Duel of T-64As vs M60A1 RISE+ Tank Companies, The Grieshof Meet and Greet

[Probus]

Wait a sec....  TITLES!!! \o/

Sorry, my stupidity was showing

Edited August 3, 2021 by Probus

[dbsapp]

40 minutes ago, Probus said:

Sorry buddy. I'm brain dead right now. It was a legit (and probably really, really stupid) question.  I guess I'll puzzle over it some more until my brain decides to kick back in gear. 

If I have to depend on natural selection by forum to develop a sense of humor, that boat has already sailed. 

Lol, my inability to type things properly leads to disastrous consequences (not only on forums, in real life too, which is the saddest thing). I hope someday I will evolve fingers that can properly handle phone's keyboard. 

[dpabrams]

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

[dbsapp]

What is T-64 being little more competitive than M60 comparing to Amrams being literally all seeing all mighty and virtually impenetrable demigod in CMCW? 

[domfluff]

8 hours ago, dpabrams said:

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)

Just some notes on this list:

Assault is from 1983, and Mech War from 1975 - our understanding of the Soviet army has increasing tremendously since then, and there are much more reliable sources than the designers had to work with.

MBT has a similar problem, and both MBT 1 and 2 have a further issue, where the setting is 1987 - where the balance in force combat has swung significantly towards the US, and ammunition has improved leaps and bounds, specifically to counter the newer Soviet tank designs. There are even Abrams in MBT with the 120mm cannon, which is going to further confuse things.

I can't speak for the treatment in Lock n' Load, but as far as I recall it's a pretty light system, and not all that high on simulationism

***

A couple of other thoughts:


I agree the CMCW treatment of the T-64 is better than most representations of the thing, but it seems to accord well with the reality, circa 1979-1982, at least as far as any source I've been able to find.

Hit location is going to be determined by CM's ballistic model, which seems plausible to me. The ranges given (1500-200m) are large, but firmly within the range that the US tanks should be performing well at. The Soviets should often have a clear advantage at the 1500m-2000m range for the most part, model and ammunition depending.

From the sound of it, the Soviets were not hull-down in those tests, which would have naturally skewed things upwards.

Personal note/aside/rant:

 

The thing that actually stuck out the most to me is the fact you had 100 hits on T-64s with zero in return. That's horrendous, and shows how much the thermals matter. The M60A3 TTS is currently woefully undercosted in Quick Battles (it's the exact same price as the M60A3), but even without that, in general I think the more thermals you add to the US, the more like Shock Force the game becomes.

Shock Force isn't a bad game, but I play Cold War to play Cold War. My current thinking is that the best format for Cold War QB is actually 1980 with Strict rarity - that way you're fighting M60A1 versions against BMP-1P, and you've a far more interesting and subtle relationship between the involved elements.

[Probus]

So... Get my M60A1 RISE+ tanks on the move as soon as his T-64As start moving. Then stop the M60s in a valley shooting up at the T-64s without the T-64s being hull down. A tall order!  Or just flank 'em. 

BTW, I did get a track hit from the front that disabled the T-64A and the crew bailed.  \o/

[Centurian52]

13 hours ago, dpabrams said:

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.

This sounds about right. There is no composite armor in the lower front hull, so rounds should slice through it pretty easily. The composite armor in the upper front hull is pretty much immune to the M774, but there is a hole in the composite armor for the driver's optics. So I would expect the vast majority of hits to the upper front hull to fail to get through, with the occasional lucky round finding the weak point (I would have expected more than one round in 68 to find the weak point, but I suppose that's random chance for you). I would have expected some penetrations on the turret. The composite armor in the turret is also immune to the M774, but it doesn't have perfect coverage (rounds hitting high on the turret might make it over the composite armor, and only have normal steel to contend with).

[Amedeo]

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.

[MikeyD]

M111 APFSDS round was basically the M735 round. The primary (perhaps the sole) difference was a slightly different shape to the nose cap that reduced the round's tendency to ricochet off an angled surface. Making the smallest bite into the surfaced allowed the tungsten rod to drive through.

Circa 1979 practically every HEAT round the US fired downrange had a penetration of somewhere between 300 and 330mm, with the exception of TOW which pushed penetrations into the low 400s. Even M60A2's giant 152mm HEAT round had no more armor penetration than a Dragon warhead. The US was simply unaware that they a problem. When they did finally realize it they freaked. ITOW got an extended probe to increase its effectiveness to perhaps 700mm. TOW2 got a shaped charge liner made of exotic materials that boosted penetrations to perhaps 900mm. TOW2B abandoned frontal penetration entirely. M72 LAW was abandoned in favor of AT4 with 420mm penetration. Javelin penetration is just 750mm, without its top-down attack profile it might have difficulty with modern armor.

[Amedeo]

51 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

M111 APFSDS round was basically the M735 round. The primary (perhaps the sole) difference was a slightly different shape to the nose cap that reduced the round's tendency to ricochet off an angled surface. Making the smallest bite into the surfaced allowed the tungsten rod to drive through.

Well, it was also monobloc. So, save for being tungsten and not DU, more similar to the M774 than to the M735.

[Lethaface]

In a test a while back T-64s and T-80s did plenty of dying against hull down M60A3 TTS, lucky (lower hull/side) dragon hits and various TOWs. Especially those ITOWs did great (from the M901), but Bradley fired tows also work great; sometimes needed two shots for the KO.

So mainly the T-64/T-80 turrets are very well protected, which is imo correct.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Lethaface

[MikeyD]

Bradley and M901s fire the ITOW, everything else fires standard TOW. Though even standard TOW still does an alarmingly good job of knocking out tanks.