Small test, M1A1(HA) vs. T-80U[m]

The new Cold War turned hot wargame from On Target Simulations, now expanded with the Player's Edition! Choose the NATO or Soviet forces in one of many scenarios or two linked campaigns. No effort was spared to model modern warfare realistically, including armor, infantry, helicopters, air support, artillery, electronic warfare, chemical and nuclear weapons. An innovative new asynchronous turn order means that OODA loops and various effects on C3 are accurately modeled as never before.

Moderators: WildCatNL, cbelva, IronManBeta, CapnDarwin, IronMikeGolf, Mad Russian

Post Reply
User avatar
Emx77
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:12 am
Location: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Contact:

Small test, M1A1(HA) vs. T-80U[m]

Post by Emx77 »

In order to get better feeling of tank capabilities I made a small test. Here is the test setup: Platoon of four M1A1(HA) tanks against platoon of four T-80[m] tanks. These are the best tanks of both sides. Both tanks in database have same ratings for FC/RF (9), Stab (9), accuracy (2) and range (6000). Abrams has marginally weaker PF (41 vs. 42) and HEAT penetration (41 vs. 44). In term of equipment, American tank has TI (irrelevant for this scenario) but Soviet counterpart has ability to fire AT-11 Sniper missile (range 5000, HEAT pen. 47, accuracy 18).

They will face each others during daylight, in clear weather and at starting distance of 4000 m. Scenario setup is depicted on the map. Test setup files are attached (delete .txt extension in order to get zip file).

Image


USSR Attack

In first sub-variant, Soviet platoon made assault directly toward enemy which had hold order. Battle ended when one side lost all tanks. Then round is repeated four more times. Here are results (column represents lost tanks in each round):

US (lost) USSR (lost)
---------------------------
4 3
4 1
0 4
1 3
0 4
---------------------------
9 15 (Total)

In first two rounds Americans maybe had bad luck. Things started to change from round three.


USSR Attack on fortified position

In second sub-variant, Soviets assaulted again, but this time opponent was in fortified position. Results are:

US (lost) USSR (lost)
---------------------------
0 4
0 4
1 3
2 4
0 4
---------------------------
3 19 (Total)


USA Attack

In third sub-variant, it was time for NATO to attack. Soviet platoon executed hold order. Results:

US (lost) USSR (lost)
---------------------------
1 3 (US unit retreated in wood hex)
2 4
0 4
2 4
4 1
--------------------------
9 16 (Total)


USA Attack on fortified position

And finally, assault was repeated but this time on fortified Soviet position:

US (lost) USSR (lost)
--------------------------
1 3
0 4
1 4
0 4
3 4
--------------------------
5 19 (Total)


Americans scored better in all four variants. However, please note that this is platoon vs. platoon engagement. In game, Soviets will probably attack with full company where they will have 2,5:1 or 3:1 numerical advantage. In such case, NATO player will face difficulties to survive.

Also, what is puzzling me in this test are relatively big Soviet casualties when they were on defense. It can be attributed to two factors (and I would like someone more experienced with game to comment them):

1. It seems that Soviet platoon didn't receive any benefit from fortification. In manual you can find that improved position can reduce casualties by 50% on average or more. Test doesn't show this. At least not for Soviet side. Please note that fortification didn't reduce casualties in last sub-variant. On the contrary, Soviets sustained more casualties when they were fortified than when they weren't (?!).

2. I have noticed that T-80U platoon during defense rarely engaged assaulting M1A1's platoon at higher distances. When attacking, T-80U will regulary engage enemy with first shot fired at distance over 3000 m. However, when they are executing hold order they engage coming enemy usually at (or under) 1000 m. I don't remember seeing them firing earlier. Does anybody have idea why?

This is Tac Ops log during typical engagement when Unit 2 (T-80U platoon) is on defense:

Code: Select all

 0800 hrs - Activity resolution for the period starting 0800 Aug 11.
 0801 hrs - Unit 1 arrives in 2415 from 2316.
 0803 hrs - Unit 1 arrives in 2515 from 2415.
 0803 hrs - SitRep - Unit 1 with assault orders has 4 x M1A1(HA) Abrams in hex 2515 at 83% readiness with 99% ammo and 70% morale.  1 enemy(s) spotted.
 0805 hrs - Unit 1 in 2515 engaging Unit 2 at range 2,250m.
 0805 hrs - Unit 1 arrives in 2614 from 2515.
 0807 hrs - Unit 1 in 2614 engaging Unit 2 at range 2,123m.
 0807 hrs - Unit 1 arrives in 2714 from 2614.
 0807 hrs - SitRep - Unit 1 with assault orders has 4 x M1A1(HA) Abrams in hex 2714 at 83% readiness with 99% ammo and 70% morale.  1 enemy(s) spotted.
 0809 hrs - Unit 1 in 2714 engaging Unit 2 at range 1,541m.
 0809 hrs - Unit 1 arrives in 2813 from 2714.
 0810 hrs - Unit 2 in 3012 engaging Unit 1 at range 967m.
 0810 hrs - Unit 1 in 2813 engaging Unit 2 at range 1,216m.
 0811 hrs - Unit 1 arrives in 2913 from 2813.
 0811 hrs - Unit 1 in 2913 engaging Unit 2 at range 503m.
 0811 hrs - Unit 2 suffers 3 T-80U [m] KIA in hex 3012
 0811 hrs - Unit 1 claims 3 T-80U [m] KIA in hex 3012
 0811 hrs - Unit 2 in 3012 engaging Unit 1 at range 553m.
 0811 hrs - Unit 2 in 3012 engaging Unit 1 at range 323m.
 0811 hrs - Unit 1 in 2913 engaging Unit 2 at range 573m.
 0812 hrs - Unit 2 in 3012 engaging Unit 1 at range 497m.
 0812 hrs - Unit 1 in 2913 engaging Unit 2 at range 444m.
 0812 hrs - Unit 2 suffers 1 T-80U [m] KIA in hex 3012 and is wiped out
 0812 hrs - Unit 1 claims 1 T-80U [m] KIA in hex 3012
 0812 hrs - Unit 1 arrives in 3012 from 2913.
 0812 hrs - Unit 1 - new orders: Hold in 3012 starting at 0813 hrs
 0812 hrs - SitRep - Unit 1 with hold orders has 4 x M1A1(HA) Abrams in hex 3012 at 68% readiness with 73% ammo and 70% morale.  0 enemy(s) spotted. 
Attachments
Testsetup.zip.txt
(57.38 KiB) Downloaded 2 times
User avatar
CapnDarwin
Posts: 9241
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Newark, OH
Contact:

RE: Small test, M1A1(HA) vs. T-80U[m]

Post by CapnDarwin »

Emir,

There are a few things in your test case that can and will tip things in NATOs favor. Even though the stability and fire control values in the data are the same, the quality factors for the US and Soviets is different and that adds to the delta. Veteran NATO versus Regular Soviets is another delta point. The range of 3500m (7 hexes) center to center plays into NATOs hands with the above deltas adding to NATOs longer range accuracy. Even though there is no smoke, thermal sights still help in the acquiring of targets over the distance. That factors in NATOs favor as well. One test run is also not enough of a sample size. Hopefully Charles can step in and talk to all of the runs he does to vet out combat model.

The one thing that might be buggy that I need to look at is the lack of ATGM shots while in defensive position. Something there does not seem to be right, but again the number of runs and numbers of units is low.

I'll look over you test case file Sunday and see if anything is off the rails and I can probably grab Charles to do the same.

Thanks for the report!
OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC
User avatar
WildCatNL
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:21 pm
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands

RE: Small test, M1A1(HA) vs. T-80U[m]

Post by WildCatNL »

Hi Emir,

you are probably better off testing tank capabilities by pitting single tanks against each other, since it would be a lot easier to draw (statistically) sound conclusions from those kinds of tests.

The problem with testing 4- against 4 tests is that every tank kill also changes the force ratio (for example, from 4:4 to 4:3 for the first kill), and a small effectiveness advantage for one side is likely to result in exaggerated results. Especially when leaving the scenario running until one side is fully destroyed.
See Lanchester's Square Law for more info (which says that a numerical or effectiveness advantage has a squared effect when attrition is involved).

William
William
On Target Simulations LLC
Lowlaner2012
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:18 pm

RE: Small test, M1A1(HA) vs. T-80U[m]

Post by Lowlaner2012 »

Hi Guys, any update on the ATGM's, I have noticed Russian tanks using them in my pbems...
User avatar
CapnDarwin
Posts: 9241
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Newark, OH
Contact:

RE: Small test, M1A1(HA) vs. T-80U[m]

Post by CapnDarwin »

I'm fixing a problem with the ATGM combat hint that was bleeding through incorrectly and also dealing with an issue for Soviet tanks with tube launched weapons not shooting at the planned rate.
OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC
Lowlaner2012
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:18 pm

RE: Small test, M1A1(HA) vs. T-80U[m]

Post by Lowlaner2012 »

Thanks for your fast work Capn Darwin :)

User avatar
CapnDarwin
Posts: 9241
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Newark, OH
Contact:

RE: Small test, M1A1(HA) vs. T-80U[m]

Post by CapnDarwin »

It's annoying me because I thought it was dead and buried for 2.06. [:@]

Looking better in testing now. Was able to fix the message spam and another fix for the tube launched ATGMs to get them working as intended.
OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC
hazmaxed
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Baton Rouge, LA

RE: Small test, M1A1(HA) vs. T-80U[m]

Post by hazmaxed »

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

1. It seems that Soviet platoon didn't receive any benefit from fortification.

By designing their tanks with a low silhouette, the Soviet tank designers introduced a flaw that makes them less effective when fighting from reverse-slope hull-down positions. The flaw is that they can't depress their main guns to the same degree as NATO tanks can. This means they have to pull forward to "level out" to engage targets, and they end up exposing more of the vehicle to enemy return fire.

I don't know if this is actually modeled in the game. Also, I would think that the Soviets would be aware of this limitation and would make sure the dozer operator dug the postion to have a level firing platform so the gun depression isn't an issue. I wasn't in the Red Army though, so I don't really know how they handled this.
There is no overkill. There is only "open fire" and "reloading."
Post Reply

Return to “Flashpoint Campaigns Classic”