Secret tank ammo?

[dtacs]

Originally Posted by Th3Exiled

So, if a person's first language isn't English, they are not good at spelling for whatever reason or they have some other reason for not being able to correctly name or spell the thing they talk about then their additions are worthless?

Exiled.

If they can't speak English, but understand it, I expect their reply to be put through a translator, good translator is pretty good. It helps to be good at spelling to be honest, speking wif a reply lik this isnt gud imo.

No the Abrahams can withstand 4 tank shells if you hit it straight on. Use "x" to zoom in with gun and aim for the tracks, or where ever you want.

And exiled, do you really think a smart ass reply implying that I don't know how to zoom in and shoot with a tank is relevant?

[Truism]

Originally Posted by dtacs

I don't see where I insulted him, to be honest if he, or anyone else for that matter, cannot properly name a vehicle they are making a point about then they don't have the right to argue in the first place.

But hey, you're the mod, draw the line and I'll respect that. And I mean that in an entirely respectful manner.

Unconventional warfare (abbreviated UW) is the opposite of conventional warfare. Where conventional warfare is used to reduce an opponent's military capability, unconventional warfare is an attempt to achieve military victory through acquiescence, capitulation, or clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict.

Unconventional warfare then.

No one ever said a single thing about unconventional warfare. He expressly said assymetry. It's difficult to see how your quote relates to a single thing in this whole thread.

[dtacs]

Originally Posted by Truism

No one ever said a single thing about unconventional warfare. He expressly said assymetry. It's difficult to see how your quote relates to a single thing in this whole thread.

My core point being conventional/assymetrical whatever warfare it is, it seems to not work in PR that well

Example: A single TOW hummer verse a tank and 3 BTR's on Ejod, and a single TOW hummer verse six APC's on Qwai. That is such a huge gamble and I believe that if he wants to have the T72's not on equal terms with the Abrams, such as worse armor or armament its a bad idea.

[ExoDuUs]

Its Hitpoints or the BF2 engine disregarding your hits.

Its quite well known the MEC tank is slightly tougher then the US one in PR. I dont know why but it is. But then again Ive gone toe to toe with a Abrahms in a t-72 and been 1 shotted while I landed 2 hits. I remember in BF2 there was a 1 shot kill for armor, and that was to have the shell you fire glance off the flat horizontal area above the tracks and hitting the turret after registering 2 hits.
Also in BF2 you can hit under the turret and get a 1 shot kill but this second way was only on the Abrahms.

The turret, the rear and the tracks are the weakest point of any vehicle. Dont be polite about it and shoot them in the front, try to gain the upper hand and flank.

[[R-CON]AnimalMother]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]J.F.Leusch69

the current MEC tank is the T72M which cant fire any rockets at all.

and the T72 fires 125mm rounds while the M1A2 (which the current model looks like) has a 120mm cannon.

and yeah, stop the crap my weapons is better than yours descussions!

as it's the M export version ('Monkey Model') shouldn't it be vastly inferior to western armour? i know the link is wiki but surely combat from the Gulf wars backs up this, or am i missing the greater picture?

[Truism]

Originally Posted by dtacs

My core point being conventional/assymetrical whatever warfare it is, it seems to not work in PR that well

Example: A single TOW hummer verse a tank and 3 BTR's on Ejod, and a single TOW hummer verse six APC's on Qwai. That is such a huge gamble and I believe that if he wants to have the T72's not on equal terms with the Abrams, such as worse armor or armament its a bad idea.

The examples you gave don't even fit the definition of unconventional warfare you gave either. One side is weaker, but still has to use conventional means to try and fight. Unconventional warfare is like when the CIA funded the Taliban in the 80's to fight against the Soviets - the US waged unconventional war, not the Taliban who waged an insurgency. The opposite happened in Vietnam where the Soviets waged unconventional war on the US by assisting the NVA's conventional war, and the VC's insurgency. Iran waged unconventional war on the US in Iraq for a few years too. This is by your definition at least.

Additionally, those are very poor examples of assymetry. They are examples of imbalance and poor design. In the examples you gave one side is given capabilities that are not so much different as directly inferior.

A better example of assymetry was on the old Al Kufrah (easily my least favourite map) where the MEC APCs had superior damage over time and suppression from their main cannons of rape, but the US had better burst damage from their TOW Bradleys.

PR's best example was the old Qwai which pitted a few tanks against a few TOWs and a few helicopters. The Chinese had concentration of force and sustainment, the US had speed and maneuvre. It was a very well balanced map. The tactics and strategies that grew from the assymetry showed it - a good American team would try to spread across the map and force the Chinese into spreading as well, at which point they could negate the Chinese armour with their TOW's speed without the TOWs getting wrecked by infantry and light vehicle support. Alternately, the Chinese would attempt to take the fight places the Americans had to be, forcing them to converge on their tanks and infantry. I miss old Qwai so much.

/nostalgia

[[R-DEV]DankE_SPB]

Originally Posted by Animal.Mother

as it's the M export version ('Monkey Model') shouldn't it be vastly inferior to western armour? i know the link is wiki but surely combat from the Gulf wars backs up this, or am i missing the greater picture?

bigger picture is T-72M is placeholder and Iraq is not Mec
Mec should eventually get T-72M1M which is pretty much almost a T-90
check this
http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-...t72-120-a.html

[[R-CON]AnimalMother]

Originally Posted by DankE_SPB

bigger picture is T-72M is placeholder and Iraq is not Mec
Mec should eventually get T-72M1M which is pretty much almost a T-90
check this
http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-...t72-120-a.html

cheers danke, didn't realise that it was just a placeholder


i only mentioned the gulf wars due to the combat between T-72Ms and CR2/M1A#


just read up on the T-72M1M looks good, though the turret looks interesting, someone described it as a missle trap, lol

[dtacs]

Originally Posted by Truism

The examples you gave don't even fit the definition of unconventional warfare you gave either. One side is weaker, but still has to use conventional means to try and fight. Unconventional warfare is like when the CIA funded the Taliban in the 80's to fight against the Soviets - the US waged unconventional war, not the Taliban who waged an insurgency. The opposite happened in Vietnam where the Soviets waged unconventional war on the US by assisting the NVA's conventional war, and the VC's insurgency. Iran waged unconventional war on the US in Iraq for a few years too. This is by your definition at least.

Additionally, those are very poor examples of assymetry. They are examples of imbalance and poor design. In the examples you gave one side is given capabilities that are not so much different as directly inferior.

A better example of assymetry was on the old Al Kufrah (easily my least favourite map) where the MEC APCs had superior damage over time and suppression from their main cannons of rape, but the US had better burst damage from their TOW Bradleys.

PR's best example was the old Qwai which pitted a few tanks against a few TOWs and a few helicopters. The Chinese had concentration of force and sustainment, the US had speed and maneuvre. It was a very well balanced map. The tactics and strategies that grew from the assymetry showed it - a good American team would try to spread across the map and force the Chinese into spreading as well, at which point they could negate the Chinese armour with their TOW's speed without the TOWs getting wrecked by infantry and light vehicle support. Alternately, the Chinese would attempt to take the fight places the Americans had to be, forcing them to converge on their tanks and infantry. I miss old Qwai so much.

/nostalgia

Thanks you hit the nail on the head for what I was looking for: imbalance.

Those are excellent examples of imbalance, and degrading the T72 would do exactly that. Thats my point, sorry, my vocabulary has been getting worse and worse, as has my terminology, which is why I seemed to be using assym/blah blah blah as a placeholder for imbalance.

[Hietaa]

Originally Posted by Meza82

the M1A1 Abrams US tank i think is the most powerful tank in the world. this is reflected in PR by the M1A1 defeating any other armor 1 on 1 head on. If your in the MEC tank and engage a US tank, i would fire and then leave. the M1A1 120mm gun is devastating

If i had to be in situation where T72 and Abrams are 1 on 1 head on I would never take the Abrams. Because in the T72 i could let you shoot me once and not even get worried because I know my driver can kill you with 1 shot. In PR abrams loses to T72 100-0 because T72 can't be killed with 1 shor but abrams has multiple spots where it can be killed with one shot.