Jump to content
saXoni

Heavy Vehicles, View Distance

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, trotskygrad said:

 

carl G is definitely not capable of dealing with modern armor. Keep telling yourself that lol.

I meant soviet style armour, I know that it wouldn't even scratch an a1 or a leopard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NotBrad said:

I meant soviet style armour, I know that it wouldn't even scratch an a1 or a leopard.

 

a Carl G would fucking sodomize a Leopard 1A5... or Leopard C2 lol...

 

tons of soviet armor can survive a Carl G from 1980s forwards. Pretty much anything with Kontakt-1 or greater (T72B, T80BV,  T64BV) would survive it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, trotskygrad said:

 

a Carl G would fucking sodomize a Leopard 1A5... or Leopard C2 lol...

 

tons of soviet armor can survive a Carl G from 1980s forwards. Pretty much anything with Kontakt-1 or greater (T72B, T80BV,  T64BV) would survive it.

An A5 is not the same as a C2, some models have composite armor now. True about the reactive bricks, kontakt would certainly neutralize an inbound Carl-G round, but anywhere that the reactive armour isn't present would get f*ked. Plus if a T-90 was facing you you'd already be dead, only way would be to hit it in the side from close range with an AP. But to compare, even a Tow can't take an Abrams out in a single hit 100% of the time without the reactive armour add on and TOW missiles are pretty damn powerful. Don't know the specs of a T-90 or 72 that well but I believe both rely heavily on the kontakt bricks with the armour serving more as spall mitigation rather than real armour.(basses on the rounded design)

but hey I'm open minded enough to be corrected by somebody who's more knowledgeable than I, so long as it isn't just fanboying about your favorite tank. I know a C2 can't handle shit, but it's based off a 1950's model and only the fire control system has been upgraded since. Excluding those with MEXAS add on armour(which only deals with MANPAT. (I don't believe it is capable of protecting against AP shells.)

edit:

just realized you said 1A5 not 2A5... Corrected the sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NotBrad said:

An A5 is about as modern as leopards get, but although kontakt would certainly neutralize an inbound Carl-G round, anywhere that the reactive armour isn't present would get f*ked. Plus if a T-90 was facing you you'd already be dead, only way would be to hit it in the side from close range with an AP. But even a Tow can't take an Abrams out in a single hit 100% of the time and those are pretty damn powerful. Don't know the specs of a T-90 or 72obr that well but I believe both rely heavily on the kontakt bricks with the armour serving more as spall mitigation than real armour.

but hey I'm open minded enough to be corrected by somebody who's more knowledgeable than I, so long as it isn't just fanboying about your favorite tank. I know a C2 can't handle shit, but it's based off a 1950's model and only the fire control system has been upgraded since. Excluding those with MEXAS add on armour(which only deals with MANPAT. I don't believe it is capable of protecting against AP shells.

well I mean, same thing on western tanks, all are very vulnerable to side hits

 

kontakt covers most crew/fuel/ammo. I was around a real T64BV and it was pretty apparent. Only crew sights/tracks/gun weren't covered by ERA on the frontal aspect. From a side aspect, almost any handheld AT weapon is deadly to a MBT, it's a matter of the internal systems to prevent crew kill or mission kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NotBrad said:

I meant soviet style armour, I know that it wouldn't even scratch an a1 or a leopard.

 

1920px-T-72B_-_TankBiathlon14part1-01.jp

T72B obr.1984g

1920px-T-64BVK_commander_version.jpg

T-64BVK obr 1985g.It's actually command tank,but BV just have simplified Radio.

T-80_3.jpg

Т-80U obr 1985g.Damn it's probably faster tank in the world.

 

It's all soviet style.Not even post-soviet(Which actually freezed soviet projects).Every one have ERA.

 

2 hours ago, NotBrad said:

True about the reactive bricks, kontakt would certainly neutralize an inbound Carl-G round, but anywhere that the reactive armour isn't present would get f*ked.

 

Hit twice in same place,until they're return fire with 125mm HE shell?

Not really sure this possible.

Even without ERA - all of this tanks have very very solid HEAT protection.And also - they have very low silhouette,which gives them advantege over western tanks.Sabot round,tandem warheads and top-attack missiles is only one real danger for them.

Edited by samogon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a Kornet is capable of penetrating Abrams on first hit during second Gulfwar, then a TOW should do it too.

 

edit: i dont know how well armored the Saudi Abrams are but:

 

Some of this same video says its a Kornet, but i miss the doublesparks for it.

Edited by Metapher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a Kornet is capable of penetrating Abrams on first hit during first Gulfwar, then a TOW should do it too.

Kornet been created and adopted in 1998.It can't be in Gulf War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, samogon said:

Kornet been created and adopted in 1998.It can't be in Gulf War.

 

edited it, missread the video i posted before, my bad.

Thanks for pointing out ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is actually not labeled as footage of the Gulf war, wither the first nor second or third.

 

It is at least by its description is footage from the Houthi insurgency in Yemen. It started in 2004.


I got the exactly same footage in this video her tat states it is not a 9M133 Kornet but a 1970ties 9K111 Fagot. The launcer seen later in the Video is in fact a 9K111 launcher.

 

 

The Poor guy passing by on the street with his car must have bin scared like shit.

Edited by Evad422

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or are Abrams just flimsy as f**k. A Challenger 2 in Iraq took 14 RPG's and a MILAN atgm and got away with just several of its optics damaged. In another incident one reportedly took around 70 RPG'S and came out pretty much unscathed. The Abrams can't even take a single outdated wire guided missile. Not hating on the Abrams or anything but it just seems bizarre that so many have been so easily taken out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2016 at 10:29 PM, marxman said:

TOWs will solve a lot of problems with the armor and infantry balance I think.

Not really.

 

If you look at what PR planned to do...TOW or any ATGM won't be able to be used to defend infantry from tanks(unless tanks driver sideways somehow), but rather as ambush tools(like HAT but you can't move around with it).

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm betting that the terrain and buildings will be enough of an obstruction as to not allow clear sectors of fire for the entire map. In any case, for an armored vehicle to get to a high overwatch position, this means perching on top of the tallest hill it can find. And everyone wants a piece of the tank in the sky.

I'm confident that armor will be more powerful in Squad than in PR, but not THAT much more powerful. Plus, have some faith in the devs ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FalkoN said:

Is it just me or are Abrams just flimsy as f**k. A Challenger 2 in Iraq took 14 RPG's and a MILAN atgm and got away with just several of its optics damaged. In another incident one reportedly took around 70 RPG'S and came out pretty much unscathed. The Abrams can't even take a single outdated wire guided missile. Not hating on the Abrams or anything but it just seems bizarre that so many have been so easily taken out.

 

because the chally was being driven by a competent crew which was smart enough not to expose it's flank... trust me if you hit a challenger on it's flank with a milan it too would not have a good day.

and a RPG is 73mm diameter HEAT compared to the much larger ATGMs.

Edited by trotskygrad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FalkoN said:

Is it just me or are Abrams just flimsy as f**k. A Challenger 2 in Iraq took 14 RPG's and a MILAN atgm and got away with just several of its optics damaged. In another incident one reportedly took around 70 RPG'S and came out pretty much unscathed. The Abrams can't even take a single outdated wire guided missile. Not hating on the Abrams or anything but it just seems bizarre that so many have been so easily taken out.

 

British tanks always been very thick.Wiki says they have 800mm RHA against Sabot and 1200mm RHA against HEAT in front,which very impressive.And of course tea heater :)

Didn't surprised,why they're survive old generation shells.Shells and missles,which able to penetrate this exists,but not battle tested.And not sure they're would be tested.

 

Also - Fagot is almost same as Milan F1,just to compare.

Edited by samogon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, trotskygrad said:

 

because the chally was being driven by a competent crew which was smart enough not to expose it's flank... trust me if you hit a challenger on it's flank with a milan it too would not have a good day.

and a RPG is 73mm diameter HEAT compared to the much larger ATGMs.

 

As competent as British tank crews are (which is incredibly so), I don't think this was a factor as the tank in question got de-tracked in a ditch and was completely exposed from all sides. The enemy then went straight for the weak points such as the optics and the flanks/ rear of the vehicle, although I don't know which area of the tank the MILAN actually hit.

 

Also somehow I don't think it will be a problem in future looking at these huge blocks of Dorchester strapped too it...

chally.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, samogon said:

And of course tea heater :)

Haha, the staple feature of any great British tank. Not just tea you know, pretty much anything you can boil, Yanks like to laugh at us for it but its bloody useful. Surprised they don't have espresso machines in their Abrams xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, FalkoN said:

 

As competent as British tank crews are (which is incredibly so), I don't think this was a factor as the tank in question got de-tracked in a ditch and was completely exposed from all sides. The enemy then went straight for the weak points such as the optics and the flanks/ rear of the vehicle, although I don't know which area of the tank the MILAN actually hit.

 

Also somehow I don't think it will be a problem in future looking at these huge blocks of Dorchester strapped too it...

chally.jpg

 

well my other point still stands, regular RPGs are pretty weak against modern composite armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a solid hit from TOW missiles should put a hault or stun the vehicle operations for a good couple of seconds as the tank crew would be shaken from it. And depending where you hit it, should render that specific part inoperable until it RTB for repairs. Also tank crewman should be able to be killed from the inside.

The biggest threat to the tank crew would be another tank, and that should be enough to balance the game.

As for the insurgent and militia factions, a better way to balance them in terms of equipment is to give them high mobility with motorbikes, techies, and (possibly)VIEDs. Give them AT mines and IEDs, at the beginning of the match insurgents can roll out in motorbikes and lay mines at critical choke points.

I am a big proponent of giving those factions 2 main bases, one primary base known to the enemy and one that is randomized every match. This gives them an unpredictable attack path and time to set up ambushes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://js2010.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230%3Agranatnik-rpg-7&catid=41%3Abro-i-amunicja&Itemid=75

 

We already have the RPG-7WR (see RU-Ammocrates).

 

Maybe it would be nice to add an RPG-29 Vampyr, for more range, the warhead is likely the same.

 

600x180-images-Wojtek-rpg7-rpg1.jpg

600x184-images-Wojtek-rpg7-rpg2.jpg

600x165-images-Wojtek-rpg7-rpg3.jpg

 

przebijalność = Penetration

 

A friendly reminder for the Challenger-2

 

2261301gfy54854h.jpg

 

but we are getting away from the original question regarding view.

So anyone else ideas?

Edited by Metapher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Metapher said:

http://js2010.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230%3Agranatnik-rpg-7&catid=41%3Abro-i-amunicja&Itemid=75

 

We already have the RPG-7WR (see RU-Ammocrates).

 

Maybe it would be nice to add an RPG-29 Vampyr, for more range, the warhead is likely the same.

 

600x180-images-Wojtek-rpg7-rpg1.jpg

600x184-images-Wojtek-rpg7-rpg2.jpg

600x165-images-Wojtek-rpg7-rpg3.jpg

 

przebijalność = Penetration

 

A friendly reminder for the Challenger-2

 

2261301gfy54854h.jpg

 

but we are getting away from the original question regarding view.

So anyone else ideas?

 

Mostly used shells are PG-7VL,at least in Russia.

Vampir didn't used.But PG29V are PG7VR with extended charge.

1395891909_otvaga2004_rpg29_02.jpg

 

WIKI says challenger have weaked armor in red zones.

Chally2_NLD.jpg

Edited by samogon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT infantry are a massive problem for armoured vehicles. If armoured vehicles are not properly supported they will not be very beneficial, especially against enemy vehicles. If realism is the aim, then tanks shouldn't be able to hear much aside from engine and crew members over internal comms (even then is difficult to hear!) It would be nice if AFV's would only become available when crew have correct numbers. Which would possibly solve some OP issues.

if the tank is blind it's useless, therefor team communication ought to be strong!

thermal optics may be overkill, but if realism is the aim...

The terrain in a lot of the maps is not suited to MBT's in any case, even AFV's have limited use to mostly fob defence and main road patrols. If it were flat desert I'd say tanks will rule, but for the majority it isn't. Wadi's and compounds will prove tough obstacles (of which maybe the devs can use to some advantage for AT infantry), some compound walls are able to withstand HE rounds too. Tanks are an asset, but won't be able to win a game if it can't take an objective! 

 

Realistic comms

realistic capabilities (both pros and cons) 

realistic damage

 

dont charge a vehicle head on and I'm sure you'll be fine.

Edited by Roddy189
Auto correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mostly used shells are PG-7VL,at least in Russia.

Vampir didn't used.But PG29V are PG7VR with extended charge.

1395891909_otvaga2004_rpg29_02.jpg

 

WIKI says challenger have weaked armor in red zones.

Chally2_NLD.jpg

According to who exactly? I'm pretty sure the British military has never disclosed the weaknesses of the Challenger. The lower glacis has been reinforced with a block of solid Chobham. So not anymore. The turret area is just vulnerable because of the optics and gun but not because it is penetrable. The Challenger has the strongest turret armour there is. There are no weaknesses there, the designers made sure of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

long respawn time and high ticket penalty + every squad has 1 anti tank and probably they are gonna add uniquie 1  anti tank missile for every team and don't forget to tow missile. You can build them near the fob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that the RPG-29 "Vampyr" with its PG-29V rockets have the capabilities of hitting tanks real hard, and have been used by Iraqi insurgents and Hezbollah, not to mention that it was so dangerous that the US refused to let Iraq touch any for fear of them getting to insurgents. At least, according to the Small Arms Survey's research on Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq.

 

Do you think it's a good idea for a HAT kit?

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2012/eng/Small-Arms-Survey-2012-Chapter-10-EN.pdf

 

On 4/5/2016 at 2:12 PM, samogon said:

Fagot

Well I definitely read that wrong!

Edited by Blackout330

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×