Surprising CA Result

You're REALLY stretching it here. Trying to put an excessively rosy spin on basic facts.

 

A T-55 is a serious threat if it sneaks up on the flank of a modern tank. Okay. What you've basically just said is that a T-55 is LESS dangerous than a teenager with an RPG. Because the teenager can actually move stealthily and conceal himself, while a decent RPG warhead is more powerful than anything the T-55 carries nowadays.

 

Impressive.

You just try to deny hard facts by making joke of me.

Yes, using the Gulf War as a point of comparison is quite unfair. But let's be honest here. No matter what model T-72 you are talking about, the Abrams can still kill it from any angle and at considerable range. And the T-72 can't do the same.

When T-72 and T-64 were revealed they caused panic on western side. And T-72 had benefit that it could withstand hits from that time beat shells on Leopards and Abrams but could penetrate their front armor further. That was a crisis that as on fulda cap where the expected first strike would happen, would render western armors useless.

And T-72 had best stabilization until Leopard 2 was developed, even today T-72 gives awesome accuracy from move when tested against today's MBT. It even the metering was automated so once the distance was set, targeting system calculated distance correctly any direction T-72 went as long tracks didn't slip on ice or in mud. The laser made distance metering faster in upgraded variant, while it required to move metering point to target and then back to target, slowing down valuable seconds to get target.

While western "intelligence" mixed T-72 to T-64 in many cases, it didn't mean T-72 was less dangerous as it after cold war was found out.

Okay the T-55 can damage a tank when in range, but the T-55 can't outrange an Abrams. And also someone with no experience in real actual combat can't tell somebody who's been there, and done some of that I sit here and well... I don't do internet research unless I really have to, which means most of the time I speak from experience and not from other sources, such as political ones.

 

Problem is A there's note at the top of the page that we have to refrain from political topics, but a kid from Finland isn't going to convince a vet that you're right. Sure the Abrams can be destroyed, and if you "gang-bang" it with RPGs, or IEDs you're going to break it. But the belief that the T-55 has as much firepower as a modern MBT, even upgraded T-55s to my knowledge still have 100mm guns, so yes it'll damage anything, physics demands it. But the return shot will kill it. Hell I can carry an RPG or use a .50 cal to disable it.

 

It's fine you like the T-55 (as much as I like a certain plane) but eventually you'll have to accept reality and realize (like my favorite plane in some respects) that you're uninformed or just misinformed.

And of you can't try not to read between lines and support your own ego because you can't withstand the idea your own experience isn't no where near what is a threat and what isn't.

A boy with BB gun isn't a threat. A IFV with 20-30mm autocannon is a threat, a MBT with 100mm cannon is a threat.

You are jut naive if you believe M1 Abrams can turn its rear to T-55 and even reverse next to it without being in any risk getting destroyed or at least disabled by a single hit.

Or if you believe that every MBT fight is from 3-4km range in flat "billiard table" where there is no obstacles or any cover whats so ever to make a ambush, then you are naive.

The topic still is T-55 vs M1 Abrams in DCS, how it works and how real world works and what should be allowed to be expected to work in DCS. If you can't accept the fact that decisions to build armies, invade other countries and feed money to upgrade and modernization is a political one, then you are in wrong place as simulations and anything in DCS is drawn from political results in history. But maybe you don't get that the notification is to avoid talking from current political situations or recent ones.

In real world T-55 is serious threat to latest MBT from any manufacturer. That is pure fact that no one else can deny than naive brainwashed soldier who cant take fact as is.

What isn't questioned, and as I have told, is questions HOW and WHEN does the engagement happen and I have gave possible limits and changes in different ways.

I have not said that T-55 has as much raw firepower as you claim I have. I haven't said it can fire as far or penetrate as much at same range or hit as accurately from long range or even see in dark as well. Neither I didn't claim that T-55 can penetrate M1 Abrams front armor.

After all, I have talked about basic T-55, not even T-55A or any upgraded models with digital FCS, latest TIS, Kaktus-5 reactive armor kits and all other fancy features the old T-55 has got in all service years.

And I don't like T-55 as you claim I do. As you try to make that I am fanatic fan for T-55 so you could dishonor pure facts.

I just don't like the false claims that 100mm cannon can't penetrate M1 Abrams from any angle or distance. That M1 Abrams would not need to even worry being disabled or destroyed from single hit.

It is the brainwashed idea that M1 Abrams or any variant after it is somehow superior to anything else previously build. As that is the most dangerous talk and idea there is, that gets real people killed because they become arrogant or they work in totally wrong illusion being superior to everyone else.

You (not You) can talk a kid inside M1 Abrams and fire at them from flank with 100mm BM-25 as they easily trust that they are perfectly safe if said so or because they have been brainwashed to believe so by media.

You can try to talk a experienced veteran to same situation, bit no one really wants to get inside because they know what can happen and it is their life that is in risk.

A soldier who knows all the possibilities that can happen at him and truth why something needs to be done, becomes self aware and starts being afraid and cautious. And you can't command a such soldier by any way.

And you can try to dishonor me by calling me as kid or from anywhere you like. But you don't know what I do know and who I know and what they know from their own experience. You can only believe.

You are jut naive if you believe M1 Abrams can turn its rear to T-55 and even reverse next to it without being in any risk getting destroyed or at least disabled by a single hit.

See, now you've retreated to an even more extreme scenario.

Before you were talking about a T-55 flanking an Abrams to shoot at its side armor. Because the facts aren't on your side there. All the estimates I can find for 100mm HEAT rounds put the penetration abilities at under 400mm RHA. That's less than an RPG-7 round. It also means that only a lucky shot will damage a late-model Abrams from the side. More than likely, the first few rounds are ineffective, at which point that T-55 had better run and ride real fast.

Of course no tank is built to withstand any high caliber hit to the rear. But if you rely on a rear armor shot, you have no business sitting in a tank. You should be hiding in a built-up area with handheld AT and leave the deathtrap obsolete MBT behind.

I could go sneak up on a heavily armed soldier right now (taking advantage of terrain, of course) and stab him with a screwdriver. But no one would ever dream of calling me a serious military threat. Not unless you are extremely biased in favor of screwdrivers. And at the end of the day, sneaking up on an infantryman in MOUT is no more or less likely to happen than sneaking up on an MBT in similar fashion.

A Tank is always a threat for a Tank, there is no going around that.

Even when it is a T-34 it can Disable or with luck Destroy an M1 or L2 or whatever.

Every Tank Commander which does not think like that is a very stupid tank Commander, and everybody under his Command is a poor pig.

See, now you've retreated to an even more extreme scenario.

Oh really? I did so? How about if you would read what was stated above....

The fact is, MBT can get hit by any tank, from any direction and from any distance. You can't cherry pick that it is always from front, that is the most wanted direction, then that you can see enemy but it can't you, and you are further than it can engage you while you can it. But fact is, real combat isn't such that you are always in best possible situation.

Before you were talking about a T-55 flanking an Abrams to shoot at its side armor. Because the facts aren't on your side there. All the estimates I can find for 100mm HEAT rounds put the penetration abilities at under 400mm RHA. That's less than an RPG-7 round. It also means that only a lucky shot will damage a late-model Abrams from the side. More than likely, the first few rounds are ineffective, at which point that T-55 had better run and ride real fast.

It takes less than 300-100mm RHA capable penetration to get mobility kill or disable M1 Abrams and very likely penetrate.

As if you didn't notice, I didn't talk about HEAT as M1 Abrams has higher protection against it, I used AP ammunition samples and against that M1 Abrams has much lower protection.

Of course no tank is built to withstand any high caliber hit to the rear. But if you rely on a rear armor shot, you have no business sitting in a tank. You should be hiding in a built-up area with handheld AT and leave the deathtrap obsolete MBT behind.

Don't ever believe that enemy never gets around you or flank you. Don't talk like things goes always as it is told it will go.

I didn't bring up the claim that M1 can withstand T-55 from any direction, from any distance up to point blank range.

All what I did was state the fact that T-55 has capability to penetrate M1 Abrams armor from multiple directions and from further than just point blank range. If you would have read what I wrote, you would have find out that I have said it requires a optimal situation T-55 to win M1 Abrams.

And people have hard time to believe it and try to argue that it is always to front armor or always from further than T-55 can engage or hit etc. It is possible but very unlikely. After WW2 the possible engagement areas were mapped in northern Europe and if I remember correctly, 90% engagements would be below 2km, 80% below 1.3km and 50% below 600m. Only 10% and below of the engagements would be over 2km range.

You can't always choose the place or time where engagement happens if enemy doesn't give you the change. And then attacker is usually the undertaker. But if western nightmare scenario is that thousands of T-55 will roll at groups position or are in defense against western attack, then those are outnumbered, flanked and get more hits and hear hits to do serious damage faster than western forces could have inflict back. But that is like craziest nightmare with 0.000001% change ever happen in anyone's else mind than someone in pentagon.

I could go sneak up on a heavily armed soldier right now (taking advantage of terrain, of course) and stab him with a screwdriver. But no one would ever dream of calling me a serious military threat. Not unless you are extremely biased in favor of screwdrivers. And at the end of the day, sneaking up on an infantryman in MOUT is no more or less likely to happen than sneaking up on an MBT in similar fashion.

Your comparison of D-10T to screwdriver is hilarious. Again like it would not be effective cannon to be used.

Maybe you should understand that I know what you try to do and say....

Maybe we can say that IED is like a screwdriver and not a serious threat in MBT battlefield, but it sure is very effective against invasion forces vehicles when you don't have a MBT,even T-55 level in use.

But would you probably say IED isn't effective...

But if you suggest that any older enemy MBT than latest or couple upgraded variants older from latest isn't a serious threat, then I would never want to hear you commanding any forces in the battle as arrogance and underestimating enemy is death to own troops.

A Tank is always a threat for a Tank, there is no going around that.

Even when it is a T-34 it can Disable or with luck Destroy an M1 or L2 or whatever.

Every Tank Commander which does not think like that is a very stupid tank Commander, and everybody under his Command is a poor pig.

I couldn't agree more.

. And at the end of the day, sneaking up on an infantryman in MOUT is no more or less likely to happen than sneaking up on an MBT in similar fashion.

Actually, the dismounted infantryman is quite a bit more difficult to sneak up on since he can hear and has a wider, less restricted view of the ground immediately around him. Tanks are death traps in close quarters.

It would be good to have a permanent thread of Surprising CA results so that five years from when DCS:CA3 comes out it is the best it can be.

I don't want to hear anymore DINATS. There are 'games' that make no claims to being simulators that do a a tidy job of vehicle damage using a health bar systems. Improvements can be made and they don't have to take anything away from other areas of traditional focus.

Anyway, my surprising result in CA was that an 3 x M4 soliders (with 5.65mm Nato ammo) shot my Tunguska to death in a little over a minute.

Yes I know DINATS! but come on these types of results are silly. Arma players can make fun of us when this type of thing is in the game.

It would be good to have a permanent thread of Surprising CA results so that five years from when DCS:CA3 comes out it is the best it can be.

 

I don't want to hear anymore DINATS. There are 'games' that make no claims to being simulators that do a a tidy job of vehicle damage using a health bar systems. Improvements can be made and they don't have to take anything away from other areas of traditional focus.

 

Anyway, my surprising result in CA was that an 3 x M4 soliders (with 5.65mm Nato ammo) shot my Tunguska to death in a little over a minute.

 

Yes I know DINATS! but come on these types of results are silly. Arma players can make fun of us when this type of thing is in the game.

ED needs to setup which weapon can cause damage to what, and which cant, the HE rounds are currently ridiculous in any vehicle or aircraft, its way better to use HE than AP.

for example take a gepard SPAAG, lay waste to everything on the battlefield.

It would be good to have a permanent thread of Surprising CA results so that five years from when DCS:CA3 comes out it is the best it can be.

 

I don't want to hear anymore DINATS. There are 'games' that make no claims to being simulators that do a a tidy job of vehicle damage using a health bar systems. Improvements can be made and they don't have to take anything away from other areas of traditional focus.

 

Anyway, my surprising result in CA was that an 3 x M4 soliders (with 5.65mm Nato ammo) shot my Tunguska to death in a little over a minute.

 

Yes I know DINATS! but come on these types of results are silly. Arma players can make fun of us when this type of thing is in the game.

Yes.

But when development team is multitasking, they prioritized specific features and modules, like EDGE and PFM to F-15C and SU-27 and now improving CA too. We can't get great jump on specific module as it would require focusing to single module at the time instead multitasking. But when all modules are tied to EDGE now, it is hard to proceed with modules as well.

There are certain features that are expected from ground forces commanders/players and helicopter or CAS pilots. They are linked together as they work together and right against each other, benefitting from same terrain mesh and cover/LOS systems. To them it is important that there is difference what missile/bomb/rocket/arrow/shell used against what target and from what direction and when.

To fighter pilots it doesn't matter. Only concern seems to be that radar has LOS and if bombs are dropped, then they have correct effect.

It is hard work to do a list what can shoot at what and with what effectiveness, have lots of special rules for specific vehicles etc.

ED needs to setup which weapon can cause damage to what, and which cant, the HE rounds are currently ridiculous in any vehicle or aircraft, its way better to use HE than AP.

 

for example take a gepard SPAAG, lay waste to everything on the battlefield.

That HE problem is what I believe should have been fixed in few days if just possible. Other was the bridge bug (vehicles getting stuck on bridges). Those ruins everything where there is combat engagements happening.

Interesting...

The Tank and vehicles in this game do not have a damage model approaching the complexity of, for example, those in 'World of Tanks'...which has a very complicated 'zonal' damage modelling..whereby individual armour plates, and tank systems have theri damage calculated...with hits and spalsh damage included.

It was always my understanding that vehicles in this game simply have a 'health bar' for overall damage...perhaps a multiplyer is applied for hits in the rear and or top...and that is as far is it goes at this stage? (I may be far wrong, its not something I have really explored and havent yet had the time to really even explore Combined Arms itself..what with all the other amazing modules that keep getting added!....)

but is for instance.. a 'mobility kill' possible in CA/DCS World, as it is in a dedicated armoured warfare game like World of Tanks?

That game in general is far simpler than this, and in fact I suspect that most of the complexity resides in the damage modelling of indivdual parts and systems...In that game they even model 'gaps' in armour from the real tanks...that a skilled player will try and exploit...such as thin sections surrounding a mantlet, or gaps of thin armour where welds would be present etc...its quite impressive for agame that appears so 'pick up and play'!

It would be intersting to know how far DCS is willing to go in modelling vehicle damage though...especially as someone mentioned, we are all using very powerful computers for our simulators these days....that are not currently being worked as hard as they could be..

I would certainly be interested in purchasing an 'Armour Module' of some sort for DCS World, that introduced realistc weapons and armour performances...

A proper Tank simulator, perhaps in the dream world, with a tank or two modelled to 'A-10c' levels....would be of great interest indeed!

Interesting...

 

The Tank and vehicles in this game do not have a damage model approaching the complexity of, for example, those in 'World of Tanks'...which has a very complicated 'zonal' damage modelling..whereby individual armour plates, and tank systems have theri damage calculated...with hits and spalsh damage included.

 

It was always my understanding that vehicles in this game simply have a 'health bar' for overall damage...perhaps a multiplyer is applied for hits in the rear and or top...and that is as far is it goes at this stage? (I may be far wrong, its not something I have really explored and havent yet had the time to really even explore Combined Arms itself..what with all the other amazing modules that keep getting added!....)

 

but is for instance.. a 'mobility kill' possible in CA/DCS World, as it is in a dedicated armoured warfare game like World of Tanks?

 

That game in general is far simpler than this, and in fact I suspect that most of the complexity resides in the damage modelling of indivdual parts and systems...In that game they even model 'gaps' in armour from the real tanks...that a skilled player will try and exploit...such as thin sections surrounding a mantlet, or gaps of thin armour where welds would be present etc...its quite impressive for agame that appears so 'pick up and play'!

For my observations the damage system seems to be a such that overall health is depleated always from hits and splashes, but the direction rules a multiplier to damage received.

So there isn't a armor that is impenetrable at all. Like 7,62mm MG can eat MBT armor but very slowly from front.

Yep. I was trying to kill some Mi-28's I think with the M6 and I couldn't lock them until they ran out of flares.

Not sure if this has already been covered ( I didn't read the next 6 pages or whatever), but this is actually a major flaw of the whole series.

Speaking from personal experience, if an enemy helicopter can detect your pos and mission (Stinger gunner instead of TOW gunner, ect), you've clearly ****ed up somewhere along the way. There's no way they would know, especially from multiple kilometers out, and if they did they'd take evasive maneuvers away from your pos rather than relying on flares to do the trick for them. The way it is now, anytime a helicopter comes within the firing range of a MANPAD, they begin popping flares like candy, even if there's no possible way for them to have recognized their position, much less identify them as MANPADS.

Beyond this, however, the Stinger in particular isn't merely an IR missile. It also has an alternative guidance system that prevents it from being jammed by flares alone. Maybe it's just because it happens to be my job, but I find it a HUGE pet peeve to see my missiles missing when I know they shouldn't be..

EDIT:

A colleague of mine mentioned that the last part was still secret. (Fairly positive my heart stopped beating there..) Luckily, it's all over the internet already;

The POST has a dual-detector seeker: IR and UV. This allows it to distinguish targets from countermeasures much better than the Redeye and FIM-92A' date=' which have IR-only. While modern flares can have an IR signature that is closely matched to the launching aircraft's engine exhaust, there is a readily distinguishable difference in UV signature between flares and jet engines.[1'] The Stinger-RMP is so-called because of its ability to load a new set of software via ROM chip inserted in the grip at the depot. If this download to the missile fails during power-up, basic functionality runs off the on-board ROM. The four-processor RMP has 4 KB of RAM for each processor. Since the downloaded code runs from RAM, there is little space to spare, particularly for processors dedicated to seeker input processing and target analysis

The Stinger - Passive Optical Seeker Technique (POST) variant replaces the original reticle-scan analog seeker with a dual IR and ultraviolet (UV) detector employing rosette-pattern image scanning and digital processing. The new seeker enhanced the missile's target detection capabilities, allowing it to discriminate between a target, countermeasures, and background clutter. Development of Stinger-POST began in 1971, with production running from 1981 to 1987. By 1987, when production of both the basic Stinger and Stinger-POST ended, more than 15,000 basic Stinger and almost 600 Stinger-POST missiles had been produced.

The Stinger-Reprogammable MicroProcessor (RMP) variant adds additional microprocessor power and is highly countermeasures resistant. External software reprogrammability allowed upgrades without costly retrofit as the threat evolved. Upgrades to the Stinger-RMP missile correct known operational deficiencies. Manpower and readiness problems plagued the Army force modernization program in the early 1980’s. It seemed that whenever a new system was put into the hands of the soldier, actual field performance often failed to match the standards predicted during its development. The Stinger anti-aircraft missile, for example, was designed to hit incoming aircraft better than 60 percent of the time. But if it had been placed in service as originally designed, it would actually have achieved hits only 30 percent of the time when operated by soldiers in combat units. The Stinger’s problems were eventually corrected. Operational deficiencies were discovered during testing of the Stinger-RMP missile in the late 1980s, and the Secretary of Defense directed the Army to correct the deficiencies and then operationally test the fixes. The proposed operational test, which consisted of 24 missile firings, was approved by DOT&E via the TEMP in 1991. The Stinger-RMP missile test program was suspended during Operation Desert Storm, and the missile was rushed into the field in preparation for war. After the war, the Army proposed a two-phased upgrade program, Stinger-RMP Block I and Stinger-RMP Block II.

 

The Stinger-RMP Block I corrects deficiencies in the Stinger-RMP missile to improve precision and performance. Software and hardware changes incorporate a new Roll Frequency Sensor/Seeker, a smaller battery, and an improved computer processor and memory. A ring laser gyro eliminates the need to super elevate prior to firing while other changes improve the accuracy and IRCCM capabilities of the missile. Block I upgrades will "support the Army's Air and Missile Defense strategy until 2021" (6).

 

Stinger-RMP Block II, cancelled in the Army's FY 2001 budget, proposed to improve both hardware and software, including an advanced imaging focal plane array, roll frequency sensor, new battery, signal processing, and advanced software. The Army anticipated producing approximately 9,500 Stinger-RMP Block II missiles.

The point is, the in-game Stingers are weak comparisons to their real life counterpart..

... Maybe it's just because it happens to be my job, but I find it a HUGE pet peeve to see my missiles missing when I know they shouldn't be..

It's not just the manpad missiles, either. The AAMRAM (120) is horribly crippled. If I'm WVR tally at 12 o'clock or so, locked, even a Sparrow should never miss. Yet they do.

Beyond this, however, the Stinger in particular isn't merely an IR missile. It also has an alternative guidance system that prevents it from being jammed by flares alone. Maybe it's just because it happens to be my job, but I find it a HUGE pet peeve to see my missiles missing when I know they shouldn't be..

It's your job to shoot stingers?

I'm sure ED will take some advice on improving realism in the sim if you can give them guidance on missile guidance and counters to counter-measures.

There will be pilots who don't want stingers to be more nasty but if you know the subject matter well, just be ready to play the realism card.

It's your job to shoot stingers?

 

I'm sure ED will take some advice on improving realism in the sim if you can give them guidance on missile guidance and counters to counter-measures.

 

There will be pilots who don't want stingers to be more nasty but if you know the subject matter well, just be ready to play the realism card.

Yes, and yea, but the information is still generally classified for god-knows-what-reason. It's not like you can't find them in every modern warzone on the planet..

EDIT:

While we're on the topic, I dont think most people understand that the only SHORAD systems the US has anymore are MANPAD stingers. The Avenger program was nixed back in the early 2000's, the LAV-AD was killed back in 2008. The M163 was only a stop-gap solution that was abandoned after the first Gulf War, and the Linebacker units were turned into M2's back in 2006. Currently, the only mechanized aspect (in the Marines, anyway) is the AMANPAD Increment 1 vehicles, and they're the old ass ones from the 80's. (Not kidding. We found some pictures in the Platoon Commanders office from 1989. The truck in the photo is still in the motor-t lot today!)

I always chuckle when I play missions against all these intricate defense systems. In reality, it's our 3 man teams and the Patriot batteries, and they're generally few and far between. That's not to say we can't accomplish the mission, but having any more than 5 teams in an area or more than one patriot battery is rather silly.

Well the M1A2 improved in a few ways (better optics, can zoom a bit but not near as much as RL), but the AP round dispersion at 2200 meters is ridiculous, shooting well outside the inner reticule during test shots. Anyone else experiencing similar?

Dispersion at 2km is akin to what it'd be at 4km in Steel Beasts. Plus the LRF still cuts-off at 4km range...

Well the M1A2 improved in a few ways (better optics, can zoom a bit but not near as much as RL), but the AP round dispersion at 2200 meters is ridiculous, shooting well outside the inner reticule during test shots. Anyone else experiencing similar?

 

Dispersion at 2km is akin to what it'd be at 4km in Steel Beasts. Plus the LRF still cuts-off at 4km range...

I would say it is very WIP the whole CAS weapon managements.

Like example look the BMP-3 stabilization (very lousy) and then units missing firing rate etc.

ED has lots of work on their desk to add even basic (enough) features for what we have now (love the pretty realistic rotation speeds etc).

It's your job to shoot stingers?

 

I'm sure ED will take some advice on improving realism in the sim if you can give them guidance on missile guidance and counters to counter-measures.

 

There will be pilots who don't want stingers to be more nasty but if you know the subject matter well, just be ready to play the realism card.

This is why i sit back and enjoy reading these forums. Some do know their shit. It would be great to read Russian and see what talent members are their also.

OT: Thanks for your service!