Side Armor of M1 to weak

[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

[Morjit]

I would be happy just seeing the white text flash on the screen when something is hit. Just a simple, 'Front Turret Hit, No Damage'. Just to give some feedback about what just happened when you see an explosion on a vehicle out of nowhere.

[Morjit]

I would be happy just seeing the white text flash on the screen when something is hit. Just a simple, 'Front Turret Hit, No Damage'. Just to give some feedback about what just happened when you see an explosion on a vehicle out of nowhere.

[Morjit]

I would be happy just seeing the white text flash on the screen when something is hit. Just a simple, 'Front Turret Hit, No Damage'. Just to give some feedback about what just happened when you see an explosion on a vehicle out of nowhere.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Yeah, detailed armor hits are there no more.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Yeah, detailed armor hits are there no more.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Yeah, detailed armor hits are there no more.

[Mikko H.]

Yeah, detailed armor hits are there no more.

After many, many statements fromn the game developers to the contrary (in this very thread, for example), why are you repeating this?

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Mikko H.]

Yeah, detailed armor hits are there no more.

After many, many statements fromn the game developers to the contrary (in this very thread, for example), why are you repeating this?

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Mikko H.]

Yeah, detailed armor hits are there no more.

After many, many statements fromn the game developers to the contrary (in this very thread, for example), why are you repeating this?

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Panzerfest]

Penetration details shown when you click on the knocked out AFV would be nice!

Maybe only shown at end of battle for elite.. I guess Im really missing the stats screen from CMx1.

[Panzerfest]

Penetration details shown when you click on the knocked out AFV would be nice!

Maybe only shown at end of battle for elite.. I guess Im really missing the stats screen from CMx1.

[Panzerfest]

Penetration details shown when you click on the knocked out AFV would be nice!

Maybe only shown at end of battle for elite.. I guess Im really missing the stats screen from CMx1.

[Battlefront.com]

Mikko,

After many, many statements fromn the game developers to the contrary (in this very thread, for example), why are you repeating this?

I think it is because people are talking about two completely different things:

1. Detailed simulation of armor, ballistics, penetration probabilities, etc.

2. Text display of hit results.

It is true that #1 is in the game already and is FAR more detailed than CMx1. It is also true that #2 is not in the game, but will be soon. Well, at least it is a high priority for us to add it in. The original CMBO did not have such text either for the same reason (too many things to do all at once, something has to be done later).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Mikko,

After many, many statements fromn the game developers to the contrary (in this very thread, for example), why are you repeating this?

I think it is because people are talking about two completely different things:

1. Detailed simulation of armor, ballistics, penetration probabilities, etc.

2. Text display of hit results.

It is true that #1 is in the game already and is FAR more detailed than CMx1. It is also true that #2 is not in the game, but will be soon. Well, at least it is a high priority for us to add it in. The original CMBO did not have such text either for the same reason (too many things to do all at once, something has to be done later).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Mikko,

After many, many statements fromn the game developers to the contrary (in this very thread, for example), why are you repeating this?

I think it is because people are talking about two completely different things:

1. Detailed simulation of armor, ballistics, penetration probabilities, etc.

2. Text display of hit results.

It is true that #1 is in the game already and is FAR more detailed than CMx1. It is also true that #2 is not in the game, but will be soon. Well, at least it is a high priority for us to add it in. The original CMBO did not have such text either for the same reason (too many things to do all at once, something has to be done later).

Steve

[MikeyD]

About Bradleys versus BMP-2, I recall a chart from a thread a long time ago. it gave the RHA equivalent for Bradley bow armor. Remember Bradley's got a THICK coating of MEXAS ceramic tiles on the bow and turret. I think the chart said it was like 110mm of armor steel, or roughly the same as their stats for a Centurion!

This reminds me of the CMBB T34 versus Stug debate. The reason a Stug seemed to be able to just barely defeat a T34's gun was because that's what its armor was specifically designed to do. And Bradley special armor isn't thick enough to defend against tank fire but should just about defeat BMP-2 fire - because that was its design goal.

[MikeyD]

About Bradleys versus BMP-2, I recall a chart from a thread a long time ago. it gave the RHA equivalent for Bradley bow armor. Remember Bradley's got a THICK coating of MEXAS ceramic tiles on the bow and turret. I think the chart said it was like 110mm of armor steel, or roughly the same as their stats for a Centurion!

This reminds me of the CMBB T34 versus Stug debate. The reason a Stug seemed to be able to just barely defeat a T34's gun was because that's what its armor was specifically designed to do. And Bradley special armor isn't thick enough to defend against tank fire but should just about defeat BMP-2 fire - because that was its design goal.

[MikeyD]

About Bradleys versus BMP-2, I recall a chart from a thread a long time ago. it gave the RHA equivalent for Bradley bow armor. Remember Bradley's got a THICK coating of MEXAS ceramic tiles on the bow and turret. I think the chart said it was like 110mm of armor steel, or roughly the same as their stats for a Centurion!

This reminds me of the CMBB T34 versus Stug debate. The reason a Stug seemed to be able to just barely defeat a T34's gun was because that's what its armor was specifically designed to do. And Bradley special armor isn't thick enough to defend against tank fire but should just about defeat BMP-2 fire - because that was its design goal.

[mocdra]

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

That is really true. Many M1 knocked out in Iraq by Side Hull Hits with RPG 7. The Sideskirts and 80mmm Steel Plate with inlaying thin Ceramic Plate are easiliy penetrated by the single Heat Warhead.

This is one of numerous vulnerable Achilles Points at this Tank (The Turret Rearside and Ammunition Bunker Side Armor and Turret Roof as Example)

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

That is not true. Please study some Photographs from the Inside (here specially the Commanders Pos) then Photos from the Turret. Then you see , the Armor is 2/3 of the Frontal Turret Armor.

At the first M1 series( the Model with the 105 mm Gun)has had the Frontal and Side Armor the same Thickness!

The m1a1 ans a2 Models have upgraded thickjer Armor. Noticeable is that with the Lenght of the whole Turret etc. the frontal Zone. These differs noticeable from the m1 to the m1a2

Other Tanks since the german leopard 2 series or the Challenger hase the 1/3 Rule at the Turret Armor.The France Leclerc has thicker Turret Side Armor and the Merkava too

The Advantage of the M1a2 Tank is the strong Frontal Turret and Side Turret Armor but not more... ! it was concipatet for Battletank to Battletank Encounters

One Hit in the Hullside,then the Tank is badly damaged, inop or destroyed.

Due the strong Turret Armorr the Tank has a high Level Weight Point that makes it vulnerable to IED Attacks. The Tank flaps earlier over than other ones and lands upsidedown or sidewards on the Road.

[mocdra]

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

That is really true. Many M1 knocked out in Iraq by Side Hull Hits with RPG 7. The Sideskirts and 80mmm Steel Plate with inlaying thin Ceramic Plate are easiliy penetrated by the single Heat Warhead.

This is one of numerous vulnerable Achilles Points at this Tank (The Turret Rearside and Ammunition Bunker Side Armor and Turret Roof as Example)

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

That is not true. Please study some Photographs from the Inside (here specially the Commanders Pos) then Photos from the Turret. Then you see , the Armor is 2/3 of the Frontal Turret Armor.

At the first M1 series( the Model with the 105 mm Gun)has had the Frontal and Side Armor the same Thickness!

The m1a1 ans a2 Models have upgraded thickjer Armor. Noticeable is that with the Lenght of the whole Turret etc. the frontal Zone. These differs noticeable from the m1 to the m1a2

Other Tanks since the german leopard 2 series or the Challenger hase the 1/3 Rule at the Turret Armor.The France Leclerc has thicker Turret Side Armor and the Merkava too

The Advantage of the M1a2 Tank is the strong Frontal Turret and Side Turret Armor but not more... ! it was concipatet for Battletank to Battletank Encounters

One Hit in the Hullside,then the Tank is badly damaged, inop or destroyed.

Due the strong Turret Armorr the Tank has a high Level Weight Point that makes it vulnerable to IED Attacks. The Tank flaps earlier over than other ones and lands upsidedown or sidewards on the Road.

[mocdra]

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

That is really true. Many M1 knocked out in Iraq by Side Hull Hits with RPG 7. The Sideskirts and 80mmm Steel Plate with inlaying thin Ceramic Plate are easiliy penetrated by the single Heat Warhead.

This is one of numerous vulnerable Achilles Points at this Tank (The Turret Rearside and Ammunition Bunker Side Armor and Turret Roof as Example)

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

That is not true. Please study some Photographs from the Inside (here specially the Commanders Pos) then Photos from the Turret. Then you see , the Armor is 2/3 of the Frontal Turret Armor.

At the first M1 series( the Model with the 105 mm Gun)has had the Frontal and Side Armor the same Thickness!

The m1a1 ans a2 Models have upgraded thickjer Armor. Noticeable is that with the Lenght of the whole Turret etc. the frontal Zone. These differs noticeable from the m1 to the m1a2

Other Tanks since the german leopard 2 series or the Challenger hase the 1/3 Rule at the Turret Armor.The France Leclerc has thicker Turret Side Armor and the Merkava too

The Advantage of the M1a2 Tank is the strong Frontal Turret and Side Turret Armor but not more... ! it was concipatet for Battletank to Battletank Encounters

One Hit in the Hullside,then the Tank is badly damaged, inop or destroyed.

Due the strong Turret Armorr the Tank has a high Level Weight Point that makes it vulnerable to IED Attacks. The Tank flaps earlier over than other ones and lands upsidedown or sidewards on the Road.

[Lee]

Well, the M1 wasn't designed for patrolling up and down streets and being forced to regularly drive amongst possible enemies. And thus being put in constant danger of flank and rear shots, or giant bombs being set off next to it, but rather destroying the enemy on sight and at a distance. They are putting the tanks, and the men in them, in a position that they are not really supposed to be in. If they weren't being put in this position, then none of this would be an issue. Look what the M1 did in the first Gulf War, totally devastating and very few losses. That's the way it should be used.

Never again should we undertake such a thing in the future, no more baby sitting for our soldiers. If we have an enemy in the middle east that needs dealt with, then just utterly destroy them with overwhelming air and naval power and, if need be, limited ground forces that come in and smash any and all resistance before them and then leave immediately. No long-term patrols, no occupation forces, no building stuff, nothing, just leave. Mission accomplished, threat eliminated, and none of our men get killed needlessly.

Can't wait to see the return of the great Detailed Armor Hits text messages in the upcoming patch for CMII.

[Lee]

Well, the M1 wasn't designed for patrolling up and down streets and being forced to regularly drive amongst possible enemies. And thus being put in constant danger of flank and rear shots, or giant bombs being set off next to it, but rather destroying the enemy on sight and at a distance. They are putting the tanks, and the men in them, in a position that they are not really supposed to be in. If they weren't being put in this position, then none of this would be an issue. Look what the M1 did in the first Gulf War, totally devastating and very few losses. That's the way it should be used.

Never again should we undertake such a thing in the future, no more baby sitting for our soldiers. If we have an enemy in the middle east that needs dealt with, then just utterly destroy them with overwhelming air and naval power and, if need be, limited ground forces that come in and smash any and all resistance before them and then leave immediately. No long-term patrols, no occupation forces, no building stuff, nothing, just leave. Mission accomplished, threat eliminated, and none of our men get killed needlessly.

Can't wait to see the return of the great Detailed Armor Hits text messages in the upcoming patch for CMII.

[Lee]

Well, the M1 wasn't designed for patrolling up and down streets and being forced to regularly drive amongst possible enemies. And thus being put in constant danger of flank and rear shots, or giant bombs being set off next to it, but rather destroying the enemy on sight and at a distance. They are putting the tanks, and the men in them, in a position that they are not really supposed to be in. If they weren't being put in this position, then none of this would be an issue. Look what the M1 did in the first Gulf War, totally devastating and very few losses. That's the way it should be used.

Never again should we undertake such a thing in the future, no more baby sitting for our soldiers. If we have an enemy in the middle east that needs dealt with, then just utterly destroy them with overwhelming air and naval power and, if need be, limited ground forces that come in and smash any and all resistance before them and then leave immediately. No long-term patrols, no occupation forces, no building stuff, nothing, just leave. Mission accomplished, threat eliminated, and none of our men get killed needlessly.

Can't wait to see the return of the great Detailed Armor Hits text messages in the upcoming patch for CMII.