Jump to content

dpabrams

Members
  • Posts

    737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dpabrams

  • Birthday 08/24/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Casper, WY
  • Interests
    Military history, board war games, ASL, 2D-3D art, trains, beer, hunting and fishing.

Converted

  • Location
    Casper WY
  • Occupation
    Law Enforcement

Recent Profile Visitors

818 profile views

dpabrams's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

121

Reputation

  1. In my estimation the T-64A/B is better protected and more capable in CMCW than in any board wargame, computer game or simulation I have played, developed or play tested in 30+ years of wargaming. This includes modern armored warfare board games like Assault, MBT (original), MBT 2 (GMT), Lock n' Load, Mech War (SPI) and others. PC games ranging from Tanks, Steel Panthers, Flashpoint Germany & Campaigns, HPS Simulations and Armored Brigade. The only Sim I have used is Steelbeasts. I am currently running tests and while the data on the armor of the T-64A and penetration of the M735/744 may vary, in my tests there is a few interesting points to examine. I set up a test range that is approximately 2000m long and flat. It is June 1st, 1982, at 0000 hours and the conditions are hazy, cool and dry. I placed 1x M60A3TTS behind a berm hull down with armored arcs set to 1500m. At the opposite end of the map approached 4x T-64A(4x tank platoon). The scenario is set for two player hot seat and the Soviet tanks are given a move order to move toward the M60A3TTS’s. All crews are regular, normal and fit. I played the scenario enough times to get 100 hits of M774 APFSDS rounds at an engagement range of 1500m to 200m. At only no time during the engagements was a T-64A able to engage a M60A3TTS, this is due to the conditions and the thermal sight of the M60A3TTS. BUT I suspect the T-64Amay be underperforming in IR optics. Here is a summary of my findings: The distribution of M774 hits which were all from the frontal arc on the T-64A and are as follows: 1. The turret (top turret, front turret, weapon mount and weapon) was hit a combined 10.0% of the time. I believe this is too low 2. The lower front hull (Lower, right, left) was hit a combined 21.0 % of the time 3. The upper front hull (front, right, left) was hit 69.0 % of the time. I believe this is too high 4. There were no track hits The M774 hit 100 out of a 104 shots for 96.2% accuracy. Overall, the M774 penetrated the whole of the T-64A, 22.0 % of the time. The only areas to be penetrated on the T-64A was the upper front hull and lower front hull. 1. The upper front hull was hit struck 68 times and was partially penetrated once for a penetration rate of 1.4%. 2. The lower front hull was struck 21 times and penetrated 21 times for 100% penetration. It appears that any US M735 or M744 round will penetrate the lower hull of any Soviet T-type. This is the only location that will be penetrated reliably in my tests. So the question I ask is, is this a proper distribution of hit locations based on historical data and other sources? I have graphs and historical research that indicate results much different then what I have achieved above, discussion? Pete
  2. The hunt is not my point, the suped up T-64A/B is. Interesting exerpt though. Is the author a former M60 or M1 commander writing a book on the EF tank battles?
  3. This topic should not die. Here is post I had on the playtesting forum on June 6th. I have been too busy with work to resume tests and make a Mantis report, yet. In my estimation the T-64A/B is better protected and more capable in CMCW than in any board wargame, computer game or simulation I have played, developed or play tested in 30+ years of wargaming. This includes modern armored warfare board games like Assault, MBT (original), MBT 2 (GMT), Lock n' Load, Mech War (SPI) and others. PC games ranging from Tanks, Steel Panthers, Flashpoint Germany & Campaigns, HPS Simulations and Armored Brigade. The only Sim I have used is Steelbeasts. POST from June 6th------- I set up a test range that is approximately 2000m long and flat. It is June 1st, 1982, at 0000 hours and the conditions are hazy, cool and dry. I placed 1x M60A3TTS behind a berm hull down with armored arcs set to 1500m. At the opposite end of the map approached 4x T-64A’s (4x tank platoon). The scenario is set for two player hot seat and the Soviet tanks are given a move order to move toward the M60A3TTS’s. All crews are regular, normal and fit. I played the scenario enough times to get 100 shots of M774 APFSDS rounds at an engagement range of 1500m and less and 30 shots of the M256A2 HEAT round an engagement range of 1500m and less. At only no time during the engagements was a T-64A able to engage a M60A3TTS, this is due to the conditions and the thermal sight of the M60A3TTS. BUT I suspect the T-64A may be underperforming in IR optics. Here is a summary of my findings: The distribution of M774 hits which were all from the frontal arc on the T-64A and are as follows: 1. The turret (top turret, front turret, weapon mount and weapon) was hit a combined 5.0% of the time. I believe this is too low 2. The lower front hull (Lower, right, left) was hit a combined 17.2% of the time 3. The upper front hull (front, right, left) was hit 77.8% of the time. I believe this is too high 4. There were no track hits The M774 hit 99 out of a 100 shots for 99% accuracy. Perhaps too high. Overall, the M774 penetrated the whole of the T-64A, 18.2% of the time. The only areas to be penetrated on the T-64A was the upper right hull and lower front hull. 1. The upper front hull was struck 1 time and was penetrated for 100% of the time 2. The lower front hull was struck 17 times and penetrated 17 times for 100% penetration The distribution of M256A2 HEAT hits which were all from the frontal arc on the T-64A and are as follows: 1. The turret (top turret, front turret, right turret, weapon mount and weapon) was hit a combined 6.6% of the time. I believe this is too low 2. The lower front hull (lower, right, left) was hit a combined 23.3% of the time 3. The upper front hull (front, right, left) was hit 70.0% of the time. I believe this is too high 4. There were no track hits The M256A2 HEAT hit 30 out of a 30 shots for 100% accuracy. Certainly, too high. Most of the rounds were fired at 400m or less but some were fired at >1000m. Overall, the M256A2 HEAT penetrated the whole of the T-64A, 30.0% of the time. The only areas to be penetrated on the T-64A was the upper front hull and lower front hull. 1. The upper front hull was struck 2 times and was penetrated for 100% of the time 2. The lower front hull was struck 7 times and penetrated 7 times for 100% penetration I may Mantis this concerning the high concentration of upper front hull hits and low concentration of turret front hits. Pete
  4. How come the Russian's never chime in about how crappy their stuff was?(asking for a friend). All I hear is how crappy the TOW, Dragon, LAW, M735, M60A1 and all the other systems are and believe me, in game they are all crap. But Ivan never chimes in?
  5. Simply put, this statement is false. You should read up on it in a book.
  6. I have never heard or read that "Bradley outperformed Abrams" before in GW1 and that Bradley killed more tanks than the M1. That's all, so I am curious where you obtained that info from?
  7. Well, I am ordering a set of puttees for my dirty sock collection.
  8. Cotton cloth wrapped around the foot, a primitive sock.
  9. According to Suvarov the Soviet were still wearing leg wrappings in this time period, but this has nothing to do with binocular distribution, I know.
  10. Yeah, and that snap Dragon shot from that guy who just dashed into a building out of area fire. I didn't realize the Dragon has no set up time?
  11. I have seen photos of stateside Bradley's and M1's in MERDC from the time period............I think. It means I have to dig through books and I hate that. More summer MERDC later. Pete
  12. It's like grounghog day! Collapse the launchers for the LAW, RPG-18 and Bradley TOW launchers!
×
×
  • Create New...