Soviet tank crew survival.

[JaM]

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)

[Marcello]

"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 consequencesater 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.

[JaM]

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.

[Marcello]

"Im just telling that survivability rating mean much more than how many crew will survive penetrating hit."

Well, I already knew that.

[Marcello]

"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.

[kevineduguay1]

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.

[Shadowcougar]

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.

[JaM]

Shadowcougar said:
Not every Iraqi crewman died in his tank during GW1.

No, but 99 percent of killed Iraqi tankers were those who served in T-72...
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.

[Marcello]

"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?

[Marcello]

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.