Jump to content

ChrisWerb

Members
  • Posts

    762
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChrisWerb

  1. I'd have to go back through all eight of the tests I posted to confirm that one instance. You can see lots of them. For the last T-14 test above (the one with 50 target vehicles) open the AAR I uploaded in game and the report in the same post. Look at the report and note the timestamps of those hits that only have mobility damage (which was because I had already disabled the tracks) then set the AAR to real world and events and keep clicking until you hit those time stamps. There are 12 examples in that one test, which is 24% of all hits obtained (two of which are are explicable as peripheral).
  2. Yes, and in a comparatively high instance of cases. I think it was 5 ex 30 hits in one case and 12 ex 50 in another. I believe that's statistically significant and probably also significant that it happens with the T-14 but not with the T-90. However, I'll happily run the tests again if more data is needed. There is something peculiar happening, but, as Ssnake said, it's down to the damage model they use and it can't be tweaked without invoking the Law of Unintended Consequences - I'm still interested to hear why it differs for the two tanks though.
  3. That's one reason why I said I didn't think Afganit made a lot of difference from the side. It may well have frontally.
  4. Basically, that was an interesting exercise, but it comes down to what Ssnake said (although it's rather more than a handful and strange (to me) that this problem exists with the T-14 but not the T-90). "That a handful of isolated rounds don't cause any damage - well, that's also to be expected if you have an energy based non-deterministic damage model. Of course we could dial up the component failure likelihoods to eleven, but then you no longer have a non-deterministic damage model. You can't have chance, and then reject the possibility of luck. Maybe we can dial down the chances of "no-damage" hits a little, but it's not going to be a dramatic effect. " What is going to be interesting to see in real life is what effect having a tank that goes so far to protect its crew has on crew morale and thus on real life outcomes. I suspect, not much from a tactical standpoint for the following reasons (this is just my opinion, sorry!): 1. Those directing tank actions, down to tank commander level, are always going to balance the risk to their vehicle against the worth of the mission. If they are likely to save the crew, but lose the (very expensive and scarce) vehicle they are unlikely to make a different choice than if they were likely to lose both. 2. I can't think of an example in history of AFV crews exhibiting unreasonably risk-averse behaviour, so it is difficult to come up with outcomes which would have differed had the crews felt protected by a tank which was otherwise somewhat fragile and easily mission killed. What do you think?
  5. I tested this extensively and it's not a repeatable issue - adjustment works perfectly. I'm guessing I had a duff gunner on two consecutive uses of the same scenario. Please delete this one and accept my apologies.
  6. Same tests with T-90 (no AVEPS fitted, side on, 2km, aim point just below centre of turret, 50 x DM53 one per target vehicle). There were no solid hits not resulting in damage. Two appear as non (mobility) damage causing on the report of which one at 1:11 was through a road wheel and went through where I think the torsion bars would be on the vehicle, so may have (remote possibility) caused a mobility kill or suspension damage (much more likely) which would not register because the vehicle was already immobilised. The other one at at 14:55 hit road wheels on either side - again, there's a very remote possibility that might have immobilised. Also of note, this test produced 44 one shot kills, vs 30 for the Armata test with Afganit on, though I don't think Afganit made much if any difference to the outcomes. Crew casualties for the T-90 were 110 (one hundred and ten) and zero (yes, zero!) for the Armata. That separate crew module clearly works. Armata test, Leo2A6 side on DM53 2km targets T90.sce_9_10-27-19_13_32_26.htm Armata_test,_Leo2A6_side_on_DM53_2km__targets_T90_9420_102719HP-Z4401332.aar
  7. OK, I did the test again. 2km range, same aim as before, just below the turret and upping the number of Armatas to 50. Every hit appeared solid and there were a few Afganit intercepts, some of which still resulted in vehicle kills. of 50 shots, 12 resulted in no damage. That's a ratio not wildly different from the last test and, I believe, statistically significant. I'll swap the Armatas out for T-90s and do the test again. Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km below turret aim.sce_9_10-27-19_12_57_21.htm Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_9420_102719HP-Z4401257.aar
  8. Do medical vehicles carry red cross insignia that are visible as such through thermals?
  9. Hi. This is almost certainly not a bug, but it's a problem I'm having. When I'm on a gentle slide slope, tracking targets passing up a valley at 90 degrees to me, and I track and fire, I miss low and the commander tells me to aim up 200. I can make the manual adjustment required which is presumably for the reason that the real life FCS can't cope with trunnion tilt or targets going up slopes relative to the Leo. That I could understand. However, when I switch to an AI gunner and observe from F8 view, the Commander keeps telling the gunner to add 200 over and over and the gunner keeps missing low.
  10. I learn something every time I play. I can't fault SB as a learning tool.
  11. OK, I sat down and had a think about how to exclude random point of impact, so I re did the test, once (1 x 30 targets). New methodology: Range 1000 metres, gunner set to hold fire so I could take the shots manually. I moved along after each six shots to try and keep the angle side on. I fired one round per Armata and aimed about half way down the side skirt approximately in the middle of the turret, so all shots would hopefully be good solid hits in approximately the same place. I had five penetrations that, according to the report, caused no damage (apart from possibly mobility as I had already disabled both tracks on all target Armatas). I then reviewed the AAR against the timestamps on the report. The hits were all good and solid. You can check them as follows: 01:08 vs HQ/036 02:19 vs HQ/031 08:02 vs HQ/046 08:09 vs HQ/045 08:32 vs HQ/042 Caveat: it could be that in the design of the T-14 (as far as ESim Games' simulation thereof goes), there is nothing worthwhile at that point to hit that would cause damage that registered in the report. Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 1000 m one shot per target.sce_11_10-26-19_23_15_21.htm Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_11832_102619HP-Z4402315.aar
  12. Totally off topic, but I hope fixing the target fixation problem with Gill/Spike is working its way up the list as that system works very well vs Armata in game when it functions correctly (though often only mission killing, in contrast to the catastrophic kills it almost invariably inflicts on other Russian/Soviet tanks, as you might expect).
  13. Sorry, thewood. OK, I did some testing as promised. Methodology as follows. Red side: five groups of six Armata, in column at close spacing with their ammunition removed and both tracks set to damaged. Blue side: Leo2A6 with infinite DM53. Flat map, clear day, range from c. 2km up (dependent on position of each enemy vehicle as in column at right angles - exact angle varied for similar reasons. Results (note that I haven't checked how often Afganit operated, but a brief glance at the AARs shows it fired quite a lotl). With Afganit on (rounds to kill 30 vehicles) 54, 44, 43, total 141, Average 47 shots to kill 30 vehicles or 1.57 shots per kill. Of the hits that occurred 7.8% failed to cause any damage with the caveat that the vehicle was already immobilised. With Afganit off (rounds to kill 30 vehicles) 60, 41, 48, total 149, Average 49.6 shots to kill 30 vehicles or 1.65 shots per kill. Of the hits that occurred 14,7% failed to cause any damage with the caveat that the vehicle was already immobilised. Not all hits were solid ones by any means and I have not yet had time to go back and review each hit in the report with the imagery in the AAR, so I suspect a high proportion of the non damage causing hits were extremely peripheral or grazing. The thing I find interesting is that a high proportion of the hits that did not kill damaged either the FCS or turret or both. Question to Ssnake - does damage to the Afghanit radars constitute FCS damage? Crew member incapacitation was EXTREMELY rare. Conclusions (pending further investigation and with the understanding that we are still dealing with the statistics of small numbers) 1. Afganit appears to make no significant difference vs DM53 with flank shots at 2-2.5 km, AI gunner, presumably aiming at centre mass. 2. The first hit with DM53 almost always either kills or inflicts significant mission kill/combat effectiveness reducing damage with the first shot in the above circumstances. If I have time tomorrow, I'll review the reports against the AARs and see where those non damaging hits were placed. Hopefully that will give a bit more clarity. I am, however, starting to think that a lot of the hits I thought were non-damaging actually were and that the red text in the visual AAR reports did not appear for some reason - perhaps because the part damaged had already been damaged, or perhaps because there is a threshold for damage to generate the red text. I'll leave it there for the moment... Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km Afghanit on 3.sce_8_10-26-19_18_20_02.htm Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km Afghanit on 2.sce_8_10-26-19_18_13_39.htm Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km Afghanit on 1.sce_8_10-26-19_18_00_02.htm Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km Afghanit off 1.sce_8_10-26-19_17_47_15.htm Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km Afghanit off 3.sce_8_10-26-19_18_37_20.htm Armata vs Leo2A6 side o n2km Afghanit off 2.sce _8_10-26-19_18_26_27.htm Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401820.aar Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401813.aar Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401800.aar Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401747.aar Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401837.aar Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401826.aar
  14. The actual testing itself that generates those AARs takes much longer and is proving quite tedious, if informative. I'm using the AI gunner as I kept shooting dead targets over and over. It was too much of a faff going to map view in mission editor after every shot to see if I killed one, so it's a case of- "Target! Ready! Tank! On! Fire!" Rinse and repeat 50X and again, and again and again. Late edit: I discovered you could use 10x time acceleration whilst in action. That saved a big chunk of my sanity.
  15. Where does SB save those tabular HTML files by default? I used to look at them all the time in 4.0 but can't seem to find them now.
  16. Good point. I'll do some proper testing and put some up. Could I just ask where SB currently saves the tabular AAR statistical reports by default because I'd like to include those too.
  17. I know that, until I have provided proof, you will regard this as annecdotal, but in the scenarios I have played with either M1A2 or Leo2A6 vs the T-14, upon subsequent review of the visual AAR (which I always do), I have witnessed a lot of hits that had me scratching my head. They tend to mirror Assassin 7's results above in that the kinetic projectile passes completely through the vehicle, often going through the centre of the hull side to side or the turret, without causing any damage at all. On one occasion a DM53 did this front to back, exiting from the rear of the engine compartment, without doing any damage. I am not an expert in terminal ballistics, but I have played a lot of scenarios vs all sorts of older T series tanks and only occasionally has a penetrating hit left me scratching my head. Penetrating hiits that leave the T-14 completely unharmed almost invariably kill T-72s. Formerly the anomalies were more of vehicles being knocked out by extreme glancing blows where perhaps the fin of the KW projectile scraped the roof armour or perhaps even a periscope. I have also had KE projectiles hit the RWS on the T-14 full on with no effect, which seems very strange.
  18. For me the Armata has added an great and highly topical new challenge to an already brilliant simulation. I'm enjoying it immensely. One thing I did early on was line up two units of 10 M1A2 with AVEPS and T14 in line formation at 2.5 km range on a flat map and let them duke it out. It always ended badly for the Abrahms, but they were always able to kill at least a few of the T14s before being wiped out -in five attempts, the best they achieved was six kills and the worst three. They also damaged a significant number - damage to turrets/guns was frequent. So, not unstoppable, but very challenging and (in a simulation) a lot of fun.
  19. OK, to hopefully prove that I don't constantly sit on the sidelines being picky, and very much thanks to Sean for sorting out my login and giving me some basic instructions, here's my first take at a Wiki manual for the JIM-LR. I put it in Vehicles - Others as I couldn't find a section for other equipment types such as ATGW, MGs and optical sights, RWS etc.
  20. OK, "often happened" ... I'm not being critical, just acknowledging that making vehicles, and playable ones in particular must be orders of magnitude more work than some of the other things requested, some of which have application right across SB, I am completely in awe of the vehicle interiors in particular. In fact, at 54 years old, I'm awestruck every time I play SB, and the only other simulation can say that about is Harpoon/CMANO.
  21. Those are all current and in (sometimes widespread) service so relevant to current military customers as OPFOR. Not really nostalgia vehicles IMHO. AFAIK Jpz Rakete (HOT) and Spahpanzer Luchs by comparison aren't in service with anyone anymore and others are getting rare, or extinct, at least in Europe (Leo1A5, M60A3, M901, T-62).
  22. Yes, there are a bunch of "nostalgia" vehicles in there, but AFAIK none have been added recently and even minor mods to existing older vehicles (for instance an earlier Leo 1 with passive IR sights which keeps getting requested) have not happened - I hope that changes. My favourite and far and away most used vehicle in SB is the Leo2A4. I would not ask someone for a labour of love on my behalf, though. That's just me.
  23. Realistically, I would guess that, because of the very significant investment involved, most if not all new vehicles introduced to SB from now on, are going to be paid for by military customers or created with the intent of wooing military customers and keeping the product relevant. That's why we have particularly seen highly detailed playable vehicles used by NL and Belgium, plus Russian OPFOR non-playable "prototypes" appear recently, for example. It's a big ask to request a completely new vehicle, so I tend to avoid it.
  24. Vehicles to have markings that reflect their call signs rather than to all have the same numbers.
×
×
  • Create New...