T-55 and T-62 vs Abrams M1A2

[Michael Withstand]

All my units not just the Abrams miss their target a lot.

[Hev]

Yeah, never seen any amarican infantry hit a vehicle with an at-4, yet the syrians are crack shots with them. Would have though the yanks will get more live ammo practise then the syrians.

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by VeronicaJGD:

I sort of blew up my Boyfriends tanks..

Is that a euphamism for something or really what happened?

Sorry to be purile. Just seemed too obvious!

...ah! I kill me!

[Juergen2SSDR]

Yes my girlfriend took charge of my game, while I was cooking dinner. She is new of course.

Anyways about this thread. It is true that the M1 in this game sucks. The hit percentage with the M1A2 is lacking. I count about a 60% hit rate. I was thinking it should be more around 78% to 80%. The Syrians hit just about everytime, and are lethal with RPG and their AT-4's, while the Javelin sometimes take 2 to destroy a T-55 or T-66.

I know the Gentlemen at Battlefront do not want this game to be a walkover for US or Allied forces, but when dealing with heavy armor, the US has a major advantage, Rate of fire, Optics, gun platforms, Armor etc. Im not seeing this at all.

Too many M1A2 are being brewed up from either frontal hits, or being taken out by weapon systems that really would not impact the Abrams from over 800meters. I have researched the Abrams alot lately, and came to the conclusion;

Either the Defence department is lying about its armor, and weapons systems, and the boys in Iraq have been very lucky to loose only a few.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a2.htm

And this site from Wikepedia shows why Abrams have been lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

Most of them were destroyed by DU rounds, which means another Abrams shot it with its main gun.

Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 put out of action by an Iraqi MBT.[4]

Presumably the impacts set the storage boxes on fire. The tests at the impact point indicate the sabot shells were conventional, since no radiological trace was found there.

Other six M1As were allegedly hit by 125 mm tank fire in the Gulf war official report, but the impacts were largely ineffectual.[5]

M1A1 lost to friendly fire during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.On the night of February 26, 1991, four Abrams were disabled in a suspected friendly fire incident by Hellfire missiles fired from AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, with the result of some crew members WIA.[6] The tanks were part of TF 1-37,[7] attacking a large section of Tawakalna Republican Guard Division, their numbers being B-23, C-12, D-24 and C-66. However, C-12 was definitively hit and penetrated by a friendly DU shot[8] and there is some evidence that another Iraqi T-72 may have scored a single hit on B-23, besides the alleged Hellfire strike (see Iraqi T-72 article).

Tanks D-24 and C-66 took some casualties as well[9] Only B-23 became a permanent loss. The DoD's damage assessments state that B-23 was the only M1 with signs of a Hellfire missile found nearby.[10]

Also during Operation Desert Storm, three Abrams of the 24 ID were left behind the enemy lines after a swift attack on Talil airfield, south of Nasiriyah, on February 27. One of them was hit by enemy fire, the two other embedded in mud. The tanks were destroyed by US forces in order to prevent any trophy-claim by the Iraqi Army.[11]

The above is a partial article from Wikepedia.

It is also strange that Iraq being the 4th largest Army at one time did not have any ATGM for their tanks, however Syria is loaded with them.

happy hunting,

Juergen

[Renaud]

I'm not sure what you guys are doing, but my M1's hit virtually every time unless there is something in the way. The game seems to track LOS and LOF seperately, resulting in some cases of repeated hits on trees, building corners and intervening ground which seem to block LOF but not LOS. This is more of a game-engine issue than M1 modeling issue i'm afraid.

However if there is no intervening terrain, buildings, trees and junk, a few M1's destroy dozens of T72's in a few minutes (allahs fist scenario for example). It's almost a verbatim replay of 73 easting. I believe the near worthless performance of the Iraqi tanks in 91 has generated a dangerous myth RE M1 invincibility. In fact they are extremely vulnerable in flank, alamo or massed fire situations. If anything, the current modeling has the M1's spotting targets on the flanks too fast. Anything that pops up in your rear 180 is just not likely to be noticed before it shoots at least once. (even the SEP)

When DARPA, IDA and the SIMNET guys ran excursions to the base 73 Easting simulation which evened up the odds by giving the iraqi T72's thermal sights, turret down starting positions, better gunnery and such, Eagle troop started to lose tanks (more than a couple).

All in all, the current modeling feels just about right, minor quibbles aside.

Regarding the Wiki article...the biggest reason for low M1 losses is mostly the outcome of sound tactics and a huge sensor advantage. Iraqi tanks rarely even identified M1's before they were exploding, and got few chances for flank shots.

[SgtMuhammed]

The only time I lose M1s are to lucky shots or bad moves on my part. I haven't noticed any systematic problems with M1 survivability so I am with you there Renaud.

As for gunnery, if my guys see it and have a clear shot it is dead. I only notice misses when there are intervening trees or hills and such.

As for real M1's. Nothing is invulnerable.

[JasonC]

Veronica - the Iraq to Syria discrepancy in ATGMs for tanks is actually not too surprising, when you remember that the former built and used its armor fleet primarily to fight Iran - with a small number of old M-60s and little else - while Syria's force is intended to fight Israel, with one of the nastiest armor fleets in the world.

[Juergen2SSDR]

Good to know. I myself was 0321(USMC) and my beloved was 0151(USMC) thats administrative for those not in the Corps.

Anyways not much of a tanker, but the reason why the thread was started was I thought it "almost" impossbile for an Abrams to catch fire from a frontal penetrating hit from a Syrian T-62 at a range of 1150meteres.

After playing some more, I find it difficult to always keep the flanks safe on a MBT, especially in a Urban environment. I find myself shooting at just about every building, to see if anyone runs for cover.

Not sure how the "Thermal" works for a game, but it would deffinetly help the M1 in an Urban enviornment for those sneaking about, unless they are unconventional forces, which have a great "hide" while in moderate "pedestrian" enviornment settings.

Thanks for the posts.

Juergen and Veronica.

[John Kettler]

Apropos of the M1 glacis armor/driver's hatch issue, ISTR reading that long rod penetrators, provided they "bite" at all, hook into the armor, resulting in actual penetration geometry far less favorable to the target tank than the regular geometric analysis

would suggest.

Regards,

John Kettler

[White2Golf]

Being a M1 crewman for 7 years, i'll add this...

The M1 is a very good tank. However, the reason (IMHO) US Armor units have such a drastically slanted kill ratio in RL and in the game is because of the people IN the tank, not the tank itself.

From my perspective and recollection, I can only imagine just how motivated and squared away the crews who are actually in combat are. We train and train and shoot gunnery, then train some more. SIMNET/UCOFT/"New SIMNET thing" (can't recall what it is named) hones the skills very well. Now, put these highly motivated and trained killers in a situation where they get to shoot live bullets and real bad guys....

Frankly, I pity the bad guys who have to face them. LOL I mean, I know how geeked I got to just go shoot practice bullets at plywood during gunnery. Perhaps this is a hard thing to explain to people who have never been in a armor unit?

Anyhoo, it is not JUST how good the tank is... It is the "ephing" amazing crews IN those tanks that make the real difference. IMHO. Like somebodyelse said... Staying organized and the pointy end at the bad guys....

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by Michael Withstand:

All my units not just the Abrams miss their target a lot.

of course they do how else would u balance a scen against the ai? nobody ever looses a game against the ai because of its superior tactics and logical thinking.

u loose because the scen is tweaked towards the ai. they can easier kill u than u can kill them

[jjhouston]

Originally posted by White2Golf:

Frankly, I pity the bad guys who have to face them. LOL I mean, I know how geeked I got to just go shoot practice bullets at plywood during gunnery. Perhaps this is a hard thing to explain to people who have never been in a armor unit?

It's been a decade and a half. I've been through law school and even won a couple of acquitals in serious felony trials. But nothing will ever compare to the pride I felt when I gunned 1000 points on my first Bradley Table VIII.

After all the gunnery training I went through, when I put on my CVC, I wasn't a gunner, I was a part of the fire control system. And that fire control system could successfully service any target presented it.

[White2Golf]

It's been a decade and a half. I've been through law school and even won a couple of acquitals in serious felony trials. But nothing will ever compare to the pride I felt when I gunned 1000 points on my first Bradley Table VIII.

After all the gunnery training I went through, when I put on my CVC, I wasn't a gunner, I was a part of the fire control system. And that fire control system could successfully service any target presented it.

1000 eh!! Nice work. I triggered a 985, on the last chance I got. My fault it was not a 1000. Hosed up the RPG team on engagement B3S. Did not lase properly before I fired the first burst. <drat!> LOL

And yes, there is nothing like the harmony of a finely honed AFV crew doing its work.

[Capital]

Maybe I just suck at Syria vs. US tank engagements. But if I fire up a QB, take the side of Syria and find out the US has been given Abrams, I immediately quit out of it and pick another battle. I think to myself "Why bother?". I never have a chance. It seems the best I can ever achieve is having 5 T62s firing off at an Abrams, while the Abrams casually picks off each of my tanks one by one. And then it seems the only damage I've inflicted is a little track damage and an out-of-commission smoke launcher. Well whooptie doo

[Renaud]

Apropos of the M1 glacis armor/driver's hatch issue, ISTR reading that long rod penetrators, provided they "bite" at all, hook into the armor, resulting in actual penetration geometry far less favorable to the target tank than the regular geometric analysis

would suggest.

Regards,

John Kettler

I concur...i've inspected hits from the Israeli-Arab wars (at Ft. Irwin) and one always stood out in my mind. A 105mm sabot hit had just clipping the rounded top of a T54/55 turret at an almost flat angle. Rather than glancing off or plowing a furrow along the top it dug in and went down into the turret blasting the inside to charcoal.

[John Kettler]

Renaud,

Interesting! Having read the JMEM covering battle damage to tanks from the 1967 war and the Weapon System Evaluation Group Report for the Yom Kippur War, I'd bet that the damage you saw wasn't even from long rod penetrators.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ September 21, 2007, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Broken]

Originally posted by Hev:

Yeah, never seen any amarican infantry hit a vehicle with an at-4, yet the syrians are crack shots with them. Would have though the yanks will get more live ammo practise then the syrians.

The AT-4 seems decent at <200m with a flank shot against T-62 vintage tanks. My problem is getting infantry to not waste all their shots on long-range targets and/or other infantry. The "Target Light" order seems to be currently broken: Javs and AT-4s get launched regardless.

However, "Hide"-ing your infantry until a <200m flank shot presents itself seems to work for AT-4s. In the campaign, I nailed T-62s this way in the Obj Dianne lead-up scenario.

[SgtMuhammed]

My guys seem too accurate. I had one of my units fire 3 AT4s at a BTR that was moving at full speed at 200+ meters away perpendicular to the squad. All three hit. Another time one of my guys, at a dead sprint, switched weapons, stopped for a second, fired at and killed another BTR and then continued running. Meanwhile they can't seem to hit the broadside of a barn with the M320. Shots seem to all hit short or fly off several hundred meters beyond the target.

[flamingknives]

Maybe your grenediers should pay more attention to the little green light.

[SgtMuhammed]

I am looking for the "Beat your face" button to motivate them.

[FAI]

I'm thinking about the original post. Is it possible that an M1 got hit on the front aspect and caught fire, but the crew decided to stay inside and seemed to be okay?

[Erwin.Rommel]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

My guys seem too accurate. I had one of my units fire 3 AT4s at a BTR that was moving at full speed at 200+ meters away perpendicular to the squad. All three hit. Another time one of my guys, at a dead sprint, switched weapons, stopped for a second, fired at and killed another BTR and then continued running. Meanwhile they can't seem to hit the broadside of a barn with the M320. Shots seem to all hit short or fly off several hundred meters beyond the target.

how lucky~~

my M136s never hit any vehicle target~ :mad:

[Juergen2SSDR]

Yes the original post was about frontal hits on the M1A2. I had 5 M1A2SEP Abrams in a Wedge formation. The Lead tank had just come into view of 3 T-62 and around 3 T-72 tanks. Rounds went down range and all 3 T-62's were destroyed, my M1A2 to the right of the lead tank, destroyed 2 T-72's sometime during the melee the lead Abrams which was "Facing" the enemy with no shot to its rear or flank possible was hit and brewed up immediately. The range of the T-62's was 1150 meters and the T-72 was about 1150+ to about 1250 meteres.

[Mishga]

Does multiple hits degrade the quality and stopping power? I mean, hit after hit after hit has to erode the plates? Would this be modelled?

[Juergen2SSDR]

The Abrams was hit Twice. So basicaly the battle lasted breifly.. about 35 seconds. The Abrams aquired the T-62's, fired, destroying 2. There were 3 obvious misses by the enemy tanks. The Abrams was hit, returned fire, at the same time the Abrams on the Right side of the lead tank Aquired the T-72's fired destroying one, the Lead Abrams fired destroying the remaining T-62. Somewhere during the last sequence the Lead Abrams took a hit, (I think from a T-72) no issues, the Flanking Abrams destroyed another T-72, and then the Lead Abrams took a hit in the front and Flames shot up. Of course the next phase of battle the remaining 4 Abrams destroyed another 8 Tanks, 1 Abrams was immobilized by sand-rock.

So ok the Abrams clearly domintated with the loss of 1 Abrams, and 1 Immobile (which in RL would have been fixed) to the loss of 15 enemy tanks.

The sad part is that 1 Abrams SEP probably costs about = to at least 10 of their tanks. ")