Steel Panthers MBT

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by EchoFiveMike:

So far it's a fun game, but I have some bitches about the match up of Russian vs Western stuff.  So far I've been doing the mid-50's and 60's stuff, and I have a couple problems.  I like the fact that the M103 is included, but they ought to include the M102A2, whcih was the definative version with the HEAT round and the better FCS.  Also the Soviet block stuff is way over rated in kill power, as well as armour.  T-10's with 40 frontal rating?  100mm guns on the T-54 with a 38 penetration rating for HEAT?  While at the same time the M103A1 is rated at 25 front turret and 22 front hull?  Any way to numerically adjust the numbers, rather than just plugging in adjustment factors?  S/F...Ken M

 

If you explore the game file theres a folder titled

 

"MOBHack"

 

Click on the application [or make a short cut to your desktop etc] and edit away...all weapons units etc.Trouble is to know what each weapon represents some are tank guns with APDS others have 1st Gen APFSDS others 2nd or 3rd gen. In some cases the note 120mm DM53 so you know the actual round , but not in most cases.

 

enjoy!

[MrOuija]

"Personally I aggree with you Tony and I'm sure I could take sledge hammer to the game and make it into a half descent Sim....Its all about the law of diminishing returns,They set the bar at there level and thats the end of it!"

 

The way I see it the biggest impediment to making changes in the MOB's are that you'd have to make blanket changes to ALL the files. Why not start a thread about things like armor calculation or penetration numbers ? At least that way if someone wants to make the changes, the info is there, and before you know it there'll be a whole range of 'tanknet modded' files. Besides, the discussion is half the fun.

[MrOuija]

"Why is it that my Bradley's M242 25mm chain guns dont do a damned thing againstpretty mucha anything, the only kill i have gotten againsta BMP with the cg was at 350 meters so it was a close range kill."

 

Iv'e been playing mostly with soviet kit and I can say that problem defiantely doesn't translate to the BMP-2's 30mm chaingun. Iv'e been able to mow down infantry and even KO Leo 1's with side shots. The chainguns in general are very accurate as long as they've had the enemy in their crosshairs for at least a turn.

 

"As for the editor, does anyone know how to givea unit ARENA, I want to make the Turkish M1A2 and give it ARENA, the Turks asked for it at one point"

 

Yes, go into the turkish MOB, find the M1A2, and where you find a listing showing EW with a rating of zero, change it to one.

 

"Also, can you reasign weapons from different countries to new countries? I want to give the USMC Hellfire B but al they have is the UAV Hellfire B"

 

Yep, you should just be able to copy and paste from one nations file to another.

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by John T:

Sorry for not answering earlier but midsummer is a BIG holiday in my part of the world.

 

 

Yes, the day I find the perfect software I'll retire

 

 

 

OK lets take an example the T-64 front turret armor. In the game you rate it at 41cm KE resistance for both front turret and front hull, faith full to Zalogas figures .But the front turret profile is composed of 1/3 upper front turret which is 5cm cast armor ~ 76° angle . This amounts to a LOS thickness of ~ 21cm , but the resistance of Cast armor and t/d reduce this to only ~18cm Vs 2cm APFSDS to ~ 17cm Vs APDS and 21cm Vs HEAT.However at these impact angles most 1960s HEAT warheads would ricochet away before detonation.

 

2/3 of the front turret profile is the heavy frontal armor which has LOS thickness ranging from ~41cm LOS near the gun to ~60cm LOS thickness at the turret corners . The EARLY model was reported to feature Aluminum sandwhiched between cast steel armor with the insert thickness representing ~ 60% of the LOS thickness. This amounts to a 4.9 g/cc average density .

 

 

24 cm Al 5xxx [Te]= 0.35/0. 4 x 0.99/0.97/0.96/0.94/0.88 [T/d] = 8.3/8.4 /8.0/7.9/8.5 & 9.6cm

 

17 cm cast x 0.95 /1.0 [Te] x 0.94/0.92/0.9/0.88/0.75 [T/d] = 15.2/14.9/14.5/14.2/12.1cm & 17cm

Multiples x 1.15 HEAT [layering] & x 1.18 KE [RHA confinement] x [Lateral confinement]

 

2cm APFSDS = 22cm near gun -> 41cm @ corners [ 32±10cm average]

3cm APFSDS = 22cm near gun -> 40cm @ corners [31±9cm average]

4cm APFSDS = 21cm near gun -> 38cm @ corners [30±9cm average

5-6cm APDS = 21cm near gun -> 37cm @ corners [29±8cm average]

90-122mm APC 19cm near gun -> 35cm @ corners [ 27±8cm average]

HEAT= 30cm near gun 46cm @ corners [ 38±8cm average]

 

The armor is read as follows …..

 

Shot from straight on ; The first number is the resistance in and around the mantle area, while the number after the -> symbol is the resistance at the extreme turret corners from straight on.The value in brackets is the average mid turret range along with the average distibution of hits. So a 3cm APFSDS can expect to encounter 22-40cm of armor with the average being ~ 31cm .

 

From a ± 30° off angle, the value in brackets is used ; the first number before the -> symbol is used.So going on the 3cm APFSDS , from a 30° off angle hit the turret corners should be 31cm .

 

If you look at the hull you have a similar problem!

 

Between 1/2 and 1/3 of the hull profile is the 'Lower hull' and is 10cm RHA @ 60° or 20cm [2-3cm APFSDS] ; 19cm [ APDS & 3-4cm APFSDS ] ; 18cm [APC]& 20cm HEAT .

 

The Hull Glacis which represents ~ 2/3 to 1/2 the hull profile,is reported to be by most sources reported the glacis @ 205mm @ 67-68° thick with layers of 80mm RHA & 105mm Steltexolite & 20mm RHA.

8cm RHA x 1.0/1.0 [Te] x 0.94/0.97/0.99 [4cm/3cm/2cm APFSDS

t/d] or 0.9 [APDS t/d] = 7.5/7.8/7.9cm; 7.2cm & 8cm [HEAT]

 

2x 5.25 cm ST-1 x 0.3/ 0.36 [Te] x 0.9/0.92/0.94 [4cm/3cm/2cm

APFSDS t/d] or 0.88 [T/d APDS] = 2.8/2.9/2.96; 2.77cm & 3.78cm

 

2cm RHA x 1.0/1.0 [Te] x 0.75/0.77/0.88 [ T/d APFSDS ] or 0.65

[APDS t/d] = 1.5/1.54/1.76cm; 1.3cm & 2cm [ HEAT]

 

Modifiers x 1.05 [Very thick confinement] ÷ 0.38 [ Cos of glacis]

Total Vs

4cm APFSDS = 11.8 x 1.05 ÷ 0.38 = 32.6cm

3cm APFSDS = 12.2x 1.05 ÷ 0.38 = 33.8cm

2cm APFSDS = 12.6 x 1.05 ÷ 0.38 = 34.8cm

5-6cm APDS = 11.3 x 1.05 ÷ 0.38 = 31.1cm

[HEAT] = 13.78 x 1.15 [layering] ÷ 0.38 [Cos of glacis]=42cm HEAT

The NiStalii Website quoted the glacis of the basic T-72 @ resistance of 335mm Vs APFSDS and 410mm HEAT while the above prediction is 338mm Vs a 35mm wide M-735 APFSDS [ less than 1% error] .This glacis looks to be exact same layout as T-64.

 

So from straight on you have an average front turret armor of and 27-28cm overall [straight on & 30° off angle] Vs APDS/APFSDS

The average hull armor ressistance should work out to be 27-28cm Vs APDS/APFSDS.

 

What I did in SP-2 to get around this, was to rate the front turret T-64 armor @ 40 KE & 45 HEAT and the front hull @ 25 KE & 30 HEAT. It worked reasonably well! But given the fact that in the game for smaller russian tanks , 1/3 hits land on turret and 2/3 land on hull ....it might make more sence to reverse this so the front turret is 25 KE & 30 HEAT while the front hull is 40 KE & 45 HEAT

 

The following is a website that seems to have accumulated a fair bit of our 'studies' we have conducted hear and gives a easy to read overview of the best estimates of modern tank armors.

http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

 

 

 

 

[Edited by Paul Lakowski (27 Jun 2002).]

[Dan Weaver]

The Cassinga scenario was fun, but very easy owing to the complete incompetence of the SWAPO and Cuban troops and the (ahistorical) perfect drop made by the South African paras. The AT platoon made short work of the T-34s and a quick airmobile redeployment smashed the Cuban mech company. The scenario ended on turn 13 - they didn't even let me take the paras back across the river!

[Dan Weaver]

That advanced ERA is some kind of black magic - I've had Leclercs bounce multiple shots off it at 300 m!

[Paul Lakowski]

I wish some one would tell me how they modeled K-5 cause all the manuel mentions each point of ERA above 10 adds 1cm[point] to the KE armor.

 

In the old SP-2 I deleted all the ERA except a small amount [3-4 value] to simulate extreme cases and just added the rest to the armor directly by boosting the KE & HEAT values accordingly. As it is, K-5 is probably reusable and even if completely expended, it still represents a considerable spaced armor . To be clear the two 25mm weakened RHA plates @ 65° adds 5-8cm + 2.6d .

These won't change unless the elements are 'blown away' in battle.

 

add 8 + 5 = ~13cm Vs 2cm APFSDS

add 6 + 7.8 = ~14cm vs 3cm APFSDS

add 5 + 10 = ~ 15cm Vs 4cm APFSDS

 

HEAT should boost the protection by 12cm + 25% warhead reduction or....

add 20cm Vs small warhead [RPG-7/RPG-7V/LAW/AT-4]

add 25cm Vs Mediuim warhead [RPG-7RP/RPG-29/AT-5,8,11/HOT/TOW/Milan]

add 30cm Vs large warhead [HOT-2/TOW-2/Kornet]

add 40cm Vs heavy warhead [Hellfire/AT-16/Mavrick]

 

I recommend adding 30cm HEAT & 13cm KE [most modern APFSDS are in the 2cm diameter region] to the front of tanks. This is probably being generous since ERA profile coverage is only 60% at best . The ERA coverage on the side tank armor is suspect since most of this profile is not covered...I'd delete that all together and replace it with simple spaced armor of plus 20cm HEAT and plus 3cm KE resistance.

 

So if you instead use the above values with some small ERA points it should work better.

 

 

I think the SP ERA system is better suited to simulate 'Active defence systems'.

 

[Edited by Paul Lakowski (01 Jul 2002).]

[MrOuija]

As far as the 'blown away' aspect of ERA in MBT's context, this is how it was explained to me. Every time ERA is hit it subtracts 1 point from the ERA total. So if you have 14 points of ERA it's still pretty effective after multiple hits. It's possible, and I indeed suggested changing that subtracted number from -1 to negative ALL to represent all ERA being removed over a certain facing once hit, but they weren't having that.

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

Well dan im glad it wasnt just me. Thought those ruskies had developed star trek force fields

 

paul i know that K5 has some powerful anti ap properties, as well as anti heat, but this surely cant be right. Can it? One other thing, the c2 would have reactive armour on the front hull plate. can you think of an accurate(or otherwise) figure for the sp database?

 

Stu is it similar to the applique added to C-1, cause thats spaced plate on the glacis and ERA on the hull?

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

Yep its just the same. i have some pics of the uparmour kit fitted to c2 in kosovo, and it looks almost the same as that fitted to c1. (in fact apart from some mods, i think it IS the same kit, im sure i saw some desert sand on some). i dont think it has the spaced uparmour plate on the hull glacis, but ill double check. Side plate exactly the same as desert uparmour (Romor?) package.

 

Stu I think the side hull package is the same as on Warrior and its a steel ceramic spaced plate construction.Their where pics of the C-1 with applique and it was definately spaced plate on top...not sure about the hull applique it looks like ERA?

[Sardaukar]

New SP:MBT 1.01 patch has just been released, correcting few bugs...like Y2K campaign bug and country training bug. You'll find it on Wargamer website (took me some searching first )

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[rsetiawan]

Will there be complete chinese MBT too Type 98, and such....

oh and ANONA system ( i Assume your mod only contains operational unis)

[Sam]

This is in regards to the Leopard 2A5 and A6 armor levels.

 

Since the wedge applique armor on the Leo 2A5 is hollow, shouldn't it be modeled as the base armor (as in the 2A4) with the addition of say 12 or so advanced reactive armor?

 

My question really is, how many 120mm or 125mm APFSDS hits could that wedge armor take?

 

Giving it an advanced ERA value of 12 would let it take 2 hits?

 

I posted a url with pics of the new C2 Ariete applique armor in the AFV forum, and it seems MUCH more substantial than the 2A5's applique? I am not saying that the Leo's armor level isn't high, but I think it should be treated more like ERA since it probably can't sustain as many hits as the M1A2 and C2 Ariete probably can.

 

What are your opinions on this?

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Sam:

This is in regards to the Leopard 2A5 and A6 armor levels.

 

Since the wedge applique armor on the Leo 2A5 is hollow, shouldn't it be modeled as the base armor (as in the 2A4) with the addition of say 12 or so advanced reactive armor?

 

My question really is, how many 120mm or 125mm APFSDS hits could that wedge armor take?

 

Giving it an advanced ERA value of 12 would let it take 2 hits?

 

I posted a url with pics of the new C2 Ariete applique armor in the AFV forum, and it seems MUCH more substantial than the 2A5's applique? I am not saying that the Leo's armor level isn't high, but I think it should be treated more like ERA since it probably can't sustain as many hits as the M1A2 and C2 Ariete probably can.

 

What are your opinions on this?

 

Sam, the LEO-2 turret is reported to be increased 4 tons with this "wedge applique" covering the front turret @ sharp angle and side turret @ modest angle. I estimate the mass increase to be about 6-7cm @ angle which adds up to ~ 17cm LOS thickness through the front ....Since its a sandwich construction its very strong...more so than K-5.The additional benifit due to yaw effects could easly boost this to 22-30cm additional KE protection.

 

How much does the C-2 array weight?

[Burncycle360]

Love the game!

 

"The game can be a lot of fun, but did these guys forget to put turn limits on some of these scenarios? I'm playing as West Germany repulsing a massive Russian attack, I'm on turn 25 and the scenario is showing no signs of ending... I've pretty much managed to stop them cold, I still hold the majority of victory locations and I even managed a couple of limted counter-attacks. Problem is, two thirds of my remaining tanks are either immobilized, have lost their main guns, are out of ammo, or some combination of the above, and the game is showing clear signs of lasting forever"

 

I know what you mean. I've been up all night just finishing one game, and I set my campaign generator to 30! Holy crap, I might finish after 20 years!

 

It was me, vs. Iraq. It was ugly. It was brutal. The results were 68 casualties to 1,982. I had to destroy or route EVERY LAST ENEMY UNIT to win. That sucks. One scinario that long just isn't fun anymore, almost wanna have mercy on them.

 

My tactics?

 

Abrams backed with sheridans (abrams for anti armor, sheridan for anti infantry and some anti armor) go in front. Light vehicles to draw fire and scout out go even further past that.

 

I fly useing helo's rangers to the rear, dropping them on enemy artillery positions, takeing them out. They also serve as a force to cut off enemy retreat, or I can move them again rapidly to another location where they're needed.

 

FASCAM drops mines the entire length of the map (yes I bought a bunch, hehe) cutting off retreat.

 

.50 caliber sniper rifles EVERYWHERE. I love those things! (and they actually hit stuff. Except today, they started useing regular rounds against armor, and when they ran out, they wouldn't use the AP rounds against the infantry. Poo.)

 

My chinook helicopters with miniguns mop up After about 4 turns, their massive shoulder launched SAM force is exhausted, so my chinooks just park their happy asses right on top of an infantry unit, and no more unit!

 

Beautiful

 

My only problem is, I wish I had more support $$$

 

------------------

 

My takes:

1) I wish they could have C-130's with BLU-82's. (uber explosive! drawback is vulnerability. You may pay all that money to lose the super weapon)

 

2) I wish they had 20mm sniper rifles (like south african)

 

3) I wish I could design my own country (I found out I can, useing the mobhack. Problem is, I've got no idea how to use it)

 

Yes, I've had a few instances of "120mm cannon hits Truck, no effect" blah blah, but I just roll with the punches since it's pretty rare for me.

 

As for XP- I have winXP with GEForce2 card. A big no no for this game. I have to use my parents computer (Win 98, old card) and it works fine. My issues with XP: When I play the mouse is slow. Then it scrolls uber fast. Then it locks up after about 5 minutes in game, so I'm just like screw it and went to the other computer.

 

Peace!

 

 

[Edited by Burncycle360 (11 Jul 2002).]

[Sam]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

Sam, the LEO-2 turret is reported to be increased 4 tons with this "wedge applique" covering the front turret @ sharp angle and side turret @ modest angle. I estimate the mass increase to be about 6-7cm @ angle which adds up to ~ 17cm LOS thickness through the front ....Since its a sandwich construction its very strong...more so than K-5.The additional benifit due to yaw effects could easly boost this to 22-30cm additional KE protection.

 

How much does the C-2 array weight?

 

 

I don't know what it's weight is yet, as soon as I get more information I will forward it to you.

 

If you click on the "archives" button it has two additional pictures, the slabs are pretty thick. it also covers the front hull sides.

 

I guess what i don't quite understand is, and correct me if I am wrong. The Leo relies on the penetrator piercing the wedge applique, breaking the tip? how many hits like this can it sustain before it becomes ineffective?

 

After being struck three times will it still provide the same degree of protection?

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Sam:

I guess what i don't quite understand is, and correct me if I am wrong. The Leo relies on the penetrator piercing the wedge applique, breaking the tip? how many hits like this can it sustain before it becomes ineffective?

 

After being struck three times will it still provide the same degree of protection?

 

 

 

Sam if they all landed within the same area , yes the effectiveness could be reduced ...but how likely will it be that they will land in the same area in the same battle. Energetic appliques usually works on plate movement so as long as the energetic material does its job it should offer considerable protection.

 

Another thing, the idea is that as applique is damaged parts can be replaced between battles.

 

 

[Edited by Paul Lakowski (11 Jul 2002).]

[Burncycle360]

Could someone with experience in the MOBHACK make a few units? It would take me forever to figure it out

 

1) BLU-82 airstrike. (A bomb that effects 5 hexes out in all directions from the impact point. With enough to instant kill). Not sure how to make this work. Obviously I need a C-130 with the BLU-82 as a weapon- but not sure how to make the bomb itself work. It would be expensive (800?) and might get shot down so it's not the uber-weapon, but can be effective. I'm not sure weither one needs to use "napalm" or "cluster" munitions to simulate this effect. Napalm would be best but I dunno if it can cover 5+ hexes ya know? In any case, it would be pretty much 100% kill chance of anything in the impact zone.

 

2) 20mm anti material rifle

 

3) A "corrected" Predator UAV with 2 hellfires isntead of one

 

4) Make a LOCAAS (not simulated in game but supposed to be comeing out soon). The model could be based on the hellfire missile, with a little more range (cross the map capable, hard to shoot down) and can strike tanks or personnel. Can be used for a number of things. Artillery (they come off map and strike targets with accuracy) or even with airstrikes

 

 

I dunno, just a few suggestions I wish I had the knowhow to do it. I wanna create my own country with weapons from other countries (T-55 engima, T-60A3TTS, etc. etc.) but I have a long way to go before I can edit that well

[Sam]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

 

Sam if they all landed within the same area , yes the effectiveness could be reduced ...but how likely will it be that they will land in the same area in the same battle. Energetic appliques usually works on plate movement so as long as the energetic material does its job it should offer considerable protection.

 

Another thing, the idea is that as applique is damaged parts can be replaced between battles.

 

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Paul Lakowski (11 Jul 2002).]

 

Paul, I am not denying that it offers a great degree of protection. I guess I was wondering what it would take to actually rip away parts of the applique, or will it just look like swiss cheese and continue to do its job?

 

BTW, I just recieved a catalog from www.cheaperthandirt.com, and they had an M-735 penetrator in the catalog for $69. Thought you might be interested.

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Sam:

Paul, I am not denying that it offers a great degree of protection. I guess I was wondering what it would take to actually rip away parts of the applique, or will it just look like swiss cheese and continue to do its job?

 

BTW, I just recieved a catalog from www.cheaperthandirt.com,  and they had an M-735 penetrator in the catalog for $69. Thought you might be interested.

 

 

 

Thanks , I already have one co/John Ford...thanks John

[Sam]

I just discovered, last night, that there is a random chance to hit "a weak point on the turret" for a random? number of extra penetration points. It happened in a battle between a platoon of Ariete C-2 and a platoon of T-80UM2 in 2005. It happend about two or three times, the highest value was around 71 extra points. It's a pretty cool feature.

 

 

 

[Edited by Sam (16 Jul 2002).]

[Burncycle360]

Turret ring, or a peice of exposed armor after an ERA charge goes off. Vulernable places

 

Yeah I've seen it happen a few times, pretty neat until it happens to your guys

[Sam]

Regarding the armor protection levels, if they are going to incorporate advanced ERA and arena on the Russian tanks, I think they should have used the Paul's more realistic armor values for Western MBTs. I could understand using the old values in SP2 & 3 because K-5 wasn't modeled very well, but in SP:MBT it pretty much makes tanks invulnerable.

 

I plan on updating my oobs with Paul's figures, I did this for SP3 and it worked out quite well (changed both Eastern and Western MBTs) this made SP3 much more interesting. I think I will only change the Western tanks in this version.

 

[Edited by Sam (17 Jul 2002).]

[Sam]

Stuart, I will make them available when I complete the files.

 

I started testing with Italy. I made the following changes:

 

C1 Ariete - 73cm turret front; 60cm Hull front

- 120mm L44 with DM53 (unchanged from original obf)

 

C2 Ariete - 98cm turret front; 60cm hull front; 22 side hull

- 120mm L55 with DM53 (unchanged from original obf)

- no autoloader, until this is confirmed.

 

I only added 250mm for the C2 applique armor, until we have a solid figure. I personally think this is low, as the applique is very thick.

 

The C2 Ariete vs T-80UM2 were pretty much evenly matched, with the T-80UM2 coming out on top. most C2 kills were scored vs the HF or HS.

 

In the C1 Ariete vs T-80UM1 battle, the C1 came out on top. This was due to the 84cm DM53 penetration and alot of HS and top hits.

 

both battles were two, four tank platoons per side.

 

 

 

 

[Edited by Sam (18 Jul 2002).]

[Paul Lakowski]

When you guys want to up date I have some improved values to update your lists.

 

In the meantime I have a question.When a shot comes not from the front hex, but to the one either side of the front hex...how is armor value calculated [iE horizontal 30o off]?

 

When I read the game manuel it seemed to say that heavy ERA was the same as adding 1 point to the KE armor for each ERA point....so does that mean that 14 is adding 14 points or 4 points?

 

If ERA covered tanks are invulnerable , then something is clearly wrong with their model.