MBT main gun accuracy.

[DeltaFart]

Why would anyone say the Abrams is inaccurate?! It's hit things on the moves out to 2.5 + miles!

[Dempsey]

Originally Posted by kilroy0097

I thought the MEC tanks were the T-72? It just seems to look more like it than the T-90.

The T-90 is based on the T-72 series. Just with hugely improved armour, weapons systems, and arena defense systems which isnt in use in all T-90s tanks (Wiki ARENA, its a incredible defense measure against AT missiles, but it isnt recreated in the bf2 engine respectively)

Originally Posted by kilroy0097

But regardless something tells me that the MEC training might be a small step worse than the training on US or British MBTs.

I can see where you are coming from, but if you do some research into the middle east you will find many a country which is strong, technolically advanced and well trained... The MEC army is based upon the pakistani army and United arab emirates which are Two Highly trained armies, with intensive western training and tactics.

[kilroy0097]

So the Type 98/99 of the Chinese the T-90 of the MEC, the Challenger 2 of the British, the M1 Abram of the US and the Leopard 2 of the Germans are all in about the same class of MBT? So idly you would want all of them to perform about the same and take about the same types of damage and inflict about the same amount of damage as well. Certainly I know the Abram, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 are faster speed wise than the T-90 or Type 98. At least via statistics I can find online. So I suppose that's different.

[Dempsey]

Well if you make everything the same? WHich they are not in real life, it isnt going to be real is it? Although there isnt going to be much difference between Modern day MBT's, im just being piccy.

Its a shame PR tries to Balance things a lot of the time.

[Liquid_Cow]

Originally Posted by kilroy0097

So from a game perspective should there be any difference, other than appearance, between the M1 Abram, the Challenger 2 and the T-90 (If the MEC do in fact use the T-90 and not the T-72)?

I know there are people here who are going to hate me for saying this, but western tanks are in a completely different league than eastern tanks.

First off, even though the Russian's use a bigger bore, western guns have double the range of eastern (M-1's have confirmed kills out to 4000yards, and a Brit C2 got one at 6000yards), which is why IRL the Russians invested heavily in tube launched missles for their tanks (which thanks to semi-active laser guidance are suicide weapons).

If you factor in DU shells, there is not much which can go toe to toe with a western tank's gun.

Armor is quite different, UK and US use the DU Chobham armor, Germans use an advanced composite armor, the Russians use conventional laminate armor with reactive plates (Kontakt-5), which is great for shaped charges and initially worked against SABOT's but a whole new series of DU rounds have been made specifically to defeat this armor. There are lots of gaps in the reactive coverage, and a hit expends a sizeable portion of the armor making a hole in coverage which the next round might be able to find.

The T-90's active anti-missle system, the Shtora, is interesting, but its primarily an anti-laser system, modern western ATGM's use optical (as opposed to Russian systems which use laser, why did they invest so much in countering their own weapons?), milimeter radar, or thermal guidance, and since part of the countermeasures the Shtora uses is a large "hot spot" to mess up wire guided weapons such as the TOW, it will glow like a spot light on thermal imaging systems, making the tank a sitting duck when its trying to hide. Furthermore, the system automatically turns the turret to face the incoming missle. This is kinda smart, in that the face of the turret has the heaviest armor, but if you're trying to shoot at the enemy it'll probably be very annoying to have the turret pulled off target every time you get lazed.

Add to that the fact that the Abrams has an impressive track record in combat (despite numerous blue on blue engagements in the 1st Guld War, no US crew members were wounded, and only 3 tanks were actually destroyed, all of them by large ATGM's or SABOT's.) In one battle, at point blank range, a US Abrams was hit 3 times by a T-72's gun, twice in the rear of the turret, and not a single round penetrated the tank. Since that war the Abrams have gone through a major upgrade to increase their lethality based on these experiences.

Don't get me wrong, I think the T-90 is impressive and will be a tough opponent, but in a protacted fight I'd rather be in an Abrams. If the Russians found themselves in a decent battle I'm sure they gain lots of feedback which would allow them to improve the T-90, but as of now its an unproven system (as is the Leopard, though it has seen service in Afganistan it has not had to battle major ATGM's or other MBT's).

As it leads to the game, there should be major differences between the tanks. Frontal armor could be close to equal, but the M-1 and C-2 should have higher lethality against the T-90 at distance to reflect their more than double effective range.

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

I would agree, but that brings the problem of balance, and if you try to solve it by adding more tanks the MEC/PLA force loses the infantry it needs to cap CPs and if you don't add more tanks they're in a bad way (unless you add something like a couple of attack helos or some such)

[[R-CON]77SiCaRiO77]

or lower the respawn time for MEC/PLA tanks (this dosent mean to lower them to bf2 levels btw ).


also, FYI, the part where the t90 turn his turret to face the enemy threat , its diceide by the comander , when begin lazered , the comander can push a buton to allow the turret to move . also , another system in the shtora is the "smoke" dispenser , wich creat a big heat signature around the tank , so thermal ATGM have a biger chanse to miss .

[Dempsey]

simple, war isnt fair. is this reality?

[Liquid_Cow]

Originally Posted by Dempsey

simple, war isnt fair. is this reality?

Can I get an AMEN for the brotha?

One of the unrealistic things about PR is the attempt to balance play. Without this balance the game would be, well unbalanced, and one side would almost alway win, at least that's the argument. While I more than agree that the 32 player limit forces our hands slightly, I moderately disagree that all "balanced" maps should be so perfectly balanced. Look at Basrah, since its first appearance the USMC/Brit side should dominate that map based on kits and equipment (especially back in .5 when it was still a capture map) but they only rarely did (usually as a result of a clan being the entire Blue team). Mestia is another example, a well run militia can tackle the full equiped Brits with ease despite not having a zone of death around their main and not having an IFV which can slug it out with the British vehicle.

I think it would be a noble experiment to made a map that is truely realistic and attempt to balance it via game play mode rather than equipment. I think the community would rise to the occation, and figure out how best to exploit their strengths and weaknesses, which is what a commander would be expected to do IRL.

77SiCaRiO77, thanks for the clarification on the T90's system, I read more about the smoke screen after posting, that's an interesting tactic, and the opposite of the US system. US smoke is thermally neutral and blocks thermal sights, again I think the advantage would be to the US as the resulting huge heat signature would be sure to draw lots of fire. I do respect their decistion to come up with their own solution rather than copy ours as they have in the past though.

[Liquid_Cow]

Originally Posted by Dempsey

The MEC army is based upon the pakistani army and United arab emirates which are Two Highly trained armies, with intensive western training and tactics.

A word about Mid East armies. For the most part they are gutless. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Kuwait had a very highly trained army with modern western inventory, yet they folded like a well read sunday paper. Same goes for Saudi Arabia, where the royal princes who form most of the air force refused to fly. Each time Syrian, Jordan, Saudi, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, and Egypt has tried to take on Isreal they got their asses handed to them despite at one point outnumbering the IDF 11:1. And who can forget that Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world when we attacked them in the 1st Gulf War, that turned out to be the largest live fire training exercise the US has ever hosted (we actually had a lower casualty rate than normal for a training excersize, even after the friendly fires incidents). I don't know much about the UAE's army, but given that the entire country is the size of and population of South Carolina, I'd be willing to put he SC National Guard against the UAE army and expect a thorough drumming of the UAE (Side note, the Wiki entry on the UAE doesn't even have a reference to their Army in it???). Pakistan can barely control their own army, which to this day refuses to participate in the search for Bin Laden. Sure, when India tries to Invade they do well, but who wouldn't defend their home land.

MEC is pure fiction, there is no unifying force which could bring the Mid East together (political, religous, and ethnic differences are insurmountable). Perhaps 2 countries could be united for a short period of time, but the mishmash of equipement, lack of co-training, and unwilliness to fight (no Achmed, really, you go first, I will be right behind you) would combine to create yet another humiliating defeat for that force, at which point they would begin to blame each other and the alliance would quickly fall apart.

Its a shame that there is no unifier over there. While a pan-Islamic state would be a problem all to itself, it would also be able to control its own populace and live in peace with the world, much as the Soviets were able to (for the most part) peacfully coexist with the West despite huge differences in idiology. Until a local rule is established in Iraq there will be no peace, and look how hard we are tying, how much we've given them, and still they refuse to come together, and that's just one nation.