T-14 overpowered against sabots?

[Raven434th]

well I'm gonna throw a wrench into the mix by saying this issue may not be just an HE problem but a damage model problem overall.And the reason I say this is due to discussions I've had with tankers and players that have been using Steel beasts for a long time. It seems  almost impossible to engage the T-14 with any effect using  Sabots....In a number of scenario's the T-14 took 8 -10 rounds and was still able to fight...when discussing this with other players ,I was directed toth is thread in a context of this"roll of the dice\mathematical calculation" explanation that esim is giving us. I think we need more feedback on 4.161  in regards to engagement results. Something just doesn't seem right here. Either the roll of the dice calculations are wrong or the T-14 is too overpowered , or we simply need a newer round to counter it. And I suspect this is also a clue to the HE issue....maybe....

[Ssnake]

Since this is an entirely new discussion, I split it from the original thread.

[Raven434th]

I can see why you made this a new topic...but you must understand why I posted it where I did. The discussion is really about the 'dice rolls"

 

well kinda...not really sure what the discussion should be frankly

 

Hmmm....To put it simply,I've been shooting tanks in the face in this game and killing them in 1-3 rounds for decades,now I face a tank in game that shrugs off 8-10 rounds and kills me.Gotta raise the question.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Raven434th

[Volcano]

Short answer, no.  Long answer, it depends on where you hit the tank and whether or not its APS is active.

 

But just going off your text alone, the front hull of the T-14 is *nearly* impervious to any KE round available (until you blast away some of its ERA), depending on the impact angle, and this is not unreasonable nor unrealistic, considering that is where they put all the tank's armor, not having to worry about armoring a crew-less turret.

 

Then you have the unique part of the design where the crew is located in a small compartment to the front. So, unless you cause some kind of explosion to the ammo, or a fire (which are probable if the ammo carousel is hit), then the only way to kill the T-14 is by firing into the forward crew compartment with KE from the side or rear.

 

This naturally makes the T-14 very survivable against KE (and HEAT when you factor in the ERA). Then factor on top of the APS, and well, you have a serious threat. The weakness of the T-14 is that the APS intercepts a maingun's KE round and reduces it in strength, but not enough to prevent the KE round from disabling the turret (in most situations). This essentially disables the T-14 pretty easily. Then, as mentioned above, you can still get a critical hit on the ammo storage, but the issue is that you cannot hit the ammo storage from the front, without going through the very thick frontal armor, so it must be from the side.

 

But beyond those factors that you have to understand (if you want to understand the T-14), nothing appears incorrect in regards to the T-14 and KE ammo, no bugs in the armor model, and KE damage is unchanged from how its always worked ("new HE" changes discussed in the other thread has had no effect on KE impacts). On the other hand, someone could argue the specifics about the armor, but no one knows for 100% certain (obviously) - but we used the best sources available to us, and the data is reasonable.

 

Hopefully that helps...

 

[Ssnake]

The question is, how well does the Armata do after the first hits, provided you hit in the right spots. There is one notorious weakness in our damage model that works in every tank's favor, which may be particularly prominent in this case - tank guns are less likely in SB Pro to take damage if hit straight on than hitting them perpendicular to the gun axis. That's not a bonus for the Armata, but the Armata would suffer this fate more often in real life than it does in SB. Just like all other tanks in SB.

"Killing" the Armata is and should be difficult. Achieving a mission kill however - damaging it to the point that it can no longer fight back effectively, should be relatively easy. So the question is, how much do you look at partial damages in the AAR, or are you fixated on a big fireball and a flying turret.

[Raven434th]

With the amount of attempts I've tried to survive against this thing, I'm mainly interested in disabling the beast...but it rarely happens before it or its buddy kills me. Don't get me wrong...I have killed the beast..but it seems sooo random when it happens.I have maybe 10 kills on it total since it was released to the battle space.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Raven434th

[Assassin 7]

So since we are on this topic: IMO I believe the Turret of the T-14 takes a hit that it will be severely degraded.

 

And here is why I believe this, All the communications and power management that runs through the Turret coming from the Slip Ring. As this Diagram shows there are many FCS components and sensors are location in the the Turret, plus the Harnesses used to communicate. IF fragments are flying in this Turret there would be IMO severe damage of course as it would be random and degraded the T-14 as it would be none mission capable. Also if the surrounding observation cameras are knocked out the T-14 would loose its situation awareness around the sides at least. So if you watch this Video there isnt much room for those Harnesses to be routed to the Slip Ring.

 

 

 

Also I could imaging if the Gun Mantle was to take a hit that it would cause severe damage to the Trunnions which would not allow the Gun to elevate. 

 

Now here is articles from Russian sources saying about the T-14's systems:

 

This is from Russian media, looks like "Armata" have problems! https://versia.ru/vpk-tak-i-ne-smog-zapustit-massovoe-proizvodstvo-sovremennyx-tankov Translations. By the end of 2019, at best, 16 Armata tanks will be delivered to the troops instead of 44, which were supposed to be made in the schedule. Almost all the important units of the tank need to be improved. Therefore, for some time, troops will receive vehicles that are greatly simplified technically compared to the original requirements. In April 2016, the then Deputy Minister of Defense and current Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov announced the signing of a contract with Uralvagonzavod for the supply of 100 “Armata”. The plant management promised that the machine will go into mass production in 2017. But when the military was already preparing to see the latest tank at the training grounds, it suddenly turned out that the delivery time of the first batch was postponed until 2020.

 

 

versia.ru

ВПК так и не смог запустить массовое...

До конца 2019 года в войска будут поставлены в лучшем случае 16 танков «Армата» вместо 44, которые предполагалось выпускать по графику. В доработке нуждаю...

@everyone This is from Russian media, looks like "Armata" have problems!

https://versia.ru/vpk-tak-i-ne-smog-zapustit-massovoe-proizvodstvo-sovremennyx-tankov

Translations.

By the end of 2019, at best, 16 Armata tanks will be delivered to the troops instead of 44, which were supposed to be made in the schedule. Almost all the important units of the tank need to be improved. Therefore, for some time, troops will receive vehicles that are greatly simplified technically compared to the original requirements.

In April 2016, the then Deputy Minister of Defense and current Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov announced the signing of a contract with Uralvagonzavod for the supply of 100 “Armata”. The plant management promised that the machine will go into mass production in 2017. But when the military was already preparing to see the latest tank at the training grounds, it suddenly turned out that the delivery time of the first batch was postponed until 2020.
versia.ru
ВПК так и не смог запустить массовое...
До конца 2019 года в войска будут поставлены в лучшем случае 16 танков «Армата» вместо 44, которые предполагалось выпускать по графику. В доработке нуждаю...

The latest Armat supply contract was signed at the Army 2018 forum. Officially, the Ministry of Defense simply extended the contract for an experimental batch of vehicles on the promising heavy tracked platform Armata. According to it, the plant should deliver 132 armored vehicles to the Russian army in the T-14 tank (Armata tank), T-15 infantry fighting vehicles on the same platform, as well as the BREM T-16 armored repair and recovery vehicles.

It is already obvious that the contract will be disrupted at least in terms of delivery time. By the end of 2019, out of 44 units planned for production, the army will receive a maximum of 16, of which a quarter will be ARVs. This is just a company of tanks. Most likely it will become a PR project, they will be shown to foreigners and journalists. Since 2020, all these tanks will undergo test-military operation in the 2nd Guards Taman Motorized Rifle Division of the Western Military District.

One of the reasons is serious flaws, due to which the representatives of the special reception have doubts about the combat effectiveness of the “miracle weapon”. According to reports, a number of weapons systems that the T-14 Armata tank is equipped with need further testing and experimental operation in existing military units. In the publication by “Military-Industrial Courier”, it was suggested that almost all important units of the tank — a power plant, transmission, sighting system — might need refinement. Even the armor that was used on the demonstration samples was made using foreign technology.
The fact is that “Armata” is crammed with various auxiliary systems and electronics/.../ But all these "bells and whistles" significantly complicate the design of the combat vehicle. This leads to the fact that the requirements for those who repair and maintain new equipment are significantly increased. The qualification of mechanics should be no worse than that of the engineers of Uralvagonzavod. Where the army will find so many high-class specialists, as is customary with the military, for little money, is unclear.

Since Russian industry is not able to solve all problematic issues in a short time, simplified versions of tanks will go to the army first. Perhaps, in order not to purchase a large number of "unrefined" tanks, production plans could be deliberately reduced. On the other hand, it is not clear why tanks enter the troops, the readiness of which is worth doubting.     Perhaps, in order not to purchase a large number of "unrefined" tanks, production plans could be deliberately reduced. On the other hand, it is not clear why tanks enter the troops, the readiness of which is worth doubting. Perhaps this is a tacit agreement between the military and industry, because the failure of the contract is a serious matter. Moreover, in recent years, the authorities have been doing PR for Armata as a technical achievement that they don't want to admit to now people that they have problems with project.
The main indicator that the Russian military-industrial complex could not cope with the production of "Armata" may be the decision to modernize old models of armored vehicles. It seems that in anticipation of the latest development of domestic tank building, the army is twisting as it can. Under various contracts, the T-90M "Breakthrough-3", T-80BVM, T-72B3M tanks with domestic sighting and observation systems — about 400 units in total — will be delivered to the troops by the end of the year. Well, as long as there is no “Armata”, an old proven technique will help out.

 

 

U

 

 

 

 

Remember this is all assumptions as I have not been on the T-14 but having been on other Tanks such as the Abrams and knowing its fighting capabilities and how its systems work, I believe this is accurately close. 

 

 

Now I have attached some screenshots showing what I believe should cause more damaged to the T-14. Just maybe something to look into. 

[Assassin 7]

Here is the another AAR: some of these T-14's are taking shots from the rear

SEP's_-Leopard2A5_vs_12__t-14's__demo_10212_102419DESKTOP-UHDQ2103.aar SEP's -Leopard2A5 vs 12 t-14's demo.sce

[Volcano]

All I can say is, there are serious damages applied to the T-14 turret already. It is what I mentioned above.

 

You have all the sensors there, plus possibility to inflict maingun damage, and possibility to damage the turret. Once the turret is damaged, usually its just a paper-weight.

 

Not much more can be done there, its all pretty standard, and its as good as its going to get. The turret is clearly the T-14's weakest aspect, and it does seem like the Russians have realized this and are interested in up-armoring it (or so we have been observing).

[Assassin 7]

17 minutes ago, Volcano said:

All I can say is, there are serious damages applied to the T-14 turret already. It is what I mentioned above.

 

You have all the sensors there, plus possibility to inflict maingun damage, and possibility to damage the turret. Once the turret is damaged, usually its just a paper-weight.

 

Not much more can be done there, its all pretty standard, and its as good as its going to get. The turret is clearly the T-14's weakest aspect, and it does seem like the Russians have realized this and are interested in up-armoring it (or so we have been observing).

Understood I just don’t like how the AI commander continues to want you to re-engage them. I think after they are severely damaged the AI Commander should focus on the next T-14 shooting at you 

[Volcano]

Well, that is true on every tank where the turret or gun is destroyed. Rhetorically speaking, how would the AI (or user) immediately know that the gun or turret is destroyed on a tank? Since you were on tanks yourself, you know for a fact that a typical tank crew and tank platoon will tend to continue to shoot a target "until it changes shape". When I was on M1A1s, that often meant that we would fire on dead targets up to 10 more rounds wasted until it caught fire or exploded, which is something we were often disciplined on.

 

So, the AI isn't perfect, and neither are human tank crews either. In a game though, we want the AI to immediately jump to the next target though, sure, but that isn't quite realistic either, as it means the AI will go from target to target, knowing which is more of a threat.

 

But speaking of that, there has always been behavior in place already where the AI magically knows to lower prioritize a target if it considers it "disabled". The AI considers a target disabled if both its gun is damaged and the engine (or driver) is also damaged as well, IIRC.  So its not like they don't do this in extreme cases. In other words, if the gun is damaged, and the AI continues to shoot the target and also damages the engine or driver, then after that it is supposed to prioritize (not totally ignore IIRC) it over operational targets.

[Volcano]

7 hours ago, Volcano said:

All I can say is, there are serious damages applied to the T-14 turret already. It is what I mentioned above.

 

You have all the sensors there, plus possibility to inflict maingun damage, and possibility to damage the turret. Once the turret is damaged, usually its just a paper-weight.

 

Not much more can be done there, its all pretty standard, and its as good as its going to get. The turret is clearly the T-14's weakest aspect, and it does seem like the Russians have realized this and are interested in up-armoring it (or so we have been observing).

BTW, regarding my reply and the images of the impacts on the T-14 turret, I suppose I should elaborate...

 

There is indeed main gun damage in the inner mantlet, and turret ring damage on the turret ring proper, and sight damage on the internal optics. There is also stored ammo in the rear of the turret, which has a chance to trigger a plethora of turret related damages from a fire (the stored ammo is designed in a way that a fire wouldn't kill the tank though). Technically everything in the turret can be damaged by a fire triggered on the turret  stored ammo, or just some components damaged, and there is a very small possibility for a catastrophic explosion from the turret stored ammo, just for the sake of uncertainty (the hull ammo is where a much higher catastrophic explosion can occur). I have verified all of that.

 

None of these damages are 100% chance though, just like how it isn't 100% on any other tank, so that is what I meant by it being standard. Depending on the shot location, angle of impact, and post penetration power, there is a percentage of damage generated, and this is standard behavior for all armor models. It is no different on the T-14.

 

Then there is a little known fact that the APS radars are actually modeled in SB. You can actually damage/disable the APS radars individually, one at a time (there are 2 on the vehicle, but other RU vehicles have more), and when one is damaged then all associated/linked Afganit APS rounds for that 'sector' are also disabled. So, the turret is pretty detailed, and there are plenty of vulnerabilities modeled into it.

[Raven434th]

This begs the question, if the russians are aware of the flaws,and are up armoring the T-14, what are nato forces doing to counter it...and where are the newer rounds to penetrate it. An a4 round. Shouldn't that have been included in the update?...I mean if the abrams was to go into the battle space to fight T-14's,...they wouldn't be carrying a3 rounds.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Raven434th

[TankHunter]

I'd imagine the reason for the lack of an M829A4 or DM63 is that eSim lacks the information needed to create something that isn't a massive WAG.

[Volcano]

Probably best for another discussion or forum...

 

Sure they would be fielding the M829A3 ammo, at least at the present time, as its still the best available. There could be something newer in development, but not fielded, or at least it would be classified (doubtful). Still, the M829A3 can do the job well enough when a platoon of tanks is engaging a T-14. Also keep in mind that Russia doesn't have that many T-14s in the first place, something like a brigade (IIRC). So even though it might be advanced, it isn't fielded in significant numbers to make a decisive difference if there ever was a large scale war - at least not yet - especially when you start factoring in attack helicopters and close air support. 

 

But just as the US got behind in conventional warfare technology after the Vietnam War, it is not unreasonable to think that the same has occurred due to the two decade long counter insurgency wars of the present day (although we have advanced quite a bit with infantry equipment, MRAPs, and drones and counter insurgency tactics though).

 

(I am sure that the west is certainly working on their own next generation designs, and main guns may not be that conventional for much longer for all we know. Also, yes, I think the Russians are aware of the T-14's weakness. Its APS system is not as good as western ones (like Trophy or AVEPS), and they seem to be aware of the turret vulnerabilities and are apparently looking to up armor the turret. It is a never ending arms race.)

 

 

[Ssnake]

53 minutes ago, TankHunter said:

I'd imagine the reason for the lack of an M829A4 or DM63 is that eSim lacks the information needed to create something that isn't a massive WAG.

DM63 performs exactly like DM53 for all practical matters. The change is the propellant, which keeps the muzzle velocities nearly constant over a wide temperature range.

[Raven434th]

47 minutes ago, Volcano said:

Probably best for another discussion or forum...

 

Sure they would be fielding the M829A3 ammo, at least at the present time, as its still the best available. There could be something newer in development, but not fielded, or at least it would be classified (doubtful). Still, the M829A3 can do the job well enough when a platoon of tanks is engaging a T-14. Also keep in mind that Russia doesn't have that many T-14s in the first place, something like a brigade (IIRC). So even though it might be advanced, it isn't fielded in significant numbers to make a decisive difference if there ever was a large scale war - at least not yet - especially when you start factoring in attack helicopters and close air support. 

 

But just as the US got behind in conventional warfare technology after the Vietnam War, it is not unreasonable to think that the same has occurred due to the two decade long counter insurgency wars of the present day (although we have advanced quite a bit with infantry equipment, MRAPs, and drones and counter insurgency tactics though).

 

(I am sure that the west is certainly working on their own next generation designs, and main guns may not be that conventional for much longer for all we know. Also, yes, I think the Russians are aware of the T-14's weakness. Its APS system is not as good as western ones (like Trophy or AVEPS), and they seem to be aware of the turret vulnerabilities and are apparently looking to up armor the turret. It is a never ending arms race.)

 

 

I call bullshit here...It's totally relevant to the discussion right here and now.you(esim) creates the armata to reflect future scenarios while approximating the capabilities of the tank...APPROXIMATING.Abrams would not go into the field without an a4 in its rack,if the possibility of encountering the T-14.The a4 round has been around for some years(since 2014?)and went into production in 2016.that's almost 4 years of availability.No reason why you can't approximate it as well.Your argument makes no sense IMO.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Raven434th

[thewood]

I vote we remove the Armata to resolve this issue.

[Grenny]

13 minutes ago, thewood said:

I vote we remove the Armata to resolve this issue.

Why? Noone forces anyone to use it...

[Assassin 7]

 

“(I am sure that the west is certainly working on their own next generation designs, and main guns may not be that conventional for much longer for all we know. Also, yes, I think the Russians are aware of the T-14's weakness. Its APS system is not as good as western ones (like Trophy or AVEPS), and they seem to be aware of the turret vulnerabilities and are apparently looking to up armor the turret. It is a never ending arms race.)”

 

We are not behind in the arms race. Choices have been made by the people who know what is best for the soldiers and what they are up against. 

[ChrisWerb]

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.

Edited October 25, 2019 by ChrisWerb

[MAJ_Fubar]

I don't know, but I've done a lot of testing while working on the wiki articles for the T-14 and its kin and honestly, I don't see the issue.  Sure, as modeled the the T-14 is tough, scary tough, but even with Afghanit it's flanks aren't any thicker than other tanks and it's turret is thin; it's easily de-fanged.  I think everyone is butthurt because they can't rely on having a 3000m ballistic overmatch and actually have to use solid combined-arms tactics to defeat it (and all of the new Russian kit), especially in the defense.  Personally I see it as a (re)learning experience.

[dlad]

Totally anecdotal, but in the few multiplayer games where  I've seen T14s, I've often been engaged by MG only. Assuming they have already taken main gun/turret damage, by the time we roll up in our IFVs.

 

DBoy

 

[Assassin 7]

10 minutes ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

I don't know, but I've done a lot of testing while working on the wiki articles for the T-14 and its kin and honestly, I don't see the issue.  Sure, as modeled the the T-14 is tough, scary tough, but even with Afghanit it's flanks aren't any thicker than other tanks and it's turret is thin; it's easily de-fanged.  I think everyone is butthurt because they can't rely on having a 3000m ballistic overmatch and actually have to use solid combined-arms tactics to defeat it (and all of the new Russian kit), especially in the defense.  Personally I see it as a (re)learning experience.

This isnt the case at all

[TankHunter]

When we first got the things in SB I was amazed at how vulnerable they are to relatively weak and common things. I found that the turret was rather easy to disable and the thing can be easy to kill with direct fire under certain circumstances. It is a scary vehicle, but in some ways it is a paper tiger in SB, I'm inclined to believe that the representation of the vehicle is about as accurate as is possible, without having someone actually crawl around the thing and engage in espionage against Russia.