Abrams armor thickness

[SlimeGooSludge]

in game the M1A2 has 200-600 armor shouldnt it be more like 960 frontal turret armor and around 600 frontal hull armor and glacis armor against KE rounds and more like 1600 armor vs HEAT/Chemichal rounds?

[Evilsausage]

Its really tricky since its exact armor values are classifed and modern tanks don't only use pure steal for armor anymore.
But its no doubt higher then 200-600. From what I have heard its more armor is the equivelent of 900mm of frontal amor. But can't say for sure, but since older T-80Us has around a similar armor value in the turret I wouldn't be surprised if the M1A2 has more.

[eching]

There is also the issue of cost.

The M1 tanks cost 1300/1600 MP for a M1A2 or M1A2 TUSK.
The T-80 tanks cost 1100/1400 MP for a T-80BV or T-80U.

On the other hand, a M1 tank costs $9 million or more, while a T-80 only costs a third to a half of that price.

If we do significantly buff an M1 tank, then would we buff T-80s by making them substantially less expensive to field than an M1?

[Kaffine]

Since the A2 is the only model of Abrams currently in the game it needs to be less powerful for balance but i think they should ad the A1 which did have around 600-700 frontal turret armor and it would also be cool if they added the M60 Patton tanks for low tier US tanks, then the M1A2 Tusk could be the high teir US tank and they could buff it to have more realistic armor values.

[DasaKamov]

The earlier M1A1s and M60A3s might be neat vehicles to give the Arab Coalition (minor faction Allies for the US).

[eching]

There's also the issue of range in CtA.

At longer ranges, say 3,000m, the M1 tank would have a significant advantage versus a T-80. It might be difficult for the T-80 to frontally penetrate an M1A2 with APFSDS at longer ranges. But at close ranges, like 1,000-2,000m, the T-80's APFSDS would likely penetrate or severely damage the M1 tank. In CtA a 1,000m or 2,000m shot would be incredibly long-ranged, so the pricey advantage of the M1 doesn't come into play.

The other advantage of the M1 would be superior optics and fire control. But again, these benefits are only really useful at long range, and at closer ranges like in CtA the T-80 would have no problem seeing an M1 tank or hitting it.

In the end, the M1 tank might just end up being much more expensive for fairly little benefit, mostly because tank fights in CtA are like knife fights.

[Kaffine]

I think they could balance it by just making the abrams pin point accurate at range and having the T80 or otheer lower tier tanks be less accurate a range but yah the smallish map size and the fact that there is no longer a range limit like there was in MOW2 effects the balance alot, hopefully it happens later on in CTAs development

[Muad'Dib]

Diposting pertama kali oleh eching:

There is also the issue of cost.

The M1 tanks cost 1300/1600 MP for a M1A2 or M1A2 TUSK.
The T-80 tanks cost 1100/1400 MP for a T-80BV or T-80U.

On the other hand, a M1 tank costs $9 million or more, while a T-80 only costs a third to a half of that price.

If we do significantly buff an M1 tank, then would we buff T-80s by making them substantially less expensive to field than an M1?

That's already pretty much the case. Which is ironic, considering the T-80U is miles better than either M1A2 model thanks to the ATGM and a comparable armor value. Playing in armored combat mode, it's not even a contest most of the time, the T-80U's only major US threat is, out of all things, a TOW2 Humvee.

Either tanks needs some sort of APS/ERA system to actually be functional in game, or ATGM's need to have their penetration values potentially tweaked. The TOW-2 alone has a penetration value of a whopping 1500.

[Kaffine]

Ya in the current build i find its nearly impossable to pen the T-80 from range while the T-80 has little trouble penning the Abrams frontal armor

[Kaffine]

also how much RHAE would you say sloped armor puts on a modern tank, i have wondered about this before.

[eching]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Kaffine:

also how much RHAE would you say sloped armor puts on a modern tank, i have wondered about this before.

It depends on so many factors that it's not even funny.

For example, the type of penetrator matters to figure out if sloped armour works as intended or not. Some sloped armour, in addition to thickening the armour, at a certain angle of hit might bounce shallow shots... if those rounds happen to be older. Other sloped armour might get dug into (normalisation) with a modern APFSDS dart, so actually sloped armour might be LESS effective.

It also depends on the armour and the materials its made from. RHAe of course is just a approximation, but doesn't take into account that RHA, composite, and NERA will all behave differently when shot with different things.

So long answer, you can't say. Short answer, some research suggests that sloping a plate to 60 degrees adds ~17% RHAe... but see that long answer.

[Kaffine]

thats pretty cool, i always love seeing videos where tanks get shot at or are tested on.

Its super cool seeing how much punishment they can take from different threats. Are there any public test results like this for the Abrams?

[Kaffine]

also do you know if they plan on adding the T90 to the game?

[Muad'Dib]

Diposting pertama kali oleh QUANTUM MECHANICS c000021a:

It is highly possible that armor values of those tanks are indication of developers perceptible misconception about nowaday armor.
For example T-80U its front hull plate has effective 780mm protection against KE but because of the out-dated "AS1 slope effect" it has maybe around 1320mm which is obviously ridiculous.

Actually, I'm pretty certain real life statistics have very marginal, if any correlation to in-game stats, if MoW is anything to go by. The stats of units are governed heavily by gameplay, not the composition of their real life counterparts. This is most profound in Assault Squad, where many platforms and munitions do not have the sort of symmetrical effect on armor that they would IRL(Otherwise mid-tier US tanks would actually do pretty well against tigers with their 76mm's for instance. Heck, even the 90mm on the slugger has laughable penetration compared to weaker guns on tanks like the KT).

Personally, while this does lead to awkward circumstances occasionally, I believe it's largely for the best. At the end of the day, it's much better to have a balanced, fun game than a strictly realistic one. Especially as far as multiplayer is concerned. CtA abstracts a few things(Sometimes to laughable degrees, like technicals going nuclear from a 40mm grenade) for better or worse, but it's better than wasting a lot of time, energy, and resources trying to be perfectly exacting on every piece of military equipment when that's really not the point of the game's overarching 'goal' the moment you hop into an actual match.

[Romich]

It is fine as it is, M1 is worse in long range shootouts but wins at close, for long ranged combat usa got cp and mp cheap Tow

[Muad'Dib]

Diposting pertama kali oleh QUANTUM MECHANICS c000021a:

Indeed, but developers do not need to know all about rocket science to build realistic and at same time balanced and coherent gameplay of both infantry/vehicle combat. Take a look over Arma franchise once again, there is a huge beauty in simplicity and still it is labeled as "military simulator" and the interpretation of the infantry/vehicle behaviors in combat is just right, nothing is too strong nor too weak.
Hence it would be really healthily to change this franchise from infantry centric non-sense to RTS. Perhaps it could attract a lot more people. Which is in CtA case more than essential.

I don't agree with that, personally. MoW has always been an RTT that focuses primarily on infantry play, and CtA is no different. That's never going to change, IMO, because the means for getting a vehicle in the first place makes them inherintly valuable and risky investments, rather than common and 'throw away'. They just can't really be the center-piece of the game without there being some special game mode like Armored Combat that circumvents the resource system of the game. Assault Squad shook this dynamic up in a positive way through special point units, but CtA doesn't seem like it's going to ever go in that direction.

There will undoubtedly be mods like Robz eventually made for CtA that crank up damage values and weapon ranges for the more 'semi-realistic' feel, but I feel like the core gameplay itself shouldn't wildly change. ArmA works the way it does because it's an FPS/TPS, not an RTT/RTS. What works in a totally different genre doesn't necessarily translate over well to a game about micromanaging dozens of units at once rapidly.