Side Armor of M1 to weak

[mocdra]

Of course it does, and in more detail than before. Which makes it impossible to display in a sensible way (and helps avoid a lot of grog wars, heh ).

Is there a Way to show the right detailed Armor Model ? ...

The actual Display in the Game is too simple.

I did not like to play an other Kind of Panzers, Sudden Strike or Blitzkrieg!.

Greetings

Moc

[mocdra]

Of course it does, and in more detail than before. Which makes it impossible to display in a sensible way (and helps avoid a lot of grog wars, heh ).

Is there a Way to show the right detailed Armor Model ? ...

The actual Display in the Game is too simple.

I did not like to play an other Kind of Panzers, Sudden Strike or Blitzkrieg!.

Greetings

Moc

[MikoyanPT]

Originally posted by mocdra:

I have played the Demo yesterday and noticed at the Armor Display that,the Side Armor( here i mean the Turret Armor) of the M1 Tanks is to weak modeled against Big Caliber Weapons and at Missiles. There is a yellow Dot ( for Average Armor )instead a Green small cross ( For Good Armor)

This with the weak Side Armor is true at the Nato Leopard2 and Challenger Tanks an the Russian T-XX Models but not by the M1 Series.

The Turret Side Armor has nearly the same thickness as the Frontal Turret Armor!

In the Game the M1 has the Same Side Armor Values as a t72. This is not true or correct

Note the Welding Lines at the Turret Roof of an Abrams Tank. Imho that shows the Armor Thickness at the Turret.

Following a example because i cant find good Turretroof Pictures from the Abrams

Following a picture link to an Armor Diagram from The Leopard 2a4 and a Roof Pic. Note the Welding lines an then the Armor thickness. What do you see?

Armor diagram

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/l2.files/leo2armor.gif

Pic

http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_2_a0-004.jpg

Now are you know what i mean with the welding lines and the Armor thickness

Greetings

Mocdra

Only the Hull Side Armor is very weak (Sideskirts and 60 mm reinforced Steel with a inlaying ceramic plate only). That have been discovered on Attack with 12,7 mm AT Munitions at close in Range in Iraq.

The Bullet penetrates the Sideskirt thenthe Armor,goes trough the whole Tank to the other Armor side and penetrates it to the half.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

Please dont say that loud or the devs may hear. :eek:

The Abrahams is already too bloody powerful has it is now.

If they made the M1A1 impervious to 125mm fire has they made the Bradleys to 30mm fire from BMP2, the only tactic needed in this game would be, pick your Abrahams in point A and walk to point B, smash the enemy, total victory.

Besides i watched a Abrahams resist 3 125mm side shots from a T72 in Allah´s Fist scenario, but they eventualy went down.

[MikoyanPT]

Originally posted by mocdra:

I have played the Demo yesterday and noticed at the Armor Display that,the Side Armor( here i mean the Turret Armor) of the M1 Tanks is to weak modeled against Big Caliber Weapons and at Missiles. There is a yellow Dot ( for Average Armor )instead a Green small cross ( For Good Armor)

This with the weak Side Armor is true at the Nato Leopard2 and Challenger Tanks an the Russian T-XX Models but not by the M1 Series.

The Turret Side Armor has nearly the same thickness as the Frontal Turret Armor!

In the Game the M1 has the Same Side Armor Values as a t72. This is not true or correct

Note the Welding Lines at the Turret Roof of an Abrams Tank. Imho that shows the Armor Thickness at the Turret.

Following a example because i cant find good Turretroof Pictures from the Abrams

Following a picture link to an Armor Diagram from The Leopard 2a4 and a Roof Pic. Note the Welding lines an then the Armor thickness. What do you see?

Armor diagram

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/l2.files/leo2armor.gif

Pic

http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_2_a0-004.jpg

Now are you know what i mean with the welding lines and the Armor thickness

Greetings

Mocdra

Only the Hull Side Armor is very weak (Sideskirts and 60 mm reinforced Steel with a inlaying ceramic plate only). That have been discovered on Attack with 12,7 mm AT Munitions at close in Range in Iraq.

The Bullet penetrates the Sideskirt thenthe Armor,goes trough the whole Tank to the other Armor side and penetrates it to the half.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

Please dont say that loud or the devs may hear. :eek:

The Abrahams is already too bloody powerful has it is now.

If they made the M1A1 impervious to 125mm fire has they made the Bradleys to 30mm fire from BMP2, the only tactic needed in this game would be, pick your Abrahams in point A and walk to point B, smash the enemy, total victory.

Besides i watched a Abrahams resist 3 125mm side shots from a T72 in Allah´s Fist scenario, but they eventualy went down.

[MikoyanPT]

Originally posted by mocdra:

I have played the Demo yesterday and noticed at the Armor Display that,the Side Armor( here i mean the Turret Armor) of the M1 Tanks is to weak modeled against Big Caliber Weapons and at Missiles. There is a yellow Dot ( for Average Armor )instead a Green small cross ( For Good Armor)

This with the weak Side Armor is true at the Nato Leopard2 and Challenger Tanks an the Russian T-XX Models but not by the M1 Series.

The Turret Side Armor has nearly the same thickness as the Frontal Turret Armor!

In the Game the M1 has the Same Side Armor Values as a t72. This is not true or correct

Note the Welding Lines at the Turret Roof of an Abrams Tank. Imho that shows the Armor Thickness at the Turret.

Following a example because i cant find good Turretroof Pictures from the Abrams

Following a picture link to an Armor Diagram from The Leopard 2a4 and a Roof Pic. Note the Welding lines an then the Armor thickness. What do you see?

Armor diagram

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/l2.files/leo2armor.gif

Pic

http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_2_a0-004.jpg

Now are you know what i mean with the welding lines and the Armor thickness

Greetings

Mocdra

Only the Hull Side Armor is very weak (Sideskirts and 60 mm reinforced Steel with a inlaying ceramic plate only). That have been discovered on Attack with 12,7 mm AT Munitions at close in Range in Iraq.

The Bullet penetrates the Sideskirt thenthe Armor,goes trough the whole Tank to the other Armor side and penetrates it to the half.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

Please dont say that loud or the devs may hear. :eek:

The Abrahams is already too bloody powerful has it is now.

If they made the M1A1 impervious to 125mm fire has they made the Bradleys to 30mm fire from BMP2, the only tactic needed in this game would be, pick your Abrahams in point A and walk to point B, smash the enemy, total victory.

Besides i watched a Abrahams resist 3 125mm side shots from a T72 in Allah´s Fist scenario, but they eventualy went down.

[rudel.dietrich]

Side hull armour on a M1A2 is only about 1/5 as thick as the front hull armour

The side turret armour is only about 1/3 as thick

[rudel.dietrich]

Side hull armour on a M1A2 is only about 1/5 as thick as the front hull armour

The side turret armour is only about 1/3 as thick

[rudel.dietrich]

Side hull armour on a M1A2 is only about 1/5 as thick as the front hull armour

The side turret armour is only about 1/3 as thick

[Panzerfest]

I was wondering when someone, would start a 'My uber-tank isn't uber enough' topic.

There is a common misperception that the Abrams is totaly invulnerable to anything shy of a tactical nuke.

[Panzerfest]

I was wondering when someone, would start a 'My uber-tank isn't uber enough' topic.

There is a common misperception that the Abrams is totaly invulnerable to anything shy of a tactical nuke.

[Panzerfest]

I was wondering when someone, would start a 'My uber-tank isn't uber enough' topic.

There is a common misperception that the Abrams is totaly invulnerable to anything shy of a tactical nuke.

[Schmoly War]

When you get a Hit at the Side that dont effect under normal real circumstances, in the Game the Tank is destroyed or inoperable..

That is not true !.

Show empirical data based on real life tests with control groups, please, with sugar on top.

[Schmoly War]

When you get a Hit at the Side that dont effect under normal real circumstances, in the Game the Tank is destroyed or inoperable..

That is not true !.

Show empirical data based on real life tests with control groups, please, with sugar on top.

[Schmoly War]

When you get a Hit at the Side that dont effect under normal real circumstances, in the Game the Tank is destroyed or inoperable..

That is not true !.

Show empirical data based on real life tests with control groups, please, with sugar on top.

[thelmia]

Abrams get knocked out all the time in Iraq. The Army and Marine Corps, understandably, don't advertise how. And this is by an enemy that doesn't have tanks.

The M1 is the best tank in the world. It isn't invulnerable. It's been modified as a result of experience in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

Keep in mind that our opponents in tank-to-tank battles suffered most from a lack of tactical leadership. As the Syrian player or a scenario designer, you can provide that. The gear isn't that bad, and the troops aren't cowards. What's missing is competant small- unit leadership. In CM:SF you can provide that.

[thelmia]

Abrams get knocked out all the time in Iraq. The Army and Marine Corps, understandably, don't advertise how. And this is by an enemy that doesn't have tanks.

The M1 is the best tank in the world. It isn't invulnerable. It's been modified as a result of experience in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

Keep in mind that our opponents in tank-to-tank battles suffered most from a lack of tactical leadership. As the Syrian player or a scenario designer, you can provide that. The gear isn't that bad, and the troops aren't cowards. What's missing is competant small- unit leadership. In CM:SF you can provide that.

[thelmia]

Abrams get knocked out all the time in Iraq. The Army and Marine Corps, understandably, don't advertise how. And this is by an enemy that doesn't have tanks.

The M1 is the best tank in the world. It isn't invulnerable. It's been modified as a result of experience in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

Keep in mind that our opponents in tank-to-tank battles suffered most from a lack of tactical leadership. As the Syrian player or a scenario designer, you can provide that. The gear isn't that bad, and the troops aren't cowards. What's missing is competant small- unit leadership. In CM:SF you can provide that.

[Battlefront.com]

I think everybody has covered this point well enough, however a couple of comments.

The Abrams is nearly (NEARLY!) invincible from the front. You score damage shots on it, of course, but a penetration knockout is just about impossible. The sides, well.. that's a different matter. The rear is even worse. A boy with a slingshot and good aim can take out an Abrams from the rear (OK, not quite that simple ).

CMBB/AK had a lot more predictability and less variability than CM:SF in terms of anti-armor offensive and defensive capabilities. Pretty much all US armor was of one type, all German another. So when we put in penetration stats for a US gun we could target those numbers to represent hitting typical German armor. Conversely, German guns could be fairly accurately rated to show how well they would do against US armor. That's just not possible any more.

First, the US Abrams armor qualities are still classified. The values you see on websites are, at best, guesses. Second, WWII did not have things like high tech composite armor, extreme sloped armor, extreme ROUNDED sloped armor, different types of layered armor, different types of steel composites, slat armor, etc. And don't even get me started on reactive armor, which comes in different types and has differing amounts of coverage depending on the vehicle and prior hits.

And that's just the complications of the defensive weapons! The offensive ones just bump up the possibilities exponentially.

All this madness caused us to never even attempt to do a system similar to CMx1 in terms of the UI. It's all simulated in much greater detail than CMx1, but it's so difficult to show it in a meaningful way that there really isn't a point. If you want to know what the side armor thickness equivalent is of an Abram's side armor... search the web for one of several values, pick one you like, and picture that being the one we are using Seriously though, the armor numbers are meaningless without knowing the characteristics of the individual threat.

That's why there is the rule of thumb ratings with each vehicle. It's not as detailed, but it is actually more useful than either the "wet dream" design (which we didn't implement) or CMBB/AK's information.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I think everybody has covered this point well enough, however a couple of comments.

The Abrams is nearly (NEARLY!) invincible from the front. You score damage shots on it, of course, but a penetration knockout is just about impossible. The sides, well.. that's a different matter. The rear is even worse. A boy with a slingshot and good aim can take out an Abrams from the rear (OK, not quite that simple ).

CMBB/AK had a lot more predictability and less variability than CM:SF in terms of anti-armor offensive and defensive capabilities. Pretty much all US armor was of one type, all German another. So when we put in penetration stats for a US gun we could target those numbers to represent hitting typical German armor. Conversely, German guns could be fairly accurately rated to show how well they would do against US armor. That's just not possible any more.

First, the US Abrams armor qualities are still classified. The values you see on websites are, at best, guesses. Second, WWII did not have things like high tech composite armor, extreme sloped armor, extreme ROUNDED sloped armor, different types of layered armor, different types of steel composites, slat armor, etc. And don't even get me started on reactive armor, which comes in different types and has differing amounts of coverage depending on the vehicle and prior hits.

And that's just the complications of the defensive weapons! The offensive ones just bump up the possibilities exponentially.

All this madness caused us to never even attempt to do a system similar to CMx1 in terms of the UI. It's all simulated in much greater detail than CMx1, but it's so difficult to show it in a meaningful way that there really isn't a point. If you want to know what the side armor thickness equivalent is of an Abram's side armor... search the web for one of several values, pick one you like, and picture that being the one we are using Seriously though, the armor numbers are meaningless without knowing the characteristics of the individual threat.

That's why there is the rule of thumb ratings with each vehicle. It's not as detailed, but it is actually more useful than either the "wet dream" design (which we didn't implement) or CMBB/AK's information.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I think everybody has covered this point well enough, however a couple of comments.

The Abrams is nearly (NEARLY!) invincible from the front. You score damage shots on it, of course, but a penetration knockout is just about impossible. The sides, well.. that's a different matter. The rear is even worse. A boy with a slingshot and good aim can take out an Abrams from the rear (OK, not quite that simple ).

CMBB/AK had a lot more predictability and less variability than CM:SF in terms of anti-armor offensive and defensive capabilities. Pretty much all US armor was of one type, all German another. So when we put in penetration stats for a US gun we could target those numbers to represent hitting typical German armor. Conversely, German guns could be fairly accurately rated to show how well they would do against US armor. That's just not possible any more.

First, the US Abrams armor qualities are still classified. The values you see on websites are, at best, guesses. Second, WWII did not have things like high tech composite armor, extreme sloped armor, extreme ROUNDED sloped armor, different types of layered armor, different types of steel composites, slat armor, etc. And don't even get me started on reactive armor, which comes in different types and has differing amounts of coverage depending on the vehicle and prior hits.

And that's just the complications of the defensive weapons! The offensive ones just bump up the possibilities exponentially.

All this madness caused us to never even attempt to do a system similar to CMx1 in terms of the UI. It's all simulated in much greater detail than CMx1, but it's so difficult to show it in a meaningful way that there really isn't a point. If you want to know what the side armor thickness equivalent is of an Abram's side armor... search the web for one of several values, pick one you like, and picture that being the one we are using Seriously though, the armor numbers are meaningless without knowing the characteristics of the individual threat.

That's why there is the rule of thumb ratings with each vehicle. It's not as detailed, but it is actually more useful than either the "wet dream" design (which we didn't implement) or CMBB/AK's information.

Steve

[Michael Withstand]

Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):

...

If this is so, that's why they removed old fashioned detail armor hits...

what now CM:SF doesn't have detailed armor hit information? It was one of the things which i loved most from CM series...

If i had wanted an arcade i would have bought XBOX or other game console.

[Michael Withstand]

Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):

...

If this is so, that's why they removed old fashioned detail armor hits...

what now CM:SF doesn't have detailed armor hit information? It was one of the things which i loved most from CM series...

If i had wanted an arcade i would have bought XBOX or other game console.

[Michael Withstand]

Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):

...

If this is so, that's why they removed old fashioned detail armor hits...

what now CM:SF doesn't have detailed armor hit information? It was one of the things which i loved most from CM series...

If i had wanted an arcade i would have bought XBOX or other game console.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Michael Withstand:

What your getting is alot of guesswork

As Steve said alot of this stuff is either classified or extremly hard to display and only about 1% of players would understand it fully

For an Abrams you would need its normal stats for steel armour against kinetic energy rounds

Then add in extreme slops and composite materials

Then you would need to display an entirely different set of information pertaining to how the armour reacts to HEAT rounds

Then for the advanced Syrian tanks you would have to find a way of displaying how ERA cells protect the vehicle

You would have multiple pages of stats just on armour

Then dont even get me started on weapons

Different tank rounds models alone can mean the difference of up to a 40% change in penetration values

Same with different ATGM rounds for the same launcher

But in the end what does it all matter to the player to see these things?

Its all guess work like I said

Under the hood the game is incredibly detailed crunching lots and lots of numbers

But to call it a realistic simulation and a console arcade...well both statements would be in error

It is incredibly detailed number crunching but the numbers fed into the calculations may or may not be in the ballpark of what would actualy happen in real life

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Michael Withstand:

What your getting is alot of guesswork

As Steve said alot of this stuff is either classified or extremly hard to display and only about 1% of players would understand it fully

For an Abrams you would need its normal stats for steel armour against kinetic energy rounds

Then add in extreme slops and composite materials

Then you would need to display an entirely different set of information pertaining to how the armour reacts to HEAT rounds

Then for the advanced Syrian tanks you would have to find a way of displaying how ERA cells protect the vehicle

You would have multiple pages of stats just on armour

Then dont even get me started on weapons

Different tank rounds models alone can mean the difference of up to a 40% change in penetration values

Same with different ATGM rounds for the same launcher

But in the end what does it all matter to the player to see these things?

Its all guess work like I said

Under the hood the game is incredibly detailed crunching lots and lots of numbers

But to call it a realistic simulation and a console arcade...well both statements would be in error

It is incredibly detailed number crunching but the numbers fed into the calculations may or may not be in the ballpark of what would actualy happen in real life