AP vs. ATGM

[Souls Of Mischief]

Defensive? How?

Trying to make a point by falsely interpreting what was said, plus that passive-aggressive demeanor.


"Are you implying "good stuff" is going to stop tandem warhead without problem now?"

It having had shitty plain steel isn't any excuse for...anything, really. Not that you ever provided evidence that it was plain steel.

Wasn't making any excuses. It's just that you're being dishonest with your statements, such as -

"I meant the shitty frontal armour, yes."

LOWER PART of the frontal armour was ****. Since then, the whole underbelly stuff has been remedied.


EDIT. In-regards to it being plain steel - I misspoke, my bad. What material it's made out of, I don't know, but for it's worth some individuals claim it's just a RHA plate.

[Frontliner]

The point was that, at that point, they are more concerned with getting back to base than killing more brown people.
And they did go back to base.

No, the point was that although some damage was done to the Tank, the Tank was neither destroyed nor disabled. Why give ATGMs capabilities they don't have in real life? The game's Project Reality. Your words.

That's why ATGM can/should one-shot tanks even though IRL it might not disable the tank completely.
I didn't argue about details, I pointed out evidence that serious damage can and has been done to front of MBT even by man-portable AT weapons such as RPG-29. Translation: ATGM can and should one shot tanks because it's probable IRL.

Maybe let crew be damaged like in certain APC?

I would be perfectly okay with having ATGM hurt the commander/driver from the front while lowering tank hp to about 30%.

Care to make up your mind?

[Mats391]

A tank that got hit by ATGM and is below 50% will fallback. Maybe not to base, but certainly to the next truck.

[camo]

The rpg-29 penetrated through an ERA block on the lower frontal armour of the challenger 2, it's tandem charge so it did what you'd expect it to do. That ERA block has since been replaced by a dorchester block, something by design is very good at blocking HEAT rounds. Read up on the physics of it its quite interesting imo.
One thing to note is that although the rpg-29 penetrated a pretty thin area at the time (after it had made it past the ERA) it didn't do too much damage. A guy lost a bit of his foot, it didn't go "full Russian autoloader" and catastrophically explode.

The info on that block being replaced by a dorchester block is old too, don't quote me on it but i remember reading that they put another layer of ERA on top of the dorchester block at a later date too (or maybe that was the side skirts?....eh whatever).

The Challenger 2 supposedly has 800mm RHA front armor. The only Russian missiles we have that can penetrate this are:
9M119 (AT-11 Sniper): 700-900mm penetration. Used in T90, ZTZ-98 and ZTZ-99
9M120 (AT-9 Spiral-2): 800mm penetration. Used on Havok.

That was just an average that we took mats. If you look at the front of the turret its almost 2000mm of protection against HEAT. Whereas other parts of the "front" such as the top of the turret go as low as 400mm protection against HEAT.

If we could make our tank damage models a little more detailed hitting the challenger 2 front on with an atgm shouldn't ever really knock it out unless it was a good shot.
But like so many things to do with bf2 we're probably just gonna have to make the front one big round number.

I'm of the opinion atgm's are currently too OP, especially with info ^above showing that they're not the oneshot wonder weapon that it once was, after all a challenger 2 was hit with a milan (600-880mm RHA of penetration)atgm in basrah and all it did was knock out its sights.

Needs a bit of balance, both from a realism point of view and gameplay.

[ComradeHX]

Trying to make a point by falsely interpreting what was said, plus that passive-aggressive demeanor.


"Are you implying "good stuff" is going to stop tandem warhead without problem now?"




Wasn't making any excuses. It's just that you're being dishonest with your statements, such as -

"I meant the shitty frontal armour, yes."

LOWER PART of the frontal armour was ****. Since then, the whole underbelly stuff has been remedied.


EDIT. In-regards to it being plain steel - I misspoke, my bad. What material it's made out of, I don't know, but for it's worth some individuals claim it's just a RHA plate.

I didn't try to make a point; I did make a point and you even tried to prove it by saying it was plain steel(although you were wrong about plain steel).

I wasn't being dishonest about anything.
It was shit if it got penned in the front by a cheap handheld weapon.

Historical Accuracy. (tm) Deal with it, *****. (is that still too passive-aggressive?)

No, the point was that although some damage was done to the Tank, the Tank was neither destroyed nor disabled. Why give ATGMs capabilities they don't have in real life? The game's Project Reality. Your words.





Care to make up your mind?

What it did IRL: tank was sent back to base, crewman injured stayed away from combat for a while. Resources wasted on repairing tank.

What happens in game: tank sent back to base(respawn), crewman stayed away from combat for a while(respawn+waiting for tank respawn). Resources(tickets) wasted on tank.

Perfectly realistic. In case you didn't know, many mechanics of PR is about enforcing realistic behaviour, not exactly real life.




I did make up my mind, ATGM(big, modern, 125mm+ ones) SHOULD be able to one-hit kill (or severely damage to point of disable) a tank, OR it does severe damage to front AND injure crew(currently that does not happen).

Not simply take two hits(crew perfectly intact after first hit) to front to kill a tank.

------------------

If you want to make game more skill-relevant, there needs to be angle system like in FH2 and more armour zones(making turret front the strongest, obviously).

[tankninja1]

Another thing to consider is that many tanks have been armed with active defense measure to block radio/infrared guided missiles. Though not simulate able in PRs engine maybe this warrants a damage reduction?


-found above on an old thread here

[camo]

I did make up my mind, ATGM(big, modern, 125mm+ ones) SHOULD be able to one-hit kill (or severely damage to point of disable) a tank, OR it does severe damage to front AND injure crew(currently that does not happen).

But why?

The one you're talking about i presume is the at-11 (9M119 svir)?
It can penetrate between 700-900mm of RHA, deduct 50mm if it has ERA on top.
And just so i'm not being bias a tow can penetrate between 600 and 800mm RHA.

Lets look at just the front turret armour and front hull armour of comparable tanks against HEAT rounds. Won't worry about KE for now as we're talking about atgm's.

T90 - Front turret 1500mm, front hull 1400-1600mm.
T90 should be able to survive a hit from the at-11.

Leopard 2a6 - Front turret 2300mm, front hull 860mm.
Leopard should survive hit depending on where it is hit.

Challenger 2 - Front turret 1900+mm, front hull 900-1400mm.
Challenger should survive hit, also depending where it gets hit.

M1A2 - Front turret 1500mm, front hull 1500-2200mm.
M1A2 should also survive a front hit from an at-11.

T80U - Front turret 650-1300mm, front hull 1400-1600mm.
T80U should for the most part also survive hit from at-11, definitely depending on where it gets hit.


All of these tanks should, front on, be able to survive a hit from the "big, modern 125mm+" atgm's that you talk about.

Why one earth would armies still be producing tanks if they were so easy to take out?
Notice how i didn't go all "west is best" here comrade? I included the T90 and T80U and the T90 is easily one of the best tanks there, especially considering its small size.

Can you and mischief stop being so partriotic just for a sec and look at the numbers? It's annoying watching your judgement's being skewed because both of you refuse to be beaten by the "west" or the "east". You both exaggerate and you both disregard important things because some stupid east vs west rivalry.

[ComradeHX]

But why?

The one you're talking about i presume is the at-11 (9M119 svir)?
It can penetrate between 700-900mm of RHA, deduct 50mm if it has ERA on top.
And just so i'm not being bias a tow can penetrate between 600 and 800mm RHA.

Lets look at just the front turret armour and front hull armour of comparable tanks against HEAT rounds. Won't worry about KE for now as we're talking about atgm's.

T90 - Front turret 1500mm, front hull 1400-1600mm.
T90 should be able to survive a hit from the at-11.

Leopard 2a6 - Front turret 2300mm, front hull 860mm.
Leopard should survive hit depending on where it is hit.

Challenger 2 - Front turret 1900+mm, front hull 900-1400mm.
Challenger should survive hit, also depending where it gets hit.

M1A2 - Front turret 1500mm, front hull 1500-2200mm.
M1A2 should also survive a front hit from an at-11.

T80U - Front turret 650-1300mm, front hull 1400-1600mm.
T80U should for the most part also survive hit from at-11, definitely depending on where it gets hit.


All of these tanks should, front on, be able to survive a hit from the "big, modern 125mm+" atgm's that you talk about.

Why one earth would armies still be producing tanks if they were so easy to take out?
Notice how i didn't go all "west is best" here comrade? I included the T90 and T80U and the T90 is easily one of the best tanks there, especially considering its small size.

Can you and mischief stop being so partriotic just for a sec and look at the numbers? It's annoying watching your judgement's being skewed because both of you refuse to be beaten by the "west" or the "east". You both exaggerate and you both disregard important things because some stupid east vs west rivalry.

I'm pretty sure what you got were actually mostly guestimated(and most likely highly exaggerated) numbers.

And you can't just stare at the numbers; the numbers don't tell me what type of HEAT rounds were used. Tandem charges used in those newer ATGM obviously deals with ERA better than just one big warhead; and I'm willing to bet that ceramic tiles would also not be as effective against tandem warhead(because it's not as effective against repeated impact in same spot).

And countries are making tanks because they have much higher range(both in firing and detection, thanks to modern FCS and FLIR), accuracy, and mobility than infantry with ATGM...

In PR this is decently represented as tanks generally have FLIR(while infantry obviously have nothing) and only need to point-and-click(on infantry) while infantry has to aim(takes a long time after moving) and guide the missile(or guess the range, which is how most dumbfired HAT kits fail) and wait a LONG time before firing since, before 1.3, the settle time is huge even with unguided HAT.

And currently it's not 100% that a tank will instantly die from a frontal hit by ATGM(but not ATGM is equal in damage, obviously).

In PR, tanks don't have multiple layers of protection nor the ability to fire on the move; but infantry has to wait many seconds before firing AT weapons(in case of deployable, it takes a long time after jumping onto it to be able to fire).


IRL there are also multiple layers of protection, many of which PR does not have(such as active protection, both soft and hard).

It's not about his patriotic shit.

It is very reasonable to assume that AT weapons would be effective against frontal armour(just pure armour) of tanks unless you are talking about something along the line of African "fisherman" with only RPG-7.

[camo]

I'm pretty sure what you got were actually mostly guestimated(and most likely highly exaggerated) numbers.

I got those numbers mostly off steelbeasts, a sim used by a few military's. It may be exaggerated but tbh we just don't know and there's no way to ever know. There are no solid numbers anywhere.

And you can't just stare at the numbers; the numbers don't tell me what type of HEAT rounds were used. Tandem charges used in those newer ATGM obviously deals with ERA better than just one big warhead; and I'm willing to bet that ceramic tiles would also not be as effective against tandem warhead(because it's not as effective against repeated impact in same spot).

I was just going off basic numbers of penetration vs protection, i wasn't going to delve into tandem charges and all that simply because there's so many variations and it'll take forever to discuss it all.

And countries are making tanks because they have much higher range(both in firing and detection, thanks to modern FCS and FLIR), accuracy, and mobility than infantry with ATGM...
There are multiple layers of protection, many of which PR does not have(such as active protection, both soft and hard).

But why are they making them so heavy? If they're so vulnerable to atgm's and at weapons as you say why don't they make them faster? Don't say they're out of date and not with the times because Russia's new tank is following the same path. And it's the most modern tank currently.

It is very reasonable to assume that AT weapons would be effective against frontal armour(just pure armour) of tanks unless you are talking about something along the line of African "fisherman" with only RPG-7.

But it isn't, why are we still not using the leopard 1 if this was the case? Military's have gone back to sacrificing maneuverability over armour again and it must be because it is working. If the armour didn't work we'd be going back to maneuverability again just like we did with the leo 1 after the introduction of effective atgm's.

[ComradeHX]

I got those numbers mostly off steelbeasts, a sim used by a few military's. It may be exaggerated but tbh we just don't know and there's no way to ever know. There are no solid numbers anywhere.

Then you can't claim the weapon won't work.

Also, penetration probably isn't even defined the same way; at least around WW2(it relates to how percentage of mass of the original projectile went through armour to be considered penetration).

For example(here talking about what I know of ww2 testing methods) Russian method(75% of the mass through armour) it could be 900mm penetration depth and by American method(of just being able to have light shine through any sized hole after removing the projectile) it could be much higher.

I was just going off basic numbers of penetration vs protection, i wasn't going to delve into tandem charges and all that simply because there's so many variations and it'll take forever to discuss it all.

Indeed, real life is complex.

But why are they making them so heavy? If they're so vulnerable to atgm's and at weapons as you say why don't they make them faster? Don't say they're out of date and not with the times because Russia's new tank is following the same path. And it's the most modern tank currently.

Your tank can't drive 350m/s+ anyway; you won't outrun a missile.

Trying to use mobility to compensate for lack of armour worked terribly, just ask countries that use Stryker.

But it isn't, why are we still not using the leopard 1 if this was the case? Military's have gone back to sacrificing maneuverability over armour again and it must be because it is working. If the armour didn't work we'd be going back to maneuverability again just like we did with the leo 1 after the introduction of effective atgm's.

Effective at penetration of armour does not mean it will hit the tank or even hit the correct part(could just graze the side at bad angle, or even pass through the tracks, under the hull, from the side).

Many countries realized they needed something sufficiently-armoured all-around to deal with all the cheap RPG-7...etc. they encounter when fighting militias/insurgents...etc.
That's why tanks are still going to be heavy.

[Souls Of Mischief]

I didn't try to make a point; I did make a point and you even tried to prove it by saying it was plain steel(although you were wrong about plain steel).

I wasn't being dishonest about anything.
It was shit if it got penned in the front by a cheap handheld weapon.

Historical Accuracy. (tm) Deal with it, *****. (is that still too passive-aggressive?)

Whoop-dee-doo - it was a RHA plate.


You're doing it again, by painting a picture that doesn't fully represent the whole situation. Whatever, though. CH2 frontal armour sucks, T-90 is uber alles, just be careful when that turret decides to fly to the moon.

There is no need to act in this childish manner, comrade.

[camo]

Comrade i guess we must agree to disagree regarding the effectiveness of atgm's
Good (semi)constructive debate we had there.

I would however like to have its effectiveness toned down a bit in-game so as to not be so OP. Regardless of what you or I think of it in real life you have to admit having a one shot weapon vs ap rounds that don't always register is a bit unbalanced.

Anyways please don't respond to mischief and have this thread derail into insults. He is just missing his best pal massive

[ComradeHX]

Whoop-dee-doo - it was a RHA plate.


You're doing it again, by painting a picture that doesn't fully represent the whole situation. Whatever, though. CH2 frontal armour sucks, T-90 is uber alles, just be careful when that turret decides to fly to the moon.

There is no need to act in this childish manner, comrade.

It was RHA plate?

You still didn't give a source on that.
It made zero sense for them to be using RHA plate since the whole point of composite armour was so that you have STRONGER protection for the same weight as steel.

You are still doing it.
The point wasn't what the lower frontal plate was made of, the point was that it got penetrated by a weapon rated for 750mm penetration.

There really isn't a need to act in this childish manner, I was simply lowering myself to your standards so you can understand me better. Because it was clear that you didn't know what I was talking about just like how you didn't know what you were talking about.

[Souls Of Mischief]

It was RHA plate?

You still didn't give a source on that.
It made zero sense for them to be using RHA plate since the whole point of composite armour was so that you have STRONGER protection for the same weight as steel.

You are still doing it.
The point wasn't what the lower frontal plate was made of, the point was that it got penetrated by a weapon rated for 750mm penetration.

There really isn't a need to act in this childish manner, I was simply lowering myself to your standards so you can understand me better. Because it was clear that you didn't know what I was talking about just like how you didn't know what you were talking about.

A Challenger-2 was penetrated by RPG-29 - Page 3 - AFV Forum - tank-net.com


"The point wasn't what the lower frontal plate was made of, the point was that it got penetrated by a weapon rated for 750mm penetration."

Yet again missing my point. Can't really tell if you're purposely being obtuse.

"There really isn't a need to act in this childish manner, I was simply lowering myself to your standards so you can understand me better."

>Uses ad hominem, when his opponent did not
>Just lowering myself to your standard

Nice bait.

"Because it was clear that you didn't know what I was talking about just like how you didn't know what you were talking about."

That's pretty darn rich coming from you, Mr. CH 2 frontal armour = underbelly.

[Mats391]

I agree with Camo that one-hit ATGMs (or AP shells) are no fun. Certainly they should deal a lot of damage, but having tank blow up instantly from being hit once is too much. I would go with something like 85% damage for ATGMs or AP shells that penetrate. With that the hit tank is most likely disabled, heavily damaged and only needs to lose 5% more to start burning. Those 5% easily could be accumulated before through terrain damage resulting in instant burning tank.

[ComradeHX]

A Challenger-2 was penetrated by RPG-29 - Page 3 - AFV Forum - tank-net.com


"The point wasn't what the lower frontal plate was made of, the point was that it got penetrated by a weapon rated for 750mm penetration."

Yet again missing my point. Can't really tell if you're purposely being obtuse.

"There really isn't a need to act in this childish manner, I was simply lowering myself to your standards so you can understand me better."

>Uses ad hominem, when his opponent did not
>Just lowering myself to your standard

Nice bait.

"Because it was clear that you didn't know what I was talking about just like how you didn't know what you were talking about."

That's pretty darn rich coming from you, Mr. CH 2 frontal armour = underbelly.

Lower Hull : has been reconfigured compared to Challenger-1,the thickness looks like 65cm thick but with new armor tech .That’s 3.85 g/cm? average density. If we assume 1 steel + 2 AD99 + 2 Kevlar

Not sure if you are pretending to be retarded, but "1 steel + 2 AD99 + 2 Kevlar" does not mean RHA plate.
It's LAYERED(thus not RHA) with Steel and AD-99(which is the ceramic part pf armour) + Kevlar as spall liner.
AD-99 IS the "good stuff"(third gen chobham) you were implying...

Lower frontal plate. I wonder what frontal means to you.

>complain about passive-aggressive, when his opponent did not
You asked for it by complaining about me being passive aggressive(pot calling kettle black).
Cry more about it. lol

That's funny, because you are still talking about things you have no idea about.
Hint: notice where ERA was mounted and how the penetration was THROUGH ERA. /spoonfeed

"underbelly" implies bottom armour which should not have been hit most of time.


Noddy - infraction for making a personal attack. Attack the ball - not the player.

[camo]

Must you two derail the thread?

[ComradeHX]

Must you two derail the thread?

Thread can't go on with people like him shitposting/spreading misinformation.

I agree with Camo that one-hit ATGMs (or AP shells) are no fun. Certainly they should deal a lot of damage, but having tank blow up instantly from being hit once is too much. I would go with something like 85% damage for ATGMs or AP shells that penetrate. With that the hit tank is most likely disabled, heavily damaged and only needs to lose 5% more to start burning. Those 5% easily could be accumulated before through terrain damage resulting in instant burning tank.

That's what all the older ATGM in-game does to front armour of tanks; they don't kill in one hit(I played a lot of Kashan recently where I drove BMP-2M and had to get the gunner to fire a second shot to blow up Abrams).

[Souls Of Mischief]

Not sure if you are pretending to be retarded, but "1 steel + 2 AD99 + 2 Kevlar" does not mean RHA plate.
It's LAYERED(thus not RHA) with Steel and AD-99(which is the composite armour) + Kevlar as spall liner.
AD-99 IS the "good stuff"(third gen chobham) you were implying...

Lower frontal plate. I wonder what frontal means to you.

>Uses ad hominem, when his opponent did not
You asked for it by complaining about me being passive aggressive(pot calling kettle black).
Cry more about it. lol

That's funny, because you are still talking about things you have no idea about.
Hint: notice where ERA was mounted and how the penetration was THROUGH ERA. /spoonfeed

Did you like read the thread, as well as post #37, that was referenced in the link?

Or you know, this post?

"Stuart, while your photo was definitely very helpful, it was not the first indication I had that the lower hull of Challengers is simple RHA. Again, I would like to point you towards the post #37 of our resident CR2 commander, I am sure he would have noticed if the armor there was the whole of 65 cm thick (which really is quite huge) and layered. Like I said, estimates are only as good as initial assumptions, and those of Paul's that you posted look wildly out of sync with reality to me..."

I'm sure a WoT player knows his stuff better than a CR2 crewman.

Thread can't go on with people like him shitposting/spreading misinformation.

Says the guy who bailed out of the Ukrainian Conflict thread when your claims of a Russian neo-Nazi not fighting for Separatists were disproven.

[ComradeHX]

Did you like read the thread, as well as post #37, that was referenced in the link?

Or you know, this post?

"Stuart, while your photo was definitely very helpful, it was not the first indication I had that the lower hull of Challengers is simple RHA. Again, I would like to point you towards the post #37 of our resident CR2 commander, I am sure he would have noticed if the armor there was the whole of 65 cm thick (which really is quite huge) and layered. Like I said, estimates are only as good as initial assumptions, and those of Paul's that you posted look wildly out of sync with reality to me..."

I'm sure a WoT player knows his stuff better than a CR2 crewman.




Says the guy who bailed out of the Ukrainian Conflict thread when your claims of a Russian neo-Nazi not fighting for Separatists were disproven.

Post #37 sure was sourced...
You need to prove he was CR2 crewman and how he learned that information about lower frontal armour.

I didn't know Pauls Lakowskis was WoT player.

It also made no sense than a 105mm warhead would have as little aftereffect as to only take off a foot after penetrating some thin RHA plate.

My claim was that you can't prove that he was fighting for anything without actually being there; and, as it turned out expectedly, you couldn't... other than a vk account conveniently-created then-recently filled with pictures of him posing(not fighting) everywhere.
I stopped posting there because apparently that idea just can't get through your thick skull and I have better things to do.