Euro wonder tanks!

[outontheop]

So after being told there was in fact no preferential treatment on the capabilities of the various tanks, I figured... why not try it out and see?

... so, two companies of M2A2 Bradleys and a company of M1A1HAs ambushing against their equal number in Leo 2A5DK and CV9040Cs. Figure it ought to make for a good fight.

Suffice to say if the CV9040 bofors KE hit a Brad, it generally killed it. All well and good, it SHOULD be capable of killing a Bradley with a solid hit. Brad's only armored to 30mm after all.

Only, for some inexplicable reason, the Leos were surviving TOW-IIBs detonating over their rear decks about half to 2/3 the time. Leos were regularly (over 50%) surviving barrages of 15-20 M829A3 delivered at around 1200-1000 meters. CV9040s had about a 50% survival rate against TOW-IIB.

At a range of 440 meters, I put THIRTY FOUR rounds of 25mm M919 into the side of a CV9040, including 5 into the turret ring. THIRTY FOUR ROUNDS! Didn't even faze it, just turned and killed me after calmly dispatching the rest of my platoon while I pinged rounds ineffectually off it.

I have a REAL hard time imagining the Leo2A5 is THAT much more heavily armored than the M1. And I have to wonder what exotic isotope of Unobtanium the CV9040 is armored with, because M919 will kill T-fricken-80s from the side at ranges around 500 meters, but apparently won't scratch the CV9040. I have as yet not managed to kill a single CV9040 with 25mm, and I know darn well that's BS. 'Armored against 30mm' does NOT mean 'completely impervious to 25mm against all shots at all ranges at all aspects'. After all, the T-80 is armored against 120mm, but you can still kill it with M919 from the sides at 500 meters.

Somehow, despite under-tonning the Bradley by around 4 tons, the armor is magically MUCH thicker, because I haven't had any difficulty killing Bradleys with other Bradleys- and yes I'm aware the CV9040 has a steeper glacis slope, but I'm hitting the SIDE, fercryinoutloud.

Was 'unstoppable juggernaut' part of the original Swedish requirements when you put the CV9040 in the program?

[GH_Lieste]

Well part of the problem may be shot placement.. I just ran a test at 1200 vs 6 x CV9040B and 1000 vs 6 x CV9040C and killed all 12 vehicles for a total expenditure of roughly 140 rounds... At this range a hit rate of 75% is fairly good, and some areas are much tougher than others...

FWIW I had more trouble at the slightly longer range vs the CV9040B than I did against the heavier CV9040C, as it was easier to obtain consistent shot placments.

The same test from c500m required 72 rounds to complete 12 engagements.

As for mass comparisons... the Bradley is a huuuge vehicle, much larger than a CV90. It was inadequately protected in its original concept, and some additional armour was added to it, eliminating the option to fire from under armour, and the amphibous capability. The loss of these actually has little real tactical significance, but the changes to the design required to incorporate these on the original vehicles remain and can do little to reduce weight or enhance protection.

The basic Bradley armour was a slightly heavier aluminium armour than the M113, with some laminate/spacing over the front. AFAIK the uparmour package on the ODS version is applique steel armour plates, but uparmouring continued with subsequent versions/updates. The CV90 is steel armour with MEXAS composite armour incorporated. These modern composite armours appear to have very high mass efficiencies when compared to homogenous armours, or those of previous generations.

It would be interesting to note the improvment in protection between (say) the Kingtiger at almost 70 tons and 200+mm armour to the Leopard 2A4 at 65 tons and 500+mm protection vs KE or 800+mm protection vs CE. At the same time both firepower and mobility have been transformed and flank protection is comparable or better depending on hit location.

[outontheop]

Yeah, I just ran a purely emperical test myself; firing M919 at frontal CV9040, frontal M2A2, and side (90 degree turned) T-80. Against the IFVs, my point of aim was centered on the turret ring; I let the natural shot dispersion do it's thing and ran the test several dozen times to get a fairly good dispersion of shots all over the front of each vehicle. Against the T-80 I aimed at the middle of the hull just behind the turret.

The M2A2 generally took 7-15 hits to kill. The side aspect T-80 took approximately 20-25 hits. The CV9040, with it's adamantium exoskeleton that weighs 20% less than the M2A2 took a whopping 120 rounds on average.

Next, side aspect shots!

[outontheop]

Well, from the side it was LESS grotesquely biased; 4-5 hits in mid-hull kills Brads, it takes about 9-12 to kill the CV9040.

Amazing, the CV9040 superior armor to the Brad all around despite weighing considerably less, AND it's side armor is ALMOST as strong as a T-80!

It must come with standard issue deflector shields, I guess

[outontheop]

Ok, now how does the 40mm match up? Well, frontal shots, it takes about 3 to kill a Brad at 1000m. Against a CV9040.... WOW, it take an average of FIFTEEN hits from 40mm, with some of them taking as many as FIFTY hits before giving up the ghost.

And the CV9040 vs T-80, M2A2, and CV9040 flank shots, with impact centered midway up the hull directly below the turret: M2A2 took an average of 2 to kill, CV9040 took 4, and T-80 takes 3. Once again, CV9040 surpases the T-80. Hmm....

Seeing that the 25mm was killing CV9040 from the side, I assume the 40mm almost always penetrates, and therefore the INTERNAL after-armor effects in the CV9040 are assessed as less volatile than the Brad. Considering the CV9040 seems to have 40mm stowed in trays at the bottom of the turret a'la jack-in-the-box T-72, I find this most curious.

So here we have a 26 ton vehicle, that, in SB Pro parlance, can withstand 15 hits from rounds with 170mm rHA penetration. The 33 ton M2A2, on the other hand, can only take 15 hits from rounds with 100mm rHa penetration.

Therefore, it stands to reason that somehow the CV9040 has armor almost twice as thick, yet weighing less. Granted the 9040 is a somewhat lower vehicle, but I figure the frontal area as roughly: 9 m^2 for the bradley, 8 m^2 for the CV9040. So, 88% the frontal area on the CV9040. But only 78% the mass.... where's all this extra armor coming from?

[outontheop]

Oh, I understand the ideas behind the composite armors, I rolled in a Stryker covered in the stuff for 15 months.

... it's not THAT much more weight efficient. We had pretty thick panels, but they were regularly getting shredded by 7.62mm fire (mind you the main armor belt was stopping the rounds)... on the other hand, the high-hardness steel armor was taking tungsten cored 7.62 at close range, and I couldn't find a scratch anywhere on the stuff.

I just have a hard time imagining the CV9040 has more than 110-120% the effective armor value on the front compared to the Bradley, even considering the slope and ceramic armors. Yes, the Brad has a higher overall height, BUT has a comparable width, and the turret on the CV9040 is about 80%-90% the width of the hull, whereas on the Brad it's closer to 60%-70%. I accounted for that, and figure 9 square meters frontal area on the Brad vs 8 on the CV9040. Somehow I doubt the CV9040 is has 10% less armor weight per square meter, yet has TWICE the armor effectiveness.

... unless the Bradley modelled in the game is the ancient M2A0 or A1 models, but it sure LOOKS like it has the steel applique on it!

[GH_Lieste]

You are still performing worse than I obtained..

My greatest number of hits before a K-Kill from the flank was 11 rounds at 500m, with most being fired from 30 degrees ahead of the 90 degree line. I suspect that most of the non-killing rounds were marginal for penetration, and performance may have been slightly improved further by taking the shots at 90 degree flanking position.

As for vulnerability:

The Bradley has standard cannon ammunition and carries large ATGM in the fighting compartment. The CV90 by default has insensitive ammunition and doesn't carry large ATGM.

Current MEXAS armour compared to simple Steel or Aluminium armour is similar to the comparison between Chobham and RHA - for the same weight, armour effectiveness can be 2 or even 3 times as high vs KE, and even higher vs CE weapons.

Future armours are expected to approach 3.7 mass effectiveness with superior multi-hit capabilities.

The CV90 isn't particularly well protected, being a bit better than the Bradley and Marder, but the Puma is reported to be even more protected.

[outontheop]

See, and that's the problem; the Brad and CV9040 SHOULD be comparable in protection, but (at least on my computer), they aren't even close in the game. The CV9040 has a vast (70-80%) superiority in armor, and seems to perform better in regards to after-armor effects.

As to munitions, I was unaware that the PPFX and HE rounds on the CV9040 were any less explosive than those on the Bradley. Particularly considering the 40mm have a much larger net explosive weight and are stored pretty much loose, whilst the 25mm are stored in 20-round canisters of a pretty resilient polymer (not ARMORED per se, but enough to deflect smaller fragments)

Oh... and as to flank kills, yeah... maybe at 500; I was testing at 1000

Either way, it seems to me that the capabilities of the CV9040, at least in the field of PROTECTION, seem to be vastly overestimated in the game right now (oh... I'm using the 2.370 beta... if that matters. Actually... is the CV9040 even IN 2.238 or whatever?

I totally understand that the 40mm has significant overmatch to the armor of the Brad, but the 25mm M919 isn't exactly a slouch of a round; it should be capable of reasonable effects against the 9040. After all, the 9040 is armored against 30mm... and 30mm (in both Russian and British guise) has far inferior penetration to the 25mm M919.

Mind you, I'd LOVE to see the Bradley get upgunned to the Bushmaster II, or better yet, the US adopting a more modern IFV altogether, but the M242 doesn't suck NEARLY as bad as the game seems to indicate.

[GH_Lieste]

Well CV9040B is marginally vulnerable to M791 at 1000m

I'm reloading the ammo box ready for the CV9040Cs to roll past...

And the CV9040C are dying as well... Ammunition expenditure is prohibitive, but armour penetration is only 60mm at the muzzle... total for 12 kills of 6 CV9040B and 6 CV9040C was 542 rounds

A re-run with Bradley M2A2ODS resulted in no K-kills in 300 rounds, suggesting that the M2A2 has better flank protection, but higher post-penetration vulnerability (due to ammunition stowage?)

[Kingtiger]

How good is the 25mm on post penetration effects?

one thing that can explain it is that the CV90 have pretty much 2 layers of armour, with about 30-40cm between them (stowage compartments and extra equiptment areas) so if the 25mm is fragmentating after the first wall it might loose all its power when it hits the 2nd wall?

I dont know, all I know is that Esimgames have built the CV90 around "official" numbers, swedish army didnt give them the secret numbers.

or it just maybe a bug in the armour values, we seen that before.

/KT

[Kingtiger]

OK just did a quick test...

just want to check.. you are talking about the M919 ammo that has 100rha right?

are you sure you have selected right ammo in the mission editor?

because in my test on 1200m I wasted around 30-40 M791 before killing CV90B on 1200m. and the M791 with 60Rha is Default ammo

With M919 ammo I spended 5-10 rounds before killing CV90B, sometimes 3 round sometimes 10 rounds, but never more then 10 rounds.

so I think the reason why you dont see why you expect is that you have wrong kind of ammo selected.

/KT

[dejawolf]

thats wrong, the M2A2 ODS bradley is not 33 tonnes, but 27 tonnes.

you're thinking ODS M2A3 with ERA blocks and extra roof protection.

the Cv9040B is 23.1 tonnes, and the CV9040C is 28 000 tonnes.

2 pictures comparing the height of the cv90 to the bradley

http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/bradcv90sides.jpg

http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/heightsfront.jpg

and done a bit of calculating.

the bradley heavy side armour skirts, made of steel, has to be 1040kg heavier than they would on a cv90, because of the size difference.

similarly, the front glacis of the bradley needs to be 560kg heavier of steel equivalent to stop the M919, compared to the cv90, because of the sloping.

but if you compare it with the critical areas (the areas where it will cause serious damage like engine failure or crew killed, the difference is 800kg.

the lower front hull is different, the bradley has a tiny lead of about 80kg lighter than the cv90 to be protected against M919.

thats just from the front aspect of the hull though. but even from that you can see the armour mass having to be less to give a similar level of protection.

ok side protection, i took figures vs M792 or whatever its called, 60mm RHAe.

the difference is 1280kg for equivalent protection vs KE.

and for the rear the difference is 400kg difference for equivalent protection vs KE.

so overall, the CV90 hull can be 2.4 tonnes lighter, and provide the same level of protection as a bradley.

as for the turrets, haven't calculated anything yet.

but i think the other 2 tonnes is because the bradley probably has somewhat better side hull protection,

as the turret of the cv90 is marginally larger than the bradley.

the bofors gun is about 350kg heavier than the bradley gun.

Edited September 13, 2008 by dejawolf

[outontheop]

Ok, so I was using the uparmor kit weights for the M2A2; I'm just using the CURRENT weights (kind of like how the M1A1HA is a poor standard to compare in SB Pro because in reality, US Army standard has been largely transferred to M1A2... and I seem to recall there being a M1A1HA+ upgrade that is essentially an A1 with the A2 armor package. Hmm... that'd be such a SIMPLE upgrade for ESim to do, too... but for another time). At any rate, you obviously took more time doing your measurements and calculations than I did (I just tossed together rough estimates based on shortcut math), but you got pretty much the same results I did- that the Bradley needs to be about 2 tons heavier than the CV9040 in order to have comparable armor protection. Even assuming that we're talking a 1991 M2A2 and not a 2005 M2A2, that means the CV9040C should be armored, at best, 20-30% better. However, I was getting comparable penetration/ effects from 40mm with 170mm rHA vs CV9040 as I was getting with 100mm 25mm vs M2A2 (actually, I was getting BETTER results with the 25mm vs M2A2!!!), which implies to me that the CV9040 is treated as having almost twice the effective armor, rather than 20-30% increase.

As for ammo, YES, I did ensure I had M919 loaded. Now, it's worth noting that SOME CV9040C were killed with as few as 2 or 3 rounds M919 from the front at 1000m, but the AVERAGE was around 100-120 hits.

So firing against stationary frontal CV9040C DID provide me the poor results I noted earlier. HOWEVER, when I ran a scenario where I had 12 Brads in defense against 30 CV9040C, I pretty much tore the CV9040s apart, based on a) using TOW at standoff ranges, and b) maneuvering behind IV lines and forcing flank shots at 1000 meters and less. When forced to engage frontally at about 1000 meters or thereabouts, the Brads came out slightly worse for wear but killed roughly comparable numbers of CV9040C.

One thing I did find is that the CV9040 seems (counterintuitively) considerably more vulnerable to frontal turret shots than frontal hull shots. I imagine this is due to the extra mass of the engine providing 'armor' in front of the squishy bits, and the fact that turret hits are hitting the soft squishies (or nasty explodies). However, when aiming frontally, I was trying to put rounds through the drivers compartment instead of the engine compartment, and it didn't seem to make any difference. If anyone else here know some soft spots on the CV9040, feel free to let me know

That said, still taking between 15-30 hits frontal at 1000m, often more.

[dejawolf]

well, the statement about the US army largely being M1A2 based is completely untrue.

the US army has in total made about 8800 abrams tanks. of which 4343 remains now.

only around 600 M1s were upgraded to M1A2 standard, with 240 new built SEP, and 77 new built M1A2s, bringing the total up to about 917 M1A2s

the total number of HA tanks built was 2289.

and only 155 has been upgraded to the AIM standard.

that leaves over twice as many SB-standard tanks in US army service as M1A2 standard tanks, and about 500 tanks at inferior standards than the SB abrams currently in service.

there was probably a large decomissioning of IPM1 standard tanks a few years back or something, since the US army has downsized its inventory.

also there was a recent flare-up on tanknet when there was talks of the M1A1 AIM program being cut back in favor of the FCS program.

you should also consider that SB doesn't try to simulate only the latest and greatest, but a range of tanks from the early 80s to today.

[outontheop]

Ah, but having and using are two very different things. We HAD A-7 Corsair II until VERY recently, and still HAVE M1 Garands in national inventory... that isn't the same as forward deployment. And keep in mind that that's twice as many M1A2 out there as there are CV90s, of all models, in all militaries in the world

Suffice to say upwards of 2/3 of the Abrams I saw in country had CITV on them. ...But then again, I was also up in Baqubah when it was the regional hotspot (estimates were upward of a thousand AQ triggerpullers and a couple thousand more assorted support in the city at the time), so I suppose it would have made sense to send the hottest new kit. They sent the Stryker Brigade, after all. (ok, I suppose 3/2 isn't THE Stryker Brigade anymore now that 4/2 and 5/2 are up. At the time we were it, though)

As for Bradleys, not so much. Mostly A2s still. But I don't recall ever seeing one without the uparmor tiles

[Kingtiger]

What is the estimated armour values for the CV90B? I havent been able to find anything?

/KT

[Flanker15]

Ran a little test scenario CV40 Cs shooting at M2A2s at 2000m side aspect and vice versa. Everyone has their best KE shells.

Conclusion: Since the KE shell for the CV has a 170mm penetration and the M2A2 only has 100mm, the CV can knock out M2A2s much easier than the other way round. However the CV can knock out other CVs much easier than it can knock out M2A2s showing that the M2 has better protection (atleast on the sides). Also the CV tends to catch fire much easier than the M2 showing that it has more vulnerable ammo/fuel.

Fun fact: you can cause a M2A2 to burst into flames by showering it with 25mm HE from another M2. (Doesn't happen all the time, AAR shows the destruction is caused by HE not a shell strike).

[outontheop]

Probably won't find anything terribly official, it's too new.

... and something just occurred to me; I had made an offhand comment about how I'd love to see the M2 upgunned to Bushmaster II, or for the Army to finally get a successor vehicle fielded: wel, it occurs to me the CV9040 (in SB Pro) makes a pretty good surrogate M1206 FCS IFV. the 1206 is supposed to have improved armor, a 30mm/40mm Bushmaster II with airburst fuzing, and even the visual profile is similar (ironically, the M1206 reminds me of nothing more than a crossbreed of CV90 and M2 Bradley). Of course the actual controls will no doubt be different, and the key differences will be in battlefield SA and information systems, but as far as armor/firepower/mobility/profile goes, it seems similar.

...though I'm pretty sure the M1206, with a 9-man squad, is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the CV90.

[dejawolf]

nah, its twice as many M1A2s as cv90s fielded by sweden alone.

theres 1170 CV90s of various types around the world.

but well, point taken.

[outontheop]

oh, duh, I was looking at the 2000 M1A1HA value not the 1000 M1A2... still, there's as many A2s as there are CV90s worldwide.

[Kingtiger]

Probably won't find anything terribly official, it's too new.

But without knowing the side armour values this test is useless?

We cant compare anything if we dont have the right figures.... ?

[outontheop]

No, we don't know the EXACT official numbers, but by comparing the vehicle weight to the surface area presented on the front and sides, you can figure out roughly how heavy the armor is. The M2A2 should have about 20% more WEIGHT in armor per square inch, but the CV9040 has a better front slope and more advanced armor... the question is, is the armor SO advanced that it offers over twice the effectiveness per pound? That's what I find so hard to believe.

Oh, and KT, in regards to it only taking you 5-10 rounds to kill CV9040, I just noticed, you were shooting at B models, I was shooting Cs, which are uparmored. I ran my defensive battle of 30 CV9040 (B this time) vs 12 defending M2A2, and this time mopped the floor with their faces.

[dejawolf]

once a round punches through, its not about the "armour effectiveness" but the stowage layout.

the bradley has a lot of highly flammable, and even explosive components laying about in the crew compartment, everywhere. you have the 4 TOW missiles in the hull rear behind the dismounts backs, along with those 25mm ammo cans, various infantry weapons and such, all at the vehicles center, and relatively unprotected.

http://data.primeportal.net/m2_iraq/P4114672.jpg

in this picture you can see 5 TOW2 missiles sitting in the hull rear.

and another:

http://data.primeportal.net/apc/russ/M2/23270026.jpg

the cv90 by comparison has all its round low in the hull, spall protected containers where it is less likely to cause fire, and its all stowed away in relatively secure containers.

http://www.primeportal.net/apc/olof_nilsson/cv9040c_photos.htm

at 1:56 you can see the carousel of the CV9040 being loaded. its fairly enclosed when not in the loading position, theresn't much spall thats going to come in there, unless its hit directly.

well, the bradley ammunition bins in the turret aren't worse really, but they're mounted higher in the vehicle and instead of an almost flat disk-shaped target, its a tall box-shaped one.

[Tacbat]

I wonder how many of the crew were disabled after hitting all of those trees. :sonic:

[GaryOwen]

Back to the subject of 25mm penetration: I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who has gunned a Bradley or LAV-25 with service ammo against BMPs, BTRs, or BRDMs to comment on the whether the game's penetration model against those vehicles seems correct.