|
PR Time:
|
||||||
| Register | Forum Rules | Developer Blogs | Project Reality | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| PR:BF2 Suggestions Suggestions from our community members. Read the stickies before posting. |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#41 |
![]() Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wouldnt you like to know
Posts: 1,374
|
... why can't the engineers C4 be used for that? It's most likely strong enough for the job right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
![]() Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: L337tAnkp00ning with Robbi187
Posts: 1,218
|
Hopefully SLAMs would be more effective to detrack a tank and such with this...
Edit: Inside a nutshell if ever there was one... :P |
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
|
|
Last edited by Sadist_Cain; 01-22-2008 at 09:49 PM..
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Snowy Northeast
Posts: 7,406
|
Without teamwork you are already doomed to fail, unless the other team is as anti-teamwork as you are. Having enough engineers to recover vehicles from the field means that you REDUCE the amount of combat in the game, and with a max of 64 players that is a bad thing. I like the idea, but with current server restrictions it is a bad one.
|
|
[R-CON]creepin - "because on the internet 0=1" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
![]() Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,235
|
I agree.
Tanks should be able to support infantry squads without the enemy going "Enemy tank; start spawning as AT kits - Click, Click, BOOM." I agree that tanks should suffer A HELL OF A LOT more on-board and functionality damage, rather than vehicle damage to prolong the life of tanks in infantry support roles, but without increasing their functionality over-time in combat. Like this around 2:15: YouTube - Call of Duty 4: War Pig - Escort the M1A2 Abrams Tank |
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Follow me on Twitter!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
![]() Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 376
|
Well, if an engy went to the tank he could repair it, and he only has a single c4, which takes a tank to about half hp atm, so as I said it would depend on how the hp is tweaked. Also since the "downed" tank is generally going to be behind the enemy front specops would be a more natural choice to go after it with (smoke/flashbangs).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Posts: 1,490
|
are you sure tanks take up to 6 shots to go down? i dont think its realistic not sure though
just a question whats up with the HEAT rounds theyre supposed to be incredably affective against armour instead they are use to kill infantery. (HEAT= high explosive anti-tank) |
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 | |
|
PR Mapper Team
![]() |
Quote:
Armor developments in response to HEAT rounds Increased size and changes to the armor of main battle tanks have reduced the usefulness of HEAT to a degree, by making the needed warhead size large enough to be no longer man portable. Today HEAT rounds are primarily used in shoulder-launched and in jeep- and helicopter-based missile systems. Tanks mostly use the more effective APFSDS rounds. The reason for the ineffectiveness of HEAT-munitions against modern main battle tanks can be attributed in part to the use of new types of armor. The jet created by the explosion of the HEAT-round must have a certain distance from the target and must not be deflected. Reactive armor attempts to defeat this with an outward directed explosion under the impact point, causing the jet to deform and so penetration power is greatly reduced. Alternatively, composite armor featuring ceramics erode the liner jet more quickly than rolled homogeneous armor steel, the then preferred material in the construction of armored fighting vehicles. & With the effectiveness of gun-fired single charge HEAT rounds being lessened, or even negated by the increasingly sophisticated armoring techniques, a class of HEAT rounds known as high explosive anti-tank multi-purpose, or HEAT-MP, has become more popular. These are essentially HEAT rounds which are effective against older tanks and other armored vehicles, but have improved fragmentation, blast and fuzing. This gives the projectiles an overall reasonable light armor and anti-personnel/materiel effect so that they can be used in place of conventional high explosive rounds against infantry and other battlefield targets. This reduces the total number of rounds that need to be carried for different roles, which is particularly important for modern tanks like the M1 Abrams, due to the sheer size of 120 mm rounds used. The M1A1 / M1A2 tank can carry only 40 rounds for its 120 mm M256 gun - the M60A3 tank (the Abrams' predecessor), carried 63 rounds for its 105 mm M68 gun. | |
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
||
|
|
Last edited by [R-DEV]OkitaMakoto; 01-24-2008 at 02:02 PM..
|
|
|
#48 | |
![]() Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: L337tAnkp00ning with Robbi187
Posts: 1,218
|
Quote:
it takes the same amount of hits for a tank to go "down" it just dosn't spontaniously combust every time you hit it twice in pretty much any location. it also isnt a suggestion to make it possible to drive a tank around and take 4 hits and keep going. and it isn't an arguement about tanks exploding or not. Read through annnnything about tanks being destroyed in warfare and youll more than likely find that most tanks were merely damaged NOT just *pop* explosion, dead tank (thought I'm not disputing that happens) Really getting bored of answering this one... Tis a long post but read it ALL and maybe I won't have to keep filling my own thread with crap Edit: With reference to Okitas post, That was a good read Wouldn't you think that a fiddling of the damage model how I've suggested would greater simulate the effects of Reactive armour weak spots with the tank becoming crippled rather than fully destroyed? Plus HE could have a greater effect on injuring crew within tanks or something, the possiblities are endddless!!... you chaps surely get where I'm going here Edit: I'm too lazy for BIIIG text :P but I've posted some references in the OP :P | |
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
||
|
|
Last edited by Sadist_Cain; 01-24-2008 at 03:22 PM..
|
|
|
#49 |
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 3,650
|
Just add some of that post to the OP in
THIS sort of text |
|
XKCD forums, in the middle of a perfectly sane conversation:
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Best post ever made! EG: PPSh is made of win and quite possibly stamped sheet metal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
![]() Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 376
|
I think this should sum it up for the lazy readers.
If you don't think this is a good idea then you are wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Tags |
| damaged, destroyed, tanks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|