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

Tested out the T-80U vs. the M1's to see if anything had changed with DCS World and A-10C and Combined Arms patched to the latest with auto updater as of 7:00 pm EST.

 

Attached track is of a single T-80U vs. 10 M1A2's that are over 2 miles away and closing toward each other over very flat ground. Both sides are set to Excellent AI, and both sides are firing at each other quickly after the scenario starts.

 

End result was similar to what was heavily debated back in July, a single T-80U takes out 6 M1A2's head on before it's destroyed. I'm hoping ground AI targeting and armor will get a closer look.

 

And if your playing missions, you might have to adjust the AI settings for both sides to get the result your looking for.

1 AI Exc. T-80=6 M1A2 AI Excellent.trk

Edited October 3, 2012 by Invader ZIM

Edit:

 

Noticed the in the briefing at the end it seems the M1A2's are firing 120mm HE rounds only, and the T-80U is firing both the missile and 125mm AP ammo.

Yeah load an M1A1/2 with sabot rounds and that engagement would of lasted about 6 seconds.

I have noticed that the 120mm Stryker also fires HE only.

That is the problem:

- No crew commander orders (tank with sabot, IFV/APC with HE, inf with MGs)

- No realistic armour and penetration.

- No realistic firing computer

- No realistic sight distance

- No realistic AI tank engagement

- No realistic coordinate firing (all tanks firing some target waste ammunition)

and a long issues.

Load the M1A2 with XM1111 rounds and that engagement will be over before the T-80Us get a round off.

 

I guess the T-90 will be able to destroy an entire battalion.

This simulator was made to simulate aircraft first and foremost.

Yes, they've taken steps towards ground forces with CA.

They've also taken steps towards vintage aircraft with P51D...

 

But their first priority is going to be on modern aircraft. So be patient with updates to tank combat, I'm sure it'll be brought up to snuff eventually. They can't accurately simulate EVERYTHING right, right off the bat.

+1

 

DCS may be a flight simulator at first, it also had a huge potential as a ground unit simulator. I really hope ED will develop that side, i would gladly pay for a CA2.

 

AT least i'm sure that with tanks, i'm not crashing everywhere :)

Actually CA is still in beta. So it IS still in development and unfinished and any findings may be fixed in the final release. ;)

Actually CA is still in beta. So it IS still in development and unfinished and any findings may be fixed in the final release. ;)

 

I'm sure CA will be refined as it gets closer to release... I'd bet the core features/functionality will remain largely the same though.

 

I missed the post from Wags, but the word on the street is that there might be a Combined Arms 2 in the pipeline. If we see any major overhauls to the realism they'll probably be there

...the word on the street is that there might be a Combined Arms 2 in the pipeline. If we see any major overhauls to the realism they'll probably be there

 

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?

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?

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...

CA2? I find that unlikely.

I would like to see the tank side better simulated, too... there really arent any (modern) tank sims that are at a DCS level...

That, and i've invested so much time learning the DCS engine that I don't want to learn a new sim engine... (tried falcon 4.32, couldnt get into it)

One day, the makers of Steel Beasts, ARMA, and DCS are going to get drunk and have..........children - we hope :)

 

Actually, a version of ARMA (VBS) can already play with Steel Beasts. So technically at least, its becoming closer and closer to reality. Who knows what DCS holds....

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

 

ED has to stay in business after all...

 

I sincerely hope that your guess is way off the mark. You're right, ED has to stay in business, but CA is nowhere close to what I was expecting yet. Right now I'd class CA as a proof of concept.

Really hope further devellopment of ground, too.

T-80's are just better tanks! deal with it! i am completely biased with that opinion.

I put an opening bid on a x Iraqi T-72 on 'eBay' the other day.. only got out bid by several hundred thousand.

I also hope for CA expansion and improvment.

Just try firing up the SP-US Company Day Advance - Kutasi mission. Those T-80Us are something else.

 

3 of them lying still in the vicinity of the near village (closest one East), any attempts to actually kill them with one group of 4 Abrams and another group of 4 Bradlys with TOW missles - ends up with all 8 of my units getting destroyed.

 

I've tried to engage them myself, but since I can not see through a forest that stands in between friendly and enemy forces my attempts to kill those 3 pesky T-80Us were futile, every time I tried. Even flanking them is pointless as they are so effective even at the edge of their weapons range that it is just better to admire them from distance and don't even start the attack.

 

In the end, I took up in A-10C and killed them the "old school way".

 

 

I've only had CA for a week now and needles to say I am not at least impressed. I was expecting much more. Hopefully EDGE and Nevada will fix the long existing problems like AI seeing through threes etc.

 

Right now, CA is just for show and better used for JTAC only (mind you, that area could use more work as well, i.e. like VHF FM radio interface added and control over AI A-10Cs).

CA is nowhere close to what I was expecting yet. Right now I'd class CA as a proof of concept.

 

I'd agree with that statement.

 

I'm not going to bore you with the definition if alpha/beta... But if you're expecting the CA that you bought to end up like arma/steel beasts before you have to pay into it again I think you're going to be sorely let down.

T-80's are just better tanks!

 

 

:lol: funny guy!

What did you expect lol, he's from Tasmania, everyone knows those guys as well as the Australians have some of the best sense of humor on the planet. :D

What did you expect lol, he's from Tasmania, everyone knows those guys as well as the Australians have some of the best sense of humor on the planet. :D

 

your right, who was I kidding, the T-72 is better than the M1A2!

 

I was looking at an industrial site in bagdad on the weekend, thaught it would be a good place to take a T-72 for a spin no shooting tho :(

Can the roof guns on these 2 tanks be operated remotely in reality?

Can the roof guns on these 2 tanks be operated remotely in reality?

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)