Armor and Anti-Armor

[danger01]

lots of burning comments under that video. actually can't decide which one to take seriously.

yeah, i saw, and i would probably believe the people doing the burning know nothing about anti tank warfare

[Lange]

[quote=""'[R-MOD"]BloodBane611;1400682']I'm very interested, linky?




The problem with that system is that it really is not a realistic portrayal of a LAT's capabilities. Surely a number of light AT rockets hitting in nearly the same spot would be able to penetrate the armor of practically anything, but the likelihood of hitting the exact same spot of an armored vehicle several times over using a LAT is low. Since the BF2 engine won't allow us to have a damage system that that would track damage to certain parts of the vehicle, it's all about playing with the numbers to make things a reasonable approximation of real life.

I think right now the balance is too far towards infantry in regard to AT assets, increasing the deadliness of LATs against armor would be bad both for gameplay and realism.




Some mods (most notably NAW if I remember correctly) have incorporated the Javelin into BF2, and I believe they used two ammo-linked weapons to get the top attack and direct attack modes. It can be done, just takes 2x weapons slots instead of one.[/quote]

Ill upload it somewhere or PM you the file, I had Rudd submit it to the dev team for evaluation but I have no access to it so i'll show you somehow or for anyone else whos interested. I do need to change some things based off of ideas even in this thread so i'll edit it soon.

To what you said about light AT in PR I can see what you mean about how the infantry AT balance against armor is too much in infantry's favor at the moment and I do see that that is a current issue with gameplay I fail to see what you meant by upping the capability of light AT is bad for realism?

I wonder this because current light AT in PR doesn't seem completely realistic as stated earlier in this thread and I have studied by my own research most light AT systems like a AT-4 would leave all modern APC systems inoperable. Yet in PR its by chance with APC's however I guess within balance of the vehicle as well giving APC's a chance while in real life they would almost always become breeched and destroyed. How then would making a LAT do realistic damage affects "realism" when in its self it is realistic? Gameplay wise thats a good point though.

Personally I am for the idea of while AT being realistic be more limited which in itself seems more realistic. This is also something I talked about in the paper I submitted to the developers basically meaning you have 1 HAT kit per team while being dominant against vehicles like they are in real life limited in effectiveness because you only have 1 kit. This could be different depending on fractions who in real life have less effective AT systems where you could keep 2 kits or a similar setup to that(a member in the forums a few weeks back had a suggestion of like 1 kit available every 5 minutes which still being only 1 kit more accessible type of theory).

And in short you then have other types of balance like give the other team a few more tickets and vehicles like say if the US Marines had a Javelin on Muttrah give the MEC 4 apcs again and have like 425 tickets.

As far as light AT goes take the number down to 2 instead of 3 and make it so they are effective consistently up to APC type armor if it is not accurately possible to make them do realistic damage to tanks as bloodbane stated above. And as far as limiting AT and how much it could change depending on the map if thats possible without too much workaround and trouble say for example you still get 3 LAT's on vehicle heavy maps but carry only 2 on a map like Muttrah.


[quote="Teh0""]We should compare vehile and stationary missiles too. Stationary TOW and HJ-8 can always destroy any tank with 1 shot. It feels OK becouse tanks should not rush towards enemies without infantry who can easily kill stationary AT gunner. BMP-3 can only stop a tank by ATGM if it hits to low side and destoy from behind. Bradley can fire 2 missiles fast and take down a tank. I am not sure about AT-BRDM, it can fire 5 missiles very fast but maybe it needs 2 for a tank? Have you got experiense about this from Beirut or Fools? In my mind things are all right but TOW-Humvee feels overpowered becouse it kills T-90 with 1 shot to front armor. Why it is so mutch powerfull than Bradley and BMP?[/quote]

I remember Jaymz saying it was something the developers didn't do properly was match the vehicle TOW power to infantry TOW power something that will probably be fixed in next patch.

You're not seeing the point. Its not that .50 Caliber MG's are inhumane, its that BOTH teams have a equal chance of countering one/HAVING IT IN GENERAL. Having a Javelin removes the skill required to guide a Anti-Tank weapon, as well as the fact that its the only weapon of it's kind. MEC wouldn't have a Javelin equivalent, the Chinese wouldn't have a Javelin equivalent, and I'm sure as hell the Russians don't.

Very true if the US had a Javelin and it worked realistic it would just be that the US had a high powered AT system and that would be one unique thing about their fraction. As someone else stated war in realife is not balanced perfectly and fractions sometimes have things over other fractions, obviously this can't be 100% protrayed in game or else the best fractions as they are in real life would always dominate but for the AT prospect, if a Javelin was put in game it would be that the US just have a AT system that in game would be something they have that is dominant.

You then think how to balance this out to give the opposing team a equal chance to win in other aspects other than the HAT kit such as:

More available vehicles tickets that sort of thing.

Other aspects that team might be strong in so if the US is strong in AT the MEC or whatever other opforce has something else better than the US like more vehicles tickets or whatever might be reasonable.

I talked a LOT more about this in the paper I wrote so if you want to know what I had said more in depth give that a look but I wont say too much more about it now.

I'm only talking about man portable ATW. even if FGM148 is barely portable [ i just dont imagine a soldier carrying all he's damn kit + that huge tube + the CLU. Even just 1 of the 2 ].

TOW, HJ8, Milan etc... in fact any H.A.T.W. like those i just said will probably breach a MBT. When you think about it, a LAV25 (without armor addon) do not withstand M903, surely not the Mk211 or even just the simple M2*. I dont know for other vehicle, since i dont work with them, except the LAV3 but it wont sustain those round either. So i guesstimate, that IFV and APC that have about the same weight will have about the same level of protection. So if you take a missile that goes as fast as mach 3, you can be sure it will breach alot of armor thickness. Kinetic speed + HE = wreckage. ( witch mean my chance are inexistant if my vehicle is hit by those thing )

Armored vehicle are primary target in conflict, so its pretty obvious that country field weapon that will take them out easily.


*.50 BMG cartridge type.

Nice input and knowledge again man. I wanted to point out what you said on the Javelin not being easily man portable. In order to make it feasible in PR it likely would be best served as 1 kit and this would not be entirely realistic but pretty much the only reasonable method. Right now we don't have 2 man kits which is how the Javelin is mostly used in real life is by a 2 man team but it has been documented from what i've seen to be carried by 1 man, that I saw in a source but probably very uncommon. Basically not entirely realistic but how it would likely have to be done in game.

so what if one side does not have anything to "counter" it oe be an equivalent , war is hell, having equality on both sides all the time is itself unrealistic, but take mutra as an example on your statement, mec have nothing to counter the cobra when it is flown correctly, no one moans about that.

A good point and I agree as I talked about above.

for the Russians i suggest the Kornet
Antitank missile system Kornet | Missilery.info

for the Chinese the HongJian 73 C version
HongJian 73 (HJ-73) Anti-Tank Guided Missile - SinoDefence.com

and as the MeC receive there missiles from Russia they could use the kornet

but as a counter to the HaT kits, i present the sniper team

no real skill is needed to hit a tank or any other vehicle for that point with a ToW, sure its not FaF, but keeping a cross-hair on a target is easy.

More interesting ideas for the balance aspect however I ask you would those be deployable's or portable infantry AT or "HAT kits". Those systems wouldn't be very realistic to be the main HAT kits of those fractions that you could request, however it may come down to that if the DEVS truely feel that if the other fractions can't have it noone can. Or as another option be implimented as "deployable's" or as some other aspect.

Basically if you want my opinion I feel HAT's need a big upgrade as its true currently in game we really one have 1 moderately realistic HAT system being the EYRX, and the other's don't function realistically or aren't portrayed in game realistically as main AT. I mainly went on about the US having a Javelin but if its possible have other systems use tracking like the NLAW and such then find ways to balance, and I stated this in my last post in this thread and in the document I wrote not to repeat myself though, lol.

[unrealalex]

This insta kill TOW business is one of the worst things to happen to PR. Used to be that armor battles were epic because it would take more than one shot to kill something unless it was to the rear. You had tanks maneuvering during battle, falling back, deploying smoke.

Now tank battle is two tanks camping on opposite sides of the hill with their engines off because the first one to climb that hill is gona get one hit killed. Or you have ninja stationary TOWs killing you on maps like Silent Eagle. Its not fun at all anymore, theres very little skill involved now. Now all that matters is how sneaky you are.



This engine off tactic needs to be stopped as well. Completly unrealistic (except maybe in WW2).

This is not coming from a player whos unable to adapt, I've successfully lead winning tank squads in .91 but its just not as enjoyable as it was before.

[Tarantula]

I personally find myself or one of the tanks in my squad tracked often, mostly by the weight of LAT hits or surviving a tank battle as the last man standing.
Engine off tactic could be changed by having the tank have an idolling noise when the gunner is in but theres no driver, i do think this issue has to be addressed as does the TOW,, the goddamned deployable TOW

[danger01]

I was under the impression that the PR mod was designed for realism within gameplay, to encourage teamwork and to discourage the twats that like to play as if in vanilla bf2.
so far, i have seen a lot of people moaning about the realism and talking as if they are playing solo.(not to mention seeing loads of bunny jumping and prone diving on servers)

I love to drive tanks, yet i ask for more realistic AT weapons that will be used against me !!!
teamwork will always prevail !!!

[killonsight95]

This engine off tactic needs to be stopped as well. Completly unrealistic (except maybe in WW2).

why is it unrealistic? surly a tank would want to be stealthy if it was camping.Also if its so unrealistic i'm sure they could've just made it so the driver must be in for there to be a gunner?

[Kim Jong ill]

I'd imagine all the systems, especially the actuators for the turret, would all need to run off the power generated from the engine. No engine running>no power>no working tank.

[killonsight95]

I'd imagine all the systems, especially the actuators for the turret, would all need to run off the power generated from the engine. No engine running>no power>no working tank.

i'm sure a small generator could power the turret and its systems.

[zenarion]

Are you a qualified technician that can say "yes, a tank can move it's turret while the engine is off"?
It doesn't sound unreasonable, just that people who are anal about realism might rage about such things.
I mean, a car can have it's stereo running when the engine is off, but not forever.

[Boris.T.Spider]

I'm sure this was brought up before and the answer was that they were indipendant systems, seems to me like a rather major design floor it if wasnt, having both your ability to retreat or fight dependant on a single component.

[ytman]

lots of burning comments under that video. actually can't decide which one to take seriously.

Well yes... this is why you can't trust the internet... You never know what is done behind the scenes...

I personally find it incredible that the T-72 was obliterated that much... however it makes sense sit it hit top down and probably detonated all mutions and fuel on explosion.

In anycase I only think the Javelin is balanced when the team opposite of US has tons of tanks.

[PLODDITHANLEY]

I am an infantry whore.

before and during 0.86 I found myself frequently powerless against armour, HAT is very limited kit or the LAT gunner has to be very very good, so many times I got annoyed with that, yes ofc we've got CAS, but it's often busy or down.

Now we've got two TOWs to deploy map wide, if some plonker forgets to destroy a rearward one we've got one, so when the armours about I will sit on a FOB back from the front lines and wait...and wait.

We all know that now armour must work with infantry, the SL's must use the new SL markers, and we must all be more patient.

Still I see most times the armour wandering off on it's own, on hunting missions for enemy armour instead of supporting and being supported by the inf, then complaining about TOWs - get on mumble SL and talk to the inf SL's find those FOB's, snipe the TOWs and move in together.

[Dev1200]

Perhaps one HAT to the side/rear disables it, two in the rear/side destroys it. 2 in the front disables, 3 in the front destroys.

[danger01]

In anycase I only think the Javelin is balanced when the team opposite of US has tons of tanks.

no offence chap, and this goes out to all those who think the same, but the javelin is a British weapon, not U.S, the U.S have the ToW( two types, anti tank and anti personnel )

@ PLODDITHANLEY, well said
the problem with the game is exactly that, its a game and if you die you re-spawn, in real life you dont have that luxury so one is more careful where one goes and how one goes.
the game battles move far to quickly and a lot of the people playing have no real understanding of tactics.

SO, when there is a risk of real devastating weaponry coming aboard they whine about it saying, we cant combat that and its too uber blah blah blah.

Teamwork for the win

[Drunkenup]

no offence chap, and this goes out to all those who think the same, but the javelin is a British weapon, not U.S, the U.S have the ToW( two types, anti tank and anti personnel )

There are two Javelin Missiles, the MANPAD made in the 60's by UK's Thales Air Defense.

Then there's the FGM-148 Javelin ATGM made in the late 90's by Texas Instruments and Martin Marietta, both American Companies. Were talking about the ATGM Javelin.

And I don't know what you're talking about the two types of US TOW missiles, they're all the same, its just the missiles they are loaded with that are different.

[unrealalex]

I am an infantry whore.

before and during 0.86 I found myself frequently powerless against armour, HAT is very limited kit or the LAT gunner has to be very very good, so many times I got annoyed with that, yes ofc we've got CAS, but it's often busy or down.

That's how its suppose to be. Believe it or not, in real life a tank is actually a big threat and not a mosquito waiting to be squished by a hand, newspaper or fly swatter.

Still I see most times the armour wandering off on it's own, on hunting missions for enemy armour instead of supporting and being supported by the inf, then complaining about TOWs - get on mumble SL and talk to the inf SL's find those FOB's, snipe the TOWs and move in together.

Out of 5 North American servers that regularly have players, only the TG server regularly uses mumble. The reason tanks go on on their own hunting for enemy armour is because if they go and support infantry they will get taken out by A) CAS B) enemy armour that's on the wide flank. If friendly infantry sees an enemy tank, they call it in and the tanks come in from a suitable direction and take it out. Your theory may work on mumble but few servers use mumble.

[Hotrod525]

Are you a qualified technician that can say "yes, a tank can move it's turret while the engine is off"?
It doesn't sound unreasonable, just that people who are anal about realism might rage about such things.
I mean, a car can have it's stereo running when the engine is off, but not forever.

Yes a tank can turn its turret when engine is not on. It just use the battery to activate the motor. And yes i'm a qualified armor crewman. If you're "master switch" is "on" you have electricity, and since armored vehicle rely on electricity to move the turret, you're all good. For how long ? it depend of you're battery quality.
There is no power transmited from the engine to the turret, engine charge the battery wich are used to move the turret. Engine Off tactic is used in Afghanistan, well actualy its not a tactic... its just cause heard engine going all night long is anoying.

[Hotrod525]

I too am a so called, "Infantry whore," what PLODDITHANLEY says is all too true, however I've found that people like to use the deployable TOWs more for anti-infantry/huey rather than anti-tank. I think we need to "nerf" the TOW and make it so that it too has a lock-on before fire, this'll also give the tank a little more of a warning if they (DEVs) decide to put in an alarm system for the lock on instead of the near destruction tone that is used right now but doesn't seem to happen quite often anyways. Thought this suggestion should go in here becuase we were on topic of anti-tank matters; said suggestion will/should (becuase nothing is certain until you try it) increase the need to take out MBTs and in ture the willingness to co-operate with these anti-tank operations.

Frosty2200

TOW-type of missile have no known warning/counter measure, its human guided, they're is no warming. FGM148 have no known warning/counter measure, its guided by unique thermal signature that he lock on, even if you put 2 vehicle side by side, they wont have exactly the same heat signature. Only laser guided missile does have warning measure, since alot of vehicle does have a laser detector on them.

[NyteMyre]

btw, yesterday i had the exact situation i described....


In Silent Eagle, i was in a BTR80 inside the village. We got hit by a LAT from the side and our wheels and gun where down. Me and the gunner jumped out and used our little AK74's to defend the down BTR while we called for a repair crate. But to bad we couldn't compete and they shot a second LAT on our BTR and destroyed it.

Before this happened, we had been hit by LAT multiple times and it was either burning=>BOOOM!! or Alarm=>RTB.

(yes it was a LAT since we had both US HATS in our possession)