Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Smee

Armour thickness ***** need adjustment

Recommended Posts

Know we are on a working version of vehicle armour but think that it's off, actually way off but suggest a change.  No apc should really have the same armour rating of any of the  MBT's  Front armour rating. I don't know if there's  bigger difference, extras effects maybe but  SDK not out yet so cant check.  numbers are the stars on Jensen.

 

 

 

NAME

Front Side REAR
MRAP 2 2 -
MTLB 5 3 1
30mm / BTR 5 3 1
STRYKER 5 3 1
BRADLEY 5 4 1
WARRIOR 5 4/5 1
FV430 Mk3 BULLDOG 5 5 3
M1A2 Abrams 5/4 3 1
T72-B3 5 4 1
       
       
Suggested change      
MRAP 2 2 -
MTLB 4 2 1
30mm / BTR 4 2 1
STRYKER 4 2 1
BRADLEY 4 3 1
WARRIOR 4 3/4 1
FV430 Mk3 BULLDOG 4 4 2
M1A2 Abrams 5/4 3 1
T72-B3 5 4 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea agreed although I'd further suggest that  apfsds ammuntion of the m1a2 should be buffed  given in reality  it would  make total mincemeat of the t72b3 armor which in itself is obviously worse than m1a2.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2018 at 11:47 AM, kev2go said:

Yea agreed although I'd further suggest that  apfsds ammuntion of the m1a2 should be buffed  given in reality  it would  make total mincemeat of the t72b3 armor which in itself is obviously worse than m1a2.

 

 

Not necessarily, yes the M1A2's armor is undoubtedly better than the T72's armor, especially considering the modern one (B3) featured in SQUAD has reactive armor and lots of applique armor, while the Abrams armor is pretty stock for an A2. But still, a 120mm sabot to a modernized T72 front should not kill it in one-shot. In reality in might be capable of partially penetrating and fragmenting some of the crew, but it would not destroy the tank. Realistically, it would take around 3, maybe more, maybe less. On the other hand, the front armor of the abrams should be able to stop almost all T72 rounds.

The armor values displayed are not that simple. They don't reflect the overall effectiveness, only the parts that can be penetrated, so while the front of the warrior might be penetrated by an RPG and do damage, the abrams, might take 5 hits to a place that is much smaller and hard to hit. For instance, LAT's do no damage to the front of the Abrams, and minimal, sometimes zero damage to the side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was meant the comparison between apc/ifv and MBT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, what I am trying to say is that in game, (because I have no idea what the numbers mean in the damage models), a warrior and abrams are DRAMATICALLY different, just from personal gameplay experience.  I've had times where 4 of us in an abrams were ambushed by over 15 RPG's in various places, and we seemed to only suffer minor engine damage from the few of the LAT's that managed to hit us in the back. I can't say I have the same armor confidence in IFV'S.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×