Wishlist: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.

[Mobhack]

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

[Djuice]

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.

[Mobhack]

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

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

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.

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

Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A2 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."

I did see a separate Hungarian report from some years ago testing a pretty plain-Jane T72 hull (no added armor) vs then-standard NATO 105mm APFSDS. I can't recall the details of the experiment but no penetrations to hull or turret front. They even shot a Karl Gustav (AT4) HEAT at it. That managed to blow off a fuel pannier but started no fire and did no significant damage. The one hull penetration they did get was from an experimental 105mm long rod penetrator.

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

The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

[Djuice]

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



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.

[DRG]

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

[Imp]

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.

immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A2 APFSDS

In game cant engage at range need to be fairly close

and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles

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.

[Imp]

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.