Jump to content
Raven434th

T-14 overpowered against sabots?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ssnake said:

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.

 

My reply was mostly in context to the a4 round and wheather it could be\will implemented...not the damage model as it is now regarding heat or sabot, so in THAT regards can't do anything till you give us an M829A4 to play with. As for the other issues...that's what beta testers are for. I think enough screens and aar's show you there's a problem somewhere. We reported our concerns, its up to you and the team to resolve it. no offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes longer to write a completely un-formatted post on the forum than it does to post an AAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thewood said:

It takes longer to write a completely un-formatted post on the forum than it does to post an AAR.

The actual testing itself that generates those AARs takes much longer and is proving quite tedious, if informative. I'm using the AI gunner as I kept shooting dead targets over and over. It was too much of a faff going to map view in mission editor after every shot to see if I killed one, so it's a case of- "Target! Ready! Tank! On! Fire!" Rinse and repeat 50X and again, and again and again. :)

 

Late edit: I discovered you could use 10x time acceleration whilst in action. That saved a big chunk of my sanity.

Edited by ChrisWerb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking to the other guy complaining.  Grenny ninja'ed me.  But you already have the pictures, so I am assuming you have the AARs to post.  You guys seem to encounter this so often, it shouldn't take long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raven434th said:

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.

When we were facing them in beta sessions we did well enough against them. This implies to me that there may be an issue of tactical art or an issue with the scenario as opposed to an issue with the actual vehicle.

 

Treating the M1A2SEP as if it is the finger of God usually works in most cases, except for when you are facing a T-14. In those cases where T-14s appear, it may be wise to do things in a more tactical and cautious fashion. Not relying entirely on the tanks to do the wetwork alone, independent of any other assets that you may have is also a good idea. There is a reason that NATO often doesn't have homogeneous formations at company level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't have any data to add here, but all the new armata based vehicles and the new russian prototype vehicles equipped with aps  are difficult to kill in my experience, it isn't merely in my view only a matter of the t-14 tank armor profile: the ifv version of the armata and the wheeled and tracked prototype apc's/and ifv's equipped with aps are able to deflect shots even from the m1a2 using the best available ammo. it often happens the the m1a2 may detect an apc or ifv class vehicle first, get off several shots first, which are defeated by the aps, then the m1a2 gets a spanking by a powerful atgm when the enemy responds. taken as a whole, this imparts the experience that the aps as modeled is a powerful advantage for any armored vehicle with powerful ammunition, not just the t-14 or even a different tank, and if the m1a2 isn't likewise equipped with a similar active kill system, it is disadvantaged. it is the aps in my experience which has really turned the tide  if you put an equal number of m1a2 tanks against the t-14 armata tank or bradleys against the t-15 armata ifv and just trade shots, the m1 tanks and the m2 bradleys are going to take losses, notwithstanding artillery, air support or prior damages to the russian vehicles.


 

i think that the t-72b3 would be a good vehicle to include in some future update to fill the gap between the older generation of russian tanks and the t-14 armata: as volcano mentioned that the russians don't appear to field the t-14 armata in large numbers, and it may be that the russians may be more interested in holding back these tanks in a conflict or at least they may prefer to put their large fleet of t-72 based vehicles up to the line first.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WRT the question why the M829A4 hasn't been added earlier - well, to model it accurately more needs to be done than to simply add another set of ballistic property data and call it M829A4. Some programming will have to be involved to accurately reflect capabilities and limitations. When that'll fit into the workplan, we'll have to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thewood said:

I was talking to the other guy complaining.  Grenny ninja'ed me.  But you already have the pictures, so I am assuming you have the AARs to post.  You guys seem to encounter this so often, it shouldn't take long.

Sorry, thewood. 

 

OK, I did some testing as promised. Methodology as follows.

 

Red side: five groups of six Armata, in column at close spacing with their ammunition removed and both tracks set to damaged.

 

Blue side: Leo2A6 with infinite DM53.

 

Flat map, clear day, range from c. 2km up (dependent on position of each enemy vehicle as in column at right angles - exact angle varied for similar reasons.

Results (note that I haven't checked how often Afganit operated, but a brief glance at the AARs shows it fired quite a lotl).

 

With Afganit on (rounds to kill 30 vehicles) 54, 44, 43, total 141, Average 47 shots to kill 30 vehicles or 1.57 shots per kill.  Of the hits that occurred 7.8% failed to cause any damage with the caveat that the vehicle was already immobilised.

 

With Afganit off (rounds to kill 30 vehicles) 60, 41, 48, total 149, Average 49.6 shots to kill 30 vehicles or 1.65 shots per kill. Of the hits that occurred 14,7% failed to cause any damage with the caveat that the vehicle was already immobilised.

 

Not all hits were solid ones by any means and I have not yet had time to go back and review each hit in the report with the imagery in the AAR, so I suspect a high proportion of the non damage causing hits were extremely peripheral or grazing. 

 

The thing I find interesting is that a high proportion of the hits that did not kill damaged either the FCS or turret or both. Question to Ssnake - does damage to the Afghanit radars constitute FCS damage? 

 

Crew member incapacitation was EXTREMELY rare.

 

Conclusions (pending further investigation and with the understanding that we are still dealing with the statistics of small numbers)

 

1. Afganit appears to make no significant difference vs DM53 with flank shots at 2-2.5 km, AI gunner, presumably aiming at centre mass.

2. The first hit with DM53 almost always either kills or inflicts significant mission kill/combat effectiveness reducing damage with the first shot in the above circumstances.

 

If I have time tomorrow, I'll review the reports against the AARs and see where those non damaging hits were placed. Hopefully that will give a bit more clarity. I am, however, starting to think that a lot of the hits I thought were non-damaging actually were and that the red text in the visual AAR reports did not appear for some reason - perhaps because the part damaged had already been damaged, or perhaps because there is a threshold for damage to generate the red text. I'll leave it there for the moment...
 

 

Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km Afghanit on 3.sce_8_10-26-19_18_20_02.htm Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km Afghanit on 2.sce_8_10-26-19_18_13_39.htm Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km Afghanit on 1.sce_8_10-26-19_18_00_02.htm Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km Afghanit off 1.sce_8_10-26-19_17_47_15.htm Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km Afghanit off 3.sce_8_10-26-19_18_37_20.htm Armata vs Leo2A6 side o n2km Afghanit off 2.sce _8_10-26-19_18_26_27.htm Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401820.aar Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401813.aar Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401800.aar Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401747.aar Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401837.aar Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_8416_102619HP-Z4401826.aar

Edited by ChrisWerb

Share this post


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

WRT the question why the M829A4 hasn't been added earlier - well, to model it accurately more needs to be done than to simply add another set of ballistic property data and call it M829A4. Some programming will have to be involved to accurately reflect capabilities and limitations. When that'll fit into the workplan, we'll have to see.

Totally off topic, but I hope fixing the target fixation problem with Gill/Spike is working its way up the list as that system works very well vs Armata in game when it functions correctly (though often only mission killing, in contrast to the catastrophic kills it almost invariably inflicts on other Russian/Soviet tanks, as you might expect).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

40 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said:

Sorry, thewood. 

 

OK, I did some testing as promised. Methodology as follows.

 

Red side: five groups of six Armata, in column at close spacing with their ammunition removed and both tracks set to damaged.

 

Blue side: Leo2A6 with infinite DM53.

 

....

 

Thanks for the time and effort.

In reference to the opening post...the numbers don't seem to show a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Assassin 7 said:

So you were attacking them frontally at a distance, where the armor is thickest and where they are most likely to be looking, while lacking APS yourself or the means to over-match their armor. At the same time they have a general parity in T-14s to your SEPs. The saving grace was that the enemy's tactics were worse as they positioned themselves in disadvantageous positions, often in low points with little cover. Despite lacking the ability to outflank them or outnumber them, or over-match their armor you manage to presumably win the scenario with heavy losses. Seems reasonable.

Edited by TankHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TankHunter said:

 

So you were attacking them frontally at a distance, where the armor is thickest and where they are most likely to be looking, while lacking APS yourself or the means to over-match their armor. At the same time they have a general parity in T-14s to your SEPs. The saving grace was that the enemy's tactics were worse as they positioned themselves in disadvantageous positions, often in low points with little cover. Despite lacking the ability to outflank them or outnumber them, or over-match their armor you manage to presumably win the scenario with heavy losses. Seems reasonable.

True, but some shots was straight through the Turret center mass without the T-14's APS working. Those are the shots that are in question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

WRT the question why the M829A4 hasn't been added earlier - well, to model it accurately more needs to be done than to simply add another set of ballistic property data and call it M829A4. Some programming will have to be involved to accurately reflect capabilities and limitations. When that'll fit into the workplan, we'll have to see.

Ok fine BUT....what do you intend to do for the leopards.Leave them as is?Would they be upgunned to 140mm,is there an a4 equivalent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Assassin 7 said:

True, but some shots was straight through the Turret center mass without the T-14's APS working. Those are the shots that are in question. 

 

1 hour ago, Assassin 7 said:

like this one:

Supply of effectors is pretty much limited  and some of them, covering exact arc  were expended previously. You can see this in AAR by  tracking previous events happened to this unit;  also note- one of previous impacts was quite close to  the left side radar and may be damaged it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is no Warthunder; never has SB team claimed the game to be balanced in any sort. 

But if a mission is too difficult, just go in the mission editor and transform all armatas into T90s

 

[Troll on]Besides, maybe it's time to admit the M1A2 is not the top dog anymore 😁 [Troll off]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris' findings are very much in line with what I expected, except that the number of shots to kill an Armata went slightly up without Afganit - I suspect a statistical anomaly, something that would probably even out with a larger sample number. The salient point being, that Afganit doesn't have much of an influence on the terminal performance of DM53 (or M829A3 for that matter - one reason why I felt it being premature to introduce the M829A4 without yet having a clear idea of its terminal ballistic effect), since we deliberately configured the Afganit to cause only a gradual reduction in the attacking KE round's perforation limit. After all, APSs don't destroy the attacking penetrator but cause a yaw oscillation which will then make the dart impact at an offset of maybe 1...2° from the optimal strike angle (=head on); the effect is bigger for AVePS simply because the intercept distance is about three to ten times longer, more time for the oscillation to cause an even bigger yaw.

 

So, here we are, looking at a figure of 1.6 APFSDS rounds, on average, to kill an Armata. That doesn't strike me as particularly noteworthy.

 

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. Nor would the introduction of an M829A4 dramatically change the picture either. It would reduce the "shots per kill" figure by a noticeable margin but even then it's never going to be close to 1.0. You don't get that against a T-72, or even the T-55.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BlackDeath said:

This is no Warthunder; never has SB team claimed the game to be balanced in any sort.

I'll go even further, and go on the record (not for the first time) that I categorically reject the idea of "game balance" for a combat simulation.

No way. Some combinations of equipment and tactics are unwinnable, and should be, period. If that forces some of you of of their comfort zone - good. That means that you're learning something. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I sat down and had a think about how to exclude random point of impact, so I re did the test, once (1 x 30 targets).

 

New methodology: Range 1000 metres, gunner set to hold fire so I could take the shots manually. I moved along after each six shots to try and keep the angle side on. I fired one round per Armata and aimed about half way down the side skirt approximately in the middle of the turret, so all shots would hopefully be good solid hits in approximately the same place. I had five penetrations that, according to the report, caused no damage (apart from possibly mobility as I had already disabled both tracks on all target Armatas).  I then reviewed the AAR against the timestamps on the report. The hits were all good and solid. You can check them as follows:

01:08 vs HQ/036

02:19 vs HQ/031

08:02 vs HQ/046

08:09 vs HQ/045

08:32 vs HQ/042

 

Caveat: it could be that in the design of the T-14 (as far as ESim Games' simulation thereof goes), there is nothing worthwhile at that point to hit that would cause damage that registered in the report.

 

Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 1000 m one shot per target.sce_11_10-26-19_23_15_21.htm Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_11832_102619HP-Z4402315.aar

Edited by ChrisWerb

Share this post


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

I'll go even further, and go on the record (not for the first time) that I categorically reject the idea of "game balance" for a combat simulation.

No way. Some combinations of equipment and tactics are unwinnable, and should be, period. If that forces some of you of of their comfort zone - good. That means that you're learning something. :)

Well, a balance between red and blue can still be achieved by a good sce design, if needed.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=AFV_Fair_Matchup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I'll go even further, and go on the record (not for the first time) that I categorically reject the idea of "game balance" for a combat simulation.

No way. Some combinations of equipment and tactics are unwinnable, and should be, period. If that forces some of you of of their comfort zone - good. That means that you're learning something. :)

I learn something every time I play. I can't fault SB as a learning tool.

Edited by ChrisWerb

Share this post


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

This is no Warthunder; never has SB team claimed the game to be balanced in any sort. 

But if a mission is too difficult, just go in the mission editor and transform all armatas into T90s

 

[Troll on]Besides, maybe it's time to admit the M1A2 is not the top dog anymore 😁 [Troll off]

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

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...