.95 Armor

CastleBravo · Post by **CastleBravo** » 2011-01-13 03:36

Hunt3r wrote:
The Puma IFV production model has the CIV placed higher up, although the model doesn't need to reflect this visually, the camera should be moved up.

If you do that then you will end up with situations where the puma driver/commander can see over obstacles but from the other side the puma can't be seen.

Hunt3r · Post by **Hunt3r** » 2011-01-13 04:51

Sure, but IRL that's pretty much what happens, except in PR everything is so close that every engagement is a battlesight engagement.

dtacs · Post by **dtacs** » 2011-01-14 14:09

On SEagle I took out a Puma by firing 14.5mm KPV at its front armor and killed it as fast as any other APC. I thought the basic armor capabilities meant that it was totally resistant to that?

Post by **Jaymz** » 2011-01-14 14:32

dtacs wrote:On SEagle I took out a Puma by firing 14.5mm KPV at its front armor and killed it as fast as any other APC. I thought the basic armor capabilities meant that it was totally resistant to that?

The 14.5mm damage modelling has been off for quite some time now. Making it realistic is going to require some map audits to be done for balance.

As for the Puma itself, it's one of the most protected IFV's in the world. We grossly overlooked this when implementing it in-game. We plan on completely overhauling that vehicles protection capabilities. As for APC's/IFV's in general, an overall damage reduction from Light AT weaponry might be in order for many of them.

dtacs · Post by **dtacs** » 2011-01-14 14:59

Good stuff. The Puma simply feels light and ineffective, can't climb hills, dies easily on Lashkar to the Tandem's and is forced to the green zone instead of supporting infantry as they get hill caches. Not to mention the main gun is very quiet.

One thing that I found odd is that when shooting the front left part of it whilst being to its rear left is that it only put it on white smoke, from one T-90 AP round.

Hunt3r · Post by **Hunt3r** » 2011-01-15 04:32

Theoretically we should be making the Puma be impervious to friendly autocannon fire from other Pumas. And anything weaker than Puma autocannon fire.

CastleBravo · Post by **CastleBravo** » 2011-01-15 23:39

Any chance of strengthening some of MBT weak points? It makes no sense for an abrams to blow up after getting shot once in the gunners thermal sight or one of the road-wheels. The big circle thingy on the front of the T-72 to the left of the main gun is also a one hit kill.

Hunt3r · Post by **Hunt3r** » 2011-01-16 02:26

IMO as long as damage modeling besides hitpoints and live/dead doesn't exist, a simple model of armor damage should exist. No one-shotting tanks from the front.

Dev1200 · Post by **Dev1200** » 2011-01-16 10:55

There's lots of "this should have this" and "that shouldn't have this" posts. But nobody has any sources.

dtacs · Post by **dtacs** » 2011-01-16 11:08

A source isn't needed for tanks not being one shotted in a random spot.

USMCMIDN · Post by **USMCMIDN** » 2011-01-16 17:50

Hunt3r wrote:I believe that it's worth saying that the PR Puma lacks the ability to tackle rough terrain, especially on maps like Lashkar Valley, where taking roads is almost certain death. I believe the Puma has a power to weight ratio equal or greater than the Leopard 2, and that it's armor is capable of shrugging off 30mm APFSDS, no?

Also, I've found that tanks like the Abrams can only take 2 frontal hits of sabot from tank guns before being taken out altogether, while I believe it should be as many as 4-5 sabots to the front.

well IRL the Abram and Challey can take a tremendous amount of damage to her b4 she'll give out... But for game play sake the devs need to make the tanks destroyable. I have heard of accounts where the Abram and Challeys have taken ATGMs and shrugged it off... and the Challey taking some 100 RPGs in Iraq or something like that...

Its for game play issues that it cant take a beating.

Hunt3r · Post by **Hunt3r** » 2011-01-16 21:06

The M1A2 SEP V2 cannot be penetrated by any APFSDS fired out of any tank gun in service today, but that's just what I've heard, take it with a grain of salt.

Post by **Tim270** » 2011-01-16 21:32

I thought all the glass mat stuff was fixed? I.e the 1 shot killing of any glass on a tank?

Hunt3r · Post by **Hunt3r** » 2011-02-26 23:08

It wasn't, I've killed Abrams' that way many a times.

Hotrod525 · Post by **Hotrod525** » 2011-03-02 17:19

Hunt3r wrote:The M1A2 SEP V2 cannot be penetrated by any APFSDS fired out of any tank gun in service today, but that's just what I've heard, take it with a grain of salt.

Well they have been penetrated atleast 2 times in Irak on side armor, even the mighty CR2 have been breached. I think you seriously over-estimate the armor capability and widely under-estimate the capability of A.T. weapon, you dont need to blown it first shot, if you kill its mobility, then the mighty wolf become the sweety bambi just waiting to be knocked off.

MoD kept failure of best tank quiet - Telegraph

ytman · Post by **ytman** » 2011-03-02 22:55

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:The 14.5mm damage modelling has been off for quite some time now. Making it realistic is going to require some map audits to be done for balance.

As for the Puma itself, it's one of the most protected IFV's in the world. We grossly overlooked this when implementing it in-game. We plan on completely overhauling that vehicles protection capabilities. As for APC's/IFV's in general, an overall damage reduction from Light AT weaponry might be in order for many of them.

I love you jaymz! In my perfect world L-AT would be 4 to a team with reduced damage meant to destroy the lighter vehicles and certain structures/rooms. H-ATs would then be meant to knock out all but the toughest armored assest in nearly one hit. The TOW and then other ATGM platforms would be the Infantry's resort to large amounts of MBTs while calling in AT asset support would be the easiest counter. Of course this is from a gameplay perspective... I have no evidence IRL.

And I really love the fact that 14.5mm damage is being looked into... is a real bother to me for immersion's sake.

Hunt3r · Post by **Hunt3r** » 2011-03-03 02:09

Hotrod, it's key to note that this was only for the frontal glacis and turret.

BenHamish · Post by **BenHamish** » 2011-03-03 19:10

I always believed that infantry should never be able to take on tanks.. AT missiles are a deterrent not a pound-for-poound compensation of a tank's presence.

I know that BF2 has the rock/scissors/paper gameplay, but it depresses me when as an Insurgent I know all I have to do is shoot a warrior 3 times to blow it up. I'd be happy with having to shoot it 10 times.

Ninjam3rc · Post by **Ninjam3rc** » 2011-03-03 21:21

You realize the purpose of AT weapons is to allow infantry to take on tanks? And that IFVs and the like aren't even armored anywhere close to what an MBT is? If you had to shoot a warrior 10 times what would it take to drop a challenger or abrams, 100 shots? Which I suppose would work if every insurgent kit had an rpg, which would make for interesting matches I suppose.

ShockUnitBlack · Post by **ShockUnitBlack** » 2011-03-03 23:34

Truth is not everything that happens in real life - let alone war - can be accounted for by physics and math. I'm pretty sure nobody thought it was going to be a bit of moisture that brought down a B2 Spirit, but it did - the world's most advanced aircraft destroyed by a couple of water droplets.

The point - we can't account for everything so we shouldn't try to. Account for what can be accounted for.

.95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor

Re: .95 Armor