Test: M1 vs. T-80s Track Files included

[Brisse]

I'm sure the performance of the ground units is going to be tweaked in future realeases. I would not be suprised if we will se the M1A2 in the game too. You have already seen the screenshots on the T-90 so they are clearly developing new ground units.

[Dmut]

Hi Invader ZIM

I'll check your track files, that sounds like a aiming problem in M1.

[Boogie Van]

I think I know why the T-80U beats the M1A2 quite easily.

 

Aside from the handy-dandy ATGM, the T-80U has a harder to strike OHK zone from the front, whereas the extremes of the front of the Abram's glacis is vulnerable to being OHK.

 

Every shot seems to decrease some arbitrary HP value, but front hits are basically like being peppered by a submachine gun, it slightly decreases HP, but it doesn't really do a damn thing.

 

Meanwhile, if you strike the tracks (or the far ends of the Abram's turret) you end up with a quick kill.

 

I think, it would likely be better for the longevity of tank battles if side armor was either increased, or the entire frontal section no longer has any one hit kill areas, a long with a differential front and rear side armor sections, with the frontal side armor being stronger than the rear, obviously. Likewise, decreased effects on HP over time/length of flight with AP rounds would also make it better.

 

I hope this track file helps elaborate what I mean better than I can.

abram-txxtest.trk

[71st_Mastiff]

Hi Invader ZIM

I'll check your track files, that sounds like a aiming problem in M1.

 

I too think theres an aim point problem, I ll set up for a HE shot and it always lands left and to the rear. not sure if the computer targeting assist is right?

 

:joystick:

[macedk]

also this is still in beta so much can change :)

[Dmut]

I too think theres an aim point problem, I ll set up for a HE shot and it always lands left and to the rear. not sure if the computer targeting assist is right?

HE sight is different issue.

[Boogie Van]

And what about the varying hit-boxes and the capability to achieve one hit kills against the turret glacis from the front of the tank?

[Apocalypse31]

I think I know why the T-80U beats the M1A2 quite easily.

 

Aside from the handy-dandy ATGM, the T-80U has a harder to strike OHK zone from the front, whereas the extremes of the front of the Abram's glacis is vulnerable to being OHK.

 

Every shot seems to decrease some arbitrary HP value, but front hits are basically like being peppered by a submachine gun, it slightly decreases HP, but it doesn't really do a damn thing.

 

Meanwhile, if you strike the tracks (or the far ends of the Abram's turret) you end up with a quick kill.

 

I think, it would likely be better for the longevity of tank battles if side armor was either increased, or the entire frontal section no longer has any one hit kill areas, a long with a differential front and rear side armor sections, with the frontal side armor being stronger than the rear, obviously. Likewise, decreased effects on HP over time/length of flight with AP rounds would also make it better.

 

I hope this track file helps elaborate what I mean better than I can.

 

Good find, dude :thumbup:

Edited July 18, 2012 by Apocalypse31

[tusler]

Is the official name of what you guys are talking about "gameplay balance"?:huh:

I am sure ED will tweak it a few times before they are done and call the product finished.

I do know this is a lot more fun to me than Wargames European Escalation:D

[112th_Rossi]

Hmm from my point of view, after setting up a test mission, a stationary M1 tank can't even destroy a line of defenseless trucks without missing some of the time.

[garengarch]

Is the official name of what you guys are talking about "gameplay balance"?:huh:

:)

I do hope they don't go this route, I'd much prefer true-to-life rather than balanced...:)

[Raven434th]

The discussion is kinda pointless until we know what the time period of the engagements are or what the vehicle designations are..Is it an m1a2 tusk?...an HA,...a SEP? Are they using A1, A2 or A3 ammo??Are they frontal or flanking shots?... etc etc.

 

And as far as the iraq argument...they had upgraded ERA T-72 tanks as well(not many mind you).The abrams cut through them like a hot knife through butter.

 

ED has to get it straight in their heads what they want to accomplish and convey that to us,so as we know what to expect from this beta test.If they are going to live up to their reputation as sim creators,then IMO I'd say this is more like an ALPHA not a BETA.I hope they're not going to let this opportunity slip away to accomadate what ALOT of armor simmers are waiting for.Hell...even ARMA II has better simulation in armor than this,and it has no real FCS outta the box.

I think most people's impression was that DCS wasn't meant in concept to be a flight sim per say.It just "Started" at that point cause it made sense as a start point.And I think alot of us are baseing our expectations on this idea.We want to feel like we're in a tank and right now it doesn't feel that way.Needs more developement and direction conveyed to its user base I think to avoid the negative impressions.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Raven434th

[Invader ZIM]

We all have to remember this is a Beta, and especially now with everyone looking closer at the ground combat instead of being 10,000 feet up we're all bound to run into some things that need adjusting, and that's what this beta period is for.

 

 

 

Thank you Dmut for looking into the targeting issues, it is greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

Looking into this further, let's compare the real world M1A2 with the T-80U with public info that's available to us. Since in DCS A-10C the M1's are actually labelled as "M1A2" and do have the CITV of that variant.

 

 

 

Thermal sights:

 

 

This is an area where I do have extensive first hand experience, on both American and Russian systems. In the first place, you have to realise there's a difference between a thermal imager and an image intensifier. The thermal system "sees" heat, while an image intensifier simply amplifies available light. Have you noticed how much quicker and easier it is to target things in this sim from the FLIR on the A-10 versus using an image intensifier? And when you compare the two, a thermal imager gives a vast improvement in rapid target detection and range at night vs an image intensifier, thermal can even help see through battlefield smoke and light rain, fog and other obsurants, like your main gun firing, where an image intensifier cannot.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, this part of the comparison is unfair as The T-80U has NO thermal imaging system to target with. You would have to go to the T-80U(M) or the command version the T-80UK to find a unit that has the Agava thermal sight, and the Agava has a stated range of 2,600 meters. Even the upgraded Agava-2 thermal sight has the same quoted range from the manufacturer, but in all fairness it does have slightly better resolution. See the link to what the Agava-2 looks like here: http://warfare.ru/?catid=314&linkid=2363

 

 

 

What the T-80U does have is image intensifiers for it's gunnery sight, which simply can't compare to a thermal sight in speed of acquisition and ease of targeting. Plus the performance varies for an image intensifier, your engagement range is greatly reduced if it's overcast and there's no moon out, versus a full moon and clear skies for example. The thermal unit would have no such problems picking out a warm T-80 on an overcast moonless night at 4km or more. Depending on the thermal sight itself, you might not know it's a T-80, but you'll know something is out there with the thermal.

 

By comparison the oldest version of the M1 came with a 1st generation thermal sight for targeting in the early 1980's. And the M1A2 has the following firepower enhancement package.

 

 

 

For Reference: om/projects/abrams/

 

 

 

The above link shows the Firepower Enhancement Package for the M1A2 which started in 2001. What this means is that the M1A2 has a 2nd generation thermal viewer, (2nd generation means in this case that the thermal imager has a staring focal planar array that is cryogenically cooled, this greatly increases the systems sensitivity to temperature differences because the array always stares at the target gathering photons. And the use of an array means that it's resolution is greatly increased allowing discrimination of targets at much further ranges than a mechanically scanned thermal unit such as the Agava and early M1.) Plus ADDITIONAL thermal viewers for the commander. The company that makes this sight for the M1 is DRS, link to thermal sight for M1 is here: http://www.drs.com/Products/RSTA/GENIITIS.aspx

 

 

 

 

So you have at least two people in the M1A2 who are using 2nd gen thermal sights looking to destroy enemy tanks. Couple that with the info in the FEP package, and what that says to me is that the M1A2 has better situational awareness on the battlefield from threats and targets, day or night. We haven't even gotten into the details about the M1A2's datalink system, the Force 21 which if there was any other unit that detected enemy tanks, they would show up on the M1A2's datalink, allowing the M1's to maneuver out of the line of sight of the enemy units and take advantage of being able to see and fire on the enemy first.

 

 

 

"The FEP also includes an eyesafe laser range finder, north-finding module and precision lightweight global positioning receiver which provide targeting solutions for the new far target locate (FTL) function. FTL gives accurate targeting data to a range of 8,000m with a CEP (circular error of probability) of less than 35m."

 

 

Now what I'm curious about, is why does the M1A2 need accurate 35m circular area of probability for a tank round to hit targets out to 8,000 meters???

 

 

 

For reference on the various T-80 versions please take a look at the rather long list available here: http://t-80tank.blogspot.com/

 

 

Also for reference is the Russian company that makes the tank night sights for it's military, Novosibirsk, their site can be found here at the following for the T-90S and T-80U:

 

http://www.npzoptics.com/catalog/armoured_technics/t-90s/

http://www.npzoptics.com/catalog/armoured_technics/t-80u/

 

 

 

 

 

 

AT-11B vs. M829A3

 

 

 

Now let's look at the T-80U's AT-11 vs. the M1A2's round for long range, the M829A3.

 

 

 

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that the T-80U will be using the latest ATGM it can, the 9M119M Refleks.

 

 

Here's a link showing the manufacturer's data on the Refleks. http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/refleks.html

 

 

 

Just take note also that penetration is claimed at 90 degrees. The penetration value goes down the further away from 90 you go.

 

 

The Refleks has a stated range of 5,000 meters. Which is very impressive for a tank round, but let's look at the data a little closer. The info above states that the Refleks round takes 14.2 seconds to ride the laser fired from the T-80 to it's target. Nothing wrong with that, until you consider how hard it would be for the T-80 to maneuver while keeping a precise beam on a maneuvering enemy tank at 5km, without a thermal sight, and reduced capability at night with an image intensifier. And the T-80U has no way of accurately targeting an M1 at that range if the M1's see the T-80 fire and decide to pop smoke and maneuver for cover. The M1's also have image intensifiers and would actually be able to see the infrared beam fired from the enemy tanks at night also.

 

 

 

In some cases the T-80U does have a true advantage in range with the AT-11B, but lets look at the M829A3 round.

 

 

 

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html

 

 

 

The M829A3 is specifically meant to work against the latest ERA armor and still penetrate a tank, and when you look at it's muzzle velocity you can see something very telling.... It's fast. 1,555 meters per second given public data. Which means that you can have a T-80U fire at the M1 at 5km first with his AT-11B, but he's going to kick up a little dust and smoke from firing, and the M1 actually has time to either pop smoke and evade the missile... Or it can fire back. Given the short flight time of the M829A3, something like 3 to 4 seconds to reach 5km you might get two or even three shots off at the most likely stationary T-80 at 5km, and if any of them hit, even if not killing the T-80 would certainly knock the aim of the laser or damage other components.

 

 

 

 

The below link is in Russian, but what's it's saying is that Kontakt-5 has proven to be ineffective versus western Depleted Uranium Sabots similar to the M829A3,since the Western rounds' relatively slower speed (compared to soviet rounds that K5 development is allegedly based on) will not trigger the K5.

 

http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2002-07-19/6_progress.html

 

 

 

And if M1A2's are worried about ATGM's there's countermeasures for it, which have actually been fielded within the last 20 years to defeat ATGM's.

 

 

There's the ERA armor upgrade which puts Reactive armor over the M1, and there's the AN/VLQ-6 which was used on M1's back in 1990.

 

 

Info on AL/VLQ-6:http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3794.html

 

 

 

AN/VLQ-7 is an active damaging system that blinds enemy sensors and was used on Bradley's in 1990. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA323948

 

 

 

"During the Gulf War, the American forces used two kinds of

laser blinding weapons, namely the AN/VLQ-7 Stingray combat

defense system and AN/PLQ-5 laser countermeasures system (LCMS).

 

The AN/VLQ-7 Stingray combat defense system, developed by Martin Marietta, Inc., was mounted in Bradley fighting vehicles. This system can capture targets using the "cat's- eye effect", and, with a C02 laser with an average power lkW, and a Nd:YAG laser and Nd:YAG frequency multiplication laser with lOOmJ output energy, can destroy military photoelectric equipment 8km away as well as damage human eyes over even greater distances. Thisnsystem, equipped with a wide-view search and acquisition setup, can perform positioning over several tanks simultaneously, and transmit laser beams to blind the photoelectric sensors in these tanks to make them lose mobility, and finally destroy them by firing anti-tank missiles."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Given all this info, with all due respect, I'm beginning to think that the T-80U would not fare very well against M1A2's and should attempt to get in closer and ambush using real world data presented above. At range they would be plinked multiple times by the M1A2's before their ATGM's reached the M1A2's at extended ranges, or jammed by the multiple systems listed above, or defeated by smoke and maneuvering. We're not even considering the depleted uranium uprated armor protection the M1A2 has, that would be another book in an of itself lol. Up close the T-80 depleted uranium rounds might have a chance against the M1A2. All bets are off if we get an M1A2 TUSK Ver.2 with 2nd gen reactive armor over it though lol.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Invader ZIM

[Boogie Van]

Is the official name of what you guys are talking about "gameplay balance"?:huh:

I am sure ED will tweak it a few times before they are done and call the product finished.

I do know this is a lot more fun to me than Wargames European Escalation:D

 

If W:EE had individual unit control. *dreamy sigh*

 

Seriously, though, whilst these hit zones are based slightly in realism, the results are far from realistic. Shooting an Abram's on the side of the turret is not going to get you very far, and if you take the track out, well, you've still got an angry damn Abrams staring you in the face.

 

But the main problem has more to do with the hit-boxes. The far ends of the turret are very easy to strike, whereas the tracks present a mildly difficult target. Still, getting catastrophic kills from the front is uuugh, painful.

 

I need to try a similar bit with the T-72, T-55, Leopard 1/2 and Chally, see how it comes out.

[Raven434th]

Thermals can't see through hills.A flank shot in the turret ring at 2000-2500 metres will cause a bad day for any tank.True dat.

[Boogie Van]

Upper end of the armor, here. Check the track file. :D

 

Or try it for yourself.

 

Besides, wouldn't that be a gun kill, anyway? It wouldn't be pretty, but I'm fairly certain the tank will 'walk' away from it.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Boogie Van

[PhoenixBvo]

Which track file are you referring to?

[jazjar]

Excellent analysis Invader zim. I would also like to add that since the T-80 doesn't have thermal optics, the range of engagement for the refleks can go down, due to something like fog or other factors. The M1A2 could take advantage of this and get in a shot at 5000m, the stated max range of the ballistic computer before the T-80 knew anything was amiss. I would also lke to clear up some misconceptions about ammunition. Some believe that firepower lies in the main gun. This is true to an extent, but there is something else, more glaringly obvious, that is the main factor when considering firepower. That would be the round itself. The shape of the round, the weight of the round, the "flexibility" ( when particularly thin, weak sabots bend midflight ) of the round all influence this. For example, why is the M829a3 so effective against ERA? ( invader talked about this ) It's because that it travels slower than some of its counterparts, therefore it doesn't detonate ERA, and the study build that provides that slow speed has less of a chance to "snap" into two against sloped armor.

[Boogie Van]

This one.

[Invader ZIM]

One more question about the real M1A2 and T-80U.

 

After the T-80U fires, does it's turret automatically slew off target and move into a position to allow the autoloader to ready another round?

 

And when the M1A2 fires, does it's gun have to move off target? Or is there an 18 year old running on pure adrenalin loading the next round?

 

Something to consider, and look into.

[whitehot]

[quote name=

 

The M829A3 is specifically meant to work against the latest ERA armor and still penetrate a tank, and when you look at it's muzzle velocity you can see something very telling.... It's fast. 1,555 meters per second given public data. Which means that you can have a T-80U fire at the M1 at 5km first with his AT-11B, but he's going to kick up a little dust and smoke from firing, and the M1 actually has time to either pop smoke and evade the missile... Or it can fire back. Given the short flight time of the M829A3, something like 3 to 4 seconds to reach 5km you might get two or even three shots off at the most likely stationary T-80 at 5km, and if any of them hit, even if not killing the T-80 would certainly knock the aim of the laser or damage other components.

 

 

look, afaik at 5kms anysabot round would at most scratch the paint of any modern mbt. I love reading this technical stuff about weapons systems and btw, thanks for the links. Now, surely this data should provide the base for any decent simulation, but you have to consider other parameters. First; as you stated, this data is provided mostly by the manufacturers of these systems. We all know how they extrapolate it, they test their products in ideal (sometimes even favorable) environments, and provide the numbers (and would be naive believing that those numbers don't get some rounding in the process). Real situations are much different. Statements like "the 3BXX round can penetrate the M1A1 frontal armor at 2000 mts" are all but misleading. Were those true, an M1A1 tank should be totally impervious to older tanks like t-55 or t-62 from any angle. Yet, real engagements reports, with pictures attached, tell us that in the gulf we've had Abrams written off as combat losses by hits from t-55s, 100mm static AT guns, and RPG-7 (with the old round). You describe an engagement supposed to occur at 5000 mts; that scenario could happen only in open desert. In a setting like Georgia, 90% of MBT on MBT combat would be at distances within 1000 mts, without taking account of buildings, trees, and a terrain which is not at all flat. Anyway, at 1000mts, any sabot round hit is likely to cause a loss of the MBT. Maybe the T-80 would explode and throw of its turret, with the loss of 2/3 of the crew, while the Abrams would just sit there and burn with a shaken but largely alive crew managing to get out.. But for our purposes both tanks would be gone. Moreover, I wouldn't say that the T-80U is a match to the M1A2, since the first is the same tank it was in the mid '80s, while the latter is the most upgraded tank in the US armory. You should put T80Us on M1A1, and T-90 upgraded versions (which come with a thermal sight by default) on M1A2.

[Apocalypse31]

One more question about the real M1A2 and T-80U.

 

After the T-80U fires, does it's turret automatically slew off target and move into a position to allow the autoloader to ready another round?

 

And when the M1A2 fires, does it's gun have to move off target? Or is there an 18 year old running on pure adrenalin loading the next round?

 

Something to consider, and look into.

 

Yes - The autoloader on the T80 causes the gun to elevate its turret in order to load another round.

 

No - The gun on the M1 series does not move off of the target while this is going on. 18 year old? I've seen 40 year old men load a round in less than 7 seconds. It's not easy, and those rounds are HEAVY, but I think it beats an autoloader any day.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Apocalypse31

[Invader ZIM]

Well said whitehot, and point taken.

 

My example was by design to show how unfeasable it was to have an engagement at 5,000m, even under the most ideal conditions.

 

And at closer ranges both the T-80 and M1 will probably be using their depleted uranium rounds, which I found are made entirely differently in the West as opposed to the East. That's another terribly long debate though :lol:

 

The T-90 is coming in the next patch, and is a very welcome addition, but I want to learn how these systems really work, and how they will work in DCS World and go from there. As it is right now, I think the M1A2 needs a tweak to better reflect it's situational awareness and detection capabilities.

 

And for example the T-80 could be upgraded to the T-80UM in DCS to give it some capability against the M1 at night or other obscuring conditions. Having the T-80 engage the M1 in DCS World isn't wrong, but it should be labelled correctly to better reflect it's ability to do so under some of our simulated conditions.

 

And I think that attention should be given to the M1A2's capabilities and modelled in this sim. None of the systems have to be perfect! But every system no matter who or where it was made has a tactical weakness, find it and use it!! That's the fun of playing DCS CA, even in beta form, it's like I have my whole army on my desktop! I couldn't dream of this kind of fun with the little plastic army men I used to play with as a kid. :thumbup:

 

Apocalypse31, thanks for that info. In my mind taking the aiming system off of the target to reload each round loses critial time to guage range and compensate for target movement, to me that's another detriment to having an autoloader. You can't replace a thinking human being with a machine yet., just my opinion.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Invader ZIM

[Krebs20]

As a person who likes to build missions for DCS, but no technical interest or knowledge in tanks. This "balance" in tanks has never existed in DCS in any version. Combined Arms just shows it to everyone in a really close up way. If you could disable the TOWs on the T80s, i think it would balance better. But not real.

I have giving up building "Balanced mission in DCS. If you want balance then you must build a mission with only eastern forces. Ukraine vs Russia.

[Invader ZIM]

I know what you mean Krebs, I actually tend to use the quck mission generator alot myself. There's other ways to balance when mission building though.

 

You can either up the skill level of your individual units forces and lower the skill of the enemy, or vica versa. Think that T-80 is not good enough?, put him from good to excellent, put your forces down to good, problem solved lol.

 

DCS Does already offer a lot of flexibility in the AI. The point is that you enjoy the sim how you think the battle will go down. :smilewink:

 

But since we get to drive the vehicles now, it would be nice to see more tweaking for realistic weapons systems.