Test: M1 vs. T-80s Track Files included

Invader, there is no entirely different discussion ;). The T-80 uses a spool shaped steel sabot with tungsten core, BM-42, while M1a2, correct, uses a traditionally shaped entirely DU M829A3 sabot. The BM-42 is a well designed round, but the problem with it simply goes too fast, meaning it works well against thin armor and somewhat thick armor at a 90 degree angle, but even against thick, slightly sloped armor, performance drops dramatically. Also, if the tank is moving, with the stabilization system active, the loader can have a tough time loading the gun, because the gun is elevating constantly to stay stabilized in relation to the earth. Fortunately, the designers foresaw this, and the loader has a switch he can activate that returns the gun, not the sight, to 0 degrees elevation for easy loading, however, the switch is not activated under normal circumstances.

...I think it beats an autoloader any day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=TbKX_Ldpwp8&NR=1

Pretty darn fast...

9 seconds, when the average abrams loader does it in around 5...

Did you watch the entire video?

first time 9 seconds, second time, ~10 or 11 seconds. Third time was one of the better ones, ~7 or 8. Yup, that averages to around 9 for all three times.

Someone else should look into the Chally/Leopard 2 hit box profiles, because they're confusing the hell out of me. @.@ One minute I'll get a OHK out of nowhere, the next I'm plinking away at a 2A6's turret wondering what the hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=TbKX_Ldpwp8&NR=1

 

Pretty darn fast...

Not really :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpOv50f3nN8&feature=related

Thanks for that video Opus, it's neat to see how the mechanical autoloader works. I found a video of an average serviceman loading his M1A2. I'm counting about 4 to 6 seconds to have the gun loaded with him though. I think the advantage is that the man can already grab a round off the shelf and have it ready after the gunner fires the shot. here's the videos:

Even the guy in the second video is already tired and he loads faster than the autoloader in the T-80 video. Another advantage of having a human being working with the ammo.

NO. Having the shell in your lap before the gunner fires is taboo in the army, because if the round gets hit by recoil, or a flareback occurs, the round will go off like a grenade. You can still load fast without lap loading though.

Okay, now I see what you mean, so more like what this guy is doing?

Yes

Hasnt the M1A2 always had this problem in DCS? Even in LOMAC2 they would routinely lose to T55's via frontal hits. Its hitbox is wrong or something, because its performance has been quite wrong for as long as I can remember. I imagine it developed some quirk when it was brought over to the DCS engine.

Oddly, in LOMAC 1 it had the opposite problem and would routinely trump the T80U in missions it was featured in.

I *suspect* the problem is due partially to a lack of any kind of ricochet simulation. I don't think DCS simulates the effects of high-angle-of-incidence hits; therefore glancing hits on the side of the turret count the same as a full-on, 90-degree square hit to the side of the turret. Since the M1 has a rather long turret, you'd see a lot of these type of hits, which would erroneously lead to relatively easy kills.

Also, the comment that "there's no code favoring one or the other" tells me that things ARE wrong. There *should* be code favoring one or the other. If there's no distinction in the code, that means that the armor strength and layout on both are considered identical (they're not, the Abrams has significantly superior armor), and it means that the T80s' poor ammo stowage and tendency to brew up when hit (as opposed to the relatively survivable post-penetration characteristics of the M1) are not simulated.

It also means that the superior fire control of the M1A2 is not simulated. Nor the higher rate of fire. Nor the vastly superior capability for fire on-the-move (even assuming both stabilization systems were equivalent- which they are not- the T80s' gun tube visibly flexes more under lateral stress.

And even if all statistics are treated identically for the T80U and M1A2 in-game right now, that STILL leaves the T80U at a significant advantage: it's smaller, and therefore harder to hit. No, they *should* be different.

Also, Apocalypse 31, you the same A31 from Steel Beasts? Once upon a time of A/1-14 Cav? Bronco 53 here.

Also, Apocalypse 31, you the same A31 from Steel Beasts? Once upon a time of A/1-14 Cav? Bronco 53 here.

Haha. Miles? You a major yet?

Up for primary this year, so... yeah, I sure as fsck hope soon. I can't imagine NOT; I've been top-blocked on every OER I've gotten since... er, EVER.

I think to keep improving and make it more realistic CA, one should realistically simulate first the armor, including ability to ricochet of the bullets and a kind of simulation of the width of said armor. After realistically simulate the systems and damage, including effects of explosions of ammunition, and finally get a simulation of advanced armor (Chobham, reactive), the hardest part.

heck, I'd be happy with a penetration-based/ systems damage model instead of a hitpoint-based system where even the weakest weapon can destroy the strongest target if you hit it enough.

heck, I'd be happy with a penetration-based/ systems damage model instead of a hitpoint-based system where even the weakest weapon can destroy the strongest target if you hit it enough.

yep, I get the feeling that there are limitations in the game engine about how much complex could be the damage model for ground vehicles

Agreed, but if they ever have any intention of integrating armored combat, they'll need to overhaul the damage model. ...not that I see it getting as intricate as the Steel Beasts Pro penetration model anytime soon... that one is pretty in-depth, and accounts not only for armour thickness, but also composition, sloping (on a shot-by-shot basis), and which systems are in the path of the projectile in the case of penetration.

Is it your submission that the M1 is better/should outperform the T-80U? If so, why?

No expert on tanks but the M1A2 AFAIK has better armour and more of it and could likely withstand a single hit but then the T-80U can fire ATGMs via its cannon too.

Would be appreciated if you would keep an eye on it as you progress through your CA career :)

 

Reason I ask is that the primary developer has confirmed previously that there is no line of code favouring one unit over the other, specifically referring to T-80's and M1's. Terrain, timing, bearing, elements of randomness, number etc etc all play a part in who eventually is victorious. As a consequence, if it still appears that M1's are being sodomised then we will need to investigate further - for that we will however need hard facts and not opinions.

I put 8 M1A2s up against 4 T-80Us and 4 T-72Bs. Outcome - 2 T-72Bs left.

I also put the Pyotr Velikiy up against 2 CG-60 Normandys, a Nimitz Class carrier with 4 F-18s loaded with Harpoons, 2 B-52s loaded with Harpoons and an F-117A.

Result - All US ships sunks, all US planes downed. But then NATO anti-ship missiles are slow.

The Russian cannon-launched guided missiles are, quite frankly, not that useful.

Why? Size. The penetration capability of a shaped-charge warhead is determined primarily by the diameter of the warhead. The Svir/ Reflecks has, at most, a 125mm diameter warhead. That's exactly the same warhead as the non-guided HEAT rounds carried by the T80 and M1. Probably LESS than the non-guided HEAT rounds, because there has to be room for the motor and guidance system.

Now, anyone who knows anything about armored combat knows that HEAT rounds are far from the prime choice for killing tanks; HEAT is used primarily against bunkers and light armor (sabot has poor post-penetration effects against soft targets and light armor because it tends to punch a hole in one side and out the other without creating the spall produced from penetrating heavy armor).

Further, the TOW-2A has a 150mm tandem warhead. The US Army determined that this was inadequate for killing the more modern T72 and T80 (reactive armor or not), so they went with a top-attack system on TOW2B (hitting the armor where it's very thin). And, as mentioned above, direct fire gun systems use sabot instead of HEAT. The M1 has a superior frontal armor package to the T80, so if 150mm tandem HEAT can't defeat T80 reliably, you can be sure 125mm HEAT can't defeat M1A2 armor.

SO, long story short, even if the Svir/ Reflecks hits an M1, the chance of penetrating frontal armor is next to none... and in order to get the angles to get a flank shot, you're probably going to have to be a lot closer than 5000 meters, so who cares about the range advantage?

I put 8 M1A2s up against 4 T-80Us and 4 T-72Bs. Outcome - 2 T-72Bs left.

 

I also put the Pyotr Velikiy up against 2 CG-60 Normandys, a Nimitz Class carrier with 4 F-18s loaded with Harpoons, 2 B-52s loaded with Harpoons and an F-117A.

 

Result - All US ships sunks, all US planes downed. But then NATO anti-ship missiles are slow.

Methinks a bit of perhaps national pride at work? There's no way that engagement would play out that way. I don't care how slow harpoon is, the US CGs can easily ripple fire enough to overwhelm the AD on the Velikiy; VLS has a VERY rapid fire rate since there's no need for launch rails or tubes to be reloaded before the follow-on shot

Methinks a bit of perhaps national pride at work? There's no way that engagement would play out that way. I don't care how slow harpoon is, the US CGs can easily ripple fire enough to overwhelm the AD on the Velikiy; VLS has a VERY rapid fire rate since there's no need for launch rails or tubes to be reloaded before the follow-on shot

I did notice that the CG-60s were firing like 1 Harpoon and 1 Tomahawk at a time whereas the Pyotr Velikiy was ripple firing 6 Granits (which is the way the Granit system actually works, I know) at each ship.

The Russian cannon-launched guided missiles are, quite frankly, not that useful.

 

Why? Size. The penetration capability of a shaped-charge warhead is determined primarily by the diameter of the warhead. The Svir/ Reflecks has, at most, a 125mm diameter warhead. That's exactly the same warhead as the non-guided HEAT rounds carried by the T80 and M1. Probably LESS than the non-guided HEAT rounds, because there has to be room for the motor and guidance system.

 

Now, anyone who knows anything about armored combat knows that HEAT rounds are far from the prime choice for killing tanks; HEAT is used primarily against bunkers and light armor (sabot has poor post-penetration effects against soft targets and light armor because it tends to punch a hole in one side and out the other without creating the spall produced from penetrating heavy armor).

 

Further, the TOW-2A has a 150mm tandem warhead. The US Army determined that this was inadequate for killing the more modern T72 and T80 (reactive armor or not), so they went with a top-attack system on TOW2B (hitting the armor where it's very thin). And, as mentioned above, direct fire gun systems use sabot instead of HEAT. The M1 has a superior frontal armor package to the T80, so if 150mm tandem HEAT can't defeat T80 reliably, you can be sure 125mm HEAT can't defeat M1A2 armor.

 

SO, long story short, even if the Svir/ Reflecks hits an M1, the chance of penetrating frontal armor is next to none... and in order to get the angles to get a flank shot, you're probably going to have to be a lot closer than 5000 meters, so who cares about the range advantage?

I would also argue the speed and warhead design are a factor. The Refleks is rated at 750-950mm RHA and the M1A2 hull is rated at 800mm RHA vs HEAT, so there is a chance. But I am getting my facts from wiki which suggests the T-80U armour is better than the M1A2s despite being way lighter, so I guess I don't know what to believe. Wiki also says that M1A2 armour is weaker than M1A1HA armour despite using the 2nd gen DU mesh????

Hmmm, interestingly the T-80 does have an autoloader though.

Methinks a bit of perhaps national pride at work? There's no way that engagement would play out that way. I don't care how slow harpoon is, the US CGs can easily ripple fire enough to overwhelm the AD on the Velikiy; VLS has a VERY rapid fire rate since there's no need for launch rails or tubes to be reloaded before the follow-on shot

That Veliky is truly great (ha ha) with a ton of firepower, and no doubt it would inflict a helluva lot of damage on the US battle group, but damn, no way it is going to take out the whole task force and sail away from it intact. I don't even care about the air-to-surface units, put those aside. Those Aegis class cruisers are pretty advanced.

I think I agree on the national pride comment -- I'll set aside my comments about the material readiness of the Russian navy and how often they actually leave the dock and go to sea. Nobody trains like the US military. Nobody does. Nobody spends that kind of resources on just going out and running exercise after exercise and burning gas like the US. That's all the US armed forces, not just the navy or the army.

Russians have had a nice resurgence of late, and I'm glad for them because their national pride had been suffering a bit thru the 1990s and early 2000s (I lived there 10+ years), and it is nice to see them getting back into the swing of things, training again, etc.,.. if nothing else than for their own safety. But still, even with all those petro-dollars pouring in, they just can't allocate the cash the way we do.

So if you wanted an accurate sim, you can go ahead and reduce those compentency/skill levels down a notch, because they aren't nearly as trained or engaged as our guys.

My wife is Russian and I hear the stories of my brother-in-law serving in a rocket forces unit in the Far East, where they are out there brewing their rocket fuel into moonshine. This was a good 13-14 years ago now, but how much as that really changed?

Then take into account things like the quality of their engines? Or their tank tracks? Are they as good as ours? Ever seen a Russian bulldozer? Ever compared that to a quarter million dollar Caterpillar dozer? Yeah.... sorry. They probably make great radar and missile technology, I'll buy that, and their newer ships are advanced as well, but I question their ability to manufacture CONSISTENTLY to the same tolerances that we do. It's not like a ship where they make one or two a year (still gotta give them their due), I'm talking about just good old QA tolerances for engines and undercarriage and things like that. Would you rather go to war in a hummer or an UAZik?

So sure, the sim models all the equipment to work just like it says in the manuals and in the technical data, just as it would the day it rolls out of the factory, in optimum condition. Nothing wrong with that.