Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

I am okay with how they currently perform right now, but is it possible to change how it functions so it's closer to reality?

Currently AFVs fitted with standard ERA can defeat any kind of single charge HEAT type warhead if it triggers it.

eg: an US M2A3+ Bradley fitted with M19 ARAT ERA on it's side hull can defeat up to 4 HEAT type weapons, even an all mighty Hellfire A with 105 penetration.

While in reality, ERA will only degrade penetration of HEAT type warheads by a percentage instead of rendering it totally useless like how it currently functions in-game.

Would it be possible to make it so ERA functions as a penetration modifier instead, here an;

eg: ERA now instead of it totally defeating any type of single warhead HEAT, it instead reduces said penetration by a ballpark "70%" figure.

M2A3+ Bradley Side hull 16/20 "4" ERA charges

Hellfire A 105 -> 32
RPG-7V 50 -> 15
9M113 Konkurs 60 -> 18

High penetration HEAT will still penetrate while, the ERA will still perform effectively against low penetrating HEAT in protecting the vehicle from been destroyed/damaged.

Advance ERA should perform similar to standard ERA against HEAT, but it's performance against AP/SABOT should be treated the same as HEAT but with a much lower percentage. But with similar trigger %, currently it's has a fairly low percentage to trigger.

eg: Advance ERA effectively reduces penetration from AP/SABOT by 25%

T-72BM which is a T-72B with K-5 ERA, so a T-72B base frontal turret armor is 49 against AP. It's hit by a 60 penetrating AP shot, but with it's K-5 triggering it reduces it to 45. Preventing it from penetrating, while on the other hand a 70 penetration AP shot will have 53 penetration, allowing it to penetrate. Also it could hit an area not protected by ERA and penetrate, as the ERA coverage on the T-72BM only covers roughtly 50%.

This will make tanks equipped with ERA/Advance ERA feel more realistic as it's protection is dependant on it's ERA performance, ofcourse this will have a larger impact on Soviet/Eastern AFVs, like the T- series and chinese tanks, but will make them more realistic.

As of right now a T-72BM can survive indefinite amount of hits from 120mm M1A1s due to it's base armor and K-5 are calculated together. Or T-80BV with it's Kontakt-1 ERA calculated to its base armor, making it able to survive multiple BGM-71B TOW hits, even though it's ERA has been shredded away from previous hits.

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

Anyone? Andy? Mobhack?

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

Andy? DRG?

Is this even feasible on the current SP game engine?

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

The problem I have is the entire premise is flawed.

When I test 71B Tows or 1994 era M1A1's against T-72BM's or T-80BV's what I see are a lot of flaming T-72BM and T-80BV's wreaks that are NOT surviving "indefinite amount of hits from 120mm M1A1s" OR "multiple BGM-71B TOW hits." and if I did I might say *maybe* there is a problem but what I see when those Russian tanks are pitted against a force of M1a1's and Tow2's equal in points value is a LOT of dead T72's and T80's none of which are surviving repeated multiple hits of either weapon except in *maybe* extreme circumstances but certainly not common by any measure

Go ahead a set up a test game yourself if you are curious. There WILL be some that survive a few multiple hits but not the way this was described


Here's a test game circa summer 1989 using TOW-2A's and Abrams.

Just start it up and press end turn after every turn and let the AI do the rest. Let me know how many T-72 BM's survive multiple hit's or if the game lasts past 5 turns before all are destroyed.

Let me know if any "T-72BM's.....survive indefinite amount of hits from 120mm M1A1s" Remember, that's an "indefinite amount" of hits from 120mm m1a1's

The BGM-71B is phased out of service in the game in 12/81 and the T-80BV does not enter service until 1/85 so one eras weapons are being compared to another era's target here to make the point


Don

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

Iraq, Desert 160x200 map.

1989/10

Head-On

Russia

1 T-72BM

USA

4 M1A1

The T-72BM is practically immune to the SABOT rounds up until 1150m~ where it can penetrate through the front hull without any angling. The front turret is immune to up until 600m. Though quite infrequent sometimes a shot results in a "weak spot" while maybe penetrate depending on "roll".

So a T-72BM with the current implementation of ERA/AERA can sit at 2000m, and receive multitude of hits from 120mm and survive due to the it's increased based armor added on for K-5.

Realistically K-5 ERA will detonate on penetration from high velocity 1400+m/s APFSDS and HEAT reducing penetration of such penetrators and leaving behind an empty now unprotected spot. So a following round/shell that hits that same spot will not have the same protection as before as the ERA is gone.

eg: a T-72BM could only possibly survive 6 direct hits to the frontal turret, before all ERA are removed, and it's armour will then be exactly the same as a normal T-72B as it is no longer protected with K-5 ERA, allowing even a relatively old I-TOW to penetrate through it's turret. Or another following SABOT etc.

On a side note, some ATGM that are fitted with Stand-off probes are considered to be Multi-charged ATGM, one example will be the I-TOW which was fielded back in 78. Extended/Stand-off probes fitted on early ATGM did not have any effect on ERA, as they were basically used to increase penetration, and does not have a precursor HEAT charge to detonate ERA. The first TOW to be fitted with a Tandem HEAT warhead was the TOW-2A which was introduced in 88.

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

I am not sure you understand how ERA works, I agree in very rare cases it can work to well, but they are rare I have done 2 AARs just because of that. However I have done AARs on other extraordinary results like the M60 Patton that survived 3 turns of concentrated CM arty for the loss of a track & still manged to fire & kill my tank.

This is just observation not testing
The ERA number represents the amount of coverage & it is reduced by 1 if its hit, so high ERA is far better than low 8 > 7 still good coverage. 4 > 3 poor to bad.
Then there is the chance for it to stop the shot which we will deal with later.
The chances of one shot being intercepted by the ERA is unlikely, 2 being stopped on the same facing is extreme as now it only has 3 ERA left.
I am not going to do the maths but the way probability works the chance of the 2nd hit is very low.
With 8 ERA the chance of the next hit being on the 7 ERA is not bad but the odds are falling rapidly for every extra hit on the era, 6 hits on the era is probably well over a million to one chance. But hey it happens sometimes people do win the lottery on occasion.


We will talk about Advanced ERA
There are at least 2 types of warhead, standard & advanced, modern missiles & some RPG are advanced where as most older stuff is standard
A ERA stops virtually all standard warheads if they hit it
Conversely
A ERA is nearly always defeated by an advanced warhead virtually negating the A ERA
Also as a side note modern ATGMs seem more likely to defeat close in weapon systems than old ones.
This represents the swings between technologies just like tanks increase armour & penetration to defeat it
It also means ERA is more effective vs "Second Rate Armies" outdated equipment be it a tank SAM RPG or missile just is not as effective they need the countermeasure which is in game terms the advanced warhead.

The Hellfire A is definetly a standard warhead in the game, the other missile the Apache fires a top attack TOW I think is an advanced warhead & I cant remember what the Hellfire B is.
This means if it hits the ERA it is indeed stopped most of the time. However this is fairly irrelevant as Russian tanks with high ERA numbers also have a front heat facing rating around the 105 you mentioned so I would expect mainly no effect or damage with some kills unless it hit the top.

Indeed in the game it covers 50% so normally it will either miss the ERA or hit it once, ignoring the roll to see if it stopped it the tank now has 40% coverage.
The maths for the probability of the two hits is the sum of them both occurring which actually means the chance of scoring 2 consecutive hits is way below 40%. 27% at a guess but then we have to adjust that factor by the probability that both rounds were stopped to so we are probably down to 20% or less.
Just guessing if somebody wants to do the maths feel free.
HOWEVER it makes very little diffrence as the gun on the M1A1 is simply not up to the job, be thankfull its far better than the previous pea shooter which was diabolical.
The T-72BM only needs its kontact at close range medium to long range its safe without it. The T-72B is a diffrent animal with far lower heat & armour ratings & it to has ERA but I think its only basic,
Have you tested this in game the B definetly has an advanced warhead & I am pretty sure the A does to. For the A the ERA is fairly irrelevant anyway from the front as it struggles to penetrate. The B is a diffrent matter as its a top attacker & hence overkill. If the ERA or close in defence dont stop it your dead.

As I say this is all subjective from watching when I play the game & but my take on things as they stand with A ERA
I have had a long break from the game so points 1 + 2 could just be my memory playing tricks.
1)Standard warheads could in fact get through a bit more often possibly
2)Advanced warheads could be stopped a bit more frequently
3)AP should get through more frequently, advanced warheads seem to have a far better chance of defeating it.
Possibly putting 2 or 3 classes based on gun warhead or penetration or one class with warhead being used as a modifier on the chance of getting through
Say XXX plus 3 x warhead that way bigger guns have more chance of defeating than auto cannons.
Real pain if each weapon has to be done individually rather than just a routine.

The AP thing is the only real problem as there tends to be a lot more of it flying about

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

Perhaps the big issue here is the USA did no always have the best gear, my view out of the big players till the Abrams they had poor tanks. High silloutte little or no giro poor guns with the saving grace of good fire control.
Really only any good for static defence but even then the poor gun negated the good fire control for the time as you could hit targets but not penetrate them.
The first Abrams suffered from this even more so as it had a leap forward in fire control & vision but could not capitalise on it due to the poor gun. Keeping manufacturing simple & the artillery having a say in it & wanting a long lasting barrell meant compromises in penetration if I remember correctly.
The game also provides you with lots of nice Russian toys but in reality the nice ones are not that common so while the USA has huge stocks of Abrams, Apaches etc they will normally be facing average Russian stuff.
The T-72BM was it common without looking I would guess not there would have been far more T-72Bs
So the problem you are having is you are depicting a rare battle vs the 1 or 2 battalions equipped with the good stuff rather than fighting the standard formations that are the norm

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

I don't think you get what I am trying to convey. What I am trying to compare is "reality" vs "Steel Panther" and trying to bring SP more closer to reality.

Especially in regards to how Soviet/Chinese and other AFVs that are equipped with ERA performs and their vulnerabilities. Currently Soviet Tanks have their armour in game inflated, especially those that are equipped with ERA and Advanced ERA as some of them have their base armor + ERA together calculated together. Making them more heavily armoured then they should be.

This is an example of how a T-72BM front turret armour should be.

Instead of the current 70/108 and 5 Advance ERA charges.

It should be:

Armour 49/60 with 6 Advance ERA charges.

As you can see the T-72BM armor is greatly inflated by the addition of ERA added to it's base armour.

What I recommend are changes that would make ERA in SP more like in reality,

1. How they degrade the performance of HEAT/AP/SABOT depending on type of ERA instead of totally defeating/negating them like it is currently. As this will more accurately represent how ERA works.

2. Trigger rate of Advance ERA vs AP/SABOT should be similar to HEAT vs Advance ERA.

3. It would more accurately depict the performance of AFV fitted with ERA/Advance ERA, especially those of Soviet origins.

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

The reality is those nice russian tank aren't actually all that nice in reality. As their armour stats in SPMBT is gravely inflated, their actual armour values is below what they are represented.

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

Didnt Kontakt-5 made T72s invurnerable to 120mm APFSDS rounds according to Bundeswehr and US army test? Anyway, I dont think the ERA on the Soviet/Russian tanks is of that much concern, I can usually defeat them with ease.

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

Most of the Soviet tanks have turret front of ~46 till 88/89 when the uparmoured ones arrive. Those are a little bit of a problem to the 87 model 120mm gun.

However, most of the tank fleet will be the older models that the 87 gun can defeat frontally till 2750 metres.

After that then the USA replies with the '91 model and then the '94 model rounds, whereas the Russian steel armour remains about 66 for front turret.
'91 model defeats level 66 armour at 1350m (assured) and 1950 on occasion.
'94 model will do level 66 at 2500m assured, and 3000m if it has its ducks in a row.

Also, during that period the initially somewhat thin armour (especially anti-KE) of the M1 was addressed by the various up-armour packages e.g. the HA model in '89 where the KE turret front leaps from 45 to 67. Which the 125-88 of your Russian target needs to get to 600m to reliably defeat (1100m if it is really favoured by the Gods).

In '91 there is the TOW team with the 2A model top-attack ATGM, and in ~'96 it becomes general issue, and the javelin arrives as well.

So there is a small window in the late 80s when some Russian tanks need you to wait till 1KM to kill reliably, later fixed by technology, both gun and protection.

IF you only intend to engage them head on of course....

Plan A) Engage the enemy armour from their flanks. It worked in WW2, it still works today. Even the '87 model 120mm will reliably go through class 30 armour at 5000m, which is typical side armour for 2020 soviet turrets (hull being about 15). Hitting at 2500-3000m is not difficult with modern MBT.

Plan B) If you insist on taking them head-on, wait behind a wood or ridge, or drop smoke in front off them to emerge out of (they do not have TI, you do), and engage at 1000m or even less.

Plan C) use an integrated anti-armour approach, with a matrix of AT weapons including missiles, helos, air, arty engaging from multiple angles and with multiple anti-armour ammo types. Strip away all the targets you can easily engage ASAP (BMP, BTR + contents) so your grunts can close for the kill as well.

ERA is not something for the enemy to rely on to defeat solid shot, and each hit reduces the ERA tile count for that face. It is rather better against HEAT weaponry, but it still is reduced per hit, and is not a 100% guarantee of defeating the round. Also, enhanced HEAT weaponry (multi charge and top attack) is rather effective against it. Multiple ERA tiles on a face give no more protection than one does - they just last longer before being exhausted by incoming hits. It only really needs one to fail to defeat the HEAT weapon to make them moot.

If really worried by ERA, then let Ivan pass you by and then shoot him up the a*ss since there is usually none fitted there.


Cheers
Andy

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

I get what your saying Andy, I know how to defeat them.

What I am trying to say is the Soviet/Russian tanks could be more accurately represented in game then they are right now. Here's another example in which the current system make Soviet tanks equipped with K-5 ERA more potent then what they actually are in real life.

A RPG-29 could penetrate through the front turret and hull of a T-72BM/T-08U/T-90, as it's precursor warhead stripped the ERA, allowing the main warhead to penetrate through the base armour. Which is nearly impossible in SPMBT due to how they are represented, as they have over 100~ HEAT armour, while RPG-29 only has 75 Pen.

All I am saying is that with how ERA is been protrayed in SPMBT some vehicles are made immune to weapons that otherwise has no or little trouble in penetrating them in real life. Also that there are way to more accurate represent them.

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

And that is not going to change.

If you think that Soviet armour is too tough - then by all means set up a thread in the TO&E forum on the topic. And then provide some hard evidence to back up your theory, and let those who are interested argue it out one way or the other.

Andy

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

On reflection maybe the way ERA works now is not so bad, modern AP rounds would still only penetrate at close range

I dont have the original test but it was Rheinmetal that conducted it as they got hold of some T-72?s once Russia broke up. I cannot remember the details but they were very surprised at how effective the ERA was especially vs AP. Every round that hit it was stopped & Rheinmetal started work immediatly on a new gun because of this.

Exerts from tests
So the game is really pretty accurate going on real world data

If you look in game you can see the trend after the initial German report, armour improved up to around the fall of the USSR & indeed there is a period where both sides have trouble killing the others frontaly.
Since then the concentration was on guns & ammo
Look at the Abrams for instance its main gun improved dramatically, penetration going from 40 to the mid 90s in 15 years, thats more than twice as powerfull.
From the mid 1990s armour started increasing again probably driven by the fact that the percieved enemy had also improved its main gun capabilities.

Most western press dunbs down Russian equipment & just points out the failings but they do some things right or just diffrently possibly partly driven by diffrent design doctrines like people not being that important through most of the USSRs life.
Another example was the West getting its hands on the Mig 29 & saying haa its a pile of junk. Well the German Airforce used it till fairly recently because while it was outperformed in many areas it won most of their practice dogfights & could continue to fly through the EMP blast of a nuke.
Of couse we take the bits that work modify them & stick them in our gear, modern Russia admits its failings & buys the tech its no good at. Always lagged behind on vision aids so it buys its TI from France for example.

In summary read this bit again

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

Here's a pic of a T-72BM having been hit by HEAT.

http://btvt.narod.ru/2/tanks_in_grozny.files/72bm.jpg

As you can see it stripped the ERA block right off the turret, now that area is no longer protected by ERA and should only retain as much armour as a T-72B. Which is not how SPMBT portrays AERA.

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

How many block do you see remaining on that side of the turret ?

Yes, very nice, one block set have been stripped away that leaves two I can see.

You are suggesting after one hit that there should be NO ERA protection yet your photo clearly shows there are blocks remaining on the side of that turret. WHY can't you understand that removing one block DOES NOT remove ERA protection from a turret? There is still protection there, it's plain to see in that photo. The game is not set up to micro manage hits like you seem to think it should be and tank gunnery does not put repeat rounds on target at 1 MOA.

For this to work the way you want it to work we would have to break down the turret into zones then, if a hit was made determine what zone that was and store it in memory then, if another hit is made on the side of the turret determine if it's the same zone that was hit the first time then calculate penetration based on that block of ERA missing from that particular location on the turret and that is NOT going to happen.

We say over and over that the game relies on abstractions to function smoothly because dealing with the exact area of a tank a block of ERA might have been stripped away is beyond the scope of the game.

Don

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

Okay as we seem stuck on the T-72BM & I remember there was some talk about it before, it is not just a standard T-72B retro fitted with advanced ERA, that model is already in the game. It had other modifications as well which included additional applique armour, its this additional armour you cant penetrate irrespective of the ERA

Rheinmetal if I remember did manage to get penetrations if it missed the ERA but not at anything like the ranges they were expecting, & not vs a BM varient. Seems the intelligence guys underestimated the effectivness of the armour to.

Go find the tests the US army have said they got it badly wrong, find what range they conducted the firings at. Note they would have been subject to multiple fires & yet the army spokesman is not even claiming one kill, did they ALL hit the ERA or indeed is Russian armour modeled about right.
In game cant engage at range need to be fairly close
In game normally have no effect with occasional damage or kills

So to me thats pretty much how the USA army admits it was, possibly if anything dare I say it a fraction to easy to kill in the game.

On a side note the Abrams was not designed to combat the T-80, the inteligence service failed to notice it till several years after the Abrams entered service when it caused a minor panic. So it was designed to beat the T-72 & in retrospect they underestimated the enemy.

ERA as it stands works fairly close to as it should perhaps being a bit to effective at close range vs AP ammo. Though at worst this would only perhaps provides lightly armoured vehicles like IFVs with a bit to much protection. Yes it could be improved but on the whole it works as it should.

However the situations you state its the base armour that is preventing the kills not the ERA so your grief is with the level of Russian Armour as portrayed in the game NOT the ERA. This despite the fact it closely matches that of 2 seperate tests by the West not Russian claims.
The hellfire failed as did the mid range shots in the desert because the armour not the ERA defeated the weapon.
The only argunent that had merit possibly was the Bradley that if its lucky might survive one shot from a weapon that perhaps should have killed it.
Think about it in game terms a lot of the time Russian tanks would survive a front hit with or without the ERA, the ERA just saves it if it stops a side or top shot. It also saves it from the front at close range, no need to get fancy it degraded the shot so it can no longer penetrate. Hence the assumption the only real issue is possibly with lightly armoured units occasionally surviving when they shouldnt

Thats it from me unless you can produce hard evidence to the contrary it seems to me the game closely models the facts.

Re: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.
 

Sorry last post on DRGs one.
The game does model the destruction & hence less coverage of the ERA just not which specific tile. So ERA effectivness is reduced as its hit.

You may also like to know if I remember correctly the Rheinmetal test discovered that ERA fitted as standard in "pockets" they called it rather than retrofitted was found to have a marginal degregation effect if it was hit again. They tested to see at what range they could get consistent kills & discovered hitting the used ERA again could stop the penetration at that range.