Re: HE Artillery vs Armour

**Sc[ + ]pe** · 11-27-2009, 11:12 PM

I believe the arming delay on a 203 equates to about 30m. in reality, and ArmA definitely models that to some extent (although I'm positive it's range, as opposed to time, sensitive).

With regards to airburst munitions, I don't see why it would be any less complex to code than proper fragmentation for an M67, as you're still comparing the same things (against infantry): shockwave and fragmentation degree over travel. To the best of my knowledge, none of the armor is properly modeled in-game (the engine, for example, is only vulnerable from the back, not the top), and so the easiest fix would be to wait for ACE2 to arrive, which combined with crew-side kills inside armored targets should make for an easier air-burst effect-on-target.

**KoopaTroopa** · 11-28-2009, 12:35 AM

On the topic of IFVs/APCs: 25mm HE won't do much to an MBT. 25mm APFSDS won't do much, either, which is why a vehicle like the Bradley is armed with TOW-2B missiles. I'm not even sure if something like the Swedish CV-90 (which has a modified 40mm Bofors cannon) will do much to an MBT. You can perhaps damage some optics or a track, but it'll just be immobilized or forced to use a redundant system. Remember that the Abrams was upgraded from a 105mm to a 120mm because of this. MBTs have very tough armor, especially the glacis (the front part of the hull and the turret).

**Inkompetent** · 11-28-2009, 05:27 AM

Yes, but that's part of the point, Gill. Even if unable to penetrate the armour of a MBT, enough fire on the MBT can knock out so many of the systems required for it to fight, that in the end you have a blind, deaf, immobilized steel hulk left that doesn't have much of a fighting capability. It is not likely that a couple of Bradleys will, in a short enough time not to get smoked themselves, knock out both primary and backup sights for a tank. But it is fully possible.

It is a bit sad we don't have even a bit of that fedility in ArmA.

**KoopaTroopa** · 11-28-2009, 05:35 AM

That level of fidelity is usually the realm of purpose-built simulations, like Steel Beasts or DCS: Black Shark.

I wish we could have that, too... but it's probably beyond the scope of the current code.

**Inkompetent** · 11-28-2009, 05:39 AM

I actually think it *can* be done in ArmA2 to quite an extent. However it will also require purpose-built vehicle models that are thoroughly designed to support the concept. Something the default vehicles are not.

**Miles Teg** · 11-28-2009, 04:16 PM

Yeah I agree with the blinding thing. Lets just PLEAAAASE not get into the raging debates on the armor forums about whether 25mm DU rounds can penetrate T-72 tank armor and all that. They myths, stories, and counter-myths is just insane. That is the line where realism should be drawn and not passed on the TG servers and in ArmA 2 in my opinion as it would otherwise become an insane battle of military historian snobs fighting about alleged "facts". Not my idea of fun. If anyone wants to take out tanks with a small caliber auto-cannon, the solution is simple..... hop into a Tunguska and lay waste to EVERYTHING!!! It is the UBER weapon of ArmA 2 and no tank is safe. The Tunguska pretty much simulates the WALL OF HIGH EXPLOSIVE ROUNDS that would definitely disable any main battle tank.

**KoopaTroopa** · 11-29-2009, 02:21 PM

Uh-huh. There's a reason nobody uses Tunguskas in tank battles. :P

Back to the original intent of the thread: makes sense that a 155mm round could do serious damage to an MBT. IEDs use 155mm rounds a lot. In at least one case I know a crewman (the driver) was outright killed when the IED went off beneath the tank, although the armor held and no penetration was achieved.

**Eavy Gunner** · 11-29-2009, 07:09 PM

There's the Arty round that locks onto Armour (or lasers), but that doesnt kill the tanks in 1 shot either.

**Inkompetent** · 11-29-2009, 07:44 PM

The SADARM round doesn't manage to one-shot MBTs? o0

I haven't ever tried it in ArmA2, but if that's true it's... bleh

Thread Tools

Display