PDA

View Full Version : Tanks...


Nebsif
2011-02-19, 15:39
Ima total tank/asset whore, after joining the PRT and doing some research about tanks and afters looots of PR tanking exp I finally decided to post sum feedback about teh tanks in PR.

1)All tanks have weakpoints/strongpoints - front, side, rear, top and wierd armor types/parts.
You can 1 shot tanks by hitting the front lights/periscopes, or do heavy damage/1 shot with TOW by hitting the track wheels which is same as if u'd hit the engine.
Most people dont know exactly where to shoot but in competitive play it gets ugly.
The best tank in terms of weakpoints would be the Leopard 2 because it only has frontal,side and rear armor and the tracks arent a weakpoint of epic doom and destruction. Imo all tanks should be more or less like it, so what if u cant hear a glassy sound when u hit periscope with a knife.

2)Tank's main advantage should be the distance they can engage stuff, because of engine limitations the max distance would be 1km at best.
Once again, because of engine limitations u cant fire on the move, making u an easier target.
Another thing is that there's nothing you can do about a guy/s going prone/crouch -> stand -> fire on a rooftop/hilltop or just behind a small bump.

It turns out that tanks exist mostly to kill themselves on map edges away from flags and infantry, and that the most wise thing to do with them is simply leave them at main or camp far from enemy lines unless u manage to kill atleast 8 infantrymen to make up for a tank+crew loss which rarely happens vs a good team.

3)It probably deserves a thread of its own, the Challenger 2 tank - Its supposed to a quality over quantity tank, better than T-72, better than Abrams (imo, dont flame). In PR, it looks badass, it sounds badass, but when it comes to performance its utter crap.
-It takes 5 seconds to start moving after a complete stop. Something no other tank has.
-Its wayyy too easy to 1 shot with a HAT (in PRT, 6/6 CR2's destroyed on Dragon fly were 1 shot) or disable after what it starts jumping like crazy and overall it's armor aint good.
-Its also very unstable on uneven terrain, starts shacking and jumping on small bumps n stuff.

4)Merkava - Shouldnt the turret be a strong point, covered by loads of armor plates, built for urban warfare in mind? Because ATM its the the main weakpoint of the tank (2 AP rounds to destroy).

5)T-72 - Imo its better than it should be, thermals, equal armor to modern tanks.. If u look at Burning Sands, Kashan and maybe Iron Eagle MEC has the advantage in armor. Tanks are equal in power, but their IFVs (BMP-3, and now BMP-2M) give them the advantage (Bradley sux (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyakI9GeYRs), Warrior/Namer have no AT capabilities). "Nerfing" this tank's armor/AP capabilites would imo make it both more realistic as well as balance things out on the large faction vs faction scale.

6)T-90 - It has a ridicilous amount of 1 shot-kill weakpoints and nothing to reflect it's anti-anti-tank stuff like the Shtora thingy...

Rudd
2011-02-19, 16:04
afaik the damage system for vehicles is in line for an overhaul

also, try to sound more like a feedback post and less like a rant post "rediculous" "its utter crap." "sux"
the best way to get your points accross is to write dispassionately


2)Tank's main advantage should be the distance they can engage stuff, because of engine limitations the max distance would be 1km at best.
Once again, because of engine limitations u cant fire on the move, making u an easier target.
Another thing is that there's nothing you can do about a guy/s going prone/crouch -> stand -> fire on a rooftop/hilltop or just behind a small bump.

these are things we cannot change....

It turns out that tanks exist mostly to kill themselves on map edges away from flags and infantry, and that the most wise thing to do with them is simply leave them at main or camp far from enemy lines unless u manage to kill atleast 8 infantrymen to make up for a tank+crew loss which rarely happens vs a good team.

Personally I bring my tanks right up to the front line, run in, attack, pull back, repair, rinse and repeat.

4)Merkava - Shouldnt the turret be a strong point, covered by loads of armor plates, built for urban warfare in mind? Because ATM its the the main weakpoint of the tank (2 AP rounds to destroy).

this is something that requires a source or MA.

5)T-72 - Imo its better than it should be, thermals, equal armor to modern tanks.. If u look at Burning Sands, Kashan and maybe Iron Eagle MEC has the advantage in armor. Tanks are equal in power, but their IFVs (BMP-3, and now BMP-2M) give them the advantage (Bradley sux, Warrior/Namer have no AT capabilities). "Nerfing" this tank's armor/AP capabilites would imo make it both more realistic as well as balance things out on the large faction vs faction scale.

the BMP-3 is a powerful vehicle, its only real downfall is that its driver lacks thermals. the warrior has no AT, which is why Brits get more tanks on burning sands than MEC do. the IDF merks are powerful vehicle on Ironeagle, superior to the MEC armour so I don't see the inbalance there, and the Bradley is capable of firing 2 tows in quick sucession, so I don't see the inbalance there either.

Nebsif
2011-02-19, 16:14
Rudd;1551526']
the BMP-3 is a powerful vehicle, its only real downfall is that its driver lacks thermals. the warrior has no AT, which is why Brits get more tanks on burning sands than MEC do. the IDF merks are powerful vehicle on Ironeagle, superior to the MEC armour so I don't see the inbalance there, and the Bradley is capable of firing 2 tows in quick sucession, so I don't see the inbalance there either.

Bradley has to stop to fire TOWs, is big, noisy and has a 2 min reload time on TOWs.
On Iron Eagle MEC gets loads of tanks capable of killin merks in 2 shots from any angle as well as BMPs and a Shturm-S.

Rudd;1551526']
these are things we cannot change....

Can change other things that have prolly been suggested already, like JDAM style ammo.. adding that beepbeep thingy when some1 aims at u with a HAT, slowing down missiles a bit etc etc.

=LK= A.H.
2011-02-19, 16:19
the Challenger 2 tank - Its supposed to a quality over quantity tank, better than T-72, better than Abrams (imo, dont flame). In PR, it looks badass, it sounds badass, but when it comes to performance its utter crap.
-It takes 5 seconds to start moving after a complete stop. Something no other tank has.
-Its wayyy too easy to 1 shot with a HAT (in PRT, 6/6 CR2's destroyed on Dragon fly were 1 shot) or disable after what it starts jumping like crazy and overall it's armor aint good.
-Its also very unstable on uneven terrain, starts shacking and jumping on small bumps n stuff.
As an infantry player, I approve of the Challenger 2's shittiness. It can be destroyed with three shots from the ZiS-3 (have done it once and seen it done once) and can be tracked with one shot :)

Limeni[BiH]
2011-02-19, 16:24
Can change other things that have prolly been suggested already, like JDAM style ammo.. adding that beepbeep thingy when some1 aims at u with a HAT, slowing down missiles a bit etc etc.

I dont know, it just seems that you are frustrated for some other reasons, first you want more realism and than you want beepbeep sounds, slower missiles...

Nebsif
2011-02-19, 16:53
;1551532']I dont know, it just seems that you are frustrated for some other reasons, first you want more realism and than you want beepbeep sounds, slower missiles...

Idk about other tanks, but T-90 has a thingy that warns when some1 aims at u with lasor guided something.

DankE_SPB
2011-02-19, 17:12
Could you make a list of laser guided weapons used against T-90 ingame?:smile:
Note: Laser range finders do not count.

Tbh, apart from material bugs and mystery challenger glitches, your post doesn't raise/address any PR specific problems or those are not problems, but your personal dislikes:razz:.

Elektro
2011-02-19, 18:01
I am a Tank noob

But I just wanted to add that the Yamalia vehicle warfare is unbalanced due to the T-90s ATGM not being able to go through trees. This allows the Leopards to basically sit behind trees fire - and not get hit back.

Zrix
2011-02-19, 18:09
I am a Tank noob

But I just wanted to add that the Yamalia vehicle warfare is unbalanced due to the T-90s ATGM not being able to go through trees. This allows the Leopards to basically sit behind trees fire - and not get hit back.
Or you could use AP?

Murphy
2011-02-19, 18:25
There are some striking balance differences between some factions armors, and while it does add to the "A-Symmetrical" thinking you shouldn't argue there is no room for improvement. Some armor models have really weird material choices, and others have counterparts that are leap years ahead in terms of firepower/mobility/armor (the three natural aspects any tank design).

Aren't bombs laser guided? Why would a laser range finder not set of laser counter measures? IRL do they use a different kind of laser then those detected, or is that more for gameplay sake?

Elektro
2011-02-19, 18:34
Or you could use AP?

Yes but as Nebsif said in his OP, the Leopard already has an advantedge in having a lot stronger armor when comparing it to the T-90. It only takes 2 shots for a Leopard to kill a T-90 and vice versa with a T-90 shooting a leopard with ATGMs loaded. So a T-90 is no match for a Leopard when it cant use its ATGMs.

Rudd
2011-02-19, 18:37
what actually happens if you fire AGTMs through leafed branches IRL?

if its wireguided I guess it'll just go through, might get deflected by a branch, but I dunno.

Jaymz
2011-02-19, 18:38
Agree about the annoying material issues. This is fixable.

The whole "jack-in-the-box" issue can be remedied somewhat if we were to give HEAT rounds a small radius of 2-3m that kills regardless of cover, basically a pseudo simulation of the rounds destructive capability.

Another thing to decide on is tank smoke capabilities. It should either block IR or last 3-4 times longer. Right now it only lasts a short amount of time like IR blocking smoke...but doesn't block IR, kinda the worst of both worlds :p

Robert-The-Bruce
2011-02-19, 18:41
One thing must be said: Tank Warfare in PR has one gigantic flaw

Survivability!



Especially when looking at Tanks like the Abrams and Merkava there should be practically no chance of killing the crew from a frontal shot. None.

In general it should be incredibly hard to make a Tank like the Abrams explode. At some time I read a report about a Challenger 2 in Iraq beeing hit by something like 30 RPGs(including some of the formidable RPG 29s!) and only having the driver beeing injured(i think it was losing a toe, but don't sue me on that).

That is not to say that a tank shlould not be able to be disabled, which is an entirely different matter, looking at western tanks especially.


Also the OP's point about the T72 beeing too powerful is if anything an understatement. The T72 is outdated. Really outdated. If anything it perhaps should be the only Tank that should be able to be penetrated/destoyed from the front in 1 shot.


There are many points to be made and the sad thing about this topic is that you can't properly source things because you can put down pretty much all the sources as propaganda. But looking the at results of Iraq and Lebanon and such there is definetly a lot wrong with the way tanks are handled in the current build.

There is so much floating around my head atm that I'm not sure my comment is coherent and logical enough to be understood, so sorry about that.

edit: jaymz point about smoke... i can't say more on the subject.

DankE_SPB
2011-02-19, 20:33
Rudd;1551577']what actually happens if you fire AGTMs through leafed branches IRL?

if its wireguided I guess it'll just go through, might get deflected by a branch, but I dunno.

It can get initiated by branches, wires can get cut, sight might lose the flare used for guidance in the tail of missile, laser beamriders might lose contact with laser beam etc. -> you fire only when the path is clear/almost clear if you want to be sure that missile reach where you want it to.

Aren't bombs laser guided? Why would a laser range finder not set of laser counter measures? IRL do they use a different kind of laser then those detected, or is that more for gameplay sake?

First of all - Shtora equipped T-80U was unable to detect LRFs from western tanks(at least from some of them, and was able to detect LRF from T-84) at the Greece tank tender (http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8297/125181f.jpg) back in 1998. It might have been fixed since then, but might not.

2nd(and more important) - we do not have proper firing sequence procedures and having a warning each time somebody looks at you would be lame to say the least.

Also the OP's point about the T72 beeing too powerful is if anything an understatement. The T72 is outdated. Really outdated. If anything it perhaps should be the only Tank that should be able to be penetrated/destoyed from the front in 1 shot.

Not really, only few years older than Leo2 or M1.
The "stock" T-72 you see in game is a placeholder for up to date modification.

ytman
2011-02-19, 21:49
Going back to the BMP-3. This is the biggest issue I have against it right now: Its turret's mobility. It should only be able to go up to 60 degrees instead of the near 90 currently. I mentioned this before in a feedback/bug report to little or no response.

As a result there is no such thing as a height advantage and it has a ridiculously greater role as an anti air vehicle.

And why don't ATGMs atleast set off alarms for the tanks? They use lasers right?

And wait... what? A more modern T-72?! Wouldn't that just make it a T-90? The T-72 is a generation behind the Abrams and Leo2, but it did coexist with the Leo1.

-------

While on the subject.... pretty pretty please can we at least get to control whether or not we want to use the gun in an automated fashion on tanks that support it? I mean we do have the nice periscope now... just tie it to the gun!

ShockUnitBlack
2011-02-19, 21:52
Well, I think the T-72 in-game right now is the 72M model, as in modernized.

The BMP-3 is pretty much irrelevant to PR now, as from what I heard it's going to get completely phased-out by the BMP-2M when .96 is released.

J.F.Leusch69
2011-02-19, 22:09
Going back to the BMP-3. This is the biggest issue I have against it right now: Its turret's mobility. It should only be able to go up to 60 degrees instead of the near 90 currently. I mentioned this before in a feedback/bug report to little or no response.

As a result there is no such thing as a height advantage and it has a ridiculously greater role as an anti air vehicle.

And why don't ATGMs atleast set off alarms for the tanks? They use lasers right?

And wait... what? A more modern T-72?! Wouldn't that just make it a T-90? The T-72 is a generation behind the Abrams and Leo2, but it did coexist with the Leo1.

-------

While on the subject.... pretty pretty please can we at least get to control whether or not we want to use the gun in an automated fashion on tanks that support it? I mean we do have the nice periscope now... just tie it to the gun!

the BMP3 has a elevation of 62 degrees ingame and RL, but possible it was wrong in a old version.

the T72 ingame is a placeholder for a upgraded T72. they are not iraqi T72s!

Jaymz
2011-02-19, 22:09
And why don't ATGMs atleast set off alarms for the tanks? They use lasers right?


Beam-riding ones do, yes. But a tanks main gun uses a laser range finder anyway.


And wait... what? A more modern T-72?! Wouldn't that just make it a T-90? The T-72 is a generation behind the Abrams and Leo2, but it did coexist with the Leo1.


http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/main_battle_tank/t-72m1m/T-72M1M_main_battle_tank_Russia_russian_640_001.jpg


While on the subject.... pretty pretty please can we at least get to control whether or not we want to use the gun in an automated fashion on tanks that support it? I mean we do have the nice periscope now... just tie it to the gun!

You mean like a hunter/killer slew system? Not possible I'm afraid, we would have done it already if so.

DankE_SPB
2011-02-19, 22:48
And wait... what? A more modern T-72?! Wouldn't that just make it a T-90? The T-72 is a generation behind the Abrams and Leo2, but it did coexist with the Leo1.
If something appeared earlier, it doesnt mean it was generation before, but a next gen appeared before its counterpart for example:roll: yeah, surprise, soviets could do something too:shock:

T-64/72/80/90 Leo2, M1 etc are all same gen tanks with their roots going back to 60's- early 70's, Leo2 and M1 were children of MBT-70, which was a project intended to replace M60 to be competitive with new soviet tanks.

Generations are rather vague anyway, there are no strict rules about it + by the time "new gen" western tanks appeared new modification of T-72 was introduced, along with T-64 upgrades and T-80.

FYI T-90 was named T-72BU in its early days.

Rudd
2011-02-19, 23:00
anyway, its the MEC, we can have them upgrade their vehicles in any way that is required :P

Nebsif
2011-02-20, 10:56
Jaymz;1551578']Agree about the annoying material issues. This is fixable.

The whole "jack-in-the-box" issue can be remedied somewhat if we were to give HEAT rounds a small radius of 2-3m that kills regardless of cover, basically a pseudo simulation of the rounds destructive capability.


So we still might see it in teh future? I thought u guys gave up on the idea.. as it was suggested a while ago.

Also its ok to make trans choppers flying APCs in terms of armor to compensate for noob pilots hindering the whole team, but not ok to allow tanks to take more damage b4 exploding? for example TOWs pwning tanks in 1 shot while IRL it takes more than 1 (Most recent example is the AT-14 Kornet hitting a Merkava Mk.3, no1 injured sauce1 (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4002366,00.html)sauce2 (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw101229_1_n.shtml))

I posted the whole tanks are useless thingy based on the last Kashan battle vs NATO. They used all the armor they had and lost because of that while we barely used 2 tanks at a time (Watch the BR).
Each time some1 tried to get anywhere near bunkers u'd get HATed/TOWed.
It turns out that often tanks are a burden to the team instead of an asset even on wide open maps like Kashan and Sands.

spawncaptain
2011-02-20, 11:06
Also its ok to make trans choppers flying APCs in terms of armor to compensate for noob pilots hindering the whole team, but not ok to allow tanks to take more damage b4 exploding? for example TOWs pwning tanks in 1 shot while IRL it takes more than 1
On Kashan, I hit an M1A2's frontal armour with the Eryx which only caused it to smoke while all functionality was retained.

Jaymz
2011-02-20, 11:41
for example TOWs pwning tanks in 1 shot while IRL it takes more than 1 (Most recent example is the AT-14 Kornet hitting a Merkava Mk.3, no1 injured sauce1 (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4002366,00.html)sauce2 (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw101229_1_n.shtml))


That is 1 case and no sources on that story indicate how useful the tank was after being hit. I would guess, not very. Consider how many Merkava's were heavily damaged (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297431,00.html) (some irreparably) during the 2006 Lebanon War when they were faced with similar threats.

By no stretch of the imagination can you say "it takes more than 1 modern ATGM to destroy a modern tank".

Not a debate we need to go into further tbh. We're looking into several ways to improve tanks, protection and weaponry wise.

cyberzomby
2011-02-20, 11:45
It turns out that often tanks are a burden to the team instead of an asset even on wide open maps like Kashan and Sands.

It depends mostly on what map and style of fight you have. (PRT or regular) But I have the same feeling as well on most cases. Same with APCs. But if you change it, you will have infantry players ask for more power since they get powned by armour so much. Its going to be hard to balance it our completely.

Brainlaag
2011-02-20, 12:22
On Kashan, I hit an M1A2's frontal armour with the Eryx which only caused it to smoke while all functionality was retained.

HATs don't one hit tanks, if you hit the regular armor parts (not the optics, or tracks). Nebsif is referring to the TOWs, stationary ATs

Robert-The-Bruce
2011-02-20, 14:04
DankE_SPB;1551618']The "stock" T-72 you see in game is a placeholder for up to date modification.

That does change things. A T-72 with current generation Kontakt would probably fare close to or at least in the same league as the T-90.

There however is still the case of frontal armour and general crew(!) survivability in the western tanks especially.

Hit from the front all tanks should be able to take quite a few hits, from the HATs especially. The HATs are after all not gaint missiles like the mighty Kornet&TOW, they are just not enough to penetrate the frontal armour of a tank. If they where there would be no need for big missiles like the Kornet&TOW. (And range is a non-argument here because the Kornet&TOW would not be produced with such a big warhead if a smaller one would do the job just as well).
Even then a Kornet/TOW should not necessarily be a 1-hit wonder(ignore the pun) because as is said in the article Jaymz has linked:

Twenty-two tanks sustained hits that penetrated their steal armor (in ten of the tanks, there were 23 fatalities; in the rest, severe damage was caused to the vehicle). Forty-four percents of the tanks hit by missiles had their armor penetrated.

If you consider that these 44% include hits from all angles and perhaps even multiple hits I think there has to be a major rethink about Kornet/TOW's capabilities.

This also tells a lot about crew survivability: 23 fatalities in 23 penetrations(with fatalities only occuring in 10 of the penetrated vehicles). Considering that the merkava has a crew of 4 thats quite good. Imho we should try to find a way to simulate that(the current system of having the tank burn is unsatisfactorily for me). Additionally tanks should not blow up as easily as they do. With all the anti fire systems and safe ammunition storage, that should be a rare case. I do not want to suggest that the tanks should not be disabled though! I'm just talking about the exploding itself.

DankE_SPB
2011-02-20, 14:45
Additionally tanks should not blow up as easily as they do. With all the anti fire systems and safe ammunition storage, that should be a rare case. I do not want to suggest that the tanks should not be disabled though! I'm just talking about the exploding itself.
Welcome to BF2 engine :-P
For sure we would make something more advanced if we could and there are tweaks and tests being made, but in general not much we can do about it.
This also tells a lot about crew survivability: 23 fatalities in 23 penetrations(with fatalities only occuring in 10 of the penetrated vehicles). Considering that the merkava has a crew of 4 thats quite good. Imho we should try to find a way to simulate that(the current system of having the tank burn is unsatisfactorily for me)
Grozny assault in 94-95 - 30 tanks penetrated, 31 tankers killed, 10 injured + ~dozen or two tanks damaged, but without penetrations or due to technical failures, mines and falling from ridges etc. Only one tank damaged in contacts with Dudaev's T-72A's. And as far as i can tell, most were multiple hits and in weak places, not frontal armour(Compilations from Vladislav Belogrud studies). Which leads us to about same amount of fatalities per penetration.

Anyway, as i said above, there is no way so far to reflect those differences properly without other odds popping up, which will ruin all the benefits from those changes, that is even before we go into balancing issues field.

Robert-The-Bruce
2011-02-20, 15:07
DankE_SPB;1551916']Grozny assault in 94-95 - 30 tanks penetrated, 31 tankers killed, 10 injured + ~dozen or two tanks damaged, but without penetrations or due to technical failures, mines and falling from ridges etc. Only one tank damaged in contacts with Dudaev's T-72A's. And as far as i can tell, most were multiple hits and in weak places, not frontal armour(Compilations from Vladislav Belogrud studies). Which leads us to about same amount of fatalities per penetration.

Well thats another argument reinforcing that tanks should be able to take a lot more punishment than they currently are. I'm not sure how things are handled in FH2 but tanks seem to shrug off rounds once and again.

On the matter of exploding. Can't you program a tank to always be disabled at below a certain percentage of health? I.e. all systems failing. Might not be entirely realistic, but definetly better than the current state.(Isn't that pretty much how disabling systems work now[with a propability smaller than 1.0 ofc])

I assume it's not possible to assign a certain type of disability(can someone suggest a better word pls? I feel a bit like a clown using that word here) to a material type,(because it would have been implemented by now if it were) so that, say, a front hit might not do a lot of % damage but has a certain propability of damaging or knocking out optics.

DankE_SPB;1551916']Welcome to BF2 engine :-P

Well if you can't simulate crewmembers randomly getting killed, thats bad news i guess..
Sad Panda is sad :-(

=HCM= Shwedor
2011-02-20, 17:41
I think the tanks are rather well made so far actually, with exception of that cursed Challenger 2. The model itself appears to be top notch but ingame it can actually be essentially killed with one RPG-7 hit, I was playing with it once, fresh out of the main at the start and a single RPG hit my tank resulting in it bouncing like crazy. It was completely tracked, rendering us easy meat for a bomb car. Against the T-62 it usually dies in two shots to frontal armor. (Can the T-62's 115mm gun even penetrate the frontal armor on a Challenger 2?) Also on that Qin Ling map the the tank slides whenever you get on a hill, sometimes it even slides uphill making it near impossible to shoot and limiting your movements to perfectly flat areas (predictable areas and usually in the open) The WP rounds it fires do no damage to infantry as real WP. (WP does burn correct? Shouldn't a molotov-like burning be implemented for this round?) The 5 second's required for movement after stopping is quite realistic, but in game it is horribly annoying and usually will get you killed.

ShockUnitBlack
2011-02-20, 17:51
FH2 definitely has some sort of penetration system; works quite well in my experience.

Oh, one other thing. Is there any chance we're going to make it so that it's possible for the gunner/driver to poke their head out of their tank?

Elektro
2011-02-20, 21:35
Oh, one other thing. Is there any chance we're going to make it so that it's possible for the gunner/driver to poke their head out of their tank?

Just hit F3

ytman
2011-02-20, 22:20
Jaymz;1551854']By no stretch of the imagination can you say "it takes more than 1 modern ATGM to destroy a modern tank".


From your very source.

Another depressing statistic: Twenty-two tanks sustained hits that penetrated their steal armor (in ten of the tanks, there were 23 fatalities; in the rest, severe damage was caused to the vehicle). Forty-four percents of the tanks hit by missiles had their armor penetrated.

In anycase I am greatly looking forward to an improved surviviability given to these often cumbersome and very costly assets.

If something appeared earlier, it doesnt mean it was generation before, but a next gen appeared before its counterpart for example yeah, surprise, soviets could do something too

T-64/72/80/90 Leo2, M1 etc are all same gen tanks with their roots going back to 60's- early 70's, Leo2 and M1 were children of MBT-70, which was a project intended to replace M60 to be competitive with new soviet tanks.

Saying that the T-72/80 are of the same calibure of a T-90/M1 is quite a stretch. Specifically the T-90 is a significantly upgraded vehicle over the basic T-72 design.

Generations are rather vague anyway, there are no strict rules about it + by the time "new gen" western tanks appeared new modification of T-72 was introduced, along with T-64 upgrades and T-80.

The T-72 was, to my knowledge, developed and deployed well before the M1 was. The T-80 entered service a good few years before the M1 too. The T-72B was, I believe, introduced in response to the new western tanks, with the T-90 being a fully realized counterpart.

FYI T-90 was named T-72BU in its early days.

I know a small deal of stuff on tanks, even russian ones, and yes I knew this. (Hence the fact that it is an ungraded design based on the 72)

-----

Pfft. First it was the Militia now its the MEC... meh I'd like more counterbalnces to the tanks in general to go along with their strategic doctrine in the respective armies. Its no fun if they all have basically the same weaknesses and strengths.

LordLoss
2011-02-21, 09:14
A few weeks ago on Fools Road, I 1 hit killed a Challenger 2 to the front with the Militia/Insurgent RKG-3 "Anti-Tank" grenade, 5 minutes later I threw a second grenade at the front of a Scimitar, no effect.

This needs sorting.

=LK= A.H.
2011-02-21, 11:48
A few weeks ago on Fools Road, I 1 hit killed a Challenger 2 to the front with the Militia/Insurgent RKG-3 "Anti-Tank" grenade, 5 minutes later I threw a second grenade at the front of a Scimitar, no effect.

This needs sorting.
OK, you win. I thought the fact that the Chally can be destroyed with the ZiS-3 was bad :?

Hunt3r
2011-02-26, 07:33
On Kashan, I hit an M1A2's frontal armour with the Eryx which only caused it to smoke while all functionality was retained.

Hate to break it to you, but IRL a frontal hit wouldn't even do anything except be a very loud door-knocking paint-chipping wake up call.

I believe that as a general rule casualties and penetrations of the Merkava's armor occur mostly on the sides and rear.

Psyko
2011-02-26, 09:34
just read through this thread. some interesting information.

my bias is always from a gamers perspective. i prefare to see a nice balance between enjoyable gameplay elements and realism. in this regard i hate it when tanks become defencless. if your tracked...that means your tracked, not that your gun cannot rotate. and being tracked doesnt mean you should bounce and vibrate and rotate. if a tank in real life got tracked we all know what would happen, it would rotate its gun and return final defencive fire. id like to be able to defend myself if im tracked.
also it occurs to me, and i hate to say it, the challenger might need to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch. its too buggy.

2 points.
1 i think all tank frontal armour should be adjusted. in the long run it doesnt cut it. it would make tank battles more tactical anyway. (nessesity of flanking) and yes i did just contradict what i said somwhere else but i changed my mind.
2 smoke deployment duration needs to be a lot longer. like almost 2 minutes. i dont have a sause but if anyone does that would be helpful. the reasons are obvious.



Well if you can't simulate crewmembers randomly getting killed, thats bad news i guess..
Sad Panda is sad :-(
this is defenitly possible. a crew member can be shot out of the seat of a tank with a heatround i've been there and done that. its not intentional but it happens. rarely.

dtacs
2011-02-26, 09:52
It can and does happen with the AAV, as its the only vehicle that actually represents that. A few rounds to the drivers position will kill him, which is what makes it such a terrible vehicle.

Hopefully its either removed for the next version or all vehicles will get the feature.

Psyko
2011-02-26, 10:09
deliberatly?

Outlawz7
2011-02-26, 11:34
It can and does happen with the AAV, as its the only vehicle that actually represents that. A few rounds to the drivers position will kill him, which is what makes it such a terrible vehicle.

Hopefully its either removed for the next version or all vehicles will get the feature.

It doesn't "represent" anything, it's just another bug.

Bufl4x
2011-02-26, 13:09
Jaymz;1551578']The whole "jack-in-the-box" issue can be remedied somewhat if we were to give HEAT rounds a small radius of 2-3m that kills regardless of cover, basically a pseudo simulation of the rounds destructive capability.

Please do it, it's not just unrealistic but also very annoying that people hiding behind a few inches of sand can be safe from tank shells.

Hunt3r
2011-02-26, 22:12
I'll just drop my opinion here that heavy ATGMs shouldn't necessarily be one-shot instant disable/kill in frontal hits, and neither should pretty much anything. Only very large and heavy HEAT warheads should do this.

Stealthgato
2011-02-27, 01:35
It can and does happen with the AAV, as its the only vehicle that actually represents that. A few rounds to the drivers position will kill him, which is what makes it such a terrible vehicle.

Hopefully its either removed for the next version or all vehicles will get the feature.

It also takes damage from driving over the smallest bump on the ground. Also, why remove it? Why not fix it?

Hunt3r
2011-02-27, 02:48
Indeed, the AAVP needs better suspension and it's crew positions need to be fixed.