Tanks in DCS

I think having a simulated SA-5 or SA-8 module would be challenging and fun to use. It would be rewarding providing surface to air support for Combined Arms. Before the bashing starts, check out the several complex sam simulators out there for PC simulating the SA-5 and SA-8.

The fidelity and realism DCS could bring to a module such as this would be very impressive. ANy surface to air module would be a good asset if bringing in tank modules. As stated before in my prior post, its a balancing act to make the game enjoyable but still realistic. Having surface to air units in a convoy and a lone or multiple player aircraft coming after the convoy would be a good thing. Making it more challenging for the player aircraft to engage. If you had a good ZSU player or someone who was playing well with an SA- 5 or 8, things could get interesting.

I still think there is a large playable space that would bring a healthy balance to DCS with ground armored units. Again, I know combined arms needs some work, but I think this would build a stronger player basis down the road.

hi

the tanks ride it is a real simulation or just direction and fire ??

It's been a few years, but they once requested any declassified documents on the Abrams people happened to stumble across. So, yes, they've definitely thought about it, though to date nothing more was ever said or done.

 

My post history only goes back a few months, I tried to find it, I think was back in my pre-forum lurking days, I'm not sure.

there once were copies Operators and TM for M1 and M1A1 floating around in EBay at one point. and mabe somewhere on the internet you can still find them. ( no meaningful changes besides addition of NBC system, Fire control system is otherwise the same, but for 120mm ammo.)

Armor wise there is a Declassified CIA document thast shows the layout of the Armor composition of the initial M1 abrams

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91B00390R000300220014-8.pdf

There are various protection estimates floating around. Whilst Interaction of ballistic protective is different than pure traditional Steel armor, Should be simplified to an equivalency of about 400mm RHA Ve KE based threats for the turret, and 650-700mm Vs CE based ammo.

TO estimate Burlingtoin Gen 2 used in M1IP and M1A1 based on the Vanilla Burligton 1 for M1 is a matter of measuring the turret which was lengthened to make room for extra layers. The estimates range from 450mm- 550mm vs KE threats.

Burlington 2 Its just additional layers of NERA, and no new composition type compared to Burlington 1.

http://i.imgur.com/CiWU2bd.jpg

SO with some Estimates M1, M1IP and M1A1 are feasible tank modules. Later versions get more tricky as later composition have have DU inserts but is uknown how many of layers within the Existing NERA composition, or how much composition is altered, or How effective it would be. Steel beasts For eg has even modelled the M1A1 HA, and M1A2 SEP. ( but they have government contracts so they have access to Information provided by the Military for these newer tank models)

However one thing is common. All armor have estimates. You arent going to get Exact armor on any anything post cold war.

A Steel beasts thread does a decent Overview

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/10919-history-of-us-tanks/

I would love to see a tank module in DCS, would bring a lot more people to play it and mp missions could be awesome.

I see a great future for Tank Sim Modules for DCS.

Imagine balancing wise: No info or any kind of intel for Air Pilots where the enemy is. Just the info push toward south east territory or something like that. No Maverick or any other kind of long range AG weapon system will kill tanks without intel.

Intel is the key to balancing. What benefits do we get out of it? JTAC makes more sense, A-10 patrols get more important. Drones and Drone commanders to do intel get more important as well as helicopter pilots have a more realistic job to do. Radar stations needs to be destroyed first in order to approach SA Sites played by players etc. Its like Falcon 4.0 Campaign on dope and with PVP.

ED wanna have it, and i wanna have it now :D

I find it funny people are complaining about unbalanced scenarios in MP. If the moderator sets the server up correctly, they can control how many assets are used. Only allow an X amount of A-10, F-18's ect.... Those of you current or prior military service know air support is not always an infinite number. You may not have it at times. Night strikes, deep strikes far away from any base ect..

The online missions need to be dynamic. Operations being run in certain locations for ground units should not just show up on the map for at will engagement for any aircraft. Locations and intel should only pop up when requested by ground units. Armor modules and aircraft modules should have their own independent tasks and unless requesting air support, those aircraft should not be able to engage ground units without authorization/request.

I believe DCS has the ability to set up an awesome online battlefield for both ground and air units working cooperatively. You may not see it in an open MP server, but those who run a closed server for their squadrons could have one heck of time.

Something else I considered after watching a Steel Beast MP video is allowing surveillance aircraft to spot tanks for allied task forces. Relay target locations to the ground units approaching in their tanks. Helos could mark target for tanks hiding in the woods, showing their positions on the map.

''Without authorisation or request''? Lol, and how exactly do you propose to stop an A-10 from strafing hostiles he finds? The only protection you shoukd receive is by remaining undetected

...how exactly do you propose to stop an A-10 from strafing hostiles he finds? The only protection you shoukd receive is by remaining undetected

Well we do have forcefields in DCS *ahem* I mean forests (though trees might be destructible, will test later), and don't forget tanks in DCS don't have proper screening systems, okay they might just delay the inevitable but hey...

What I was referring to was request for air support and authorization by ground units calling in specific targets. To make it simple, rules of engagement. If you have tank crews rolling into a town and have their task under control, I would not want random A-10's rolling in and just taking everything out.

A dynamic campaign where everyone has a role. You do not actually think the Air Force just launches planes in Iraq or Afghanistan and says good hunting, go find targets. It is all heavily coordinated with ground units requesting assistance or assigning providing intel for targets to strike. That is what I was getting at. Coordination between ground and air units.

I know the air force doesn't do that. But those are trained pilots who face consequences for disobedience.

A multiplayer server is LITERALLY random people launching in random aircraft at random times for the illustrious purpose of enteetainment. They give no shits for playing pretend rule lawyers. Unless you're in a closed to public roleplaying clan, this concept is null.