chieftain tank vs t-62

[Svenne]

Does anybody know how to fight t-62s with chieftains? Seems like no matter what i do chieftain always looses and that t-62s just kills everything in it's path. Like it's super easy to play Iraq, but with Iran i'm struggling hard. Am i supposed to use other weapons to take out the t-62? It's really hard.

[archibaldthe1]

It was even worse before (chieftains had an older shell and would go up in flames with almost every hit):
https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/3278065723201148167/

Seems little better now

[Svenne]

So it's just poorly balanced? Nothing i can do?

[Battleshipfree99]

Well, Chieftain has enough penetration to knock out T-55/62 within 1500m. Try to fight within this range. And the HEAT projectiles... they are deadly accurate and powerful. One hit and your Chieftain is gone. (Still wondering why GTMF T-62 prefers HEAT over APFSDS.)

Iraq operations are really difficult as there aren't enough ATGMs while the Iraqis have plenty of them. M-40 recoilless gun is useless when T-55/62 can spot it 1.5km away (entrenched).

PS:
Several points GTMF might have screwed up (personal opinion):
HEAT post-penetration effect (might be too powerful),
HEAT accuracy (might be too accurate, probably due to sight quality),
the spotting capability of tanks (sight quality 267, T-55/62 with a 3.5x18°/7x9° gunner sight & 5x10° commander sight, might have broken the spotting and accuracy algorithm).


About sight quality algorithm, I'm still trying to restore the original formula. I'm pretty certain that sight quality is proportional to sight magnification. This makes sense as how magnification works.
E.g., 3x8 rated as 63, 5x8 rated as 105, 1x11 rated as 23.

And about the contribution of multiple sights, it seems to be some kind of sum of all sights. This is where I am not quite sure and would place my doubts.

[archibaldthe1]

On the spotting/accuracy and its relation to the sights overhaul - you are likely right (as far as the cause), but if I understand correctly, just the rating in itself should not be the direct indicator of these abilities, since each crew member is modeled to be observing using their own sights.
Agree on HEAT effects/accuracy (admittedly I don’t know much, so forming my opinion from that article: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html#heat )

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by archibaldthe1:

On the spotting/accuracy and its relation to the sights overhaul - you are likely right (as far as the cause), but if I understand correctly, just the rating in itself should not be the direct indicator of these abilities, since each crew member is modeled to be observing using their own sights.
Agree on HEAT effects/accuracy (admittedly I don’t know much, so forming my opinion from that article: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html#heat )

This will be nice to read, thanks. I basically have no idea about more modern HEAT and kinetic energy AT ammunition, but I often wondered if the HEAT shells might be a bit too reliable in GT as a whole. In the game HEAT shells are very good (penetration and post penetration) and relatively accurate in almost all combat situations despite the low muzzle velocity. Perhaps the jet formation and penetration is also a bit too reliable when hitting at non ideal angles (not sure).

But then again HEAT shells were produced a lot, were really very successful in WWII already and as far as I can tell they are the "gold standard" today when it comes to successful AT shells (basically the most successful shell family) Or am I wrong there?

[Battleshipfree99]

Originally posted by archibaldthe1:

Agree on HEAT effects/accuracy (admittedly I don’t know much, so forming my opinion from that article: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html#heat )

I went back to play SABOW for a while. HEAT in SABOW wasn't the wonder weapon as in GTMF. One difference I notice is that for some reason HESH used to be HE in GTOS and SABOW but a type of HEAT in GTMF. Could this classification possibly give HEAT some extra blast effect which it doesn't deserve?

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by archibaldthe1:

On the spotting/accuracy and its relation to the sights overhaul - you are likely right (as far as the cause), but if I understand correctly, just the rating in itself should not be the direct indicator of these abilities, since each crew member is modeled to be observing using their own sights.

It is useless to explain, people either understand that miracles do not happen (it is impossible to present 2+ parameters in 1 number) or they do not understand.

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

Could this classification possibly give HEAT some extra blast effect which it doesn't deserve?

Certainly! And if you add the word SUPER in front of HEAT, then in general it will tear the tanks into molecules .

How do you imagine the influence of the TEXT that shows the player on the parameters of the projectile in the game model?

[Battleshipfree99]

Originally posted by andrey12345 v2.0:

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

Could this classification possibly give HEAT some extra blast effect which it doesn't deserve?

Certainly! And if you add the word SUPER in front of HEAT, then in general it will tear the tanks into molecules .

How do you imagine the influence of the TEXT that shows the player on the parameters of the projectile in the game model?

All HEAT hits in GTMF have some "track, chassis" damage effect, which is typical for large caliber HE. HEAT back in SABOW doesn't seem to have the same effect.

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by archibaldthe1:

Agree on HEAT effects/accuracy (admittedly I don’t know much, so forming my opinion from that article: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html#heat )

I see here they refer to reports found by Graviteam's colleagues about Iranian chieftains, funny.

Well, in the article, it seems to be clearly visible that the HEAT for the T-62 tank gun has the same damaging effect (up to the measurement error) as that of the APDS for the same gun.

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

All HEAT hits have some "track, chassis" damage effect, which is typical for large caliber HE.

Obviously because they contain explosives and explode. Even the name HE AT hints that this is a HE projectile, just a special purpose.
Somewhat strange remark, to be honest

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by Svenne:

So it's just poorly balanced? Nothing i can do?

Definitely badly balanced like everything else in our world.

Just in case, let me remind that this is not a RTS game, there is NOTHING balanced at all.

[Battleshipfree99]

Originally posted by andrey12345 v2.0:

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

All HEAT hits have some "track, chassis" damage effect, which is typical for large caliber HE.

Obviously because they contain explosives and explode. Even the name HE AT hints that this is a HE projectile, just a special purpose.
Somewhat strange remark, to be honest

I'd be skeptical about this statement. To my understanding, most of the explosive energy is used to form the penetrating core. HEAT would only show significant blast effect against thin armor plates, probably <50mm. This is when impact energy of the projectile is large enough to partial penetrate the plate and it triggers inside the target.

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

Still wondering why GTMF T-62 prefers HEAT over APFSDS.

Probably because the HEAT pierces the chieftain at any distance (at which it can be hit) at an angle of less than 30, but APDS shell does not pierce at any.

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

I'd be skeptical about this statement. To my understanding, most of the explosive energy is used to form the penetrating core.

In matters of modeling, it makes no sense to rely on the opinions or "guessing".
Can you justify this thesis with formulas?

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

HEAT would only show significant blast effect against thin armor plates, probably <50mm or maybe same as projectile caliber.

Caterpillars and chassis parts are covered with shelves less than 5 mm thick. Caterpillars do not have armor itself, chassis elements are also not armored in most cases. Also, in many cases, they have a fairly rigid connection with the tank hull. Thus, almost any projectile exploding on the armor of a tank affects them in one way or another, either through a fragmentation action or through a "shock wave". What causes skepticism?