Syrian vs US armour

[panzermartin]

I imagine that ingame the latest T-72 model would fare decently against an M1 at close ranges right? In CMBB you had the Tiger that was invulnerable even from the back at certain dates. As far as I know the T-72 and even T-62s and T-55s can punch holes in the side of the Abraams anyday. It must be its extemely fast and accurate lock and fire procedure that will make it uber in the game. How about the Javelin? Is ERA armor enough for at least a sporting chance against this thing?

[JaguarUSF]

Anything can destroy anything if properly equipped if it sees it first. A well placed RPG or any Russian tank can take out an M1 from close or far ranges. I've gotten blowed up (technical term) from 500 meters before. The real advantage the U.S. has is better communication, which results in better morale. Also, the Stryker is superior in all of its variations to the BMP. The Mobile Gun System is my personal favorite. Packs a punch.

Another thing that affects it is crew skill (plus any bonuses), which can be easily gauged from the interface, plus whether they are moving or under attack (part of the spotting rules). There is absolutely no uber unit like in previous CM games. It's all about spotting.

[panzermartin]

Thanks for the input, sounds quick and deadly. Not a fan of this kind of "who sees first wins" thing but it may end to be more deep tacticaly than the roulete of CMBB, with tanks exchanging shots for minutes and the lucky one winning.

[MikeyD]

Playing CMBB I would inevitably lose my King Tiger during a game to "Normal tactical rules don't apply because I'm invulnerable" syndrome. You always do something really stupid that you never would with a PzIV. I'd bet more than a few people will get themselves in trouble because they'll think the Abrams they're fighting with is the fabled überweapon. And more than a few people will see their Javelin team gunned down as they rush them forward to deal with that tank around the corner.

[Becket]

That brings back really, really bad memories of sending a platoon of King Tigers down a road in RoW, only to have three taken out with flank shots from 57mm guns, and two immobilized with mines.

[hardy1]

I don't know what you guys are talking about.

A T-72 shouldn't have a chance against an abrams.

Remember, during the gulf war no abrams were lost due to direct enemy fire.

Only stuff I can find about M1A1 Abrams are stuff like this:

The unit (part of the 24th Infantry Division) had gone on, leaving this tank to wait for a recovery vehicle. Three T-72’s appeared and attacked. The first fired from under 1,000 meters, scoring a hit with a shaped-charge (high explosive) round on the M1A1’s frontal armor. The hit did no damage. The M1A1 fired a 120mm armor-piercing round that penetrated the T-72 turret, causing an explosion that blew the turret into the air. The second T-72 fired another shaped-charge round, hit the frontal armor, and did no damage. This T-72 turned to run, and took a 120mm round in the engine compartment and blew the engine into the air. The last T-72 fired a solid shot (sabot) round from 400 meters. This left a groove in the M1A1’s frontal armor and bounced off. The T-72 then backed up behind a sand berm and was completely concealed from view. The M1A1 depressed its gun and put a sabot round through the berm, into the T-72, causing an explosion.

[Kineas]

Focus on the technical details, not on AARs. In multiplayer games you will fight against equally skilled opponents.

First, they won't fire HEAT from 1000m, hit chance is just too low. Second, they won't engage the Abrams from the front etc.

[hardy1]

Yeah, well actually this makes a great scenario =)

If the Syrians manages to take out an abrams being lost/stuck/or whatever they win.

[YankeeDog]

Actually, a number of M1A1s were knocked out of action by direct enemy action in GWI There is a summary here:

Wiki page on Desert Storm M1A1 losses

It is true, though that none of the losses to direct enemy action were total write-offs; they were all eventually repaired and returned to service.

Furthermore, in brief:

Iraqi home-made T-72s =! Syrian Russian-Built 7-72s

Iraqi 1991 Ammo =! Syran 2007 ammo

And the Syrians likely have learned a lot from watching the Iraqi's failures in 1991 and 2007, as to how to handle their T-72s.

The history channel did a great documentary on the Tank combat in Desert Storm, including large amounts of interview footage from actual combatants. There was a great section where one of the US tank commander said, in paraphrase, "Yea, the M1 Abrams is a great tank, our real advantage was our training and communications; if we had been in T-72s, and the Iraqis had been in M1A1s, we still would have won."

Take it for what you will. Regardless, in most situations, I wouldn't expect an intelligently played platoon of M1A1s to have much trouble at all dealing with a full company of T-72s.

But straight-up, open country tank vs. tank enagements probably will not be CM:SF at its best.

Cheers,

YD

[ July 05, 2007, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Battlefront.com]

MikeyD's post is the key and it has been something we've mentioned many times. The reason the US lost so few Abrams in both Gulf Wars is because it had great leadership and combined arms execution. If you, the player, are also a good leader and use combined arms well, you too should have good results overall. But if you think "my Abrams are invincible because I read somehwere nobody can knock them out from the front".... well, be prepared to do a lot worse than the AARs from Desert Storm and OIF1

Steve

[MikeyD]

Also, remember in Gulf War 2 when U.S. intelligence first received (aparently false) reports of the Kornet missile being used against Abrams they pretty much sh*t a brick! When talking about Kornet in the press conferences you could actually hear their voices change in register. And who did they accuse of supplying the Kornet ? You guessed it.

[Scipio]

BTW, will we have thermobaric warheads for the Kornet, too?

[ July 05, 2007, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Jenka]

At the Chicago Preview I played a Striker Company + M1 Platoon Vs T55's that to a large extent started the game Immobile. I Managed to lose 3 M1s and 2 strikers to T55s. Just because I was using one of the best tanks in the world did not excuse my poor play. If i can lose m1s to T55's then you can darn sure lose them to T72s

[Taki]

Things i heard about the Abrahams ist that some should have Problems with the gas turbine wich is pulling the Tank and the Electric Generator. So when it fails the Abrahams gots a lot of Problems. But i dont think they will Simulate that in the Game. The First Panthers Series on Battle of Kursk had Problem with their drives and it was not Simulated in CMBB.

So i dont think they bring things like that into the Game.

[hardy1]

Originally posted by Jenka:

At the Chicago Preview I played a Striker Company + M1 Platoon Vs T55's that to a large extent started the game Immobile. I Managed to lose 3 M1s and 2 strikers to T55s. Just because I was using one of the best tanks in the world did not excuse my poor play. If i can lose m1s to T55's then you can darn sure lose them to T72s

If you lost the tanks from direct fire, then I would say the game needs tweaking.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by hardy1:

If you lost the tanks from direct fire, then I would say the game needs tweaking.

Direct fire? T-55 don't do indirect fire.

[MikeyD]

Over the last dozen or more years alot of militaries have extensively modified their vast aging T55 fleet (which they couldn't afford to replace outright). You can get T55 armor packages, T55 optics upgrades, T55 APFSDS rounds. I believe there's even a Russian 100mm gun-tube-launced ATGM out there! In other words these ain't your grandfather's T55s.

[Jenka]

All three lost to APFSDS from T55's. Turret side shots, Hull side shots (even at some fairly wide angles). When your engaging 7 T55's with a single M1, to service all the targets one must turn the turret. Cagey T55 crews will let some vehicles draw fire and then wait till the M1 has turned to engage and THEN unmask. The side armor on a M1 is plenty vulnerable. I did mention the bad play on my part right?

4 M1s Destroyed 19 T55s. One of the M1s was used correctly with carefully masked positions exposing itself to the minimum number of targets on a narrow ark. The other three in one way or another were used poorly. I lost one as I was repositioning it. "I've killed all the T55's" says I "That you can see" says Rune. Boom Turret side penetration, Hull side Penetration, Crew bailing. Now to be fair all the M1 crews survived. None of the M1's were catastrophic kills (burning) while all of the T55's burned. So to a extent it's relative. Still 20 t55s is insuficent reason to loose so many M1s

[USTanker]

Originally posted by Taki:

Things i heard about the Abrahams ist that some should have Problems with the gas turbine wich is pulling the Tank and the Electric Generator. So when it fails the Abrahams gots a lot of Problems. But i dont think they will Simulate that in the Game. The First Panthers Series on Battle of Kursk had Problem with their drives and it was not Simulated in CMBB.

So i dont think they bring things like that into the Game.

Taki, no offense, but your data is wrong. The problems with the gas turbine engine were largely eliminated in the early M1 models (105mm gun). It's now a pretty relianble engine which gives incredible spring speed. The generator you speak of, I'm assuing is the external one. It is used to power the tank when the engine is off. If it breaks, it doesn't effect anything other than requiring the tank to start the engine when the batteries start to drain. Generators were not a feature of most M1 and M1A1s until the late 1990s.