Jump to content

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


Invader ZIM

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

 

I was curious about how the AI was behaving with the tanks, so I made up a very simple mission that had 12 M1A2's vs. 12 T-80U tanks on rather flat ground about 3 miles apart.

 

I set it up so that the M1's were set on Excellent skill in all these tests and the T-80's on excellent, watched the battle, and the M1's lost.

 

Repeated the mission, this time with Excellent M1's and T-80's on High, M1's lost.

 

Again with T-80's on Good, in the end M1's lost, but 6 T-80's survived.

And finally with T-80's on Average, same result, M1's lose and 6 T-80's survived.

 

Attached are my trk files for the battles, you can fast forward to where I'm watching in external view, the battle happens when the T-80's are about 1.9 miles away. All battles involved AP rounds and no T-80's fired missiles.

 

I don't know if this is as intended or not, so didn't know where to post this. If anyone can replicate or perhaps find a way to change the outcome let me know. The only way the M1's have a chance is if they are not moving and the T-80's come to them or blunder into them. It would seem the AI gets a bonus for being still.

M1 moves.trk

M1Excellent T80High.trk

M1Excellent vs T80 Good.trk

M1Excellent vs T80 Avg.trk


Edited by Invader ZIM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, actually I'm not sure how it's supposed to perform. It seems that as long as any unit is moving, be it the T-80 or M1 even if set on condition Red that if the moving unit runs into the other it is at a disadvantage. But would that always be the case? As in this instance all units are on wide open ground that is relatively flat. The M1's are firing on the move at stationary T-80's, while the T-80's have units moving toward them at full speed in all instances. I would figure it would be easier in this instance to be in the tank that is moving to fire on a stationary target.

 

Is it your submission that the T-80 is better/should outperform the M1A2? If so, why?


Edited by Invader ZIM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, actually I'm not sure how it's supposed to perform. It seems that as long as any unit is moving, be it the T-80 or M1 even if set on condition Red that if the moving unit runs into the other it is at a disadvantage. But would that always be the case? As in this instance all units are on wide open ground that is relatively flat. The M1's are firing on the move at stationary T-80's, while the T-80's have units moving toward them at full speed in all instances. I would figure it would be easier in this instance to be in the tank that is moving to fire on a stationary target.

 

Is it your submission that the T-80 is better/should outperform the M1A2? If so, why?

 

From a stationary target it's much easier to get an accurate shot, firing on the move will increase any error margin of the Computers and since they're charging towards a target (not applicable in DCS) there's the need to get rounds off so they don't end up stupidly close.

Always remember. I don't have a clue what I'm doing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it your submission that the T-80 is better/should outperform the M1A2? If so, why?

 

I don't know, hence the query. I cannot investigate an issue without substantiation. For all I know, the T-80U is the better tank and would thus accord with your observations that the M1's get a hiding going head to head.

 

As regards non-moving vs moving, the non-moving unit would always have an advantage I would have thought - it's called an ambush :)

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....the T80 would never outgun the M1A2, even if the M1A2's on the move.

 

Keeping in mind it's the U and not the base version, how so?

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Viper, was just curious about the outcomes and didn't think it much of an issue.

 

I'll try and set up the U.S. units from now on to adjust for this factor. Setting up ambushes is the way to go for ground units when the opportunity presents itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be biased (being an Armor Officer in the United States Army) but speaking from experience with the M1A1 I would say that from a technological standpoint, the T80 would never outgun the M1A2, even if the M1A2's on the move.

 

Yes, thats clearly a biased comment, haha. :thumbup:

 

Can I ask how you came to this conclusion? Why can't the T80U outgun the M1A2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Viper, was just curious about the outcomes and didn't think it much of an issue.....

 

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.

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, yes I have. That's where I came to the conclusion that the units staying still regardless of what side there on get the advantage.

 

Takes only a few minutes to set up in the editor and try it out for yourself. I learned something new with this and now can plan better on how to move my forces in CA to minimize losses.

 

P.S. thanks for that info Viper, so far seems to work out that the units are even, it does depend on the terrain and situation which makes this all hard to quntify sometimes.


Edited by Invader ZIM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thats clearly a biased comment, haha. :thumbup:

 

Can I ask how you came to this conclusion? Why can't the T80U outgun the M1A2?

 

Just scratching the surface here...

 

-M1A2's 1600mm of sloped armor in which a T80U's 3VBM19 round cannot even penetrate 650mm at zero degrees

 

-Stabilization on the M1A2's M256 smoothbore gun. When the gunner has the system engaged, the turret will stay exactly where its aimed, no matter how fast or bumpy of a ride. It's pretty awesome.

 

-The CITV (Commanders Independent Thermal Viewer) allows the commander to identify targets while the gunner is engaging previous targets or scanning, then swivel the turret for the gunner, so with a good loader you can kill an enemy vehicle every +/- seven seconds without the gunner even having to find the target.

 

-The M829A3 APFSD and the M256 smoothbore gun combined (see: Battle of 73 Easting, ref: killing T72's before they could even see the M1's)


Edited by Apocalypse31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL SiThSpAwN, don't worry, I didn't see nothing. :lol:

 

I think during the first gulf war the M1's were using the M829A1 "Silver Bullet" round.

 

The M829A3 is current as of 2004 I think, but there is an M829A4 round being procured. The A3 is specifically made to defeat Kontact-5 reactive armor and has some impressive attributes by reading what info I could in the Tank forums recently.

 

I appreciate the discussion guys, always willing to learn what I can about some of these ground systems and keep up to date.

 

Edit: Okay, found a link the types of ammo used by the M1, it's an impressive range, including airburst anti-helo rounds! I can see where in CA that M1's with that MPAT round would make things interesting for the Ka-50 pilots.

 

http://www.atk.com/capabilities_defense/cs_ms_w_tgs_120ammo.asp


Edited by Invader ZIM
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great link there Invader! Thanks for sharing.

In CA as it is now it's best to just let the AI do the fighting and consentrate on mooving units and doing JTAC. Mission designers must add the T-55 up against the M1 (strange as it seams) or you could have about 50% T-72's and T-55's up against M1's in the same number of platoons.

 

(HJ)


Edited by HiJack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just scratching the surface here...

 

-M1A2's 1600mm of sloped armor in which a T80U's 3VBM19 round cannot even penetrate 650mm at zero degrees

 

-Stabilization on the M1A2's M256 smoothbore gun. When the gunner has the system engaged, the turret will stay exactly where its aimed, no matter how fast or bumpy of a ride. It's pretty awesome.

 

-The CITV (Commanders Independent Thermal Viewer) allows the commander to identify targets while the gunner is engaging previous targets or scanning, then swivel the turret for the gunner, so with a good loader you can kill an enemy vehicle every +/- seven seconds without the gunner even having to find the target.

 

-The M829A3 APFSD and the M256 smoothbore gun combined (see: Battle of 73 Easting, ref: killing T72's before they could even see the M1's)

 

Thanks for the reply :thumbup:

I'm no armor expert so i might be wrong but I can't see how any of these points favour the M1 against the T80U.

 

The M1 cannot penetrate the T80U frontal armor either.

The T80U has similiar gun stabilization too with ballistics computation.

Etc...

 

Did read a little about "Battle of 73 Easting". It's interesting but I don't see how it's relevant. Also, everything written on that seem to be from the western point of view.


Edited by Brisse
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply :thumbup:

I'm no armor expert so i might be wrong but I can't see how any of these points favour the M1 against the T80U.

 

The M1 cannot penetrate the T80U frontal armor either.

The T80U has similiar gun stabilization too with ballistics computation.

Etc...

 

Did read a little about "Battle of 73 Easting". It's interesting but I don't see how it's relevant. Also, everything written on that seem to be from the western point of view.

 

Well everything written on that is from a western point of view, you think the dead Iragi T72 operators can give an After Action report? Most commanders have to write a AAR and submit it to S2. I have a written AAR that was put together from General Schwarzkopf. Most commanders will write the AAR with truth.

Sheez I guess we better send in the U.N to start doing Battle assessments, and AAR's for every-one including your country?

" any failure you meet, is never a defeat; merely a set up for a greater come back, "  W Forbes

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts,"  Winston Churchill

" He who never changes his mind, never changes anything," 

MSI z690MPG DDR4 || i914900k|| ddr4-64gb PC3200 || MSI RTX 4070Ti|Game1300w|Win10x64| |turtle beach elite pro 5.1|| ViRpiL,T50cm2|| MFG Crosswinds|| VT50CM-plus rotor Throttle || G10 RGB EVGA Keyboard/MouseLogitech || PiMax Crystal VR || 32 Samsung||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just scratching the surface here...

 

-M1A2's 1600mm of sloped armor in which a T80U's 3VBM19 round cannot even penetrate 650mm at zero degrees

 

-Stabilization on the M1A2's M256 smoothbore gun. When the gunner has the system engaged, the turret will stay exactly where its aimed, no matter how fast or bumpy of a ride. It's pretty awesome.

 

-The CITV (Commanders Independent Thermal Viewer) allows the commander to identify targets while the gunner is engaging previous targets or scanning, then swivel the turret for the gunner, so with a good loader you can kill an enemy vehicle every +/- seven seconds without the gunner even having to find the target.

 

-The M829A3 APFSD and the M256 smoothbore gun combined (see: Battle of 73 Easting, ref: killing T72's before they could even see the M1's)

 

 

T80U is basicly shoud be better becuse is basicly made to kill M1 tanks, it have Stabilization,Thermal View and same crap as M1 tanks, T80U even have faster fire rate more speed and mobility, but it lacks in arrmor, but fire power is same as M1... anyways both tanks woud be probably dead after one hit

 

And is so funny you even compare Russian T72 wich were not even close to real T72, Battle of 73 Easting hade Lion of Babylon tanks copys of T72 they only hade T72 tracks, arrmor and other crap was made by iraq, No training crew did alot impact to battle, But even real T72 i think woud have problems agenst M1, its like comparying HONDA vs FERRARI

But T80U is not even close to T72

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I hate about the T80U. why is it in this version when there is only a M1A1 in this version. Not even the Bradly's TOW can touch that T80U.

 

Russian T80U Ammo

Their NATO reporting name is AT-11 Sniper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M119_Refleks

Range:

Refleks: 100 to 6000 m

Svir: 100 to 4000 m

Weight (complete round):

Refleks: 28 kg

Svir: 24.3 kg

Missile weight:

Warhead: Tandem HEAT

Penetration: 750–950 mm of RHA

Time of flight to 4000 m : 11.7 s

Time of flight to 5000 m : 17.6 s

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A46

The 2A46 (D-81T) is a 125mm/L48 smoothbore cannon of Soviet origin used in several main battle tanks. It was developed by the Spetstekhnika design bureau in Ekaterinburg in the 1960s originally for the T-64A tank. They were then manufactured at Artillery Plant No.9 in Ekaterinburg and Motovilikha in Perm.

 

The 2A46 can fire armour piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS), high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) and high explosive fragmentation (HEF) projectiles. The ammunition for the 2A46 gun is 2-piece, in that the projectile is loaded first, followed by a separate propellant charge.

 

The early version of the 2A46 suffered from a short barrel life, but this was subsequently fixed on the 2A46M version.

 

The Ukrainian KBA guns are derived from the 2A46 gun.

 

 

M1A1 Weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Primary

105 mm L52 M68 rifled cannon (M1)

120 mm L44 M256 smooth-bore cannon

(M1A1, M1A2, M1A2SEP) with 42 rounds

Primary

 

M68A1 rifled gun

 

The main armament of the original model M1 was the M68A1 105 mm rifled tank gun firing a variety of high explosive anti-tank, high explosive, white phosphorus and an anti-personnel (multiple flechette) round. This gun is a license-built version of the British Royal Ordnance L7 gun. However, it proved to be inadequate; a cannon with lethality beyond the 3-kilometer (1.9 mi) range was needed to combat newer armor technologies. To attain that lethality, projectile diameter needed to be increased.

 

M256 smoothbore gun

 

A Marine M1A1 Abrams, fires its main gun into a house providing suppressive counter fire against insurgents in Fallujah, Al Anbar Province, Iraq during the Second Battle of Fallujah, 2004.

 

The main armament of the M1A1 and M1A2 is the M256A1 120 mm smoothbore gun, designed by Rheinmetall AG of Germany, manufactured under license in the United States by Watervliet Arsenal, New York. The M256A1 is a variant of the Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 gun carried on the German Leopard 2 on all variants up to the Leopard 2A5. Leopard 2A6 replaced the L/44 barrel with a longer L/55.

 

The M256A1 fires a variety of rounds. The M829A2 APFSDS round was developed specifically to address the improved protection of a Russian T-72, T-80U or T-90 main battle tank equipped with Kontakt-5 Explosive Reactive Armor.[47] Later, the M829A3 APFSDS round was introduced to improve its effectiveness against next generation ERA equipped tanks. As a counter to that, the Russian army introduced Relikt, the most modern Russian ERA, which is claimed to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5.[48] Development of the M829 series is continuing with the M829E4 currently in development.[49] The Abrams also fires HEAT shaped charge rounds such as the M830, the latest version of which (M830A1) incorporates a sophisticated multi-mode electronic sensing fuse and more fragmentation which allows it to be used effectively against armored vehicles, personnel, and low-flying aircraft. The Abrams uses a manual loader. The fourth tank crew member on the Abrams also provides additional support for maintenance, observation post/listening post (LP/OP) operations, and other tasks.

 

The new M1028 120 mm anti-personnel canister cartridge was brought into service early for use in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It contains 1,098 3⁄8-inch (9.5 mm) tungsten balls which spread from the muzzle to produce a shotgun effect lethal out to 600 meters (2,000 ft). The tungsten balls can be used to clear enemy dismounts, break up hasty ambush sites in urban areas, clear defiles, stop infantry attacks and counter-attacks and support friendly infantry assaults by providing covering fire. The canister round is also a highly effective breaching round and can level cinder block walls and knock man-sized holes in reinforced concrete walls for infantry raids at distances up to 75 meters (246 ft).[50]

 

In addition to this, the XM1111 (Mid-Range-Munition Chemical Energy) is also in development. The XM1111 is a guided munition using a dual-mode seeker that combines imaging-infrared and semi-active laser guidance. The MRM-CE was selected over the competing MRM-KE which used a rocket-assisted kinetic energy penetrator. The CE variant was chosen due to its better effects against secondary targets, providing a more versatile weapon. The Army hopes to achieve IOC with the XM1111 by 2013.[51]

" any failure you meet, is never a defeat; merely a set up for a greater come back, "  W Forbes

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts,"  Winston Churchill

" He who never changes his mind, never changes anything," 

MSI z690MPG DDR4 || i914900k|| ddr4-64gb PC3200 || MSI RTX 4070Ti|Game1300w|Win10x64| |turtle beach elite pro 5.1|| ViRpiL,T50cm2|| MFG Crosswinds|| VT50CM-plus rotor Throttle || G10 RGB EVGA Keyboard/MouseLogitech || PiMax Crystal VR || 32 Samsung||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED have stated that CA is not a study sim but I hope the release of the product is something else than this when it comes to detail. As for now its just playable as JTAC and Commander.

 

"Study Sim" or whatever, the game should have SOMEWHAT realistic values.

 

For example...a T-55 should have a hell of a hard time killing an M1A2.

 

Another example; In one of my last games, a T-72 killed my M1A2 with 1 shot frontally, hitting the turret. As stated earlier, a T-72 round cannot even penetrate an M1A2's armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...