Jump to content
Gopblin

Let's discuss vehicle/infantry balance in V12 (cross-post)

Recommended Posts

I can agree that there is a little imbalance (6-7 shots to kill a heavy armored vehicle)  with the vehicle vs. Infantry game play.  However there are ways to counter those imbalances such as TOW emplacements and such and yes I know you cant really have tows with you 24/7 moving Obj to obj.  However the imbalance i do think that should be really fixed is the Abrams vs. T-72.  The T-72 is very much more powerful than the Abrams especially armor wise.   I think if the Abrams is re balanced there wont be as much complaining about the infantry imbalance against the armored vehicles.  As the Abrams would now have a more of a fair fight against the T-72.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-11-23 at 3:40 AM, kev2go said:

just make heavy anti tank  class warheads more effective.

 

It would be realistic anyways.

 

 

neither Abrams or T72B3 would have enough Rear or Side armor to withstand something like an At4 ( around 420mm penetration ). yet It takes multiple side or rear hits to fully destroy a tank.

 

Sure you can knock out an engine from the rear, but i mean the litteral Rear Turret, top Turret, and the Sides of the tank ( In between tracks) should basically KO a tank.

 

Now that might not necessarily lead to total Destruction of the Tank if the Projectile doesn't Cook off ammo ( for the M1 the ammo is safely stored behind blast doors) , but it would heavily injure if not outright kill whoevers inside the Tank where the muntion hit.

 

AS another suggestion, A mobility kill should be possible for a tank. IE imobilizing it by shooting a Anti tank rocket at its tracks to detrack it.

 

This is not correct. An AT4 will not kill a tank. It might result in a mobility kill however. Here are some numbers of RHA equivalents, and note that we are talking a round hitting at 90° angle straight on. If you hit it 45° angle then you can multiply those numbers by at least 1.4. Makers of the AT4 themselves say it takes 3 rounds to take out a modern APC even, so then think about how many it would take to take out a tank. AT4 is quite capable then even. LAW is rather crappy actually. Even if you would have slight penetration with these smaller LAT kits its not a sure crew kill if the penetration is minor. Crewmen have flak jackets also. Weapons very dangerous for tanks are ATGMs and tandem rockets (tandem mainly for the T72), except for helicopters and such of course. These are the real tank killers actually. Not infantry. 

 

M1A1HA: Hull – 
600 mm vs APFSDS, 
700 mm vs HEAT, 
Turret – 
600 mm / 800 mm vs APFSDS, 
1,300  mm vs HEAT[9][10][nb

 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another solution for imbalance that is not discussed a lot and that is AT mines. AT mines are cheap and used extensively throughout conflicts. Why not hand out loads off them to infantry squads? It is a very effective way to block off urban environments from armored vehicles. It wouldn't be unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

This is not correct. An AT4 will not kill a tank. It might result in a mobility kill however. Here are some numbers of RHA equivalents, and note that we are talking a round hitting at 90° angle straight on. If you hit it 45° angle then you can multiply those numbers by at least 1.4. Makers of the AT4 themselves say it takes 3 rounds to take out a modern APC even, so then think about how many it would take to take out a tank. AT4 is quite capable then even. LAW is rather crappy actually. Even if you would have slight penetration with these smaller LAT kits its not a sure crew kill if the penetration is minor. Crewmen have flak jackets also. Weapons very dangerous for tanks are ATGMs and tandem rockets (tandem mainly for the T72), except for helicopters and such of course. These are the real tank killers actually. Not infantry. 

 

M1A1HA: Hull – 
600 mm vs APFSDS, 
700 mm vs HEAT, 
Turret – 
600 mm / 800 mm vs APFSDS, 
1,300  mm vs HEAT[9][10][nb

 

 

Lolno. Is that pediwikia numbers?

 

M1A1_HA_sideLOS.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

I have another solution for imbalance that is not discussed a lot and that is AT mines. AT mines are cheap and used extensively throughout conflicts. Why not hand out loads off them to infantry squads? It is a very effective way to block off urban environments from armored vehicles. It wouldn't be unrealistic.

 

True, but you know what's more common than AT mines IRL? Hand-held AT weapons. The whole point of LAW/RPG26 is to give two of them to every grunt the instant you hear rumors of enemy armor in theater. Yet in Squad, infantry AT is somehow a rare commodity, where a team often has fewer infantry HEAT rounds than armored vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 11/27/2018 at 3:33 PM, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Of course we need helicopters! I've been waiting all this time for helos. 

 

On the other hand, there should be a few infantry only maps to please your Quake Arena cravings. Vehicles are kick ass... 

Okay way to miss the point completely.

We are talking about how to make infantry and vehicles compatible with each other on the battlefield. I'm not interested in quake arena infantry only maps, I want hybrid warfare, that's why I mentioned PR. If this game just devolves into Vehicle Map or Infantry Map then I'd say the devs have failed to deliver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Gopblin said:

 

And your numbers from a computer game? They are not all that different though. But they are probably at the most defended points and not the rear. Exact numbers are probably classified anyway. 

 

But I mean exactly what are they penetrating when they hit the engine compartment do you mean? Its not going to be the crew compartment that is for sure. It's going to cause a mobility kill at most. Like I said. They won't penetrate the crew compartment with an AT4. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/11/2018 at 2:50 AM, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

This is not correct. An AT4 will not kill a tank. It might result in a mobility kill however. Here are some numbers of RHA equivalents, and note that we are talking a round hitting at 90° angle straight on. If you hit it 45° angle then you can multiply those numbers by at least 1.4. Makers of the AT4 themselves say it takes 3 rounds to take out a modern APC even

First of all I was generalizing I never said destroy in a single hot ( ie blow it up completely

 .  I said penetrate. And they can with the side or rear or top down shots.

 

A penetrating hit would be enough to incapacitate the crew and force any survivors to bail out. Or possibly cook off the ammo if it struck it. 

 

There's plenty of videos of t72s being shot from the side with RPGs or of tim resulting in a ammo cool off buring the crew alive from a single hit.

 

Recent examples are from syria

 

 

Even looking further back at I'll fated assualt in grozny ( 1996 Chechen war) 

 

Russians sent in tank into urban areas and they absolutely got slaughtered. Entry of opportunities to pop out and shoot rpg into t72 or t80 rear or sides. 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

, so then think about how many it would take to take out a tank. AT4 is quite capable then even. LAW is rather crappy actually. Even if you would have slight penetration with these smaller LAT kits its not a sure crew kill if the penetration is minor. Crewmen have flak jackets also.

 

Flak jackets wont save you from molten hot steel bits flying  aroun in a cramped compartment at fast speeds.

 

 

Quote

 

Weapons very dangerous for tanks are ATGMs and tandem rockets (tandem mainly for the T72), except for helicopters and such of course. These are the real tank killers actually. Not infantry. 

 

They are more dangerous due to a combination of factors. Larger warhead which will damage will spread out farther  combined with more powerfull penetrating warheads and the fact agtms can irl engage from multiple km away ( 3 - 5 km depending on mark and variation) . So much longer stand off range. but anti tank infantry weapons within  close quarters (200m) also are nothing to scoff at. 

 

 

Quote

M1A1HA: Hull – 
600 mm vs APFSDS, 
700 mm vs HEAT, 
Turret – 
600 mm / 800 mm vs APFSDS, 
1,300  mm vs HEAT[9][10][nb

 

 

Yes this is the front and fyi those are estimates. And the only apply to the front of the tank. Not rear and sides.

 

 

 

 No one knows the exact protection of any abrams variant beyond bare bones m1a1. 

 

At4 has at least 400mm worth of penetration. Most tanks wont have more than 400mm protection on thier sides or rear. Most would have less.

 

An rpg29 for eg has even more powerfull tandem warheads ranging from 600 to 750mm worth of rha penetration

 

Tldr

 

 

Infantey Should fired weapons are in fact lethal on tanks flanks ( sides and rear) and if fired from thier advertised effective ranges.

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if we implemented every armies equipment accurately we'll never have a balanced game!!

Edited by Quadro

Share this post


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

I think if we implemented every armies equipment accurately we'll never have a balanced game!!

 

In this case it makes sense it would make mbt less dominant against infantry and ultimately force  tank drivers to not drive straight up to enemy position and be more reliant infantry support to cover thier flanks while advancing.

 

Ideal tank country are the open plains. Not thick forests or urbanized areas.

 

It's a realistic form of balance.  Because the heart of squad are the infantry.

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/11/2018 at 1:29 PM, Gopblin said:

 

Lolno. Is that pediwikia numbers?

 

M1A1_HA_sideLOS.jpg

 

 

That's steal beasts. 

 

 

Whilst steel beasts is a realistic tank sim for armored tactics and good representation respective vehicles  of fire control. It's not a a ballistics or armor simulator. especially given its aged engine. 

 

HOWEVer, its armor and ballistics interaction is still far more realistic than what squad offers

 

 

 

I'd say when it comes to more modern tanks some seem over estimated.

 

Sb isnt a valid source alone. Worth cross checking to other open sources estimates I suppose.

 

There is certainly validity to where thicker and thinner armor are. The abrams side will be thi lckest going towards the very front. The middle is estimated weaker. And the rear turret bustle certainly wouldnt ne expected to tank any shots from shoulder fired weapons. 

 

If shot there the tanks ammo will cool off safely . Crew will survive, but they be out of ammo.

 

 

It is also a procedure to rotate the turret left or right away from the engine deck if ammo is cooking off. The flames discharged may damage the engine.

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 6:45 PM, pinko said:

Increased LAT/HAT rounds for infantry is my favoured solution to this problem. This would follow the same design principle of the weapon sway and suppression system increasing the duration of firefights. As LATs do less damage now, give them more rounds to continue the fight if the vehicle decides to stay after taking the first couple hits. Vehicle operators and their squads could respond by retreating, taking cover, attempting fire superiority, or popping smoke while the LAT reloads. Better than the one- or two-and-done vehicle explosions of v11, and better than the armoured impunity of v12.

having a "couple" lats hit the front of the tank wont do jack shit. In game, and for the most part in real life aswell. An abrams could absorb plenty of basic RPG heat rounds to the front no problem. i'm talking dozens of those things, which is why in game unless you hit the back with LAT, your not doing anything to a tank except pissing it off. My solution would be to, like said in the original forum, to give a few rifleman access to a LAW/RPG-26 and give the AT4 (THIS ONLY GOES FOR US, AS THE AT4 IS PRETTY SHIT COMPARED TO THE TANDEM WARHEAD HATS) give the AT4 kit 1 per squad, or like the marksmen system, 3 per team. From here, this fixes INF vs tanks without having to add OP missile assets such as Javelins, that could one-shot any vehicles from anywhere on the map. At this point, tanks would still be extremely capable, but individual squads, in the event they run up on a vic would have the chance to antagonize a tank or potentially disable it. I'm also a little opposed to the idea of having 1guy carrying more than a couple LAT's as especially for the US, those M72 LAWS are one time use that albeit, only weigh 5 pounds which is why in real life you see soldiers carrying 2, yet any more than 2 LAWs would become very clunky. For the AT4, that thing is 15 lbs, and carrying more than one would be a serious burden in real life. This is why I think the rifleman having access to LAT's is a superior idea.

Edited by nagasuru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quadro said:

I think if we implemented every armies equipment accurately we'll never have a balanced game!!

Yup. Which is why bickering about whether or not an AT4 can penetrate a T72 in real life seems a little irrelevant to me.

At the end of the day we are talking about whether or not the HAT and LAT kits can actually do their job in this game. Currently both kits are competing for the role of Anti-Truck.

Seems like Javelins are on their way though. In my passion to crush vehicles I was excited about this,  but now I can see that tipping the scales the other direction. Call me nostalgic all you want but this is why PR's HAT kits seem like the perfect balance, a single shot high damage wire guided rocket that requires line of sight and a slow moving/stationary target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nagasuru said:

having a "couple" lats hit the front of the tank wont do jack shit. In game, and for the most part in real life aswell. An abrams could absorb plenty of basic RPG heat rounds to the front no problem. i'm talking dozens of those things, which is why in game unless you hit the back with LAT, your not doing anything to a tank except pissing it off. My solution would be to, like said in the original forum, to give a few rifleman access to a LAW/RPG-26 and give the AT4 (THIS ONLY GOES FOR US, AS THE AT4 IS PRETTY SHIT COMPARED TO THE TANDEM WARHEAD HATS) give the AT4 kit 1 per squad, or like the marksmen system, 3 per team. From here, this fixes INF vs tanks without having to add OP missile assets such as Javelins, that could one-shot any vehicles from anywhere on the map. At this point, tanks would still be extremely capable, but individual squads, in the event they run up on a vic would have the chance to antagonize a tank or potentially disable it. I'm also a little opposed to the idea of having 1guy carrying more than a couple LAT's as especially for the US, those M72 LAWS are one time use that albeit, only weigh 5 pounds which is why in real life you see soldiers carrying 2, yet any more than 2 LAWs would become very clunky. For the AT4, that thing is 15 lbs, and carrying more than one would be a serious burden in real life. This is why I think the rifleman having access to LAT's is a superior idea.

 

or just as an alternate  to the AT4 have, the M3 MAWS ( Us designation for the Swedish adopted Carl Gustav Recoilless rifle)  as a option for heavy anti tank class. Why does the US faction have to be the only one with single shot disposable launcher's. Why not have a reusable anti tank  launcher  that can reload tandem warheads?

 

https://ordata.info/ordnance?id=5079

 

public source inf states the current warheads for it can negate  ERA and still  have  500mm worth of RHA equivalent steel penetration against primary armor.

 

 

Before someone says " But its not standard issue" thats no long the case. Inititially it was just issued to SOCOM units, but since 2014 has been steadily  as a standard weapon and issued to Light infantry units within the regular army.

 

 

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m3-carl-gustaf-why-army-falling-love-deadly-bazooka-33051

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Quadro said:

I think if we implemented every armies equipment accurately we'll never have a balanced game!!

No, then we would have Battlefield series. Those games suck because the weapons are useless. Tanks should be feared but there should be plenty of countermeasures. Heavy IEDs for insurgents. Javelin. Even choppers etc.

25 minutes ago, kev2go said:

 

or just as an alternate  to the AT4 have, the M3 MAWS ( Us designation for the Swedish adopted Carl Gustav Recoilless rifle)  as a option for heavy anti tank class. Why does the US faction have to be the only one with single shot disposable launcher's. Why not have a reusable anti tank  launcher  that can reload tandem warheads?

 

https://ordata.info/ordnance?id=5079

 

public source inf states the current warheads for it can negate  ERA and still  have  500mm worth of RHA equivalent steel penetration against primary armor.

 

 

Before someone says " But its not standard issue" thats no long the case. Inititially it was just issued to SOCOM units, but since 2014 has been steadily  as a standard weapon and issued to Light infantry units within the regular army.

 

 

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m3-carl-gustaf-why-army-falling-love-deadly-bazooka-33051

Sounds great. 

5 hours ago, kev2go said:

 

 

That's steal beasts. 

 

 

Whilst steel beasts is a realistic tank sim for armored tactics and good representation respective vehicles  of fire control. It's not a a ballistics or armor simulator. especially given its aged engine. 

 

HOWEVer, its armor and ballistics interaction is still far more realistic than what squad offers

 

 

 

I'd say when it comes to more modern tanks some seem over estimated.

 

Sb isnt a valid source alone. Worth cross checking to other open sources estimates I suppose.

 

There is certainly validity to where thicker and thinner armor are. The abrams side will be thi lckest going towards the very front. The middle is estimated weaker. And the rear turret bustle certainly wouldnt ne expected to tank any shots from shoulder fired weapons. 

 

If shot there the tanks ammo will cool off safely . Crew will survive, but they be out of ammo.

 

 

It is also a procedure to rotate the turret left or right away from the engine deck if ammo is cooking off. The flames discharged may damage the engine.

 

 

The Leopard has plenty of more ammo down in the hull. I would guess the Abrams does too. Reloading might be a bit cumbersome though. Shells are a bit difficult too extract swiftly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kev2go said:

First of all I was generalizing I never said destroy in a single hot ( ie blow it up completely

 .  I said penetrate. And they can with the side or rear or top down shots.

 

A penetrating hit would be enough to incapacitate the crew and force any survivors to bail out. Or possibly cook off the ammo if it struck it. 

 

There's plenty of videos of t72s being shot from the side with RPGs or of tim resulting in a ammo cool off buring the crew alive from a single hit.

 

Recent examples are from syria

 

 

Even looking further back at I'll fated assualt in grozny ( 1996 Chechen war) 

 

Russians sent in tank into urban areas and they absolutely got slaughtered. Entry of opportunities to pop out and shoot rpg into t72 or t80 rear or sides. 

 

 

 

 

 

Flak jackets wont save you from molten hot steel bits flying  aroun in a cramped compartment at fast speeds.

 

 

 

They are more dangerous due to a combination of factors. Larger warhead which will damage will spread out farther  combined with more powerfull penetrating warheads and the fact agtms can irl engage from multiple km away ( 3 - 5 km depending on mark and variation) . So much longer stand off range. but anti tank infantry weapons within  close quarters (200m) also are nothing to scoff at. 

 

 

 

Yes this is the front and fyi those are estimates. And the only apply to the front of the tank. Not rear and sides.

 

 

 

 No one knows the exact protection of any abrams variant beyond bare bones m1a1. 

 

At4 has at least 400mm worth of penetration. Most tanks wont have more than 400mm protection on thier sides or rear. Most would have less.

 

An rpg29 for eg has even more powerfull tandem warheads ranging from 600 to 750mm worth of rha penetration

 

Tldr

 

 

Infantey Should fired weapons are in fact lethal on tanks flanks ( sides and rear) and if fired from thier advertised effective ranges.

I don't think AT4 is tandem like the rpg 29 is right? Tandem and ATGMs are a real threat for sure. As well as heavy AT mines. T-72 is a rather old tank by the way.

 

Actually I don't see what the problem is much actually. If you don't like tanks then don't play maps with tanks. Like Tahlil outskirts for example. People are complaining about tanks, but tanks also support infantry against other tanks and BTRs etc. 

 

Then again, tanks should be accurately modelled.

 

By the way, I think insurgent should have like a really old T-55. That would be realistic. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

I don't think AT4 is tandem like the rpg 29 is right? Tandem and ATGMs are a real threat for sure. As well as heavy AT mines. T-72 is a rather old tank by the way.

 

my mistake , meant shaped charge ( anything using chemical energy)

Quote

 

Actually I don't see what the problem is much actually. If you don't like tanks then don't play maps with tanks. Like Tahlil outskirts for example. People are complaining about tanks, but tanks also support infantry against other tanks and BTRs etc. 

 

Then again, tanks should be accurately modelled.

 

By the way, I think insurgent should have like a really old T-55. That would be realistic. 


 

thats what the Russian faction has have though. A modernized T72 ( T-72B3)   They took a bunch of Old COld war ERA T72B's  from storage ( mostly Model 1985's being the most common produced variation of the T72B series)  and reffited Kontact 1 with Kontact 5 and modernized the Fire control , newer ammunition ETC, newer variation of the 2a46 125mm etc, 

 

 the Kontact 5 whilst providing better frontal protection due to the fact  new ERA type will protected against Kintetic energy tank rounds ( unlike Kontact 1) and is more effective agiasnt shaped charges, however this improvement in protection only is for the Frontal aspect of the tank TBH.

 

 

The Sides of the Tank are still very vulnerable. T72B3 still retains a Rubber Sideskirt ( 25mm thick or so) and the armor thats between the tracks and the turret under those sideskirts is very thin ( 60mm or so) . The airgap  would constitute as a sort of simple  "spaced armor protection ". Spaced armor concept basically makes a Shaped charge warhead prematurely explode and already start spreading liquid metal  before it gets to main armor.according to Fofanovs estimate ( techiniclaly on the T90, but its basically evolution of the cold war era T72B )  the  gap should increase protection by estimated  150mm of protection  So doing  the math the max side protection of a T72 should have at most 235mm of equivalent RHA   Side hit  from  a shoulder launched infantry.

 

If we take AT4, depending on warhead type, we can have either 420- 600mm     worth of penetration  should still therefore  penetrate a T72B3 in its side , and cook off the ammo if hit ( ammo carousel is more or less just underneath the turret in the hull.

 

Thats why for the further  T72B3M   ( which is a relatively small # atm ) modification Russians added new Sideskits  fitted with with 3rd generation ERA RElikt, at least for the ones shown in May day parades. due to Economy it seems most T72B3M are utilizing the Sort of Side skirt plates that the T90 had, which does not give as good coverage, and not as good protection although good enough against typical threats fired from infantry.

 

 

Kontact 5 armor behind those  side skirts plates equate to an estimated 300mm worth of protection. So if hit in that area the estimated equivlant of RHA Steel protection should be  at least 535mm. Again this will vary on the Anti tank weapon used and on warhead type to discern what will penetrate there or not.

 

Spoiler

T72B3

 

t72b3.jpg

 

 

T72B3M demonstrator

 

 

7DE5yEx.jpg

 

 

The "economical"  T72B3M side armor solution (  visually looking closest The Sort we have IN squad) utilizing  3  armored Plates  that are integrated with Kontact 5 which give more  limited coverage near the front end sides.

 

This  3 plate side armor  is basically to what was utilized in the T90 tank.

 

 

DBoDp9ZXcAAuXFq.jpg

 

 

t72b4.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

I don't think AT4 is tandem like the rpg 29 is right? Tandem and ATGMs are a real threat for sure. As well as heavy AT mines. T-72 is a rather old tank by the way.

 

Actually I don't see what the problem is much actually. If you don't like tanks then don't play maps with tanks. Like Tahlil outskirts for example. People are complaining about tanks, but tanks also support infantry against other tanks and BTRs etc. 

 

Then again, tanks should be accurately modelled.

 

By the way, I think insurgent should have like a really old T-55. That would be realistic. 

Although that would be cool, how often do you see insurgents running around in tanks or really any armored vehicles for that matter?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nagasuru said:

Although that would be cool, how often do you see insurgents running around in tanks or really any armored vehicles for that matter?

 

I've seen it from reports in Afghanistan and Syria. Also in Iraq they had a lot of heavy equipment they stole from the government. T-55 is like really old post world war 2 material as well so... Probably have a hard time against a modern US tank. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


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

No, then we would have Battlefield series. Those games suck because the weapons are useless. Tanks should be feared but there should be plenty of countermeasures. Heavy IEDs for insurgents. Javelin. Even choppers etc.

Sounds great. 

The Leopard has plenty of more ammo down in the hull. I would guess the Abrams does too. Reloading might be a bit cumbersome though. Shells are a bit difficult too extract swiftly. 

 

Just because one game doesn't follow precisely the real life capabilities of every peace of equipment doesn't mean it'll be turned into another game like Battlefield haha. I'm just glad the devs have a steady hand on implementing a feeling of reality, that's all I'm going to say. They will get the balance correct, eventually.  

Edited by Quadro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

I've seen it from reports in Afghanistan and Syria. Also in Iraq they had a lot of heavy equipment they stole from the government. T-55 is like really old post world war 2 material as well so... Probably have a hard time against a modern US tank. 

Correct, the Mujahideen(Taliban) in Afghanistan gained access(and still do in small numbers) to a load of T-54, T-55's,T-62's and PT-76's after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, and left a lot of equipment behind. China even gifted some Type 59 Tanks to the Mujahideen. While the Insurgency had Tanks, APC's and IFV's and did use them in the early phases of the 2001 Afghan Invasion - They quickly found out, that modern capabilities turned their Cold War era stuff into scrap metal lol

Syrian rebel/Insurgent groups managed to get their hands on everything from T54's, to T62's, to T72's - Even at some point T90's. They captured them after victories over the Syrian Army(Or in some cases in beating ISIS). They don't use them often(due to lack of ammunition & fuel) but do use them if they can.

OWI did do 3D scans of the T62, so will probably see them coming for unconventional factions :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unlike the leopard the m1 doesnt jave a huge ammo rack in the front. ( mind you this is basically a  largereserve rack for the leopard)  the leopard loader uses ammo from the turret and only when out of ammo . The tank is pulled out of battle with the turret twisted by the gunner  to the side So the loader can take out the reserve ammo and place it into the main rack within the turret for convenient loading.

 

Early m1 models ( 105mm versions)  stored 3 ready rounds in crew compartment but was did away shortly after entering service because it did not increase loading speeds as initially thought and was ultimately  deemed a crew hazard in an  event the tank was penetrated.

 

Since then  entirety of m1  abrams family of tanks the ammo has  stored in the rear turret which is closed from crew. The gunner needs to open blast doors anytime a reload is needed, the doors self close after they are accesed. To prevent pressure buildup in case of cookoff  there are blow off panels on the top of the turret to direct the flames upwards.

 

There is a small secondary compartment that can be filled with  extra ammo if need be , but it is  enlosed away from the crew with blowout panels. It would be located on the side of the commander's position behind him but  directly in hull portion of the tank not the turret. 

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people just arent working as a team to destroy vehicles and tanks. if you have 2 lats and 2 rifleman you have the ability to shoot 6-8 LATS before needing to resupply, the problem is no one works together and either dont go rifleman, or use the ammo bags on themselves and **** over the squad

 

To all these SL's that are complaining that they cant play the game anymore, the devs are giving you the tools to play the game, but you arent using them right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People asking for more LAT rounds and more ticket costs. Do you want people to just stop using vehicles all together??? if you give even 1 extra shot thats 4 total LAT shots per squad. And if 2 squads are "together" that makes 8. imagine even thinking of using vehicle at all where they cost more tickets and LAT had more rounds.. Oh wait that was a few updates ago!

 

The amount of times a vehicle was abandoned at spawn because "we can't afford the tickets" was insane. Even in incredibly long and heavy ticket matches nobody would touch the vehicles and if someone did they were berated for "wasting tickets". This vehicle policing was incredibly toxic and for a good portion of time I never touched anything besides a transport truck because my SL would just tell me again, "its a waste of tickets".

 

I got out of an Invasion game yesterday where our LAT and HAT were working together to deal with enemy Warriors and it was amazing, I set up ammo crates in high buildings and called out distances and marked vehicles and they didn't last more than a few minutes each time. 1-2 LAt shots and a HAT and they were done for

 

With a steady supply of ammo coming in we held off any potential push from the rear with infantry while we dealt with the armor pushing us from the front. LAT and HAT are not useless! Work together and get shit done

 

All this is still new even if it has been almost a month. i say give it at least another month and some change for people to really start to understand the flow of things.

 

However Tanks are a different issue and I believe once the US' AT4 is replaced things will get better. It's possible to 2 shot a tank with RU HAT and I think thats fair. And I believe for Tanks LAT should be meant mainly for disabling heavy armor and not downright killing it. Once more vehicle modules are in the game I think things will change for the better. Knocking out the tracks of a tank will be devastating imo and will make the dynamic for vehicles much different than it currently is.

 

But also the Abrams is currently crap in V12 which doesn't help lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Adamsmith said:

People asking for more LAT rounds and more ticket costs. Do you want people to just stop using vehicles all together??? if you give even 1 extra shot thats 4 total LAT shots per squad. And if 2 squads are "together" that makes 8. imagine even thinking of using vehicle at all where they cost more tickets and LAT had more rounds.. Oh wait that was a few updates ago!

 

The amount of times a vehicle was abandoned at spawn because "we can't afford the tickets" was insane. Even in incredibly long and heavy ticket matches nobody would touch the vehicles and if someone did they were berated for "wasting tickets". This vehicle policing was incredibly toxic and for a good portion of time I never touched anything besides a transport truck because my SL would just tell me again, "its a waste of tickets".

 

I got out of an Invasion game yesterday where our LAT and HAT were working together to deal with enemy Warriors and it was amazing, I set up ammo crates in high buildings and called out distances and marked vehicles and they didn't last more than a few minutes each time. 1-2 LAt shots and a HAT and they were done for

 

With a steady supply of ammo coming in we held off any potential push from the rear with infantry while we dealt with the armor pushing us from the front. LAT and HAT are not useless! Work together and get shit done

 

All this is still new even if it has been almost a month. i say give it at least another month and some change for people to really start to understand the flow of things.

 

However Tanks are a different issue and I believe once the US' AT4 is replaced things will get better. It's possible to 2 shot a tank with RU HAT and I think thats fair. And I believe for Tanks LAT should be meant mainly for disabling heavy armor and not downright killing it. Once more vehicle modules are in the game I think things will change for the better. Knocking out the tracks of a tank will be devastating imo and will make the dynamic for vehicles much different than it currently is.

 

But also the Abrams is currently crap in V12 which doesn't help lol

Abrams isn’t crap in v12.. what?? Also, it’s not like on open maps that more LATS would be “OP” against tanks. LATS should basically just be used to antagonize tanks, and in the extremely planned out chance that you and your squad with (rifleman LATS) flank a tank from behind on a huge map like talil, and get off 4, 5 LATS to the back, killing the tank, that’s totally deserved. Instead currently, even if you flank some tank in the same way, with your at most, (2 LATS), you can’t even kill the tank, you can only hinder its engine. They should just limit the ammo bag thing and instead vary the LATS to different classes in squad.

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

×