T-14 overpowered against sabots?

[Raven434th]

It must be said  that most but not all of our observations and comments on this issue are in a multiplayer environment,Under combat conditions with multiple types of assets on the maps...just sayin.Netcode I think has to be accounted for.Don't know if that's really a factor or not.The flying tank we saw last night kinda got us thinking.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Raven434th

[ChrisWerb]

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

[ChrisWerb]

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

Edited October 27, 2019 by ChrisWerb

[ChrisWerb]

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?

 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by ChrisWerb

[Assassin 7]

Reviewing @ChrisWerb tests. Here here are some questions:

 

I seen that the DM53 was Intercepted by the Grenade Afganit APS. But the AAR still shows the DM53 entering into the Turret compartment with no damage. 

 

[Assassin 7]

This one shows the DM53 going through:

[ChrisWerb]

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. 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by ChrisWerb

[Assassin 7]

Given some of these examples are not an Tank or Armored vehicle but the fragments from the Sabot penetration are devastating. I understand that there will be less fragments entering into the compartment of a Tank. But the T-14 Turret compartment isn't really that big. 

 

 

 

[Assassin 7]

10 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said:

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. 

 

Correct, but there is no damage at all being recorded even though there are several shots like the ones I posted above

[Assassin 7]

Here are a few more screenshots:

 

 

[Assassin 7]

I a cant disagree with @Volcano about we as Tanker shooting the targets until they are deformed. I hope Esim's is planning something like this. When Tank and APC's are hit current APFSDS-T and other projectiles. Pieces are blown off the vehicle, external, baggage and etc. I am already thankful to see the Turret's blown off but to make thing more realistic I would love to see that. Seeing things back in my Tanker days and seeing the Combat footages in Ukraine and Syria. IMO it would be a pretty neat implement but challenging I could imaging. 

[ChrisWerb]

32 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

Correct, but there is no damage at all being recorded even though there are several shots like the ones I posted above

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.

Edited October 27, 2019 by ChrisWerb

[Assassin 7]

Here is another screenshot:

 

 

[Raven434th]

This is why I questioned their damage model...that would IMO have been a damaging shot,and I see ALOT of these when engaging the armata.Now to be clear...THAT reported a "no damage" shot correct?

Edited October 27, 2019 by Raven434th

[ChrisWerb]

1 hour ago, Raven434th said:

This is why I questioned their damage model...that would IMO have been a damaging shot,and I see ALOT of these when engaging the armata.Now to be clear...THAT reported a "no damage" shot correct?

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).

Edited October 27, 2019 by ChrisWerb

[Ssnake]

We will certainly have a critical view at the component damage likelihoods in the Armata. I'm not saying that everything is perfectly fine as it is. 24% of shots passing through the vehicle and not causing any damage at all is not exactly what I'd like to see either. But we have to ask all these questions to make sure that there really is something that needs to be done. Wouldn't be the first time that someone is frustrated by a single game session and then starts blaming game design rather than accepting bad luck.

[ChrisWerb]

11 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

We will certainly have a critical view at the component damage likelihoods in the Armata. I'm not saying that everything is perfectly fine as it is. 24% of shots passing through the vehicle and not causing any damage at all is not exactly what I'd like to see either. But we have to ask all these questions to make sure that there really is something that needs to be done. Wouldn't be the first time that someone is frustrated by a single game session and then starts blaming game design rather than accepting bad luck.

I'll happily own up to being that person. 

[Assassin 7]

3 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said:

I'll happily own up to being that person. 

Your not the only one and im sure there are others

[Maj.Hans]

In regards to the M829A4...

I am perfectly fine with the eSim Games introducing it as a preliminary model.  It should be clearly noted in the release notes that it is such.  Maybe it would be nice to have.  I do mostly us SB for 80's-90's cold war scenarios however, so...Meh...I think right now I'd rather have Milan mounted on Marders, even if it comes as a totally separate vehicle.

 

ETA: The Armata is a totally new vehicle.  I haven't even played around with it yet and don't plan to bother until next patch or so lol.  Give them time to iron it all out before we get angry huh?

Edited October 27, 2019 by Maj.Hans

[ChrisWerb]

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.

Edited October 27, 2019 by ChrisWerb

[ChrisWerb]

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.

[Volcano]

On 10/27/2019 at 10:12 AM, Raven434th said:

This is why I questioned their damage model...that would IMO have been a damaging shot,and I see ALOT of these when engaging the armata.Now to be clear...THAT reported a "no damage" shot correct?

The turret ring is below that spot, and its partially concealed by the upper hull.

 

There are plenty of places in the turret that has components, and also AS I SAID, damage is not 100% chance on damages everywhere. A lot of the Amata turret is open area, but yes, sure, you can get a shot in there without hitting something vital, just like you can do the same on a manned turret (ie. on an M1A2). Sheesh.  It is an unmanned turret after all. Also, it wouldn't be fair to the Armata if we just splashed random damage all over the outside of the turret, as this is something we do not do on anything else. 

 

Basically, if you hit an area where there are components, then you will likely the cripple the turret in some way, but if you instead hit an area where there isn't anything vital, then you will not, and since there is no crew in the turret, you won't get the added crew damage from spalling (which is a strength of the unmanned turret).

 

As stated previous, I see nothing wrong with the damage model. I have looked it over twice now (the second time is now classified as a waste of time) - it is in line with all the others, and you can post just as many pictures of the turret getting crippled by impacts as well (but that is not what you are trying to prove here, right?). 😑  Anything beyond what it is now would simply be fudging it to achieve a goal of just making it less capable.

 

Regarding the other comments (from others), the comparison to the T-90 is not valid. You cannot make a direct comparison between the T-14 and T-90, because the T-90 has a crewed turret. So, on the T-90 (or any crewed turret for that matter) when a round hits the turret, and misses the vital components, you usually get residual crew damage from spalling. Sometimes the vehicle is destroyed as well, which is from the severe spalling inside the crew compartment disabling the crew (depending on the power of the penetration). What you are witnessing on the T-14 is the advantage of the crew-less turret.

[ChrisWerb]

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.

[Volcano]

No. Unfortunately, Nils is making comments based on these posts, which is just one side of the coin, and has not discussed it with me. There are members of the team that do different things, and sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. This is the case here. I evaluate all armor models and hold them to a very strict standard, among other things.

 

All of those things (components) you mention are certainly present in the armor model, but as I said (does anyone read all the text?) The shot in that perfect location shown in the image is just under the vitals (the breach is inches above it, and the turret ring is inches below it).

 

And where are the "available schematics of the turret" you are referring to? We went over the T-14 is great detail when it was made (from the info we had a few years ago), and the turret interior isn't as jam packed as you think it is.  I mean seriously, the gun has to elevate and depress inside, and the rounds have to moved around from the rear of the turret, up the autoloader, and after the gun is loaded the autoloader moves to the stored position out of the way to allow the gun to elevate and recoil. The shot in the images are just under the gun breach by INCHES. A gun breach typically has nothing below it, because if anyone knows anything about tanks there can't be anything below the breach or else it wouldn't be able to elevate the gun. The turret needs open areas in places in order to function and, most importantly,  for a human mechanic to get in there and do maintenance.

 

That said, should something else be in there on the armor model, like another component just to the side and below the breach?  I don't know. Perhaps, but from a literal point of view in regards to how the armor model works, and how the math works, there are no issues. I don't deal with the specifics of the interior components inside the model, but the guy that made the model is very particular, having made all the other T tanks before it. So, without specific information to the contrary, there will be no adding of excessive damages to the turret without a reason. It doesn't make sense to just have some kind of damage happen just because a round went into the T-14 turret somewhere.

 

And again, the T-90 is not a direct comparison, because as you said - the crew casualties are happening usually when the turret is being hit with no other component in the round's path. Sorry, that argument doesn't hold any weight in this situation. The only way that the T-14 would have damages in that impact location is if random turret damage was applied to the outer turret, and that just doesn't happen on any other tank.  Funny how this isn't an issue when any other tank is shot through the turret with no effect (it certainly happens). But yes, when we start talking about how many times out of 100, given that the T-14 has no crew in the turret, then it means that 100% the time that the shot misses something vital, then nothing else will happen (where as on a manned turret it will likely cause crew damage, at least). You said you were interested in hearing why the T-90 and T-14 turret impacts differ, and that is why (manned versus unmanned).

 

The other thing we have to remember here is that the T-14 turret is relatively thin in armor. The thinner the armor, the less spalling occurs from impact. The T-14's turret, more or less, is about the protection of an IFV turret. All this seems to point to the fact that the T-14/T-15 turret can take some hits in certain (very few) places with no effect, especially if someone found place to shot it to no effect, and continues to aim exactly at it in these "laboratory tests".

 

[Volcano]

On 10/26/2019 at 6:00 PM, Assassin 7 said:

Yeah too bad the M1A2 actual fighting capabilities is not modeled in SB either

BTW, I just noticed this comment.

 

If that is a reference to the latest stink-bomb over the "missing M829A4", then well, we are looking into that, but don't expect miracles from that ammo anyway. The more we find out about it, the less impressive it is, but certainly it would be helpful to have against ERA equipped tanks like the T-14, sure. We are taking time out of our busy schedule to look at it though.

 

Otherwise, if this is a general gripe about how the M1A2 is generally modeled in SB (as I have been noticing more and more) then take these jabs at the development team elsewhere. The M1A2 is as detailed as any other vehicle in SB, and if that isn't good enough for you then I don't know what to say.