M1A2sep (aps) vs. 2x T-90am (aps)

[tiefelt]

I tested a duel between 1x M1 vs. 2x T-90

 

result 13-7 for M1

 

open ground

 

Tanks facing each others 275m distance, 50m between T-90:s M1 wins 6-4

Tanks facing each others 250m distance, 175m between T-90:s. M1 wins 7-3

 

Most of the time it goes like M1 spots first kills one T-90, someone release smoke, when smoke clears M1 spots again first and kills another T-90

 

Is this realistic?

[Thewood1]

How about sharing the test or saves?

[Kieme(ITA)]

Crew experience level? Weather conditions?

 

By the way, 250/275m are very close distances.

[womble]

Is this realistic?

Have M1s ever faced T-90s with live weapons at that range? Is the result available in the public domain? Unless the answer to both those questions is "yes", your question can't be answered with any certainty. Much of the information BFC has for modern capabilities is necessarily a best guesstimate. An extremely well-educated guess, but there aren't the hundreds of target analyses available for modern conflicts that there were done for WW2, because modern MBTs don't often square off against each other. Some of the weapons systems in FC haven't even been put into service yet.

So it's the result you get when the best guesses are run through a given simulator with a given set of assumptions about behaviours, and that's the best you'll get. I'd say you're doing something unusual if you're regularly engaging other armour with your armour at that kind of range, though.

[tiefelt]

crew is regular, normal, 0. Good weather.

 

Dont know how to post that map.

 

Also made it that close range, because what I  have read it gets even worse for T-90:s when distance grows. Realistic was a bad word, maybe I should ask is that result how you guess it should go?

Edited March 7, 2015 by tiefelt

[Thewood1]

Zip it and use the "more reply options" in the lower right

[Kieme(ITA)]

Just for fun.

 

I just did a test. 2x T-90AM aps vs 1 M1 aps.

Distance 2k meters, conditions perfect, crew regular (all) same motivation etc..

 

First iteration.

First turn:

T-90AM no1 gets lased, pops smoke.

T-90AM no2 gets lased, pops smoke, gets 1 hit hull front partial penetration, no subsystem damage, crew pinned.

Second turn

T-90AM no1 behind smoke

T-90AM no2 moves around its own smoke, gets 1 hit, reactive armor hit, no damage, spots M1, fires a shot, gets another shot, side hull penetration tank destroyed crew killed.

The shot T-90 no2 fired hits M1 weapon Mount (hit decal in gun mantlet), penetration, gunner killed, all turret system destroyed, tank destroyed, 3 crew in panic. 

 

 

2nd iteration

First turn:

T-90AM no1 spots M1, M1 lased, M1 pops smoke

Second/third/ M1 behind smoke

Fourth turn:

smoke out, M1 lased, M1 fires a shot, long behind T-90AM no2,

T-90AM no2 fires a shot, hit front hull M1 no damage, T-90AM no2 lased while reloading, M1 fires again, T-90AM front turret penetration, killed.

T-90AM no1 lased, pops smoke, M1 fired already T-90AM killed.ù

 

 

One BIG difference I noticed (also repeating 2 more times): T-90AM pops smoke at a long distance from the tank, it takes a little more to deploy, while M1 smoke is much faster, as it deploys very close to the tank front. (T-90AM smoke has a larger cloud though).

Another BIG difference: M1 has a faster spot-lase-aim-shot procedure compared to T-90AM, that might be false considering the smoke deploy above.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[tiefelt]

Theres that map. 

 

 

EDIT:

 

It seems that it is not there 

I get error you arent permitted to upload this kind of file. 

Edited March 7, 2015 by tiefelt

[Thewood1]

DId you zip it...make an actual zip file?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Here's the thing.  What Combat Mission tries to do is use unrealistic (in the military sense) systems to represent realistic outcomes.  This is the basis for any wargame.  The target/focus for this is to best represent the behaviors of military units operating within what is normal military practice.

 

So in that regard, the spotting systems assume two units moving into contact are doing so tactically through terrain that offers some degree of concealment.  It is not designed to properly simulate "and through the force of magic three tanks appear in a field 300 meters from each other."  The M1 has much better sensors, and as it works through the spotting checks it is most likely to pass them faster, and kill one of the T-90s, and then acquire and kill the second T-90, while sometimes the T-90's spotting rolls go well and it gets to shoot first.

 

This whole obsession with placing things more or less in the open and drawing conclusions from which is "better" is sort of....weird.  The game is not designed to support this behavior.  Nor is establishing it takes 1.34 T-90s to kill .56 Abrams especially helpful outside of measuring net trends over several battles.

[Thewood1]

While tend to agree about the interaction at a higher level, this is also how bugs are found.  It makes no sense to ignore issues you might see in how individual models are represented.  If you found M1A2s being killed consistently from the front, I am sure you would upload a save for someone to look at.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

While tend to agree about the interaction at a higher level, this is also how bugs are found.  It makes no sense to ignore issues you might see in how individual models are represented.  If you found M1A2s being killed consistently from the front, I am sure you would upload a save for someone to look at.

 

Yeah maybe, but the premise of this whole post is in a nutshell, why can't my T-90's kill a M1A2 in an open field?

 

The replays of .50 cal blowing through tank side armor were useful, but they're illustrative of behavior noted elsewhere.  They're narrow focus experiments on a desired outcome.  Simply placing two boxes in a field, and one box A out performs box B without much other context, it's sort of a silly exercise, especially when in the case of this experiment, there's a good reason for the M1 to stand a decent chance of shooting first, and knocking out the second tank while it's at it. 

[Thewood1]

I agree that the majority of this thread was useless.  It looked like some people venting with a little nationalism thrown in.  But again, if individual modeling of important units are severely broken, they only way to check them is sometimes individual testing.  And sometimes its needed to show that things either aren't broken or aren't as simple as some people think.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

A more fun test is to start them behind cover.  Hunt them out at 90 degrees off of one another and see the results.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I usually use the same QB map against the AI.  The enemy locations are not always the same, but the engagement areas tend to be similar.  It's not really a "experiment" in the sense of being controlled, but it's a good tool to see how dissimilar tanks handle similar situations.  

[antaress73]

Whats interesting on kieme's test is that at 2000 meters it was 2-0 for the T-90AM on thé first run and 2-0 for the Abrams on the second test. The T-90AM is no slouch. I've learned that the hard way lol

[tiefelt]

Interesting that those results irritate someone so much. I just posted what happened.

[tiefelt]

 

 

So in that regard, the spotting systems assume two units moving into contact are doing so tactically through terrain that offers some degree of concealment.  It is not designed to properly simulate "and through the force of magic three tanks appear in a field 300 meters from each other."  The M1 has much better sensors, and as it works through the spotting checks it is most likely to pass them faster, and kill one of the T-90s, and then acquire and kill the second T-90, while sometimes the T-90's spotting rolls go well and it gets to shoot first

 

I think open ground spotting/ dueling ability represent best comparison between vehicles. Maybe Im wrong.

Do you think there is some special case that somehow moves the scale in great way? I  can test that also. Like if I put all the tanks in light forest T-90:s somehow start to win duels. Or do you think that if I put them all in hunt mode coming to LOS it somehow changes the result?

[Kieme(ITA)]

I noticed that on many occasions the T-90AM ERA is quite capable of stopping M1's AP rounds. The ERA absorbs the AP (the block disappears), and behind it a ricochet/scratched metal decal appears.

I had a situation where the M1 fired a shot at each T-90AM within the same turn, resulting in both ERA hit results.

 

Moreover, the ERA hit result didn't cause any significal sub-system damage to the T-90s.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

I think open ground spotting/ dueling ability represent best comparison between vehicles. Maybe Im wrong.

Do you think there is some special case that somehow moves the scale in great way? I  can test that also. Like if I put all the tanks in light forest T-90:s somehow start to win duels. Or do you think that if I put them all in hunt mode coming to LOS it somehow changes the result?

 

What I'm trying to say is that the game simulates behavior vs replicates behavior.  There's a certain degree of fuzzy elements built into the game designed to include the influence of variables not specifically replicated by the game engine.  And you remove the source for these variables by making the map flat and the tanks 300 meters apart, the simulation is still including them.  

 

The LOS coming to contact would be best.  That's how the simulator is best designed to simulate making contact.  It won't likely change the result especially much, but it's better illustrative.

 

That said, Abrams is a much better sensor platform, so it acquiring and getting the first shot in is pretty realistic.  It can also much more effectively shoot while still searching, so getting the second kill isn't unreasonable either.  At 300 meters most of your sabot type rounds are going to be very hard to stop, so the weapons/armor combination is more or less out of the question.  The sensor difference is really what sets the Abrams above the T-90 line of vehicles.  The T-90 is not a one for one competitor to the Abrams (especially the T-90A), and the T-90AM is pretty good at closing the gap, but it's still a pretty good vs equal tank.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Yes I agree, the comparison many people do is due to the thinking of top-tier MBT of the game, and people are used to consider the top tiers in a given game as equal.

CMBS is not the case. Someone might wish to think this for nationalistic pride or stuff like that, Others for some sort of "balance" sake. The truth is, what Panzer said.

 

These kind of "tests" are useful mainly to find some bugs (for example: a tank never using its smoke granades), but not much else.

Although i discovered some differences of the two tanks thanks to this direct XvsX test.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[tiefelt]

Actually I was thinking what is needed in QB to handle M1A2:s. Pretty hard to play if you do not have some kind of answer to that. Im pretty sure that my opponents dont give me a chance to flank M1A2:s with my own tanks.

 

Best I have found so far is smoke screen and Khrizantema. Have not tested air attacks yet.

 

 

And at least I have learned  much doing these "tests". Good for you that you already know these things.

Edited March 8, 2015 by tiefelt

[animalshadow]

The only thing which is overlooked in QBs are M1A2(APS) rarity, they simply don't have it.

Cause for now, if you play US Army you don't need Apaches, MGS Strykers and etc you just need lot of Abrams with APS and you're good to go. That's gamey tactics for sure, but it works in 100% cases.

 

If rarity(and that's justified) will be added for M1A2(APS) that would be great.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Problem is, you will never find the same situation in any of your QBs. There will Always be something different, a tree patch, an elevation, an obstacle, a different angle, conditions etc.. Too many variables to judge from a laboratory point of view that is the test scenario.

[tiefelt]

It dont have to be same situation in QB for these test to be useful.

And please tell me what is the best way to learn this game if you know it.  I have learned much more by doing these tests than just playing.