Are WP Tanks cannon way too accurate and deadly in long range engagement?

[Tcao]

As mentioned in the discord channel, I am in two PBEM game, I played as WP in both games.
In first game my T80 Co. (9x T80B + 4 T80B[m]) move deliberate. Made contact with a possible dug in Nato M1A1 platoon sit on a hill + forest hex at 3000m. M1 opened fire first, knocked out 1 T80B, then T80B co. return one salvo, knocked out all four M1A1. Unfortunately I am waiting for my opponent to work on current turn, so I don't have any screenshot at this moment.

Here is the second game. This is scenario "Regular forward". My low combat readiness T-80 co. was moving hasty through open. An M1A1 plt opened fire from hex 1410 (hill + forest, defense rating 80% , concealment 87%) . Knocked out 3 T-80s. (2-T80B and 1 T80B[m])

I need to double check the full combat record but I remember my Mi-24 retaliated, damaged one M1A1, forcing the M1 to relocate.

then the next min my T-80 co arrived in a new hex. And from there they fired one salvo.

Sov ATGM 1 1.jpg (62.87 KiB) Viewed 2006 times

as you can see from the pic, the low combat readiness (43%) T-80 Co. destroyed two M1A1 at 4000m!

Sov ATGM 2 1.jpg (359.67 KiB) Viewed 2006 times

This one with LOS shows from 2004 there is only 12 spotting towards hex 1410

sov atgm 3 1.jpg (40.14 KiB) Viewed 2006 times

Hex 1410's rating.

[Comcikda]

For me on the contrary, WP's tank is too fragile.
Note that it took them 12 rounds to destroy two M1A1. If you were using an M1A1, I'm sure those 12 rounds would have destroyed a lot more T80s.

[sfbaytf]

T-80s had smoothbore cannons and carried ATGMs that have a long reach. What they actually had during the time frame depicted and how effective and specs idk atm. I’m going to guess that’s what killed your M1s.

Curious as to whether the 2 M1s were completely destroyed or just fallen out.

Using non ATGM ammo out of the main gun would be questionable imo for kills at 4000 meters.

[Tcao]

T-80s had smoothbore cannons and carried ATGMs that have a long reach. What they actually had during the time frame depicted and how effective and specs idk atm. I’m going to guess that’s what killed your M1s.

Curious as to whether the 2 M1s were completely destroyed or just fallen out.

Using non ATGM ammo out of the main gun would be questionable imo for kills at 4000 meters.

It's my T-80s kills my opponents M1s . That's a huge difference

Yes, when I first send this out in discord, I thought it is the work of AT-11/9M119. Here I avoid to mention the gun launch ATGM because based on the combat log, it just mentioned the 12 tank cannon participated the engagement.

Like mentioned, in the first wave of M1A1 fire, I lost 2 T-80B and 1 T-80B[m]. If the 4000+m kills can be credited by the ATGM, then that means the remaining 3 T-80[m] achieved a 66% kill rate with an opponent in good cover position.

[Tcao]

For me on the contrary, WP's tank is too fragile.
Note that it took them 12 rounds to destroy two M1A1. If you were using an M1A1, I'm sure those 12 rounds would have destroyed a lot more T80s.

it's an engagement at 4176 meter. And don't forget my opponent is in an excellent cover position while T-80s are in low combat readiness, 43%

[Tcao]

Also, here is another question. Why it was 12 guns?
This is a tank co with 13 tanks (9 T-80B + 4 T-80B[m])
I lost 3 tanks when M1A1 opened up. it was 1 destroyed + 2 fallen out. So on the paper I have 10 tanks left.

Does the two fallen out tanks also participated in the engagement???

[sfbaytf]

It’s early in the morning, no coffee so I missed the part that it was you doing the killing.

I’m a bit skeptical of ATGMs making kills at or near max range to begin with even though they don’t rely on velocity to make kills, but I’ll let those who actually used them to give input. If Wikipedia or some other source says the range of an ATGM is 4000 meters I generally assume the actual effective range in real life is less. 4000 meters is a long way to see something and optics comes in to play.

As mentioned in other posts it seems the Soviets/WP are OP, but if they were modeled on what we saw in 1991 Gulf War I suspect you might have a game that ended up with lots of dead Soviet/WP units and few NATO losses and a game that would become boring quickly.

I’m sure someone is working on a mod to reflect what they/is believed to be the actual state of affairs back then and players will have to install and see what the results are.

If we based what we’ve seen and already know any T-72 hit has a very high probability of instant destruction and death of all crew based on the way the ammo is stored. Russian IFVs too had serious flaws based on design philosophy. If too realistic it might be difficult to find anyone who would want to play as Russians if you’re constantly getting killed at distance while not being able to respond as what could be argued as the case in real life?

[cobexlaw888]

AT11 missiles cannot be fired on the move because they require guidance, they are not suited for offensive. Soviet fire control also are very week when fire on the move is required.

[Comcikda]

It’s early in the morning, no coffee so I missed the part that it was you doing the killing.

I’m a bit skeptical of ATGMs making kills at or near max range to begin with even though they don’t rely on velocity to make kills, but I’ll let those who actually used them to give input. If Wikipedia or some other source says the range of an ATGM is 4000 meters I generally assume the actual effective range in real life is less. 4000 meters is a long way to see something and optics comes in to play.

As mentioned in other posts it seems the Soviets/WP are OP, but if they were modeled on what we saw in 1991 Gulf War I suspect you might have a game that ended up with lots of dead Soviet/WP units and few NATO losses and a game that would become boring quickly.

I’m sure someone is working on a mod to reflect what they/is believed to be the actual state of affairs back then and players will have to install and see what the results are.

If we based what we’ve seen and already know any T-72 hit has a very high probability of instant destruction and death of all crew based on the way the ammo is stored. Russian IFVs too had serious flaws based on design philosophy. If too realistic it might be difficult to find anyone who would want to play as Russians if you’re constantly getting killed at distance while not being able to respond as what could be argued as the case in real life?

The T72 in the 1991 Gulf War was so far removed from the M1A1 that its class rivals would have been the Leopard 1, Challenger 1 and M60 series. And for the Warsaw Pact, the T72 was produced with the ability to effectively defend against the dominant 105mm cannon of the time, so there was no problem storing ammunition that way.
The real rival of M1A1 is the improved model of T80 series. If you just want to shoot some random tanks, you can use the editor to replace all of WP's tanks with T55s

[TarkError]

What gives me the most joy in FPC is having old rusty BMP-1s and T-62s under your command take on M1A1s and Bradleys--and win!!!!!

[sfbaytf]

Comcikda-you’re correct. I forgot the early models of the M1 had the old 105mm cannons.

[CapnDarwin]

Original M1's had the 105 and armor on par or inferior to T-80s, some T-72s, and some T-64s.

[sfbaytf]

The original M1 had the older 105mm cannon which would have had problem against current Russian tanks at the time. I’ve seen some who argued that it wasn’t as dire as advertised but the Army wanted to install the German made 120mm cannon and there was a “not invented here/made” mentality that had to be overcome. I do recall that being mention when it came to AA systems as many wanted the US to field the Gepard system. We stuck with the York system which by accounts was a disaster.

In any case moving to the 120mm was a correct one.

What about protection? I do believe the original M1s were protected by the newly developed chobbam armor that was reputed to be revolutionary. It always was still is I believe secret. I know they’ve improved it over the years by adding depleted uranium.Still were the originals less well protected than the contemporary Russian tanks?

While some say the way ammo storage on Russian tanks would not have been a problem it was then said, it could be. No tank can be well protected everywhere. A hit from the side or rear even from a 105 is probably going to penetrate and that ammo storage is going to be a problem. The M1 stores ammo behind blast doors that vent explosions upward and away from the crew.

While on paper the Russian tanks could be considered superior in many ways or on par with an early M1 I’m still skeptical of the production and quality control in Communist Russia. Alcoholism and general malaise was very prevalent at the time as was corruption.

All in all though I’m not unhappy with FPSS. The game isn’t going to try to factor in things like corruption.

At that time there was huge skepticism regarding the US military and the US arms capability. It was the still a post Viet-Nam period and the US military and arms of the 80s was still untested. Just about every US weapon system came under criticism in one form or another and the Russian military and equipment was portrayed in a much different light and oftentimes vastly superior to the West.

[Tcao]

Thanks for the input guys. But I think we are a little OT now. We are not here to discuss which side has bigger guns.
I need you guys and Dev team's opinion. I want to know this deadly soviets tank long range fire is work as design or probably has some bug in it.

Now I have received the return file from another game, here is some screenshot for this engagement:

In first game my T80 Co. (9x T80B + 4 T80B[m]) move deliberate. Made contact with a possible dug in Nato M1A1 platoon sit on a hill + forest hex at 3000m. M1 opened fire first, knocked out 1 T80B, then T80B co. return one salvo, knocked out all four M1A1. Unfortunately I am waiting for my opponent to work on current turn, so I don't have any screenshot at this moment.

O 3.jpg (85.76 KiB) Viewed 1283 times

4 M1A1 kills at 3000m, two engagement in the same minute. I talked to my opponent, he confirmed that M1 plt was dug in

O 4.jpg (592.71 KiB) Viewed 1283 times

This is the view from Hex 0913 (open terrain, where my T80 co. opened fire) to Hex 0518 (This is where the M1 Plt dug in, hill + Forest hex)

O 5.jpg (13.98 KiB) Viewed 1283 times

hex 0518's detail

[Tcao]

Also, at first I thought this deadly fire should be credit to GLATGM, AT-11/9M119.

But look at the ammo report, it is not the case. T-80 Co. didn't use GLATGM, but SABOT on the target.

O 6.jpg (88.92 KiB) Viewed 1280 times

O 1.jpg (85.56 KiB) Viewed 1280 times

[sfbaytf]

Were the M1A1s in question ones with HA armor? I did a search on this and came up with something interesting, but don't know if relevant.

[Tcao]

Were the M1A1s in question ones with HA armor? I did a search on this and came up with something interesting, but don't know if relevant.

No, just regular M1A1.

if it is HA, then it will be marked as M1A1(HA)