dpabrams

"Generic OPFOR"
I will live forever in mods!
 
Pete

To answer your question, yes. M728 was not sufficient to punch through the frontal hull armor of the T-64A.
However, there is currently an issue in game where the frontal armor of the T-64A is overperforming against M735 and M774. It is a known bug and will hopefully be fixed whenever Cold War gets another round of bug fixing. 

Here's a couple "fixed" models if anyone wants them. The file includes a T-55A model with the KTD-2 removed and a T-55 model with the DShK AAMG removed as per the menu icons (I've tested it in game and the loader will still fire the AAMG even though it's invisible...).
https://www.mediafire.com/file/285ffemz7n3cjem/T-55+fixes.rar/file
 
Also, it seems that there's two kinds of loader's hatches on the T-55s. Can you enlighten me on what the variants correspond to? I imagine the flatter one is from the early models.
In the game they both have the higher cupola.

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? 

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
 

The armour on the T-64 (and on base T-72, for what matters) was designed to stop 105mm APDS, not APFSDS (simply because there was no 105mm APFSDS in service or near to enter service at the time). Thus, I expect the T-64A to be frontally impervious to the M728 (save for the lower hull and the occasional weak spot) and marginally effective against the M735. The M774 should not have particular problems at normal combat ranges.
On the other hand, the T-64B is a different beast. According to the infamous Kubinka tests, its armour (comparable to the one on the T-72A) should be very good against the M735 and fail against the M774 on the glacis (especially the upper glacis). I'm assuming that the alleged M735 test took place and that the M111 is more comparable in performance to the M774 than to the M735, we have no incontrovertible data about these assumptions but they seems reasonable to me for a number of reasons I have partially detailed in another thread.
Considering the data posted above and in the other aforementioned thread, I dare to say that in CMCW T-64A's armour is more resilient than it ought to be, but this advantage is offset by the fact that very few hits land on the turret cheeks (where there's the thickest armour) and a lot on the hull (especially on the lower hull), and US gunners are able to score a lot of hits even on extreme ranges.
I presume that some tweaking of the T-64A protection and hits distribution and rate is already in the works but I also presume that the next patch will be concomitant with the  Steam release, so we have to wait some more time.

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

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

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
 

So out of the gate I just want to say that Combat Mission Cold War is fantastic and is probably my favorite Combat Mission. Overall everything seems exceptionally well done and I am having tons of fun with the Campaign and Scenarios. I think I may have found an issue with M735 and M774 ammunition however. While playing various missions and some quick battle multiplayer with some friends, I noticed that the T-64A was remarkably durable. I didnt think too much of this at first, because I was expecting the T-64 to be a tough nut to crack. But as time went on I started to notice that it might be a bit too tough.
M735 and M774 are not capable of penetrating the front glacis plate of T-64A, in combat mission. I have not tested this agaisnt the other Soviet tanks with similar armor compositions, so I am not sure if this potential problem pertains to those tanks as well. If the same issue exists there, much of this post may be relevant to those tanks also since they have the same or similar armor profiles on the glacis.
 
I would like to start out by showing how the current game models the mentioned APFSDS vs the named target. I performed this test at 1000m, 0 degrees angle. I used RISE Passives for the M735 test and M60A3 TTS for the M774 testing. I counted each APFSDS fired to ensure I was not confusing sabot hits with other types of ammo the AI might choose to fire. I did the tests after noticing the durability of the T-64 glacis in various battles to verify under controlled conditions what I suspected was happening. In the screenshots you will notice that HEAT and Sabot hits have a different damage decal. To summarize the results, neither round can reliably penetrate the T-64 glacis. The game appears to model the weak point near the drivers hatch as the "upper front hull" and the main glacis as the "super structure front hull." M735 is ineffective against the superstructure and can occasionally gain penetrations against the driver plate area. M774 is slightly more effective with almost all rounds that hit the superstructure bouncing off, but very occasionally one will get though. M774 also tends to get through the driver plate area fairly reliably. However in both cases many of the hits to the driver plate area are counted as partial penetrations and not complete penetrations, which is odd considering that there is basically no composite armor in this area. Partial penetrations can seen in these screenshots via a smaller hole decal. They are rare for both rounds, especially vs superstructure.
 
M735:




 
M774:


 
The T-64A glacis plate uses a laminate armor array that consisted of 80mm of steel followed by 105mm of texolite followed by a 20mm backing plate of RHA. This armor greatly increased protection against shaped charges while still providing good protection against kinetic threats.  For additional visualization purposes, I will use some screenshots from war thunder in some areas. There will also be screenshots from various books and webpages.
 

 

Source: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html#8010520

From Zaloga's T-64 Battle Tank:

 
 
 
 
The Combat Mission CW manual states that M735 has 410mm of penetration and M774 has 440mm of penetration. These numbers are identical to the ones quoted on the steel beasts wiki, and are listed as being for a range of 3000m. I will include the table here, as well as some other rounds which will be relevant.

 
From Tankograd: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html#8010520

 
The above simulation shows that M735 would certainly penetrate the 80/105/20 array and then some at 1000m.

 
The Israeli M111 APFSDS was a derivative of the M735. It would appear to be ballistically of similar performance due to that and the penetration values on the SB wiki. Russian testing of this round revealed that it could penetrate

From Tankograd:

It should be noted here that the T-72A and M1 featured a even thicker armor array than the one on the T-64, going to 60mm RHA/105mm texolite/50mm RHA. So if this could be penetrated by M111 it stands to reason that M735 could go through the weaker T-64A armor.
 
After the end of the cold war T-72M1's were shot at with various German ammunition, including DM33 which is similar in performance to M774. These T-72s have the extra armor added later in the early 80s. It should be noted as well that the extra armor plates are past the scope of CMCW since they were not implemented until after the 1982 Israeli conflicts. DM33 105mm APFSDS penetrated the hull at 2km.

 
Additionally, here is how M735 performs in steel beasts at 1840m, which is using the same penetration numbers as the CMCW manual (the picked range was just as close as I could get to 2km in the editor without spending 1 million hours trying to get it exact):


 


 
 
Based on the general evidence, I think that the M735 and M774 ammunition should be made much more effective in game. M735 should be effective agaisnt the T-64A armor out to any practical range and M774 should be capable agaisnt the T-72A armor if it is not already, which I am guessing it is not based on in game performance agaisnt the worse T-64A armor array.

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
 

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
 

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
 

♫ ...and a partridge in a pear treeeeeeee ♫

who says LAWs don't hit

Glad you like the photos
Here's a few more from an earlier - and dustier - Tankfest from 2013 (the theme of which, was the Cold War!). Includes the same M60A1 as above, plus an M60A3:



When can I get one of these in the game? 😁👍

 

Hi Hetzi,
here are some photos I took of the M60A1 at Tankfest 2019, in Bovington, Dorset which may be of interest in your quest for the correct colour scheme.  I can't swear that the scheme is 100% accurate, but I know the museum goes to a lot of effort to preserve their vehicles in as authentic a condition as possible.  






Note - the M60 really is a lot bigger than a Churchill tank...

Simply put, this statement is false. You should read up on it in a book.

Simply put, probably it is, since the sources aren't reliable, but we don't have trustworthy sources on m1 and m2 kills lists either.
You could use more direct ways of saying that from the start 😄 
Also I must warn that there are many book which contain false information 😇

$75?

Who needs binoculars in the Soviet army? He still needs training (green). Distance 1km, conditions thick haze. Not only does he spot the tank in the hull down position he identifies it as a Panther. 

Just 137 snipers in there.

"I think MikeyD has a Point"

"I think MikeyD has a Point"