Jump to content
Raven434th

T-14 overpowered against sabots?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Raven434th said:

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.

 

OK, so I wasn't completely aware of the existence of the M829A4 (formerly M829E4, apparently). Guilty! I guess I can expect my "you are supposed to know everything" lawsuit (or is just a spanking?) to arrive shortly. 😑

 

In my previous post, I was purely speculating, based on historical situations - and the fact that the US military has been concentrating on counter insurgency warfare for the past two decades. If they developed another KE round in 2015, then great!

 

But reading about the M829A4, there is nothing available in regards to important information that must be known in order to even approximate what the round would or should be. For the new Russian ammo, that was developed specifically for the T-14, we had sufficient information to do it.  For the M828A4, all we know is that such a round exists, but we don't know either the muzzle velocity or penetration, the two most important pieces of the puzzle. If we had that, then we probably could (and likely would) approximate a new round, why wouldn't we? Clearly, you don't know eSim if you think there is some reason why we would intentionally refuse to add a new round.

 

But reading about the M829A4 (the information that everyone is reading), it says that...

 

     "The M829A4 120 mm cartridge is a line-of-sight kinetic energy cartridge designed for the Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 MBT. It is the materiel solution for the Abrams’ lethality capability gap against threat vehicles equipped with third-generation explosive reactive armor."

 

(it also states that the penetrator is still depleted uranium)

 

This implies that its penetration performance is increased to the point that 3rd Gen ERA becomes ineffective over the M828A3's penetration power, so maybe something like a ~+150mm RHA increase in penetration over the M829A3.  But that is coming right out of my anal canal, because there isn't much else out there. If someone has more accurate information then by all means, provide that to Ssnake, not me, I'm just the guy in the trenches, here to investigate a "drive by shooting" type post about the T-14 armor model, likely resulting from some behind the scenes discontent. All I can say is that everything is in order there, based on the best information available, and the T-14 is painstakingly detailed.

 

-----------------------------

 

Besides that, in regards to the M829A3: why would the US not go to war with the M829A3?  Rhetorically, do you think that we take all the depleted uranium penetrator rounds and throw them into a huge landfill somewhere? We have war stocks of those rounds, so even though we might not have the M829A4 in SB, you can certainly bet that the vast majority of ammunition available in a large conventional war is certainly going to be existing stockpiles of M829A3, and they would be used as well in addition to anything else. I say that, because its not like we have some kind of gross criminal-neglect misrepresentation here as is implied by the tone in your last post.

 

(And BTW, when I said this was probably better in another thread, I was thinking of the thread (somewhere) which is completely devoted to a general discussion about the T-14, perhaps not best in the Support Forum. Its not some kind of offense meant to me taken, rather, you would get more mileage out of the discussion if it was somewhere else. Anyway, I moved it to the General Discussion, so that maybe it can be more of a discussion.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bond_Villian said:

MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEH

 I hope your E button doesn’t break lol 😂. I think this seem to contain encrypted messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

abrams and leopards getting frontally one shoted by heat rounds
and T-14's shrugging off full racks of sabots tells me this thread needs to be moved back to support and changed from INVALID to INVESTIGATING.

And yeah ssnake,I do enjoy the fireball and turret pops...its what I payed 200 plus dollars for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have put off implementing the M829A4 so far because I haven't assembled enough data but if you feel that you can't win without better ammo, I suppose I'll create a preliminary approximation. Undoubtedly some will then go REEEE! on the inevitable subsequent revisions but I guess that can't be helped. What would help however if you actually started collecting and providing meaningful data along the lines already described so we have something to work with, rather than repeating opinions and assertions. We only have so much time to investigate. Everything that you can do to help us will result in a faster turnaround time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M829A4 is an advanced 5th generation APFSDS ammunition designed by the US for the M256 120mm L/44 smoothbore gun as a response to the Relikt ERA which was able to defeat the previous M829A3 APFSDS.

The M829A4 can penetrate 880mm of Rolled Homogeneous Armor at 4000 meters which is only slightly better than the 840mm of the M829A3, this is because its mainly meant to counter Explosive Reactive Armor and Hard Kill Active Protection Systems than composite armor.

It has a Data Link system that allows the tank's Fire Control System to program it based on the Gunner's input.

The M829A4 defeats ERA and APS by the use of a prefragmenting penetrator that breaks apart into multiple pieces just before impact to activate the APS countermeasures and detonate ERA modules in advance and give way for the main penetrator to penetrate the armor.

This becomes possible because the Data Link system allows the tank's Fire Control System to program the penetrator the time it prefragments based on the distance of the target measured by the Laser Range Finder and other factors measured by the system's sensors.

 

https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/army/2015m829a4.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Raven434th said:

abrams and leopards getting frontally one shoted by heat rounds
and T-14's shrugging off full racks of sabots tells me this thread needs to be moved back to support and changed from INVALID to INVESTIGATING.

And yeah ssnake,I do enjoy the fireball and turret pops...its what I payed 200 plus dollars for.

Statistics, meaning of it...do you know it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, stormrider_sp said:

The M829A4 is an advanced 5th generation APFSDS ammunition designed by the US for the M256 120mm L/44 smoothbore gun as a response to the Relikt ERA which was able to defeat the previous M829A3 APFSDS.

The M829A4 can penetrate 880mm of Rolled Homogeneous Armor at 4000 meters which is only slightly better than the 840mm of the M829A3, this is because its mainly meant to counter Explosive Reactive Armor and Hard Kill Active Protection Systems than composite armor.

It has a Data Link system that allows the tank's Fire Control System to program it based on the Gunner's input.

The M829A4 defeats ERA and APS by the use of a prefragmenting penetrator that breaks apart into multiple pieces just before impact to activate the APS countermeasures and detonate ERA modules in advance and give way for the main penetrator to penetrate the armor.

This becomes possible because the Data Link system allows the tank's Fire Control System to program the penetrator the time it prefragments based on the distance of the target measured by the Laser Range Finder and other factors measured by the system's sensors.

 

https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/army/2015m829a4.pdf

Is there a source for these 880mm RHA at 4000m? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Statistics, meaning of it...do you know it?

screenshots,reports,AAR's....look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Is there a source for these 880mm RHA at 4000m? 

Sorry, no. I couldn't know any of it either. My opinion is that it should be at least very similar to the A3 version, whatever penetration it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Raven434th said:

Well fuck THAT was easy!

Not really.  Without access to the firing tables you don't know the round's super-elevation, standard deviation, time of flight, maximum ordinate, time of flight to maximum ordinate, angle of fall, or most importantly remaining velocity at a given distance.  Sure, eSim could guess at those numbers, but that leads to inaccurate modeling which I thought we're trying to avoid here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raven434th said:

screenshots,reports,AAR's....look at it.

I take that as a "no" then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thewood said:

I have to ask...why don't you post the AARs?

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.

Edited by ChrisWerb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pdf document states that this is an advanced programmable fuse round.   Explicitly designed to defeat ERA, AND APS by fragmenting based on information from the tanks lrf.  That makes things a bit more complex than just adding a few RHA's to the A3 round.

 

We do have programing in place for these types of rounds, the CV90 KETF rounds.  But based on what I read in this pdf, this A4 operates a bit differently than a air burst round.   At any rate, this round is not something that sSnake can just crank out on his own with a new entry, and a few keystrokes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RogueSnake79 said:

The pdf document states that this is an advanced programmable fuse round.   Explicitly designed to defeat ERA, AND APS by fragmenting based on information from the tanks lrf.  That makes things a bit more complex than just adding a few RHA's to the A3 round.

 

We do have programing in place for these types of rounds, the CV90 KETF rounds.  But based on what I read in this pdf, this A4 operates a bit differently than a air burst round.   At any rate, this round is not something that sSnake can just crank out on his own with a new entry, and a few keystrokes..

A short look at it...I don't realy see the problem with KE round engagements here. hits on the turret disbale it in the majority of cases, and hits at the frontal armour work as they should too...

M1A2 HE test.sce_8_10-26-19_17_12_04.htm

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Raven434th said:

Well we've shown you the problem...it's up to you to solve it....or not.

Extraordinary claims require that you have more than a mere opinion to support them, sorry. We're not asking for iron proof, or something that you can't provide so we can avoid the discussion by deflection. All we're asking for is that you shoot the targets some more and actually COUNT how often _no_ damage occurs, only light damage, a mission kill, or a complete kill. And that you document where exactly you hit them if you believe that you identified a "problem spot".

You can even go through all the report HTML files that Steel Beasts generated, and load them into Excel for a rough evaluation. It will at least say what kind of major components failed and give a rough indication of the impact location, and from what engagement range. You're sitting on a heap of data! It just requires that you go through it. And you don't even have to look for a needle in a haystack, you can search the spreadsheet for anything reading "Armata" and then simply compile the lines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ChrisWerb said:

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.

My Documents\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\reports

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...