Armour values/strength

[Mikemonster]

Nixy, the Warrior was designed to be agile enough to keep up with the Challenger, I presume because of the need to carry troops/payload APC's have to sacrifice armour. Just thought you'd be interested.

I'm not meaning to start an 'IRL' discussion thing, but I did a search and couldn't find much about Warrior vs RPG .. I read Johnson Beharry's biography/account (Warrior driver in the 2003 invasion), and I swear that it was a fairly common occurence to get hit with an RPG. When his Warrior was 'rendered unuseable' (immobilised and with stunned crew members) I think it was hit 7 or 8 times. There was also a crew member of a Warrior who somehow survived an RPG exploding on the armour next to his hatch when his hatch was open.

Gameplay > Realism though, and tangeable realism at that (my general view based on spurious evidence). But worth discussing perhaps.

[Tarranauha200]

Originally Posted by Phantom2

But for gameplay reasons it should stay the same, it is difficult to kill a tank as is,

No its not?
Tank can be killed whit:
1 bombcar(lucky hit)
1 gary
1 Tow missile
1 HAT(If hit in good spot)
1 Hellfire

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by Tarranauha200

No its not?
Tank can be killed whit:
1 bombcar(lucky hit)
1 gary
1 Tow missile
1 HAT(If hit in good spot)
1 Hellfire

Except bomb car you all listed ANTI-TANK weapon, surprise the ANTI-TANK are killing Tank ?

[Nixy23]

TOW 2B vs a T72. I didn't know that was possible, but damn.

Can anyone confirm this is how the 2B actually functions? It looks like the T72 explodes from the inside out, but that might just be the shaped charge detonating the slugs that are stored in the tank..

[Mikemonster]

It fires a projectile from underneath itself, meaning basically a mini-TOW strikes the roof of the tank at a 90 degree angle where the armour is very thin (relatively).

I'm presuming the explosion is the projectile penetrating and then exploding inside, however something is a bit fishy to me about the video - There would be no fluids or ammunition inside the target tank i'm presuming, and as well as that I can't see the tiny 'secondary' projectile having enough force to clean blow off the turret. Especially not with all those flames involved.

Looks to me like a viral advert for weaponry, but i'm only a layman..

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by Mikemonster

It fires a projectile from underneath itself, meaning basically a mini-TOW strikes the roof of the tank at a 90 degree angle where the armour is very thin (relatively).

I'm presuming the explosion is the projectile penetrating and then exploding inside, however something is a bit fishy to me about the video - There would be no fluids or ammunition inside the target tank i'm presuming, and as well as that I can't see the tiny 'secondary' projectile having enough force to clean blow off the turret. Especially not with all those flames involved.

Looks to me like a viral advert for weaponry, but i'm only a layman..

They test it on a COMBAT LOADED vehicle. Wich mean : Fuel, Ammo and ERA.

[Mikemonster]

Ah, yeah it does say 'Tactical Loaded' .. Which I presume for all practical purposes means a round in the autoloader?

Who are 'they'?

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by Mikemonster

Ah, yeah it does say 'Tactical Loaded' .. Which I presume for all practical purposes means a round in the autoloader?

Who are 'they'?

They is those who actually conduct those testing, if you look at the testing of the FGM-148 against a combat loaded T-72 you see the total obliteration of the MBT, there is quite alot of video showing "more realistic footage"...

YouTube Video

YouTube Video

This is what happen to "unloaded" tank (you can assume there is penetration since you see smoke getting out of the open hatch):

YouTube Video

[Mikemonster]

Thanks for the video Hotrod, I belived you were questioning my assumption that the tank in the original vid was full of something to make the TOW hit look more impressive (to prospective customers).

I believe i'm right, as they did the same thing in that Javelin video you just showed (rigged it slightly to make a bigger 'BOOM' when the missile hits - Looks good to people interested in purchasing the goods.

As evidenced by the other two videos, by the looks of it usually the primary explosion (warhead hitting the tank) and secondary explosions (ammunition cooking off) are far less spectacular, which backs up my point.

I wasn't questioning the lethality of the TOW 2B, just saying the impressive fireball was slightly .. impressive..

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by Mikemonster

Thanks for the video Hotrod, I belived you were questioning my assumption that the tank in the original vid was full of something to make the TOW hit look more impressive (to prospective customers).

I believe i'm right, as they did the same thing in that Javelin video you just showed (rigged it slightly to make a bigger 'BOOM' when the missile hits - Looks good to people interested in purchasing the goods.

As evidenced by the other two videos, by the looks of it usually the primary explosion (warhead hitting the tank) and secondary explosions (ammunition cooking off) are far less spectacular, which backs up my point.

I wasn't questioning the lethality of the TOW 2B, just saying the impressive fireball was slightly .. impressive..

No, you see a massive fireball cause Ammo and Fuel ignite from the 1st and 2nd charge explosion on the FGM-148, nothing else. On the second video the charge is not powerfull enought to blown everything one shot. This is why you see the ammo been cooked off by each other.

Honestly i fear alot more been cooked by ammo, than a single obliteration. Imagine you're self been cook like a damn chicken in the oven. It might not look as awesome, but horror is name of the game.