Can Russian tanks fire thier ATGM and turret simoultanously?

[Green Raven]

Or does it need to be one or the other?

[Hot Single In Your Area]

It can happen ingame yeah

[dumba]

Not in real life, yes in Eugen games.

[Brother Pedro]

Not simultaneously, but they can fire their ATGM then the main gun after the missile hits or vice versa without having to reload.

[FightingFirst]

This needs to be fixed. It is a buff that the tank shouldn't have for obvious reasons.

[Aegmar]

the soviet tanks are probably quite a bit overpowered in the game in general compared to their realy life combat value, but has to be done this way for balance reasons.

[ChargingSnail]

Bradley also can use its missile and autocannon at the same time.

[Aegmar]

Originally posted by ChargingSnail:

Bradley also can use its missile and autocannon at the same time.

But the Bradley TOW is not barrel launched like the ATGM on the russian tanks..., not sure actually if the Bradley gunner can fire a TOW and operate the Bushmaster at the same time still, probably not, unless the Commander fires the TOW and its not using the same optic i guess.

[soldier6661111]

Originally posted by Aegmar:

the soviet tanks are probably quite a bit overpowered in the game in general compared to their realy life combat value, but has to be done this way for balance reasons.

"muh balance"

[Aegmar]

Originally posted by soldier6661111:

Originally posted by Aegmar:

the soviet tanks are probably quite a bit overpowered in the game in general compared to their realy life combat value, but has to be done this way for balance reasons.

"muh balance"

the other way to go would have been to make them weaker and cheaper (wouldn't work well with Army General Campaigns tho)..., and in MP the soviet player would have to control a lot more units and would be at a disadvantage.

How is it with actual balance ? would a T-80UD really be as tough as portrayed in the game ? Everything i read about cold war tanks point to the soviet tanks being less well armored, the crews being less well trained, the optics especially being worse and it would have been expected that NATO tanks would often hit with the first shot while the soviet gunners due to worse training and sights might need a few trys usually. And thats not even accounting for gun accuracy over longer ranges and difference in effectiveness of armor.

[Ahriman]

Originally posted by Aegmar:

Everything i read about cold war tanks point to the soviet tanks being less well armored, the crews being less well trained, the optics especially being worse and it would have been expected that NATO tanks would often hit with the first shot while the soviet gunners due to worse training and sights might need a few trys usually. And thats not even accounting for gun accuracy over longer ranges and difference in effectiveness of armor.

if the Gulf War was any indicator of how much of the Western Armor fared on the field against Soviet weaponry, the main difference mainly boils down to the survival of the crew as opposed to that of the tank itself. Both would be difficult to penetrate frontally, but the sides and rear would often disable the tank in both cases. This is showcased well in-game, as is the difference in optics, with many of the Soviet MBTs having outright horrid accuracy stat in comparison to those of their Nato counterparts.

Western designs follow the doctrine of 'you can replace the tank, but not the crew', which puts Crew Ergonomics at the forefront of the tank's defensive capabilities. Tanks could be disabled and destroyed, but more often than not, the crew would survive. Not such luck for Soviet Tank Crews, as the T-80 line was notoriously susceptible to catastrophically detonate when penetrated due to the ammo going off like fireworks. At most this could be simulated via an increased chance for the critical ammo explosion that can trigger when hit.

So yeah, without going to hyper simulation, it is very difficult to simulate the capabilities of both sides in a way that is both balanced and fun to play.

[Urk_da_WAAAGH!]

Originally posted by Ahriman:

Originally posted by Aegmar:

Everything i read about cold war tanks point to the soviet tanks being less well armored, the crews being less well trained, the optics especially being worse and it would have been expected that NATO tanks would often hit with the first shot while the soviet gunners due to worse training and sights might need a few trys usually. And thats not even accounting for gun accuracy over longer ranges and difference in effectiveness of armor.

if the Gulf War was any indicator of how much of the Western Armor fared on the field against Soviet weaponry, the main difference mainly boils down to the survival of the crew as opposed to that of the tank itself. Both would be difficult to penetrate frontally, but the sides and rear would often disable the tank in both cases. This is showcased well in-game, as is the difference in optics, with many of the Soviet MBTs having outright horrid accuracy stat in comparison to those of their Nato counterparts.

Western designs follow the doctrine of 'you can replace the tank, but not the crew', which puts Crew Ergonomics at the forefront of the tank's defensive capabilities. Tanks could be disabled and destroyed, but more often than not, the crew would survive. Not such luck for Soviet Tank Crews, as the T-80 line was notoriously susceptible to catastrophically detonate when penetrated due to the ammo going off like fireworks. At most this could be simulated via an increased chance for the critical ammo explosion that can trigger when hit.

So yeah, without going to hyper simulation, it is very difficult to simulate the capabilities of both sides in a way that is both balanced and fun to play.

Is important to notice that all autoloaded soviet tanks had and actual Russian tanks have an extra liner of armor on the carrousel, it isn't anywhere near enough to stop an penetrator from severely damaging it but enough to prevent spalling from doing so.

The critical ammo failure well known are more often than not due to extra ammo on the vehicle's hull than the carrousel itself.

For optics the west had an significant advantage but not in the WW2 lense quality way but due to the more common adoption of first generation thermal optics (didn't meant much on daylight engagements but would do a lot on evening/night battles). We have to remember that the T-80B being discussed had the capacity to fire an GLATGM on a target at the range of 5km so actually seeing/spotting targets wasn't the issue.

For FCS the west was experimenting with computerized FCS a few years before the soviets and the Abrams was vastly superior to anything the soviets had all the way to the T-64A, but the 1A33 installed on the T-80B series and T-64B series was at least on par but most probably better than western FCS at least until the first SEP kits on Abrams and Leopard 2a4.

As for armor the T-80 wasn't a lot behind the Abrams or Leopard, but is important to notice that western tanks due to the focus on crew survivability (as mentioned by yourself) had way heavier turret armor compared to hull armor (the Leopard hull being a well known weak spot, the Abrams a bit less so).

[Ahriman]

Originally posted by Urk_da_WAAAGH!:

Is important to notice that all autoloaded soviet tanks had and actual Russian tanks have an extra liner of armor on the carrousel, it isn't anywhere near enough to stop an penetrator from severely damaging it but enough to prevent spalling from doing so.

The critical ammo failure well known are more often than not due to extra ammo on the vehicle's hull than the carrousel itself.

For optics the west had an significant advantage but not in the WW2 lense quality way but due to the more common adoption of first generation thermal optics (didn't meant much on daylight engagements but would do a lot on evening/night battles). We have to remember that the T-80B being discussed had the capacity to fire an GLATGM on a target at the range of 5km so actually seeing/spotting targets wasn't the issue.

For FCS the west was experimenting with computerized FCS a few years before the soviets and the Abrams was vastly superior to anything the soviets had all the way to the T-64A, but the 1A33 installed on the T-80B series and T-64B series was at least on par but most probably better than western FCS at least until the first SEP kits on Abrams and Leopard 2a4.

As for armor the T-80 wasn't a lot behind the Abrams or Leopard, but is important to notice that western tanks due to the focus on crew survivability (as mentioned by yourself) had way heavier turret armor compared to hull armor (the Leopard hull being a well known weak spot, the Abrams a bit less so).

Yes, as much as I am aware of the T-80B and onwards, the main flaws it had in comparison to its western counterparts primarily boiled down to things that can't really be simulated in-game, the ones that would at least affect it severely for gameplay purposes. Much of them similar to the problems that plagued the German Tanks in WW2, which also aren't being simulated in SD2, mechanical failures and the like. In fact, ironically enough the T-80 technically lacks one of the purposes of the ATGM integration into tanks, which was to drive away helicopters hovering above tree-level. Not that it was effective as a proper countermeasure, but it was primarily used to discourage helos from sticking around when they thought AA defenses were not present.