Devil M

You would be safer with a lightweight suit of armor vs sub-caliber long rod penetrator- there's simply not as much material flowing out of the way of the projectile, spalling back into the crew compartment; the risks become that much more minimized. I see this analogy closer if we were talking about full caliber hard-capped AP shot before modern tank designs switched over to HVAPDS, or if we were talking bobmbardment of 16" or 155mm projectiles impacting on the turret roof: modern armor hasn't really progressed in the sense that it offers immunity by mere thickness against a slow moving, heavy slug- so in that sense I agree with you. But I have a difficult time with the analogy where it concerns the concentration of energy into a much smaller area such as from modern sub-caliber penetrators and HEAT rounds. Overmatched armor is defeated regardless of continued hits.

Well someone asked the question about whether this was going to be modelled or not in Steel Beasts- I don't know if this were a rhetorical or hypothetical quesion. No one even responded to it to shed light on it, I suspect because they wouldn't know the answer: the actual effects would have to be based on guess work and a statistical calculation with 'common sense' guesswork invloved. You could take this information with a grain of salt, or presume to build a game around it, depending on your priorities. In a game such as Steel Beasts, you can set up unlikely situations such as shooting at an M1 for target practice all day. The armor model while adequate is not a definitive one, since it is not designed to be so, but rather teach fundamental lessons that are considered to be 'good enough' given available information. It's not that I disallow the concept; I am however guarded against the practical consideration where it becomes important to model in a simulation. Recent combat experience doesn't yield much data on this- there are too few real life examples of individual vehicles sustaining enough hits in the same location to interpolate information, or otherwise the information has been kept secret. An engineer or someone who could provide this information probably would not anyway or else be in violation of OPSEC. In other words, those who provide definitive answers are usually just using alot of guesswork, since the ones who really know wouldn't be talking. [ December 04, 2005, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Devil M ]

There was an excellent discussion on tank armor and KE projectiles a little over a year ago at the Steel Beasts website led none other by the legendary Vasily Fofanov- it challenges many notions including general assumptions about ricochets. But Vasily presents a nice little illustration of critical areas on the frontal aspect of the M1- granted the illustration here is an M1A1, but for the purpose here the shot traps would also apply to the M1A2: http://www.steelbeasts.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=3549&start=0

*Double post* [ December 04, 2005, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: Devil M ]

It sounds as though the comparison is no longer apt. Remember that the analogy previously held that the cumulative damage would eventually make short work of the armor as in a blunt weapon crushing and deforming it across a broad area. The only realistic notion now is that each successive hit would have to score right on top of one another, which is unlikely in practice. Across the frontal arc however M829A1 and A3 ammunition could conceivably knock out an M1- even the pathetic BM15 steel rounds from ancient Soviet stocks the Iraqis were using as front line ammo could theoretically penetrate with a lucky hit to the driver's compartment, straight down through the gun into the breach, or in the small gap under the gun mantlet into the turret ring; in a few cases though they just stuck like arrows into the turret with no further consequences. This has more to do with the way they defeat HEAT rounds rather than solid shot as it only refers to the light composite materials: ceramics, plastics, sand, glass: it certainly dosen't behave like a suit of armor, which isn't also going to have a layer of depleted uranium mesh sandwiched in there and which simply relies on pure thickness rather than the chemical properties of the material. I still think the case is being overstated if it is compared to the tensile strength and malleable properties of a suit of armor, especially since they can't be shown to behave like one another under any circumstance- this doesn't even happen on an intuitive level to the layman. It's a gross statement that doesn't quite indicate what happens in practice- losses are attributed to penetrations on weak spots rather than a descriptiton of 'cumulative damage' [ December 03, 2005, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Devil M ]

Perhaps, but the question remains whether this will be of any practical value- modern engagments are of the sort now where you don't have the chance to experience repeated hits to see this through. The lethality of modern projectiles is such that successful scores often mean first round kills. It's probably not going to be the case that you would receive a dozen or so hits to the same location in any engagement. This also ignores the angle of attack, the type of projectile, and that furthermore modern composite and laminate armors are of a different character than simple comparison to RHAe face hardened steel- and nowhere near the properties of a medieval suit of armor. Well that is true, but it's a different animal. [ December 03, 2005, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Devil M ]

You don't see the glacis plate on this T-55 deforming or denting in- http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/t-55_iraq-2003.jpg All the other damage is the result of the subsequent fire that burned out the vehicle. Tracks will melt, external equipment will be scorched or blown off, but there doesn't look like any blunt instrument trauma on the hull.

It was described in much different terms than that, let alone the notion of 'almost exactly.' Some of it was a discussion of the crew's morale rather than a quantified analyis of material science- there is nothing wrong with that, but that dosen't by itself support the analogy of a suit of armor. This isn't the point- no one is disputing that HE fragments can't rain down into the fighting compartment and set off stored ammunition, or that armor spall wouldn't do this if the HESH round impacted on the thin turret roof (it's not clear which was exactly the case- the round may have just hit and sheared away the open hatch without making contact with the turret, but the outcome is still just the same). The analogy though that the vehicle occupants suffer the effects in exactly the same same way as someone wearing a suit of armor taking repeated blows isn't very accurate. Combat injuries have been extremely consistent with armor spall and burns in most cases. Now you might get knocked around and bump into something in the fighting compartment, but this can happen anyway whether conducting a road march or just by fidgeting around inside the vehicle. The closest scenario I can fathom where the analogy might even begin to resemble this case probably would occur where overmatch of the armor occurs anyway- say on the turret roof by an artillery delivered HE round or bomblet, or some top attack HEAT round, in which case the concussion effect really becomes secondary to the penetration. But otherwise the analogy is not consistent with any knocked out vehicle I've ever seen. Sometimes it's not very dramatic at all- you might see an entry hole about the diameter of a shot glass with burn marks extending out a bit and that's about it. [ December 03, 2005, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Devil M ]

For gameplay purposes I don't see the advantage in scores of automatic homing missiles dominating the battlefield. Part of the fun should include the tense waiting for the target to present an optimal profile so that the missile operator has the choice between a safer, less effective firing solution or a better one in the face of mounting danger during the greater time while exposed; the tension for the player guiding the missile during that critical phase while hoping that he isn't detected provides for still more enthralling gameplay. In other words, you risk arcade twitch factor if pressing the launch button is all that is required in lieu of setting up your units so that their firepower is optimized, considering the interaction on their strengths and weaknesses, and so on. The designers don't always have to conform to every logical outgrowth of what we expect to be the case based on current projections. Otherwise, this sort of analysis has no end: "Where are the triple barrelled plasma and particle projection cannons! You're still using tracked vehicles- where are the mechanized limbs! Infanty rocket packs! Rail guns! Satellite delivered lasers and missiles!" What? The people who deal with this are concerned with environmental cleanup long after the battle is over. The toxic waste management of Tungsten and dU filaments is probably well outside the scope of what matters here. Are you talking about a hit-point based armor model? This would only sort of make sense in the context of first generation ERA arrays as the reactive bricks are used up from subsequent hits in the same local area. The analogy falls- AFV armor isn't malleable in the sense that you're describing. You don't hit it with a blunt instrument and it deforms. Whether we are talking about a kinetic energy penetrator or chemical energy round the penetrating force is concentrated into a very small area: you may only be able to put two fingers through the hole as such. Now the spalling may shred the crew to pieces or touch off sympathetic reactions in the ammunition magazine, but whether this happens isn't the result of 'degraded' armor. If you're talking about the effects of HE squash head rounds, why should we assume that spall liners and spaced armor would not have effectively mitigated that? [ December 03, 2005, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Devil M ]

Are there any known issues with these cards and CMBO? Symptoms: in game dialog boxes and information bars appear blank. Splash menu screen appears to be OK. During a game I can still click on context-sensitive buttons, but I have to rely on my memory in order to navigate through them. All the unit information boxes and scenario indicators at the information panel at the bottom of the screen are blanked out, and this is not so easy to overcome.