ole1291

On 1/15/2023 at 7:32 AM, Ssnake said:

That's exactly my view on this as well.

Direct ammo-on-armor comparisons will usually lead you into a deep rabbit hole of conflicting information (that's the whole point of it being classified - the public space is seeded with enough "plausible but wrong" numbers that it keeps everybody busy second- and third-guessing estimates, and if you happened to actually stumble upon the real numbers you still wouldn't know if you could trust them).

That's not to say that we're giving up on trying to improve our own estimations, but let's not forget that the primary purpose of SB Pro is crew procedure and tactical training for AFV crews and battalion (+/-) scale wargaming. Steel Beasts is not intended as a tool for quantitative statistical analysis and the prediction of battle outcomes. Steel Beasts may not be entirely useless in that role, but it's not intended for it.

 

Here's my view on the operational picture.

So far, tank losses in Ukraine as a result of direct tank cannon duels at range seem to be absolutely negligible. We've seen ambush situations where, at really close range, tank-on-tank flanking shots were applied. These would be guaranteed to kill any tank. Tanks seem to get killed mostly by artillery fire, occasionally by loitering munitions, anti-tank mines, RPGs and anti-tank missiles. Where tank-on-tank duels happened, HE-frag rounds seem to have been the preferred munition, not APFSDS.

We haven't seen massed armor attacks across open plains, and it appears unlikely that we will see them in this conflict. Early on both parties had enough tanks for that but operational planning and terrain conditions prevented that. Ukraine's tank doctrine seems to relegate the tank as a primary means of infantry fire support. They seem to be lobbing a lot of HE-frag shells at long range. (Meanwhile, the Russians seem to have adopted a similar mode of tank usage.)

In spring '22 Ukraine received a deluge of anti-tank weapons for infantry, and as the war dragged on, both sides lost so many tanks to other causes that I don't think any party will risk massing a larger number for fear of losing them quickly.

After this war is over, it will certainly be interesting to see a proper statistical analysis done of all the various losses as was done after WW2 and the Arab-Israeli wars. 

I largely agree with all you said, but I wouldn't want to be so certain about the linear progression of the conflict, there's still some intangibles that could affect the balance enough to allow 'some' maneuver warfare to take place, not that it would result in Kursk like battles but still.

Keep in mind that in 2014, over the same terrain, and with essentially the same kit, there was plenty of movement, encirclements and such.

Drones do complicate everything, but to what extent?

On 1/15/2023 at 7:32 AM, Ssnake said:

 

Anything less than an armored brigade's worth of (western) tanks is unlikely to have a measurable effect on the course of this war, anything even remotely in the order of magnitude of the "HIMARS effect". That one did change a lot, but they won't squeeze a lot more juice from that unless ATACMS is being delivered; an escalatory move that I'm not seeing happening yet.

Even if Europe and NATO were willing to deliver a full armored brigade's worth of MBTs, the question still is where to find them. There's Leopard 1s, but they're good only while confronted with T-62s (which have been mobilized in numbers by Russia (in case anyone here didn't follow the news)).

Here I don't agree (leo1), you just made a point that most tank work in this war was infantry support, leo1 would be ok in that role.

And with their thermals and good FCS, they wouldn't be useless vs other tanks. Especially at night or in those ambush scenarios that are are most common.

In an offensive role, of course things would get dicey.

On 1/15/2023 at 7:32 AM, Ssnake said:

 

 

 

As far as Leopard 2A4s are concerned - or any Leopard 2 model for that matter - I just don't see any user state having enough of them around to be able to afford a donation of that scale without simultaneously denuding their own national defense - and that's just not going to happen, period. We may be seeing a battalion's worth of chocolate box tanks ("you never know what you'll find") donated from half a dozen European nations, primarily as a symbolic gesture to boost morale (both domestic, and in Ukraine). Such a motley force probably creates more of a logistical and training burden than it will actually do good on the ground - from a strictly military perspective that would be bordering on sabotage, if you asked me. Yet, it may be done for political necessity.

No: The only nations that could provide a significant number of the same tanks are Poland's Leopard 2A5s, if immediately reinforced by deploying a US armored brigade to the country, or the US delivering M1 Abrams directly to Ukraine, which appears even less likely at the moment. A significant number of Leopard 1s could be mobilized if Turkey, Greece, Chile, or Brazil were willing to donate a larger number (and then there's another 100 that Rheinmetall (and possibly other German defense contractors such as FFG) have allegedly bought back from European governments over the past 20 years). Britain pushed 250 of its 450 Challenger 2s into the smelter, and sold all its Challenger 1s to Jordania where they might be gathering dust and lots of UV rays in the desert).

There simply isn't much that could be donated.

As usual, much of what circulates through the press is completely unrealistic, unadulterated BS. Any journo could be checking the SIPRI database, but their job apparently is to simply amplify whatever feelings and opinions some politician airs rather than to check if any of that is actually possible.

I also don't understand why the Ukrainians seem so fixated on the leo2s? 

Anyway, you are right, only large numbers would have a decisive impact.

The main reasoning put forth by the Ukrainians and media pundit is that they are running out of 125mm ammo, they said that a couple of month ago and still appear to be fine so might be BS.   

On 1/15/2023 at 5:00 AM, Captain_Colossus said:

 

in theory this may be true, but also in my view over-analyzing things a bit; over-emphasis of numbers comparison like this misses the larger picture:

 

the amount of vehicles the west seems to be suggesting (notwithstanding m1 abrams tanks) appears to be too small to really matter; they may be a bit of a morale boost, or perhaps it is the means the west is tip-toeing here and slowing insinuate deeper involvement into the war without provoking russia too much. as it is however, how much can anyone expect 10 challenger 2 tanks to affect the war in the larger sense- this is simply a token offering.

Absolutely, the importance of the move is in breaking the threshold.

On 1/15/2023 at 5:00 AM, Captain_Colossus said:

 

the amount of training required for proficient crews on western afvs mean they will not be seen in combat anytime soon, or if they are thrown in on an expedited basis the crews probably will have little chance to make the most of them.

 

then there is the problem of logistics in order to supply ukraine with NATO or american or british requirements to use these vehicles, or the maintenance requirements to keep them running (this is far more important than the most one sided western press seems to acknowledge). and for all the problems the russians and ukrainians have with the t-72 or t-80 based vehicles, they are proven reliable- they can still run in crappy conditions or can make use of the local infrastructure- roads and bridges which may not be as suitable for heavier western vehicles, which may experience more difficulty especially in the wet, muddy conditions in ukraine when the ground isn't frozen

All of that would also apply to other western systems the Ukrainians have received like PzH2000, and the very same arguments were made at the time. I'm sure they're not making the most out of those systems (just look at the videos) and are abusing them a lot, but from their point of view it's still better than no system at all.

On 1/15/2023 at 5:00 AM, Captain_Colossus said:

 

ukraine does not have control of the air space to protect these vehicles from russian air attacks, drones, and so on. american and british success in iraq wasn't just because of their vehicles in themselves, but because of the whole suite of superiority in combined arms, air and artillery support, C3, logistics and materiel support- which ukraine does not have. a successful tank does not simply occur in a vacuum, the way it works as part of an overall machine, which when that is effective, the tanks are also effective, and vice-versa.

 

in sum, theoretically you can show that a particular APFDS round will have difficulty against a target armor and that you may have the one or two real life engagements which may seem to corroborate that, but in the larger picture, i think this doesn't draw any conclusions about whether these tanks will succeed and affect the war. i also am very suspicious in the way western reporting of what is going on - all but de-emphasizing ukrainian losses or otherwise omitting them entirely, which is affecting perceptions of what is going on. you are not as likely going to see what happens if these tanks were to fail

 

 

Agreed.

On 1/14/2023 at 9:06 PM, Damian90 said:

 

President Biden was rather open about that, no M1's for Ukraine.

For the time being...

It's obviously contingent on how the war proceeds and other factors.

But as Snake already outlined, there aren't many Leo2 that could realistically be donated.

M1s on the other hand are plentiful.

Bradleys are already going to be sent there. 

On 1/14/2023 at 9:06 PM, Damian90 said:

M1 KE protection was ok when it was fielded. M1IP and M1A1 protection levels for both turret and hull front were improved, by how much? I don't know, but in my opinion it was around ~500-600mm vs KE +/- so just like in SBProPe.

 

Majority of M1A1's were upgraded with Heavy Armor Package (HAP), either being upgraded to M1A1HA standard, or M1A1AIMv1 or M1A1AIMv2/M1A1SA. However in 2010 or 2011, Heavy Armor Package was replaced by Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP), we can recognize it by letter after serial number on turret side. Heavy Armor Package is marked with letter U, Next Generation Armor Package is marked with letter M.

So from 2010/2011 onwards M1A1SA's and M1A2SEPv2's received 1st generation NGAP, while from 2018 onwards, M1A2SEPv3's have 2nd generation NGAP. All M1 tanks going through major overhauls receive new armor package.

 

This is something to be confirmed this year when Polish Army will receive it's M1A1FEP's, however we know that after overhaul process, these will not be M1A1FEP's but, something we can call M1A1PL, and these might receive new armor package as well as other modifications to meet Polish Army requirements.

Did most of those placed in long term storage receive an upgrade as well prior to retirement?

So Poland will basically receive M1s with latest (or close) protection level but without the hunter killer capability, data link moving map etc... of the M1A2. I imagine no APS as well (any plans for the future?). 

On 1/14/2023 at 8:24 PM, dejawolf said:

However, many of these estimates are based off numbers mentioned during the CFE talks in the 1990s. 

In other words, they are official numbers given to the russians as an olive branch, and should be fairly accurate, at least for the abrams tanks(up to M1A1HA)

so even though his assumptions for materials is off, the result is close to the real numbers. 

So, the Germans and Americans gave up their own best assessment of their armor arrays effectiveness to the Russians during these talks (and I imagine the reverse too), and that data was later leaked. 

Would you say those are the most reliable metrics to assess current leo2A4 and M1A1 HA armor then, more so than the British assessment posted previously, as it would be more up to date?

Or could it be a case, as SSnake outlined, of deliberately seeding slightly false information to further blurr the picture, impossible to know I guess.

7 hours ago, dejawolf said:

yeah. the values in SB are based off information from Paul L. 

apparently there was an upgrade to the armour done to the 2A4 at some point in the late 80s or early 90s, since there was a claim it had 700mm vs KE, and 1000mm vs HEAT. 

we went with the more conservative estimate of 600mm over the front 60 degree arc, which makes the chins 700mm from front LOS vs KE. this was over 15 years ago. 

 

Any link to his work? what's his family name?

17 hours ago, Damian90 said:

And again to what made up values?

 

That's the question...

The debate was initially about whether the Leo2A4 and M1A1 that are likely to be sent to the war in Ukraine could resist BM42 rounds on the front. What do you think?

17 hours ago, Damian90 said:

Ballisticians in War and Peace volume 3 gives some information.

Primary informations is, both M1IP and M1A1 got improved armor over basic M1. Both M1IP and M1A1 received something called KE Backpacks. Another provided information is that M1A2 have 35% better protection vs KE and 25% better protection vs CE for it's front hull armor over basic M1A1.

M1IP upgrade dates to early 80s so still presumably aimed at improving initial M1 poor (relative to CE) KE protection, threat round at the time likely still BM22. 

M1A1 HA upgrade (with DU inserts) from late 80s logically defeats BM42, were all M1A1 HA upgraded to HA standard?

15 hours ago, Damian90 said:

The only semi reliable source on Leopard 2 B tech and C tech armor protection, are some documents found in British archives, from British tests of Leopard 2. However I have only fragments of these documents that were posted in the internet.
 

Very interesting, thanks for bringing them up.

15 hours ago, Grenny said:

The T72Ms....who's turrets fronts where penned by Leo1 guns?...so what?

Look at the tables posted by Damian, that's what.

Early Leo2 could also possibly be penetrated by  leo1 105mm  DM33.

5 hours ago, Grenny said:

Huh?

300-400mm advantage on T-72M1, not T-80U.

21 hours ago, Grenny said:

Do you think tanks, with a projected lifetime get designed to currently fielded OPFOR ammo? Would be a bit silly...

 

2A4, with its updates in armour setup, was designed around the T-80 a projected threat tank. With verification tests vs paralell developed DM33 rounds...

I'm going to have to re-read my book about leo@A4...

But what I gathered from the discussion at TN is yes, original batches were designed with BM 15 and BM 22 threat in mind, later production batches got a little more RHAe protection but not dramatically, say from 400 to 500mm, still not enough to resist BM42.

In any case, vanilla T-80 is not really better armored than T-72 and doesn't fire different ammo (save for the missiles), the big difference is the propulsion and FCS.

17 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

 

To me that sounds like you are reliably winning through appropriate economy of force and fighting an effective mobile defense. 

I just used that as an example that parameters like level of armor has an effect on the tactics themselves.

49 minutes ago, Grenny said:

What makes you think that ammunition parameters are correct?

Which round do you have in mind in this case?

BM-42? 510mm RHAe in SB. The contention is that it was specially designed to penetrate newer composite armor and would exceed the 510mm against such arrays.

49 minutes ago, Grenny said:

What makes you think that the armour estimates are correct and from a reliable soucre?

Apparently, the Poles themselves who operate the leo2A4 came to that conclusion, as well as various intelligence reports from the period.

To me, the smoking gun is the 2A5 upgrade, if armor was already sufficient for the current threat, why add the weight?

49 minutes ago, Grenny said:

What makes you think Leo2A4 got designed to a ammo standart that was already obsolete?

 

Never said that. It seems Leo2A4 was designed to offer protection against BM15 and maybe BM22.

BM42 was introduced in 1986, by which time the Leo2 was well into production.

To get a better idea where I'm coming from you wade through this thread:

https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/38893-kiev-is-burning/page/2668/#comments

6 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Generally, we don't cling to wrong parameters that have been shown to be wrong. So, yes, the current model will have to undergo a critical review. What will change, how soon, and by how much, we'll see.

Good to hear.

I was hoping the discussion at tanknet would yield a bit more specific data, especially with regards to the Polish trials, but that wasn't really the case unfortunately.

9 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

that's the rub- it takes work to script it into a scenario which is both 'natural looking' and stands up to tests and re-tests of the behavior. but that is the way it works in 'real life' though it is rarely encountered in scenarios- so for example, i often find it difficult to slog through a lot of infantry defenses with tanks, because there is usually no script where the enemy  breaks or fails morale checks or would seem to intelligently react and preserve their own forces;

I agree, but in this case there's not much esim can do about it, at least not without introducing bigger problems, things are actually a bit better now with the surrender option.

Also you can look at it both ways, infantry is unrealistically suicidal, but in a way that still doesn't really compensate for the speed at which infantry combat plays out. I know it always seems so slow from a tank commander point of view but the truth is it's fairly common to sweep a small settlement of enemy infantry within half an hour or so. Compare that to wat's currently happening in Ukraine where fighting for small towns can sometimes take months.

2 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

 

 

while i have no information to either corroborate support or refute any figures, the challenge of the scenario does not have to be tied exclusively to the armor rating of the vehicles, that is, a designer can simulate morale checks or self preservation behaviors through randomized variables and force attackers to dither, retreat, stall, change course, or a defending force to surrender, retreat and so on, instead of presuming to fight the death, to the last man and so on- which could radically change a player's experience in a scenario as much as the interaction between ammunition and armor performance

Sure, but in practice many scenarios don't really do that, it's a lot of work to script it all. A lot of them end up playing out as a deathmatch of sorts, that's not really the point of this thread though.

The problem in this case is it'll effect your tactics and might result in negative learning.

Take the hasty defense classic scenario for instances:

With the current leo2A4, I can win it every time, it's just a question of finding suitable hull down firing positions, and rotating between them to avoid arty. Eventually retreat to other ones and resupply as well but once you get the gist of it you get reliable wins. Part of the reason is the leo2A4 turret front is so strong enemy counter fire rarely damages your tank when hull down.

Now, if the enemy is capable of reliably penetrating your turret this no longer works.  You're forced to  concentrate your entire company on one of of OPFOR axis of advance and use a lot more of ambush/flanking fire. As result, some enemy companies moving on another axis can usually reach the end of the map before you can get to them and winning the scenario has more to do with location of enemy axis of advance (random).

Using the old defense model will just result in your leopard company being destroyed piecemeal by the far more numerous soviet forces.  

Armor models can never be perfect, but 300-400mm RHAe bonus to western tanks makes a huge difference, and they already enjoy so many other advantages.

At first I was skeptical esim could be wrong by that much, about 400mm RHAe frontal turret protection for leo2A4 appears to be a consensus everywhere else and we have to admit; why did the Germans upgrade their tanks armor to the 2A5 if 2A4 turret armor already offered 733mm RHAe? 

It only makes sense if it was estimated BM42 could penetrate it (SB has it 510mm)... 

Similar logic could be applied to M1 HA upgrade.

Tanknet thread here:

https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/38893-kiev-is-burning/page/2663/

It has recently been brought to my attention on tanknet that the steelbeast armor model for the Leo2A4 (and therefor later models as well I assume) is very dated and probably off by 300-400mm RHAe (depending on the batch simulated) for the front armor.

This seems to be mainly based on Polish analysis of their tanks as well as various intelligence reports. Also on the fact that the leo2A4 was designed to deal with BM15 or BM22 top and that BM42 (rated at 510mm in SB) should easily penetrate it.

Which is why the 2A5 upgrade happened.

These remarks also seem to apply to M1A1.

Now I understand those are just estimates and one doesn't want to tinker with a model all the time, but these are big numbers that would radically alter the course of engagements (possibly making some scenarios unwinnable), and also alter usable tactics with those tanks. 

I will definitely uninstall/reinstall then. Don't want to take the risk.

Thanks for the answers.

Hello, 

I just installed a new 1TB SSD drive on my computer and I now want to move Steelbeasts to it.

Can I just cut and paste the SB folder to the new drive as shown in this video for DCS:

Or do I have to uninstall the game and re-install it on the new drive?

Unfortunately, I won't be able to join this week.

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The question is, what are we discussing here - real life, or the model in Steel Beasts. Also, the original opinion piece in the blog seemed to reflect primarily on the logistical tail of a rocket artillery strike as the main reason why it might not be as attractive to use as some proponents make it to be, particularly if juxtaposing DPICM and conventional HE-frag. In any case, at this point Steel Beasts does not model the finer points between EFPs and HEAT jets, or the detailed effects of each individual bomblet, as already mentioned. This could be something we might be doing in a future version of SB Pro, provided that the associated CPU costs are acceptable, but until then a continuation of this thread makes only sense if the discussion is limited to reality, not the way how it's modelled in Steel Beasts.

At this point, we were discussing reality. I brought up figures from SBwiki as they are as good as can get on the internet and some reference was needed for the discussion.

The choice of the article was probably not the best for the topic and I can see how it could add some confusion, but the author did touch on the technical aspects of bomblets potential weakness vs tanks.

Maybe to answer my own question, the fact the Germans felt it was necessary to up armor the roof of their tanks in the 90s is good indications they assessed the Leo would be unacceptably vulnerable to them. How much it (or ERA protected tanks) is now seems to be an open question.

On 1/5/2020 at 8:25 PM, stormrider_sp said:

That has been done in Desert Storm.

I didn't know. If you have any links please share, I'd be interested to read about it.

23 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

Yes, in SB it works well in German terrain where you have the enemy coming up valleys under AI/programmed command. It would obviously work less well in open terrain against a reasonably sentient human opponent.

That's my feeling too.

I used variations of that tactic successfully in single player, but I don't recall it being used much in multiplayer head to head.

23 hours ago, dejawolf said:

TOW-2B has 2 EFPs, and has been shown to be highly lethal against T-72's. they also have an advantage that they are not affected by ERA, since they form a copper slug, instead of a thin copper needle. 

for leopard and Abrams, it depends on where it hits. Leopard would be far more likely to go up in flames, but only if the hull ammunition rack is filled. Abrams would at best be put out of action. at worst crewmembers could be killed. 
it would also depend on the version of leo2. newer versions has spall liners on the roof to reduce post-penetration damage likelyhood, and some versions has armour which might make part of the roof impervuous to EFPS. 
 

Didn't know that about the EFP slug defeating ERA, interesting.

The analogy with the DPICM might be wrong though:

TOW-2B 's two warheads are much bigger, and listed with 300mm RHAe

152mm DPICM bomblet only 52mm

Leo 2 hull ammo is of course vulnerable, but isn't the glacis armor signignificantly thicker than the roof top armor? In the case of the bomblet at least, that might be enough.  

23 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

On 1/4/2020 at 3:58 PM, dejawolf said:

 

well, the roof armour thickness is not uniform. usually the front slope of the roof is thicker than the center and rear, and hull.

The T-72 roof armour is around 60mm cast steel, with 25mm lead/fiberglass liner. 

Thanks for the info.

Would you say that is enough to stop or severely deplete a DPICM bomblet EFP? I guess with regards a T-72, if penetration occurs, there is a real chance of the jet igniting the ammo carousel under the turret but would catastrophic damage also be likely for an M1 or Leo2?  

On 1/3/2020 at 9:00 PM, ChrisWerb said:

I find, with advancing enemy formations, the best approach with a 155 battery is to use one or two tubes set to fire three rounds a minute to create a 400 metre "wall" of DPICM in front of the enemy formation that causes them to pile up against it for ten minutes. Then I create a 400 x 400 metre mission behind a wall to initiate after one to two minutes, depending on enemy formation size and speed, with the remaining tubes, but only have them fire two or at most three rounds a piece because anything that can will try to get out of the box rapidly, so more than that is a waste. The piled up vehicles also make great targets for other systems. Rinse and repeat further along the enemy advance route (if established with reasonable confidence). I do find "Little and often" works well for DPICM. 

 

 

I am sure that works, but it seems a little gamey. Doubt it could be replicated in real life.

I'm pretty sure an armored formation on a road march could be successfully engaged with an ICM strike, and I think this was done in Ukraine. But I am less sure if that is possible with armored formations once combat deployed in open fields.

24 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I'm not entirely happy with our current ICM effects on vehicles. I can still see potential for improvement, but it'll have to wait until there are, well, "benign development conditions" (half a year of no other crap landing on the doorstep for the specialist for this topic among our developers). What we did for version 4.1 was to improve on the old model by getting rid of a lot of stuff that was problematic, without finding the time to rework everything from ground up. At the end of the day we had to have something releasable by August, and that sometimes means that you have to compromise. There's always something that "isn't quite there yet", but perfectionists can't release anything, ever.

I totally understand that. 

Reason I brought the subject up is I also tend to use SB as... how to put it, an "outcome predictor" (up to a point), a learning tool, with regards to the effects some weapons modelled within the simulation.

In this case, I just wanted to check how close to actual reality ICM effects were modelled. Thanks for clearing it up.

1 hour ago, stormrider_sp said:

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/10/puma-ifv-armor-and-upgrade-speculations.html?m=1

 

Heres an article on it

Thanks, very interesting.

Of note to the particular subject was this paragraph:

The Puma turret can be fitted with additional armor to provide protection against medium calibre ammunition, larger fragments of artillery rounds and large artillery bomblets with EFP or shaped charge warhead. Except for a smaller curved section behind the gun (which moves when the gun is elevating), the add-on armor for the roof consists of "Igelpanzerung" (hedgehog armor), which utilizes many rubber-spikes to damage the shaped charge warheads of artillery bomblets. 

That "Igelpanzerung" was also mentioned on the 'defence and freedom' blog. Looks like designers are indeed looking at ways to mitigate the effects of DPICM.

14 hours ago, stormrider_sp said:

70-100mm of penetration per bomblet would already be enough to penetrate the front armor at 90 degrees angle of a 42 tons Leopard 1A5. Perhaps the question should be the opposite: Is HE artillery shells underpowered in SB?

Maybe but you are choosing one of the few tanks we have in SB whose hull armor is almost as thin as that of a modern IFV, not a very representative sample.

Thanks for bringing up STANAG 4569, its a useful reference, and yes, it goes to show that many APC/IFVs listed as "shrapnel proof" are actually far from it.