Issue with US Tanks (M1A2)

[Wags94]

I've been making a lot of large-scale battle missions lately. Most of which pit Russian armor against US armor. I've noticed a trend in the battles between the AI tanks: the Russian tanks always beat the US tanks.

 

So I've been experimenting with the M1A2's, and I've been noticing a lot of weird stuff. The M1A2's have getting getting completely blown up by one shot from any Russian tank (T-55's included). They do not catch fire, then blow up shortly after. They blow up instantly.

 

Another occurrence is the M1A2 is not able to kill the Russian tanks. I set up a scenario where one Russian tank was to be ambushed by five M1A2's. The Russian tank crossed the trigger zone, and the M1A2's activated. The M1's acquired and engage the Russian tank (T-72, btw). The T-72 took multiple hits, but was unaffected. The T-72 then turned its turret and blew away each of the five M1A2's - one shot each. (Same result with T-80U in same ambush test)

 

I think this may be a problem. I don't think it's realistic. Has anybody else noticed this?

 

(Also, what is everybody's opinion on the T-80U? Is it a good tank? Could it really stand up to an M1A2? I ask because my father said that when he went to Kosovo, they cross-trained on some old T-72's and T-80's and he said that AT-4 rocket launchers will cut through them with ease. To quote him,"We we're pretty surprised how easy it was to destroy those things.")

[Udat]

AFAIK russian tank armor have been inferior to western for a long time.. Take a look at a spec sheet and you'll see western tanks (Abrahms, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, etc..) beeing a good 15-20 tonnes heavier; and I'm thinking that should be an indicator to the stopping power of the tank.

[JG-1_Vogel]

A bit of favoritism on the part of ED there? I'm sure it would have upset the Russian audience to see their tanks get pwned by their western counterparts lol. IIRC the Abrams have the "chobbam" (sp?) armour which is far superior to the Russian armour, so really it should be the other way round, with US tanks able to hold their own against the Russians.

 

Nice find though, I've noticed the same thing at times.

[Ker_Laeda]

Two weeks ago i have experiment, in FC2 mission creator i put 50 t-80 vs 50 m1a2. At finish of battle i see result: all abrams destroyed, half t-80 (26) a live. It seems like not real.

[GUMAR]

Russian community also noticed that and most of us dont like it. We want everything to be like in real life. I hope ED will correct it.;)

[nscode]

(Also, what is everybody's opinion on the T-80U? Is it a good tank? Could it really stand up to an M1A2? I ask because my father said that when he went to Kosovo, they cross-trained on some old T-72's and T-80's and he said that AT-4 rocket launchers will cut through them with ease. To quote him,"We we're pretty surprised how easy it was to destroy those things.")

 

 

I'll just say that they are luckey they didn't try that for real :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

(Also, what is everybody's opinion on the T-80U? Is it a good tank? Could it really stand up to an M1A2? I ask because my father said that when he went to Kosovo, they cross-trained on some old T-72's and T-80's and he said that AT-4 rocket launchers will cut through them with ease. To quote him,"We we're pretty surprised how easy it was to destroy those things.")

Why didn't mighty NATO (read USA) try using M1A2 in Kosovo i Metohija (KiM) then? NATO brought 1200 aircraft into KiM theater and bragged how it shoot down few MiG-29A's. I assume 5000 M1A2 would kill few T-80U's as well.

[Udat]

Because it was an air campaign?

 

And I think the name of the Abrams armor is Chobalt. Killing one from the frontal portion of the turret is said to be virtually impossible with todays weaponry.

 

I'd be interested in how M1A2s would do against Leopard 2s and Challengers ingame.. No time to check right now though.

[Konovalov]

Steel Beasts Pro would be the way to go. :thumbup:

[BKLronin]

Surprisingly when sitting in the shark it´s much harder o kill an abrams instead of an T80u wich blows up pretty easily. From Heli point of view it seems simulated correct then.

[AlphaOneSix]

Chobham

[GGTharos]

Because it wasn't worth the effort. Air power turned out to be enough.

 

Why didn't mighty NATO (read USA) try using M1A2 in Kosovo i Metohija (KiM) then? NATO brought 1200 aircraft into KiM theater and bragged how it shoot down few MiG-29A's. I assume 5000 M1A2 would kill few T-80U's as well.

[GGTharos]

Can you please attach the track or the mission itself?

 

Two weeks ago i have experiment, in FC2 mission creator i put 50 t-80 vs 50 m1a2. At finish of battle i see result: all abrams destroyed, half t-80 (26) a live. It seems like not real.

[GGTharos]

You know that in practice that would have been Javelins and not AT4's ... and I really doubt anyone in a tank really wants to have to deal with jav-toting infantry.

 

I'll just say that they are luckey they didn't try that for real :)

[Ker_Laeda]

Can you please attach the track or the mission itself?

i create now its again and result was changed, now 48 abrams destroyed and only 4 (!!) t-80. after 6 minute it seems like all tanks already dont have ammo, i close mission at 8 minute.

attached mission, track and debriefing log:

[ATTACH]40511[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]40512[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]40513[/ATTACH]

[Udat]

Chobham

My bad, Tom Clancy tricked me :mad:

[Wags94]

I'll just say that they are luckey they didn't try that for real :)

 

I'm glad they didn't. War is unfortunate. (That might come of slightly hypocritical as I've been playing combat flight sims for years now)

 

My father did enjoy his time with the Russian Forces in the region. He says they are a good military, and he had a good time cross-training with them. He also says that Russian field rations are terrible, and they'd often invite Russian troops to eat with them (since US/NATO forces had giant mess halls and weren't fed rations). The Russians loved it. :)

[Wags94]

Surprisingly when sitting in the shark it´s much harder o kill an abrams instead of an T80u wich blows up pretty easily. From Heli point of view it seems simulated correct then.

 

I've noticed that too. It's taken me up to 3 ATGM's to kill an Abrams often. I should have added this little fact in my OP.

 

Because it wasn't worth the effort. Air power turned out to be enough.

 

I, personally, don't think a ground element would have been practical. It would have been difficult for NATO forces to move because of the mountainous terrain (Despite the Yugoslavs being able to move around the terrain fluently)

 

If I'm not mistaken, a lot of various special forces teams were in the region on the ground though.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Because it wasn't worth the effort. Air power turned out to be enough.

Enough to take rancher's their land, yes. To take a country, no. 1200 NATO aircraft proved that if you have 100 airplanes in the air against a pair of MiG-A's that you can successfully defeat them. That's why I said that if your M1A2 ratio would be the same against T-80's I am sure M1A2 would "win".

 

NATO use of military force over Yugoslavia should not be used for any kind of serious military discussion simply because of overwhelming numerical advantage NATO forces enjoyed.

[dok_rp]

There's definitely something wrong with the Abrams AI.

 

I was also noticing that in missions in which M1A2's were confronted with T80's the absolute majority of times the Russian tanks were victorious, and not by a small margin, it was always a massacre.

 

So I just created a simple mission with 50 M1A2 and 50 T80 set 1800m apart head on, all set to expert and let it rip.

 

It was almost funny to watch. Most engagements were finished in less than 2 minutes.

 

I've also noticed that while the T80 fires 3 times the M1A2 fires only once, and many times it fires twice, if it even lives that long, and then ceases fire. :huh:

 

Very interesting indeed. Just found out that engagements between these two tanks will be avoided by me in mission creating for there'll be nothing left for me to destroy. The T80 is just too good to be true. :lol: :pilotfly:

 

I imagine this is a bug? Feature?

[EvilBivol-1]

It sounds like something is off in the scripts. Needs to be looked into.

[slug88]

I imagine this is a bug? Feature?

 

Obviously a bug...

[Moa]

Here's a post I made on the 104th forums (http://www.104thphoenix.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2259&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75) regarding Vikhr vs tanks and why US tanks were hard to kill.

 

Chobham armour is a British invention that uses laminated ceramics and air gaps (to defeat HEAT warheads and many dense projectiles such as tungsten alloys). A Kevlar liner is placed on the interior side to prevent spallation, where a non-penetrating round imparts sufficient kinetic energy to the armour to break pieces off the inside which when then richochet around the hull. The crew does not feel the result of this as tickling. The Challenger, Centurion has this kind of armour.

 

More modern tanks, such as the M1, add depleted uranium into Chobham type armour. This is designed to defeat even more dense sub-calibre (fast!) penetrators, such as the APFSDSDU round (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium).

 

In the second Gulf War a disabled M1 could not be recoved so a second M1 fired a depleted uranium round into the front of the disabled tank from close range. The round did not penetrate. A lowly Vikhr is not going to destroy an M1, but could disable the tracks or engine if the hit from the sides or rear.

 

In addition to these types there are three other types of armoured defences in use:

 

a) slat armour - used by Strykers which cause the molten copper jet of HEAT rounds from an RPG to detonate before the main armour instead of on it. This provides extra armour without as much extra weight as a full layer of flat armour.

 

b) reactive armour (eg. Blazer Reactive Armour). Explosive blocks that detonate outward and counter the energy of an incoming HEAT or kinetic round. Used most extensively by Russians and the Israelis. Bad for several reasons; a second shot to the same place and the BRA doesn't work; infantry nearby (and you want them near to a tank, especially in urban areas) are at grave risk of injury; and, dual-warhead rounds utilise a mechanism where the first will trigger the reactive armour while the second continues to the target.

 

c) active armour. This uses radar and small rockets that intercept incoming projectiles. US and Israel activiely working on this. Also dangerous for nearby infantry.

 

So, it is no surprise the Vikhr has a hard time against Western tanks.

 

A couple of extra notes:

* Many missiles are more effective than the Vikhr (eg. Javelin, newer versions of the mighty TOW) because they 'pop-up' to attack tanks from their less-armoured tops.

* Rather than destroying tanks, some cluster munitions are designed to home on the infra-red signature of the tank's engine and disable it instead. Clever.

* If you ever get a chance to visit the Israeli Defence Forces Armoured Corps museum at Latroun (Israel) it is worth doing so. They have a lot of armoured vehicles from the 1940's to today including German Panzers, US and Warsaw Pact models they have captured or used (or both!) and their own excellent Merkava series.

 

---

 

There are some other things to note regarding tank actions:

* Western tanks have an additional edge in their fire-control systems that allow high probabilities of first shot hits while the tank is moving. Most 'Warsaw Pact' tanks can't do this (apart from miniscule numbers of newer models).

 

* Western tanks (and forces in general) have better night-vision and thermal sights than their Warsaw Pact equivalent. Therefore, the M1A2 will often hit you at night when you are mostly helpless.

 

* Western armies get a lot more training time. Plus, they have more professionals (far fewer short-term conscripts).

 

* The Javelin was battle tested in Northen Iraq in 2003. US forces (Rangers with Peshmerga I think) were attacked by a regiment of Iraqi armour and all the Rangers had were the not yet battle tested Javelin. They knew if it didn't work they would be toast. Fortunately (for them) it did work and the armoured attack was repulsed.

 

* In the 2006 Lebanon War Hezbollah did not bother attacking the Merkavas (plural: Merkavim?) directly. Instead they fired Iranian-supplied-via-Syria Kornet missiles at the tank commander from range while they stood in the hatch. Tank commanders killed or maimed in this way were a significant proportion of Israeli casualties.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Moa

[Wags94]

Here's a post I made on the 104th forums (http://www.104thphoenix.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2259&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75) regarding Vikhr vs tanks and why US tanks were hard to kill.

 

Chobham armour is a British invention that uses laminated ceramics and air gaps (to defeat HEAT warheads and many dense projectiles such as tungsten alloys). A Kevlar liner is placed on the interior side to prevent spallation, where a non-penetrating round imparts sufficient kinetic energy to the armour to break pieces off the inside which when then richochet around the hull. The crew does not feel the result of this as tickling. The Challenger, Centurion has this kind of armour.

 

More modern tanks, such as the M1, add depleted uranium into Chobham type armour. This is designed to defeat even more dense sub-calibre (fast!) penetrators, such as the APFSDSDU round (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium).

 

In the second Gulf War a disabled M1 could not be recoved so a second M1 fired a depleted uranium round into the front of the disabled tank from close range. The round did not penetrate. A lowly Vikhr is not going to destroy an M1, but could disable the tracks or engine if the hit from the sides or rear.

 

In addition to these types there are three other types of armoured defences in use:

 

a) slat armour - used by Strykers which cause the molten copper jet of HEAT rounds from an RPG to detonate before the main armour instead of on it. This provides extra armour without as much extra weight as a full layer of flat armour.

 

b) reactive armour (eg. Blazer Reactive Armour). Explosive blocks that detonate outward and counter the energy of an incoming HEAT or kinetic round. Used most extensively by Russians and the Israelis. Bad for several reasons; a second shot to the same place and the BRA doesn't work; infantry nearby (and you want them near to a tank, especially in urban areas) are at grave risk of injury; and, dual-warhead rounds utilise a mechanism where the first will trigger the reactive armour while the second continues to the target.

 

c) active armour. This uses radar and small rockets that intercept incoming projectiles. US and Israel activiely working on this. Also dangerous for nearby infantry.

 

So, it is no surprise the Vikhr has a hard time against Western tanks.

 

A couple of extra notes:

* Many missiles are more effective than the Vikhr (eg. Javelin, newer versions of the mighty TOW) because they 'pop-up' to attack tanks from their less-armoured tops.

* Rather than destroying tanks, some cluster munitions are designed to home on the infra-red signature of the tank's engine and disable it instead. Clever.

* If you ever get a chance to visit the Israeli Defence Forces Armoured Corps museum at Latroun (Israel) it is worth doing so. They have a lot of armoured vehicles from the 1940's to today including German Panzers, US and Warsaw Pact models they have captured or used (or both!) and their own excellent Merkava series.

 

---

 

There are some other things to note regarding tank actions:

* Western tanks have an additional edge in their fire-control systems that allow high probabilities of first shot hits while the tank is moving. Most 'Warsaw Pact' tanks can't do this (apart from miniscule numbers of newer models).

 

* Western tanks (and forces in general) have better night-vision and thermal sights than their Warsaw Pact equivalent. Therefore, the M1A2 will often hit you at night when you are mostly helpless.

 

* Western armies get a lot more training time. Plus, they have more professionals (far fewer short-term conscripts).

 

* The Javelin was battle tested in Northen Iraq in 2003. US forces (Rangers with Peshmerga I think) were attacked by a regiment of Iraqi armour and all the Rangers had were the not yet battle tested Javelin. They knew if it didn't work they would be toast. Fortunately (for them) it did work and the armoured attack was repulsed.

 

* In the 2006 Lebanon War Hezbollah did not bother attacking the Merkavas (plural: Merkavim?) directly. Instead they fired Iranian-supplied-via-Syria Kornet missiles at the tank commander from range while they stood in the hatch. Tank commanders killed or maimed in this way were a significant proportion of Israeli casualties.

 

That's a lot of information, and an interesting read; however, I'm sorry to tell you that your post doesn't exactly answer why the T-80's are destroying the M1A2's. If anything, your post supported the fact that M1 Abrams in DCS should be dominating ground fighting. :)

[slug88]

c) active armour. This uses radar and small rockets that intercept incoming projectiles. US and Israel activiely working on this. Also dangerous for nearby infantry.

 

I just recently learned that not only have hard-kill suites (active armor) been in employed in combat already, but that it happened back in the 70's! The Soviets fielded their Drozd active defense suite in Afghanistan:

 

Each unit cost around $30,000, was 80-percent successful against incoming RPGs in Afghanistan, but proved to provide too high of a collateral damage issue to surrounding troops that were dismounted from their armored vehicles.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drozd