TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/19/2015 10:32:19 PM

ivanov

Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline

I'm certainly no expert on the technical issues, but is there a reason why T-80B has better armor protection than the M1A1?

sube imagenes

Does the advanced composite armor "level 4" provides Abrams with some additional protection or is it already included in the 33/15 values of it's armor protection?

< Message edited by katukov -- 4/19/2015 11:35:49 PM >

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

Post #: 1

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/19/2015 11:36:19 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

The numbers are the calculated frontal armor and yes the T-80 is slightly better in value enough to tick over one more point. The ACA 4 is additional protection versus HEAT warheads. What I'm looking at and going to have to review is why the T-80B has no ACA value as well. Always something to fix.

Thanks for the post!

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to ivanov)

Post #: 2

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/20/2015 12:02:58 AM

ivanov

Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline

Hmmm, according to what I've found the M1A1 turret had a value of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 900 mm vs HEAT while T 80B 500 mm vs APFSDS 650 mm vs HEAT. These are the values from wiki but I've found simmilar information in few other sources.

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 3

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/20/2015 12:45:23 AM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

The calculation also looks at the hull value. Granted sources vary. M1A1 kinetic 600mm frontal is more inline with the HA upgrade version which would have a 42-43 type PF rating. Source data I am looking at show the M1A1 450 turret front and 490 hull were the HA version is 580/680 with the additional DU liners. If you have some other published data sources showing better/new info let us know. We are always interested in updating source info.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to ivanov)

Post #: 4

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/20/2015 1:13:44 AM

ivanov

Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M1_Abrams.php

M1: 450 mm vs APFSDS, 650 mm vs HEAT
M1A1: 600 mm vs APFSDS, 900 mm vs HEAT
M1A1HA: 600/800 mm vs APFSDS, 700/1,300 mm vs HEAT

The only book I own on the subject is M1 Abrams vs T-72 by Steven J.Zaloga. According to him, there is no unclasified data from US official sources ( the book is from 2009 ). He quotes the Soviet estimates which are:

M1A1:

Hull vs APFSDS 600mm; Hull vs HEAT 700mm; Turret vs APFSDS 600mm; Turret vs HEAT 700mm

M1A1HA:

Hull vs APFSDS 600mm; Hull vs HEAT 700mm; Turret vs APFSDS 800mm; Turret vs HEAT 1300mm

< Message edited by katukov -- 4/20/2015 2:14:03 AM >

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 5

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/20/2015 1:22:09 AM

ivanov

Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Source data I am looking at show the M1A1 450 turret front and 490 hull were the HA version is 580/680 with the additional DU liners. If you have some other published data sources showing better/new info let us know. We are always interested in updating source info.

This sounds more like T-72M1 than Abrams. According to Zaloga the T-72M1 protection would be:

Hull vs APFSDS 400mm; Hull vs HEAT 490mm; Turret vs APFSDS 380mm; Turret vs HEAT 490mm

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 6

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/21/2015 7:51:08 PM

Alex1812

Posts: 274
Joined: 7/19/2013
From: Russia
Status: offline

A few words about composite armor for Soviet tanks. Many peoples think and I found it in the different games that more number in tanks title (T-64, 72, 80) means more values for armor, fire control and others, but it's not right!

FC:RS have the simple values for composite armor and it's very easy to use this values in terms of real armor generations:

T-72 - no composite armor in turret (ACA0)
T-64, T-64A, T-72A, T-80, T-80B - first generation (ACA1), very simple composite armor
T-64B, T-72B - second generation (ACA2), new material and structure
T-80U - last generation (ACA4)

(in reply to ivanov)

Post #: 7

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/22/2015 3:15:45 AM

SKeeM

Posts: 17
Joined: 5/25/2006
From: NYC
Status: offline

I just want to say that the Abrams doesn't weigh 20-30 tons more than a T80 because they have the same armor rating. Clearly in weight alone one can draw the conclusion that the Abrams has a much better armor rating. And that before tech. Just saying. I remember in transition school from M60A3's to IP M1's I was reading the information plate in the turret. 27 tons for the turret. A T80 is only 45 tons.

< Message edited by SKeeM -- 4/22/2015 4:18:37 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Alex1812)

Post #: 8

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/22/2015 5:13:04 AM

ivanov

Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SKeeM

I just want to say that the Abrams doesn't weigh 20-30 tons more than a T80 because they have the same armor rating. Clearly in weight alone one can draw the conclusion that the Abrams has a much better armor rating. And that before tech. Just saying. I remember in transition school from M60A3's to IP M1's I was reading the information plate in the turret. 27 tons for the turret. A T80 is only 45 tons.

Good point. Only T-80U in theory was offering simmilar protection to the Western third generation tanks.

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to SKeeM)

Post #: 9

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/22/2015 6:18:01 AM

Alex1812

Posts: 274
Joined: 7/19/2013
From: Russia
Status: offline

Let use the simple arithmetic

M1A1 - 57.2 tons weigh and 19.7 m^3 armored volume
Т-80B - 42.5 tons weigh and 11.8 m^3 armored volume

and now calculate weight per unit volume:

M1A1 - 57.2 / 19.7 = 2.9 tons/m^3
T-80B - 42.5 / 11.8 = 3.6 tons/m^3

As I wrote earlier, the question which tank the best is more political (propagandistic) than technical

(in reply to ivanov)

Post #: 10

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/22/2015 4:10:44 PM

SKeeM

Posts: 17
Joined: 5/25/2006
From: NYC
Status: offline

Yea well that math didn't help the Iraqies out to much? Did it? Not one M1A1 Abrams was destroyed by a T72.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alex1812)

Post #: 11

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/22/2015 4:22:46 PM

Alex1812

Posts: 274
Joined: 7/19/2013
From: Russia
Status: offline

Not one T-80B was destroyed by a M1A1

< Message edited by Alex1812 -- 5/12/2015 8:00:29 PM >

(in reply to SKeeM)

Post #: 12

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/22/2015 4:44:05 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex1812

Let use the simple arithmetic

M1A1 - 57.2 tons weigh and 19.7 m^3 armored volume
Т-80B - 42.5 tons weigh and 11.8 m^3 armored volume

and now calculate weight per unit volume:

M1A1 - 57.2 / 19.7 = 2.9 tons/m^3
T-80B - 42.5 / 11.8 = 3.6 tons/m^3

As I wrote earlier, the question which tank the best is more political (propagandistic) than technical

Alex, as we all know simple math doesn't tell the story. Simple math forgets about ERA, ATGM's, DU penetrators, etc...

The age old question of which one is better is totally opinion based.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Alex1812)

Post #: 13

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/22/2015 4:51:41 PM

Alex1812

Posts: 274
Joined: 7/19/2013
From: Russia
Status: offline

oh, I do not try to compare the tanks. I really think that the best tank is the tank with good crew and good support

I just noticed that if you are using weight to compare tanks protection, it does not work

< Message edited by Alex1812 -- 4/22/2015 5:53:04 PM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 14

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/22/2015 5:02:41 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

To Alex's point, the density of the armor on the T-80 appears to be greater. Now to MR's point, simple math does not tell the whole story. We are working with some of the better estimates analysis we can. There is no exact science here since the military is not going to deal out classified data on actual configuration or performance of the hardware.

For SKeeM, don't use the Gulf War as a yardstick for measuring Soviet armor capabilities. The Iraqi tanks had steel AP rounds and low grade armor materials with their tanks. Your yardstick will end up only a foot long.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 15

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/22/2015 5:18:22 PM

ivanov

Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline

Bringing up Desert Storm as an example doesn't work really since the Iraqis were fielding only "poor man's" export versions of T-72, while the majority of their tanks were T-55's and it's derivates. From the other hand, the Iraqi video of destroyed Abrams doesn't prove anything either - some of the images feature the same machine few times, some of them were abandoned by the crews and destroyed afterwards by the Allied air force, most of them were damaged by IED's.

Having said this, after giving it a little of thought, since there is no credible data of the tank armor protection, we can argue all we want, but will never be able to get to any definite conclusions. In my opinion, in the game the NATO tank protection values are the lowest estimates while the Soviet values are the highest estimates. Which doesn't mean they are wrong - they are just estimates and they make the game more competitive for both sides, which is good.

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 16

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/22/2015 8:47:11 PM

MTTODD

Posts: 227
Joined: 12/1/2011
Status: offline

I don't want the game to be competitive based on possible faulty data.

I agree with Katukov assessment of the M1A1 values being to low, I have posted similar arguments concerning the Challenger 1 values.

But I could be wrong, as there is no definitive data available.

So I trust that the team who have produced such a great game, to also use the most accurate data they can find.

But I hope they are open to being corrected if they are shown sources which provide alternative values, such as provided by Katukov.

Thanks for all your efforts.

(in reply to ivanov)

Post #: 17

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/23/2015 1:42:56 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

There is no question we are open to being corrected. We've made numerous changes to the data base. But if worst comes to worst and you don't convince us you can simply make the changes to the data base and play with the values you think they should be.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to MTTODD)

Post #: 18

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/23/2015 9:07:22 AM

MaxDamage

Posts: 96
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline

Maybe you just should add "freedom launcher" or "democratic layer of armor" to the m1a1 and everyone is happy finally :D

I remember reading somewhere that the tanks like t72b abd m1a1 have very similar protection levels from the front, even some people say that t72 had better protection. Its the ammo that diffirentiates these tanks but only post 1990 or so, not during the 80s IMO.

< Message edited by MaxDamage -- 4/23/2015 10:14:39 AM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 19

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/23/2015 5:02:57 PM

MTTODD

Posts: 227
Joined: 12/1/2011
Status: offline

Are you able to change the values once in the database which will then reflect in all scenarios, or individually for each scenario.

Have not used the editor before.

Many thanks.

(in reply to MaxDamage)

Post #: 20

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/23/2015 5:07:14 PM

MTTODD

Posts: 227
Joined: 12/1/2011
Status: offline

I have no desire for any flag waving for US tanks (not being an American!)

Just want the most accurate data, and there are sources out there which disagree with the M1A1 value.

It's also to simplistic to say that it's only the ammo which differentiates the tanks, there are key armour differences as well.

(in reply to MTTODD)

Post #: 21

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/23/2015 6:08:46 PM

cbelva

Posts: 1843
Joined: 3/26/2005
Status: offline

There are two data bases for each country. The official data base that we used to make all our scenarios and it is not editable. There is user data base which is identical to the official one that is editable. When you edit it we recommend that you rename it and keep the original. You can then use the one you edited to make your own scenarios using your values.

So the answer is no, you can't edit the values for the official scenarios or any user created scenarios that used the official OTS data bases.

(in reply to MTTODD)

Post #: 22

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/23/2015 6:29:44 PM

cbelva

Posts: 1843
Joined: 3/26/2005
Status: offline

We had no desire to make this game pro USA or NATO. Our goal was to make a game that allowed the player to think and react like a battalion/brigade commander. And I think we did a fairly good job at that. We tried to capture what we feel were reasonable data for the different weapon systems. As this thread demonstrates there are different opinions and data for the same systems and there is really no way to tell which one is correct. We worked hard to get the game to play the way we felt the battles would have unfolded and to avoid national bias. Between Jim and Steve, we have lot's of info on NATO and Soviet equipment. Within OTS we have had some lively debates on this very subject.

(in reply to MTTODD)

Post #: 23

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/24/2015 12:18:01 AM

ivanov

Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline

I personally don't mind if NATO or WP had better tanks. I was just hoping for some meaningful discussion. At the beginning of this thread I came up with some estimates:

quote:

ORIGINAL: katukov

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M1_Abrams.php

M1: 450 mm vs APFSDS, 650 mm vs HEAT
M1A1: 600 mm vs APFSDS, 900 mm vs HEAT
M1A1HA: 600/800 mm vs APFSDS, 700/1,300 mm vs HEAT

The only book I own on the subject is M1 Abrams vs T-72 by Steven J.Zaloga. According to him, there is no unclasified data from US official sources ( the book is from 2009 ). He quotes the Soviet estimates which are:

M1A1:

Hull vs APFSDS 600mm; Hull vs HEAT 700mm; Turret vs APFSDS 600mm; Turret vs HEAT 700mm

M1A1HA:

Hull vs APFSDS 600mm; Hull vs HEAT 700mm; Turret vs APFSDS 800mm; Turret vs HEAT 1300mm

So far none has challenged them.I continue the research on the armor protection values of the Cold War tanks.

According to the Soviet sources, the T-80U equipped with the Kontakt-5 ERA and the new turret armor provided a very high level of protection:

780mm vs APFSDS and 1320mm vs HEAT.

According to the CFE Treaty documents, there were 410 T80U in operational units west of the Uralus in 1990, which was about 8% of the T80 strength. So it seems that the T80U was offering a similar level of protection to the top tier western tanks. The story would be probably different in case of the older T80B and T80BV models.

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to ivanov)

Post #: 24

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/24/2015 1:12:17 AM

delete1

Posts: 117
Joined: 12/31/2014
Status: offline

I am really glad to see your comment cbelva. This is another reason I like the most in this game. Actively trying to have no bias, specially the so frequent pro-US or pro-NATO one. Well, most of the game industry are located in the western world, so this is understandable. The other side is naturally the bad one and the worst one and that applies not only in games, of course. I am not sure if this is just my personal impression, but I still feel that we have a significant amount commentaries in this forum with some sort of exclamations regarding soviet hardware...Hinds too powerful, Su-25 too capable, soviets tanks too armoured...maybe this is just a wrong feeling...I like to consider that the other side might have good stuff too with at least the same potential as ours at some or several cases...indeed, maybe even better that we would imagine and consider at first. Why not? No one really knows at the end.

"The age old question of which one is better is totally opinion based". "As I wrote earlier, the question which tank the best is more political (propagandistic) than technical".

Yep..thats I think is the only final conclusion we will get. Agreed with both.

just my thoughts! Interesting discussion!

< Message edited by Daniel Rincon -- 4/24/2015 2:33:01 AM >

(in reply to cbelva)

Post #: 25

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/24/2015 8:39:12 AM

Jafele

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Daniel Rincon

I am really glad to see your comment cbelva. This is another reason I like the most in this game. Actively trying to have no bias, specially the so frequent pro-US or pro-NATO one.

(in reply to delete1)

Post #: 26

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/24/2015 10:11:34 AM

Tazak

Posts: 1452
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

I'd rather work with worst case scenarios where data accuracy is in question (plan for the worst - bonus if things go to plan)

You really have to search to find out where the DU armor was applied on the early HA models

, however 2 sources do go into that level of detail and both quote �front left and right panels of the turret�, this means the M1A1 and M1A1(HA) would have the same hull protection value.

I would like to change the discussion slightly into why only hull armor is taken into account when nearly all tankers are taught something akin to �best position - hull down position�.

NOTE:My understanding is that ground protection (hull down??) is covered by protection in the different movement stats (deliberate vs assault vs hasty) as well as hold/dug-in/improved position.

Turret armor has historically been thicker than hull, DU armor added to turret, and there are more than enough examples of hull down positions being preferred - Iraqi tanks dug in, training manuals all describe hull down as ideal situation from which to engage the enemy, <insert countless other well-known comments about hull down>

I know the game is too high level to detail various weak spots on tanks, or to differentiate between hull and turret hits, however ignoring turret armor completely is also missing out on 2 major aspects of tanks (increased turret armor and engaging from hull down positions), but likewise changing armor stats to turret armor ignores hull hits and puts other non-tank AFVs at an even worst position.

The only idea I have on solving this would be to work of a median of hull and turret armor thus allowing for probability distribution of turret/hull hits

< Message edited by Tazak -- 4/24/2015 11:12:28 AM >

_____________________________

AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 27

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/24/2015 10:59:48 AM

MTTODD

Posts: 227
Joined: 12/1/2011
Status: offline

Did not know that only hull armour is taken into account, your idea of using median of hull/turret seems a better idea.

Even more confused know about M1A1 armour value, as you said M1A1 has same hull armour as M1A(H), so if only hull armour is used they should be the same!

(in reply to Tazak)

Post #: 28

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/24/2015 11:01:12 AM

MTTODD

Posts: 227
Joined: 12/1/2011
Status: offline

Thanks for providing the info Katukov.

Do you have any similar data regarding the Challenger 1 ?

(in reply to delete1)

Post #: 29

RE: TANK ARMOR PROTECTION VALUES - 4/24/2015 11:46:41 AM

Jagger2002

Posts: 674
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

quote:

The only idea I have on solving this would be to work of a median of hull and turret armor thus allowing for probability distribution of turret/hull hits

I am not sure why the engine doesn't use separate turret and hull armor if available. Simply give a percentage chance of using hull or turret armor dependent on current movement or position stance.

(in reply to MTTODD)

Post #: 30