Issue with US Tanks (M1A2)

[RIPTIDE]

I'll see what I can find. I don't recall the specifics well - it was the tank that they decided to destroy in the field and took multiple rounds, in the end they went inside with thermite.

Its the one that took 1 Mav + 2 Hellfires I think.

 

The tank was busted beyond use. But you really need to wreck everything on it if you can't/won't tow it away as a anything classified can be scavenged off it, hence the persistence.

[Booger]

...

[dennisllante]

But on topic..inside the SIM that we have..

 

..what i do is i use the Hunter-Killer Platoon..for every 3 M1A2s i add 1 bradley..everytime I test them, like two platoons..in excellent mode..they win against the same number of 3-T-72s and 1 BMP-3..at least a few tries.

[Moa]

Yes, but Soviet doctrine did not allow for full frontal tank battles. The Soviets doctrine provides for artillery and aviation to take out tank formations and NOT tanks . If a confrontation ends up tank vs tank too often, then somebody was not doing their job.

 

In the Central Front of a hypothetical WWIII it was unlikely that the Warsaw Pact would achieve air superiority. In fact, as re-inforcements flew in from the US it is likely that NATO would achieve air superiority in about a month (despite huge losses on both sides). The same goes for naval forces on the seas.

 

On the ground the opposite is true, with the Warsaw Pact having massive numbers of tanks - even if many were elderly. It would still be hard given the large number of ATGMs NATO have.

 

I have wargamed this extensively (Game Designer Workshop's Third World War series being one of the better ways of exploring the units and reinforcement timings of battles in the 1980s from Norway to the Persian Gulf).

 

The real variable is the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which the Warsaw Pact planned to use immediately and in large numbers (contrary to their public statements). I personally knew someone training as a Fallschirmjager whose base was targeted by 3 nukes by the Russians on the outbreak of war (yes, I'm getting on in years). However, given the density of armoured units in the Warsaw Pact and the fact they are advancing rather than on the defensive would mean the impact of nuclear weapons would probably be greater on those forces. The first echelon of the Warsaw Pact would have horrific casualties (I felt sorry for the conscripts in that wave).

 

Sorry for digressing from tanks, but this subject was brought up discussing the tactical which presents something different from the likely strategic picture.

 

Incidentally, IMHO the Warsaw Pact would have won WWIII (providing strategic nukes weren't used) but only if they could win quickly. If the defenders could hold out more than a month then the Warsaw Pact would have disintegrated quickly after that (they couldn't cope with a protracted war, but they weren't designed to either).

 

Back to the topic: An RPG has not defeated any M1 frontal armour yet. The ceramics in Chobham armour are particularly effective against HEAT warheads and it is really only kinetic penetrators that can get through (if they hit the same blocks multiple times). A low velocity RPG with a HEAT warhead would have to get very lucky to get through an M1s front armour (eg. nearly fired from underneath).

[SUBS17]

I imagine you'd be throwing everything in your M4 at him :D

I agree that, just 'cause you're in a tank it doesn't mean you don't care if you're hit.

 

I've heard it sounds like rain getting hit by MG fire in Arma before some of its mods it was possible to kill a tank with a 9mm so long as you had enough ammo(like 100 000 9mm bullets):D

[RIPTIDE]

I've heard it sounds like rain getting hit by MG fire in Arma before some of its mods it was possible to kill a tank with a 9mm so long as you had enough ammo(like 100 000 9mm bullets):D

lolol.. haha. CooL! :thumbup:

[Moa]

I've heard it sounds like rain getting hit by MG fire in Arma before some of its mods it was possible to kill a tank with a 9mm so long as you had enough ammo(like 100 000 9mm bullets):D

 

Personally, I don't think it this is cool. Arma 2 is certainly more game than sim. No worries if you prefer games, you are well catered for with the likes of Battlefield 2 Bad Company where the game is everything and realism is not intended. However, there of some of us who derive as much enjoyment when things work as real - even if it is against us/our avatars.

 

It is just a matter of taste, and what makes DCS so special for those of us who do enjoy realism over fast, furious and fun cartoon-ish antics.

[isoul]

...

 

I have wargamed this extensively (Game Designer Workshop's Third World War series being one of the better ways of exploring the units and reinforcement timings of battles in the 1980s from Norway to the Persian Gulf).

 

...

 

Games, games, games...

 

I bet that, if these "games" were available in WWII, they would predict a fast and easy victory of the industrialized Italy over the rag-clothed Greece.

 

Thank god the world haven't witnessed anything more than games that make generals proud!

[SUBS17]

Personally, I don't think it this is cool. Arma 2 is certainly more game than sim. No worries if you prefer games, you are well catered for with the likes of Battlefield 2 Bad Company where the game is everything and realism is not intended. However, there of some of us who derive as much enjoyment when things work as real - even if it is against us/our avatars.

 

It is just a matter of taste, and what makes DCS so special for those of us who do enjoy realism over fast, furious and fun cartoon-ish antics.

 

Well actually of all the FPS games out there Arma is the closest to real life thats available I rate the ACE mod version of Arma on the same level of realism as DCS. Both are 100% and would be 100% compatible in the realism aspect of FPS.:thumbup: And my comment was merely taking the piss as to how some games model damage in the view of ACEmod even a billion 9mm bullets won't kill an M1.:D

[winz]

Personally, I don't think it this is cool. Arma 2 is certainly more game than sim. No worries if you prefer games, you are well catered for with the likes of Battlefield 2 Bad Company where the game is everything and realism is not intended. However, there of some of us who derive as much enjoyment when things work as real - even if it is against us/our avatars.

 

It is just a matter of taste, and what makes DCS so special for those of us who do enjoy realism over fast, furious and fun cartoon-ish antics.

No 'game' can simulate all. Infantry operations 'simulation' in DCS is virtualy not existing. Also this thread shows that tank dmg/performance is far from true simulation as well. Does this make DCS a mainstream game? No.

Arma on the other hand is different, and it's aim is on infantry man simulation, and comparing it to Battlefield is like comapring DCS with HAWX.

[Moa]

Games, games, games...

 

I bet that, if these "games" were available in WWII, they would predict a fast and easy victory of the industrialized Italy over the rag-clothed Greece.

 

Thank god the world haven't witnessed anything more than games that make generals proud!

 

Nope they wouldn't. That's because there are so many other factors involved, and the better old-style games tried to account for most of them. Industrial output does not usually enter into conflicts until they've been going for a few months. Plus, the terrain of Greece is very favorable for defense and doesn't suit heavily mechanized forces much.

 

Then there is a the human-run wargames that the military run. Apparently the US Navy correctly predicted all the major features of WWII in the Pacific (before it happened) through wargames in the 1930s with the sole exception of the kamikaze attack, which no one foresaw (since it was not particularly effective nor rational).

 

In more recent times the US military formally wargames and uses computer simulations of all wars (and many hypothetical scenarios) before it does anything. For example, the US Navy ran a wargame where the Navy commander of the opposing forces uses the multitude of dhows in the Persian Gulf in suicide attacks. The Blue force commander could not sink all the dhows due to political considerations so this lead to the problem getting solved in the real-world. The Phalanx has had a software change where it can now engage small boats.

 

I took part in such a wargame/simulation while training in the military. The flow of events are unpredictable and interesting.

 

If you are interesting in simulating modern combat using historical data then this book is a handy start

http://www.amazon.com/Numbers-prediction-war-history-evaluate/dp/0672521318

 

Also see the following for a quick overview of the field:

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

 

My point was, if you can kill an M1 with a pistol in the un-modded game then it is broken. The flight model in Arma 2 is at least as broken (check out some of the YouTube vids of ridiculous things being done). Arma 2 is a great 'game' but not a great simulation.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Moa

[isoul]

 

Nope they wouldn't. That's because there are so many other factors involved, and the better old-style games tried to account for most of them. Industrial output does not usually enter into conflicts until they've been going for a few months. Plus, the terrain of Greece is very favorable for defense and doesn't suit heavily mechanized forces much.

 

...

 

My point was, if you can kill an M1 with a pistol in the un-modded game then it is broken. The flight model in Arma 2 is at least as broken (check out some of the YouTube vids of ridiculous things being done). Arma 2 is a great 'game' but not a great simulation.

 

Agreed...

 

My point was that you can't calculate or measure everything. The human factor is something still unknown to us and hard to measure which makes most things quite complicate.

 

This reminds me of the good old Command & Conquer where 20 rifle infantrymen could destroy a medium tank... you would lose many of them but eventually you could destroy the tank with bullets.

 

Of course C&C wasn't a simulation and if a simulation allows such stuff then it definitely has many flows in its design.

Edited July 9, 2010 by isoul

[winz]

The flight model in Arma 2 is at least as broken

So is the ground physics model in DCS (vehicles glued to the ground). Ground path-finding in DCS is a joke (oh, look, the bridge is down...)...

My point was, if you can kill an M1 with a pistol in the un-modded game then it is

broken.

If a HE rocket can lands 5meters next to soldier and he can walk away even without the slightest injury, then it's broken. When soldier is dead or alive, then something is broken. When the ground vehicle is 100% functional or dead, then something is broken.

Or isn't it?

There are aspects you focus on when you do a sim, there are aspects you have to simplify because of man power/money/performance.

 

And no, you cannot kill M1 with a pistol. You can kill M1 with 2A42, but you need ridicolous amount of amunition, and guess what, you can kill M1 with 2A42 in DCS too. ;)

Edited July 9, 2010 by winz

[ShadowVonChadwick]

Sorry to post off topic.........

 

But I to have noticed some seemingly odd behavior with armor on armor.

 

But sometimes you need to get down to their level & by that I mean terrain. Its not all flat.

This was 30 on 30. Results vary with who gets the first soulution.

Also seen 2 rolling T80s destroy 4 standing M1A1s (spose thats what happens when you put a expreso machine in a tank):thumbup:

Edited July 9, 2010 by ShadowVonChadwick

[Nerdwing]

This issue exists in Flaming Cliffs 2 as well :( I've no idea what exactly is the cause, but its certainly baffling.

[SUBS17]

 

My point was, if you can kill an M1 with a pistol in the un-modded game then it is broken. The flight model in Arma 2 is at least as broken (check out some of the YouTube vids of ridiculous things being done). Arma 2 is a great 'game' but not a great simulation.

 

That was in an earlier version it was probably fixed in a patch although Acemod definately fixes any possiblity to that ever happening. My view is in either case its not the software that is broken just a mere bug which like most things will most likely get fixed in a patch. Seriously the amount of code in this sim must be immense so its no surprise such things happen nor is it a problem if the devs fix it in a later patch thats just how life is with all sims and we are lucky this one gets the support from the devs that it gets. BTW ACEmod 2 for Arma 2 highly reccomended.:thumbup:

[ShalashakaDS]

In defense of arma flight model, they didnt had any intention on making a flight sim, the planes are flyable as a bonus, the point of the game is the infantary simulation and tatics, but that 9mm kills tank thing seems very suspect to say the least.

[104th_Crunch]

The flight model in Arma 2 is at least as broken (check out some of the YouTube vids of ridiculous things being done). Arma 2 is a great 'game' but not a great simulation.

 

Become an Arma bananna pilot now!

 

I HATE flying in Arma. Infantry is good though.

[SUBS17]

I like flying the helicopters in Arma 1 with ACEmod they fly quite well compared to other FPS games. In Arma it would be good if it was in some way compatible with DCS or even FC2.0. And because the Arma map is so huge you definately save time by using the Blackhawk or Mi8.:thumbup:

[astrospud]

Sorry to post off topic.........

 

But I to have noticed some seemingly odd behavior with armor on armor.

 

But sometimes you need to get down to their level & by that I mean terrain. Its not all flat.

This was 30 on 30. Results vary with who gets the first soulution.

Also seen 2 rolling T80s destroy 4 standing M1A1s (spose thats what happens when you put a expreso machine in a tank):thumbup:

 

From your attachment, I can see a whole bunch of M1A2's in one piece, and an equally large number of smoking (I have to assume) T-80u's.

I did a quick and dirty mission 6 v 6 on flat, even ground. From the start, I could see a difference in the rate of fire. While the US tanks fire maybe 3-4 rounds (between them) for the whole engagement, the T-80U's are sending round after round. The contact lasts less than a minute.

 

I'm thinking that maybe some of the M1A2's fire control gear is modelled in a simplified way, but still too slow to follow a realistic firing pattern (IMO). Something to do with saving computing power for the aircraft modelling?

 

I know from flying the KA-50 that they are still deadly accurate at times. While this is the case, could it be that ED have "dumbed down" a true to life targeting model for the Abrams, so that us poor KA-50 pilots don't get pasted all the time? ;)

[IronsightSniper]

Well, to answer your last question regarding the strength of Russian armor, I have to say it's pretty good, if not equal or better to the M1A2. Most T-72's or for that matter, T-80's in the world are export models. Russians have always took something away from the export models, whether it be a Thermal or Night sight or Kontakt-5 ERA. However, the story for Standard models are different.

 

To list the things that one has and other don't:

 

M1A2 Abrams has: Advanced Composite Armor(Chobham) and a Depleted Uranium mesh. It also has the M829A3 Depleted Uranium long rod penetrator, with penetration estimates at 790 mm of RHAe at 2,000 meters.

 

T-90A Vladimir has: Advanced Composite Armor(Probably a modernized Combination-K), integral ERA(Relikt), and Shtora Active Protection Passive-Kill system. It can fire the 3BM-42M Tungsten Heavy Alloy long rod penetrator with penetration estimates of 650 mm RHAe at 2,000 meters. It can also fire the 9K-119 Refleks, with an estimated 900 mm RHAe penetration ability at 5,000 meters.

 

The future of the M1A2 Abrams includes the Quick Kill hard-kill active protection system, with an Electrothermal-chemical gun or the capability to fire long-range ATGM's.

 

The future of the T-90A Vladimir includes the adaptation and possible modernization of the ARENA hard-kill active protection system. Nakidka signature reduction camouflage would also probably be standardized.

 

To be honest with you, I've always been on the side of Vladimir.