T-80 vs M1A1

[William Betson]

I have played numerous scenarios and have a pretty good understanding of the game. I think that it is excellent, but would like some clarification on the way tank engagement outcomes are obtained. The reason for my question is that the T-80 seems to outclass the M1A1. I have repeatedly seen T-80 companies destroy M1A1 platoons with little to no loss at about 3000m range. I recognize that it is 10-13 tanks firing at 4, and that some T-80s are equipped with ATGMs. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that an M1A1 has an excellent chance of hitting a T-80 at 3000m with its first round. I know this from personal experience.
I carefully looked at the data in the game. The M1A1 has a better AP & HEAT strength, and has much better "armor effectiveness (I am not sure that that means). The game gives the T-80 much thicker armor in the hull and on the sides. I wonder how those "protection" numbers are affected by the "armor effectiveness." Does the advanced armor "effectiveness" overcome the "thinner" armor? I would add that many M1A1 battalions in 1989 were equipped with M1A1 "heavy Armor" tanks. These were advertised to be significantly better than the original armor on the M1. At any rate, with the very disappointing performance of the T-80 in Ukraine, I wonder why the T-80 seems to be better protected than the M1A1. (An addition..... US depleted uranium APFSDS rounds are extremely effective....does the game consider them.)
But the biggest issue that I have is with the games simulation of fire control systems. How does the game plot probability of hit over range? Do the far better fire control/computer assisted aiming systems in NATO tanks give them any advantages over range? If not, they should. I would be interested to know how probability of hit is calculated. If the pH of both NATO and Warsaw Pact tank guns degrade over range at the same rate, then the better firing systems are not being calculated in.
If all this has been considered, fine. It is still an excellent simulation. But it is certainly true that US Armor officers like me will be frustrated to see M1A1s underperform.

[CapnDarwin]

We do take into account the ranging and fire control of the platforms, which differ for both, as well as national tech factors from the first tab of the data sheets. This also means the effects on accuracy over range are also different and much better for the NATO systems. One influencing factor may be the units' training, readiness, and morale in the fight, as these soft factors affect both spotting and firing. The M1A1 should have much better HEAT resistance across all aspects and close to parity with the T-80 in AP (depending on the T-80 type). The game has a separate platform for the M1A1(HA) version, which offers much higher kinetic protection thanks to the added DU plates. WE use firing curves based on actual gun data to set the shape of the curves for accuracy over range, and we adjust the Ph based on fire control and other factors.

Another part of the equation is the ratings of the Soviet kit, based on estimates of what they had in the 80s. We do not take any modern encounters into play as they are not comparable to the height of the Cold War. As we find or obtain better data from the 80s, we update the data values, and players are free to mod things as they see fit and create their own scenarios with altered kits.

[GiveWarAchance]

I lose M1A1s very fast in these games. But most probably that is due to my poor use of them. Usually ATGMs from ground and air brew them up quickly. I read Abrams have superior Chobham armor over T-80s which are lighter and designed for greater mobility but they have reactive armor which helps. That is my very non-expert impression from reading reports.

[Tazak]

Its also worth checking if they are fallen or destroyed

Even with the best armour around, optics, gun barrel, tracks and other external facing components can be damaged which would result in taking the tank/AFV out of action, this is represented by a 'fallen' status rather than a 'destroyed' tank

[22sec]

The only difference I see in the database between the M1A1 and the T-80 is the M1A1 has TISC, both share the LFCS trait. The T-80BV has a higher PF value. Both main guns' ammo also share the exact same maximum and effective range.

[WildCatNL]

The only difference I see in the database between the M1A1 and the T-80 is the M1A1 has TISC, both share the LFCS trait. The T-80BV has a higher PF value. Both main guns' ammo also share the exact same maximum and effective range.

The database also has the M1Ax series as a larger tank (size 5) than the T-80 series (size 4), reflecting the T-80's smaller profile and favoring the T-80 by making it harder to spot and hit, especially at long range.

[GiveWarAchance]

The only difference I see in the database between the M1A1 and the T-80 is the M1A1 has TISC, both share the LFCS trait. The T-80BV has a higher PF value. Both main guns' ammo also share the exact same maximum and effective range.

The database also has the M1Ax series as a larger tank (size 5) than the T-80 series (size 4), reflecting the T-80's smaller profile and favoring the T-80 by making it harder to spot and hit, especially at long range.

oh yes it is smaller and lower which goes along with the greater mobility. I have some bias about the 72,80,90 tanks from seeing in the documentaries the rusting hulks in Ukraine lined up next to roads, but I know you are not factoring that in considering the deadly drones and newer ATGMs used by Ukraine much unlike in the Cold War era where vehicles were the main units. And I think Ukraine is mostly open flat terrain unlike in the Germany region with wooded hills helping vehicles survive.

[William Betson]

I have played a few more scenarios and it is quite clear that the T-80 dramatically outclasses the M1A1 in this simulation. That is a shame, as it is pretty good in portraying other aspects of what the fighting would have been like in the late 1980s/early 90s.
I would add one more thing. The level of training of Soviet tank crews during that period was reportedly abysmal. Gunnery practice was almost entirely on crude mockups. Each crew would fire one main gun round per year from a static set up. US crews had to qualify twice per year on excellent facilities in Germany. The course included stationary, moving, and multiple targets. One or two of the ten engagements were fired on the move. 40% of the qualification was at night. Engagements were timed so that crews were under pressure to fire quickly. The qualification requirements were designed by the US Army Armor School, so all tanks in the US Army trained to the same demanding standard. While visiting the range where my battalion's tanks were qualifying, the impressed French Army Chief of Staff told me that the French Army could not attempt to do what we were doing, as they could not get their conscript crews to anywhere near our level.
So, when playing this game, a US player should do all that he can to avoid a stand-up fight between his M1A1s and T-80s. Have your Bradleys engage his tanks....they are effective.
If anyone has achieved success against the T80s, I'd be interested to know how that person did it.

[JJKettunen]

Survivability of T-80s seem to be a bit over the top.

[wandrr]

If anyone has achieved success against the T80s, I'd be interested to know how that person did it.

Nuke them!

[Stelteck]

Send the Jaguar !!! :CrossTopic:

[William Betson]

Is it possible to see the algorithms used to calculate pK?

[Tcao]

It's a reference, not saying the game is broken or T-80 is OP.
Setup a test scenario. 12 x dug in M1A1 vs 30 x T-80B1 . The T-80B Bn is using assault posture.
Map is open and M1A1 is on the high ground.
I stop the scenario after 10 min. by that time the T-80s are closing the distance for less than 2000m.
so the engagement between 4000m ~ 2000m will cause 7-8 M1A1 casualties, and 11~12 T-80 casualties.

[22sec]

It's a reference, not saying the game is broken or T-80 is OP.
Setup a test scenario. 12 x dug in M1A1 vs 30 x T-80B1 . The T-80B Bn is using assault posture.
Map is open and M1A1 is on the high ground.
I stop the scenario after 10 min. by that time the T-80s are closing the distance for less than 2000m.
so the engagement between 4000m ~ 2000m will cause 7-8 M1A1 casualties, and 11~12 T-80 casualties.

Have you thoughts of reversing your test?

[CapnDarwin]

What training levels did you use?

[Tcao]

It's a reference, not saying the game is broken or T-80 is OP.
Setup a test scenario. 12 x dug in M1A1 vs 30 x T-80B1 . The T-80B Bn is using assault posture.
Map is open and M1A1 is on the high ground.
I stop the scenario after 10 min. by that time the T-80s are closing the distance for less than 2000m.
so the engagement between 4000m ~ 2000m will cause 7-8 M1A1 casualties, and 11~12 T-80 casualties.

Have you thoughts of reversing your test?

What? 30x dug in T-80B1 defend a 12 x M1A1 Assault? No way, it is going to be a massacre .

What I want to present here with a very crude model, is,
when T-80B has 3:1 numerical advantage, it has an upper hand in a long-range engagement.
I will change the ratio to 2:1 and see if it will tip the balance.

[Tcao]

default for both sides, so that is regular?

[CapnDarwin]

Use regular for the soviets and vets for the US to get the mean feel of things.

[Tcao]

Change the US M1 proficient from 73 to 80 ~85, so they are upgraded into veteran.
did 3 test
1st 5:22
2nd 9:5 (what the heck!)
3rd 6:21

I can repeat the test later to make it more scientific

[22sec]

It's a reference, not saying the game is broken or T-80 is OP.
Setup a test scenario. 12 x dug in M1A1 vs 30 x T-80B1 . The T-80B Bn is using assault posture.
Map is open and M1A1 is on the high ground.
I stop the scenario after 10 min. by that time the T-80s are closing the distance for less than 2000m.
so the engagement between 4000m ~ 2000m will cause 7-8 M1A1 casualties, and 11~12 T-80 casualties.

Have you thoughts of reversing your test?

What? 30x dug in T-80B1 defend a 12 x M1A1 Assault? No way, it is going to be a massacre .

What I want to present here with a very crude model, is,
when T-80B has 3:1 numerical advantage, it has an upper hand in a long-range engagement.
I will change the ratio to 2:1 and see if it will tip the balance.

No I meant 30 M1A1's attacking the same wat the T-80B's did,