SLAM effectiveness question

Post by **Dunehunter** » 2006-12-20 14:13

If I am not mistaken, it does take a couple of shots from a light AT to destroy a tank, which sounds reasonable to me. I can't claim to have any military experience, but it does sound logical to me that if you just hit a tank enough, at some point a weak spot will be hit.

$kelet0r · Post by **$kelet0r** » 2006-12-20 14:24

actually you could spend all day firing at a tank with light AT weapons and only damage the paint job

Aljen · Post by **Aljen** » 2006-12-20 15:52

You really think its that tracks would be completely undamaged after few (1-2) hits?
I don't know. I have never shot at tank with RPG in RL, that is why am I asking.

{XG} non_compliance · Post by **{XG} non_compliance** » 2006-12-20 18:17

if they don't damage tanks, why are they called light anti-tank?

wpgcivic · Post by **wpgcivic** » 2006-12-20 18:20

they worked awesome for me today, put 2 on a enemy heli, blew it to shit

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2006-12-20 18:35

Damn, I used to have a video explaning how shaped charges work but I've lost it. Do not underestimate the power of a little lump of high explosive. If the force of a small piece of HE energy is directed in the correct manner, it can do incredible damage to very thick armour, I was personaly amased the first time I saw how much damage a few hundred grams of Composition 4 can do to a REALLY thick piece of steel armour when formed in an inverted conical shape, i.e. 'shape charge', and detonated at the appropriate distance from the target.

Post by **eggman** » 2006-12-20 18:57

Modern tank armor is immune to the light AT weapons modelled in game. Tank armor is not defeated by "weakening it" with several shots. Generally things like RPG7 and LAW80 rounds will just bounce off a modern tank. I read a report from the Russo Afghani conflict of.. er.. I think it was a T72 taking more than 20 RPG hits and remaining battle ready.

The light at weapons are intentionally meant for use on APCs and Jeeps, their effectiveness against tanks is just an error.

Tanks will and should be very powerful once we get them tweaked properly.

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2006-12-20 19:02

Modern tank armor is immune to the light AT weapons modelled in game. Tank armor is not defeated by "weakening it" with several shots.

This is true to a certain point, but I'm not going to go in to details here. Modeling armour damage realistically would be next to impossible on the bf2 engine so I'm fine with light AT not beeing able to kill a tank.

=*CLA*=StudMuffin21 · Post by **=*CLA*=StudMuffin21** » 2006-12-20 21:26

Guerra norte wrote:This is true to a certain point, but I'm not going to go in to detalis here. Modeling armour damage realistically would be next to impossible on the bf2 engine so I'm fine with light AT not beeing able to kill a tank.

Can someone point me in the direction to find information about the BF2 engine? I've heard a lot about how it's not "good enogh" to do so much that PR wants to do, but don't understand why.

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2006-12-20 21:36

=*CLA*=StudMuffin21 wrote:Can someone point me in the direction to find information about the BF2 engine? I've heard a lot about how it's not "good enogh" to do so much that PR wants to do, but don't understand why.

This should be sufficient bfeditor.org

mrskip · Post by **mrskip** » 2006-12-21 14:24

I am glad the tanks will be hard to take down myself...in real life if a tank was rumbling at you anyone would get a little scared....and it should take a team effort to take out a tank with different weapons to move up...takes a lot more teamwork that way instead of boom 2 shots and then lets go guys.

Mekstizzle · Post by **Mekstizzle** » 2006-12-21 15:28

Yep i'm 100% sure 2 SLAMS will take out a Tank, i've seen it like 10 times now to full health tanks. What's worse is that you can kill the spec ops but the SLAM will still go off. SLAM seems abit weird, it also has a fairly large splash radius. Just what is it? Armour Peircing or Anti-Personnel? It seems Anti-everything right now, with the added bonus of destroying your target even if you die.

Spec Ops kit is truley the noobest kit.

{XG} non_compliance · Post by **{XG} non_compliance** » 2006-12-21 15:44

i have never killed a tank with 2 slams.. put them under it.. on it's side.. on the rear... on top of the engine...etc...

tHa_KhAn · Post by **tHa_KhAn** » 2006-12-21 16:28

I think in game balance term, certain weapons should be auto disable, like mines or slams. The reason I say slam is that if someone could verify that one slam is enough to de-track a tank, then since we don't have damage zones just have an auto disable. This forces a tank crew to respect close infantry as they should. This immobilizes the tank, but still makes it a very deadly support fire platform.

The more and more research you do, the less and less effective conventional AT rounds are on them. Look at the Challengers and Abrams in Iraq. Even the Merkava's during the Lebanon incident. According to wikipedia Challengers and Abrams lost were either friendly fire or driving accident. The ones that took excessive hits from RPG's and AT missles were able to retreat and get repaired.

Aljen · Post by **Aljen** » 2006-12-21 16:54

Although it is a bit off topic, I have to response.
It is true that Merkavas are build to protect its crew, but they were easily crippled and beaten by Hellzbollah missiles in Lebanon invasion this year.

I agree that some 30 years old RPG models are useless against modern tanks, but what about some newer types?

I really think that tanks should be defeatable (to disable them would be enough) by more kits then Heavy AT and engineer only.
Tanks crew should be afraid to rush to enemy flag without infantry support in urban area.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-12-21 17:51

In real life i think the New LAT weapons could defeat a MTB, be it that mabey a few (2-5) might be needed. I struggle to comprehend how a Javlin (super, semi unstopable AT missile) could differ in terms of warhead (not delivery) to a NLAW or that SMAW or wahtever that new LAT weapon the US built but stopped production on is called!

Although these ultra modern weapons are ligth, i am damn sure they pack a brutal punch - larger missiles have just more guidance mechanisms and sensors but i doubt double the explosives.

I also think the new LAT weapons can do top down mode attack, again similar potency to Javlin and the like!

Although i do realise the JAvlin and similar are also light just not as light as the some (NLAW ext.).

WNxKenwayy · Post by **WNxKenwayy** » 2006-12-21 18:06

Anyone who thinks the Javalin is "light" hasn't carried one around for a while. Relative to the explosive punch it can deliver, yes it's light, but still.

And the Merkavas were not "easily disabled and beaten". it's like saying the M1A2 was easily beaten because a handful were destroyed by specificly built, extremely large IED's.

Mekstizzle · Post by **Mekstizzle** » 2006-12-21 18:13

I agree that some 30 years old RPG models are useless against modern tanks, but what about some newer types?

According to Wikipedia. An RPG-29 can penetrate a T90 from the front, or something.

Here's the source of that statement.
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

Wasteland · Post by **Wasteland** » 2006-12-21 19:33

I'm confused.... you said "according to wikipedia", and then as your source you link to some other random site. Unfortunately, the text on that site is lighter than the background, and I make it a general rule never to trust such sites.

{XG} non_compliance · Post by **{XG} non_compliance** » 2006-12-22 15:48

PEOPLE, wikipedia is NOT fact. Any blowhard can add to those... hello?!