TOW damage to front armor

[chrisweb89]

Lol when did I say fighting tanks head on? With half decent tactics before ifvs with atgm could be insanely powerful, the atgm has tamed them a bit and I think in general that's good for game play.

As for the static tow balance, I don't think it's too crazy out of wack, but I do agree that tanks have too much of an edge right now against them. Without then making tows OP against apcs would it be possible to only increase the numbers of tows per map and possibly even per fob by map/layer and not game wide? I don't know about the coding, but if possible that could balance better. Removing the fire delay would also help a bit as others have said. Maybe a slight increase of damage to the front to atleast equal an AP shell. This wouldn't make them as potent as before, but would still give them a better chance and give a reason to load atgm again in tanks.

[DogACTUAL]

BMP3 disagrees. Let's pit the BMP3 with ATGM vs the Challenger 2 with AP, pre update. Both would barely survive a frontal hit and would be killed when hit in the side or back.

Like i already explained before.
Even front on front engagement between bmp3 and western tank would be a draw with maybe only slight advantage for the tank, pre update.

bmp2m would be different, since the atgm is slower and slightly less effective, but it also can fire a consecutive atgm immediately after the first hit, while the bmp3 would need to reload longer than the tank does. The atgm would only bring the tank on the verge before burning with a front hit though.

bmp3 could still start unloading AP cannon on the tank after the atgm hit if it was only smoking heavily, instead of waiting for the other atgm to load, to make it start burning.

Many times even a hit in the MBT front armor from the bmp3 atgm would explode it or make it burn, although that wasn't intended to happen afaik.

But tank AP hit in the front of the bmp3 'only' made it smoke heavily and almost burn.
Tank AP hit in the front of bmp2m would make it burn though.

Pretty even chances of each one taking out the other in front on front egagement if you ask me, but only for bmp2m and bmp3, for the other IFVs not so much.

Now with the ATGM changes IFVs are now put in the correct spot they should be in, having advanced AT capabilities against heavy armor but can't hunt tanks as offensively and cannot beat them when they are facing front armor anymore.
Something someone took offense with in another thread btw, since he still wanted to be able to hunt tanks with IFVs in head on engagements.

[X-Alt]

If a team loses all their armor, air support, their HAT, and their LATs can't get a side shot, a lone TOW shouldn't be able to save his/her doomed team with a frontal hit simple as that.

[inb4banned]

If a team loses all their armor, air support, their HAT, and their LATs can't get a side shot, a lone TOW shouldn't be able to save his/her doomed team with a frontal hit simple as that.

There's this huge gap between what you describe and TOWs losing their TANK engagements 9/10 times. If you know where the TOW is you can kill it before he can fire, if you don't you usually still have enough time to spot and kill him, or at least face front armour to it and take no significant damage.

[DogACTUAL]

In case you are making another video to proof your point, include every engagement with the TOW, don't just cherry pick the engagements which the tank won. Or those where the tank knew exactly where the TOW was positioned.

Given enough time everyone can make a video compilation that strongly supports their narrative.

[X-Alt]

There's this huge gap between what you describe and TOWs losing their TANK engagements 9/10 times. If you know where the TOW is you can kill it before he can fire, if you don't you usually still have enough time to spot and kill him, or at least face front armour to it and take no significant damage.

Too bad, call your armor and HAT before it rapes your squad. If they're dead, get fucked kid.

[viirusiiseli]

Too bad, call your armor and HAT before it rapes your squad. If they're dead, get fucked kid.

Great non answer.

There's this huge gap between what you describe and TOWs losing their TANK engagements 9/10 times. If you know where the TOW is you can kill it before he can fire, if you don't you usually still have enough time to spot and kill him, or at least face front armour to it and take no significant damage.

This is correct and needs to be addressed

[DogACTUAL]

What realistic issue/feature is the fire delay on TOWs supposed to represent again?
I remember a DEV saying that it makes the TOWs more authentic.

[Jacksonez__]

What realistic issue/feature is the fire delay on TOWs supposed to represent again?
I remember a DEV saying that it makes the TOWs more authentic.

In real life when you pull the trigger, e.g the TOW-2 launch motor starts and after 1.1 seconds the actual missile launches. It depends on the ATGM you are launching what fire delay it has since they all have different motors etc.

[rPoXoTauJIo]

Should introduce same for tanks perhaps

[PatrickLA_CA]

Don't they already have that?

[chrisweb89]

For tank atgms, or guns? Because if for main guns that completely unrealistic...

[DogACTUAL]

I think he was joking guys.

[viirusiiseli]

I think he was joking guys.

You never know anymore tbh

[Cavazos]

A TOW isn't meant to take on a take a tank on face-to-face. If that was the case, we would just have TOWs on wheels. Who needs a tank when a TOW will win 1-on-1? TOWs are meant to hit tanks from hidden positions to their flanks as the gunner has no cover whatsoever.

However, I do agree with having a second TOW emplacement and having a further distance to deploy it. Having more options and flexibility is always great by making combat more unpredictable.

[DogACTUAL]

Maybe make certain spots on the frontal armour more susceptible against TOW emplacements (if techinically possible)? Maybe the lower glacis, or uppermost part of the turret? Just so certain people stop whining about 'useless TOW'.

[fecht_niko]

Maybe make certain spots on the frontal armour more susceptible against TOW emplacements (if techinically possible)? Maybe the lower glacis, or uppermost part of the turret? Just so certain people stop whining about 'useless TOW'.

Certain spots on front armour will make it randon because you cant guide it 400m into a 1cm spot. But maybe an AR could stoot the weaker spot first and guide you with his tracers.

On a serious note:

IF YOU WANT TO IMPROVE THE GAMEPLAY INSTEAD OF BULLSHITTING THE GAME:

-stationary TOW/HAT to rear will insta kill a tank
-stationary TOW/HAT to the side will make him start burning
-stationary TOW/HAT to the front will 70% track him

Vehicle ATGMs should stay as they are.

[Allahu Akbar]

A TOW isn't meant to take on a take a tank on face-to-face. If that was the case, we would just have TOWs on wheels. Who needs a tank when a TOW will win 1-on-1? TOWs are meant to hit tanks from hidden positions to their flanks as the gunner has no cover whatsoever.

But you do have Tow on wheels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzIkfxFjQc

[Frontliner]

Maybe make certain spots on the frontal armour more susceptible against TOW emplacements (if techinically possible)? Maybe the lower glacis, or uppermost part of the turret? Just so certain people stop whining about 'useless TOW'.

TOWs spiral, wouldn't work.

Tanks on the other hand would just exploit these weakspots and GLATGMs would go back to oneshotting everyone again like in pre 1.3.

No.

[LimitJK]

im glad this discussion is picked up again. desert maps were always hard for inf, but now they are basically vehicle warfare with extras.

dogs suggestion was something i already said when it was introduced.
there has to be a difference between front hull and front tower. that would better reflect armour thickness in RL and massively improve gameplay. a hull down aproach would let tankers still enjoy their impunity, while tanks just frontally pushing in the open (as happens now) would leave stationary atgm a chance.

therefore i suggest:

TURRET FRONT: ATGM NO DAMAGE
HULL FRONT: ATGM 2 HIT KILL (or at least a definitive track after 2 hits)

now as the main concern, that had stationary atgms as collateral, was ap tank vs glatgm tank there i have some old and a new suggestion.

ARMING RANGE: 100m
longer reload time for atgm

new suggestion, needs refining (above suggestions are important, this is optional)
PASSIVE PROTECTION SYSTEM
based on the fact that all current GLATGM are laser guided (which our stationary atgm are not) implement a laserwarning system on LEOPARD, ABRAMS, LECLERC and CHALLENGER.
may even add a directional indicator.