM it would be hard to be very effective with tank fired ATGM..

 

of course if you are defending or trying to harass the enemy from the flanks then such t-80,90 are a nightmare as they could peck you all the time while staying out of range.. akin to cossack units pecking napoleon army from the flanks picking up the weakest members of the Grand Armee..

 

i think with this vision did RF employ such weapon on tanks.. its suited for Russian terrain, open spaces and with idea of defense in mind, where smaller tank units would be harassing the enemy while staying at a distance.. t-80,90 being lighter and more mobile means they could do that very well..

 

so its a part of whole doctrine thing...

 

in the game we can't see all that, so its just flat terrain and two tanks duking it out, where obviously in such situation abrams doesn't stand a chance..

 

...sounds like you're living in some bad action movie fantasy. The reality is that, had WW3 kicked off, the fighting would have been in western Germany and the Fulda gap, where intervisibility lines were generally 800-1500 meters, and almost never exceeding 3km. This means the range advantage of the missile is questionable, at best. Not to mention the notion of a "huge tank battle" is a bit silly; even the Russians didn't want to mass like that, because it becomes an awful tempting tactical nuke target. Also, considering the Russian doctrine was for rapid advance and the overrunning of defenses, a missile that requires you to be stationary to use doesn't quite fit in... and the chances of spotting well-entrenched and camoflauged defenders at anywhere near the maximum range of the missile is just about nil. Remember, Russian tanks only recently received thermal suites, and even the newest fielded sets really aren't all THAT good. I would be very surprised if the Russians would have had much opportunity to use the missiles at all.

 

Also, against an M1A2, they will not penetrate frontally. Range regardless. Slap as much guidance on a 125mm HEAT warhead as you want, it's still only a 125mm HEAT warhead. They penetrate no better than a normal 125mm HEAT projo- and there's a reason that sabot, rather than HEAT, is the projo of choice for dealing with tanks. (well, two reasons; the first being accuracy, the second being poor penetration compared to comparable-caliber APFSDS).

 

The notion that an Abrams "wouldn't stand a chance" in open terrain is, regardless, foolishness. It only requires a smoke volley to defeat these weapons, as you yourself just admitted. And the basic load was only, if I recall, two to four missiles. Which, by the way, cost as much as the entire tank.

 

That said, it's a doctrine thing. The US uses attack helicopters to achieve the deeper kills, which is probably more realistic, given the improbability of tanks spotting each other at ranges much over 3km. The US DID experiment around with tube-launched guided projectiles: for example, the Shillelagh (which is not all THAT much older than Refleks/ Svir)- they just found that they're too expensive, too prone to failure, and too easy to decoy, spoof, smoke, or evade. And too long time of flight. And they require a stationary firing platform. And the firing platform must remain exposed the entire time of guidance. There's a lot of downsides to these. In the vast, overwhelming majority of tank combat, you're better off carrying a couple extra APFSDS instead.

 

Also, the notion that the Russian tube-launched missiles are designed for antitank work is a bit... incorrect. They were intended for use against ATGM-firing tank destroyers (against which their warhead is plenty adequate), not against tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea about the sources ED has access to, but according to Wikipedia and the source quoted there, the missile has a range of 5000M based on 350 meters per second for 14 seconds of flight time. between 700 - 900mm of armor can be penetrated..

 

And most estimates of the M1A2's frontal array effectiveness against HEAT fall in the 1200-1300mm RHAe range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@outonthetop.. u failed to see the logic.. as you state in fulda gap t-80,90 with their ATGM weapons wouldn't be able to use them properly..which means what? they weren't designed for fulda gap but for NATO rush towards Russia which was more likely.. if you believe Russia was about to invade Europe that is your thing, but T-80,90 designs disprove you and you even state it correctly why that is so..

 

so, why would Russia build a tank that works brilliantly for flat ukraine,russia terrain and horribly for europe terrain if they had offensive ideas? it doesn't see..

 

again, t-80,90 with ATGM works perfectly for what i described.. not so well for tight,less flat european terrain..

 

about ATGM being useless cuz tanks can pop smoke?)) lol, yeah that is not really bullet proof is it?.. if abrams would be attacking an area they will be pinged by lasers at 6000-8000 meters and start popping smoke.. how long can they keep popping smoke as they move forwards 20-30 mph?..that would cover 2000 meters at best..still they end up without smoke at 4000-5500 meters for t-80,90 to launch their weapons ..

 

problem is when somebody lases the target u don't know if they actually fired a missile,u just know they r lasing.. a smart operator will wait for the smoke to pop up,clear out,they fire his ATGM..

 

if defensive position with tanks entrenched ATGM prove valuable weapon..

 

p.s.:lol, what!? ATGM in t-90 cost as much as the tank? i really hope that is not what you meant.. those missiles cost 20-40.000 $ a pieace, T-90 about 2-3 million $ and Abrams +5 million $..

 

overall.. more than worth it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a laser beam-rider, no different to the Vikhrs and they seem to work pretty well.

 

I think you didnt get my point correctly and i know that those are Beamriders.

 

You have still to hold the targeting marker to the target for a long time.

 

And im talking about the RL system.

"Blyat Naaaaa" - Izlom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just playing around in CA this last day testing out [FSF]Ian's DCS-Witchcraft . I was only placing APC and IFV's and I noticed that the Russian troop carriers with ATGM absolutely slay. The Russian units are very heavy hitters and it seems to come down to the ATGM specialisation. On tanks you might argue the advantage is marginal (but is it?) but on APC and IFV the ATGM is huge because a 20mm/25mm cannon is the alternative armament.

 

Anyway each time I spend in DCS Combined Arms I see very unrealised potential. I suspect it will be this way for years. I run DCS and Arma and I see the Arma modding scene making great progress with armoured units and simulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@outonthetop.. u failed to see the logic.. as you state in fulda gap t-80,90 with their ATGM weapons wouldn't be able to use them properly..which means what? they weren't designed for fulda gap but for NATO rush towards Russia which was more likely.. if you believe Russia was about to invade Europe that is your thing, but T-80,90 designs disprove you and you even state it correctly why that is so..

 

so, why would Russia build a tank that works brilliantly for flat ukraine,russia terrain and horribly for europe terrain if they had offensive ideas? it doesn't see..

 

again, t-80,90 with ATGM works perfectly for what i described.. not so well for tight,less flat european terrain..

 

about ATGM being useless cuz tanks can pop smoke?)) lol, yeah that is not really bullet proof is it?.. if abrams would be attacking an area they will be pinged by lasers at 6000-8000 meters and start popping smoke.. how long can they keep popping smoke as they move forwards 20-30 mph?..that would cover 2000 meters at best..still they end up without smoke at 4000-5500 meters for t-80,90 to launch their weapons ..

 

problem is when somebody lases the target u don't know if they actually fired a missile,u just know they r lasing.. a smart operator will wait for the smoke to pop up,clear out,they fire his ATGM..

 

if defensive position with tanks entrenched ATGM prove valuable weapon..

 

p.s.:lol, what!? ATGM in t-90 cost as much as the tank? i really hope that is not what you meant.. those missiles cost 20-40.000 $ a pieace, T-90 about 2-3 million $ and Abrams +5 million $..

 

overall.. more than worth it..

 

Yes, I can see how a tank designed with inadequate reverse gearing, the inability to depress the gun far enough to fire effectively from hull defilade, and an armour array divided fairly evenly between hull and turret is ideally suited for defensive warfare. I mean, when I'm designing tanks for the defense, I always prioritize high forward speed and provide them a basic ammunition load comprising primarily HE, most useful for attacking dug-in infantry. I always ensure to mount smoke mortars that lob the smoke bombs hundreds of meters in front of the tank so that it doesn't overrun it's own smoke immediately while advancing, rather than the denser 20-30 meter pattern common in western tanks.

 

You know, as opposed to, say, Leopard 1. Or Challenger 2. Or even the Abrams. T72 designed for defensive warfare. That's a good one!

 

I never said that the T-72/T-80 was designed for flat terrain or defensive use. YOU did. And now you're committing the sin of the straw man; trying to put a statement in my mouth that I never made. What I SAID is that the Svir/Refleks was designed as a counter to ATGM-firing tank destroyers. It fills much the same doctrinal need as the SVD rifle does in the infantry squad: since the primary weapons (be it the conventional ammunition for the 2A46 cannon or the AK-series rifles) have such inadequate effective range, the Soviets introduced a small number of longer-reaching weaponry to help fill that gap in case the need arose.

 

As to your fantasy scenario of a massive Kursk-esque battle on pool-table-flat terrain, I suggest you go actually look at some real terrain and consider that even "flat" desert and steppes easily provides sufficient relief to provide intervisibility lines sufficient to hide a tank. It only takes a couple meters, after all. Tank smoke grenade launchers only need to get a tank from one such IV line to the next, not across some 5,000 meter charge-of-the-light-brigade.

 

Your tanker's-wet-dream also fails to acknowledge any supporting arms, such as the extensive western attack aviation that would decimate the Soviet tank formation if they were foolish enough to remain massed in the open.

 

Yes. Svir is $37,000 (on the high side of what you cherry-picked). The contract cost for the last purchase of T72s (the tank I was talking about, not the rare-as-hens-teeth T90 that you cherry-picked for your argument) was only $900,000 per unit in 2006. In 2009, Iraq bough a bunch of (used) T72 for $50,000 apiece. Those costs were for upgraded variants, too. In the '80s, when the missiles were introduced, the T72 only cost around $250,000-$350,000. Their costs have ballooned as the Russians realized they really needed to start introducing modern features to their tanks. Now, the T90 (while fanbois try to deny it) is not significantly cheaper than it's western counterparts.

 

Either way, when fanbois love raving about how much cheaper the T72 series is than western tanks, it's inconsistent that they ignore the price of the munitions that go aboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you are countering this so called fanboizm by not providing any links to support your argument, well, you are no better then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you are countering this so called fanboizm by not providing any links to support your argument, well, you are no better then

 

Really? I have to provide a link to prove that he grossly mis-attributed my statements and provided un-sourced prices for totally different equipment than I was talking about in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I have to provide a link to prove that he grossly mis-attributed my statements and provided un-sourced prices for totally different equipment than I was talking about in the first place?

 

you are saying some really outrageous stuff though, as well as him. Full knowledge of soviet tank doctrine, as well as modern tank doctrine, wonder missiles, smoke launchers capable of shooting hundreds of meters in front of the tank.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/320

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-80-specs.htm

 

note gun elevation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@outonthetop.. don't know where to start.. T90 costs 2-3 million USD which is by FAAAR cheaper than Abrams or Leopard STARTING at 5-6 million USD..

 

and that is extremely cheaper when considering operation costs which are lower, crew number which is lower, and less weight,better maneuverability and much better ability to keep on running without much technical support for longer duration of time.. as such its amazing machine..

 

u sound like a fanboy yourself not me.. i see the advantages of every tank, as i said, t-80,t-90(btw there are over 450 T-90 i believe in RF right now so its not a couple like you said quoting : " not the rare-as-hens-teeth T90 that you cherry-picked for your argument" )

 

plus RF is building the new Armata MBT so there is no use in making thousands of T-90 today..

 

so somehow the cost of the missile (that is old t-72 ATGM missile costs the same as the whole tank from that era?-factually wrong, you could not be more.. just as todays T-90 is 2-3 mil. $, and ATGM is 20-40K $ ..same ratio was for previous models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...