Assassin 7

1-1 please 

The M1A1 Gyroscopes can take a heavy impacts and high Overpressure with slightly damaging effects. Got to remember these get slammed around during Field Training Maneuvers. I actually have see one get caught of in the Turret while traversing and ending up damaging the Turret Screen and not so much the Gyroscope Protection Cover. After that event the FF Gyroscope passed the 1800 test. I have seen some fail during Testing and after being hit with a Hammer, it would pass. The M1A2 has a backup Stabilization System as the Tank tries to keep the FCS in a Stabilization Fighting Capability until a component completely fails. SB damaging models are very basic as it’s not a maintenance Simulator but at the same time it’s a great Crew Training tool as teaching the Crew to fight from a degraded environment after being hit and taking damages.

A21 please

For the 2nd Gen Block 2 FLIR v6.0 to be implemented on the SEP.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8fuzgoBfEKM

A11 please

On 8/20/2022 at 4:43 AM, Volcano said:

OK so I did identify an area that could be improved (that I mentioned previously I would look into after investigating whether it was justified).  Specifically, as mentioned previously, there is the turret ring and above this is the bottom floor of the front armor array of the turret, and it exists in real life. Below this panel is the turret ring (bearings, gears, etc) and above this is armor. This is a somewhat unique feature of most Soviet tanks as far as I can tell, because on western tanks the frontal and side turret armor extends past and overhangs the turret ring.

 

So in the case of the T-72, T-80, T90, we call this area the "turret ring upper lip". As I said before, if you shoot it from a perfectly level elevation, then if you hit the turret ring you could end up firing across that flat surface and its a very similar situation to firing across the top of the hull in the area of the driver's hatch. See the pink arrow in the following image (the thick frontal turret armor layer is removed in this image, along with the ERA and other parts - as you can see by the wireframe)...

 

 

At that exact angle of attack, it would run across that "upper lip", as I described. I would think this would be rare, even though it seems to be some sort of near-mass hysteria that it protects the tank from most hits, and even just the slightest slope of the shooter or the target would reduce this effect. This flat angle of penetration would generate a very thick surface, but fortunately this thickness was capped since 4.2. Still, it was too high, and I was able to improve this by making it at most, 100mm KE RHA, which seems to be realistic. So, at least that should improve. But that is about the limit of what can be done here -- there is only so much a simulation can that is taking account all these surfaces of armor and different angles.

 

(And no, I unable to explain the above image further -- its only intended to show what I was earlier describing -- that I wasn't just blowing smoke.)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Apart from the improvement, which may or may not help what was discussed originally. But I guess it can't be as worse as it was before, being 600mm KE RHA across that flat surface, versus 100mm KE RHA after this change. So imagine: 100mm RHA, plus the ~600mm RHA of the frontal turret armor, plus the K5 ERA (if hit) which is also at an angle, plus the loss of penetration of the KE round over range (around say, ~50mm RHA per 1000 meters or so as a general rule of thumb). And, as we should be able to see: its not a guarantee, either way.  If the ERA is blasted away on a previous hit, it would be a better situation though, so at least there is that possibility of the ERA equipped tank's defenses being deteriorated with repeated hits. 

 

So now, in a noble attempt to help cut down on this repeating AAR-screen-shot-analysis type discussion in the future, there are some things that I want to try to VERY BROADLY AND GENERALLY explain here, as much as I understand them (and I hope no one takes it as an invitation to get into a scientific wiener-measuring contest on the details): 

 

(Note that I am also not trying to insult anyone's intelligence here - just not going to assume what is known and not known).

 

• In general (talking about the other AAR events now) the behavior of an extreme-angle surface causing the surface to be much thicker is NOT unrealistic, especially now with the multiplier cap that I mentioned before, and will explain more about below (the unrealistic behavior before 4.2 was that it wasn't capped, so you could end up with infinite RHA levels of thickness). 
• So, in real life, when a round is fired across this extreme-angle (ie. flat) surface, the extreme angle is going to in turn make the surface very thick. There is that real-world photo of the tank on the firing range that was hit in the driver's hatch, where it showed the round's path before it lost energy and remained. I believe it was posted in this very thread, above. We actually used that photo and what we knew about the target and ammo type to come up with the current cap on this flat surface-thickness multiplier value, to cap it at a realistic level (again, back in 4.2). So that if, in SB, you fired the same round at the same target, you would get a similar result. 
• Even though a round might penetrate an extreme angle surface (like the driver's hatch area), it doesn't mean that any damage would or should occur, unless an actual internal component (like the driver's face) is hit. This is because once the round penetrates at that thickness, it can be considered a marginal penetration with not so much energy remaining (it comes down to the ol' die roll).
• All vehicles benefit from this behavior, even the M1 tanks. Examples that come to mind are the flat surface of the M1's upper hull front when in a good hull down position that has the tank partially tilted to the rear (it was intentionally designed that way), or the top roof of the tank when hit from the front at an extreme angle. The point is, these extreme angles can be all over any tank, of any type, depending on the precise location and direction that the impact hit. This is not specific to the T-72 in SB, nor in real life.
• Very broadly and generally speaking here, it must be removed from our minds that modern APFSDS rounds "deflect" or "ricochet" when hitting a target, such as the thought that at a extreme angle an APFDS round would deflect into a turret ring, or driver's compartment. I used to think the same way before it was explained to me years ago. While it is true that these modern APFSDS rounds do deflect off the ground, that is dirt not steel. When hitting steel at 1500+ meters per second, the dart basically plows forward like a bullet in ballistic gel - I guess you could say as the simplest analogy. If it got to the point that it would "deflect" while penetrating steel, then it would break up as far as it was explained to me, in which case there isn't much penetrating going on after that occurs.  But the point is, exact scientific details aside, the idea that an APFDS dart would hit a thick extreme angle steel plate at that extreme velocity and just deflect into the inside of the crew compartment is primarily false. The deflecting-rounds-off-armor scenario is really in the realm of a full-bore AP rounds of WW2 or post war era which had much less velocity (the feared full-bore 88mm L56 AP rounds had a velocity of "just" 800-950 meters per second), or perhaps modern AP autocannon rounds. If anything, the BR-412 AP round on the T-55 would/should work that way, I suppose. Anyway, again I am speaking generally here and am heavily simplifying it, and therefore opening myself up to attack, but the main point being that it is NOT a correct assumption as to what *should* happen, which seems to give people the impression of a "bug" or flaw in the representation.
• When firing a round at this extreme angle, we have to understand that this is both the the worst and least common possible situation. Requiring a follow-up round in such situations to achieve an effect at all, or a greater effect, is not unrealistic. 
• These armored vehicles have armored plates of all sorts of angles and thicknesses all over the vehicle, and most of this is represented on the armor models too. The more complex the armor models have gotten over the years, the more of these situations that are present (as opposed to the old "shells" of SB 2.0 days where the armor model was simply the shell or shape of the visual model). So a vehicle isn't always some precise thickness that will generate a reliable result. Thickness varies greatly by location and angle of attack, and how many surfaces the round penetrated, each at their own angles. There are all sorts of possibilities where no damage will happen. Simulation gamers often expect some kind of effect of some kind with each impact, in by virtue of a simple comparison of penetration power of the round versus the known armor of the vehicle, but I would say it is unrealistic and not based in reality to do so. This is why people shouldn't get so wrapped up in that part of it, and why a "die roll" at the end of process in simulations works realistically enough. In-depth analysis of every AAR event is not something that is going to be worth while in that regard, especially when factoring in other realities (that the events themselves are snap shots of at that moment in time, and don't 100% exactly always represent the precise situation in a Network Session, for example, then the fact that the hit-ray is a fat rod (to make it easy to visualize), when in reality the impact is a point coordinate in 3D space). Is it in the center of that hit-ray at that specific time of the snap shot? I don't think anyone knows - but generally its close enough. 
• Having said all those points, it then comes down to the individual AAR image being posted, then we look at it internally and say essentially "does that look grossly unrealistic or impossible"? And the answer is usually "no", knowing how it all works (short of say a .50 cal HMG round hitting the fender of a tank and causing the tank to explode, as an example of a grossly unrealistic and impossible situation). 

 

Now hopefully that helps shed some general light, that no doubt someone might not be happy with or will want to sharp shoot the details of, but again, the goal here was a general and simplified explanation. Without understanding these points, then every update will continue to bring about the same discussions, as if any of this has changed, which then might make it seem like we are just "defending SB" when we explain the screen shots. (That is not to say that there aren't bugs form time to time though).

 

In this particular case something was found to be improved, so that is good, but that is one specific situation out of a host of posted AAR events where it seems that the goal was to call into question the general behavior, so its why I think a detailed explanation was warranted. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So all that said, whether or not this improvement to the "turret ring upper lip" on the T-tanks allows them to be killed in a precise shot at that exact angle, is unknown - but the math does the rest, which is what we rely on totally here (there are no hands on the scales with tailored results to meet a particular expectation. So after this improvement, if it isn't possible to penetrate with the same hit, then its the math, and this would also then more than likely be true in reality as well. My guess though, it probably will penetrate sometimes killing the vehicle, but majority of the time damaging it there.

 

That is about all the time that can be devoted here, unfortunately. Anyway, in the pursuit of perfection some good came from all this, and it is worth trying to explain it if it hopefully means less questions in the future.  😎

Thanks for the investigation and time devoted into this, the adjustments and the explaining. I appreciate the response and thanks for all the other bugs that your guys are investigating and fixing for the others in this Community.

23 minutes ago, Willykurtz said:

IRL you can't control it from inside tank. 

Just look at it from 3:09.

Interesting 

28 minutes ago, DB101 said:

Hi. Does anyone know how to adjust the turret traversing speed in T-72B3? If I start playing with T-72B3 not combat ready, the turret traverses very slowly after I complete the procedures to power on hydraulics, stabilization and autoloader. And is there any manual for T-72B3? Thanks.

This is more than likely not correct as it was pulled from a WT form. But someone mentioned about the Traversing Speed of the T-72B3 in WT which there was a discussion about it. But anyways here is what was provided there. I’m sure some T-Tank Experts here have an accurate answer

The 2E58 which gives it a rotation speed of 35 degrees/sec. The 2E42-4 is correct at 24 degrees/sec

A11 please

Thanks again and we do appreciate the investigation on this. 👍

1 minute ago, Volcano said:

As I explained previously, the first shot is into that turret ring area that I already described.  The second shot is along the horizontally flat hull roof. This has been extreme angle now has a cap on how much it magnifies its thickness (since about 4.2 or so), but that doesn't mean its guaranteed to have enough energy left over after penetration to do anything, it would be up to a die roll.

 

Nothing is changed here. 

Ok

To add: we are also seen these kind of results on other Tanks as well. Such as Tank taking direct hits to the Tracks or suspension with no damage and some times it does. Seems to be randomly happening but more often than less

There is also some error in the AAR too, its not scientifically precise. Its a snap shot of roughly the time around the impact, with a big fat hit ray in roughly the area of impact, and of course there are all sorts of considerations going on there, with network accuracy, and so on. It's really hard to hold anything as some kind of microscope level of analysis, and the only thing that can be considered an actual obvious problem - like where a T-72 would be hit in the direct side-on flank multiple times with no damages at all and a hit ray that doesn't penetrate (things like that). 
 

would that explain these shots too? As they could actually be offset from what they show? They are less than 1000m shots

6 minutes ago, Volcano said:

I suppose it is only natural for something new to be scrutinized with a microscope. 😵  

 

First of all, that SBwiki page literally has so far just been a few minutes of hasty copy pasting and retyping from the T-72B1's page.  The stuff about the protection was something that I just typed over from what was already there, so it certainly isn't reliable enough to hold as some kind of ultimate truth. Although it does say "+K5 ERA".

 

However, the T-72B3 armor model is finished and fully functional; it is NOT some kind of work in progress. It is quite literally a T-72B1 with K5 ERA instead of K1 ERA, and some other small obvious differences. The math is exactly the same, the values are exactly the same, the damages are exactly the same. The main difference is that the K5 ERA does provide significant protection over K1 ERA and is exponentially better, especially because its wedge shaped, and provides significant KE protection over K1 ERA. Now of course, as explained, the ERA is a very tricky thing to represent, and you can't really get it 100% correct in a computer simulation, in relation to KE, HE, HEAT, but its probably about as good as it can be to get the desired effects.

 

So, there is nothing to it really, no bells, no whistles, no extra ordinary things, it is what it is - essentially not much different than the other T-72 armor models, but with better ERA. 

 

I did a few test firings with M829A3, firing into the T-72B3 turret front thickest part of the tank (through K5 ERA), and it does penetrate with crew casualties. Those results are expected.

If you are getting no effect type impacts on the turret, then likely you are hitting it low on the turret front, just above the turret ring. In this area there is a is a horizontal "lip" on the vehicle, where the turret ring extends from and the inner turret wall extends to (connecting the two, kind of like an inner armor floor). Here you would impacting across a sort of flat surface that extends from the turret ring itself, towards the inside of the vehicle. This would be directly similar to hitting the roof of the driver's compartment at an extreme angle. This surface is not very thick (the thickness of the turret roof), and we do cap the impact angle multiplier now since 4.2 or 4.3 (a huge improvement), but right behind that lower "lip" it would then pass into the the back wall of the front turret armor, so you would also be passing through the entirety of that too - three difference surfaces. This is the absolute worst place to hit the turret.  This is true for all T-72s, and isn't an error in modelling, although its probably at the upper limit of what a simulation can represent (a round is passing through multiple thick surfaces, at very different and extreme angles). Still, either way, real life or not, this would be the absolute thickest part of the turret.

 

 

Awesome response and thank you for the explanation 👍

16 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

The armor model hasn't changed (other than introducing the T-72B3 which is obviously a change). The interaction between target and projectile has changed slightly. Damage probabilities may have changed slightly, but certainly not in a radical way. To be honest, while second-guessing the damage model is legitimate, I think this is one of the cases where people read too much into single incidents to start with, and maybe also have exaggerated expectations about what a real-time simulation can deliver, or what the quality of available, unclassified base data is.

Once that a projectile perforates the outer shell, what happens inside is no longer an exact science. It can't be, with hundreds of vehicles simulated in Steel Beasts. We place components inside where we know them to be. We do not follow each and every fragment of projectile and armor material that may be bouncing around inside, possibly also tracking its temperature, shape, initial trajectory, and elastic and unelastic collisions with internal components and their shapes. We set a certain damage percentage that "feels right" and scales somewhat with the residual energy of the projectile as it enters certain compartments or components.

 

Would an APFSDS entering the turret ring area kill the driver with 90% likelihood? Yeah, maybe.

Why not 91.8%? 88.35%? 94.8882% on a Wednesday afternoon with wind coming at 5m/s from the rear left?

Who knows!

 

There are no data. Where you get declassified experimental results (such as from the Conqueror trials) they are 50 years old, or more. Above all, these experimental results cannot be directly transferred, they aren't standardized even where they are available (and mostly, they aren't).

The results from Steel Beasts can only be trusted in aggregate. Shoot a T-72 a hundred times, and in 70% of the time it'll blow up. 100% of the time, if you manage to hit the right spot. But outside of calibrated experiments, in virtual combat, lining up shots with such precision simply doesn't happen. The lesson to take home is, sometimes strange shit happens. If it happens often, there's reason for concern. But then you need to run your shootings at least two, better four dozen times.

Understood and thanks for the response, FYI I have seen these results while playing several different missions.At first I was skeptical about the results considering I was just having a ton of bad luck but after seeing the same results at semi-close Ranges such as around 1000 meters and under, I decided to report this. I’m not honestly trying to make a big deal but it just didn’t seem right and from being a previous Armor Crewmen and Mechanic and etc. Thanks again

23 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

First of all, since 4.268 grazing impacts  (finest example isdriver's  compartment roof of T-72) are essentially diverted in to vehicle's interior(LOS thickness is  reduced), if impact angle was close zero degrees. That change was  made on your request. Now please look what I wrote above about  damage probabilities if no internal components were  hit directly. Sure  it is possible go  further with simulation of penetrator's normalization, but it is not a T-72 would suffer of such changes most.

Ok something has changed with the damaging Models since this upgrade as we are seeing different results, Several of us have noticed it too. I find it hard to believe that it is the same since 4.268. As far as the T-72B3 and other taking center mass hits, ok I got it and it based on a Dice roll of luck and probability. Thanks for the answers and your Team time.  

9 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Simplified explanation of rather complex mechanics:
To more-or-less reliably inflict damage you need to hit internals; if projectile  slices through without touching them,  then there is a still certain probability of inflicting some damages including catastrophic ones, but that is a roll of the dice essentially, e.g. a matter of your or opponent's luck. This applies to any vehicle in game

This Video has been shown before but of course from a different T-72. As shown taken a hit from a Sabot cause structure damage and in this case if the Ammuntion compartment wasnt hit I would image that the Driver would have been killed and the Turret would not have been able to Traverse anymore. 

8 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Damage model, ammunitions specs and their handling were not changed since 4.268.  You would see exactly same results by firing very same ammo to very same spots at very angles against T-72B in 4.2 because LOS thickness matters.

I understand what your saying but from my understanding around the driver hatch and Turret Ring are some of the weakest spots for the T-Tanks as Western Tank Gunner’s are trained to shoot center mass. Seeing a shot center mass at those Ranges and not causing any damage whatsoever is hard to believe. At least a crew injured or damaged to components. But I understand your point and thanks for the responses

Just now, Ssnake said:

Yeah, I saw that later. Nevertheless, some of the hits were where the armor is strongest, at shallow anfles that multiply the LOS strength,  and at angles that don't exactly promise great damages if they go through. Not all. Sometimes, the other side simply is lucky.

Ok thanks 👍

The last 6 screenshots, shows the shot and then the distance which is less than 1000 meters.

9 minutes ago, TSe419E said:

As I remeber it sometimes when the gunner is killed you still are in the gunner's seat untill you leave it either by F8 (overhead view) or F5 (map view).  Then you can't get back into the gunner's seat.  Seems to still be an issue.

Yeah I remember it being mentioned before, hopefully it will be fixed

I believe this has been an issue with other Tanks too in the past. Not sure if it still remains on them. If so the T-72B3 needs to be added to the list now as if the Player is in that position and takes a KIA hit, the Player is still able to fight the Tank as if nothing happened.

So the SB Wiki saids this: Armor protection:
Frontal Turret Armor: ~520mm vs KE, ~600mm vs HEAT, +K5 ERA
Frontal Hull Armor: 190mm-400mm vs KE, 190mm-480mm vs HEAT, +K5 ERA
(SB documentation)

And the ammunition being fired in these cases are:

L44 DM-53-

L44 M829A3-

Several Users have noticed that the T-72B3 seems to be taking close Range hits with no Damaging. Is this Damage Model still a WIP? or is this Normal? I am going off what the Wiki states in theory the M829A3 and DM-53 should have no issues causing damaging to the B3 when shot under 2000 meters. Here are the screenshots, some of them are under 1000 meters.

some Units have been changed, So if you like to use Leopards come and join us

3 hours ago, Colebrook said:

Put me in a tank pls.

66?