T-55 and T-62 vs Abrams M1A2

[Juergen2SSDR]

Not sure if anyone else has had unrealistic results in Tank vs Tank engagements. Ok I realize the Abrams is not God on tracks but I have heard they can take point black shots from 100mm guns practicaly as well as from ATGM.

I was about 1200 meters from 3 T-55 or T-62's and the Abrams got 2 befor a 100mm shell penetrated the Abrams frontal armor, and Blew up... the only cool part the crew was inside and OK..

Im not saying I will never loose an Abrams, maybe in Close Quarters street fighting, but I did not expect it to happen from over 1000 meters from an inferior gun platform.

[Thomm]

Are you sure they did not throw an ATGM at you (AT-10, 700 mm (RHA) behind ERA)?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Mishga]

Sounds like a barrel launched ATGM to me. Sneaky.

[SgtMuhammed]

Or it could be a lucky hit. They happen.

[Juergen2SSDR]

Ahhh I knew It.... Those sneaky SOB's...

I need to get some Data on the ATGM from the barrels of T-62's and T-55's.

Did the Iraqis have the same stuff? If the armor of the Abrams is suppose to be soo good, why is it soo easy in the game to defeat them?

Anyways..I understand the whole range thing, but I was told.. that the Abrams could withstand just about anything. Again this battle took place from a distance of over 1000m to 1250m.

I sort of blew up my Boyfriends tanks.. he saved the game.. and I sort of took over.

Thanks

Veronica!

[Juergen2SSDR]

Ok so I just did some Surfing here at work... oops I mean on my break.

The BMP series AT-7 to AT-10 can penetrate up ot 600-660mm of armor... ummmm thats alot of penetration power!

So basicaly are all my tanks...hehe or my BF's tanks going to explode if I play with them???

I thought the Abrams had sweet armor, like the British that could stop just about anything?

Maybe Im dreaming...

V

[Mishga]

Remember the warheads of ATGM's are not kinetic energy dependent. They detonate upon contact irrespective of range. Tandem-HEAT rounds have two warheads to defeat ERA.

As far as I understand it they melt thru the armour and fill the inside of the fighting compartment with ionised gases and flame.

I was told that in the first gulf war all that was left of the crew of some Iraqi tanks was some teeth and bits of dog-tag. The rest was lumps of black carbonised material.

Edit to add:

RPG29 will punch thru the front of any tank in the world. Again it's chemical rather than kinetic. Challenger 2 has the most frontal armour and it's still very vulnerable.

To take a tank out of action a penetrating hit only has to kill or wound roughly two crew members. The functions of the tank are severly depleted with this loss. Factor in the actual damage to onboard systems and the human casualties and your looking at a tank backing off from the front line.

[ September 10, 2007, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Mishga ]

[Juergen2SSDR]

Thanks Mishga!

While Im doing my nails tonight.. I will tell Juergen that Im sorry for getting his tanks blown to hell!

Off subject sort of.. Im soo curious as to why the US has not had that many tanks destroyed. many had tracks blown and such.. (went to Wikepedia) but only one was completely destroyed, and I think I remember that was fron another Abrams because the other tank was soo badly damaged.

I guess if we ever went to war with Syria, we would bomb them alot first. I think I looked up again the Syrian Army (Wikepedia) and they only have soo many ATGM rounds available. I wonder if BF develepers have taken that into account while designing missions.

[thelmia]

We have had tanks destroyed- you just don't hear about it. Oddly, the bad guys aren't using tandem warheads much.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20079705913.asp

As far as designing missions, it is good to remember that the Syrians have a limited supply of the really good equipment. That could change, of course, if they thought that invasion was imminent and the Russians cooperated.

[Juergen2SSDR]

Thanks Thelmia for that post, that was very informative. I was always curious as to why, if the enemy had such weapons, why do they not use them.

Anyways one has to plot out ones advances, and try not to give the enemy a flank or rear shot. It appears that would be difficult with Acyemetrical warfare.

Veronica

[KNac]

I thought the Abrams had sweet armor, like the British that could stop just about anything?

Impossible in modern warfare as others have demostrated.

But don't fear cause the M1A2 is near indestructible, is very hard to lose one if you are carefulle nough and don't gonuts and use some common sense. But yes, sure the good ATGM cand estroy them frontally from distance.

[Michael Withstand]

You know a lucky hit to either the M1 turret ring or lower front hull would kill the tank I think. But the 100mm gun of the T55 would not do much harm to M1 especially at the front.

Yes frontally M1 has amazing protection(thx to DU) but it also has a few weak spots even in the front side.

[Juergen2SSDR]

Well Im not sure how they have modeled the Abrams for the game.. Im sure they dont want to make it nearly invincible.. but taking a round from 1200m with a 100mm gun and destroying the frontal armor was just a tad unrealistic for me.. T-55 please!

The Abrams of course has no problems laying waste to anything. Sort of reminds me of Terminator.. where the poor infantry are running for their live from these massive armored vehicles. Of course even they were brought down.

Cheers

[Mishga]

It was probly not a round but a barrel launched ATGM based upon chemical reaction not kinetic punch.

T55 were upgraded with reactive armour and whatnot so they are now much better than some T72's

Edited cos I spell bad or sumfink

[MikeyD]

I got an Abrams K.O.'d from the front by a T55 too. I think they said the Abrams front armor was *slightly* downgraded in the v1.03 patch. If the fanciest in-games T55s are firing a late generation APFSDS penetrator instead of old AP shot that should increase the chance of a lucky kill in-game... i suppose. Those Syrian gun-launched missiles have a pretty distinctive flight path. You should be able to easily distinguish them from AP from the animations.

[Juergen2SSDR]

True, I did not see any flight path from any ATGM, I re-played it about 5 times at different angles. From over 1100m that is one heck of a lucky kill. It completely brewed up the Abrams, crew survived.

I can see that from a 120mm at that range, but not really from a old T-55 even with unique rounds. But hey I was a grunt not a tanker.

Anyways I have been alot more carefull with my armor, even though Im a little erked! that the Abrams front armor is not what the Army advertises. I can see a flank shot brewing up fuel and stuff, but if any of you have played CMx1 you know to never expose your flanks.

Semper Fi

Juergen

And the next time my girlfriend blows up my tanks...she is getting a spanking.

[John Catsack]

You mentioned that the crew bailed out. It's possible that the shot was only a minor penetration\no penetration and just freaked the crew out.

[Juergen2SSDR]

It was not a minor penetration, the Abrams was completely on fire, and the crew actually stayed in the tank... I guess maybe the crew compartment was ok, and everything else was destroyed.

Thats what I thought was soo weird... front hit by a T-55 or T-62... it brews up from what... all the fuel is in the back?

I replayed it at least 5 times.. no missle hit.. and the nearest tank was 1150meters away. Thats still good range for a 100mm gun, but I thought the modeleing for the Abrams should withstand that at least, especialy an uparmored version.

Anyways I was sort of disturbed, if it is that easy to kill Abrams in game, and in RL they are very hard to kill. I did some resarch via Wikepedia, and all were disabled by ATGM usually RPG-7 to the tracks, only one was hit from behind and it brewed up... the personell were all A OK and that tank was later destroyed by fire from antother Abrams.

[SlowMotion]

In 1.03 it's quite easy to kill an Abrams with a T-62 if you get close enough. Often one flank shot from 200m is enough to destroy it.

[Juergen2SSDR]

Well I think in Version 1.04 they may need to possibly re-vamp their armor ratings. If a T-62 can kill and Abrams through frontal armor at 1100m there are problems.

Juergen

[Renaud]

From the frontal aspect, a very lucky hit on the turret ring, drivers hatch or top slope of the hull front from 100mm+ (APDS or HEAT) will take out any M1 from just about any range. Fuel tanks are located to the left and right of the driver, but that's a minor point. Heavy frontal armor is probably the least important factor in historical M1 loss rates.

You have to get lucky and you are not likely to live that long in the frontal arc of an M1. More important than the armor advantage is the ability to identify first (big M1 sensor advantage), fire first, fire often and almost never miss. Possibly the biggest factor in low M1 losses historically is ability of US units at all levels to stay coordinated, in contact, online and pointed toward the bad guys.

[Michael Withstand]

A level hit at the top slope of the hull front is not likely to kill an M1 I think especially not from APDS round I think(if that part is ceramic protected the same goes to HEAT rounds). The sloping of the hull's top is so extreme.

But you might be correct about the driver hatch. Though it won't likely kill the M1, the driver would probably be incapacitated.

[Michael Withstand]

Plus a lucky hit on the gun barrel would pretty much render the M1 combat ineffective.

[John Kettler]

Anyone getting F-Kills on the Abrams with APDS, HEAT or HE? F-Kills have been my bane when operating heavy armor throughout my CM career, so I'm wondering whether I have that to look forward to when I finally get CMSF and the rig to run it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Hev]

In my experience the whole M1 weapon system is lacking in game.

Just using the first campaign mission as an example. During multiple replays a stationary tank on my flank ( firing at between 500 - 1100 meters iirc ) would often miss, and im talking 50 percent hit ratewhen targeting enemy heavy units.

The Abrams is garunteed to have a better fire control system then ANYTHING in the syrian arsenal, yet in the first scenario not only do syrian tanks hit pretty much every time (funnily only once destroying a tank) while my M1 frequently misses and can even hit a T62 without killing it!

( i can live with a t62 infrequently surviving hits, but an abrams missing at less then 1500 meters seems unlikey )