Carter

In published sources I've read that the composite armor of the M1A2 has 600mm of kinetic energy protection and 1300mm of chemical energy protection. That is consistent with the AFJI (Armed Forces Journal International) estimates for the M-1A1HA listed on the tanknet.org site. > Most sources on the M1A2 give its armor at > least approximately 900mm at approximately > 80 degrees for kinetic energy. The glacis of the Abrams is sloped at 80 degrees. Off hand I'm estimating that an 80 degree slope would give a 156mm RHA sheet of armor the equivalent of 900mm of protection. Easily done, but that's only the glacis. The turret is another matter entirely. Maybe the Abrams has more protection than is publicly known. Maybe the brand new M1A2 SEP has advanced composite DU armor. (The Russians must have some reason to want to go to a monster 152mm main gun when the 125 mm 3BM32 DU Penetrator is said to penetrate 680mm RHA at 2000m). But the M1A2 SEP isn't modeled in TacOps. And I think it's best to go with established sources rather than internet speculation I've also read that the Abrams _can_ mount reactive armor. I've never heard of this being done in practice. It already has a huge amount of chemical energy protection due to its composite armor. . . although the latest reactive armor could provide extra SABOT protection as well. [This message has been edited by Carter (edited 02-02-2001).]

I think that sometimes you need the right tool for a certain job. And I imagine that there must be situations where armor is the right tool, over mobility. There are many systems that enhance protection. Composite armor, Explosive Reactive Armor (the latest stuff has some protection against SABOT as well as HEAT attacks), countermeasures systems like the Russian Shtora, and active protection systems like the Russian Arena that intercept incoming missiles. That said, I believe that mobility may be superior to armor at the moment. I wouldn't compare the mobility of a unarmored Jeep to an M1 tank. Instead I would compare a lightly armored Apache Gunship to an M1 tank. The M1 moves at 42-45 mph on the road. The Apache can move at around 200 mph over any terrain. It has awesome mobility and firepower. I think the Apache easily demonstrates its superiority in TACOPS gameplay.

I'd love to see some new units. Specifically: Black Eagle T-90 T-95? (no offical designation yet, but it does have a giant 152mm cannon!) Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW) Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) Also I'd like to see some new scenarios with an "Air Mech Strike" flavor. A description of this maneuver warfare concept is at: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/English/marapr97/jarnot.htm

People as naive as that student you talked to scare me. Are violent movies and murder mysteries immoral, in her mind, too? They simulate people being killed. I wonder how she would feel about killing in general if she grew up some place less sheltered. Everyone has the right to self defense.

I appreciate everyone's responses. I will agree that if an Apache or Hind ingests bullets into both engines, the helicopter will go down. I also agree that even an Apache probably wouldn't want to go toe-to-toe with a machinegun. Whatever protection the gunship has, I imagine they wouldn't want to take any chances. Thirdly, I agree that even a rock and a rope could be effective given the correct circumstances. Sounds like a real David and Goliath scenario. I'd like to thank the Major for his time, input, and patience. I'm still curious about what the Army development support group will say, but I won't argue my point any further. I'd also like to thank minmax for sharing some of his combat experience. I feel like I'm corresponding with a modern day Audie Murphy. Have you considered writing a book about your experiences? I'd love to hear more.

I have two more supporting arguments. First, I don't know what kind of Hind minmax saw getting shot down. Newer versions of the Hind have much more protection than the older ones. I quote from _Soviet Air Power_ by Anthony Robinson: "According to reports from Afganistan the Hind-D and E attack helicopters are virtually impervious to small arms fire." I'm sure many also recall when our Special Forces were ambushed in Somalia. Two of our Blackhawks were shot down. The Blackhawks appear to have less ballistic protection than Apaches, but the Somalians still found it necessary to use RPGs against the helicopters. In both cases an RPG to the tail of the Blackhawk brought the aircraft down. The Somalians had no shortage of machineguns, but creative use of surface-to-surface RPGs gave them teeth. Its got to be a lot easier hitting a helicopter with a machinegun than an RPG, so why even bother with the RPG unless the machinegun was less than effective? I'm not saying that all helicopters are invulnerable to infantry. Most are vulnerable. But newer gunships are very tough. And if I were an infantryman going up against one, I'd want a SAM! Maybe in the future we could have customizeable units in TacOps to suit individual tastes? I'd even pay for an expansion pack with new scenarios. Carter

First I'd like to thank the Major for his quick reply. His logic on 7.62 mm penetration sounds good to me and his source materials appear to be better than mine. I'd also like to say that I have a profound sense of awe and respect for minmax. I can't imagine what it would be like to go up against a BMP or BTR with an M-14. I don't envy him. However, I feel compelled to argue my point about Apache further. The U.S. has the M993 which was only recently developed and tested in 1996-97. It has considerable penetration, but would OPFOR machineguns have the same penetration? Their 7.62 mm machinegun rounds are different from NATO 7.62 mm rounds. Do they have a similar bullet to the M993 deployed (as shown in the game)? Also, just to show you how much of an armchair general I am , I have a quote from Tom Clancy's _Armored Cav_ : "...the Army Aviation Center at St. Louis, Missouri, has mandated that all new helicopter designs meet certain standards of maneuverability, ballistic tolerance against enemy gunfire, and load-carrying. For example, the AH-64 is invulnerable to 7.62mm projectiles, tolerant against 12.7mm/.50-caliber projectiles, and survivable (able to get home if hit in the power plant/drivetrain/flight-control systems) against 23mm high-explosive projectiles." The book is older (1994), and I know its not the best source in the world, but everything I've seen backs up the statement that the Apache is able to take some hits from 12.7mm and 23mm rounds. Specifically, the engines are protected against 23mm rounds. Their inlets are covered, obviously to prevent ingestion of small arms fire. Even if one engine did take serious damage, the second engine is on the other side of the helicopter and should be enough to get home. I've read that Apache's that have been shot down in combat are thought to have been brought down with SAM's. Respectfully, Carter

I've been playing TacOps for a few months now and I love it! I love the detail, complexity, and realism! Its given me a better understanding of what mechanized warfare is like. Most weapons appear to be modeled in the game very accurately. That said, I was curious about the 7.62 mm penetration in the game. The penetration of 7.62 mm rounds in the game is very high (about 25 mm close-in). In the user manual the 7.62 is described as using future "high-tech" ammo. However the current M993 AP round is listed at penetrating only 12 mm. That's half of the penetration in the game. Apache's are supposed to be basically invulnerable to 7.62 mm. The game models them with 15 mm of armor protection. But with 7.62 mm penetrating up to 25 mm (10 mm more than Apache armor in the game), Apaches are very vulnerable to units with these medium machineguns. That seems unrealistic to me. Is the M993's penetration higher close-in? Is the game modeling the 7.62 mm SLAP ammo that didn't live up to expectations in the field? Will there be a change in future versions of TacOps? ------------------