30mm AP can't kill tanks?

[Bucic]

So you could buy the whole damage model :) I mean the model, the formulas behind it - not the code to copy&paste. I bet it would be not perfect for the purpose of flight sim but it would be at least a proper foundation.

 

I'll stop there because I'm sure the news headings

 

"Eagle Dynamics went for Bucic's advise!

Bucic will now receive 10% of company's income".

 

won't happen. Just saying :)

[GGTharos]

Again ... the problem is not the knowledge. The problem is actually implementing it. Integration is always a pain. Just like that!

[Bucic]

Completing the first two chapters of "C++ for Dummies" isn't enough to allow me to continue this discussion in a sensible way :)

[Bucic]

Thanks for the insight info, bradmick! :thumbup:

[Frederf]

you need to have hit locations ... engine boxes, guns, fire control systems, crews, etc etc. Even if you wanted to just apply the damage at random instead of locating the hit itself you would somehow need to model engine, tracks, turrent mechanism, individual weapons, and crew as some sort of distinct, damageable systems.

This is not possible with the current code. Maybe some time in the future.

 

I was thinking of a non-locational system. Meaning, every hit is only a hit to the tank itself as a whole but the hit event decides via probability what effect is achieved. So shooting the turret could result in loss of mobility just as a shot to the tracks could result in a loss of weapons. The probability could be a function of azimuth and/or overall target health if one wanted to get fancy.

 

It should be possible to freeze a unit and still allow it to fire in the code. Similarly remove its weapons and still allow it to move.

[GGTharos]

You still need to model each system individually, which means changes to vehicle code, and changes to AI code.

 

If you're going to do that, you may as well go all the way.

[Bucic]

I was thinking of a non-locational system. Meaning, every hit is only a hit to the tank itself as a whole but the hit event decides via probability what effect is achieved. So shooting the turret could result in loss of mobility just as a shot to the tracks could result in a loss of weapons. The probability could be a function of azimuth and/or overall target health if one wanted to get fancy.

 

It should be possible to freeze a unit and still allow it to fire in the code. Similarly remove its weapons and still allow it to move.

Todays word is... r o b u s t :)

 

Good idea. It would still be better than the current implementation. Maybe part of it could be done on LUA level...

[SUBS17]

You still need to model each system individually, which means changes to vehicle code, and changes to AI code.

 

If you're going to do that, you may as well go all the way.

 

Perhaps a simpler method would be more effective such as Arma which eventhough its quite basic still quite effective.:thumbup:

[EtherealN]

I have split off the DU toxicity discussion, it can now be found here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=53439

[Frederf]

You still need to model each system individually, which means changes to vehicle code, and changes to AI code.

 

If you're going to do that, you may as well go all the way.

 

I don't see how it's modeling the system to have "canMove = false" and "canShoot = false" type destruction. The system is modeled satisfactorily by a single boolean and adds a heck of a lot of depth for minimal implementation cost. Giving the AI unit an overriding halt is a mobility kill and I'm sure the code manages that just fine. Removing the unit's weapon/ammo prevents it from firing, thus a firepower kill. The triggers would be purely statistical and have simply damageFromWeapon and vehicleArmor as their determining variables.' Equation could be global to all vehicles and all weapons. The only system modeling done is by assuming all units have a "mobility system" and a "firepower system." This is of course a luxury offshoot of the probability damage model of treating the entire target as a whole on the "alive to dead" scale. Might be interesting if it didn't take 77 30mm AP round hits to kill a T-55 every single time. Maybe it turned out to be 61 once? The reason to not go "all the way" is simple... because ED won't. Might as well get a little complexity rather than none at all.

[EtherealN]

The problem there though is that we'd next be seeing flame threads about tanks getting mobility-killed even though the shells landed on the turret. :P

[Eddie]

If something is worth modelling, it's worth modelling properly. I'd rather stick with what we have for a couple of years and then have ED spend their time producing a proper realistic damage model for ground vehicles than have them do a 'quick fix' half arsed system.

[SUBS17]

I'm not entirely sure how they do it in Arma but a hit on the track will disable its movement or reduce your movement. The turret can get damaged as well including being siezed up or remaining stuck in one position. It also depends on what you hit them with as to how much damage is inflicted. I was under the impression Lockons armoured vehicles had stronger armour at the front than at the back but thats all it has.

[Frederf]

If something is worth modelling, it's worth modelling properly. I'd rather stick with what we have for a couple of years and then have ED spend their time producing a proper realistic damage model for ground vehicles than have them do a 'quick fix' half arsed system.

 

Lol enjoy your "or don't do it at all" for the next 10 years. I'll be off enjoying marginal evolutionary improvement while you wait for your unicorn.

[always0utfr0nt]

Just my 2 cents but the M242 on the Brad with DU rounds has been known to successfully destroy T-72's during Desert Storm. In fact more Bradleys killed tanks than tanks killed tanks during that operation and the round is a 25MM. To be fair the 25MM from a Brad has quite a bit of powder and heft behind it compared to the 30MM of say an Apache. I dont know the size other than the diameter of the rounds on the blackshark so I cant comment on that but just because its 30MM doesnt necessarily mean that it wont penetrate say a T-72

[Mugenjin]

Any source for that? Since as far as I remember it wasn't due to the cannon but their ability to launch TOW's.

 

I kinda doubt that a T-72 could be penetrated by a 25mm/30mm cannon on any but very close range.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Mugenjin

[Frederf]

Wiki for the 2A42 has the best armor penetrating performance number at 55mm.

 

The T-72's Wiki page's lowest advertised armor figure at 80mm (nose.)

 

It'd take some big testicles to engage a T-72 with the 25mm Bushmaster. My bet would be on using the Bradley's TOW or nothing at all.

[GGTharos]

The bushmaster only for flank/rear shots (no forward aspect at ALL) ... it can do things within 1km or so, but yeah - last ditch, really. No guarantees ... and where there's one T-72, there's 2 more nearby.

[bumfire]

Any source for that? Since as far as I remember it wasn't due to the cannon but their ability to launch TOW's.

 

I kinda doubt that a T-72 could be penetrated by a 25mm/30mm cannon on any but very close range.

 

 

I think what he means is that during Desert Storm, bradleys killed or destroyed alot of tanks with its 25mm cannon, but the majority were already empty as the crews had fled, they were destroyed so that they couldnt be used again after the good guys drove past them. I have also read that the majority of armoured kills were due to IFV's rather than the Abrams, but they were static empty kills, obviously not all of them were empty, but the majority were.

 

In battle, the 25mm bushmaster rounds wouldnt get near a T72, the TOW would, but the 25mm rounds wouldnt unless the T72 commander was stupid or if they came across each other accidently, the T72 would be firing at the bradley from a distance greater than what the bradley could fire back with any sort of damaging effect, unless he used the TOW missile.

 

But yea, the majority of Armoured ground Kills in the Gulf War were performed by IFV's, but only because the enemy armoured vehicles were already empty, as the crews had decided that death from above warranted more than 72 lowly virgins, so they fled in disgust at the thought of getting ripped off.

Edited May 2, 2010 by bumfire