Issue with US Tanks (M1A2)

[Moa]

Wags94: Yes, I was (indirectly) saying it was a bug by giving a description of the systems in use.

 

slug88: Thanks your comment about Drozd since I ommitted it in my original post. I was aware of this since the Russian use of reactive armour is far more extensive than Western use. The Western tank designers prefer to rely more on the replaceable Chobham blocks instead - since they can be replaced in the field much more easily than the laminated steel of the Warsaw Pact tanks and are non-lethal to nearby infantry.

[Booger]

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.

 

The front and sides of the turret (mostly the front) is the most "protective" of the tank itself. If anything, the Vikhr will knock the wind out of the crew, shortly followed by a killer headache.

 

The rear of the turret though, is vulnerable.

[slug88]

Moa, it sounds like you're confusing Drozd for Russian ERA. It isn't ERA, it's a radar activated hard-kill anti missile device.

[Ker_Laeda]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=937335&postcount=4713

[Zenra]

I set out this morning to do some experimenting with the scripts to see if we might find an interim solution to this issue. I found what looked to be the relavent information in the following files:

 

m1.lua contains the chassis specifications for the M1A2

m1a1.lua contains the weapon systems definitions for the "MBT M1A2 Abrams" tank

 

t80.lua contains the chassis specifications for the T-80

t80ud.lua contains the weapon systems definitions for the "MBT T80UD" tank

 

cannon.lua contains the definitions for the "WS_tank_gun_120mm" and the "WS_tank_gun_2A46" main guns used by the M1A2 and T-80, respectively

 

shell_table.lua contains the definitions for the "M256_120_AP" and "2A46M_125_AP" shells used by the M1A2 and T-80, respectively

 

Looking at the numbers it is not immediately clear what needs to be changed, but I found that even experimenting the way I had hoped would not work the way I expected it to. That is, as I changed the values in these files and re-ran the mission posted earlier in this thread by Ker_Laeda that pits 50 M1A2 versus 50 T-80 I could not get the results to change. I even took it to the extreme of making the T-80 have specs identical to the M1A2 in all categories, but the results did not change (i.e., in 5 minutes nearly all the M1A2 were burning while only a handful of T-80 were on fire).

 

Does anybody know if maybe simply editing these files and reloading the mission is not enough to make the changes take? Do I have to create a new mission after making changes to the script files to try things like this?

 

Thanks - I will appreciate any advice the group may have.

[hitman]

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.

Then why did you bring it up?

[Zenra]

Don't know what I was doing wrong before but the script edits I outlined in an earlier post in this thread are working now. I've run a few tests and following are my observations so far:

 

1. First, I gave the T-80 the same gun as the M1A2 - "WS_tank_gun_120mm". Ran the 50t80vs50m1a2.miz for a few minutes and find 5x T-80 burning and 35x M1A2 dead. Debrief showed both sides firing the "M256_120_AP" shell and shots fired by both sides were about equal (i.e., rate of fire looks equal, as it should be since it is coded with the gun info in the lua files not with the tank). What was interesting, though, is that the T-80s scored significantly more hits. This suggests the issue may be either with armor or accuracy. So...

 

2. I give the T-80 the same chassis as the M1A2 and run again. Results were the same as the first test, which was as expected because there are only very minor differences in the numbers between the M1 and T-80 chassis files. In particular, the chassis.armour_thickness is set to 0.080 for both.

 

Now I am not sure what to try next. Could it be hard-coded or maybe in an ai script someplace? I had the skill level set to "Excellent" for all units on both sides, so I would expect the difference is not with the simulated crew. Why can the T-80 consistently score so many more hits compared to the M1A2 even when both are made to use the same gun and have the same armor?

[nscode]

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.

 

Add T-80 to that list. Including protection for the beloved popup menus... sorry, missiles :)

 

 

* 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).

 

All are true for Serbian tanks and crews. US fire control, plenty of expirince, home terrein. Thus, my previous statement.

[Ker_Laeda]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=937481&postcount=4717

 

in shortenly: today i was create and test duel mission m1a2 vs t-80 (1 vs 1) in 20 runs, result: 18 abrams and 2 t-80 was destroyed.

 

after it one of ED Team (Dmut) say me test this already with changing in script cannon.lua:

WS_tank_gun_120mm.LN[1].shell_name = "2A46M_125_AP";

 

i check this, running mission another 20 times, result: 16 abrams and 4 t-80 was destroyed.

 

duel mission: http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=40538&d=1278076350

[Zenra]

Thanks for the 1v1 mission. Your earlier results make sense and are consistent with what I saw experimenting today. I am fairly convinced the difference is NOT in the weapon or shell, since giving both the T-80 and M1A2 the same gun & shell (in my tests) did not affect the lopsided result.

 

Now I am experimenting with some of the assignments in the tank lua files; certain waepon settings are made there. Do you know what WS[].omegaY and WS[].omegaZ do? What about maxBottom and maxTop?

[Ker_Laeda]

Do you know what WS[].omegaY and WS[].omegaZ do? What about maxBottom and maxTop?

Unfortunately, i dont know. May be somebody from ED will answer you.

 

Dmut say:

предлагаю такой тест -

в cannon.lua вместо

WS_tank_gun_120mm.LN[1].shell_name = "M256_120_AP";

прописываешь

WS_tank_gun_120mm.LN[1].shell_name = "2A46M_125_AP";

 

и запускаешь свою миссию 20 раз. если статистика не измениться - виновата модель абрамса, неправильно наводит ствол. если измениться на более равную - виноваты прицелы для абрамсовского снаряда.

 

I try translate it - if changing gun in scripts no have effect, problem in abrams model, which has wrong moving gun on target.

[Moa]

Moa, it sounds like you're confusing Drozd for Russian ERA. It isn't ERA, it's a radar activated hard-kill anti missile device.

 

Thanks. I mention both passive and active reactive armour in my first post I think. Maybe I was unclear.

[104th_Crunch]

What happens if you set T-80s to low skill and M-1 to excellent. Does it play out more realistically?

[norm]

are there similar problems with other nato armor in game?

[159th_Viper]

What happens if you set T-80s to low skill and M-1 to excellent. Does it play out more realistically?

 

Yeah - Playing with the skill levels does affect the outcome.

[isoul]

Are the Russian tanks so inferior compared to Western ones?

[Ker_Laeda]

Are the Russian tanks so inferior compared to Western ones?

Developers says it's bug.

[isoul]

Developers says it's bug.

 

No I meant IRL... are the Russian tank technology so inferior compared to Western tanks?

[GGTharos]

In some respects yes (targeting, sensors, etc); there first and foremost these are usually not even in the same class: The typical Western MBT is considered a heavy tank, while the Russian ones (At least up to T80) are considered medium tanks.

 

You'll see this in the weight difference as well; and weight tends to equal armor.

[RIPTIDE]

The typical Western MBT is considered a heavy tank, while the Russian ones (At least up to T80) are considered medium tanks.

 

You'll see this in the weight difference as well; and weight tends to equal armor.

Yes... a lesson the Germans sorely learned (too late) in the bogs and marshes of Eastern Europe.

 

There is a logistical reason for having lighter tanks: mobility in the Eastern European theatre.

 

BTW, modern composite Armor is not all that heavy. Most of the weight is in the steel and steel is only the hull armor behind the real deal.

Edited July 7, 2010 by RIPTIDE

[GGTharos]

You know, I don't think I even want to guess as the mass of the M1A2's front turret armor ;)

 

As for mobility, the M1 seems to do well just about anywhere it goes, even at its honking 70 metric tons. It's all a matter of weight distribution.

[Speed]

There are two things I believe that make the M1s so inferior in game. First of all, their accuracy is TERRIBLE, even with skill level set to excellent. IRL, M1 has a gyro stabilized gun, laser range finder, ballistic computer, the works, and it can hit a tank on the run no problem. In game, if you watch closely, a huge number of their shots miss. They look to have the accuracy of a WWII tank...

 

Secondly, their rate of fire looks to be aweful, and at times, I've noticed them not firing at all. They will have their turret fixed on a target, but for a minute or more will not fire a single round. Yes, I know they have a manual loader and not an autoloader, but that doesn't mean their rate of fire is 1 round/min

[GGTharos]

They can fire 8 rounds a minute IIRC, which is a practical ROF according to an RL M1 tanker, again, IIRC (ie. they could go faster but they couldn't keep it up for long).

 

Also once you unload the rounds from the ready rack, you must reload, which is time consuming.

However, the AI has no provision for taking cover during such operations.

[Speed]

They can fire 8 rounds a minute IIRC, which is a practical ROF according to an RL M1 tanker, again, IIRC (ie. they could go faster but they couldn't keep it up for long).

 

Also once you unload the rounds from the ready rack, you must reload, which is time consuming.

However, the AI has no provision for taking cover during such operations.

 

Thanks for that info. I didn't know what the rate of fire was, but I figured at least 6 rounds a min, not 1 per minute.

 

You say that the "AI has no provision for taking cover during such operations". So you are saying that in game, the M1 is simulated to have a "ready rack" that goes dry and needs a time consuming reloading process every once in a while? I know that IRL, the M1 can hold something like 30 rounds of ammo, but that's it. By the "ready rack", do you mean that place in real life, behind the blast-proof doors, where the entirety of the tanks main gun rounds are held? I've seen videos of M1s being rearmed by people manually loading APFSDS rounds through the top blow out doors (I think that's where they were putting them). Is this the "rearming the ready rack" that you speak of?

 

Is what I am saying above correct? And more importantly, do you know if this is modelled in game? Do tanks run out of ammo and have to wait a while before they can shoot again as they wait for their "ready rack" to be replenished? I had figured that tanks had infinite ammo in game, as I have seen them shoot probably well over ~30 rounds in some of my missions, but maybe they had their ready racks replenished.

 

If so, this could definately explain why I have seen some tanks just sitting there with their turret on target not shooting.

[GGTharos]

Thanks for that info. I didn't know what the rate of fire was, but I figured at least 6 rounds a min, not 1 per minute.

 

You say that the "AI has no provision for taking cover during such operations". So you are saying that in game, the M1 is simulated to have a "ready rack" that goes dry and needs a time consuming reloading process every once in a while?

 

Yeah, half-guess on my part, not sure if FC simulates the ready-rack,but it appears to.

 

I know that IRL, the M1 can hold something like 30 rounds of ammo, but that's it.

 

Closer to 40.

 

By the "ready rack", do you mean that place in real life, behind the blast-proof doors, where the entirety of the tanks main gun rounds are held?

 

Yes, and IIRC it is in two parts. Storage and ready rack. The ready rack is where you take the round from to load into the gun, and is easily reachable. Deeper storage is not, and it takes time to reload the ready rack from storage.

 

I've seen videos of M1s being rearmed by people manually loading APFSDS rounds through the top blow out doors (I think that's where they were putting them). Is this the "rearming the ready rack" that you speak of?

 

See above :)

 

Is what I am saying above correct? And more importantly, do you know if this is modelled in game? Do tanks run out of ammo and have to wait a while before they can shoot again as they wait for their "ready rack" to be replenished? I had figured that tanks had infinite ammo in game, as I have seen them shoot probably well over ~30 rounds in some of my missions, but maybe they had their ready racks replenished.

 

Again, see above :) I'm not sure how the reloading for tanks works. It could be like some SAMs, where after they run out they automatically reload after a given time.

 

If so, this could definately explain why I have seen some tanks just sitting there with their turret on target not shooting.

 

There is definitely a mechanism to 'run you out of ammo'.