Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Gotcha.  Again it's pretty much a non-factor (at least it was for my time on active duty) because encountering it was marginally less likely than Iranian allied space aliens showing up on the battlefield.  I read the sensor thing somewhere or possibly imagined it, but again it's not a threat system that's proliferated to the degree that understanding it was essential.

Either way it's still very much something that some clever maths can give you a reasonable model of performance from.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relict was adopted in 2006, but it development started as far as end of 90th, when M829A3 didn't exists yet. According to information of NII Stali this ERA can protect a tank from M829A2 with reducing it penetration capability on 60 % (maximum value - depending on angle and zone of hit it can vary from 20 to 60 %) from 1000 m. About Relict anti-tandem capabilities, it was designed on the base of light ERA, which have to protect ligt armored vehicles from SPG-9 ammunition. All it anti-tandem capabilities acheives due to timing delay increasing of HE initiation and throwing of back plate. This is not the same as double ERA layer in for example in Duplet ERA. Real reduction of tandem-missiles effect by Relict estimates also on 60 % level. NII Stali guaranted protection against TOW-2A (850 mm beyond ERA) in front projection: 850 - (850*0,6)=340 mm, so it have a sense. 

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panzer, thanks for sharing that info on ROK, I didn't know they were "Camera" soldiers.(I thought that was only North Korea) :) Good stuff, I'm sure that US tanks enjoyed shooting through smoke and aquiring targets and longer ranges then the T-80U, Some Russian T-80Us are equipped with 1st gen Buran thermals, But not most of them. But as far as I know the FCS should be good enough to engage T-72 like targets to 2 kilometers at with day sights.You ever been in a T-80U in Korea? Tankers said that its roomy compared to the other tanks. 

I wish we could see some specs of the M829E4 so then we could have something to work on, On the degree of success it has against advanced ERAs. I looked all over but they're just estimations. Maybe the US government can give a projectile lenght, Speed, And penetration figure :D please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is probably similar to M829A3 in basic stats, because the physical limitations of the gun and ammunition have pretty much been reached.  I've read speculation that the raw RHA penetration is probably much the same.  The improvement is against advanced ERA and other countermeasures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ROKA is certainly not a "camera" Army in the sense of lacking skill.  It is however, from a culture that values appearances very much.  You can see this taken to a radical end in the DPRK (EVERYTHING IS GREAT WE ARE FINE DEATH TO AMERICA), but in the ROK it is much closer to being prideful.  When we did the after action reports during joint training events their portion was always how great they did and how swell everyone was at their job, then we'd leave and they'd stay and then they'd go into what was broken and how they'd fix it.

So in that regard their training tends to be pretty good...but if there's cameras and allied troops they tend to dress it up a bit.

I imagine the Koreans were okay with the T-80s given the size of their average crewman.  The chief complaint they had against the M48 was that it was too big for Korean crewmen, US vehicles are designed to accept some rather large dudes, which correspondingly makes them less optimal for a country made of smaller folks.  It's also one of the reasons the Koreans went with the K1 vs a Leopard 2 or Abrams.  I never got close enough to actually climb aboard a T-80 though, imagine I'd find it cramped however (the loader's area certainly gives the interior spaces of the Abrams a wider more open feeling, and again it was designed for a larger average crewman in the first place.

In regards to FCS, the problem of getting a round to a point is not as pronounced as it is ensuring that point is a target.  The lack of quality optics on Russian tanks would be the greater chokepoint than the performance of the fire control system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panzer, I worded it wrong about the ROK but you corrected me :) also you are right about the optics, FCS of modern tanks are usually the same capability its just on older tanks like the T-80U it has very poor optics compared to today's standard. I'm sure the ROK wasn't pleased about that because I'm not either, I mean think about it. If the cold war went hot all the NATO tanks would just pop regular smoke and shoot through it and massacre tanks when they shouldn't be massacred. But there were tactics developed to counter this but was it worth the expense if you ask me? No it wasn't, Thermals should have been a priority especially with the AT missiles designed for Soviet tanks. That is a flaw in soviet tank design which could have been avoided.

akd, I assumed so after a bit more research. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't tested this yet, but theoretical catastrophic explosion chance for combat loaded (A/L only) T-64/T-80 series should be higher then for T-72 series. Loader mechanism places propellant charges vertically, almost doubling the whole setup in height.  

Edited by BTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I didn't save any files or anything but after running some armor penetration tests on every tank in game, I found some bugs that break immersion from the reality of the game. I tested Russian tanks and weapons against UA and US tanks. An RPG-7 hit the right tread of a Oplot and caused a catastrophic explosion, The thing is it hit in directly from the front. Which would have just destroyed the tracks rendering it immobile. The tests against the Bulat and BV proved to be accurate in most cases. But against the M1A2 I found stuff that really angered me.

I used a T-90AM against the M1A2 from 150 meters, (I made the M1A2 have a fire arc so he doesn't destroy the T-90AM) The first shot landed directly below the drivers viewing port and it did not penetrate. This really angered me, But I said hey its ok maybe the round had a factory defect (:D) then the second round landed right on the left lower glacis of the M1A2 also no penetration. (this is where the rage kicks in) The third round lands on the left-turret front and does not penetrate (Maybe DU magic?) Then finally the 4th one penetrates the left-turret front and kills no one. I surrendered to the M1A2 after that. 

M1A2 VS AT-13, Front totally invulnerable even from the hull. On the side had some luck, It hit the ERA on the side of the turret and some how did not penetrate. But it penetrated the Hull ERA on the side. Conclusion: Bug?

M1A2 VS RPG-7, No penetrations on hull front or side except for a lucky shot from the side of hull that hit the turret ring. 

On a serious note, I know how hard coding is and bugs like these can happen, But why is it only happening for US tanks? I hope the Armor vs KE and CE aren't based from Steel Beasts. I really enjoy playing this Combat Mission, But things like this really throw me off. I love realism, And if the armor on the M1A2 is like this in real life then I'm all for it. But if you ask me I don't think these are right. Maybe these are bugs?

Also about spotting, I tested how long it takes to see M1A2s in tanks from ranges where you can instantly spot with your own eyes.(Range:150 meters) The T-72B3 took 10-15 seconds to see him, Around the same with the T-90A and AM. But the M1A2 sees them at 4 seconds. I understand Thermals help a lot and the one on the M1A2SEPv2 is more advanced then the one on the T-90A and T-72B3, But at these ranges out to even 2 KM these tanks should have no problem identifying each other around the same time. 

I'm not criticizing this game by the way, I really enjoy playing it. These might be bugs? Anyways if anyone disagrees feel free to argue with me. I just mentioned it because I would like the developers to maybe adjust some things so it's also fair to play as RU and UA. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a serious note, I know how hard coding is and bugs like these can happen, But why is it only happening for US tanks? I hope the Armor vs KE and CE aren't based from Steel Beasts. I really enjoy playing this Combat Mission, But things like this really throw me off. I love realism, And if the armor on the M1A2 is like this in real life then I'm all for it. But if you ask me I don't think these are right. Maybe these are bugs?

 

 

The Abrams side turret armor has been a known bug for a long time.

I don't know if the issue with hit decals showing on the tracks counting as hits on the armor is a bug or not but it definitely is not unique to the Abrams. That happens with probably every tank in every Combat Mission game.

I also don't know what sources BFC used for the Abrams armor protection but the game does not exactly match Steel Beasts. However, most areas on the tank are not vastly different than Steel Beast either, from what testing I have done. Steel Beasts lists most areas of the Abrams front armor protection at 900-1000mm RHAe vs KE. Most speculation on 3BM-60 Svinets-2 penetration puts it around 700-750mm RHAe, therefore I need to know what basis you have for expecting penetrations on these areas.

US and Russian vehicle spotting is likely to get a second look whenever BFC does the next Black Sea module and that is all I can say about it.

 

 

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vanir, You're right about the turret front slabs, Could you link me to something on the 3BM-60? I can't find anything on it. I assumed it would also cause armor spall or something like that, since its such a close hit. Affecting the crews' capability, From shock effects. But from 150 meters I would assume the round would cause some inside tank effects on the crew?

Could you also link me to the info on the 900-1000 vs KE for the M1A2? I'm in the mood for some research :D

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Abrams side turret armor has been a known bug for a long time.

I don't know if the issue with hit decals showing on the tracks counting as hits on the armor is a bug or not but it definitely is not unique to the Abrams. That happens with probably every tank in every Combat Mission game.

I also don't know what sources BFC used for the Abrams armor protection but the game does not exactly match Steel Beasts. However, most areas on the tank are not vastly different than Steel Beast either, from what testing I have done. Steel Beasts lists most areas of the Abrams front armor protection at 900-1000mm RHAe vs KE. Most speculation on 3BM-60 Svinets-2 penetration puts it around 700-750mm RHAe, therefore I need to know what basis you have for expecting penetrations on these areas.

US and Russian vehicle spotting is likely to get a second look whenever BFC does the next Black Sea module and that is all I can say about it.

 

 

Yeah, I was the one who showed screenshots of tests about the the AT-13 never penetrating the side turret of the Abrams despite having 900-950mm of penetration after ERA and a tandem warhead. Side armor of Abrams only has a single layer of ERA and should not be a factor. The AT-13 should penetrate the side turret easily with plenty of energy to spare most of the times (barring extreme angles, freak incidents). 

As for the M1 abrams. I dont protest steel beast #s . Smack dab from the front ... like if the firer is in a 30  degrees arc in front, yeah... 900-960mm . But, as soon as the firer is outside that arc, protection levels drop significantly because it negates the armor's horizontal sloping effect. In fact. inside 750 meters the thickest part of the turret (those DU add-on plates, left or right front turret) is penetrable by svinets-2 if hit at a 90 degrees angle (but the energy left is not big so sometimes, not much damage, probably what happened to that left-front penetration on your M1, Vladimir). Even better behind armor effects if the firer is at an higher elevation since that also further reduce LOS thickness by also negating the vertical sloping effect.

So if you have two firers.. one will likely get a good shot from outside of the almost  invulnerable 30 degrees arc in front of the tank (a hit on the mantlet , turret ring, driver's hatch or lower hull will still have a chance to penetrate inside that arc)

If they used the Steel Beast numbers for the M1, I do take issue to the CE protection levels of the T-90A/T-90AM upper frontal hull armor. Because it should be 900-1000mm against CE without Kontakt-5 or Relikt according to Steel Beast numbers.  Right now.. the 600mm or 650mm penetration capabilties of the tandem warhead direct attack javelin or PG-7VR can penetrate that upper frontal hull armor (glacis) almost all the time on the T-90A. As for the T-90AM, missiles with 950mm of penetration capabilities can penetrate both Relikt and the base armor behind it on a regular basis, which should not be. Relikt will reduce tandem warhead by 40%, to be very conservative (actually, it should reduce by 50-60%), leaving 570mm of penetrative capabillities to the warhead. It penetrates, so the CE protection level of the T-90A/T-90AM glacis is less than 570mm. Sorry, but I dont believe that is realistic. Againt KE, okay maybe no problem... ( I suspect more like 700mm on upper front left and right hull and 540 mm for the middle upper front hull if you take steel beast's #s and remove the Kontakt-5 effect) .

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And btw, the numbers in steel beast are for the T-90S, which is an old export version with probably less armor protection than the T-90A and T-90AM with the old turret design (which is probably in line with Fovanov's numbers ). The turret on the T-90A is much different and better armored, especially against CE (HEAT) weapons. The hull must be better too.

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not saying that The T-90 series is as armored or better armored than western tanks. That would be preposterous. But the gap is not that wide as depicted in the game. THe numbers are way off... especially for protection against HEAT on the front Hull.

 

here's an estimate of the turret: lower range:

 

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAqNe2ncI5HJbG1ujlAPXi56EsaIxi9q2XsWJTBo9uJwIlsUzR

 

Could not find something for the front hull. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-90AM armor will probably get looked at again also. The problem as always is that all the public "information" is speculative so it's anyone's guess how impressed BFC will be by what are mostly posts on forums. That drawing you posted is a good example of what I mean. It looks familiar but I don't know where it came from and Google images can't find a source.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And btw, the numbers in steel beast are for the T-90S, which is an old export version with probably less armor protection than the T-90A and T-90AM with the old turret design (which is probably in line with Fovanov's numbers ). The turret on the T-90A is much different and better armored, especially against CE (HEAT) weapons. The hull must be better too.

No, that T-90S has same welded turret as T-90A, not T-90 cast turret.

Vanir, I'm pretty sure I've seen that estimate posted to defenceforumindia, from one of the usual partcipants, who got it from a Russian forum (probably otvaga2004):

edit: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/arjun-vs-t90-mbt.44522/page-44, although the link is broken in the post.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched a Bradley shred a T90 last night, that was great. But then the T90's sister came out in a rampage and killed 5 of my bradleys in one fell swoop because they wouldn't fire their TOWS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a personal level, I feel it isn't perhaps direct glacis or frontal turret protection that is lacking, its something else. Like in my tests I got ammo explosions through weapon mounts, frontal tracks, side glacis etc. Looking at more protected areas might not be the best approach. I think evaluating internal layout, HEAT protection, ERA as well as hitbhoxes might be a better place to start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And btw, the numbers in steel beast are for the T-90S, which is an old export version with probably less armor protection than the T-90A and T-90AM with the old turret design (which is probably in line with Fovanov's numbers ). The turret on the T-90A is much different and better armored, especially against CE (HEAT) weapons. The hull must be better too.

Your key word is MUST BE better too, but WHY ? Т-90А is deeply improoved T-72B. New gun, new sights, new turret. But where you heard about significantly reinforced glacis ? Look at the schemes of armor layers of T-72B and T-90A and say, - what difference between it, that one would can maintain protection against CE in two times more, then other ? Thin plates of mithril ? You can calculate estimated glacis protection against CE by known methodic and it can't be more 600 RHAe. Zaloga's calculations gave 540 mm of T-72B mod 1989 glacis w/o ERA against CE. So, 800-1000  of T-90A is unreal.   

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So steel beast's numbers are completely bogus (and by a monstrous margin too) then. Steel Beast is used in armies for training (not the public version I admit). They give 1600 and 1400mm with Kontakt-5 against CE for T-90S front hull.  The layer is something, the materials used are something else. Did they take T-72BM and upgrade them to T-90A ? or did they build completely new tanks ? They could have changed for a better more modern alloy, ceramic or something else. Do you have a diagram or you can confirm to me that it is completely the same materials, composition, layer ? I dont speak or read Russian and translation in google is ****ty so i'm limited to western sources. What about the T-90AM ? same hull but with Relikt ? Relikt is built-in, so it means new hulls no ? 

 

Your key word is MUST BE better too, but WHY ? Т-90А is deeply improoved T-72B. New gun, new sights, new turret. But where you heard about significantly reinforced glacis ? Look at the schemes of armor layers of T-72B and T-90A and say, - what difference between it, that one would can maintain protection against CE in two times more, then other ? Thin plates of mithril ? You can calculate estimated glacis protection against CE by known methodic and it can't be more 600 RHAe. Zaloga's calculations gave 540 mm of T-72B mod 1989 glacis w/o ERA against CE. So, 800-1000  of T-90A is unreal.   

 

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone ever cut out the frontal hull armor of the T-90A ? Export versions do not count. They could be less resistant because of cheaper and less technologically advanced materials or sandwich. The Russians are very secretive and maskirovka is a big part of their philosophy. See the surprise when they fired the Kaliber missiles which were not supposed to have such a range. Nobody in the western intelligence community knew about it (publicly). Creating such a modern game is a very subjective process prone to massive innacuracies. Especially concerning Russian materials since there is much less first hand knowledge about it available to Battlefront. US equipment is a priority. It's good business. Russian equipement is part of the scenery for a lot of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zaloga, well that's the guy who pretended ERA wouldnt not be useful on soviet tanks because crews would be scared by the explosions and abandon the tanks. Sorry, but I dont put much credibility in him. He's biaised as hell. He's another " be assured we can occupy Russia in 7 days" (Turkish foreign minister) type of guy. Russian tanks are not as good as western tanks, sure, but they are not made of cardboard. Mithril is not necessary to increase protection against CE. New polymers in a sandwich with improved alloys, spaced armor could do the trick. We're not talking Leopard-2/M1A2 1400-1600mm against HEAT levels of protection here but 900mm. Much more reasonable but not "unreal". It doesnt imply double the protection against HEAT like western ceramic/polymer sandwiches do. It does imply lesser material and technology (realistic) but not 2-3 times as worst and 1989ish as current numbers imply.Research didnt completely stop during the nineties  and early 2000's in Russia for tank technology. And the rate at which the T-90 was produced implies some difficulties in manufacturing it or improvements that warranted delays to wait for another version. Or money problems. 

You can say " but why did they feel the need to add ERA" ? well, 900- 940mm is good  (it protects against most non-top-attack western missiles and older soviet missiles) but not good enough. If you can augment it to 1400mm-1500mm with ERA, so much the better.

I found this estimate on a forum for T-90A latest batch : 940mm against HEAT for the glacis. Yes it's a forum, but it seems reasonable. There's many estimates in the same range. Steel Beast, that forum, other places too. ZAloga's and fovanov's estimates (which are based on zaloga's numbers)  for a vanilla T-90 first batch are in a minority as far as I can see. Notice he mentions that svinets-2 penetrates 770 RHA at 2000 meters. I would say more like 730-750mm according to other estimates but he's not out of the ballpark. 

 

Armour-
vs. APFSDS
(frontal turrent): 740 mm RHA
Glacis:510mm RHA
lower Hull:230mm RHA
vs HEAT 
Turret: 1180 mm RHA
Glacis:940 mm RHA
Lower hull: 230 mm RHA
Firepower-
3BM48 "Свинец-2"APSFSDS- pierces 770 RHA at 2000 m
9M119 Refleks HEAT: 900 RHA(note: HEAT so its actually 500 MM APFSDS value)
Speed: 37-40 mph
Operational range:340-430 mi
Weight: 52 tons
Size: 31x12 feet
Power: 20.4 hp/tonne (15.8 kW/tonne) for V-92 12-cyl. diesel engine

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone ever cut out the frontal hull armor of the T-90A ? Export versions do not count. They could be less resistant because of cheaper and less technologically advanced materials or sandwich. The Russians are very secretive and maskirovka is a big part of their philosophy. See the surprise when they fired the Kaliber missiles which were not supposed to have such a range. Nobody in the western intelligence community knew about it (publicly). Creating such a modern game is a very subjective process prone to massive innacuracies. Especially concerning Russian materials since there is much less first hand knowledge about it available to Battlefront. US equipment is a priority. It's good business. Russian equipement is part of the scenery for a lot of players.

Vasily Fofanov and Andrei Tarasenko - thrustworthy Russian and Ukrainian tank specialists consider most Steel Beasts volumes as pure fantasy. I personally asked Tarasenko in his LJ about SB and he just laughed. And, yes, of course T-90AM is just T-90A with Relikt, additional screens and better equipment. No different in armor in export version and domestic. Differences only in equipment and ammunitions - export version of T-90A - T-90S has fire control system like on early T-90 (without "A"). There no any secret alloys in its - usual hard and medium hardness steel and STB. All innovations touch only blocks metal-ceramic packing of turret. According to you I have to demand from developers a bare glacis on BM Oplot impenetrable for Svinets-2, Kornet, M829A4 and direct hit of Death Star, just because our media claimed that Oplot is a best tank in the world ). But reality it is old, slightly modernithed hull of T-80UD with new ERA and euipment. What revolution in alloys could make NII Stali in the mid of 2000th in order to put it on serial tank ? All their new developments implemented in Armata, but T-90 is just upgraded T-72. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...