Interesting ATGM observations vs BLUEFOR tanks

[DaveDash]

After a discussion in the I Love NATO thread about Tanks getting waxed by ATGMs, I decided to run some tests.

I had 4 firing lanes, at one end of each an AT-14 (Special Forces).

At the other end, I had a Leo 2A6, Challenger 2 (Enchanged), M1A1 SA, and M1A2 SEP all sit with their frontal armour facing the ATGMs. I let the ATGM's have at them from about 900m.

The Leo2A6 and M1A1 were the least survivable. Often being destroyed on the first shot.

The Challenger 2 was destroyed most of the time on the first shot, but in some occasions survived two or three shots. The crew would 'panic' or go 'shaken' quite a bit.

The M1A2 SEP on the other hand, is very difficult to knock out with the AT-14. Mobility kill, certainly, loads of damage, certainly, but in over 20 AT-14 shots (in separate runs) not a single M1A2 was lost. Also the crew never panicked and they spotted the AT-14 almost every time after the first shot.

The ATGM's also missed probably 1/5 shots.

Conclusion: AT-14 is deadly even against Leo's, M1A1's, and Challys even from the front. However, the M1A2 SEP is a different beast.

This strikes me as inaccurate/overmodelled, given in 2006 it was widely reported that the AT-14 was ineffective against the frontal armour of the Merkeva, and that tank has less frontal protection than all three tanks in game. I also get the feeling the Challenger 2 should be at least on par with the M1A2. There is a definite observable and measurable difference.

Queue Damien....

[Apache]

Glad it's not just me Dave!!! I really find the Leos go down quick against these and spotting/drawing fire with the Leos is WAAAAAY to risky unless they immediately reverse from a forward move which JUST has them probe into AT14 LOS and with a gazillion infantry spotters on the ground to see where the shot came from!!

I dare not use any armour at all unless these are cleared, which in many ways is realistic, but maybe to biased in the AT14s favour in some cases.

[gibsonm]

Well it may not be entirely accurate but you are at least learning the fundamentals of combined arms.

Now you just need to add artillery (either smoke or HE) to assist with the suppression process and things will start to come together.

Think about it, if you use a tank to unmask / draw anti armour fire (that is weapon systems primarily designed to kill tanks) then you are going to end up with damaged / destroyed tanks.

Its like saying "I think there's a MG over there so I'll stand up here until it fires at me" and then complain because you were in its beaten zone.

[gibsonm]

Oh yes and its Challenger 2 (Enhanced).

[gibsonm]

Here's a link to a similar thread where we covered almost exactly the same ground (Principles of Employment of Armour):

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94218

Positively ancient I know because its at least a fortnight old.

Using "search" is often better than asking people to repost the same stuff over and over (and over) again.

[Lethaface]

In this game the M1A2SEP is perhaps the best armoured tank there is. While I don't know if this is accurate (probably not so many persons on the world REALLY know), I try to live with it. And besides that, frontal armour is not the only important asset of a tank. It might be one of the most obvious, but speed/silhouette/ammo/side protection/optics suite are all also quite important.

When the Leopard 2A6 for that matter is quite on par with the M1A2SEP, it doesn't necessarily mean it has the same frontal armor protection.

The only one that could really say more about this ingame is Steve I reckon, since he is the one deciding the armour 'stats'. Could be a small bug in it, but overall I don't think the leo's are underarmoured. Perhaps the M1A2SEP is a little over-armoured.

The AT-14 is a very capable ATGM; reports regarding it being ineffective vs the front of the Markava 4 are not of that kind I would be a fortune on it.

[ZPB II]

Indeed, I have no idea whether the armor on the M1A2SEP is accurate, but I am personally fine with the fact that AT-14s go through the front plate of the other tanks. There is very little data on this so I would treat the missile as a solid threat, I would never be confident enough to trust my life with estimates on how much chemical energy protection the chobham gives. But the AT-14 is one of the most modern pieces of AT kit and it's punching through the things it was designed to.

I assume we will never find out the truth.

[Rayak47]

Maybe the North Koreans will help us sort this out! I wonder if this is because of the depleted Uranium armor in the M1, I don't think any other tank uses it? Where did Merkava's come up against AT-14's? Test Range?

[Damian90]

M1A1SA and M1A2SEP have the same armor, I don't know why in game M1A1SA have less armor and is lighter.

When tanks are upgraded, they recive the same armor package, I even saw official document that say, that tanks recive the same armor package. In fact M1A2SEP got only better electronics and have A/C system + some M1A2SEP's have UAAPU, some don't have them.

Of course it depends where tank is hit, if in gun mask, then it will be penetrated, if in glacis plate by such powerfull ATGM, over driver seat, then it is penetrated. Dunno about lower front hull, but it is thick slab of multilayer laminate armor, same as in turret front.

The M1A1HC and M1A2 also have the same weight and armor protection, they only differs with digital package and sensors quality.

USMC M1A1FEP have probably the same protection level as M1A1SA and M1A2SEP.

M1 weak zone:

Challenger 2 have protection level, similiar if not the same as modern M1 variants. Only the armor distribution is different over hull, so weak zone of Challenger 2 is looking this way:

In Challenger 2 Telic variant, this big weak zone over hull front is protected by ROMOR-A ERA so it have at least some protection against single warhead HEAT rounds.

In Challenger 2 Enhanced is actually better protected and that weak zone is covered by bolt-on module of Dorchester armor, same as on turret front.

Leopard 2 series are actually the most lightly armored. This is how weak zones look on them.

*green area on Leopard 2A5/A6 is the zone where armor is still weaker.

It all not perfect but gives idea how it looks.

Maybe the North Koreans will help us sort this out!

The don't have 9M133.

I wonder if this is because of the depleted Uranium armor in the M1, I don't think any other tank uses it?

Actually it is not only depleted uranium, it is a multilayer laminate armor that use different materials like rubber, resin, steel, depleted uranium alloy, probably something else (some ballistic ceramic materials?), the frontal turret armor thickness is actually 960mm from the M1IP variant onwards, the original M1 have frontal turret thinner by 220mm so it was 740mm thick.

The DUA or Depleted Uranium Armor was introduced first in 1988 on M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) variant, it was first generation, most of other it's components were similiar to older Burlington armor, popularly known as Chobham.

In 1990's US introduced M1A1HC (Heavy Common) version with 2nd generation DUA armor, weight increased to 62,500kg's, other variants equipped with this armor were:

M1A1HA+ (older HA's and slick A1's upgraded only by changing their armor), M1A1D (Digital, 116 builded for two battalions, better electronics in pair with M1A2's), M1A2.

In XXI century under new upgrade program, M1 tanks recived 3rd generation DUA armor, it is believed that 2nd and 3rd generation DUA armor is very similiar to British Dorchester armor found on Challenger 2, but differs in composition.

M1 tank variants equipped with this armor are, M1A1SA, M1A1FEP and M1A2SEP. Weight increased to 63,100kg's.

Where did Merkava's come up against AT-14's? Test Range?

Lebanon 2006.

Non Merkava Mk.4 was completely destroyed by AT weapons, only one was badly damaged, and one destroyed by huge IED. Only Merkava Mk.2B's were destroyed, no info's on Mk.3, but as I believe only few casualties.

BTW. Here is topic about modern armors, some info's are old and outdated of course, some are newer, but gives a good amount of usefull info's.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90432

[gibsonm]

M1A1SA and M1A2SEP have the same armor, I don't know why in game M1A1SA have less armor and is lighter.

Well its lighter in part because the M1A2SEP has the CITV and a bunch of other non armour related "stuff" hanging off it that the M1A1 doesn't.

[Rayak47]

Thanks Damian, good stuff!

[Damian90]

Well its lighter in part because the M1A2SEP has the CITV and a bunch of other non armour related "stuff" hanging off it that the M1A1 doesn't.

Oh yeah, CITV is definetly weighting a few tons... just think how silly this is.

How much more weight can be added by CITV, TC FBCB2 and CITV flat panels, VCSU, TMS, still M1A1SA have FBCB2 and the same armor, so both tanks weight is on the 63,100kg's level.

[gibsonm]

Well as someone who has helped fit one, they aren't light.

I'm just saying its not necessarily as simple as you suggest.

[akd]

Lebanon 2006.

Non Merkava Mk.4 was completely destroyed by AT weapons, only one was badly damaged, and one destroyed by huge IED. Only Merkava Mk.2B's were destroyed, no info's on Mk.3, but as I believe only few casualties.

And December 2010, apparently.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4002366,00.html

Not sure if it was Merkava 4.

[Damian90]

Well as someone who has helped fit one, they aren't light.

I'm just saying its not necessarily as simple as you suggest.

Weight will be same for both variants, because armor is common, gunner primary sight and FCS is common or very similiar (should be common, because such is plan), amount of ammo is same, 18 in ready ammo rack, 18 in semi-ready ammo rack and 6 in hull storage, amount of ammo in turret ammo racks were increased in M1A1HC from 17 in ready and 17 in semi-ready.

The only true differences between M1A1SA and M1A2SEP are:

ICWS and older CWS, VCSU and TMS, UAAPU and EAPU, CITV.

So we can safely assume that M1A1SA weights around 63,000kg and M1A2SEP 63,100kg, so the weight is actually allmost same, and USMC M1A1FEP is analog to M1A1SA.

And December 2010, apparently.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...002366,00.html

Not sure if it was Merkava 4.

Could be Mk.4, one of several Mk.3 variants or one of several Mk.2 variants, nobody knows.

[gibsonm]

So we can safely assume that M1A1SA weights around 63,000kg and M1A2SEP 63,100kg, so the weight is actually allmost same, and USMC M1A1FEP is analog to M1A1SA.

Well you are welcome to assume.

However I know that the CITV by itself is more than the 100kg delta that you are assuming.

Of course as a serving officer I'm bound by some documents (and a concern about colleagues in action overseas) that others who publish nice pretty pictures that basically say "aim here" aren't.

[Damian90]

Even if CITV itself weight more than 100kg, this doesen't mean that M1A1SA combat weight is 57,000+ kg as the game data shows currently. Still weight will be in 62,000-63,000kg level.

[DaveDash]

Oh yes and its Challenger 2 (Enhanced).

Woops! Ridiculous typo on my part.

[gibsonm]

I thought it may have been some “helpful” autotext somewhere.

[DaveDash]

Further testing:

I stuck the tanks behind a 2m high berm, so each tank was 'Spotter is in hull down'.

Results:

Test 1

Leo2 Survived

M1A2 Survived

Challenger 2 Survived

Test 2

Leo2 Survived

M1A2 Survived

Challenger 2 Survived

Test 3

Leo2 Destroyed

M1A2 Survived

Challenger 2 Survived

Test 4

Leo2 Destroyed

M1A2 Survived

Challenger 2 Survived

Test 5

Leo2 Destroyed

M1A2 Survived

Challenger 2 Survived

Test 6

Leo2 Survived

M1A2 Survived

Challenger 2 Survived

Test 7

Leo2 Survived

M1A2 Survived

Challenger 2 Survived

Test 8

Leo2 Destroyed

M1A2 Survived

Challenger 2 Destroyed

Test 9

Leo2 Survived

M1A2 Survived

Challenger 2 Survived

Test 10

Leo2 Survived

M1A2 Survived

Challenger 2 Survived

Leo2 Survival Rate: 60%

M1A2 Survival Rate: 100%

Challenger 2 Survival Rate: 90%

Observations:

1. The Leo2 only took 2 direct hits that it survived. The other shots hit the berm. The M1A2 SEP took a lot of hits and survived them all. The Challenger 2 also took a few direct hits.

2. Spotting ability is reduced from the Tanks being in hull down (It seems to LOS is drawn from the middle of the vehicle)

3. No mobility kills, although bad track damage, even though this part of the tank was protected by the berm.

4. Leo2's are too vulnerable to use in an AT-14 environment. Best just leave them back or in keyholed positions until AT-14's are cleared out.

5. M1A2's have no need to fear AT-14's

6. Chally 2's can be used to support your troops from hull down positions, if you are willing to accept a 10% (or there abouts) attrition rate.

7. Unless it's a M1A2, never move your tanks out of hull down while AT-14s are around. And you shouldnt move your M1A2 out of hull down anyway, but some situations may require it.

[DaveDash]

More tests with the Leo 2A6 on 'Excellent' equipment to see if it made any difference, and no it doesnt. It's very unlikely it will survive a hit from the AT-14, however being behind a berm offers it considerably more protection. Still too risky to use them if you don't want to lose them in an AT-14 rich environment.

[Apache]

I agree 100% with your Leo conclusions as a result of countless reloads of the 'live' mission 1 in the German campaign (I don't normally do reloads but on the first mission do it LOADS to practice tactical options and get to grips with the system). My Leo's stay hidden until I am 80-90% certain there are no AT14s left or they are well suppressed by arty fire. Even then the Leos will crest ridges 2 or even 4 at a time!!!

[gibsonm]

Even then the Leos will crest ridges 2 or even 4 at a time!!!

But why are you going over the crest?

Stick to the low ground and go around them.

You should only be near the top of a crest if:

1. Turret down doing a recce (that is standing on the turret roof using your binos, with the entire rest of the vehicle concealed), or

2. Hull down supporting the move of the vehicles that are using the low ground to move to the next position. If you are doing that you need to “jockey” (fire one round, reverse come back up 100m+ away from your last location and start over) between rounds. and when you move to the next feature you reverse into dead ground and move around the feature to the next position supported by the other vehicles in the Tp / Pl.

See Post #5 above for a link to videos describing “Jockeying” and “bounds”.

[JonS]

One tactic I've found useful is to 'suck' the ATGMs out of the enemy. It's pretty risky ... not least because you never really know when they've shot off all their missiles, but it can work.

It takes quite a while too.

The basic idea is to expose your tank for long enough to cause the enemy to fire, then rely on the relatively slow speed of the ATGMs to then reverse out of LOS before the missile arrives. Then rinse and repeat as many times as necessary. It obviously won't work on autonomous missiles like Javelin (at least, not reliably). But against wire-guided missiles is works reasonably ok.

I suppose it's a form jockeying that Mark was talking about, except that it isn't necessary to spot any thing or shoot at anything to get a useful result as long as ou suck a missile out of the bad guys.

[gibsonm]

And it only works in RT (unless you are really, really lucky).