Jump to content
Gopblin

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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Dubs said:

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

Agreed. Thinking about it, I believe it would make most sense for insurgents to get something along the lines of a T55, while the milita could get an original T72 without the modern adaptations that the B3 has. 

Share this post


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

 

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. 

 

 

Yeah I won't argue the Leopard crew calling it a day after having their turret ammo stack blown up. Though technically it is possible to pick out one or two rounds from the rather big reserve and throw them somewhere if they are like immobilized or something. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


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

yAbrams 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.

If you are in a T-72, currently there is a 1 shot instant KO spot directly in the middle of the Abrams which guarantees the tank will cook off, it's massive and all you have to do is shoot vaguely near where the barrel meets the turret and the tank is dead. And again I believe it's a LAT's job to deal with lower armored vehicles and when in contact with something like a tank, disabling should be the 1st objective of a LAT. Currently all a LAT can do is go for the engine, but again, not all vehicle components are in the game. I believe a tank treads module is being implemented eventually and when that happens LAT can SERIOUSLY hinder a tank just be hitting it in the tracks. meaning tanks will have to be more careful about how far they push up and where to position themselves.

 

Currently the RU, Militia, and Ins all have Tandem HAT RPG's that can, if shot correctly, 2 shot an Abrams. The US/Brit cannot because they only have the AT4 a considerably smaller, but still decent HAT weapon. The devs have confirmed that the AT4 is placeholder and that the US will be getting a different AT weapon in place of it eventually. meaning that everyones gripes with the dynamics of US/Brit HAt vs all other factions is moot since its all going to change. And everyones gripe with the fact that armor is still such a "major issue" is again, moot, because not all vehicle modules are in the game yet and imaging being able to double track, damage the barrel, and damage the engines of a tank all with 1 single squad with no resupplying (everyone asking for more LAT rounds) no thanks, I'd rather hide behind a wall with tank shells flying at me while the devs work on the stuff that will actually change vehicle dynamics instead of just throwing larger numbers of LAT rounds at the game until something sticks AKA, the day nobody wants to play light vehicles anymore

Edited by Adamsmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2018 at 10:40 AM, Adamsmith said:

If you are in a T-72, currently there is a 1 shot instant KO spot directly in the middle of the Abrams which guarantees the tank will cook off, it's massive and all you have to do is shoot vaguely near where the barrel meets the turret and the tank is dead. And again I believe it's a LAT's job to deal with lower armored vehicles and when in contact with something like a tank, disabling should be the 1st objective of a LAT. Currently all a LAT can do is go for the engine, but again, not all vehicle components are in the game. I believe a tank treads module is being implemented eventually and when that happens LAT can SERIOUSLY hinder a tank just be hitting it in the tracks. meaning tanks will have to be more careful about how far they push up and where to position themselves.

 

Currently the RU, Militia, and Ins all have Tandem HAT RPG's that can, if shot correctly, 2 shot an Abrams. The US/Brit cannot because they only have the AT4 a considerably smaller, but still decent HAT weapon. The devs have confirmed that the AT4 is placeholder and that the US will be getting a different AT weapon in place of it eventually. meaning that everyones gripes with the dynamics of US/Brit HAt vs all other factions is moot since its all going to change. And everyones gripe with the fact that armor is still such a "major issue" is again, moot, because not all vehicle modules are in the game yet and imaging being able to double track, damage the barrel, and damage the engines of a tank all with 1 single squad with no resupplying (everyone asking for more LAT rounds) no thanks, I'd rather hide behind a wall with tank shells flying at me while the devs work on the stuff that will actually change vehicle dynamics instead of just throwing larger numbers of LAT rounds at the game until something sticks AKA, the day nobody wants to play light vehicles anymore

In reality, the Abrams would win against a T72B3 almost all the time, personally i haven't had the one shot KO experience with the Abrams. Almost every time I've been in one, we've defeated any opposing T72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the devs are going to hang fire on re-balancing vehicles until all ambitions are met in regards to, disabling tracks/wheels, turret, engine and ammo rack damage. Until these are fully implemented I find it hard to suggest anything as this could change everything. What I hope to find is eventually because of the increased possibility of disabling any said vehicle, the threat of vehicles won't be so bad and players who crew them won't want to have the hassle of repairing them so frequently. Which will encourage a more reserved, backbench support role in some situations.  

 

In it's current state (v12) mbt's like to just drive into a enemy FOB and blow everything up. I think tank crew or any crew for that matter will think twice when lighter AT equipment can damage their tracks to turn them into a sitting duck. Ready to die and wait for a 20 minute re-spawn before they can use it again. I think the devs are working to something really great. We just have to be patient. It's an alpha after all! xD

Edited by Quadro

Share this post


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

In reality, the Abrams would win against a T72B3 almost all the time, personally i haven't had the one shot KO experience with the Abrams. Almost every time I've been in one, we've defeated any opposing T72.

Well to be fair, the Abrams has only been up against outdated or shit versions of the T-72 with shit crews and shit tactics. The B3 would make it pretty close to a T-90 in terms of capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guan_Yu007 said:

Well to be fair, the Abrams has only been up against outdated or shit versions of the T-72 with shit crews and shit tactics. The B3 would make it pretty close to a T-90 in terms of capabilities.

Yep that's true. And with Abrams most likely being the much better tank, tank warfare is still very much a first-shot-wins kind of game.

 

If I would guess I would say that a T72 won't survive a frontal sabot from an Abrams, but an Abrams might maybe survive a frontal sabot from a T72. But I mean slightly from the side or rear and Abrams would be toast too. This is my guess.

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guan_Yu007 said:

Well to be fair, the Abrams has only been up against outdated or shit versions of the T-72 with shit crews and shit tactics. The B3 would make it pretty close to a T-90 in terms of capabilities.

The B3 is for sure a step up in capabilities. Had they gone head to head in real life in a fair fight, I still believe an Abrams would win. I don't think one sabot from the T72 would kill the Abrams, nor do I think that one sabot would get through all the reactive armor of the T72's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a quite pointless debate. The capability of your tank is only a small part of the equation IRL. The Iraqis used their as fortified artillery in the desert against an enemy with total air superiority. The Abrams would have died just as fast under those circumstances. In the game we dont have companies of tanks operating together and the distances are short enough for the T-72 to penetrate the Abrams. The Abrams is on paper the better tank, but since that easily can be negated by the lack of tactic in the game its less of a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cry of the soul! )
Need nerf tanks! So play can't continue.

I play SL and have about 2000 hours of playing time in Squad.I think this is a lot of time in the game.Describe situation which has held true for 1 game 2 times.We have been successfully defending the point for some time.If on a map there is tanks I always keep 2 fighters with LAT.Across the placed point ammo.Comes 1 tank and simply shots destroys our hub. Fighters with LAT have time to knock out the engine and all, although it was released 2 shells each in the rear of the tank.And we lose points one by one.As in such situation I should act provided that our side has lost both the tank.

Sorry about my English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mitya76rus said:

The cry of the soul! )
Need nerf tanks! So play can't continue.

I play SL and have about 2000 hours of playing time in Squad.I think this is a lot of time in the game.Describe situation which has held true for 1 game 2 times.We have been successfully defending the point for some time.If on a map there is tanks I always keep 2 fighters with LAT.Across the placed point ammo.Comes 1 tank and simply shots destroys our hub. Fighters with LAT have time to knock out the engine and all, although it was released 2 shells each in the rear of the tank.And we lose points one by one.As in such situation I should act provided that our side has lost both the tank.

Sorry about my English.

You should have put a TOW or equivalent deployable to augment your firepower :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with a tank driving straight up to a fob is a real one though, with three crew it is automatically disabled ...but  ..I am shaking my head about the tears re rpg..id like to see street barricades / tank traps.. but hey also mines can be built around habs so that tank can catch one there.. .. people will be crying in their helmets when helicopters arrive...  ' oh im getting killed from a distance, please give everyone the most powerful one shot kill anti aircraft rocket there is so a single soldier is as powerful vs air as he should be vs tanks'... stop friggin crying ..  the dynamics of the game have changed.. instead of playing rock paper scissors actually think about how you will counter a tank.. if you know a tank is on the map then it should be no surprise should it... build things to counter... group vehicles and rpg to support one another...

 

as is what you see is 3 full infantry squads using the same friggin tactics now that they did from v9... rush separate flags with a logi and perhaps a btr or stryker.. tank squad  goes off on its own... logi squads die because they of course find the enemy tank first... now its a rush to bring you own tank in ... by then no fob.. people are struggling to counter .. no ammo supplies because no fob ... . tank cant get close because its now got enemy swarming the flag and an enemy tank to contend with, and no infantry support... it becomes a stand off slug fest until one tank blows up... now enemy tank has upperhand.. no counters built anywhere on the map due to the logi rush.. it can sit and pick off incoming vehicles ...

 

tears from squads saying they could not destroy the tank because of its armour.. but with no fob/no tank support/ and shooting it in the side and front tends not to work... 

 

 

Edited by embecmom

Share this post


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

You should have put a TOW or equivalent deployable to augment your firepower :) 

TOW was destroyed by 1 shot from a tank.And yet the tank had no support in the form of infantry, he just came and smashed the hub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for me 12.1 seems pretty good in regard to inf vs. vehicle. But it is far too early to call it perfect. 

 

In any case, a tank crew might decide to risk their tank to destroy enenmy FOB and they might succeed and drive away, but with 12.1, there is a real chance their tank gets destroyed. So for me it seems ok. You cannot balance out everything perfectl. And then there luck. It would be pretty boring if everything is predictable. 

 

That beeing said, OWI already told us about more/other AT weapons for some factions, about a commander who can call (AT-)Air Support and about destroyable tank-tracks. 

 

 

What i like is the idea of tank-barricades ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_hedgehog#/media/File:Rozsocháč.jpg ), which should be cheaper to build then hesco walls, if implemented. Could also be interesting if there is a combat engineer role someday, who could place them anywehere (bridges....).

Edited by Borsti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/11/2018 at 12:33 PM, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Yeah I won't argue the Leopard crew calling it a day after having their turret ammo stack blown up. Though technically it is possible to pick out one or two rounds from the rather big reserve and throw them somewhere if they are like immobilized or something. 

 

 

Well I was saying more along the lines of 

If leopards hull is penetrated right hand side Then the crew wont ever have a good day , like never ever. ( as in they be cooked alive and/ or blown up) and possibly the tank ending up with a blown off turret

 

A m1 abrams  penetrated in the hull is going facing the death of its driver and a fuel tank fire. Allowing the chance of loader gunner and commander to call it a day.

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


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

 

 

Well I was saying more along the lines of 

If leopards hull is penetrated right hand side Then the crew wont ever have a good day , like never ever. ( as in they be cooked alive and/ or blown up) and possibly the tank ending up with a blown off turret

 

A m1 abrams  penetrated in the hull is going facing the death of its driver and a fuel tank fire. Allowing the chance of loader gunner and commander to call it a day.

 

 

Yes this could be yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 6:52 AM, Tempest said:


This isn't the answer, it just escalates the problem of overpowered vehicle assets. Are we going to be asking for jets when attack helos are added and they are given the ability to sit 3km away from the fight and pop vehicles with impunity?

PR always had a more battlefield approach to vehicle vs inf to keep things fun for the infantry. We don't need helicopters we need javelins.

Infantry should always have weapons available to them that pose a serious threat to any vehicle in this game.
 

A long time ago they made a recap with a picture of an incompleted Javelin missile launcher in development.

https://squad.gamepedia.com/FGM-148_Javelin

 

They haven't said anything about it in like a year though. I'm sure its coming though still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 11:56 AM, Borsti said:

What i like is the idea of tank-barricades ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_hedgehog#/media/File:Rozsocháč.jpg ), which should be cheaper to build then hesco walls, if implemented. Could also be interesting if there is a combat engineer role someday, who could place them anywehere (bridges....).

Single Hescos are my go to at present 50 construction and  8 for the price of one wall. Create roadblocks that force the Armour off roads and to positions that it hasn't got the visual advantage.   

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

×