Jump to content

Companion

Members
  • Content Count

    263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Companion

  1. Like Ssnake said, wiki "armor painting" picture does not necessarily reflect actual armor model as implemented in game. Though it would give general idea. Current exception is T-90S I believe, which has bugged ERA right now that actually make the vehicle more vulnerable.

    One time, someone asked about a (in-game) Challenger 2 frontal turret penetration right under GPS by Leo 2A6E default KE ammo. Answer was that due to space needed for GPS housing, that part has only about half the armor thickness compared to rest of the turret front and is thus relatively weak. Wiki data does not reflect details and quirks like this.

  2. Well, what does "TOW" stand for? ;)
    Ähh. I think you don´t understand the working Procedure of a optical wire guided Missile....

    You can hold your ass out of the Turret, or make a dance around your Tank or set your "OTShU-1-7 IR" to work.

    This Missile is optical guided, so if you don´t kill the Gunner, he will kill you.

    SACLOS missile guidance system "talks" to the missile through wire, but it need to "see" the missile's IR beacon to talk proper guidance into it.

    IR dazzlers try to create ghosts for the guidance system to see and botch up the flight correction

  3. I can probably help answer that...

    Yes there can be many layers of armor on these tanks, they are quite complicated actually. I don't think we can go into a lot of technical detail, but in the old days it used to be one armor level on the outside shell of the model, but now there are layers of armor for ERA, outer inert armor, and inner crew compartment walls, as well as metal plates and inner components. It is pretty detailed.

    Whatever difference in protection in the T-80 and T-90 at the moment is likely due to the total of all these angles the round passes through to get into the inner compartment, and that hundreds of mm of protection are lost on the T-90 due to more extreme angles present in both the ERA and the inner armor (the steeper the angle, the larger the error).

    Other than that, instead of further speculation lets all just wait and try out the fix in the near future. ;)

    Thanks for answer. I just assumed that all Soviet/Russian tanks post T-64 have same 68 degrees glaces.

    Yeah, assumption is bad :redface:

  4. Ssnake, Thanks for fixing the issue.

    However I'm not sure if I understand the following:

    It affects all impacts with APFSDS rounds to the effect that they retain more energy when passing through an armor surface (irrespective of the impact angle).

    Does that mean in-game T-90 actually has two armor layers? (one ERA one main?)

    If so, is it same with other vehicles with ERA too? Because right now, T-80U, which uses same Kontakt-5 as T-90S, is much harder to kill.

  5. I don't know if the T-90S is a soft target vs what we can expect. The values that appear on the Armor LOS seem to be the best case for ERA working against a APFSDS. Many reasons why the ERA might not degrade the rod enough to stop the penetration of the rear armor.

    The M-829A2 is a very good round, and it should not surprise anyone that if your ERA isn't doing all it can you run a real risk of having it defeat the main armor.

    I think SB armor model operates on rather simple RHAe figures. Hence my original post.

  6. Your findings are interesting. I have done quite a few ballistic testings as well.

    In one of the test i tried to see how tough the front turret of the Leopard 2a5, 2E, Strv 122, M1A2 SEP, Challenger 2 is against the rounds such as the M829A3 and DM53 (fired from the L55).

    Point blank (under 100 m) I was able to penetrate the front turret cheeks of the M1A2 SEP and Challenger 2 with both rounds. The Leopard 2A5-like wedge turret was considerably tougher but i was able to penetrate it occasionally as well.

    I will try to do some more testing on T80Us and T90S soon.

    For T-80U, areas protected by ERA are quite resilient to M829A1 at various ranges.

    Against M829 and DM33, nigh impenetrable.

    Anything above M829A1 level cuts through easily, but that was to be expected.

  7. Good day sirs,

    I made this thread some months ago

    http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=19821

    and suggested a discrepancy between T-90's armor protection as represented in SB Wiki http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/T-90S

    and actual in-game model.

    The topic abruptly ended with dejawolf commenting "that's strange."

    With the new patch, I tried missions with T-90 again and felt nothing was changed regarding this (to be fair, there was nothing about T-90 armor in release notes after all)

    I ran the old testing mission about 10 times and saw no changes indeed.

    (as in: T-90, when hit on any location of the front hull, is easily defeatable with both M829A1 and A2 at ranges exceeding 2km)

    So I lowered the bar and used M829 and KE-W, which produced similar results at ranges 1000-1500. I disregarded obvious guaranteed penetration on driver's visor and lower hull of course.

    But the older rounds repeatedly failed to penetrate at very close sub-500m ranges.

    Now I am confused :confused:

    At any rate, if what I am observing is as it should be, (which would suggest that wiki data is obsolete) then I have no problem with it. I can make do with T-72M4 and older ammo to adjust mission difficulty to my liking.

    However, if there indeed is something amiss, please look into the issue.

    PS: can't upload screenshot image :confused:

    "The Dimension limits for this filetype are 700 x 0. We were unable to resize your file so you will need to do so manually and upload it again. Your file is currently 1075 x 690. "

    03-10-14_zip.b4fb1a55fb21e6bedb8bde3c0df

    03-10-14.zip

  8. SSnake, i changed the difficulty setting and it made no difference.

    As far as i know the Challenger 1 was engaging a static t-62 tank from about 5110 m. Neither vehicle was moving.

    In my scenario the t-80Us are moving towards me. In another we are both moving and in yet another scenario i am moving sideways while they engage me.

    Some T-80 and T-90 info that might be of relevance:

    http://www.kotsch88.de/f_t-80_fla.htm

    http://www.kotsch88.de/f_1g46.htm#ballrechner

    in English:

    http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=de&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kotsch88.de%2Ff_t-80_fla.htm

    http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=de&to=en&a=http://www.kotsch88.de/f_1g46.htm#ballrechner

    Again, in your test, try using something other than Eastern kit in T-80's place.

    I'm pretty sure that when crewed by AI, Leo AS1, M60, etc. would produce similar long range hits as T-80U did.

    Ssnake's reply above is what you're looking for; when AI shoots, dice roll dictates hit. It might be that dice rule need some adjusting to keep up with upgrades of the software.

    In any case, I highly doubt that there is some pro-Eastern kit bias as some posters here implied. (Quite the contrary, some of the Eastern kits are currently underrepresented)

  9. I just wonder how a t-80u can even hit a stationary or moving target from over 4000 m with KE rounds with the thermal/daysights it has. A target should not be more than a few pixels on the screen from that a distance in the thermals. The reticule will most likely be larger than the target in the optics. :c:

    I certainly cannot do it in a western T-80U contemporary like the Leopard 2a4 or Abrams (M1-M1A1HA). Why are these T-80U gunners just so good ? :Crash:

    I believe it's not the tank but the AI giving you problem.

    I won't have my dongle with me for some days so I can't run tests but did you try your test with NATO tanks on OPFOR side?

    I used to fool around with crewable T-72M1 against Western equipment and I remember experiencing similar excellent gunnery by AI.

  10. RE: Weak APFSDS for 115mm / 100mm

    The KE rounds modeled in-game for both calibers are very old vintage, from 60s~early 70s.

    I asked Ssnake quite a while ago about any plan to add more relatively modern rounds (70s~80s, plus some non-Russian export rounds) and the answer was that there simply isn't enough data for performance estimation of those later rounds.

    So... yeah, one would have to take that in mind when making scenarios with historical background.

    The current selection is good enough for Arab-Israeli war scenarios though. (100mm actually need even weaker rounds for early wars)

  11. And now I understand why the Brits rant and rave about their boiling vessels, it's about the only damn thing their tanks seem to have!

    Unless I'm missing something, the turret traverse is very touchy unless you hand crank it, and elevation is done solely by hand cranks?

    Well I thought T-62's slaved optic was bad... until Rarden tried to infect me with cancer.

    Now I wonder if Grom would trump Rarden in worst gun handling department.

  12. Yes, identical in all respects -- every single value (verified). So, if you perceive a difference then it is down to the subtle difference in round placement and luck.

    So both models have identical armor? Thank you for information.

    That explains a lot... though I did nowhere near enough repetitions to make even a remotely valid statistic lol :c:

    I took it for granted that in game A and B models would differ in armor model, B being later mod and all. But couldn't be so sure with what Esimgames chose among all those myriad of Soviet changes to T-64 armor configurations.

  13. yes Sb takes into consideration the edges of the ERA blocks. on the sides of the front hull where the headlights are for example, there's no ERA blocks. but some of those kills looks strange though.. most of those locations are at least 800mm LOS in the armour model.

    If the results seem strange even to you, there might indeed be a problem...

    I hope it's not too complicated.

    On a side note, I'm getting a mixed results from shooting T-64A/B with old 105mm rounds. It's as if A is better armored than B...

    At least both models' glacis KE resistance seems to be around 330. correct?

  14. attached a pic outlining the weakened area of the hull.

    Thanks for the picture

    So I've shot a few dozen more T-90s (shootings at about 1km) and results don't quite match with the picture.

    Added some screenshots. It seems M829A2 has a very high chance of getting through T-90A glacis.

    M829A1 seems to be able to pen only the driver cutout you've mentioned and the bottom of Kontakt block at the lower part of glacis.

    I also blew up a few T-80Us with M829A1 and it seems as if penetration is somewhat random within a boundary.

    In the T-80U screenshot, M829A1 sometimes pen and sometimes doesn't on that very spot on the glacis.

    Maybe AAR is not perfect as to showing exact hit location or I am doing something wrong?

    Oh, and one more thing: Does SB take into account the edges of each Kontakt block? The shooting I just did and past memory seems to suggest that M829A1 had a high chance of killing T-80U when landed on the seams where Kontakt blocks join together.

    56e83cf4428c0_loweredge.jpg.5f75f9aff314

    56e83cf446492_loweredge2.jpg.bd712b9f866

    56e83cf4496bf_extremeside.jpg.37108d816b

    56e83cf44ac7c_extremesideupper.jpg.9942f

    low.jpg.ed965e6fb1dcb72e610b64f2310738a6

    56e83cf450276_sidelower.jpg.633cc4043ee6

    t-80u.jpg.ea338725193de8450b135772bb0267

    56e83cf4428c0_loweredge.jpg.5f75f9aff314

    56e83cf446492_loweredge2.jpg.bd712b9f866

    56e83cf4496bf_extremeside.jpg.37108d816b

    56e83cf44ac7c_extremesideupper.jpg.9942f

    low.jpg.ed965e6fb1dcb72e610b64f2310738a6

    56e83cf450276_sidelower.jpg.633cc4043ee6

    t-80u.jpg.ea338725193de8450b135772bb0267

  15. Unless one is concerned about historicity of units for a given mission (i.e. using T-80U is not correct for a 1982 based scenario, etc.) armor/shell performance of opposing sides can be balanced with various tank/ammo combinations.

    So I'd say M1A2 would be the best proxy to approximate SA capability against fictional OPFOR.

  16. I've been running a few (admittedly unscientific) tests with various ammo types against the the T-90 and have noticed that most rounds later than the M829/DM33 generation are more than capable of taking the beast under 2500m. This may have a lot to do with a given tanks inherent accuracy (i.e. thanks to the CR2s good accuracy, even the crappy L27 performs well at those ranges), or perhaps it's that round to round dispersion doesn't really come in to effect below 3000m (e.g. the Slpprj m/95 appears to be a particularly poor performer because it seems to be everywhere on the target). Of course, its got a weak chin, and just about any hit below the front hull glacis is a guaranteed kill.

    You are talking about chance of hitting the weakly protected area on or near the tank's center mass.

    I was talking specifically about chance of penetrating the target when the shell hit the protected area of frontal hull glacis, not weak areas.

  17. if you're hitting centerpoint in the area around the drivers vision block you could be hitting the weakened glacis area. there's a fairly large cutout for the driver where the protection is only about ~621mm vs KE. it extends to the width of the coax port, and stretches downward somewhat below the mudshield on the glacis.

    I did some shootout test, about 2km, only did about few dozen targets though

    Using the armor paint picture you've posted earlier as reference:

    http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/9/9f/T90armour.jpg

    except for the 4-digit protection level corners, the whole glacis is a fair game for M829A2. Target tank either dies or gets damaged after every hit on that location.

  18. I'm certainly no expert on this, but could it be the rated penetration value of the M829A2 is the penetration at a certain range?

    I've seen some figures quoted on the various tank rounds in the SBWiki, and they seem to be ratings out to around 2km. So if the 770mm value is for penetration at 2km, and you mentioned you were under that range when engaging, you were possibly giving the M829A2 enough headroom to penetrate the T-90's heavier protected areas. I'm certain that closing the range against your targets does increase the penetrative power of the Kinetic Energy rounds as they have more velocity.

    Have you tried your scenario with M829A1's instead at those ranges?

    Didn't P0 meant pen at muzzle? Editor has pen values at "P0"

    I'll be sure to use A1 next time around

    Or I can just use chally :clin:

  19. I know SB uses abstracted RHAe estimation for both shell and armor but Is there some sort of close range bonus? Values slightly randomized maybe?

    I played a Zipuli's scen just now with friends but with equipment edited

    I thought M829A2 (770mm pen) would be not so reliable against T-90A glacis (800mm) even after accounting for vertical angle changes due to terrain but well, the round (thankfully) never failed once (cheked the AAR).

    Map being Finnish restricted terrain, virtually all fight occured under 2km, mostly about battlesight ranges. Maybe the range mattered?

    Any info would be helpful for those of us who likes to swap equipment in otherwise well balanced scenario; frankly, M1A2 w/ M829A2 vs T-90A w/BM42M felt rather easier than using M1A1HA against BM42 armed T-72M1.

    I know I should've playtested beforehand but equipment changes like that usually happens impulsively at the last moment :1:

  20. - Answers -

    Thanks, looking forward to Sinai OP anyway.

    Oh, and while minor armor model changes are not worth the wiki update, surely new additions - like... T-64, T-64 and... T-64 - are fair game? :)

    RE: Autoloader advantage: I remember Vasily from Tanknet once stated that main concern for going autoloader was to minimize crew performance degradation under NBC hazard ridden battlefield condition, as in sick/tired loader does his job far worse than similarly sickened gunner/commander.

    Truly scary days.

×
×
  • Create New...