1 T-80U = 6 M1A2's Track included

So calles TUSK kit for M1A1/A2 can be fitted to do that, T-72 and T-90 had this feature even before western tanks got it albeit more mechanical and less sophisticates (No TI)

Fair enough. I guess all tanks on DCS have that. I don't see many volunteers for being up there during an A-10 strafe.:D

Fair enough. I guess all tanks on DCS have that. I don't see many volunteers for being up there during an A-10 strafe.:D

Would it really matter during said strafe??

Based on my own playing around in CA it does seem a little off based on those stats you look up when you're in a tank-y mood, but as an artist/writer, from simply a gameplay and "storytelling" perspective it strikes me as appropriate:

Tanks were always kinda Russia's baby - all that imagery about Europe being crushed under endless legions of them during the Cold War, etc. - and conversely air power was always more NATO's point of pride.

In a good war epic each side kinda has their "thing," so naturally Blue tanks would be reliant on Blue air cover to compensate against tougher Red tanks, which gives the A-10 protagonist a more important role. In a narrative medium or a more traditional game, this would be a solid move, and just because sims are focused on the technical doesn't mean we should neglect drama - We gotta have something to fight for to make it truly fun, after all, even if it's just saving the imaginary boys on the ground from impossible odds.

Of couse, DCS is all about the challenge & satisfaction of doing it the right & realistic way, and in real war you want to develop your technology to make the fight as undramatic as possible, so I'm all for correcting any inaccuracies in performance, but real life has more variables than we can currently simulate, and so there are going to be occasional points where decisions have to be aesthetic rather than technical.

tl;dr Let's be accurate, but being an A-10 Hero is less fun if M1s can hold their own.

Based on my own playing around in CA it does seem a little off based on those stats you look up when you're in a tank-y mood, but as an artist/writer, from simply a gameplay and "storytelling" perspective it strikes me as appropriate:

Tanks were always kinda Russia's baby - all that imagery about Europe being crushed under endless legions of them during the Cold War, etc. - and conversely air power was always more NATO's point of pride.

In a good war epic each side kinda has their "thing," so naturally Blue tanks would be reliant on Blue air cover to compensate against tougher Red tanks, which gives the A-10 protagonist a more important role. In a narrative medium or a more traditional game, this would be a solid move, and just because sims are focused on the technical doesn't mean we should neglect drama - We gotta have something to fight for to make it truly fun, after all, even if it's just saving the imaginary boys on the ground from impossible odds.

 

Of couse, DCS is all about the challenge & satisfaction of doing it the right & realistic way, and in real war you want to develop your technology to make the fight as undramatic as possible, so I'm all for correcting any inaccuracies in performance, but real life has more variables than we can currently simulate, and so there are going to be occasional points where decisions have to be aesthetic rather than technical.

 

tl;dr Let's be accurate, but being an A-10 Hero is less fun if M1s can hold their own.

I disagree with most of your post, but I'm low on time and can't argue each of them individually. so here's the quick reply

Tanks & Russia - Sorry but that is a myth that came to fruition in the late years of WW2, when, admittedly the Soviet Union had superior tanks to most other armies. Those days are long gone.

You say you want a 'fun' fight, but I'd argue that realism isn't fun. Of course, in the end, this is a video game and the developers can throttle that level of fun and realism to make a good combination.

Your A-10 comment - This is now a 'combined arms' game, not just an A10 or Blackshark centric game anymore. Need to face facts.

No hate. Just respectfully disagreeing with you.

Would it really matter during said strafe??

Depends on the angle of the dive and the tank. Some tanks can aim up higher than others and for some tougher tanks you have to go quite close in, so any less than 60deg with a T-80U and once you get within kill range you may also pick up some .50cal fire.

Based on my own playing around in CA it does seem a little off based on those stats you look up when you're in a tank-y mood, but as an artist/writer, from simply a gameplay and "storytelling" perspective it strikes me as appropriate:

Tanks were always kinda Russia's baby - all that imagery about Europe being crushed under endless legions of them during the Cold War, etc. - and conversely air power was always more NATO's point of pride.

In a good war epic each side kinda has their "thing," so naturally Blue tanks would be reliant on Blue air cover to compensate against tougher Red tanks, which gives the A-10 protagonist a more important role. In a narrative medium or a more traditional game, this would be a solid move, and just because sims are focused on the technical doesn't mean we should neglect drama - We gotta have something to fight for to make it truly fun, after all, even if it's just saving the imaginary boys on the ground from impossible odds.

So what you're saying is that the OP's statistic only has a basis in fiction.:D

LOL, nice one marcos.

I'd like a more real world representation, as that would provide all the drama I would want in my real world simulations.

If 1 M1 would be capable of taking on 3 T-80's, I would make sure to make things interesting in my mission design by giving the T-80's a 4 to 1 ratio against the M1's if I wanted that kind of scenario.

On the other hand, what we actually have is something that's really lopsided, and the track proves that the M1 is firing only HE rounds which aren't very effective against a T-80. Simply allowing the AI M1's to fire AP would probably sort this problem out rather quickly.

I’m sure one exists however I was under impression that the only chemical energy round generally used by an m1 is of a HEAT design. This may not be ideal but certainly a t-80 would not be able to withstand many direct Heat rounds especially from a salvo from 10 enemy tanks ( E.R.A tiles can only take one hit each. ) In regards to Combined arms after viewing several clips on you tube it is apparent that it is intended to be more of a strategy based game than direct action. For me the contrasting levels of realism from DCS aircraft and the CA ground vehicles is just too high. I have been spoiled rotten by DCS and now even using aircraft in ARMA is basically a joke and no longer provides the level of entertainment for me due to the overwhelming level of fakeness. It is my true hope that eventually there will be an entire DCS army available with ground vehicles of the same quality as the DCS aircraft. Imagine a highly realistic detailed online battlefield where you can call in true air support from people flying highly realistically modeled aircraft. Imagine each player teaming up to man ground vehicles that are modeled in high detail as well. This is my true dream and I believe that ED is headed in the right direction. Perhaps a joint venture between ED and Bohemia interactive would yield an unparalled online battlefield. Imagine manning the turret and manipulating the controls of a BMP-3 realistically while your buddy drives and your other buddy calls out targets. The only fear is that only true simers like us would be interested and that all the call of duty and battlefield kids would be too impatient to learn how to operate vehicles. What if there were like try outs for a particular squad or unit where you have to prove your competency with a particular aircraft/vehicle and until then you are only allowed access to what you have mastered. The most interesting component of this is how the infantry would be modeled. Would the firearm itself be "clickable"? Perhaps that would be unnecessary however accurate models of an M2 or KPV could be utilized along with more sophisticated small arms such as Javelin's or Tow's. How about a highly detailed ballistics engine that would make for unprecedented sniping realism. The possibilities in my mind are endless and however boring my life may be until that point I will be glad to have dragged myself through it if this idea can be realized.

What? Do you mean that I payed for the CA Beta, but they already have features in the pipeline that I will not get until I pay for the CA2 beta?

If this really were the case then that'd be a pretty enormous kick in the bollocks for all the CA pre orders who went on faith that they'd be buying into a top of the line product.

From what I heard that might be the case. But obviously I don't know anymore than the rest of you guys. When I say pipeline I mean Matt Wagners head :D

 

My point is that I'm guessing that combined arms, in terms of major features/user interfaces, is not going to change much.

Is it really a problem for you to pay for new features down the road? I bet you've spent a night out drinking that cost wayyy more :P

ED has to stay in business after all...

Yea it really is. If you're in beta and you're already getting word that you have to drop another $40 to get access to a "feature" that reads more like "a playable game" then its a pretty big piss take.

If this really is how its going to pan out, and I'm not going to just believe that on a whim mind you, then it would severely damage my view of ED and make me seriously hesitate about pre-ordering any future products.

I'm not made of gold! I expect my $40 to travel well. My $40 being obsolete before exiting beta stage I'd consider a pretty big rip off. :P

First of all, you probably shouldn't trust my understanding of the info here...I'm going off 2nd (probably 3rd lol) hand info.

I think you'll be missing out if you cop an attitude like that. CA is what it is, as they say. It adds some pretty amazing functionality to an already outstanding sim. If ED decides to refine the content and add more functionality down the road I'm happy to support that with my $40. If EDs work so far is any indication, than it'll be $40 well spent

I’m sure one exists

It does, it's called the M829A3 and fires an 800mm long DU penetrator at 1750m/s. The effective range is 4km. The MRM CE and KE rounds (M1111) are effective out to 12km with JTAC target designation. It can kill a T-80/90 before they can even see your tank.

As well as HEAT (M830A1) and KE M829), there are also HE-MP(M337) rounds for demolition and shotgun rounds (M1028 ) for urban insurgent situations.

ZdH_i5T40GE

nFwd5sBNbjA

LAHAT - Older guided missile round (8km range).

Just quickly my 2 cents: What lacks here is the AI... A Tank Commander consistently engaging T-80s with HE is stupid and unlikely to happen in reality -> death wish?

Even the T-72 have incredible success rates against M1A2 or Leopard 2.

There exists real life statistics for such engagements from Desert Storm that would clearly favor the M1 here :D

Last but not least, at the moment Targetting computers, Laser range finders are not simulated at the moment, which is a BIG disadvantage for the modern Tanks. You can't easily implement that in CA, but at least it should be possible to tweak the AI to reflect the higher accuracy and hit propability when driving and shooting due to the advanced targeting systems in the M1, Leopard , T-80, T-90 etc.

And PLEASE, let the AI use APFSDS rounds against Tanks!!!

There exists real life statistics for such engagements from Desert Storm that would clearly favor the M1 here :D

Hand-wound turrets spring to mind.

 

I think you'll be missing out if you cop an attitude like that. CA is what it is, as they say. It adds some pretty amazing functionality to an already outstanding sim. If ED decides to refine the content and add more functionality down the road I'm happy to support that with my $40. If EDs work so far is any indication, than it'll be $40 well spent

They should pay you to do PR for them with an attitude like that. ;)

They should pay you to do PR for them with an attitude like that. ;)

I guess that's the fundamental difference between the two of us. You seems to picture the people at ED sitting around counting their money... While I remember the post from Wags explaining that ED is lucky to break even with their products. Try to enjoy what you've got :)

Hand-wound turrets spring to mind.

And that wasn't due to a fault of the tank design, it's because the Iraqis realized that if they turned their engines on, they would generate heat and be easier to see on thermals, so they laid in reverse-slope ambushes with manual cranked turrets to minimize thermal and acoustic signature.

Anyone who blames Iraqi tactics for their sound trouncing in the tank battles needs to read up on it a bit: the Iraqis were actually pretty clever about it, using reverse-slope defenses to force the US tank forces to engage at close ranges and piecemeal (a few at a time as the US tanks crested ridges), where the disadvantages were minimized.

Granted, the Iraqi T72s weren't Russian-spec, but I doubt their armor package was as bad as some make it out to be: US KE rounds were transiting from one end of the tank to the other and out that end too: I strongly suspect they'd have little trouble penetrating just ONE side of the Russian-spec tanks.

Have to agree with OutOnTheOP there, the Iraqis did the best they could with the hardware they had, and weren't slouches.

Regarding M829A1 penetration including sand berm, T-72 entry and exit I think you mean this photo. Would like to know the range at which this happened too if possible. It's certainly impressive, imagine what the M829A3 from 2003 can do.

And that wasn't due to a fault of the tank design, it's because the Iraqis realized that if they turned their engines on, they would generate heat and be easier to see on thermals, so they laid in reverse-slope ambushes with manual cranked turrets to minimize thermal and acoustic signature.

 

Anyone who blames Iraqi tactics for their sound trouncing in the tank battles needs to read up on it a bit: the Iraqis were actually pretty clever about it, using reverse-slope defenses to force the US tank forces to engage at close ranges and piecemeal (a few at a time as the US tanks crested ridges), where the disadvantages were minimized.

 

Granted, the Iraqi T72s weren't Russian-spec, but I doubt their armor package was as bad as some make it out to be: US KE rounds were transiting from one end of the tank to the other and out that end too: I strongly suspect they'd have little trouble penetrating just ONE side of the Russian-spec tanks.

Yeah, using a hand-wound turret is real smart.

Let me reiterate: the Iraqi tanks HAD power traverse. They chose not to use it. To use power traverse, they would have had to turn their engines on. Turning their engines on made them targets.

They decided that the benefits of concealment outweighed the detriment of using manual traverse and instead laid ambushes with cold, engines-off tanks. I would imagine that they started up their engines after firing the first volley.

Yeah, using a hand-wound turret is real smart.

you mean like using a knife rather than a gun when ambushing somebody?:D

Tactics sometimes require to skip a superior technology or take a risk to gain an advantage. More often, than not this is decisive in an engagement...

Would like to know the range at which this happened too if possible.

If I remember correctly, the typical range for engagement in the Gulf war was 2.5 to 3 clicks, though due to the targetting tech in combination with the 120mm Rheinmetall Gun there were reported kills with APFSDS exceeding 3000m!

This put the iraqis in a dire position since the effective combat range of the T-72 was some 1800 to 2500m, with the rounds hitting an M1 at 2500+ was of little effect (basically knocking on the door).

Let me reiterate: the Iraqi tanks HAD power traverse. They chose not to use it. To use power traverse, they would have had to turn their engines on. Turning their engines on made them targets.

 

They decided that the benefits of concealment outweighed the detriment of using manual traverse and instead laid ambushes with cold, engines-off tanks. I would imagine that they started up their engines after firing the first volley.

All I know is that 2 Bradleys took out 6 T-72s, including the time to reload the TOW. They had the time simply because the Iraqis were hand-winding. A lot of the time the Allies were just driving up to them and shooting them whilst their turrets were pointing the wrong way.

Yeah, using a hand-wound turret is real smart.

Vietcong did pretty well filling empty coffee tins full of gunpowder from unexploded American ordnance and marking their traps with broken twigs and little rock formations etc for friendlies.

Overreliance on technology is a bane of unimaginative militaries it seems. However, the Iraqis in the Gulf were just so ridiculously overmatched so that their "best" choice was still basically suicide, it was just suicide by Bradley instead of by A-10 or F-15.

Even so, when the US invaded Grenada they had something like 7500 troops and the US Navy and Air Force versus like 1000 enemy soldiers or something stupid. But then if you look at the casualty figures the differential isn't as big as the on paper force match up should lead to believe it would have turned out.

Tactics really is the kicker.

Vietcong did pretty well filling empty coffee tins full of gunpowder from unexploded American ordnance and marking their traps with broken twigs and little rock formations etc for friendlies.

You can't liberate a country that doesn't want to be liberated. Most of S. Vietnam wanted to be under N. Vietnamese rule and that's why it was a non-starter.

The Khmer Rouge were exactly what the Vietcong deserved and eventually got. If ever 2 para-military organisations deserved each other, it was those two.

You can't liberate a country that doesn't want to be liberated. Most of S. Vietnam wanted to be under N. Vietnamese rule and that's why it was a non-starter.

Which is an entirely separate issue from the tactical fighting. There were plenty of examples of effective military action by the US forces. Most of the military failure was just that, military. The idiocy of the upper echelons and their inability to comprehend the nature of the conflict which they were directing was the biggest non starter. Plenty of nations have been enslaved and oppressed militarily against their will, but Vietnam was special because of the particularly unforgiving nature of the terrain and the acute disconnect between the generals and the ground situation.

Hackworth managed to do just fine with the Mekong. He knew it was a wasted war, and that didn't change the political angle, but from a purely military point of view the deficiencies of the US effort from the top down grossly outweigh the latter day scapegoat which was the lack of "will" demonstrated by the American people to see it through contrasted against the unwavering commitment of the Vietnamese to see it through.

The "Ifs" of WW2 for instance are tantalizing, but its basically universally acknowledged that even if Hitler had somehow enslaved all of Europe and maintained a neutrality with the US and incredulously defeated Stalin that it couldn't last and that eventually it would break down anyway.

Political realities bely the story of the military truths. The Union defeated the Confederacy but it took incredible effort and just the right man on top of the Army of the Potomac to get it done despite ridiculous industrial and manpower advantages. It was the inspired genius of figures like Lee which held the North in check for so long and equally the ineptitude of indecisive military leaders in the North which prolonged the struggle.

To an extent it is impossible to separate a true history of a war from its constituent social, political, industrial, strategic, and tactical elements, but it does not however mean that individual aspects cannot be judged and analyzed specifically and to a certain degree within their own context.

The reality that the Vietcong laid mines for US soldiers to walk through and that the higher commanders didn't seem to figure this out as they called from the CnC chopper repeatedly "Clear the tree line!" when the enemy was miles away and all that happened was GI's got cut up by unmanned weapons speaks volumes about how things were run.

the VC defeated a superior force with clinical design in their methodology, part of which was maintenance of simplicity in the face of the worst warring environment while a dysfunctional American military struggled to field a functional infantryman rifle while higher echelons lived it up in American mid western style at the bloated and spy ridden rear rear still trying to fight Normandy on the wrong continent 30 years too late.

I don't care if the VC were always going to win, its how they won and why that is of particular interest, and it cannot be dismissed as an inevitability. Or... to put it bluntly, TACTICS!