Why are stationary target so much harder to destroy?

[dok_rp]

Hello folks,

 

I was doing some practice shooting at stationary targets and I've found out that some of them are much harder to destroy when set as stationary targets.

 

The M1A2, for example, takes up to Six Vikhrs to destroy. The T80 at least 4, and the T72 and T55 at least 2.

 

All the other armored vehicles blow up normaly. These 4 are the only ones that are harder to kill when set as stationary then as regular ground targets.

 

I was thinking this was some sort of simulation of the tank being empty with no gas or ammo, but then again other armored targets such as the Strykers, the BMP's and BRDM's blow up just fine.

 

Another thing is that the M1A2, the T80, the T72 and the T55 are totally impervious to cannon fire when set as stationary. The other armored targets in the game will blow up fine with a few well placed API rounds. I know MBT's are beats in the battlefield, but are they really impervious to the 30mm API rounds in the Shark?

 

I wonder if the cannon really cannot do any harm at all to these tanks. :pilotfly:

[EvilBivol-1]

I think by stationary you are referring to Static objects, as opposed to stationary active ones. If so, some static object damage values are incorrect.

[Vekkinho]

If so, can we expect a fix in future?

[sobek]

Another thing is that the M1A2, the T80, the T72 and the T55 are totally impervious to cannon fire when set as stationary. The other armored targets in the game will blow up fine with a few well placed API rounds. I know MBT's are beats in the battlefield, but are they really impervious to the 30mm API rounds in the Shark?

 

Yes. Why do you think MBTs have 120mm guns with specialized penetrators? ;)

 

Mobility kill is possibe IRL though.

[EtherealN]

Yeah, mobility kill is realatively easy (compared to outright destruction). Though it should be noted that they are not invulnerable - you just need to get closer than you really want to get and attack from a rear-and-above aspect.

 

Do remember that there are differences between 30mm and 30mm (velocity, penetration power, mass etc), so while one 30mm (the GAU-8 ) might have impressive performance even against modern tanks, others with the same calibre are unfortunately slightly hindicapped.

[dok_rp]

I think by stationary you are referring to Static objects, as opposed to stationary active ones. If so, some static object damage values are incorrect.

 

Hello Mr EvilBivol,

 

Yes, by stationary I mean Static. Sorry for the incorrect reference. Thanks for the clarification. The damage values did seem a little off for the MBT's. The lighter tanks are ok, tough. :smartass:

 

 

Yeah, mobility kill is realatively easy (compared to outright destruction). Though it should be noted that they are not invulnerable - you just need to get closer than you really want to get and attack from a rear-and-above aspect.

 

Do remember that there are differences between 30mm and 30mm (velocity, penetration power, mass etc), so while one 30mm (the GAU-8 ) might have impressive performance even against modern tanks, others with the same calibre are unfortunately slightly hindicapped.

 

Yes, you're right EtheralN. I remember some time ago someone had posted some info on the kinetic energy of those 30mm from the Gau8 and they were astronomical when compared to other cannons of the same caliber.

 

However, as EvilBivol has stated, the damage model for those tanks are a little off when they are placed as static objects.

 

Lot's of interesting fixes are to come on future patches I imagine. :pilotfly:

[SFJackBauer]

He said it is incorrect, not that it will be fixed in a patch :music_whistling:

[Moa]

Main difference between the BlackShark's cannon and the A-10's is the warhead of each round. Here we're concerned about the point-of-impact and not the range (affected by amount of propellant, strength and cooling of barrel).

 

The A-10 has depleted uranium rounds, which are very, very dense so have a lot of momentum (mass * velocity, if you provide enough propellant) and consequently kinetic energy (1/2 * mass * velocity * velocity). The funny thing about depleted uranium is that it is a waste product of the nuclear fuel cycle and the US government will pay you to take it away if you have the facilities to handle it. You then shape it into penetrators for 30 mm and 120 mm cannon and sell it back to them for a high price. Tungsten armour piercing rounds are not as good (and are expensive) but are still better than hardened shaped steel.

 

Sub-caliber rounds with full-caliber sabot ('shoes') fit around them also change the penetrating power of a round. IIRC the A-10 doesn't use a sabot round but the 120 mm Rheinmetal-Borsig of the M1A2 does.

 

Hitting a target with a shaped charge (HEAT) or High Explosive (HE) won't do much to a MBT unless you get lucky and hit a track, road wheel, or sensor. The Shark doesn't have the stopping power of the A-10 when comparing cannons (nothing does), and similarly the Vikhr is not as powerful as the armour-piercing variants of the Maverick (or the Hellfire, or the mighty TOW). However, you can carry more Vikhr since they're lighter.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Moa

[sobek]

Yes, you're right EtheralN. I remember some time ago someone had posted some info on the kinetic energy of those 30mm from the Gau8 and they were astronomical when compared to other cannons of the same caliber.

 

That's because they use a different caliber, to be exact. The GAU-8 uses 30x173mm cartridges, the 2A42 on the other hand uses 30x165mm cartridges. More gunpowder->more kinetic energy.

[isoul]

...

Hitting a target with a shaped charge (HEAT) or High Explosive (HE) won't do much to a MBT unless you get lucky and hit a track, road wheel, or sensor. The Shark doesn't have the stopping power of the A-10 when comparing cannons (nothing does), and similarly the Vikhr is not as powerful as the armour-piercing variants of the Maverick (or the Hellfire, or the mighty TOW). However, you can carry more Vikhr since they're lighter.

 

Are you serious about the HEAT?

 

To hit armor with HEAT, HE or FAE has very different effects. The HEAT is an explosive penetrator. This can punch holes throught armor while HE or FAE have completely different effects (and are used against different kinds of targets). Modern infantry AT weapons are mostly HEAT missiles. To summarize things up, if you are in a tank, you don't want to be hit by HEAT warheads.

 

Still you can't compare an AGM-65 with a Vikhr or Hellfire since the weight alone of the last two are 4 times less.

 

Vikhrs weight almost as much as Hellfires but are cheaper so Russians encourage pilots to fire them in pairs. Their cost is 4-5 times less, if I am not mistaken, than a Hellfire.

 

Apart from this, the ability to penetrate 1m of steel behind ERA is far from insignificant. Vikhrs are stated to have the same penetrating abilities with the TOW (which you state as "mighty"). These penetrating abilities are enough to defeat a Leopard 2A6 armor (at least theoretical).

Edited July 8, 2010 by isoul