Wishlist: Change the way ERA/Advanced ERA functions.

[Djuice]

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.

[RightDeve]

Anyone? Andy? Mobhack?

[Djuice]

Andy? DRG?

Is this even feasible on the current SP game engine?

[DRG]

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

T-80BV with it's Kontakt-1 ERA calculated to its base armor, making it able to survive multiple BGM-71B TOW hits

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

[Djuice]

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.

[Imp]

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.

eg: an US M2A3+ Bradley fitted with M19 ARAT ERA on it's side hull can defeat up to 4 HEAT type weapons

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.

even an all mighty Hellfire A with 105 penetration

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.

As of right now a T-72BM can survive indefinite amount of hits from 120mm M1A1s due to etc etc

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,

The first TOW to be fitted with a Tandem HEAT warhead was the TOW-2A which was introduced in 88.

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

[Imp]

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

[Djuice]

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.

[Djuice]

Originally Posted by Imp

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 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.

[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.