Soviet tank crew survival.

[kevineduguay1]

Russian T-54 to even the T-80 and especially the T-72 are not famous for crew survival.
An American tank commander stated that durring the 1991 Iraq War, "The only Iraqi tankers that survived the battle were those that abandon their tanks before they were hit."
He also went on to state that there was a flaw in the Russians tank design. EVERY time they were hit the ammo and fuel exploded usually blowing the turret off and killing the entire crew.
My question is, if this is true then why is my digital battlefield overrun with FULL STRENGTH Iraqi tank crews.

The survival number for a T-72 is now 4. IMHO it should be lowered to 1 or 2.

[DRG]

If your game is overrun with "full strength" Iraqi tank crews the battlefield must be strewn with destroyed Iraqi tanks. I guess the disparity in the number of shots between the Iraqi side and the US side didn't amount to much in this case?

I've never see a game "overrun" with full strength crews. I'll have to keep an eye out for that. Sounds interesting

However " survivability " is not just crew survival. Crew survival is part of it. The survivability rating is a whole tank rating so the lower the number the more chance of even an "iffy" hit destroying it completely.

Feel free to edit your own OOB's and lower that number until T-72's light up like a BIC with every hit. That seem to be what you desire anyway. I won't be doing that with the issued game OOB's however because we already ran that experiment years ago and decided that 4 was just about right otherwise they were simply too fragile

Don

[kevineduguay1]

They did light up like BICS!

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:
They did light up like BICS!



So your big complaint now is that you think more of the crews should have been incinerated.

That's nice.

Have fun reworking your OOB's becasue I have no intention of changing ours

Don

[kevineduguay1]

This stuff is documented. What about your oppinions? You have yet to mention facts to back up your statements. If you do I'll shut up.
It sounds to me that you want to make a GAME. A little HISTORY would be cool too!

[Siddhi]

interesting point. the merkava tanks should have very high crew survivability but if anything less capacity to absorb damage then one would normaly think (with the engine in front and all)...

[Stirling]

Man. What's wrong with DRG lately?

He seems to be taking everything personally.

Being needlessly rude to your customers should be left for the likes of Derek Smart.

[Mobhack]

kevineduguay1 said:
This stuff is documented. What about your oppinions? You have yet to mention facts to back up your statements. If you do I'll shut up.
It sounds to me that you want to make a GAME. A little HISTORY would be cool too!



- This is a game.

- History is a fable, commonly agreed upon (Napoleon). If your view of history differs from ours, then by all means feel free to edit the game data to suit yours. We provide the tools. Edit your OOBS to fit your world-view. Change preferences to suit your opinions (If you think <insert army> needs to be supermen, then turn country training off and insert your values, for example, or add 10 experience to all formations or whatever).

We provide a basic game which most folks agree upon, but it cannot cover all points of view. Feel free to make your own edits, the game allows for this. Feel free to put your modified OOBS up for others to try out. Feel free to experiment to see what these mods actually do when played in the game.

The game is a democracy, and not a Stalinist dictatorship - we do not decree one set of data to rule (unlike many others http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. We allow you to roll your own, and to publish them.

Cheers
Andy

[Alpha]

so perhaps now kevin will understand that this IS a game and not reality...

[MarkSheppard]

Man. What's wrong with DRG lately?

Dealing with morons tends to do that. Kevin thinks
that there are no interactions between the various
ratings; this was revealed earlier by the autoloader
debacle.

Survivability is not how much of the crew survives; it's
how often a unit can survive good solid hits that penetrate
without going up in flames; to represent shells simply going
in one side of a vehicle and going out the other side without
hitting anything or exploding; it's happened in real life.

EDIT: This has also raised some interesting questions in
my head; should T-55/62 survivability be higher than
T-64/72/80 survivability in the OOBs?

The Russians actually switched to using uparmored and ERAed
T-55s and T-62s in Chechyna because they didn't have the
autoloader which placed the propellant in a location that
was easily hit and penetrated, versus the more modern -64
series tanks...I think they've rectified that problem
somewhat in the latest T-90 models, but it still remains
a weak point of the design.

[Siddhi]

i think words like moron are best avoided. this is a good forum, a little maturity and leadership should be able to keep it that way.

if survivabilily (and i have not played with OOB editor so i really do not know) is how mark presents it, then shouldn't M113 and BTRs have very high survivability, while the m1a1 etc. should have a very low one? spalling persumbally would be horrendous.

also, what is the rating for absorbing damage? i .e. penetrating hits that cause damage but are not MK or TK. how does that play with wierd and wonderfull tanks like the merkava/

finally to kevin's point, is there any thing in particular that contributes to crew survival? it is kind of handy in a campaign series after all.....

[kevineduguay1]

All that im saying is that during the 1991 Iraq War, no Iraqie tanker survived if they were hit by a US DU round and if they were still in the tank.

If the turret blowes off who is around to talk about it?

Crispy critters!

Remember its only a 3 man crew but , the tank has a survival # of 4.

Ammo explodes on impact and other bad design features of most Russian tanks leads me to the question, "Who would want to be in one of these things?"

[PlasmaKrab]

Remember its only a 3 man crew but , the tank has a survival # of 4.

AFAIK no relation, survivability is more the amount of damage (*) the tank can take before blowing up at all, as Don and Andy explained. There is also some link to crew survival apparently, but not that direct.

Ammo explodes on impact and other bad design features of most Russian tanks leads me to the question, "Who would want to be in one of these things?"

Guys who have no choice! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Besides, Russian tanks of the post-T64 generation arent lined with powder bags and jerrycans forasmuch. If you look at pictures from ODS you will see many destroyed T-72s that actually didn't blow up on the first shot. That gives the crew a chance to escape, whatever your field evidence says (remember that ODS was one succesful operation, particularly the parts talked about, and that you may not be that lucky in the game). F.e. a shot through the turret will likely kill both commander and gunner, leave the autoloader intact (small chance that the loaded breech is hit and explodes though), and the driver's top priority will be to open his hatch and run like hell.

[Alpha]

kevineduguay1 said:
Ammo explodes on impact and other bad design features of most Russian tanks leads me to the question, "Who would want to be in one of these things?"



well to be honest: i didn´t want to be in ANY tank. of course better leo2, merkawa or M1 than T55/62/72....

but even a leo 1 is very cramped inside, i could look into one in koblenz ( " wehrtechnische studiensammlung " ). also they have a T55AM you can look into, very bad place to be at all. i can say....i guess they need very small people to drive that tanks.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

[kevineduguay1]

I tested this. With a crew survival of 1 it made almost no difference. The tanks did not get destroyed easier. But when they did a few less crews survived with all 3 crew men. Some had 3 but most had 1 or 2 if they survived at all. Out of 2 coy of Iraqi T-72G with a survival rating of 3, 18 of 22 vehicles were destroyed. 6 crews survived accounting for 10 crewmen.
When I adjusted the crew survival to 1, in most scenarios thr game ended after only 17 or 16 tanks killed but in almost every case 6 crews still survived. At least 2 of them were at full strength. This seems to almst be randomly handled by tha AI. I'll do more tests and post them here.

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:
I tested this. With a crew survival of 1 it made almost no difference. The tanks did not get destroyed easier.



Kevin, you are turning into my poster boy for " a little knowledge is
dangerous".

What were you shooting at them with ? Abrams I'll bet.

If you have a massive overpenetration of the gun vs the targets armour
you will not see the target tanks "get destroyed easier" if you reduce the
survival number lower. They'd die just as quick if the survival number was a bit
higher than what's there now because the penetrator's value ensures a kill
in most cases. What a lower survival number WILL affect is guns were the
penetration value is much closer to the armour of the target. This is where
the "survivability" number starts to have a far greater effect. That is when
the decisions made by the code as to whether the hit will cause full
destruction or just a report of * or ** or *** damage comes into play and
IF you lower that to get higher crew kills you totally screw up the chance
that a lesser gun will get the damaging hit that is SHOULD be getting part
of the time instead of a kill .
Crew survival is one of the last things calculated by the survivability
number. It's main function is to determine if marginal hits damage or kill.

Don

[Mobhack]

(Edited as It had been some time since I had looked at the code closely http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif!

Survivability is a mix of both armoured vehicle damage absorbtion of a penetrating hit and crew bailout survivability if the vehicle gets destroyed.

It affects armoured vehicle penetrations, when the code determines what happens as the AP round bounces round the inside of the vehicle causing damage (dead men, * points and weapons deletions). The more overpenetration the more chances of killing crew and/or causing damage to weapons etc. The larger the warhead size that penetrated, the worse chance for the crew inside the vehicle.

The survivability number reduces each test a bit. Therefore it has a more noticeable effect if the penetration is not too severe, reducing that to a * or a few **'s instead of what may have been an outright kill had the survivability been a bit lower. It'll have more noticeable effect if the warhead size that penetrated was smaller, of course.

Damage points are not necessarily crewmen killed - the survivability number helps to ensure damage points (*'s) do not convert over into actual crew kills.

A massive overkill (larger warhead size and excess penetration) will of course have more chances to do damage points - the survivability will help here, mainly for men staying alive as there are just going to be so many more tests for damage that the vehicle is going to be doomed unless very lucky.

If all the crew get killed off before the vehicle reaches its max damage points, then it is a catastrophic kill. If the damage point limit for the vehicle is reached before all are dead, the vehicle is killed with a normal bail-out event.

On a total kill, with officially "no survivors", there is a low chance saving throw to see if a man survived the brew up, and that is based on the survivability value. The difference between 0 and 6 makes a difference here, as the basic chance is rather low.

The value is then used to determine success for any surviving crew and passengers bailing out of the vehicle (including the 1 man added back to the crew on a total kill, if he was really lucky).

The bailout code is the only bit that survivability would add effect to soft vehicles as they are destroyed on 100% crew killed, through the HE hit code, and not via the AP penetration code.

So - it is more than simply crew/pax bail-out, it also is a value for reducing the damage (to both the vehicle and the crew) taken inside of an armoured vehicle when penetrated.

Cheers
Andy

[Mobhack]

You need to recall, that in combat it is normal practice to shoot a target until it brews or blows, just "to be 100% sure". The first hit may have killed it, but the troops will put 3 or 4 more in till it is definately no longer a threat, because in real life they do not get a message saying "T-54 KO by 120mm".

Therefore, most of these combat photos taken after the action will be of targets that were deliberately "overkilled" or that a passing rifleman popped a grenade (thermite perhaps) in the lid to make sure that no enemy will re-occupy it and try for a shot in your bum after the main force has gone by. (In game terms - you left a unit in the same hex as an abandoned enemy vehicle for a full turn, it will now be burning and so the crew (if any) cannot come back and man the abandoned gun or tank later).


Cheers
Andy

[Bernard]

Come on guys..... it's only a game!
If kevin is so utterly obsessed with realism why not join the army and stop hassling the designers because the tanks in the game don't react just like ones you saw in some news footage?

[kevineduguay1]

Bernard,

I should have but now Im over age.

But it is just a fact that when a T-72 or any other Iraqi tank was hit by a DU round from a 120mm gun there were no survivors.
When a DU round starts moving through its target, everything gets lit up. This is not only due to the velocity of the round, but also because when the round penetrates an armored vehicle it has a thermal effect that tends to set off ammo and fuel.

[Marcello]

"But it is just a fact that when a T-72 or any other Iraqi tank was hit by a DU round from a 120mm gun there were no survivors."

All that I can say based upon game experience is that when iraqi T-72s meet abrams they tend to die rather quickly, as they should.Not everyone plays exclusively GW1 scenarios,do you really want to make the T-72s weaker than they should in others scenarios against others threats to have less crew survivors running around in 1991?
You cannot simulate accurately everything here,consider the lack of tandem HEAT warheads for guns and RPGs for example.

[kevineduguay1]

Marcello,

Catastrofic destruction of a T-72 is due to design flaws. Ammo and fuel are both easily torched by a pennetrating hit.

[kevineduguay1]

Mobhack,

Your input helps a lot!

I'll do some tests and see what can be done.

Thank you!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Sewter]

Hi Kevin,

What are you testing?

I am not too sure of what you are doing, but it seems pretty neat. I developed a massive warhead that annihilates the crews of my foes, but I am not sure how realistic it is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[Marcello]

"Catastrofic destruction of a T-72 is due to design flaws. Ammo and fuel are both easily torched by a pennetrating hit."

That because ammunition is stored internally exactly as in ALL the the tanks of the period. The T-72 is as "flawed" as the M60 or any other tank before western 3rd generation MBTs.Are you planning to rework their survivabilities as well?

[JaM]

M60 is much more survivable than T-72. M60 has quite large internal volume, so there is a quite good propability that penetrating hit will not hit stored ammo or other dangerous (for crew) parts.If T-72 get penetrating hit, it will blow, as this tank has quite small internal volume, so there is very high propability that round will cause catastrophic kill becouse autoloader fill most of space in tank

[Marcello]

"M60 is much more survivable than T-72. M60 has quite large internal volume, so there is a quite good propability that penetrating hit will not hit stored ammo or other dangerous (for crew) parts."

Twenty something rounds are stored in the front of the hull (and close to the glacis plate for that matter) on each side of the driver position.An other twenty something are in the turret in the ready racks and in the rear of the turret.That does not sound very survivable to me.

[JaM]

Ok, but there is 50% propability that front hull penetrating hit will not hit ammo, same for turret, but volume of T-72 is so small that any penetrating hit will get to autoloader...

[JaM]

By the way, all Leopard 2Ax tanks have front hull ammo storage...

[Marcello]

"By the way, all Leopard 2Ax tanks have front hull ammo storage... "

Yes but I suspect, judging from some drawings, that hull ammo storage offers substantially more protection against splinters and such than the racks on the M60.I will have to see if I can find some pictures of the area.

"Ok, but there is 50% propability that front hull penetrating hit will not hit ammo, same for turret, but volume of T-72 is so small that any penetrating hit will get to autoloader..."

If you look at a cutaway drawing of the T-72, you will see that the autoloader is not exactly that huge compared to the rest of the tank.A round can penetrate the turret and most of the upper glacis plate and it will miss it.The autoloader itself appears to be fully enclosed providing at least some protection against splinters and such.
I suspect that the reserve ammo racks in the turret and elsewhere are the main problem, but that is the same for any tank of the period.Greater volume might help, but I would not make too much of it.

[kikka]

Personnally I've reduced the survival value of all russian tanks equipped with auto loaders to 3 whereas all other tanks where left as is. This gives good results and might be a compromise between setting up human bonfires with every hit and having russian armor showing up with the same survival ratings as western designs, which seems not to be the case.
Just my 2 cts.

[PlasmaKrab]

Did the same (reducing survivability to 3) on BMPs as well, and I think that several others are prone to some reducing (like the original M113). I still don't know how much it influences the calculations, and if the gameplay is still fair enough.

[Marcello]

"Personnally I've reduced the survival value of all russian tanks equipped with auto loaders to 3 whereas all other tanks where left as is."

Care to explain why a T-72 should be less survivable than a T-62 or a T-55?
I would be extremely curious to hear a justification for that.

In the game the T-72 and the T-64 have a survivability
of 4, exactly like the T-62, the T-55, the M48 and the M60.
All tanks with old style internal ammo storage.
Western MBTs are generally around 6.
I fail to see the problem with that.

[JaM]

Becouse T-72 has really small internal volume, much lower than t-55 or t-62.So there is much bigger propability that penetrating hit will hit something important and cause catastrophic kill. I saw many pictures with turret off T-72,but only a few with T-55 or T-62.Western tanks, even older are much more survivable. I read in one book about IDF (Chariots of the Desert) that Centurions had quite good survivability, some tanks took over 40 hits from RPGs,100mm AP,HEAT, Sagers and they were still capable to fight back. For T-72 you need one penetrating hit and you will loose turret with all crew inside. It is a design flaw. Soviets knew that.They did it, becouse they want a low profile tank with big firepower.THat is why today they develope new turret for T-72/80 series with autoloader in rear turret with blowout panels similar to M1.

[Marcello]

T-62
Chassis Length Overall (m) 6.63
Height Overall (m) 2.4
Width Overall (m) 3.52

T-72
Chassis Length Overall (m) 6.91
Height Overall (m) 2.19
Width Overall (m) 3.58

The above list is by no means complete but I do not see that enormous difference in size and volume.And part of that additional volume which the T-62 may have is occupied by an human loader, who is as mortal as the gunner, the commander and the driver.
Remember also that the design of the T-72 started as a T-62 fitted with autoloader.

"some tanks took over 40 hits from RPGs,100mm AP,HEAT, Sagers and they were still capable to fight back"

40 penetrating hits with Saggers and RPG-7?
I have a VERY hard time believing that a tank would still be in fighting conditions after that.Abrams In Iraq had to be evacuated after one RPG-7 penetration.Safety consideration maybe, but 40 penetrations should turn any tank in a useless piece of swiss cheese.If that was instead the total count can you tell how many of them penetrated?
If a tank took 40 glancing hits/fuze failures or just plainly the armor held that has no value for what we are debating.

"I saw many pictures with turret off T-72,but only a few with T-55 or T-62."

That deserve some consideration.To begin with it does not happen every single time as you may see here (I have seen others pictures as well)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/t-72-dfst9208470.jpg

But what should be understood is that the whole "flying turret" businness is essentially irrilevant.Why do I say such a thing?
First of all why the turret goes away in first place? Because half of the onboard ammo is concentrated directly under it.If the ammunition catches fire, then you may see that outcome.

Emphasis:if the ammunition catches fire.When that happens, then you have a big problem and that is in EVERY tank which stores its ammo internally.

Now consider your typical picture of a T-72 with blown turret and then give a look to this T-55
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/SPMBT/

What is the difference?
Answer:none.Both tanks are killed.Thanks to the ammunition being spread in a different pattern the T-55 may still retain its turret but that is a purely aesthetic consideration.
They are both wrecks.And if they did not get out fast enough, the crews are all dead.

"For T-72 you need one penetrating hit and you will loose turret with all crew inside"

Penetrating hit with what? An M829A1 "silver bullet"? A
TOW-2? A RPG-7 hitting the top armor (Chechenya)?

Those are overpenetrations with significant after penetrations effects.Are there reports of T-62s and T-55s crews faring better against those effects than those on the T-72s? Have M60s and such ever been hit with that sort of stuff and the crews surviving to tell the tale more frequently than their collegues on T-72s? I tend to doubt it.

Finally.The storage portion of the autoloader is not in the turret.It is part of the turret , but it is within the hull.
There are then twenty something rounds stuffed in the turret and elsewhere, without the benefit of the at least partial splinter protection the autoloader provides,and they are not worse or better placed or protected than those on the T-62.And the western tanks of the period are not all that much different as the internal pictures of an M60 show.

[Mobhack]

The Israelis liked the centurion as it was more survivable, than the early US model tanks they had.

A lot of this was apparently to do with the hydraulic fluid used in these US-sourced M60 tanks, which was apparently highly inflammable, so penetrations caused problems if the hydraulic lines were fractured and sprayed the stuff around the crew compartment. later solved with a diferent formula for the hydraulic fluid & some re-engineering.


http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/11ground/mowery.pdf

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2000/May/Non-Flammable.htm

basically - high pressure hydrailic fluids as orignally fitted on M60 (before 74), could become internal flame throwers. Not nice.


Cheers
Andy

[JaM]

Did you ever been in T-72? I was. Crew compartment is so small, that if you are higher than 1.75m you will not fit in. All thee crew members are surrounded with ammo.Any penetrating hit will cook off ammo,and whole crew is a dead meat. Some T-72 crews tells that they will have quick death...(some of my friends were tankers, served in T-72M1) T-55 is little bigger than T-72 (T-62 is bigger than T-55). If T-55 is penetrated, there is a chance that at least one or two crew members survive.If T-72 is penetrated,no one will survive.

About those Centurions, During 1973 war, all Israeli Centurions were hit.Some of them were repaired, and fought another day again.I read stories about Tzwicka fight against Syrians (dont remember name correctly), where his three tanks stopped Syrian tank battalion. Syrians even thought that they fighting against Israeli batalion, so they withdraw.All his tanks took many hits, but were capable fight back.

[JaM]

By the way, you cant compare T-72 and T-62 this way. T-62 has bigger turret. Try look at internal volume for both tanks and you will see the difference. US M60 has 3 times more space inside than T-72 (maybe more...)same for centurion and other western tanks

[Marcello]

"Crew compartment is so small, that if you are higher than 1.75m you will not fit in."

Not exactly news.The T-72 is a tight fit.Did I ever state otherwise?

"All thee crew members are surrounded with ammo"

In a sense, yes.However at least the T-72 does not have its driver sitting in the very middle of an ammo depot, even if of course the turret still has rounds strapped to the walls and everywhere.

"If T-55 is penetrated, there is a chance that at least one or two crew members survive."

Penetration may mean a lot of things.TOW-2 and M829A1?
Then I am afraid I would not want to be in that T-55.
Penetration with lower performance rounds? It will happen.

"If T-72 is penetrated,no one will survive."

How much data do we have on T-72s being hit with low performance ammo? Not much I suspect.So I would avoid such broad statement.

"About those Centurions, During 1973 war, all Israeli Centurions were hit.Some of them were repaired, and fought another day again.I read stories about Tzwicka fight against Syrians (dont remember name correctly), where his three tanks stopped Syrian tank battalion. Syrians even thought that they fighting against Israeli batalion, so they withdraw.All his tanks took many hits, but were capable fight back."

That does not answer the question.How many of those hits were penetrations and with what internal effects?

Furthermore were they shot at with ammo comparable to what was used during GW1? No of course.

"By the way, you cant compare T-72 and T-62 this way. T-62 has bigger turret."

And a fourth crewmember inside it.Roomy is no the first thing I would associate to the T-55 either.

"US M60 has 3 times more space inside than T-72 (maybe more...)same for centurion and other western tanks"

That may help somewhat.How much is debatable, given that there are several factors to consider (the hydraulics fluids issue being an example).The T-72 may well be less survivable than tanks like the M60 but I doubt that the difference is that great.
The real gap is between 3rd generations MBTs and what came before.

As far the game goes remember: average tank with rounds strapped to the walls 4,Abrams with blown off magazines 6.
I doubt what we are debating warrants a whole point of difference.

[Marcello]

Regarding the T-72 ammo storage.There are a few rounds and propellant cases stored behind the gunner and commmander seats, strapped to the walls of the turret.
Two propellant charges seems to be placed on the turret floor.A few rounds and charges are placed in recesses in the fuel tank to the right of the driver (the fuel tank would appear to be designed as a shield to protect them from splinters coming from the glacis plate), with an other two/three rounds and charges stored vertically immediately behind the tank, between it and the autoloader.The rest of the rounds and charges is stored in the space between the autoloader and the firewall,on the floor of the hull,the charges in vertical recesses in the fuel tank located here,the rounds apparently strapped orizontally to the side hull.

[JaM]

Survivability in game is not a survivability you think it is. In game, if you have two tanks with armor 50, one with surv. 4 and other with 5, and if you hit them with weapon with penetration 51, tank 2 will have better chance to survive than tank 1. My point is that T-72 armor is not solid.For example maximum thickness of T-72M1 turret is around 430mm vs KE (corners of the turret), minimum 290mm(upper front turret,weakened zone around the gun - mantlet).There is good chance to hit this weaker armor instead heavy. Same for all versions of russian tanks (T-90 max. turret armor 80cm KE min 35-45cm KE)

[Marcello]

"In game, if you have two tanks with armor 50, one with surv. 4 and other with 5, and if you hit them with weapon with penetration 51, tank 2 will have better chance to survive than tank 1."

This is more or less what we have been told repeatedly.

The point which you and others made was that T-XX with autoloaders should be more vulnerable due to their armor storage and others factors and should deserve a lower survivability rating with its consequences:greater chances of going boom with even only limited penetrations, lower chances of the crew getting out and whatever.
I disagree, to an extent, for the reasons exposed in the previous posts (at least as far as T-72 goes, I do not have detailed manual drawings for the T-64 and the T-80).

"My point is that T-72 armor is not solid.For example maximum thickness of T-72M1 turret is around 430mm vs KE (corners of the turret), minimum 290mm(upper front turret,weakened zone around the gun - mantlet).There is good chance to hit this weaker armor instead heavy. Same for all versions of russian tanks (T-90 max. turret armor 80cm KE min 35-45cm KE)"

So now the issue becomes armor ratings.There is no easy answer for that.The T-72 armor scheme is supposedly designed according to hit probability,with the area most likely to be hit being given the maximum protection and viceversa.Or so I have heard at any rate.That simply cannot be captured accurately in the game.ERA in the game is a mess.Several compromises have been implemented at various times to deal with these issues.

[JaM]

I didnt change my opinion. M60A3 is much more survivable tank than any T-72 (to post penetration efects) Im just telling that survivability rating mean much more than how many crew will survive penetrating hit.

[Marcello]

"Im just telling that survivability rating mean much more than how many crew will survive penetrating hit."

Well, I already knew that.

[Marcello]

"M60A3 is much more survivable tank than any T-72"

Back to post penetration effects.More survivable? Possibly.
Much? I would be less sure about that (unless they introduced something on the A3 I am not aware of).At the end of the day these are all tanks with old style internal storage.

[kevineduguay1]

I like the idea of droping the crew survival on some Russian built tanks to 3. I don't think this will effect game play and will reduce the amount of full strength crew walking away from a brew up.

I also re-read a lot of the previous posts and the one that got me was posted by MOBHACK. He mentioned that other factors can influence crew survivability like warhead size etc.

Warhead size may be the answer. Most Nations do not use DU rounds. For those that do the weapons that fire DU maybe should have their Warhead size raised a bit. As it stands now all 120mm guns have a Warhead size of 7. A DU round is denser and causes more damage than any other type of pennetrator. When a DU round passes through a vehicle it creates DU dust. This dust spontaniusly combusts creating a thermal effect that lights up people, ammo, and fuel. You can read about this on the Global Security web site.

Im going to try some tests and see if this helps. Raising the Warhead size 1 or 2 values should not have to much effect on game play but could reduce crew survival.

[Shadowcougar]

Sorry to interject here but just what are we discussing now. Its been a while but I remember that someone said that Soviet tank crews were surviving too much. Is this correct what this argument is about?

I have never had many Soviet tank crew survive me hitting them with the M256 main gun nor a Tow 2. No matter how much you overkill a tank, sometimes a crewman or 2 will get out. Its just a fact. Not every Iraqi crewman died in his tank during GW1.

I am amazed how long this argument has gone on and how its wandered off its point, whatever that point was. I have forgotten now.

[JaM]

Shadowcougar said:
Not every Iraqi crewman died in his tank during GW1.




No, but 99 percent of killed Iraqi tankers were those who served in T-72...
How you will survive, if your turret goes away? You have no chance. I read on tanknet that htere was one commander that survive this, becouse he was sitting in commander hatch, but he was critically wounded, he lost both legs... APFSDS DU rounds has much better killability than HEAT or Tungsten rounds.DU react with armor in pirroforic reaction and burn everithing in its way, so it is imposible for fire suppresion system to do something, and once ammo is cook off you will loose turret with both commander and gunner in it. It is highly unpropable that driver will survive turret blowout as he sit closely to autoloader too.

[Marcello]

"No, but 99 percent of killed Iraqi tankers were those who served in T-72..."

Now,do you have a source for that or are you just making it up?
The number you give would imply that almost everyone got off the hundreds of T-55/T-62 destroyed unscathed.Since this sounds extremely improbable I would like to hear a good source for that.

"DU react with armor in pirroforic reaction and burn everithing in its way, so it is imposible for fire suppresion system to do something, and once ammo is cook off"

Do you actually believe that with such process in action
on a T-62, with approximatively the same internal volume and 40 unprotected rounds stuffed around, everything would be fine and dandy? This would be the most ludicrous thing I have heard so far.

"How you will survive, if your turret goes away?"

How will you survive a massive overpenetration resuling in
overpressure, splinters and immediate fires in tank with unprotected ammo? Most likely you will not.That goes for the T-62 and the T-55 as well.The turret going away is not that important.It means that the ammo is going off and THAT is the problem for anyone inside.The flying turret is more of a side effect.Again, do you remember that burning T-55 with flames erupting from the hatches?
Do you think you would be fine in that?

[Marcello]

The M829A1 is rated, give or take, in excess of 600mm of RHA at battle ranges.Tanks like the T-62 or the M60 have an armor approximatively in the region of 200mm of RHA on the front once you work out the slopes etc.
Think about the implications of that when arguing about survivability on this generation of tanks.

[PlasmaKrab]

kevineduguay1 said:I like the idea of droping the crew survival on some Russian built tanks to 3. I don't think this will effect game play and will reduce the amount of full strength crew walking away from a brew up.

Erm, sorry to interrupt you, but the "survivability" rating you can tweak in MOBhack isn't directly related to the number of crewmen surviving. That should be something Andy already pointed out in a previous post. As far as I can understand it it mainly about the amount of damage an AFV can take once penetrated (the amount of overkill, so to speak) before blowing of. That's the *** you'll notice when you get a non-killing direct hit; it means that there's been some internal damage (one crew disabled, weapon destroyed, ammo reduced, immobilization...). Therefore reducing it on some units on account of risky internal layout will reduce the unit's ability to take heavy damage. As a side effect, it will indeed reduce the crew's surviving chances, but that's not the most of it.
Im going to try some tests and see if this helps. Raising the Warhead size 1 or 2 values should not have to much effect on game play but could reduce crew survival.

Look, the WH size has an influence on many other parameters, like (least significantly) the impact sound and animation, the craterization of the ground, the actual armor penetration...
For one thing, it deals with all warhead types, HE and HEAT as well. Does the fact that a tank uses DU rounds gives him better HEDP rounds? IIRC it also deals with the reload speed and the actual in game ROF. Rise the WHsize and you'll end up with fewer shots on your dear Abrams...http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif
Basically, for guns, the WH size is a translation of the caliber. Has the US army switched to the 140mm gun already? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
You may try it of course, but I bet that the side effects will be a surprising overkill, at best. Given that a DU round has all these effects you described (and I don't see why a steel- or tungsten-based rod wouldn't behave more or less the same way, not even mentioning HEAT warheads), the best option IMO is to give it a better penetration, since the penetration overkill (i.e. total penetration available minus total armor encountered) will be one of the most preeminent factors in calculating the inner damage.

[JaM]

Look, you can have penetration even 2000mm at 10km, but if projectile dont hit anything critical, tank will survive.Im telling that in M60 you have much better chance that penetrating hit will not hit critical parts than in T-72.I never said that T-62 is on pair with M60A3 with survivability. (As Andy said first M60 models had problems with flamable hydraulics,but after 1974 it was solved)

[PlasmaKrab]

Well, that makes for non-pentrating hits, this happens a lot. High-angled shots tend not to penetrate too (whatever your magic silver bullet, if you hit at 83° and have to cross 5 meters of equivalent RHA (that's with 600mm...).

Now about survivability, I think that things like flammable turret hydraulics fluids with internal tanks, or clumsy fuel tanks (think BMP-1 or M-113), maybe even aluminium armour should be integrated into the survivability rating, at lest for the worst cases. If that's posible at all with only 6 levels.
IMHO modern AFVs rise much too quickly to surv=6, which should be kept for targets with really high survivability and plenty of inner spaces like shelter bunkers or blue-water ships.
Just my opinion of course!

[Marcello]

"Look, you can have penetration even 2000mm at 10km, but if projectile dont hit anything critical, tank will survive."

Then, I am afraid, you have absolutely no idea of what you are speaking about.The projectile hitting something critical is just part of the equation (an important part but a part).Overpressure caused by something entering at massive speed into a sealed steel box is an other.Then there is heat and splinters to consider.

[JaM]

Sorry,but you have. If you remember there was an accident in Iraq where Iraqi insurgents fired an RPG that penetrated side hull and goes out at other (one crewmember was wounded) HEAT jet goes at much greater speed than APFSDS (jet, not projectile) so by your means all crew should be dead, but they were not. Similar things happened to M113A3 when APFSDS rounds get through one side to other and out with no effect on M113... Examples are quite numerous.

[Marcello]

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/apfsds.htm

"The terminal effect of the sub-projectile striking the target sees huge kinetic energy release. In miliseconds the sub-projectile punches through the target armour, instantaneously generating massive heat and pressure. As the long rod penetrator enters the vehicle friction with the armour plate creates burning incandescent spall which sprays the interior. The burning spall has an explosive effect"

That is a pretty good description of the Sabot damage mechanism.You can find more in others sources.

The M113 may have had its hatches open.That would lessen the effects considerably, giving pressure a way to vent out (very thin armor should mean less splinters as well).If not it might have still have survived maybe but I would have not wanted to be inside.RPG-7 vs Abrams is not an overpenetration, the mass of what got inside was probably very small.Try TOW-2 vs T-55 and tell me what happens to the crew inside.

By the way, I am still waiting for a source on

"99 percent of killed Iraqi tankers were those who served in T-72"

[JaM]

It wasnt small. RPG hit side hull at place where was only a few cm protection.It got though whole hull side and exit at other side... It has definitly enough power. If this happen to T-72 whole tank will blow out.

[Sewter]

Hi, here is an article that may be of some interest to this discussion. I am not too sure where it stands on Soviet Survival though. It covers US concerns on armor survival in the future The cover of the article is attached above.




Iraq conflict raises doubts on FCS survivability

JOSHUA KUCERA JDW Staff Reporter
Washington, DC
Additional reporting by Ian Kemp JDW News Editor
London

The constant stream of casualties from close-range fire in Iraq has again raised questions that the US Army's future family of combat vehicles, which will rely on superior intelligence rather than thick armour, could be vulnerable.

The Future Combat Systems (FCS), a group of 18 networked land and air platforms, will be ill-equipped to handle threats like improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), some critics say.

The army's official line is that the network will give FCS-equipped units such a good understanding of the enemy's positions that they will be able to evade threats rather than needing thick armour to withstand hits. However, critics argue that danger can never completely be avoided and that soldiers could be unprotected in such lightly armoured vehicles. This view has gained currency after higher-than-expected casualties from IEDs and RPG attacks in Iraq.

"The network is not going to keep you alive," said one army official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The network is probably irrelevant once you make close contact with the enemy, and we're going to continue to make close contact because even [Iraqis], who are pretty unimpressive, have turned out to be sufficiently smart to rapidly reposition, adapt, evolve, and change in order to inflict damage on us."

One source with a major European armoured fighting vehicle manufacturer expressed scepticism to JDW about the reliance on information superiority to ensure the survivability of the FCS.

He noted that situational awareness is easier to achieve on the conventional battlefield with an enemy equipped with tanks and other vehicles but much more difficult during peace support operations or counter-insurgency operations when the enemy uses stealth tactics to blend into the civilian population. This is particularly true of military operations in urban terrain.

"It's a concern," acknowledged Maj John Chicoli, FCS assistant programme manager for system integration. "It's a change in culture, for the soldiers out there in the field, so we've got to demonstrate this and give them confidence that it will increase survivability."

Maj Chicoli said, the network, with information gathered from small unmanned aerial and ground vehicles and sensors that act as scouts, will minimise risk. "Our measure of success is never having a shot fired at us."

Within the army, Congress and the two prime contractors for FCS, Boeing and Science Applications International Corp, this optimism is waning, army officials and analysts say. "I think large numbers of Democrats and Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee are acutely sensitive to all of this, understand it very clearly and are trying to figure out what to do," the army official said, adding "if the people from Boeing who work on this talk to you honestly they tried to tell the people in the army from the very beginning that this will not work."

Boeing spokeswoman Maria McCullough responded that FCS vehicles would be "far less vulnerable to IEDs than any other armoured vehicle in their class" due to advanced technologies for armour protection and other active and passive countermeasures, the details of which they could not discuss.

Last year the army had to rush the production of slat armour kits for its Stryker 8 x 8 medium armoured vehicles in Iraq because of a greater-than-expected threat from RPGs (JDW 10 September 2003). Earlier this year the army issued guidelines for units improvising their own armour protection for unprotected variants of the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle.

The debate echoes similar concerns raised about the survivability of the M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the mid-1980s.

In contrast the German Army believes that armour protection will be vital for future survivability across the range of military operations. The new Puma infantry fighting vehicle, scheduled to enter service in 2006, will have three different levels of armour protection that will increase the Puma's weight from 31.45 to 43 tonnes (JDW 3 September 2003).

With years of experience countering IEDs and RPGs the Israel Defence Force deploys a range of heavy armoured personnel carriers developed from main battle tank chassis.

Boeing officials said they are confident that, by the time the FCS is actually fielded, the technology would be good enough to protect the lightly armoured vehicles. "We're still in the infancy of this thing and there a lot of ways to look at it, like new materials engineering ... so I don't think we know right now," said Jeffery Worley, FCS programme director - business management.

A Congressional committee this month recommended cutting $250 million from the $3.2 billion FCS budget for 2005, calling it "excess to requirements".

Boeing and army officials said they were confident that most of that money would ultimately be restored, warning that if the full cut went through it would mean significant delays on engineering work for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems and manned ground vehicles.

"If the change is in the $100 million range, it will affect the schedule but I don't see it having a tremendous impact," Worley said. "If it gets much more than $100 million then we're talking about some serious schedule movement." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Marcello]

"RPG hit side hull at place where was only a few cm protection.

Side hull is a rolled steel plate presumably in the 8cm range.BUT in addition to that there is the side skirt.The round exploded against that.That means a non trivial standoff between where the warhead explodes and the side hull plate.That would help to dissipate the jet, ensuring that the side hull plate would not be hit at full force.

"It got though whole hull side and exit at other side... It has definitly enough power"

It made a small dent on the opposite side, but it did not penetrate that plate.It was a small, albeit surprisingly well focused for an RPG, HEAT jet.It could not cause the overpressure event you would get from a M829A1 crossing a tank side by side or from a TOW-2.The warhead was simply not that powerful in first place and it had to throught the side hull and the airgap before getting inside.
Yes an HEAT jet moves very fast but you have to consider the amount of stuff which is moving.At that point there was probably not enough of it to do more than damaging some systems in its direct path.

[Marcello]

"the network will give FCS-equipped units such a good understanding of the enemy's positions that they will be able to evade threats rather than needing thick armour to withstand hits."

"I cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that."
Captain Edward John Smith


Nuff said.

[JaM]

Marcello said:
At that point there was probably not enough of it to do more than damaging some systems in its direct path.





If this happen to T-72, Tank will blow out

[Marcello]

"If this happen to T-72, Tank will blow out"

Likely, depending on what it is actually hit.Then again remember that on an M60 a large portion of the rounds are lined against the side walls and it is my understanding that such arrangement of the ammunition is quite common among the tanks of that generation.
Since it is not a massive penetration event the crew may have some chances of bailing out before the tank becomes a rather unpleasant place to be.

[Weeble]

Marcello said:

Since it is not a massive penetration event the crew may have some chances of bailing out before the tank becomes a rather unpleasant place to be.



Surely recent events in Basra have shown that even Molotov cocktails can cause a crew to bail out of an AFV, despite dire peril outside.

As Mobhack said several http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif pages ago, a tank is likely to get a second or third hit to ensure a kill. I know I do this in WinSPMBT if I have the shots, ammo etc. An immobilised tank could still shoot at YOU, a 'killed' one can't.

Thus all of this argument becomes redundant as the crew are going to abandon into a hostile battlefield anyway.

That M1A1 crew in Iraq were very lucky, see:

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/solved.asp

Weeble

[kevineduguay1]

Weeble,

Even with the Pen that tank stll drove away. I am impressed with that RPG though!

Neet site!

[Marcello]

"Even with the Pen that tank stll drove away."

From the accounts of the accidents it seems that tank was evacuated and recovered later (and it was looted in the meantime).It did not drive away from the scene, although maybe it could have done it and it was decided not to do so for safety reasons.
Without special ballistic skirt the side hull, with the exception of the area around the driver which is protected by fuel cells, is not better protected than on the majority of the tanks.A plate of RHA in the 8cm range + side skirts is a pretty common arrangement.From the calculations I have seen and the opinions of some tankers I have read it might not be enough to stop a plain vanilla RPG-7 if it hits head on.Neverthless that sort of calculations require detailed informations on the specific warhead configuration and some additional knowledge I do not possess.

[JaM]

Look at this discussion on Tanknet: http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=12348

[Alpha]

it seems some ppl. here really don´t like iraqie tank crews and want them all to die

[kevineduguay1]

Not all, just most! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[kevineduguay1]

This is what happened to a test target, fully combat loaded T-72 vs a Javelin ATGM. See attachments.

A link to this site can be found on my post about the Javelin ATGM.

P.S. The engine was found 65 meters from the vehicle. Would this count as "splash" against infantry? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[bison24]

The T-72 fired on by the ajvelin was rigged with explosives for the advertisement. Nice propaganda though.

[kevineduguay1]

bison24,

Got proof?

[Listy]

I'm with Bison on this, the explosion seems a tad too vigorous.

Take for example a T-72 hit by a Fin round during the 91 gulf war. Most lost their turrets to the internal explosion. But the hull didn't tear it's self apart like that.

[kevineduguay1]

Listy,

The T-72 in the test was FULLY loaded with ammo and fuel. This no doubt had an effect on the test and the total destruction of the vehicle. It would serve no purpose to load the tank up with explosives just for shlts and giggles.

Go to my Javelin post and click on the strategy page web site. The article explains a little about how the tests were done. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Backis]

kevineduguay1 said:
Listy,

The T-72 in the test was FULLY loaded with ammo and fuel. This no doubt had an effect on the test and the total destruction of the vehicle. It would serve no purpose to load the tank up with explosives just for shlts and giggles.



No reason?

How about impressing US politicians who know squat about armaments with a flashy display to ensure project survival?

Do you have any proof about how that test was set up, and that it wasn't tampered with?

I've seen test videos covering "sim-loaded" T-72M hit by rbs56, and the effect is nowhere similar. Loaded T-72 hit under actual combat doesn't disintegrate like that.

The Jav video is the anomaly, and then it becomes your responsibility to support your claim that there was no doctoring of this test.

Sorry, a line of text from "cut and paste" Strategypage doesn't cut it...


kevineduguay1 said:
Go to my Javelin post and click on the strategy page web site. The article explains a little about how the tests were done. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



I've read that exact same post, with slightly different wording, made by a half-dozen other know-nothings on at least three different boards already... and let me tell you you're not bringing anything new to the table at all.

A propellant conflagration is not that violent, look at photos of KK T-72 by HEAT or APFSDS from actual wars, the hull stays at least relatively intact even if they pop their turrets.

Get a clue dude. Its no crime being no expert, but pretending to know wtf you're talking about when you're not won't win you any respect.

[JaM]

I read somewhere that they didnt use T-72 loaded with ammo, but they loaded it with explosives whole tank, so it made such a boom...

[Marcello]

I tend to agree.The level of destruction is suspicious.
I have seen plenty of pictures of T-72s, M84s etc destroyed by high end western weapons.I doubt that they were all down to the last round of ammunition and liter of fuel when they were hit.They had maybe lost the turret, they were burned down but disintegrated like that? No way.

[Marek_Tucan]

For me the pictures also looked like a "too big bang"... Our Army Technical Magasine presented several pictures of T-55's and -72's destroyed in Iraq by various weapons (many of them were in an article about Hellfires), but even had the turret been torn apart and blown off, the hull was keeping its shape.

[Sewter]

You must recall that there are inconsistencies with this video. The boom heard is instant, not delayed, which would happen at such a far range. Watch the video frame by frame and there is a suspicious detonation prior to the missile hitting the mighty T-72.

Also, attached is a photo of the mighty Maverick, with its powerful warhead killing a M113. Note the size of the explosion. There is a considerable difference. And I do not think that diesel fuel blows up like that, unless it was contained and pressurized. I mean a whole lot of pressurized diesel, too. Furthermore, why would they load a tank with munitions and blow it up? The resulting secondary explosions, unexploded munitions, would create a very hazardous test sight.

Sorry, but this video is a bit too questionable. And you should watch your language, for one who swears is one who does not know the devil is in the details, my Javelin friend.

[kevineduguay1]

Sewter,

So far your response has made the most sence. What I'm talking about is you mention of the use of live munitions on the target vehicle.
You have a valid point! Maybe they did use high explosives to simulate the ammo load of the T-72 target vehicle. This would only make sence for safety reasons as you mentioned. Did this make the vehicle explode more violently then it should have? I would have to say that it could.

But mention was made that the little blue flame between the bogies on the target vehicle were caused by an already planted explosive device. Thats just not true. That little flash was caused by the first charge of the duel warhead pennetrating the bottom hull of the vehicle.

See pic attached. This is of a Predator Light ATGM (US) hitting a target M48/M60 (Not sure which). Notice flash under vehicle.

P.S. I did not swear, it was only a minor expletive!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

[Marcello]

We are speaking about a warhead rated at 600mm against an armor thickness which should not be more than 40mm.That the jet would go throught the bottom should be expected.
The first charge however is typically only a small precursor charge meant to detonate ERA bricks, it should not have the energy to do that.Unless the Javelin has a different internal arrangement,that should be the result of the main charge.

[kevineduguay1]

Marcello,

Thank you for mentioning the pen value of this weapon. In the game it's 450mm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

[Marcello]

Keep in mind however that it is a top attack weapon.
In the real world the final dive might not typically be vertical or nearly vertical but it might happen at angles of 30° or 40° or whatever from the vertical, which means greater LOS thickness.If the game engine, when dealing with top attack weapons, simply matches the warhead penetration capabilities against the top armor without factoring this factor then the missile would be more powerful than it should actually be.A solution would be reducing the warhead penetration to match a typical angle of attack.
I have run a few calculations and I found out that a 45 penetration could indeed be the outcome of a 60 warhead hitting at an approximatively 40° angle from the vertical.Take the results with caution however, the game may work in a different way or others sources gave different values for the warhead.However a 450mm warhead would be pathetic for the conventional attack profile,if you had to use it that way, so a 600mm warhead would make more sense in the real world.