|
Soviet tank crew survival.
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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 |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
They did light up like BICS!
|
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
Quote:
That's nice. Have fun reworking your OOB's becasue I have no intention of changing ours Don |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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! |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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)...
|
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
Quote:
- 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 |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
so perhaps now kevin will understand that this IS a game and not reality...
|
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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..... |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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?" |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
Quote:
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 |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
Quote:
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 |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
(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 |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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 |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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? |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
"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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
Marcello,
Catastrofic destruction of a T-72 is due to design flaws. Ammo and fuel are both easily torched by a pennetrating hit. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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 |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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 |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
"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? |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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
|
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
"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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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...
|
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
By the way, all Leopard 2Ax tanks have front hull ammo storage...
|
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
"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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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.
|
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
"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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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.
|
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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/milita...fst9208470.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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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.o...-Flammable.htm basically - high pressure hydrailic fluids as orignally fitted on M60 (before 74), could become internal flame throwers. Not nice. Cheers Andy |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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
|
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
"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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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)
|
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
"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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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.
|
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
"Im just telling that survivability rating mean much more than how many crew will survive penetrating hit."
Well, I already knew that. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
"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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
Quote:
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. |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
"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? |
Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
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. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.