narciso Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I managed to hit an Abrams with an AT-5 launched from a BMP-2 but the tank suffered no damage. Distance was about 100 meters. It was a lateral hit (turret or hull I´m not sure). I have readed that the AT-5 perforates 800mm(!) of armour so... what´s wrong? Anyway, the Abrams is a beast! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 TUSK has reactive armor. Also, partial penetrations show no damage unless they also strike a component that can be damaged. Distance, of course, is irrevelant to damage inflicted by HEAT warheads. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 What is the minimum arming range for that missile again? You might literally have been to close. What happened to the BMP? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustman Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I managed to hit an Abrams with an AT-5 launched from a BMP-2 but the tank suffered no damage. Distance was about 100 meters. It was a lateral hit (turret or hull I´m not sure). I have readed that the AT-5 perforates 800mm(!) of armour so... what´s wrong? Anyway, the Abrams is a beast! First, the 800mm is standard steel armor....the Abrams armor is layered DU, which is considerably more dense. Second, as already been mentioned, the TUSK upgrade includes reactive armor, so chances are, the rocket probably barely scratched the paint on the DU. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 If the BMP was closer than the arming range of the missile would they even fire? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricochet67 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Challengers are equally resilient. During one of the British campaign missions, I had 2 or 3 CR2s survival frontal hits from AT-5s, albeit with damage to smoke launchers, sights and so forth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 What is the minimum arming range for that missile again? You might literally have been to close. What happened to the BMP? AT-5 minimum range according to the Worldwide Equipment Guide is 75m so it looks like he wasn't too close. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 First, the 800mm is standard steel armor....the Abrams armor is layered DU, which is considerably more dense. Second, as already been mentioned, the TUSK upgrade includes reactive armor, so chances are, the rocket probably barely scratched the paint on the DU. Oh you are very wrong my friend. :-) Lower Front Hull, Turret Front and Turret Side armor is layers of steel (RHA) plates with different hardness, Ceramic honeycombs/matrix's, rubber, other metals like titanium or/and alluminium and finnaly DU with graphite coating (DU is in graphite coat and this is put into steel shell) and probably also WHA. Turret front have LOS thickness 875-900mm, side 350-400mm, lower front hull 550mm. What are real steel armor equvalent of US multilayer laminate armor with DU is uknown, there are estimations but still only estimations. One is certain, 2nd. gen. armor on M1A1HA+/HC and M1A2 and 3rd. gen. armor on M1A1SA/FEP and M1A2SEP can whistand on frontal armor probably all and most modern currently used AT ammo (this means KE = APFSDS and CE = HEAT). My question is, where ATGM score the hit? Over frontal arc (up to 30 deegres from the center line of turret or hull)? Or side? Side turret on M1's (dunno what model, but probably this is not for M1A1SA/FEP and M1A2SEP with 3rd. gen. armor, there is big possibility that new armor have completely new structure of inserts) is estimated over 0 deegres at 500-550mm RHAe vs. CE, about 300-350mm vs. KE. IRCC. Hull side over driver station is estimated 900mm RHAe vs. CE and max 300mm RHAe vs. CE over rest of lenght. T.U.S.K. add's significant protection with ASPRO-R/ARAT-I XM19 ERA/NERA tiles, but how much I don't know, but it is possible that it fully protect agains such threats, we know that Russian T-72BW (BV in the west) sustain no damage over side hull protected by Kontakt-1 (that is less advanced ERA) when hit by even ATGM's in Grozny. Still dunno how really good is side turret protection in three newest M1 variants, maybe same as side hull protected by ARAT-I, so these can mean more than 800mm RHAe vs. CE. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narciso Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 What is the minimum arming range for that missile again? You might literally have been to close. What happened to the BMP? The BMP survived barely one minute because there were too many Abrams! I´m almost sure I was in range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narciso Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 Replying to Damian90´s question, the Abrams was moving at rigtht angles to my BMP´s course. I don´t have video or screenshots, but probably the hit was outside the 30º area you mention. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Well everything depends also on what angle ATGM hit, not the angle of vehicle facing threat but you know what. ;-) Or it hit the side skirt with ARAT, who knows. Well, whatever happened, in the game and in real life M1 is tough mother****er. :-) And even with perforation of armor, if crew was lucky, and hit doesen't damage internal equipment or ignite ammo in it compartments, tank can be still in operational status iwth crew slightly injured, funny this is effect of wasting the internal volume space, when i.e. in Leopard 2 interior is much more cramped and crew can occur much more injuries or tank can be damaged or destroyed more likely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan8325 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I've seen one of my Challengers take a hit that injured two crew members but didn't damage any vehicle components. It was during a quick battle by a T-72 and i'm not sure if it was KE or HEAT. Does CM:SF model crew injuries due to shock or concussion even if there is no penetration? Or does a penetration have to occur to cause crew casualties? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 This is strange, modern multilayer laminate armor can absorb such shock wave from KE round, HEAT have much less weight etc. so it don't generate such shock wave's. Where your tank recieve hit? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan8325 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 This is strange, modern multilayer laminate armor can absorb such shock wave from KE round, HEAT have much less weight etc. so it don't generate such shock wave's. Where your tank recieve hit? I don't quite remember but I believe it was in the side. It may have penetrated and just damaged the crew but not the components. There is no penetration vs. non-penetration feedback so it's hard to tell. The crew injuries were yellow BTW, not red. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Alan8325, Did this Challenger of yours get knocked out (even though none of its components were damaged)? So many times I've suffered an MBT knocked out even though none of the crew are wounded (not even just yellow) and no critical components are damaged (that is, the engine, tracks, radio, main gun, etc., are still intact). In any case, the situation of your Challenger shows how detailedly things are modeled in this game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan8325 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 No, it wasn't knocked out. It eventually got knocked out by another hit later though. I've seen vehicles get knocked out without showing any (or much) component or crew damage too. I've asked about this in another thread and the answer I got was that once a vehicle is knocked out, the component damage list is irrelevant. In other words, every component could be completely destroyed by the hit that knocks the vehicle out, and just before you see the crew bail it could still show all components as bold green crosses. EDIT: Here is the link to Steve's post explaining how the damage system works. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1134614&postcount=9 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Well, in M1 if perforation (penetration is different thing) was occured, but non vital component of the tank was damaged and crew is safe they should stay in tank and fight, other thing is panic or something but crew usuall should stay in tank, even if someone is lightly injured. Remember one M1A1HC of US.Army that was hit by PG-7 in side hull (and to be even worser, beetwen segments of side heavy balistic skirt), gunner was injured, TC was injured, TC control panels was damaged but tank go back to FOB on his own tracks. So as you see this is not so easy to knock out M1 even perforatiing armor over crew compartment. For CR2 this is much more difficult, ammo is in crew compartment, propelant charges also (in "armored" bins), so if shaped charge jet or KE penetrator perforate armor it can ignite HESH rounds or propelant charges, and this is no good for crew and tank, so crew will probably bail out, well, I in such situation knowing what can happen, I just make decision to bail out. You see, this depends on situation and in what tank you ride, but besides M1 in all tanks situation will be similiar like in CR2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Actually there are two types of AT-5 missiles. The first is the Spandrel AT-5 and the other is the Spandrel AT-5B. The second is a tandem warhead. The first has a rated penetration of 650 mm of RHA, the second is rated at 925 mm RHA. I believe the game uses the first type. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.