Jump to content

FinStabilized

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FinStabilized

  1. I know many people are looking for expansion to the nations in the current years of CMCW or expanding into the later 80s. I think these are great ideas but I think we have a perfect storm brewing for a different kind of cold war era. Operation Unthinkable. Battlefront has just finished Fire and Rubble, which gives us all the Soviet units we need, and my understanding is that the next module on the horizon is an expansion to Final Blitzkrieg that will bring it to the end of the war (unless Im mistaken). This gives us all the units we need for a end of the war clash between the Allies (starting with the Americans) and the Soviets. I think this would be super cool since I dont know of it ever being done before, and it would provide an interesting what if where we can clash Pershings and Shermans vs T-34-85s and Is-2s. I see several advantages to this option as the first CMCW module. -It would piggyback on existing content, most likely making it easier and faster to develop, and therefore out to us faster. -It would be ****ing cool to pit late war Soviets vs late war Americans. -It wouldnt slow down the possibility of other CMCW modules much if at all, since any development work needed on assets could still go forward while whatever campaigns and scenarios are needed for Operation Unthinkable are created. -It would not only have all the units and their costs and rarities in place, but could also use the maps from FBK, FnR, and RT, BfN etc.
  2. So I tested the baseline T-72, which should have the same armor array as the T-64A. 20 Super Structure Penetrations, 13 Total Failures, 41 Partial penetrations of superstructure, 18 Upper front plate pens, 0 partial pens of ufp. 72% chance of general failure agaisnt superstructure. 17% chance of total failure. 27% chance of total success. 55 percent chance of partial pen. So for some reason the T-72 (baseline) which has the same armor on the glacis as T-64A, has a statically significant decrease in protection. Although I might add that this is still nowhere what would be expected. This test was with M774, which we know for certain could defeat the 80/105/20 array at 3km. @Amedeo I see that you are right about the SB wiki ranges, which appear to max effective range. I am unaware of any claims made by anyone on the tank-net forums. Nor did I read about this from the 2006 Warford article. I did however go back and check it out today and I was not able to find any mention of M735 being claimed to fail. The only mention of 735 is that there were confirmed reports of its presence. Also the warford article and other sources seem to indicate that the suspected captured vehicle was a magach4, or m48. My first source for this was actually tankograd, but Ive seen in mentioned in several places including Zaloga. I very much doubt Zaloga of all people would be reporting it matter of factly if the only source was a forum post. Also there are alot of details in the below quote as well as reference to a separate book not written by the mentioned colonel. That book is in cryillic so I am unable to read it but I digress. "M111 "Hetz" ammunition was acquired by the Soviet Union and extensively examined and tested after the 1982 war in Lebanon (June 1982 - September 1982). A very popular theory is that the ammunition came on board a captured Israeli Magach 4 tank, which was until recently on display in Kubinka. Having captured M111 "Hetz" rounds in sufficient quantity for live fire testing, it was discovered by Soviet specialists that the upper glacis of the T-72 was vulnerable. As a response, the "Reflection" R&D programme (ОКР «Отражение») was initiated. This programme consisted of the "Reflection-2" research topic on a stopgap solution and the "Reflection-1" research topic on a long-term solution. Work on the "Reflection-2" research topic concluded before the end of 1982. It lead to the development of high hardness appliqué armour plates tailored to each of the Soviet Army's main battle tanks - the T-64, T-72 and T-80. As part of the "Reflection-2" programme, new-production T-72A tanks received a layer of appliqué armour on the upper glacis during hull construction at the factory and the T-72M1 export variant was created on the basis of this model in the same year. Furthermore, all models of the T-72 series were ordered to have 16mm of appliqué armour welded onto the upper glacis beginning in July 1983. The uparmouring process for existing tanks was authorized to take place during scheduled maintenance at repair facilities across the USSR. As explained on page 139 of the book "Т-72/Т-90. Опыт создания отечественных основных боевых танков", the appliqué armour was intended to limit the effective range of M111, but no more. It was merely a temporary stopgap measure to keep the Soviet Army's large fleet of T-72 tanks viable against common 105mm APFSDS threats for the next few years. The limitations of the outdated three-layer armour sandwich design were recognized and work on a much more serious upgrade in armour protection was already underway, thanks to prior intelligence on West German plans to install a 120mm gun on the new Leopard 2 tank. Indeed, the 16mm plate was not only intended to immunize the tank from the new 105mm threat, but also to limit the effective range of the 120mm gun threat." Anyhow in many ways this is neither here nor there . The point of mentioning M111 Hetz is that as far was we know, it defeated the T-72A, which had a better armor array on the glacis than the 64A, the subject of this post. Based on the best information available, M111 and M735 seem to be similar performance rounds. Even if we assume 735 to be a bit worse, it should not have issues with the 64A type array. This evidence is listed because it is highly suggestive, if not definitive. Zaloga quotes from official Russian sources that the 80/105/20 array as being equivalent to 335mm, easily within M735s grasp. This is also consistent with every other bit of evidence I can find on these rounds/armor, including steel beasts, whose values CMCW manual seems to be quoting or has arrived at on its own. But to reiterate my answer I quoted the M111 tests because they are part of a preponderance of evidence both suggestive and estimated.
  3. I don't have time right now to respond to this entirely right now but I want to note something about the test. I also started testing the T-72 and T-72A and it is for some reason far less resistant than the T-64A, despite the fact that the baseline 72 should have the same armor array and the 72A should be more resistant than the 64A. I havent had time to do 100 tests and save the files, but it is obvious from the testing Ive done so far and what you just posted that the T-72 is far weaker for some reason. This indicates strongly to me that this is a bug of some kind, especially in conjunction with the fact that the hatch weak point appears int he wrong place and for some reason always leaves two overlapping penetration hole decals. I think there might be some swapped armor data entries or something, because the T-64A should be penetrable just like the baseline 72, much less the 72A.
  4. @Cpt Miller@Amedeo Thanks for the compliments on my post I have only lurked on forums but Ive actually been playing combat mission since the mid-2000s. I totally agree that WEGO is the way to go! @AmedeoM735A1 is the same design as M735, just with DU penetrator instead of WHA, and M111 is WHA. Also are you sure about the SB wiki ranges being for point blank? I dont think it makes much of a difference in the conclusions of my post, but the wiki does list ranges next to each penetration value. Either way estimates of the M111 point to it being comparable to 735, slightly worse even. @Cpt Miller I agree completely that a small number of samples could end up with just bad luck, however I performed over 100 tests of M774 and so far I have done 61 tests of 745 so far at 1000m. Results are below as are my saved games files. I forgot to save one or two of the tests but overall I think these show that this is not a case of bad luck. 774: 71 Failures Superstructure, 3 Pens of Superstructure, 29 Pens of UFP, 14 Partial pens SS, 1 Partial Pen of UFP. 95 percent chance of total failure relative to total success. 80% chance of no penetration or partial penetration. 15% chance of partial penetration (superstructure for all) 735 (so far): 43 Failures SS, 1 SS pen, 14 UFP pens, 0 Partial pens of SS, 3 Partial pens of UFP. 97 percent chance of failure agaisnt SS. https://www.filemail.com/d/tefcobwkwqdhdaq Also something I have noticed in testing is that the Upper front plate penetrations always appear where the LFP and Glacis meet. Never near the drivers hatch where one might expect. This is another indicator to me that something is bugged here. I see no reason why either of these rounds would fail agaisnt the main glacis armor, ie super structure. Especially M774, which we know for certain could penetrate the 80/105/20 array even out to 3km. I would also like to reiterate something from my original post, that this is mainly about the T-64A armor. The point of including the T-72 references is because M111 was able to penetrate the 60/105/50 array before the Soviets upgraded with with applique, which is stronger than the 80/105/20 array on T-64A.
  5. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...