question: what is the probability of weakpoint hit?

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

In the engagement described with M1s, what type of munition will get a kill with a weak point probability of 15%? In other words, what is the lowest quality munition that will kill a M1 if the hit strikes a weak point? Obviously MG bullets don't qualify for the 15%. But would an RPG for example? Thanks.

Kevin

I think most ammunition can score a weak point hit, but it doesn't automatically kill the target. It just reduces armor protection for that shot down to 20% of the maximum.

A weak point probability of 5% or so would be very low. In that case it probably wouldn't make sense for units to waste any ammunition in hope for a weak spot hit. Remember, first you have to hit the target before there's any chance for a weak point penetration.

However, one thing I would request is the ability to mod weak point hit chance. It would be nice to be able to define different weak point hit chance for different vehicles.

Maybe in a future patch?

[gbem]

nooooo... thats actually a typo from me... its 5x T-55AM1 platoons... make sure its the export model am1

"5th engagement
1 M1 survived all 15 T55 lost "

it gets more cost efficient using companies but my testing on the platoon level works

[kevinkins]

[/quote]

20% of 400 is 80 so any KE rounds above 80 AP will potentially be able to penetrate the front weak points.

Could you give us an example of the types of KE rounds that fall above and below the 80 AP threshold to put the number in perspective? I don't think there is a published list. Thanks.

Kevin

[gbem]

Thewood1 the T55am1 only has 300+ penetration ingame (export tank)

Besidesit must be noted that sb has its own share of inaccuracies

[gbem]

By doing 1km engagement and being outnumbered (which is going out of your way to set the Abrams up for failure)

Forcing a 1km engagement against a superior mbt isnt difficult... it can be forced using a mortar platoon or 2... meanwhile superior T55 numbers is exactly my point.... i can simply use superior numbers of cheap shit to destroy expensive stuff by abusing the weakspot mechanism...

[gbem]

I broke down the hit chance via mathematics to explain this

Say 1 M1 vs 15 T55s
In the opening volley all 15 T55s opened fire on a single m1
15% hit chance to hit the weakspot and lets say 80% hit accuraccy

This gives us the equation
1−((0.85^(15×0.8)) giving us an 85.7% chance an m1 will die or be damaged on the first volley... considerable? It gets worse

Considering 90% hitchance it gets higher with an 88% kill/damage probability... and with 100%? 91% kill/damage

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: gbem

nooooo... thats actually a typo from me... its 5x T-55AM1 platoons... make sure its the export model am1

"5th engagement
1 M1 survived all 15 T55 lost "

it gets more cost efficient using companies but my testing on the platoon level works

1. 5x T-55AM1 costs 20% more than 1 platoon of M1A1 so how is it cost efficient again?
2. 5x T-55AM1 I just tested it, saved at the beginning, did it 5 times:

1. no losses for abrams
2. 1 m1 destroyed 1 damaged
3. this time all m1s were destroyed and 7 t-55am1 was left
4. no losses for abrams
5. 2 m1 destroyed

So yes, apparently sometimes the T-55 can get lucky and if their luck snowballs they can actually win very quickly with low losses, but most of the time M1A1s still win.

If you are doing this test you must make sure to use advance mode so the AI defends and sits there and doesn't move. If they're moving around it affects the outcome alot. You have to also make sure that all tanks are visible to each other so 15 T-55s don't focus fire on one abrams one by one. I have uploaded the save file for you to test if you don't believe me.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fi ... 2280245078

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: gbem

I broke down the hit chance via mathematics to explain this

Say 1 M1 vs 15 T55s
In the opening volley all 15 T55s opened fire on a single m1
15% hit chance to hit the weakspot and lets say 80% hit accuraccy

This gives us the equation
1−((0.85^(15×0.8)) giving us an 85.7% chance an m1 will die or be damaged on the first volley... considerable? It gets worse

Considering 90% hitchance it gets higher with an 88% kill/damage probability... and with 100%? 91% kill/damage

Are you implying 1 abrams should be able to win or even survive against 15 1980s spec T-55s at 1000km engagement distance? You're really overestimating the protection of a Abrams. Really the only ridiculous thing here is the assertions that you're making.

[gbem]

Ill give your savegame a test... i wish there were some semblance of coop play or at least a firing range mode... since the real issue here is that dividing your 15 shells amongst 4 abrams is a horrible idea... its more favorable to fire them all on a single abrams in order to knock out its firepower...

I simulated this buy making the abrams pop out near forest (meeting engagement) to allow the first abrams to be aimed at but the rest appearing before the first abrams is killed... dividing the firepower compromises everything for the T55

[gbem]

I never made the assertion that 1 M1 can beat 15 T55s... its a simple kill chance a T55AM1 volley has on a single abrams for the platoon... by focusing down firepower you eliminate the enemies guns one at a time... schwerepunkt

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: gbem

Ill give your savegame a test... i wish there were some semblance of coop play or at least a firing range mode... since the real issue here is that dividing your 15 shells amongst 4 abrams is a horrible idea... its more favorable to fire them all on a single abrams in order to knock out its firepower...

I simulated this buy making the abrams pop out near forest (meeting engagement) to allow the first abrams to be aimed at but the rest appearing before the first abrams is killed... dividing the firepower compromises everything for the T55

If that's the way you're doing it why don't you just say 15 T-55 vs 1 Abrams? You're really just doing that four times in that case. In any case I still think it's ridiculous to think 1 Abrams should have the ability just to sit in front of 15 T-55s and chill while APFSDS bounce off the front of your tank.

Fun fact: A M1A2 tank was destroyed by one single 25mm shot to the side turret in Iraq during the 2003 Invasion. It hit the sponson box which initiated an EAPU fire which then caused the engine to catch on fire as well. Even modern tanks are not the invincible beasts you think them of as. They have weak spots, and plenty of them are not as simple as just lower thickness armor.

[gbem]

The difference is cumulative firepower... its more efficient for the abrams to shoot at T55s individually but its more efficient for the T55 to focus fire on the abrams 1 by 1... unfortunately the game models the former without the latter unless forced to

[gbem]

"Even modern tanks are not the invincible beasts you think them of as."
Thats another assertion i never made... i fully recognize modern armor is not invincible... the abrams weakpoint is its huge turret ring and its mantlet... the T80Us is its infamous "cleavage" where the drivers optics lie

These weakspots however represent a mere fraction of the total armor protection and 15% seems too high especially considering a normally distributed shot + center of mass aim which was standard for tankers at the time

This is especially true for the leopard and the T series... those weakspots are soo tiny they represent less than 15% of the armor profile

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: gbem

"Even modern tanks are not the invincible beasts you think them of as."
Thats another assertion i never made... i fully recognize modern armor is not invincible... the abrams weakpoint is its huge turret ring and its mantlet... the T80Us is its infamous "cleavage" where the drivers optics lie

These weakspots however represent a mere fraction of the total armor protection and 15% seems too high especially considering a normally distributed shot + center of mass aim which was standard for tankers at the time

This is especially true for the leopard and the T series... those weakspots are soo tiny they represent less than 15% of the armor profile

Well, I don't see any reason that your arbitrary number is better than the developer's arbitrary number since the only proof you stated is that it "feels" or "seems" too high. But I do hope it become moddable in the future so you and I can use our own arbitrary weak spot numbers to make ourselves feel better rather than the developer's arbitrary number.

[gbem]

You know what... fine ill calculate the relative area of the weakspot and overlay a normally distributed curve over it when i get back

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: gbem

"Even modern tanks are not the invincible beasts you think them of as."
Thats another assertion i never made... i fully recognize modern armor is not invincible... the abrams weakpoint is its huge turret ring and its mantlet... the T80Us is its infamous "cleavage" where the drivers optics lie

These weakspots however represent a mere fraction of the total armor protection and 15% seems too high especially considering a normally distributed shot + center of mass aim which was standard for tankers at the time

This is especially true for the leopard and the T series... those weakspots are soo tiny they represent less than 15% of the armor profile

I believe that is true for the Leopard 2A5/Improved which is not in the game if the leaked Swedish documents from their tests are anything to go by. Incidentally that document does seem to have quite a few legitimate graphs documenting the distribution of protection on the various tanks which participated in their tests.

[gbem]

I did see a chart of what i think was the DM33 vs a T80U or T80B turret... anyways i intend to use steel beasts image of the cleavage and use the length of the T72 as a ruler to approximate the relative area... will do so as soon as i get home

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: gbem

I did see a chart of what i think was the DM33 vs a T80U or T80B turret... anyways i intend to use steel beasts image of the cleavage and use the length of the T72 as a ruler to approximate the relative area... will do so as soon as i get home

Yeah, this is the one for T-80U, here for M1A2 (probably equivalent of or slightly better than M1A1HA in AB.) Leopard 2 Improved is 2A5 and a massive improvement on the 2A4.

So as you can see, the weak spot rule in AB is really an arbitration. In the game it's a flat 665 RHAe for the turret front and 15% chance of 133. In reality there's spots with 300, 400 etc and some even 800. So whatever number you come up with it's still an arbitration.

And to throw in the fact that every single tank in the game is going to have that same weak spot chance and that means conceptually whatever calculation you come up with doesn't matter because it has to be applicable to every vehicle in the game.

[gbem]

Well it wouldnt be an arbitration if it had basis on actual armor values... id say approximation is a better term

Yeah indivudual tanks should get 2 new armor values imo... weakspot armor and weakspot cross sectionional area... it makes it alot more accurate than the abstraction we have now

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: gbem

Well it wouldnt be an arbitration if it had basis on actual armor values... id say approximation is a better term

Yeah indivudual tanks should get 2 new armor values imo... weakspot armor and weakspot cross sectionional area... it makes it alot more accurate than the abstraction we have now

Yes, you're definitely right, abstraction is a much more apt word. But the problem with that is if you had two value, why not have three? Then why not have four? Why not model the entire tank? It never really ends. You have to be realistic that this is a game and with as many units as there are in the game it'd be way too much to keep track of.