ATGM's lack of penetration power

[fighter1976]

Hi! Have a question.Why are needed 2 or even 3 Vikhr to destroy an Abrams or Challenger from medium range(2,5-4 km)? Is it the game or is something i do wrong? Because every time I try to destroy an MBT must score multiple hits to destroy a target.The end mission report says clearly that both or even 3 missiles hit the target.In real life one of these missiles would tear apart that MBT

[Eddie]

In real life one of these missiles would tear apart that MBT

 

No, no it wouldn't. The sim is working as designed, switch your burst length to long and 2 Vikhrs will be fired in a salvo at your target.

 

Attack MBTs from above and behind for best effects.

[fighter1976]

Ok, but why I still need 2 or 3 missile to destroy a poor An 26 on the ground?:huh:

[159th_Viper]

Ok, but why I still need 2 or 3 missile to destroy a poor An 26 on the ground?:huh:

 

One-Vikhr kill on an An-26:

 

 

AN-26 Kill.trk

 

Check to see if the An-26 you're attempting to destroy is not/was not placed there as a static object - much tougher IIRC.

[fighter1976]

yeap,was static:doh:...I assume that the game sees it like a building...

[159th_Viper]

I think so, yeah.

[VAOZoky]

No, no it wouldn't. The sim is working as designed, switch your burst length to long and 2 Vikhrs will be fired in a salvo at your target.

 

Attack MBTs from above and behind for best effects.

 

Isnt salvo uset to improve hit probability against moving targets (i read somewhere that it has 95% probability of hitting stationary target)? I think that if u hit target with one vikhr it should be dead bacause of tandem HEAT warhead that vikhr have(reactive armour wont save your tank). And why only abrams needs two hits is something that only devs know :)

[Eddie]

I think that if u hit target with one vikhr it should be dead bacause of tandem HEAT warhead that vikhr have(reactive armour wont save your tank). And why only abrams needs two hits is something that only devs know :)

 

You might score a mobility or sensor kill on an Abrams with a single ATGM the size of the Vikhr, as for the crew even suffering a scratch, highly unlikely. As for the Chally 2, please. The T-90 if featured in the sim, would be pretty much the same.

 

Remeber, the above MBTs were specifically designed to defeat weapon systems like the Vikhr. (A little tip, if you think either the Abrams or Chally use Chobham reactive armour as the internet might tell you, you're very mistaken. ;))

 

The Vikhr is a small missile with a small warhead, if you want to make sure you stop a modern MBT you'll need an AGM-65 or a weapon of equal size, or something more advanced like Brimstone.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Eddie

[159th_Viper]

(A little tip, if you think either the Abrams or Chally use Chobham reactive armour as the internet might tell you, you're very mistaken. ;))

 

Referring to the DU mesh/Graphite armour?

[VAOZoky]

What about RPG-7?

[Eddie]

What about RPG-7?

 

LOL.

 

During Op Telic (Iraq) one Challenger 2 was hit by 14 RPG-7 rounds and a MILAN round from close range after having the driver's sight damaged, resulting in the tank backing into a ditch and throwing its tracks. The crew sat in the tank being fired upon for over an hour until they could be recovered, the worst damage was to the sighting systems and the tank was repaired and back in action 6 hours later.

 

On another occasion, again in Iraq a Challenger 2 survived 40 RPG-7 hits, again after becoming stranded.

 

Only on one occasion has a Challenger 2 been 'destroyed', and that was when it was a friendly fire incident where it was hit by another Challenger 2 resulting in the death of 2 (of 4) crew. Challenger 2s have been significanly damaged on only 2 other occasions, once by an IED where the driver lost a leg (all other crew walked away). And one other occasion where an RPG-29 managed to achive some penetration of the hull after it hit the forward underside (tank cresting a hill) resulting in the driver loosing 2 toes.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Eddie

[VAOZoky]

LOL.

 

During Op Telic (Iraq) one Challenger 2 was hit by 14 RPG-7 rounds and a MILAN round from close range after having the driver's sight damaged, resulting in the tank backing into a ditch and throwing its tracks. The crew sat in the tank being fired upon for over an hour until they could be recovered, the worst damage was to the sighting systems and the tank was repaired and back in action 6 hours later.

 

On another occasion, again in Iraq a Challenger 2 survived 40 RPG-7 hits, again after becoming stranded.

 

Only on one occasion has a Challenger 2 been 'destroyed', and that was when it was a friendly fire incident where it was hit by another Challenger 2 resulting in the death of 2 (of 4) crew. Challenger 2s have been significanly damaged on only 2 other occasions, once by an IED where the driver lost a leg (all other crew walked away). And one other occasion where an RPG-29 managed to achive some penetration of the hull after it hit the forward underside (tank cresting a hill) resulting in the driver loosing 2 toes.

 

Challenger 2 is great tank i know that, but what about abrams?

[Eddie]

Challenger 2 is great tank i know that, but what about abrams?

 

Pretty similar, apart from armament (smoothbore gun, urgh). Not quite as well protected, but more than capable of putting up with 1980s generation anti-armour weapons.

[VAOZoky]

Pretty similar, apart from armament (smoothbore gun, urgh). Not quite as well protected, but more than capable of putting up with 1980s generation anti-armour weapons.

 

I think you're right about vikhr and chalenger but i think that abrams is overrated and overhyped

[Eddie]

I think you're right about vikhr and chalenger but i think that abrams is overrated and overhyped

 

Oh I totally agree, but be careful not to underestimate it either. Against MBTs such as the Challenger II/Leopard II and the like it is somewhat lacking, but taken on it's own it's still a good MBT.

[EtherealN]

Heh yeah, overrated is not the same as "bad". :)

 

Also remember that the Abrams has seen a lot of upgrades since it was first introduced, and as Eddie mentioned a lot of that as specifically aimed at defeating the then extant weapon systems. I wouldn't be the one to say whether it's the best or not (I just don't know), but it is stil a very very good tank.

[adam12]

Referring to the DU mesh/Graphite armour?

 

Eddie, Viper:

 

What what??

[adam12]

What do you guys think an AT-14 Kornet Missile would do to any modern tank hit on the front upper turret?

[adam12]

I did some tests and found that even lower hull and side hits from Vikhr missiles would not always destroy the Abrams in the game. Even double salvo doesn't solve that.

 

I'm quite sure that this is not accurate.

[GGTharos]

Damage modeling issue. Frankly, the only thing to say about is 'live with it' :)

 

DCS focuses on modeling aircraft well first, tanks second. One day there will be a better everything-model for ground vehicles, but not soon, IMHO :)

 

(In any case, MBTs are very sturdy, and even if you hit the sides with an AT missile you might still not accomplish anything - or you may. Really depends on what you hit, but that amount of detail is simply -not- available in DCS)

[adam12]

Damage modeling issue. Frankly, the only thing to say about is 'live with it' :)

 

DCS focuses on modeling aircraft well first, tanks second. One day there will be a better everything-model for ground vehicles, but not soon, IMHO :)

 

(In any case, MBTs are very sturdy, and even if you hit the sides with an AT missile you might still not accomplish anything - or you may. Really depends on what you hit, but that amount of detail is simply -not- available in DCS)

 

MBTs are actually pretty easily disabled and that the lack of kills is more a matter of how they are counted than a true representation of the damage the enemy can do.

 

Yes, vanilla RPG-7 rounds from 20-30 years ago, many of them duds, and the rest the smaller 85mm types, will do very little.

 

And it's still a good game regardless, let's avoid turning it into a review of the game. :)

 

A Vikhr missile will do a lot more.

 

AT-14s are supposed to be able to *kill* the most modern MBTs from the front, and they have a smaller warhead and a less advantageous attack angle than the Vikhr.

 

In the game, a TOW missile will hit a T-80, even on the flank, and the T-80 will continue as normal.

 

It seems to me that there is no compromise needed or extra damage modeling, just tell the game that if one of these hits, it's a kill.

[GGTharos]

A Vikhr missile will do a lot more.

 

They should, they have a larger warhead. On the other hand, M1's have been able to take AGM-65's and not get destroyed.

 

As for MBTs being 'easily' disabled? Of all the stuff shot at MBTs, only a few have gotten disabled, and fewer still destroyed.

 

AT-14s are supposed to be able to *kill* the most modern MBTs from the front, and they have a smaller warhead and a less advantageous attack angle than the Vikhr.

 

Yeah, so - good luck with that ;)

 

In the game, a TOW missile will hit a T-80, even on the flank, and the T-80 will continue as normal.

 

It seems to me that there is no compromise needed or extra damage modeling, just tell the game that if one of these hits, it's a kill.

 

I strongly disagree. Tanks are more likely to survive a hit than not - especially modern tanks. Better accounting can be accomplished with better damage modeling, but that'll take time.

[159th_Viper]

....AT-14s are supposed to be able to *kill* the most modern MBTs from the front, and they have a smaller warhead and a less advantageous attack angle than the Vikhr.....

 

That's the thing right there: The books will always be skewed to the advantage of the product they are portraying. Until a M1A2 actually runs headlong into a deployment of Kornets all we can really do is speculate.

 

Here's impact photos of a M1A2 tangling with a RPG:

 

 

Left Side Penetration into Hydraulic Reservoir

 

 

Disabled? Yes.

 

Destroyed? No.

 

If you want a Kornet-fix, BFBC2: 2 Spriggans and the M1A2 cooks :P

Edited October 21, 2011 by 159th_Viper

[adam12]

They should, they have a larger warhead. On the other hand, M1's have been able to take AGM-65's and not get destroyed.

 

I'm not questioning your source, but please show me this information. I'm astounded. (I'm not being sarcastic)

 

As for MBTs being 'easily' disabled? Of all the stuff shot at MBTs, only a few have gotten disabled, and fewer still destroyed.

What does it take to knock out the TIS equipment? What does it take to throw a track? Put a hole through the bottom or top? Damage the engine assembly and cooling?

 

I strongly disagree. Tanks are more likely to survive a hit than not - especially modern tanks. Better accounting can be accomplished with better damage modeling, but that'll take time.

Show me your information because that's fascinating news to me. Very curious! Edited October 21, 2011 by adam12

[adam12]

Viper -- what about the "2006 Lebanon War"?