Jump to content

ChrisWerb

Members
  • Posts

    762
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChrisWerb

  1. I didn't know there was such a thing as blind status. I'll re do the test over the weekend. I can't see it would have made much of a difference in outcome to the test though given the impact point of the missiles and the design of the Armata. The disparity definitely occurred in games with fully bombed up vehicles with operational Afganit too.
  2. Hi. I have been having a lot of fun creating and playing scenarios/missions trying to come with mixes of weapons and tactics that work against the Armata, and I've discovered a huge disparity in lethality between the Spike LR and the Javelin vs the Armata. Scenario 1. I manually aimed and fired one Spike at each of 50 Armatas, immobilised by damaging both tracks, without Afghanit and with ammo removed. There were 50 hits. All 50 took out the radio and one took out a vehicle's FCS. Scenario 2. Because I find using the Javelin so tedious (and it does represent RL very well), I let a Javelin crew fire 58 missiles (I lost count and had to go back and count them from the report) at the same array of Armatas. Some of the vehicles took more than one hit, but that didn't make much difference to the subsequent evaluation. There were 58 hits of which 24 were immediate kills (probably all ammunition explosions, although I had removed all ammunition, the ready carousel still counts as full in the damage model). Of the remaining hits all took out the FCS. Interestingly, every hit damaged a vehicle's radio except one that damaged the turret - the only non fatal hit to do the latter. Some observations. I never had the "Spike gunner target fixation problem" in this testing - this seems only to happen (sadly, almost inevitably) when obscurants or the vehicle moving in and out of cover or concealment is involved. I could have varied the point of impact of the Spike using Fire and Update. I mostly don't shoot missiles myself in scenarios though, so I accepted the default aim point and fired manually simply so I could count off one missile per target (I'd forgotten how much more onerous doing the same thing with Javelin at that stage would be). Javelin doesn't have fire and update. Whether the Javelin killed was highly dependent on the angle of presentation of the target vehicle. With Spike, some of the hits were clearly around the gun mantlet and I would have expected gun damage, given the angle of impact and the non trivial penetration of warhead. I'd have also expected fragmentation damage to the RWS (that may have happened but was outside the scope of the report) Though not covered by this test, I also find that Javelins are highly effective against Armatas with their APS fitted. In reality the vehicle has what I believe is a high angle smoke launching system linked to the AESA radar to hopefully blind the missile well before impact, hopefully causing it to miss. Perhaps the simulation (which already pops smoke when the vehicle is lased) could add some smoke popping off high up and well away from the vehicle toward the missile to simulate this? (there is also a claim that the RWS can shoot down incoming missiles, but I think that sounds a bit far fetched). What I would like to see, and what might fix the problem is randomisation of the exact impact point on the vehicle. At the moment the missiles seem to be trying to hit a point inside the vehicle with the actual impact point dependent on the angle of the vehicle to the missile launcher. I am guessing the exact point chosen by the developers for the "interior aim point" used by the simulation differs between the two missiles with the HEAT jet from the Spike never transecting the ammo carousel regardless of azimuth of the vehicle relative to the launcher at impact. All the usual disclaimers apply about this not being an implied criticism of ESim Games, nor of any of the developers thereof. Spike vs 50 Armatas.sce_8_11-08-19_13_35_20.htm Javelin 50 Armatas.sce_8_11-08-19_14_06_58.htm Spike vs 50 Armatas_8368_110819HP-Z4401335.aar Javelin_50_Armatas_8368_110819HP-Z4401406.aar
  3. I ended up with crazy high hit percentages like that in Instant Action with the M1A2 in 4.0 as enemy vehicles (sometimes over 100 of them) piled up behind the trees. One of the less mentioned improvements in 4.1 is the Instant Action scenarios are now MUCH more challenging.
  4. Sorry, Dejawolf. I know Ssnake is (justifiably) reticent about discussing his business model, but I always assumed that, besides community sourced material like tutorials and skins, everything in SB was made by paid staff and therefore bore a significant cost to ESim Games. Do I understand from the above that Al Delaney's accessibility of vehicle implementation work made it possible for unpaid community members to get involved in implementing new, non-crewable vehicles, or doing the non programming work in creating crewable ones? If so, I'd love to have a go at that.
  5. And that's where I'd much rather your effort went, even if it meant an end to new vehicles or changes to the damage model for the forseeable future. What we've got is entirely workable - it just throws up an occasional anomaly which we can easily chalk up to "unlikely stuff happens in war". When I request something on the Wish List thread these days, it's either something I think won't take a staggering amount of effort (for example, a guided round for the Armata) or it's something that might take significant resources, but will have a huge benefit to realism right across the game (subtley more realistic infantry behaviour). I often just post stuff out of curiosity about how things work, particularly when I see apparent anomalies and things I don't properly understand, and, because of my poor communication skills, it's sometimes taken to be a request for a huge amount of time and effort to be spent on something with negligible training benefit and thus unlikely to generate a financial return, which I really don't want.
  6. PS: This is what I would expect from propellant in cased ammo being ignited.
  7. Hi Ssnake - I thought that with combustible cases or bagged charges etc. (if not in water jackets etc.) touching off one would set off the others so fast that there would be an explosion, rather than a Roman candle, it's just that the explosion would be a "low order" explosion, perhaps blowing the turret off, rather than a "high order" explosion, through sympathetic detonation rather than ignition. which, particularly when the vehicle is carrying a high proportion of HE and HEAT rounds, will tend to totally blow the vehicle apart, as seen in some knocked out MBTs in Ukraine. This may be an incorrect interpretation on my part. I marvel at the work that has gone into SB every day and, as you know, I am a huge and consistent proponent of SB elsewhere.
  8. An ear piercing they can brag about in the bar.
  9. Sorry Volcano, the fault is mine as usual. There was nothing wrong with your original explanation either - I just didn't click that carousel stowage was "ready" rather than "stored". I completely understand that with c. 250 vehicles in SB, they are not all going to be kept updated to the same standard of damage modelling. I am still learning about the way damage is modelled in the game and about the vehicles themselves, both as modelled here and as they exist in RL. Your explanations made me work to understand how to kill the Armata and I discovered it had significant vulnerabilities and was eminently defeatable, particularly with solid combined arms tactics as others have pointed out. I did not know, for example that Roman candles were the result of hydraulic fluid. I thought they were the result of a penetration into a cased round setting off propellant (which is silly as they sometimes happen with vehicles using caseless or stub only case ammo), so Hedgehog's explanation makes a lot of sense. I read somewhere a long time ago that hydraulic vs electric turret drive made a significant difference to crew survival in Israeli M48/60 vs Centurion which is why they and I would be amazed if Armata used hydraulic. I think later M60s went to electric traverse, retaining hydraulic elevation and the M1 was electric from the start. The fact that vehicles with no ammunition in them blow up is of no consequence in target vehicles from a training perspective as you want to train users to aim to penetrate the carousel anyway - trainees will never know for sure that an enemy vehicle is out of main gun ammo after all. It really doesn't bother me from a vehicles on my side in gaming perspective either, particularly as the effort by yourselves to make ammo explosion probability truly realistic would be non-trivial to say the least.
  10. 3UBK21 Sprinter and 9M119M1 Invar-M missiles and NII Stali Upper Hemisphere Protection Complex for T-14 Armata.
  11. The ability for infantry or engineers to lay AT mines and set up claymores in game. Infantry that duck when shot at, displace when out of sight and pop up somewhere else and generally make realistic use of cover and concealment. The option of more clutter (when smaller map areas selected) for infantry to hide behind in or under.
  12. Well, I've obviously been hiding under a rock for the last decade (sadly, not far from the truth!). I wasn't aware there was so much out there.
  13. OK, I did some more testing. Five three tank platoons of Russian tanks from the T-62 to the Armata. All ammo removed (even MG and smoke discharger grenades). Shooter is a Leo2A6 with DM53. Shot placement to the lower hull aligned with the centre of the turret to hit the carousel (except for the T62 when I aimed into the front hull from the side due to its different ammo storage arrangements). I did this test three times and got interesting results each time. I'm posting the AAR from the last one. All tanks either blew up, roman candled or burned (of which in earlier tests some subsequently exploded), (though sometimes this took more than one shot) except one Armata which would not ignite regardless of where in the carousel area I hit it. This time I'm including the scenario so you can repeat the test if you wish to. Disclaimer: This post is not intended as a criticism of or harrassment of the SB team or any member thereof, or in any way a statement of disastisfaction with SB. Exploding_ammoless_vehicles_4832_110219HP-Z4401308.aar Exploding ammoless vehicles.sce_4_11-02-19_13_08_17.htm Exploding ammoless vehicles.sce
  14. OK, if we're talking Armata, if aiming frontally, I find aiming for the gun with sabot will often result in gun disablement regardless of Afganit intercept. From the front quarter, the crew module and ammo carousel both become vulnerable, although the latter has less protection. From the side, if not hull down, my first choice is the ammo carousel, followed by the crew compartment. shots into frontal portion of the turret, parallel or just below the level of the main gun will almost always take out the gun. However, if you are close enough, a hit into the turret bustle, is extremely likely to take out the turret drive, stabilisation, GAS, and fire control systems, plus other electronics. This produced identical results for me six out of six times. As you would expect, the vehicle is very vulnerable from the rear - again my first choice would be ammo carousel - preferably through that into the crew compartment. If hull down, turret bustle again. From directly behind, turret bustle through the autoloader into the gun breech. I just ran an ambush scenario in a German valley and killed ten Armatas without loss with six Leo2A6s, but it took a lot of trial and error (mostly the latter) to achieve that result. It was a lot of fun too!
  15. When I'm pitching SB to friends, a huge selling point, to me, is that SB is an actual military training system that is available in a very slightly attenuated version to civilians. You could argue that Harpoon/CMANO/CMO is the opposite, having been adopted by militaries subsequent to its civilian inception. What I'd like to know is are there any other simulations out there with real civilian/military crossover in usage? The only one I can think of might be TACOPS. I'm sure you can come up with other examples.
  16. I've definitely had vehicles (T-90s and Armatas) from which I have removed all ammo explode on many occasions during testing (almost always, given the correct shot placement). I'm not asking for any changes to how damage is modelled, just giving my findings. Those AARs I posted on the earlier thread had all vehicles devoid of ammunition (to stop them shooting back, without disabling the gun ) and plenty of those blew up.
  17. @Volcano I have read and re-read your posts and really do appreciate your explanations. I fully accept that you have applied the damage model that exists with SB diligently. I can see an additional problem from your point of view. Let's say there are critical components in the centre of the T-14 other than in the key systems indicated in your diagram - if you fixed that for the T-14 (which would take military espionage at this stage) you would have to do the same for every vehicle in the game and that's just not do-able and would not be a profitable use of your time. There are other anomalies that are not worth fixing. For example, quite early on I realised I was getting ammo explosions in target vehicles from which I had removed all ammunition. That started me thinking about how that could be overcome and I again realised that fixing that would be a whole world of work for someone as the likelihood of an explosion, its magnitude and subsequent effects would depend on the number and type of each round and where it was stored at the moment the vehicle was hit - that would take a lot of modelling for no real training benefit. It's obviously very easy to get into diminishing returns in simulation. I did not know we did not have a model for spalling and look forward to that being added at some point in the future. On another positive note, you will remember that damage to helicopters was a bit of a bugbear of mine. Up to recently, you could hit even unarmoured helicopters over 100 times with 20mm AP-T or APDS-T and they would be unaffected - KETF had very little effect on them. That damage model was rectified in spades and shooting at helicopters is now very realistic and satisfying. So, I hope, at some point in the future, the new explosive/fragmentation model can be adapted and give more intuitively likely results with lateral centre mass hits on the Armata. Thank you for your time in looking into this - it was much appreciated!
  18. If you review my tests, I spread the shots around a bit (added to ballistic dispersal). I also fired one round per target vehicle, so cumulative damage or shots going through the same hole repeatedly did not figure in my tests, nor would it in real life The customer, reviewing hits, would at some point notice that a high proportion, aimed for centre mass from the side, did no damage. I noticed it in game play as did others. I just decided to try to work out what was happening by doing some testing. Also, when considering how full up the T14 turret is, remember that schematics online don't show wiring, junction boxes and a lot of miscellaneous things. Again, the sabot is not a drill - it doesn't have a perfectly linear effect but also a cone of displaced metal fragments travelling at very high speed and dispersing from its point of penetration.
  19. Volcano, I LOVE the T-14 and all the new Russian vehicles in Steel Beasts. I just want to see realistic outcomes. That's all.
  20. OK, I tried to do a 100 shot test, but for some reason I still ran out of ammo on unlimited at 48 shot. This is M829A3 from the side at around 1400-1500 metres, mostly into the turret, but I tried to vary my aim a bit. Afganit was turned off. 48 hits, of which two grazed, 30 produced no apparent damage of which two were grazing shots at 02:28 and 10.31. So lets say 28 good penetrating hits of which none caused damage or 58.33%. Now think of it this way. I would guess the T14 was introduced mainly to offer military customers something interesting and state of the art in the inventory of their most likely peer OPFOR to shoot at. If you were an instructor, how would you explain to your trainee that well over half of penetrating hits to the turret and mid section of the hull, fired from the flank, had no effect whatsoever on the target? Armata test 1500m side on M829A3 Afganit off.sce_10_10-29-19_18_03_07.htm Armata_test_1500m_side_on_M829A3_Afganit_off_10056_102919HP-Z4401803.aar
  21. Sorry Volcano, I don't like to argue, but I think you're wrong. Nils can see something odd going on and I can't understand why you cant. c. 20% (17% in one test and 24%, admittedly with a caveat in another) of rounds going through the centre of the tank are doing no damage at all. if you look at available schematics of the T-14 and apply your knowledge of other tanks, you will see that there is a lot going on in that turret which has intentionally been kept as small as possible to present as small a target as possible. There is a massive breech, training and elevating gear, autoloader components and the hull penetrating parts of optronics, plus the wiring for the turret and the RWS and the hull penetrating part thereof. The upper part of the ammo carousel is there too in one picture. It's a lot of stuff in a confined space. As you know and APFSDS projectile is not a drill that neatly bores a hole each side and there is a limited amount a spall liner can do against a massive lump of tungsten or DU crashing through relatively thick (compared to APC) armour and taking quite a bit with it at very high speed. The test I did vs the T-90 got realistic results - the T-90s suffered far higher crew casualties, but actually blew up much less, due to the ammo storage arrangements and shot placement relative to both - both realistic results and full credit to the SB team for accurate modelling.
  22. PS. In the last test I didn't notice that I'd gotten the Afganit removed on some vehicles. That doesn't invalidate the fact that penetrators are going through T-14s and not causing damage, but it does invalidate the relative one shot kill numbers between the T-14 and T-90, although I suspect, not by much.
  23. One thing that would be neat would be the ability to tell AI gunners in your platoon to prioritise their aim to centre mass (default), turret, or hull. That would help in combating Armata. It's basically a heavyweight fighter with a glass jaw, as Ssnake already (sort of) pointed out.
×
×
  • Create New...