Test number2: ABrams vs ATGM

[Lacroix]

how do you destroy abrams with atgms, it seems it just wont die. even from behind or sides, it can die but by the time you kill it , you ll lose half your army

 

am i doing something wrong?

 

 

note: it was a test in custom made scenario,there is no luck involved here

[Apocal]

how do you destroy abrams with atgms, it seems it just wont die. even from behind or sides, it can die but by the time you kill it , you ll lose half your army

 

am i doing something wrong?

 

 

note: it was a test in custom made scenario,there is no luck involved here

 

Are you referring to an APS-equipped Abrams?

 

Volley-firing helps. Helps more to just use a cannon round.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I'm sorry, but what ATGM? What distance? What conditions?

Besides, luck is Always involved in game, sometimes more sometimes less.

 

At least give us a few basic stuff to discuss, otherwise this just seems a rant.

 

By the way, the krizanthema, to cite one, is able to penetrate and damage/destroy M1 in front.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[womble]

Lacroix: Until you are clear about your testing methodology and the conditions you're setting (precise models of systems involved, ranges, orientations, all that stuff) your "tests" are pretty much worthless. Figure out how to use Dropbox and put your test scenarios in a folder there, and share the link here so other people with the game can see what you're seeing.

 

Specifically, in your other "test" thread, you effectively did no testing, since you appeared to be citing in-game results from HvH games, and the biggest variable there is going to be how the tanks are used; we have no way of knowing whether you were facing some tactical genius who maximised all the Abrams' advantages (and, to be clear, the Abrams does have many advantages, IRL, against the T-90).

 

A good test sets up a tightly-controlled situation where you can change one element at a time. It needs to be run enough times to produce a statistically relevant number of interactions, carefully noted. The methodology is then described to see whether it can be replicated. The best description is a copy of the test.

[Alexey K]

how do you destroy abrams with atgms, it seems it just wont die. even from behind or sides, it can die but by the time you kill it , you ll lose half your army

 

am i doing something wrong?

 

note: it was a test in custom made scenario,there is no luck involved here

 

Usually I get non-APS Abrams easily killed with RPG and ATGM hits in side and rear parts of hull and turret.

[Lacroix]

Lacroix: Until you are clear about your testing methodology and the conditions you're setting (precise models of systems involved, ranges, orientations, all that stuff) your "tests" are pretty much worthless. Figure out how to use Dropbox and put your test scenarios in a folder there, and share the link here so other people with the game can see what you're seeing.

 

Specifically, in your other "test" thread, you effectively did no testing, since you appeared to be citing in-game results from HvH games, and the biggest variable there is going to be how the tanks are used; we have no way of knowing whether you were facing some tactical genius who maximised all the Abrams' advantages (and, to be clear, the Abrams does have many advantages, IRL, against the T-90).

 

A good test sets up a tightly-controlled situation where you can change one element at a time. It needs to be run enough times to produce a statistically relevant number of interactions, carefully noted. The methodology is then described to see whether it can be replicated. The best description is a copy of the test.

 

test was in the form of open field, where another player would target arc 2-3meters and we would test armour and tank capabilities, it wasnt competetive match so it was really a real test. 100% controlled enviroment.i know how to use dropbox but i figured that there must be someone on the forum who knows how to destroy Abrams. in the tests were used all kinds of atgms (russian side) and situation is simple, no need for files, atgms just explode near abrams ,miss abrams or do little damage . it would be much eaiser if someone would just make a scenario with 1 house1 road and couple units ,put some atgms and abrams and see it for himself. it takes 3 minutes

 

regarding abrams vs t90 i dont see the issue, it was all controlled to see armor/defense capabilties of those 2 tanks and it showed that t90 is junk, compared to abrams. i am sure it would do well against t34

Edited April 10, 2015 by Lacroix

[Lacroix]

Are you referring to an APS-equipped Abrams?

 

Volley-firing helps. Helps more to just use a cannon round.

 

yes aps abrams. but it doesnt help in my case. , i had 10 atgms at one point shooting at it and it destroyed it after 1 minute almost , which is not a good result in non test situations 

[Lacroix]

I'm sorry, but what ATGM? What distance? What conditions?

Besides, luck is Always involved in game, sometimes more sometimes less.

 

At least give us a few basic stuff to discuss, otherwise this just seems a rant.

 

By the way, the krizanthema, to cite one, is able to penetrate and damage/destroy M1 in front.

 

from 50 meters to 1kilometer, all kinds of atgms. aps abrams , regular skill

[Alexey K]

from 50 meters to 1kilometer, all kinds of atgms. aps abrams , regular skill

 

So, problem is that all projectiles are intercepted or that hits do not kill tank?

[Lacroix]

So, problem is that all projectiles are intercepted or that hits do not kill tank?

 

many explode near abrams,many explode and do no damage and some get intercepted (text appears)

Edited April 10, 2015 by Lacroix

[Vanir Ausf B]

how do you destroy abrams with atgms, it seems it just wont die. even from behind or sides, it can die but by the time you kill it , you ll lose half your army

 

am i doing something wrong?

 

 

note: it was a test in custom made scenario,there is no luck involved here

 

I am not sure what the point of this thread is. What did you expect? You are testing ATGMs against a tank defended by APS and then appearing to be surprised that the ATGMs aren't very effective.

 

Salvo fired ATGMs have a much better chance of getting past Trophy but it is far from guaranteed. If you salvo 2 missiles and one of them hits the ground on the way you are dead. If both missiles are intercepted by Trophy you are dead. If one of them gets through you have a fair chance of killing the tank and a very good chance of at least damaging it.

 

Abrams with APS is a tough nut to crack and there no getting around that fact. In QBs I prefer to use a house rule of no APS for the US.

[Kieme(ITA)]

First of all, 50 meters is not a range to test a guided anti-tank missile. Nor it's anything near that measure.

 

Second, all ATGMs have a percentage of failure, they can miss, drop too soon etc. crew training level counts a lot with this matter. Even a veteran Javelin team can miss one out of three missiles.

 

Third: if you wanted to test the M1A2 with APS then missiles are the worst possible weapon, by concept and design, to defeat an active protection system that was modelled and developed specifically to counter such weapons.

It's like shooting a bullet proof vest with a 9mm and pointing out that the bullet doesn't get through...

Repeat the same test with a T-90AM with APS and the result will be the same...

 

Considering that the next patch is going to adjust QB point values of APS equipped vehicles (and/or possibly their rarity) I see no big deal.
The M1A2 tank has a very strong front armor, the best in game as for now, and it's expected to be such. It's not invulnerable at all, and there are in game ATGMs that can do a lot of damage and even obtain penetrations. The big deal is how to make those assets engagé the M1 without being destroyed first, and that goes down to tactics, player decisions, environment, and all that stuff that can't be dry tested out of a plyer vs player full scale battle.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Lacroix]

First of all, 50 meters is not a range to test a guided anti-tank missile. Nor it's anything near that measure.

 

Second, all ATGMs have a percentage of failure, they can miss, drop too soon etc. crew training level counts a lot with this matter. Even a veteran Javelin team can miss one out of three missiles.

 

Third: if you wanted to test the M1A2 with APS then missiles are the worst possible weapon, by concept and design, to defeat an active protection system that was modelled and developed specifically to counter such weapons.

It's like shooting a bullet proof vest with a 9mm and pointing out that the bullet doesn't get through...

Repeat the same test with a T-90AM with APS and the result will be the same...

 

Considering that the next patch is going to adjust QB point values of APS equipped vehicles (and/or possibly their rarity) I see no big deal.

The M1A2 tank has a very strong front armor, the best in game as for now, and it's expected to be such. It's not invulnerable at all, and there are in game ATGMs that can do a lot of damage and even obtain penetrations. The big deal is how to make those assets engagé the M1 without being destroyed first, and that goes down to tactics, player decisions, environment, and all that stuff that can't be dry tested out of a plyer vs player full scale battle.

well i said 'from 50 meters to 1kilometer' means all relevant distances are covered. so basically abrams is The Tank (aps one at least)

[Lacroix]

I am not sure what the point of this thread is. What did you expect? You are testing ATGMs against a tank defended by APS and then appearing to be surprised that the ATGMs aren't very effective.

 

Salvo fired ATGMs have a much better chance of getting past Trophy but it is far from guaranteed. If you salvo 2 missiles and one of them hits the ground on the way you are dead. If both missiles are intercepted by Trophy you are dead. If one of them gets through you have a fair chance of killing the tank and a very good chance of at least damaging it.

 

Abrams with APS is a tough nut to crack and there no getting around that fact. In QBs I prefer to use a house rule of no APS for the US.

this. to know what can i expect from atgm vs abrams duels. and it seems that basically  atgms are just there to scare off abrams a little which is understandable. i dont do tests to do tests, i do them when i dont know something very well,and ask others if i am not sure 100% about the subject

[Aurelius]

We tested every Russian atgm against Abrams with APS. First, a single unit fired and achieved nothing- missile intercepted. Then i ordered two units to fire at the same time. One got intercepted and the other hit the tank for minimal system damage. Same with RPG's and RPO's.

[Aurelius]

The only unit that achieved a partial penetration was a Kornet and it was a massed volley of 3 units firing at the same time.

[Aurelius]

Lacroix: Until you are clear about your testing methodology and the conditions you're setting (precise models of systems involved, ranges, orientations, all that stuff) your "tests" are pretty much worthless. Figure out how to use Dropbox and put your test scenarios in a folder there, and share the link here so other people with the game can see what you're seeing.

 

Specifically, in your other "test" thread, you effectively did no testing, since you appeared to be citing in-game results from HvH games, and the biggest variable there is going to be how the tanks are used; we have no way of knowing whether you were facing some tactical genius who maximised all the Abrams' advantages (and, to be clear, the Abrams does have many advantages, IRL, against the T-90).

 

A good test sets up a tightly-controlled situation where you can change one element at a time. It needs to be run enough times to produce a statistically relevant number of interactions, carefully noted. The methodology is then described to see whether it can be replicated. The best description is a copy of the test.

As some forum members know, I am not a tactical genius. Test was done on a flat map. Initial distance was ~2930 meters. Abrams spotted, engaged and penetrated in matter of seconds while the T90 couldnt achieve penetration.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

so basically abrams is The Tank 

 

Yes.  And never forget this, and never forget to prostrate yourself before the Abrams gods, lest you invite their fury.

 

 

 

. Abrams spotted, engaged and penetrated in matter of seconds while the T90 couldnt achieve penetration.

 

And like every other thread that has touched on this topic, Abrams vs T-90 at range is weighted in favor of the Abrams by several degrees.  The sensor and weapons imbalance is most profound at the +1KM range.    It's not an especially fair fight to the degree of going into a fight against Panthers with T-34/76s or M4A1s, or T-34/85s and M4A3E8s if you're going the T-90AM route.  

[Aurelius]

Yes.  And never forget this, and never forget to prostrate yourself before the Abrams gods, lest you invite their fury.

 

 

And like every other thread that has touched on this topic, Abrams vs T-90 at range is weighted in favor of the Abrams by several degrees.  The sensor and weapons imbalance is most profound at the +1KM range.    It's not an especially fair fight to the degree of going into a fight against Panthers with T-34/76s or M4A1s, or T-34/85s and M4A3E8s if you're going the T-90AM route.  

I was merely explaining the method used in the test, but yes, you are right.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Anyway, the APS systems are as strong on the T-90AM, the BMP-3 Arena, so any test done with ATGM vs APS vehicle will result in this, can't expect anything else really.

There is a certain degree of failure to all APS, as stated by devs, that simulates the chances of a malfuncion or bad tracking, etc. but it's random, that means you can have your first incoming missile of the match not being intercepted, as well as a vehicle which APS kills a dozen of incoming missiles over the entire mission.

 

When it comes to ATGMs, there are different kinds of, and in game you'll find both newer and more powerful designs as well as older and much less effective missiles. So it's not a surprise that some will cause practically no damage to a well protected tank such as the M1 while Others will cause damage and penetrations.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[womble]

Anyway, the APS systems are as strong on the T-90AM, the BMP-3 Arena, so any test done with ATGM vs APS vehicle will result in this, can't expect anything else really.

There is a certain degree of failure to all APS, as stated by devs, that simulates the chances of a malfuncion or bad tracking, etc. but it's random, that means you can have your first incoming missile of the match not being intercepted, as well as a vehicle which APS kills a dozen of incoming missiles over the entire mission.

 

When it comes to ATGMs, there are different kinds of, and in game you'll find both newer and more powerful designs as well as older and much less effective missiles. So it's not a surprise that some will cause practically no damage to a well protected tank such as the M1 while Others will cause damage and penetrations.

And on top of that, the Russian APS is having (and necessarily failing) to cope with a proportion of incoming from high-angle attacks from Javelin, skewing the advantage even more towards the US, which don't face such a threat (and I don't think would deal with it any better).

 

It is worth noting that there's been said to be a patch in the works which will drastically increase the rarity cost of APS-equipped Abrams, so, at least in QBs, there will likely be a reduced number of ATGM-proof MBTs on the US side. I don't know whether Arena is more standardised in the notional 2017 Russion TO&E presented, but I get the impression it should be.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Anyone tested Javelin against M1A2? Time to fire up the scenario editor!

[Aurelius]

Anyone tested Javelin against M1A2? Time to fire up the scenario editor!

Post the result 

[Kieme(ITA)]

American APS intercepts american top attack missile.

 

I don't know the concept behind the Trophy, but if you imagine what kind of specifications an army using top-attack missiles against tanks would require for its APS, there would also be the ability to intercept top-attack missiles. Makes sense.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[A Canadian Cat]

American APS intercepts american top attack missile.

 

Are you saying you tried it in game and APS worked on it?  It was / is my understanding that the Trophy system can handle top attack missiles but I have not tried a blue on blue test to check.