Surprising CA Result

Hi Folks,

I acquired CA with the hope of finding a good simulator, in the quality range of Lock On, or its derivatives. Obviously, there is no such thing as the perfect simulator, as the computer experience deprives the user of many sensory inputs that a non-virtual pilot can rely on. This aside, I have enjoyed many hours of simulator practice with Lock On over the years, and have found its limitations to be completely reasonable, and viable.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Combined Arms. Yesterday, I initially noticed an unrealistically optimistic result when a Leopard 1A3, armed with the Royal Ordnance 105mm gun, defeated a T-80 at a distance of about 3 km. I thought to myself that perhaps a critical hit had occurred, but to test my hypothesis, I set up another meeting engagement, in which a T-55, armed with its D-10T rifle, and protected by its face-hardened cementite armor, would go toe to toe with an M1-A1, armed with its Rheinmetall-Borsig 120mm smoothbore, and protected by its Chobham composite laminate armor. In real life, the D-10 has nowhere near the energy to defeat the M1's Chobham armor, at any angle, at any range. An M1 can literally BACK UP to a T-55, and the latter's D-10 rifle lacks the energy to defeat even the rear armor on the M1, at point-blank range. The result of the engagement? I drove the M1, just to make sure that the T-55 didn't get wasted before it even got into range, and sure enough, with a FRONTAL shot, at a range of 2.5 km, the T-55 knocked out the M1-A1 on the first hit - with HE ammo!!! To make sure that ANOTHER critical hit didn't occur, I repeated the test - six times - and each time, the result was the same; the T-55 was able to knock out the M1 with a frontal shot, at ranges that a 125mm smoothbore could barely DENT an M1.

This begs a question on my part; given the tremendous (heroic is more like it) effort that the DCS programmers have made, in the interests of designing a more accurate simulator, how could they leave such grotesque inaccuracies in a module that is specifically dedicated to land combat? At this point, "T-55" and "M1-A1" are meaningless labels, that in no way describe the unit's abilities. If any tank can knock out any other tank, at any range, and at any angle, what's the use of even differentiating between units? I could understand if a provision existed to allow for destruction after numerous non-penetrating hits occur, but in the case I described, the most powerful tank in the world was knocked out by the weakest in the sim, using ammunition that has absolutely no effect against the defending tank's armor! If this had occurred in Lock On, it still wouldn't be right, but at least one could argue that LO is a flight simulator, not an armor sim. But to have this happen in CA, a sim that was supposedly developed specifically to model land combat, the situation is simply inexcusable.

To the designers and coders at Eagle Dynamics; please give us accurate dynamics between the guns and armor of the tanks in your simulator. With all the complex calculations done for the flight simulations, and the massive data tables you've constructed for terrain, and AI, it would seem that the implementation of penetration tables for the guns, and armor profiles for the vehicles, would be child's play for programmers as excellent and creative as you are.

As a physicist and engineer, I would be happy to volunteer to assist you.

Best regards,

Dr. Nathan Stahlwirth, PhD., ME, PHY, SAE.

Hi Dr. Stahlwirth!

I just briefly tested some tanks and I think, you are right. While a T-55 virtually does not even scratch a M1A2, Leo2 or T-80 and T-90 when using AP, it instantly blows up any of them when using HE.

I think this is a side effect of a recent adjustment of HE rounds in general. In DCS, fragmentation/shrapnell effects are poorly or not at all modelled. This servely limited the use of several weapons against especially soft targets. The GAU-8 of the A-10 and the gun of the Ka-50 are some examples. ED then decided to tune up the blast effect of such ammunions, which is in fact modelled, to compensate for the lack of shrapnells.

And what whe have here now seems to be one side effect of this change.

Sincerely,

Flagrum, Arm Chair Pilot

Hi Dr. Stahlwirth!

 

I just briefly tested some tanks and I think, you are right. While a T-55 virtually does not even scratch a M1A2, Leo2 or T-80 and T-90 when using AP, it instantly blows up any of them when using HE.

 

I think this is a side effect of a recent adjustment of HE rounds in general. In DCS, fragmentation/shrapnell effects are poorly or not at all modelled. This servely limited the use of several weapons against especially soft targets. The GAU-8 of the A-10 and the gun of the Ka-50 are some examples. ED then decided to tune up the blast effect of such ammunions, which is in fact modelled, to compensate for the lack of shrapnells.

 

And what whe have here now seems to be one side effect of this change.

 

Sincerely,

 

Flagrum, Arm Chair Pilot

Hello Flagrum,

Your knowledge of DCS munitions modeling is impressive, at the very least, and your explanation seems perfectly reasonable and logical. I suspect that what I'm about to write is old news, but I think that the ED/DCS developers would find a gold mine of data in the experiences of users like yourself, and would do well to take heed, and tune their product accordingly. I believe that modern desktop computers have finally reached the necessary processing power (especially through multiple cores, and ever-shrinking die dimensions - the speed of light and magnetic bubble collapse times limit clock-speed increases somewhat) to permit the publication of an advanced combat simulator, on even modestly efficient code. Throw in the effect of offloading the graphics workload onto a nearly separate computer (the video card(s)), and the envelope has been drastically expanded.

Thanks for all the help that you, and others like you have furnished, which has lead to a much better simulator!!!

Best,

Nathan

The issue is that CA vehicle use health bar system.

If you shoot one time on the front right with a weapon that 2 shoot to penetrate/Destroy the vehicle, another shoot in a totally different position, such as front left this time will still destroy the unit, like Flagrum say their is no frag modeled and they balance by overpowering weapons.

And in the other hand damage system in DCS is far to be the best.

Like aircraft that always broke for almost nothing, missile shoot sometimes don't do that much damage, but a simple small touch (not a collision but a touch) between an aircraft and a wall on the ground while moving slower than someone walking can cause the aircraft to broke, same for two aircraft that touch (don't talk about collide but touch) in flight, their is real life report of aircraft pushing others, such as Spitfire that push NAZI's V1 flying bombs or a fighter pilot during Vietnam war that push his friend that have loose his engine...

In fact in DCS you can kill vehicle by landing on them with your helicopter, look at this :

The damage model in not that good as we think, in fact it is sometimes disastrous, NEVER a car will explode cause of an helicopter land on it, be damaged yes, but explode... ? No way, only in movies, i was trying one day to land on a car for fun, and it destroy my helicopter by exploding.

Cause DCS use a health bar system and when it reach 0 it explode, nothing more complexes than this.

Tanks have area such as rear, front, top, sides, but i don't even sure if the angle really matter from aircraft to vehicle and by extensions vehicle to vehicle...

Aircraft are the most realistic ever modeled, but vehicle are a joke in CA, Red Orchestra 2 or even World of Tanks is probably 100 time more realistic than DCS World for ground vehicles.

This is sad, maybe/lets hope that after Nevada/EDGE and other actually planed aircraft such as all the WW2 one and the Hornet got release, ED team will focus on ground forces/vehicles.

When driving ahead of the column, bring the rest of your group up with G-Right-Mouse to show the green arrow and designate where the assembly point is.

Use the JTAC slots for fun. For Blue the M1-A1 can go pretty much anywhere. I like the Tactical Commander slots and use the F-10 View to advance my groups with the Set Path stuff. Since the AI is really soo much better, I let the AI fight the battles. When there is a motivation to jump into a vehicle I will, and even drive it for many miles --> to advance my group to an over watch position to lase / point for the A-10 pilots.

You have control over the air defense groups' ROE and State and can sneak around to set up for an ambush.

I liken CA to more of a chess game than a tactical shooter. :) I've nailed a TOR with an M1-A1 on the fly from less than a mile... lased GBU-12's onto forts... TOWs are fun and go a long way.

WC

Actually combined arms never was touted as a "simulation" and I like it for what it is. That said, it certainly needs a lot of improvement even if we don't expect it to be a sim level enterprise...

Problem of performance of armor & ordnance though, is not combined arms' fault. It is core DCS damage & armor modeling, which can use some serious improvement. AP rounds almost suck from any kind of vehicle / aircraft, against almost any kind of target. HE rounds are another story, before beefing up blast damage, they were weaker than they should be, but now they can somehow hurt armor as well...

Then there are helicopters, those things seem like battleships of the sky... I am practising gun attacks in my P-51 against flights of Huey and Hips, Huey pretty funnily bounce from terra firma when it should crash :). And both helicopters seem to be able to take a ridiculous amount of punisment without breaking a sweat :), I once tore the tail off of a Huey, it was quite high, spiralled down to earth, bounced a bit, "landed" about 5-6 meters above terrain and opened it's doors peacefully :D. Huey shake off hits from Iglas, Stingers and even R-60s as if nothing has happened :).

I know aircraft like Su-25 and A-10 are very rugged, but when you shake off 3-4 manpads hits, it does make you wonder... :)

the a-10 and 25, can shake off quite a bit, but they can get killed with 1 as well, now the huey and the hip, i always found them to be ridicolous, the pilots seem to be more like terminators than humans, and both seem to have some alien sheet metal, that has the strength of tank armor.

Now as for everything dealing damage to everything its kind of annoying, that the game doesnt have different damage properies for different vehicles coded in, but im sure well get it at some point.

On the plus side the improved AA is great fun, and gives pilots a run for their money, its even funnier since you can instantly see who's a good pilot and who's been playing too many shooting range missions.

You've now got me wondering if preemptive flaring works on the human side of the ir sams

 

Aircraft are the most realistic ever modeled, but vehicle are a joke in CA, Red Orchestra 2 or even World of Tanks is probably 100 time more realistic than DCS World for ground vehicles.

 

This is sad, maybe/lets hope that after Nevada/EDGE and other actually planed aircraft such as all the WW2 one and the Hornet got release, ED team will focus on ground forces/vehicles.

Yes.

I read a thread once in World of Tanks in which users were talking about being able to put discarding sabot rounds through observation ports to knock out a tank.......!!!! That's what I call realistic! ON a side note, I always got a kick out of ammunition that was named after a shoe.... Get it? Kick.....shoe? Ha....? Never mind, I won't quit my day job! :music_whistling:

Obviously, I don't expect ED programmers to go THAT far, but some basic gun/armor tables would be a realistic expectation for CA. SSI had a game called "Fighting Steel", in which they modeled WWII capital ships, and they did a reasonably good job of exactly that. My only disappointment was their omission of the French and Italian ships, which would have completely destroyed the Bismarck and Tirpitz in a 1v1 scenario - the French ships due to their heavier armor and better underwater protection, and the Italian ships due to their insanely powerful main guns (their 15" guns hit HARDER than the Yamato's 18"s did, at long range).

Best,

Nathan

You've now got me wondering if preemptive flaring works on the human side of the ir sams

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.

Well I am curious whether modelling armor and ballistics is something that cab be achieved with the current models.

Do the CA models have a single box for the collision model or are there zones.

Is there a way to get a look at the models to see this information or do you need the models in an unbaked 3D Studio format?

You want a tank sim your only option is Steel Beasts PE.

CA was never meant to be a simulator. It was a simple addition to the sim thrown in as an afterthought to extend the capability of the sim to replicate a combined arms battle situation.

I have also wondered about the realism of ground battle at times.

Like when putting a T-90 tank or a BMP on the battlefield, they can basically wipe out a whole column of vehicles with AT missiles at a safe range just by them self. Is this realistic?

I have also wondered about the realism of ground battle at times.

 

Like when putting a T-90 tank or a BMP on the battlefield, they can basically wipe out a whole column of vehicles with AT missiles at a safe range just by them self. Is this realistic?

It would be if the whole column of vehicles fail to react appropriately. Pop smoke, retreat to cover and call in for support (artillery or air). Failing that, the only other option is to advance under cover and/or try to flank. Not much else you can do when you're out ranged by over a click. Keep in mind though that the effects are exaggerating in DCS due to the lack of cover for ground vehicles.

We need more complex ammo management for the ground units. That way every bmp would not be carrying a lot of atgms all the time.

Heck, even ammo management from the Combat Mission series would be enough; let us have a checkbox for missiles, yes no :)

You want a tank sim your only option is Steel Beasts PE.

Yes that right.. But some day (maybe) DCS CA will be the other choice. I hope so..

O_Smiladon

You want a tank sim your only option is Steel Beasts PE.

Who said anything about a sim?

Armor and damage handling on the level of ArmA, WoT or WarThunder would be sufficient.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Combined Arms. Yesterday, I initially noticed an unrealistically optimistic result when a Leopard 1A3, armed with the Royal Ordnance 105mm gun, defeated a T-80 at a distance of about 3 km. I thought to myself that perhaps a critical hit had occurred, but to test my hypothesis, I set up another meeting engagement, in which a T-55, armed with its D-10T rifle, and protected by its face-hardened cementite armor, would go toe to toe with an M1-A1, armed with its Rheinmetall-Borsig 120mm smoothbore, and protected by its Chobham composite laminate armor. In real life, the D-10 has nowhere near the energy to defeat the M1's Chobham armor, at any angle, at any range. An M1 can literally BACK UP to a T-55, and the latter's D-10 rifle lacks the energy to defeat even the rear armor on the M1, at point-blank range. The result of the engagement?

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/M1A1_(HA)

As you can see, the values for side armor are very weak against KE and even HEAT. That's why M1 Abrams was knocked with unknown weapons (likely RPG-7 of some kind) trough whole side middle of other side armor.

The T-55 cannon D-10T has different kind shells.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data

As you can see from list, many AP shell has capability to penetrate 211-350mm RHA depending variant (year) etc from 1500-2500m range.

The HEAT is 380mm and that doesn't even get affected by range but luck to hit anything moving with it...

Now consider that T-55 being first MBT, the 100mm cannon was a beast against anything west had. Example Leopard 1 front armor was just 70mm thick and sloped http://i.imgur.com/rIokAxF.jpg . While T-55 front armor was 200mm http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/T54_Training_Parola_Tank_Museum_9.jpg

and Leopard 1 L52 cannon penetrating around 300-320mm from 3000-3500m range was as well very ineffective as then there were newer MBT models on Soviets like T-64 and T-72 and Leopard 1 had even challenge to penetrate T-55A from front.

Even the old T-55 can penetrate M1A1 from side at 1.5-3km range. But luck to get the shot and even hit the target.

But to penetrate front armor? HAH! But my understanding is that DCS doesn't much model the hit zones, but has basic hit box. As Vikhr doesn't always destroy Abrams if hitting front.

Even T-80U probably has only 4cm thick armor at rear...

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-80u_armor.html

So when it comes to battlefield, you don't want to be inside a MBT when you are against a capable forces (others than firing training rounds at you or incapable to see you or even fire as far as you can or that no air superiority or cover) as you are the first thing to get targeted and you are sitting inside a large tin can.

So even considering that M1Ax armor is superior to T-55 at any angles or ranges is just believe to propaganda it being superior MBT.

Today IFV can field 40-50mm autocannon that does very nasty things from very far away, and even 20-30mm autocannon from flank or specially rear or top does very very bad things with rapid 600-800rpm.

In battlefield it is more about who fires first, and that comes to who see other first and from what range the engagement happens.

But seriously, a T-55 in an engagement will simply not win against an M1A1-2, it's just common sense in the real world, or nor do I expect it to. Matter of fact during Desert Storm a platoon of T-72s was being shadowed by an M1 platoon or maybe a few tanks. The T-72s tried to fire and got wiped out. I mean if you upgraded the T-55 a bit, maybe give it better sensors, etc. It'll have a better chance of firing at an M1, but not killing it. And lets not get into tank crew quality as the M1 would still kill it and quite frankly the 100mm just doesn't have the range either.

 

If you mass T-55s you have a chance, but in an open field shooting environment, no it'll still be defeated even if its like one M1A1 or two against a three-tank T-55 platoon. It'll be tight but most crews can manage.

 

And as I found out the hard way on the BI forums, the Steal Beasts values aren't considered reliable either (as one of the artists mentioned that) so yeah but no.

The desert storm can't be used at all as sample to anything else than bad example.

T-72 were export variants of T-72 Ural (Not A or any newer model) that had much weaker armor (no armor upgrades what's so ever, thinner than original -73 thickness and steel had polluted from sand in manufacturing, resulting much weaker structure) and T-72 didn't have TIS (thermal imagine system, even how bad it was on M1 Abrams at then it was clear help) and Iraqis were using shells from 1962 or 1972 that had penetration at 2800m max 320-370mm. (Some even had training shells, what very likely is urban legend as using so old ammunition is like using training ammunition).

Then many Iraqis T-72 were on desert in hull-down positions so they couldn't move but sit down as ducks.

And then finally, almost all (over 80%) T-72 being destroyed was from air, by A-10, AH-1 and Apache. Then rest of the destroyed ones were from IFV mainly with a TOW missile or M1 Abrams.

The USA had M829A1 "silver bullet" that was depleted uranium shell (that causes cancer and kill more civilians than biochemical weapons and Iraq land and cities are full of radioactive dust from those) that could very easily penetrate Iraqis T-72 and main force using T-62 and T-55.

When other has air superiority (four AH-64A flied in night and destroyed early warning systems for invasion from 10km width, if I remember correctly, to clear path to bombers, fighters and A-10 close support.

The Desert Storm is good by the book example how to do invasion to country that posses weaponry that is 20-50 years older than yours and that has no tactics against your weaponry or that its air force is destroyed in start.

And it is good example how those are used to promote M1 Abrams armor, while no one really know the exact composition of it, but know protection values and other use similar in other MBT.

T-55 is still very serious threat to latest MBT from any manufacturer and it can't be allowed to sneak near you to its firing range as it will do damage easily if hitting vulnerable flank, rear or roof.

If T-55 platoon is given to skilled tactical commander who knows terrain and enemy, who has platoon of M1A2 or even M1A3 and doesn't know the terrain, the fight can be very much a tie.

But if it is 4 vs 4 head to head at open 3-4km range flat terrain.... There is no change for T-55 as long Abrams keeps its front armor toward enemy and keeps moving diagonally to avoid lucky shots to destroy prisms, radios and other systems.

Americans commanders knows when to fight and when not and what to use (ground, air) against what. And they brag about it when they just beat a child and stole candy how awesome they are.

Only fool goes to knife fight with MBT and if you have a element of surprise, longer range, better detection range and air support, you use those and play safe.

The steel beast values are very good estimations, drawn from tests and first hand experiences from people who operate them and use them. It isn't 1+1=2 calculations as in real world there are so many other factors depending what hits, penetrates or protects. But I would not even say BIS forums is better at all or closer to what Steel Beast developers and main users are (military training tools for military with a license and NDA etc).

But even believe that M1 Abrams is safe from T-55 is naive and ignorance.

In DCS CA its like this.

AP > Destroys Tanks and other stuff quite good. Sometimes for Tanks you will need 2 or more hits.

HE > Destroys everything at first hit.

And all Tanks use the same rounds in DCS. There is no diffrence between an Leopard 1A3 fired AP round and a T-90 fired AP round (or HE) in DCS.

In DCS CA its like this.

 

AP > Destroys Tanks and other stuff quite good. Sometimes for Tanks you will need 2 or more hits.

 

HE > Destroys everything at first hit.

 

 

And all Tanks use the same rounds in DCS. There is no diffrence between an Leopard 1A3 fired AP round and a T-90 fired AP round (or HE) in DCS.

And that is a problem, not just for the HE boost or same ammunition between all, but there is missing very basic features like you can fire as many AP to lightly armored or unarmored vehicles and you don't cause any other damage than a neat small hole and sometimes spelling killing infantry inside (if not hitting to engine etc). Why HE or HEAT is the most effective to such targets but slower to fly, most difficult to hit a moving target and often you don't have time to reload correct shell so you just fire the one in gun and then reload correct and fire. Meaning often you can fire a AP to lightly armored vehicle causing little or no damage at all, or then vice versa for modern MBT.

But then we are easily on level requirements of Steel Beast and that is out of the question.

T-55 is still very serious threat to latest MBT from any manufacturer and it can't be allowed to sneak near you to its firing range as it will do damage easily if hitting vulnerable flank, rear or roof.

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.

T-72 were export variants of T-72 Ural (Not A or any newer model) that had much weaker armor (no armor upgrades what's so ever, thinner than original -73 thickness and steel had polluted from sand in manufacturing, resulting much weaker structure)

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.

This is an AEROPLANE and HELICOPTER SIM with a little liking for animated ground warfare, that's what CA's been made for. We all know this and there is little extra we can ask for as the engine simply won't take the load on a single core. DCS runs it's whole story on 1 core, the one used for sound doesn't count here in this equation.

What DCS badly needs to address above all is a rewrite of the core engine to allow SMP across as many cores as Intel and AMD will throw on the market.

The tendency for years has been more cores and same or less cycles, efficiency went up, yes indeed, but not in such a scale that it would allow DCS with all bells and whistles to run on one alone. ED, time is running out for SMP and the Bell will toll for DCS if you can't adopt.

Edge is a piece of cake against that rewrite I guess and we all know it, the Dev's imho know it, Wags knows it, we all experience the absence of SMP anytime we play and run into bad fps, lag and all that stuff that we know comes from lack of cpu usage while there is usually 60-80% CPU time available when DCS cooks on one. A shame for such a phenomenal Simulator.

SMP & Network Offload capability, so you can run DCS on a 12-core and also offload ATC and weather etc. to a networked machine(s) for 64-player events etc... It won't work without that infrastructure, that is without question when looking at Intel's and AMD's road map, there is no 10 GHz CPU in sight, far and wide.

Bit