T-14 overpowered against sabots?

[Assassin 7]

On 10/27/2019 at 10:55 AM, Assassin 7 said:

Here are a few more screenshots:

 

 

@Grenny this one

 

[Assassin 7]

4 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Which one?

May I suggest that you download Chris’s AAR’s and review them off the recent posted diagram as there are many tested shots

[Grenny]

That show a distorted model as you have a pov that never was intended nor properly modelled in the first place? And that tells us what?

[Raven434th]

If a sabot did get into that area,I would expect the ammo to cook off like a t-72

[Assassin 7]

Just now, Grenny said:

That show a distorted model as you have a pov that never was intended nor properly modelled in the first place? And that tells us what?

Please review yourself 

[Grenny]

Just now, Assassin 7 said:

May I suggest that you download Chris’s AAR’s and review them off the recent posted diagram as there are many tested shots

Well if you build you argument on a screenshot, would be nice if you provide it...not interested in going on a goose chase.

[Assassin 7]

Just now, Grenny said:

Well if you build you argument on a screenshot, would be nice if you provide it...not interested in going on a goose chase.

I will not respond to you anymore. Thanks though

[Grenny]

2 minutes ago, Raven434th said:

If a sabot did get into that area,I would expect the ammo to cook off like a t-72

Why? There is no ammo in its path or direct next to it...

[ChrisWerb]

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

Edited October 29, 2019 by ChrisWerb

[Assassin 7]

1 minute ago, ChrisWerb said:

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 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 157.75 kB · 0 downloads Armata_test_1500m_side_on_M829A3_Afganit_off_10056_102919HP-Z4401803.aar 4.23 MB · 0 downloads

Thank you Chris for conducting these tests. Later tonight I will download and review your AAR’s. Great testing and great AAR’s

[Volcano]

37 minutes ago, RogueSnake79 said:

Even if these images are more accurate than the model we have, they all still show clearly that there are rather large areas in this turret that have no major, vital components, and would not be affected by a pass though of a KE round.   Which means this whole discussion is at best about a very minor adjustment to an armor model.   And with that adjustment, the events in question will still be possible, now only by aiming a few more inches to the left, or right etc

 

I think the core of the problem we seem to be having, is not taking into full account the fact that this turret is unmanned.  Despite Volcano repeating it several times.  And that the turret crew on other vehicles result in a large percentage of damages/kills.

 

Yes indeed. If there is an error here, we are talking about an error of inches. Its essentially rivet counting territory, but still we will take it into consideration.

 

Also, yes, the fact remains that this vehicle is unlike anything else in SB, which is what is cool about it.  Its even very different from the T-15 (the next closest vehicle), whose crew and troops occupy most of the hull. The T-14 is >75% crewless areas, and it does indeed have open areas in the turret - for both maintenance, and for gun operation, therefore it is certainly possible for pass-through impacts in real life that hit nothing vital (that being the advantage of a crewless turret to begin with).  But the idea that the turret is packed to the brim with no empty spaces is simply not true.

 

But lets all take a breath of air, its being looked at. 🙂

 

[ChrisWerb]

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.

Edited October 29, 2019 by ChrisWerb

[Volcano]

13 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said:

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?

You mean to say, if the military customer fires at the tank in the same precise place, repeatedly, for 50 rounds? I admit that I haven't looked at the AARs yet though.

 

The odds of that happening are slim, being in the realm of the controlled labratory test. With just the gun elevated or depressed in some way, or the aspect angle of the target being slightly different, or the range differing enough that dispersion takes effects, then you will get very different results.

 

 

[Volcano]

1 minute ago, Volcano said:

You mean to say, if the military customer fires at the tank in the same precise place, repeatedly, for 50 rounds? I admit that I haven't looked at the AARs yet though.

 

The odds of that happening are slim, being in the realm of the controlled labratory test. With just the gun elevated or depressed in some way, or the aspect angle of the target being slightly different, or the range differing enough that dispersion takes effects, then you will get very different results.

Furthermore, there is one indisputable fact here. Even if there was some percentage of component damage that applied to the turret, then after that damage occurs once, then there are no other effects for the other 49 rounds that impact the same precise area. It means that you could continue to engage the target in the same place, to no effect.

 

So, this also isn't a valid argument - that the customer will fire repeatedly to no effect.  The fact is, the AI *knows* where to shoot to get an effect, which is in the area of the ammo storage, to cause an explosion.  And any military customer would study the threat, and know this as well, and would not fire at the turret 50-100 times repeatedly.

[ChrisWerb]

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. 

Edited October 29, 2019 by ChrisWerb

[RogueSnake79]

The other thing that needs to be reiterated, is armor protection.  It is low on this turret, very low.  Particularly on the sides to my understanding.  

 

Why do tank commanders in SB insist on using HEAT to engage PC's, IFV's, etc.?  Armor is required to release fully, the kinetic energy of a KE round.  The blast, and fragmentation simply does not happen when a sabot travels through thin, lightly armored targets.   Sure, there will be some, but most of the round will be in one piece when it hits the dirt on the other side of the target.

 

You could argue, that if they up-armored the sides of this turret, M829A3 might be MORE effective against it.   Perhaps this is the why, to the lack of heavy armor in places on this turret.

[Assassin 7]

12 minutes ago, RogueSnake79 said:

The other thing that needs to be reiterated, is armor protection.  It is low on this turret, very low.  Particularly on the sides to my understanding.  

 

Why do tank commanders in SB insist on using HEAT to engage PC's, IFV's, etc.?  Armor is required to release fully, the kinetic energy of a KE round.  The blast, and fragmentation simply does not happen when a sabot travels through thin, lightly armored targets.   Sure, there will be some, but most of the round will be in one piece when it hits the dirt on the other side of the target.

 

You could argue, that if they up-armored the sides of this turret, M829A3 might be MORE effective against it.   Perhaps this is the why, to the lack of heavy armor in places on this turret.

As this is a true statement let’s not forget the hot fragments from the Armor and other components being hit flying everywhere. The hot fragments may just go halfway through the Turret and cause the ammunition to ignite. Or may go all the way to the other side of the Turre t bouncing off the wall and who knows what it would hit. So there are many different scenarios of what could happen but I’m sure a small area around the projectile path will be affected causing some sort  of damaging effects. 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Assassin 7

[Volcano]

4 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

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. 

OK, I just reviewed the AAR.  Yes, if the impact is in the side, and misses the ammo storage, then the best you can hope for is that it will suffer some damage to the turret. This is explained earlier, I fail to see the point. The issue was, I thought, that impacts in some areas of the turret cause no damage, and in that case I said that the one possible issue I see is that the breach could be a bit larger on the bottom, to more likely cause gun damage in the images that were posted previously. Now the "discussion" is migrating to the fact that the T-14 can be hit in the side turret and this will not kill the vehicle? Yes, that is absolutely correct.

 

Edit: Also keep in mind that impacts on the turret that cause damage, do not show further effects when they hit the same area that causes the same damage again.

 

Hitting the vehicle in the side, in a non-vital area, in an unmanned turret, will not cause a kill. This is true for any other unmanned turret. This is not unrealistic. This is true for any RWS, and for the T-15 turret as well if the impact is not directly on something vital. The AI knows to aim lower in the ammo storage area, and human should be able to figure this out, as we have all done in the past. There just simply is no reason for the tank to be destroyed when hit from the side above the turret ring. Also, even with damage applied to a larger breach, repeated hits in the non-vital, non-killing areas would be futile.

 

As for the comment about 'considering how full up the T-14 turret is', well yes sure, if we are hypothesizing without evidence. Look, I understand that you are all-in on this subject now and you can't back down, but the fact remains, unless there are some interior images shown of the turret interior and its cables, then there will be no assumptions or guessing here, where liberal damages are applied to the turret just for the sake of people thinking it should be there. It is assumed that the T-14 is like any other turret in SB, where there are cables and hoses that exist, but these are in confined places and are generally protected from spalling effects, or have some level of redundancy. No other tank in SB has this excessive damage applied to it, so the T-14 doesn't either unless specific evidence to the contrary. Beyond that its just wishful thinking.

 

 

 

 

[Volcano]

15 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

As this is a true statement let’s not forget the hot fragments from the Armor and other components being hit flying everywhere. The hot fragments may just go halfway through the Turret and cause the ammunition to ignite. Or may go all the way to the other side of the Turre t bouncing off the wall and who knows what it would hit. So there are many different scenarios of what could happen but I’m sure a small area around the projectile path will be affected causing some sort  of damaging effects. 

Sorry, but no. This is not modeled on any other tank, because it is unknown how much heat would be generated by the spall in the degree that it would or would not be able to sufficiently penetrate and (from its heat) ignite the propellant of rather thick casings of ammunition located inside, which are themselves located in a carousel, and likely covered from above. The ammo isn't bags of powder laying in there, they have some durability, at least from spalling generated from relatively thin turret armor. The thicker the armor, the more severe the spall, the the T-14's turret has the thickness of an IFV (also, as already mentioned previously 😑).

 

And besides that, no other vehicle in SB takes spalling in effect when determining ammo explosions. If that was the case, then all existing vehicles would suffer greatly from it (Leo 1,2, M60, etc). Direct impacts to ammunition are required for explosions (and the probability for fire and explosive is very generous here), otherwise its quite excessive to assume (and to model) this.

[Raven434th]

I really don't think the Russians anticipated the Americians comming up with a solution to counter the Armata so soon. IMO this allows Abrams to use the same tactics as they would against T-80\90, meaning they can engage it frontally if they choose to...at the same ranges. But that's my speculation...not fact.

[Assassin 7]

11 minutes ago, Volcano said:

Sorry, but no. This is not modeled on any other tank, because it is unknown how much heat would be generated by the spall in the degree that it would or would not be able to sufficiently penetrate and (from its heat) ignite the propellant of rather thick casings of ammunition located inside, which are themselves located in a carousel, and likely covered from above. The ammo isn't bags of powder laying in there, they have some durability, at least from spalling generated from relatively thin turret armor. The thicker the armor, the more severe the spall, the the T-14's turret has the thickness of an IFV (also, as already mentioned previously 😑).

 

And besides that, no other vehicle in SB takes spalling in effect when determining ammo explosions. If that was the case, then all existing vehicles would suffer greatly from it (Leo 1,2, M60, etc). Direct impacts to ammunition are required for explosions, otherwise its quite excessive to assume (and to model) this.

So a hull shot just underneath the turret from the side should be a devastating shot then taking in consideration of how tall the rounds are and the thickness of the side Armor?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Assassin 7

[Volcano]

4 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

So a hull shot just underneath the turret from the side should be a devastating shot then taking in consideration of how tall the rounds are and the thickness of the side Armor?

A shot in the ammo storage area should destroy the vehicle, yes, also a shot from front to back on the turret, into the turret ammo storage may also cause a kill too, but I think this is less likely given the design of the bustle ammo.

 

Keep in mind too that there is ERA on the side hull, so this weakens the impact, and the probability of fire or explosion from ammo depends on how much residual penetration remains (the more the better, obviously). An M829A4 that helps bypass ERA would help there, of course.

[Raven434th]

But the A4 round is specifically designed to defeat ERA...that's the whole point of it. 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Raven434th

[Assassin 7]

And another thing taking inconsideration of how light the Turret is. When the ammunition is ignited would the Turret pop off? If not why?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Assassin 7

[Assassin 7]

5 minutes ago, Raven434th said:

But the A4 round is specifically designed to defeat ERA...that's the whole point of it. 

The M829A3 was made to defeat ERA