Steel Panthers MBT

[Sam]

Paul,

Have you ever done a penetration estimate for the OTO-Breda 76mm L62 AA gun on the AMRAD 76? It seems to be waaaay under rated in the Italian obf.

 

Seems like a 76mm flak gun firing 120 rounds a minute should do more than 5 HE kill.

 

I thought someone reported, on this forum, that it was able to take out a T-72 (probably early model).

 

I believe the South African 76mm GT-4 gun on the Rooikat is a license built copy.

 

Can anyone here read Polish?

http://www.pancerni.to2.pl/otomatic.html

 

The text says something about APFSDS - 1617 m/s and PFF 910 m/s.

 

Right now I gave it a tentative 33cm APFSDS value.

 

A rough estimate would be fine.

 

Thanks.

 

[Edited by Sam (28 Jul 2002).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Sam:

Paul,

Have you ever done a penetration estimate for the OTO-Breda 76mm L62 AA gun on the AMRAD 76? It seems to be waaaay under rated in the Italian obf.

 

Seems like a 76mm flak gun firing 120 rounds a minute should do more than 5 HE kill.

Right now I gave it a tentative 33cm APFSDS value.

 

A rough estimate would be fine.

 

Thanks.

 

).]

 

Sam I only have data from JANES on the APFSDS from the American M32 , 76mm gun .THe APFSDS has a MV of 1400m/s and an L/d of 15:1 , this results in a estimated penetration at muzzle of 31cm. I would expect a more modern gun to do better, but we need more details to get some specifics.

[Matt Urbanski]

Originally posted by Sam:

Can anyone here read Polish?

http://www.pancerni.to2.pl/otomatic.html

 

The text says something about APFSDS - 1617 m/s and PFF 910 m/s.

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Sam (28 Jul 2002).]

 

According to the text, the listed values are muzzle velocities.

[Burncycle360]

"Isn't TOW 152mm diameter? Missiles before TOW 2 had a 5" warhead, but I thought the missile itself was always 6" across."

 

Hmm, I always thought it was smaller... I may be mistaken.

 

if I am, then screw it, just have it outside in a box launcher like the bradley, lol

[Sam]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

Sam I only have data from JANES on the APFSDS from the American M32 , 76mm gun .THe APFSDS has a MV of 1400m/s and an L/d of 15:1 , this results in a estimated penetration at muzzle of 31cm. I would expect a more modern gun to do better, but we need more details to get some specifics.

 

Paul, Thanks, I used your M32 estimate as a guide, but I think you are right, the 76/62 could be increased a little.

 

Doesn't the 12.7mm SLAP penetrate 19mm @ 1500 meters? The M2HB should be able to take out BTR's at 1,000 meters easily, wouldn't you agree?

 

I don't know why they would only give it a 2 HE penetration value at the muzzle.

 

Isn't there an APEI round that does 10mm @ 1,000 meters? This round would also have a higher HE kill value due to the incendiary capability. Not sure how to model that right now.

 

The 12.7mm ammo is important to the Italian oob, because they didn't have a cannon armed IFV until the VCC-80 Dardo.

 

 

 

[Edited by Sam (29 Jul 2002).]

[MrOuija]

I was hoping someone could enlighten me on a few aspects of the armor values found on Joe Collins site.

 

Firstly,this line...

 

"Protection levels for US MBT's are larger than usually quoted because the US standard is for a 30 degrees oblique shot. To return to US Army style measurements divide all figures on chart by 1.15"

 

Can someone explain the US standard to me in a bit more detail ?

 

Also, it says that this standard is applied to US MBT's but it seems to also be applied to other various NATO and non-NATO tanks. The Leo 2A5 for instance shows a turret value of 850-930.

I'll take the mean number and come up with 890. In SP:MBT's terms this would be 89cm on the front turret, which would be superior to the front turret protection of both the M1A1HC and M1A2(after their numbers were divided). This doesn't seem quite right.

 

The Challenger 2 comes up similiarly as does the Leclerc, T-90 and others. So what gives, should the US standard be applied to all modern tanks, or do all of the tanks I mentioned outstrip HC and A2 armor protection ?

 

On another note. What do you think of combining glacis and lower hull values, dividing them by 2 and using that average number as the front hull number for SP:MBT ? I notice that they usually take the best number from either and use that, which seems to give unrealistically heavy protection for many Russian tanks in particular, which have drastically different armor values over their frontal aspect.

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Sam:

Paul, Thanks, I used your M32 estimate as a guide, but I think you are right, the 76/62 could be increased a little.

 

Doesn't the 12.7mm SLAP penetrate 19mm @ 1500 meters? The M2HB should be able to take out BTR's at 1,000 meters easily, wouldn't you agree?

 

I don't know why they would only give it a 2 HE penetration value at the muzzle.

 

Isn't there an APEI round that does 10mm @ 1,000 meters? This round would also have a higher HE kill value due to the incendiary capability. Not sure how to model that right now.

 

The 12.7mm ammo is important to the Italian oob, because they didn't have a cannon armed IFV until the VCC-80 Dardo.

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Sam (29 Jul 2002).]

 

 

Yes I agree, however, I always thought 2HE is the same as AP value of 2?

Generally SLAP are not issued and only API are used...in any case the 12.7mm API can do 40mm @ muzzle so that should be a value of 4HE?

 

The reason for HE values on MG etc is because only one feed system is used so normal practice is to include a AP shot every half dozen HE rounds.

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by MrOuija:

I was hoping someone could enlighten me on a few aspects of the armor values found on Joe Collins site.

 

Firstly,this line...

 

"Protection levels for US MBT's are larger than usually quoted because the US standard is for a 30 degrees oblique shot. To return to US Army style measurements divide all figures on chart by 1.15"

 

Can someone explain the US standard to me in a bit more detail ?

.

 

My understanding is that the USArmy as a matter of practice rates the armor of a tank turret from a 30° horizontal angle off as opposed to a hit from straight on.So when the armor of the M-1A1HA is rated at 600mm what that implies is that from straight on its more . Looking at the Top view LOS from scale drawings this will lead to a ~10% increase in LOS and therefor resistance. So M-1A1HA should be 660mm.

.

Also, it says that this standard is applied to US MBT's but it seems to also be applied to other various NATO and non-NATO tanks. The Leo 2A5 for instance shows a turret value of 850-930.

I'll take the mean number and come up with 890. In SP:MBT's terms this would be 89cm on the front turret, which would be superior to the front turret protection of both the M1A1HC and M1A2(after their numbers were divided). This doesn't seem quite right.

 

Well yes and no, LEO-2A4 armor was rated at 700mm KE & 1000mm HEAT by several sources and the A5 version includes an very heavy applique armor, that boosts the front turret protection to 1000-1100mm KE resistance.

 

The Challenger 2 comes up similiarly as does the Leclerc, T-90 and others. So what gives, should the US standard be applied to all modern tanks, or do all of the tanks I mentioned outstrip HC and A2 armor protection ?

.

 

Yes this is the point. We have heard reference to US test where by Hellfire missiles and M-829 APFSDS [A1 I believe] were test fired at M-1A1HA armor in late 80s and found to penetrate the armor. This then lead to an armor upgrade that brought the M-1A1HC & A2 to 800mm KE resistance ...which should be about 880mm KE from straight on.

 

The problem is that the geometry of the front turret needs to be examined on a case by case basis. Look at LEO-1 front turret. The turret armor is 60mm but is very sharply sloped from straight on. It looks like the horizontal angle is 65-75°, while the vertical angle is ~ 30-40°. The average compounded angle should work out to ~ 74°. Which makes the LOS thickness through the front turret ~ 210mm, while the effective resistance is ~ 180-190mm KE resistance.

 

1/2 the front turret target is the mantle, which offers slightly more protection , but with no horizontal angle.I estiamte this is ~ 23cm Vs APFSDS.

 

Now if this turret was struck @ 30 horizontal angle the effective LOS is reduced to ~ 100mm on a near side hit while the mantle would be increased by 1.145 times [30° horizontal angle].So either a round has to penetrate 100mm or 260mm depending on where you hit.

 

 

This is why I was asking about the way in which shells strike a target from other than straight on! If the computer treats these targets as a box then all such hits on the front turret would be up by 1.145 while side hits should be the the side armor value doubled [60° angle].

On another note. What do you think of combining glacis and lower hull values, dividing them by 2 and using that average number as the front hull number for SP:MBT ? I notice that they usually take the best number from either and use that, which seems to give unrealistically heavy protection for many Russian tanks in particular, which have drastically different armor values over their frontal aspect.

[Paul Lakowski]

OK here are some game armor values

 

All rear hull values are the outer plate...penetration of the outer plate should only result in mobility kill, while inner plate results Kill ...So a kill in the rear hull should require ~ 14 KE & 40 HEAT.

 

KEY

F-S-R = Front -Side- Rear

Armor Values are KE/HEAT

 

Chieftain [1960s to 1985] [APDS = 40cm @ muzzle? & 54cm @ muzzle in late 70s]

Turret F-S-R =36/40- 22/28 - 12/28

Hull F-S-R =35/36 - 9/31 - 4/4

 

"Still Brew" Chieftain [>1985] [APFSDS = 54cm @ muzzle ]

Turret F-S-R =57/73- 26/35 - 12/28

Hull F-S-R =38/44 - 11/35 - 4/4

 

Challenger-1 [1984-1990][APFSDS = 54cm @ muzzle]

Turret F-S-R =62/102- 25/46 - 20/42

Hull F-S-R =52/98- 11/35 - 10/20

 

M-60A1; [with APDS =30 @ muzzle & 40 @ muzzle late 70s]

Turret F-S-R =23/30- 10/15 - 6/20

Hull F-S-R =22/24 - 6/6 - 4/4

 

M-60A1 & ERA [remove Game ERA values][APFSDS=40 @ muzzle late 70s & 50 @ muzzle in the mid 80s]

Turret F-S-R =29/50- 16/25 - 6/20

Hull F-S-R =25/37 - 6/6 - 4/4

 

LEOPARD -1; 1968-1975 [with APDS= 30 @ muzzle]

Turret F-S-R =20/28- 7/7 - 7/7

Hull F-S-R =13/13 - 10/30- 4/4

 

LEOPARD -1A3/4; 1970[with APDS =30 @ muzzle & APFSDS 40 @ muzzle late 70s]

Turret F-S-R =35/45- 9/20 - 9/20

Hull F-S-R =13/13 - 10/30- 4/4

 

LEOPARD -1A1A1; 1975-1985 [APFSDS =40 @ muzzle late 70s & 50 @ muzzle in early 80s]

Turret F-S-R =41/51- 13/23 - 13/30

Hull F-S-R =13/13 - 10/25- 4/4

 

LEOPARD -1A5; 1985 on [APFSDS =50 @ muzzle & 58 @ muzzle late 80s]

Turret F-S-R =46/58- 15/23 - 15/30

Hull F-S-R =13/13 - 10/25- 4/4

 

AMX-30 [60s & 70s] No KE ammo

Turret F-S-R =24/29- 6/20- 8/20

Hull F-S-R =18/20 - 4/4- 3/3

 

AMX-30B2 [1981-82][ APFSDS =43 @ muzzle& 54 @ muzzle late 80s]

Turret F-S-R =28/30- 6/20- 8/20

Hull F-S-R =18/20 - 7/25- 3/3

 

 

T-64A/T-72 1967-1975 [APFSDS =34 @ muzzle]

[Average]

Turret F-S-R =28/34- 14/17 - 6/19

Hull F-S-R =27/39- 7/11- 4/4

[High- Low]

Turret F-S-R =36/47- 16/21 - 6/19

Hull F-S-R =20/22 - 6/6 - 4/4

 

Let me explain here, the armor on Russian tanks is divided into roughly half based on high armor and low armor.So the upper front turret and area around the gun are ~ 20cm LOS thickness while the Lower front hull is also ~ 20cm LOS.The other half of the turret and glacis is very thick 40-60cm in LOS thickness.

 

In the "average" model these are averaged out based on hull and turret.In the "High Low" model they are seperated into the average of the high end and the average of the low end values. This way the strenghts and weakness of the armor are present.

 

I always use "High/Low", so 105mm APDS can still penetrate @ 2-3km...if the shell hits the weak half, while M-735 can be still be stopped @ 1km , if the heavy half is hit.

 

T-72 g/m [export model][APFSDS =34 @ muzzle]

[Average]

Turret F-S-R =26/30- 15/17 - 6/19

Hull F-S-R = 24/32- 7/11- 4/4

[High- Low]

Turret F-S-R =34/41- 15/21 - 6/19

Hull F-S-R = 19/20 - 6/6 - 4/4

 

 

T-72M-1/M-84 [1979 to ODS][APFSDS =42 @ muzzle ]

[Average]

Turret F-S-R =27/34- 15/20 - 8/21

Hull F-S-R = 34/40- 9/22- 4/4

[High- Low]

Turret F-S-R =40/49- 16/22 - 8/21

Hull F-S-R = 24/28 - 8/25- 4/4

 

 

T-72A & T-64B [1975-1985][APFSDS =54 @ muzzle]

[Average]

Turret F-S-R =30/45- 15/20 - 8/21

Hull F-S-R = 35/41- 9/22- 4/4

[High- Low]

Turret F-S-R =40/56- 17/26 - 8/21

Hull F-S-R = 24/33 - 8/25- 4/4

 

 

T-72A & M-84A [Late 80s?][APFSDS =62 @ muzzle]

[Average]

Turret F-S-R =35/48- 15/20 - 10/23

Hull F-S-R = 36/43- 9/22- 4/4

[High- Low]

Turret F-S-R =46/58- 17/26 - 10/23

Hull F-S-R = 28/38 - 8/25- 4/4

 

 

T-64BV & T-72AV with ERA [remove Game ERA values][Mid 80s]

[Average] [APFSDS =62 @ muzzle]

Turret F-S-R =39/94- 17/33 - 10/23

Hull F-S-R = 36/61- 11/30- 4/4

[High Low]

Turret F-S-R =46/97- 22/48 - 10/23

Hull F-S-R = 32/54 - 8/25- 4/4

 

As a player your going to have to decide if the average values or High-Low approach is the best.

 

 

Ok thats what I've finished revising for now!

 

 

 

 

[Edited by Paul Lakowski (03 Aug 2002).]

[MrOuija]

For those of you that dislike MBT's armor values try my armormod. It is a complete revamp of every OOB based on information gathered here and more up-to-date info than MBT's designers apparently had access to. It is located on the yahoo MBT site, your feedback is appreciated.

[alpha]

thanx for this one.....

[Tomi Sarvanko]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

OK here are some game armor values

 

T-72M-1/M-84 [1979 to ODS][APFSDS =42 @ muzzle ]

[High- Low]

Turret F-S-R =40/49-  16/22 - 8/21

Hull F-S-R = 24/28 - 8/25- 4/4

 

Hello Paul!

Thank you about the values. Are you goint to input more values? Does somebody put them on file? Please inform when ready.

 

I played SP2 a lot and tried to make armor values more realistic when the game came. (M1A1:s *side* armor was better that T72M1:s front..) I was sending email to game developers and they said that its because of "play balance" issues..

I stopped playing after I relized that this turn based action makes holes in realism and its hard work and time consuming to fight and move every squad and vehicle in the battlefield... I could try this again if Paul ll get the armor values right.

 

I can confirm those T72M1 values. I have seen T72M1 been shot by many kind of weapons. It can take BM15 (pen 42?) from the front and survive. Weaker parts were penetrated. (Next to the gun, turret ring and drivers weak spot). I was suprised to see that the armor is so good. It was a though tank when it came...

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Tomi Sarvanko:

Hello Paul!

Thank you about the values. Are you goint to input more values? Does somebody put them on file? Please inform when ready.

 

I played SP2 a lot and tried to make armor values more realistic when the game came. (M1A1:s *side* armor was better that T72M1:s front..) I was sending email to game developers and they said that its because of "play balance" issues..

I stopped playing after I relized that this turn based action makes holes in realism and its hard work and time consuming to fight and move every squad and vehicle in the battlefield... I could try this again if Paul ll get the armor values right.

 

I can confirm those T72M1 values. I have seen T72M1 been shot by many kind of weapons. It can take BM15 (pen 42?) from the front and survive. Weaker parts were penetrated. (Next to the gun, turret ring and drivers weak spot). I was suprised to see that the armor is so good. It was a though tank when it came...

 

 

 

Hey Thanks Tomi, coming from a T-72 tanker like your self thats a compliment I like

 

I'm in the process of updating my files and they will all soon be on a website [Axl] I'll post the link when its availible.

 

Over the weekend I'll post some more.

[MrOuija]

Just a heads up. Version 2 of the armormod has been posted on the yahoo site.

[Sam]

Is it just me, or is the Stryker really that bad?

 

I thought it was supposed to be protected vs RPG hits?

 

The icons are also terrible. I changed my US obf to use the Piranha 8x8 icons, and modified the Stryker MGS to use the Piranha hull with the AMX-13 turret. It looks pretty good.

 

Paul, did you ever do an armor estimate for the Stryker?

[tankkid85]

I agree about some of the Icons, though the IDF ones arent that bad. Tell me, you said you changed turret? How do you change these seperately?

 

Steve

[Sam]

Originally posted by tankkid85:

I agree about some of the Icons, though the IDF ones arent that bad. Tell me, you said you changed turret? How do you change these seperately?

 

Steve

 

You need to use SHPEdit to insert new icons into the icon files.

 

I also use PaintShop Pro to edit the icons.

 

If you want the new Strker MGS icon, I can send you the files, and a list of the icon numbers I used for the other variants.

 

There are seperate Piranha 8x8 APC (no turret), ATGM, and Mortar carrier icons in the game already, in addition to the MGS icon I created.

 

I believe they were in the Spanish and Swiss obf.

 

 

 

[Edited by Sam (26 Aug 2002).]

[MrOuija]

Anyone have the old Spobedit for SP2 ? I was thinking about creating a Canada and Aussie obat for SPMBT, and I was going to use the old SP2 mobs as a source, and just transfer them. Unfortunately when SP2 came out I deleted Spobedit and now it seems to no longer be available without a $20 registration..

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by MrOuija:

Anyone have the old Spobedit for SP2 ? I was thinking about creating a Canada and Aussie obat for SPMBT, and I was going to use the old SP2 mobs as a source, and just transfer them. Unfortunately when SP2 came out I deleted Spobedit and now it seems to no longer be available without a $20 registration..

 

I have and will send it along tonite...but it has all my old mods in it...so not sure if they will show up on your computer?

[MrOuija]

I have and will send it along tonite...but it has all my old mods in it...so not sure if they will show up on your computer?

 

Thanks ! Has mods on it ? I thought it should just be a fairly small .exe that you can copy and send ? I haven't checked it in awhile so I don't really remember.

[Penta]

Stupid question time: Do I need SP2 for this to work?

[MrOuija]

Penta- No, completely different game.

[Paul Lakowski]

Read this in another forum, can any of you SPCAMO people explain how this is supposed to work?

 

In SP2, the formula of penetration was ' dixit the excellent French magazine Cyberstratège)

Penetration = AP_Penx [1+2x(Range maximum-distance of the shot)/Range maximum]x 1+ random[100]/100)/6 + warhead

 

How is "AP_Penx" expressed?Where does it come from?

 

"1+2x(Range maximum-distance of the shot)/Range maximum]"

 

Since 'Range' etc is a decimal between 0.0 and 1, that makes the value 1+ 0-2 or a value between 1 & 3.

 

"x 1+ random[100]/100)/6 + warhead"

 

I assume this is 1 + decimal [again 0.01 to 1.0], so the value is 1.01/6 to 2/6 or 0.168 to 0.333....'plus warhead number' .

 

or should that be 1.0 to 1.1666 'plus warhead number' ?

 

can any one clear this up?

[Al]

Know this has been asked before (probably) but what is the best SPIII (if any) upgrade available? Thanks.

[Guest MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by Al:

Know this has been asked before (probably) but what is the best SPIII (if any) upgrade available?  Thanks.

Actually the best addon I found was an editor i picked up last year. Allows you to update the forces and created different units, Like company teams.