Jump to content
Raven434th

T-14 overpowered against sabots?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Volcano said:

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.

It was actually answering back at this statement:

   On 10/26/2019 at 6:29 PM,  BlackDeathsaid: 

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]”

 

and yes the emergency mode systems is not correct (fixed yet) on the SEP and the damaged systems as far as internal components being able to back themselves up after being damage is not modeled. Some other issues is not fixed yet either.

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


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

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.

This is correct btw 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When good hits are non-consequential,and the opposite occurs when using ammo that is lower in penetration abilities says there is a PROBLEM and we presented it to you in a number of ways. Also giving us the proper ammo that the tanks your modeling use against a particular threat, is just common sense.What more can we tell ya. And whats so unimpressive about the a4 round???

Edited by Raven434th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was posted by RougeSnake In another thread:

"By now you guys should know that you need to post as detailed information as you can, as well as an aar if you think you found a bug.  It is pretty well known (I thought), that in multiplayer sessions the hit rays in aar's are often not super accurate, because the information is being sent back and forth over a network .  And yet you give no indication if this image is from a single, or multiplayer scenario...from the host, or a client.  This stuff is pretty important..   And I get it, not everyone has time as a software tester, but Assassin "OH COME ON!!!"  you should understand how this works by now. 

 

Besides inaccurate network related aar events, there is also the issue of what is, and isn't stored in the aar.  Not every exact position, of everything is stored.   In this case I'm not sure if the position of the gun crew, in relation the the weapon is stored "exactly".  These guys move around, as you rotated these weapons.   And of course, there is a reason why not everything is stored(we would if we could), to keep AAR's from being a thousand terabytes."

 

What are we even supposed to do with this in context to our reports??? 

Share this post


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

When good hits are non-consequential,and the opposite occurs when using ammo that is lower in penetration abilities says there is a PROBLEM and we presented it to you in a number of ways. Also giving us the proper ammo that the tanks your modeling use against a particular threat, is just common sense.What more can we tell ya. And whats so unimpressive about the a4 round???

What more can I tell you other to explain the how and why?  But I guess I am done explaining to you, as nothing seems to matter in that regard. You are convinced something is wrong and, well, I think I explained quite well that unless some internal component is missing on the interior - then no there isn't any issue there, and is the advantage of a mostly unmanned vehicle (the crew is located in a small compartment to the front, no other vehicle is like this).

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Assassin 7 said:

This is correct btw 

Not sure how that opinionated response helps the discussion, other than to fan the flames. But that is probably the intent.

 

And also, your 'diagram image' is not useful (too blurry, for one thing). We will certainly re-evalute it if the image shows something is missing. 

 

But apart from providing a better image there that might show something is missing, I guess I am beating a dead horse at this point, and I am moving on from the thread.

Share this post


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

Not sure how that opinionated response helps the discussion, other than to fan the flames. But that is probably the intent.

 

And also, your 'diagram image' is not useful (too blurry, for one thing). We will certainly re-evalute it if the image shows something is missing. 

 

But apart from providing a better image there that might show something is missing, I guess I am beating a dead horse at this point, and I am moving on from the thread.

Well it seems that there are discussions about the T-14 going on at other internet sites. The picture I posted was a recent picture that I found searching for “ interior pictures of T-14” it seems to show the auto loader components in the area of where the shots was recorded of causing no damage. I do not know if the schematic picture of the T-14 is accurate so if someone else corrects that with another diagram then ok. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One guy tells us there's nothing wrong(volcano),one guy says the aar's are wrong and are inaccurate due to net code(roguesnake),and another guy (ssnake) say they're looking into the damage model issue to improve it and will give us the new A4 round to compensate. WTF?

Edited by Raven434th

Share this post


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

One guy tells us there/s nothing wrong(volcano),one guy says the aar's are wrong and are inaccurate due to net code(roguesnake),and another guy (ssnake) say they're looking in to the damage model issue to improve it and will give us the new A4 round to compensate.WTF?

One guy (Roguesnake) was just trying to help, stating that the AAR could be the culprit.

 

Another guy (Ssnake) was trying to listen to the complaints, and saying that 'something might be wrong' without knowing the other side of the coin (which funny enough, I explained a few posts back if you read it). The "looking into the M829A4" is legit, yes, we are doing that outside of our busy schedule (as I also stated).

 

Then another guy (me), the guy that maintains all the armor models and makes sure that they adhere to strict standards and are not fudged, says that there is no problem, from a technical point of view, after looking over the armor model at least twice, but with the caveat that the observation is valid only if something is not missing on the interior. So far, there isn't sufficient evidence that something is missing.

 

How is this difficult to understand? 😑

Share this post


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

Well it seems that there are discussions about the T-14 going on at other internet sites. The picture I posted was a recent picture that I found searching for “ interior pictures of T-14” it seems to show the auto loader components in the area of where the shots was recorded of causing no damage. I do not know if the schematic picture of the T-14 is accurate so if someone else corrects that with another diagram then ok. 

Sorry, but no. 

 

The most repeated phrase here in this thread -- "as I said earlier".  As I said earlier, how exactly would the gun be able to elevate if the auto loader was located in that spot? It makes no sense. The area below the gun needs to be clear in order for the gun to elevate. The autoloader is behind the breach, and is "stored" most of the time, to allow the gun to elevate and depress, which happens a lot while the gun is stabilized and the vehicle is driving cross country, as you know.

 

And this brings up a good point: if the gun is just slightly elevated, then the impact in the image would hit the breach in the armor model, likely damaging the maingun, currently.

 

The only image returned by searching for "interior pictures of the T-14" is this, which we saw before:

 

main-qimg-aad6530f5467b69417760fb4487a2e

 

...in that image the gun is clearly elevated, and the breach is the only thing visible in that area, but of course that image is old, and is not scientific.

 

Then there is this image too:

 

f2e61484b3e8.jpg?w=625&h=465

 

...which makes it seem like maybe the breach should go down a little lower than it does in the armor model, so that might be an issue (right now the breach goes down to the bottom of the APS launchers). But then again, this image could just be "fan made" as well, no idea about how accurate it is, and we are talking about inches here.

 

However, I will pass thread on to the artist who made the model, and maybe he can see something here that is needed. Besides that, I enforce standards, and I trust the modeler's judgement. No amount of badgering is going to change that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Still blurry, unfortunately. I was thinking that you took a picture of it with your phone, but I guess this is the original image? Still, I will pass the info to the artist, maybe he has the original diagram (I don't know). 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Volcano said:

Still blurry, unfortunately. I was thinking that you took a picture of it with your phone, but I guess this is the original image? Still, I will pass the info to the artist, maybe he has the original diagram (I don't know). 🤔

Yeah here is the link: https://www.google.com/search?q=Fotos+interiores+del+armata+T-14&client=safari&hl=en&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxx9zAgcLlAhUBQawKHeOlAW4Q_AUoAXoECA0QAQ&biw=414&bih=719#imgrc=7NhZNR5xIhKIjM

 

@Volcano correction on the link 

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bigger image with all the details as of now has been removed. So it obviously had some important Information on it

Share this post


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

OK, that might help, if the image is based in reality. So it might be that the breach isn't as large as it should be - we will see.  Of course that is the problem of "finding things on the 'net". Is this accurate, or just what someone made? I suppose we can assume its accurate, if the artist doesn't have a different and more detailed diagram, though.

 

We'll see - I passed the info to him.

Share this post


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

OK, that might help, if the image is based in reality. So it might be that the breach isn't as large as it should be - we will see.  Of course that is the problem of "finding things on the 'net". Is this accurate, or just what someone made? I suppose we can assume its accurate, if the artist doesn't have a different and more detailed diagram, though.

 

We'll see - I passed the info to him.

Agreed and thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 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.

 

 

I just updated the link as the wrong was provided to me. Here is the one from the picture earlier: if this diagram is accurate there would be less room. https://www.google.com/search?q=Fotos+interiores+del+armata+T-14&client=safari&hl=en&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxx9zAgcLlAhUBQawKHeOlAW4Q_AUoAXoECA0QAQ&biw=414&bih=719#imgrc=7NhZNR5xIhKIjM

 

actual link: https://www.taringa.net/+militares_en_t/t-14-armata-i_tkmzy

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


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

When good hits are non-consequential,and the opposite occurs when using ammo that is lower in penetration abilities says there is a PROBLEM and we presented it to you in a number of ways. Also giving us the proper ammo that the tanks your modeling use against a particular threat, is just common sense.What more can we tell ya. And whats so unimpressive about the a4 round???

Hmm, the hit posted in the screenshot by assassin, is very well in an area where I don't see critical componets in the way of the round...in the scetch also provided.... So that seems invalid.

Share this post


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

Hmm, the hit posted in the screenshot by assassin, is very well in an area where I don't see critical componets in the way of the round...in the scetch also provided.... So that seems invalid.

I’m not sure but it looks like some of the auto loader components and the stub extraction arms 

Share this post


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

I’m not sure but it looks like some of the auto loader components and the stub extraction arms 

Well it looks like the hit is roughly there (red x)...which looks like the space where rounds move to get loaded. So it can be empty (provided the image is at least somewhat true to reality)

 

 

t14 scetch.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grenny said:

Well it looks like the hit is roughly there (red x)...which looks like the space where rounds move to get loaded. So it can be empty (provided the image is at least somewhat true to reality)

 

 

t14 scetch.png

Ok agreed but those screenshots are two different hit points and one you have accurate but the other seems more to the rear and up. Also Chris AAR shows the different hit spots with no added damage. 

Share this post


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

Ok agreed but those screenshots are two different hit points and one you have accurate but the other seems more to the rear and up. Also Chris AAR shows the different hit spots with no added damage. 

Which one?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...