EXPLOSIVE POWER! (C-4)

TerribleOne · Post by **TerribleOne** » 2005-08-17 18:18

How can you place a c4 charge on the engine? the engine area is allso very thich plated.
As far as tanks vs tank shells go id say it depends on the round. see if you hit an area with a HEAT round that has explosive armor and flexible reactive plates then HEAT dident do much to that tank. The other option in game is SABOT shells which use pure kinetic power to force its way through the armor. However thses things rely greatly on the velocity they are traveling at when they hit the tank. Longer shots most likely would not penetrate the armor and in some cases closer shots do not either.

The most damage i could see C4 doing would be if you placed numerous packs around the underneith of the turret and pushed them in. mabe it could dislodge or damage the top turret. Otherwise its time to blow up them tracks!

Djuice · Post by **Djuice** » 2005-08-17 18:49

just to let you know, firing a sabot rounds at a tank from 50m wont penetrate that much at all, as the sabot hasnt even finish discarding its casing yet

TerribleOne · Post by **TerribleOne** » 2005-08-17 20:06

i did not mean closer then 50m

. Tanks long range firing goes well beyond BF2's capabilities unless the 'mist' is dropped or made much much much further away which imo would be a good thing.

I dont think real tank battles would ever take place even within 100m.

Post by **Evilhomer** » 2005-08-17 21:25

C4 is an impracticle way of disposoing a tank. It is not even worth trying to get close enough to the tank to place it, as you would be killed quickly and easily... The way to imobilise a tank is to place it on three or four of the joints of the track, rendering it immobile. Usually though, incinerating the tank would be the best option, so set alight to the inside of it! The best way of destroying a tank would be from an AT mine. These are desighned to expel fragments of metal at high tempreatures and with a large kinetic force upwards into the tank.... Also, as the force of the explosion has nowhere to go as there is a tank track above it, it causes a huge cushion of air to literally rip the tank to pieces, with such a high pressure, it creates a large amount of heat and friction, tearing it apart. Sort of like what happens if you pick a fight with a bigger man and have no where to go.... it gets ugly.

ekstasis · Post by **ekstasis** » 2005-08-17 21:34

Very correct EvilHomer. To answer somebody's question about the engine on an Abrams tank: the engine is in the back, it is well protected around the sides, but the exhaust grill is all that protects the engine turbines from the top of the tank. Thus, C4 placed on that grill would disable the tank or set the engine oil afire.

Bad Against Tanks: Chemical Energy Ordnance (HEAT), Un-shaped Explosives.

Good Against Tanks: Kinetic Energy Ordnance (SABOT), Shaped Explosives, and HE bombs with an explosive yield larger than 1600 pounds, AT Mines.

Also, for people who don't know, "Sabot" is a word which refers to a covering over a projectile which is smaller than the launch tube. This covering allows the projectile to take up the full volume of the launch tube or cannon, which in turn allows more gas to pile up behind the projectile, making it come out faster.

Post by **Evilhomer** » 2005-08-17 21:51

No offence, but it is scary how well educated you guys are!!! Seriosuly, im ex millitary and could mistake you all for specialist weapons and ammo technicians!

Pak · Post by **Pak** » 2005-08-17 21:54

TerribleOne wrote:i did not mean closer then 50m . Tanks long range firing goes well beyond BF2's capabilities unless the 'mist' is dropped or made much much much further away which imo would be a good thing.

I dont think real tank battles would ever take place even within 100m.

The mist is client side. Its the draw distance set in your video options, it can kill GPU power.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-08-17 22:23

i think the people who feel C4 is over powered have a valid point but if you dumb it down entirely or make it useless then you tiliting things in very heavey favor of tanks

Post by **Paladin-X** » 2005-08-17 22:38

Not necessarily. AT should be what tanks fear.

Pak · Post by **Pak** » 2005-08-17 22:41

The only problem with reducing the power of C4 is that it removes much of the functionality of the spec ops class. Without the ability to destroy tanks, C4 can only destroy commanders assets and set traps for infantry.

Post by **Paladin-X** » 2005-08-17 22:48

There are also APC's, AAV's, jeeps, etc

TerribleOne · Post by **TerribleOne** » 2005-08-17 23:05

Pak wrote:
TerribleOne wrote:i did not mean closer then 50m . Tanks long range firing goes well beyond BF2's capabilities unless the 'mist' is dropped or made much much much further away which imo would be a good thing.

I dont think real tank battles would ever take place even within 100m.
The mist is client side. Its the draw distance set in your video options, it can kill GPU power.

No the mist is forced. You can make the draw distance up to 4 in the config. Allthough if you have done this you will notice vehilces are not drawn to the same level that the landscape is.
So the mist is allways there you can just make it go further away. No where near realistic viewdistances.

I got some pics of issued C4 for future modeling purposes. also take in to account they cover this amunition in it to make sure its destroyed - 2 aint gonna kill no tanks or thick armor...

http://img396.imageshack.us/my.php?image=c40sz.jpg

Jeeves · Post by **Jeeves** » 2005-08-26 20:23

If you lower the C4 damage to armour, will the AT rockets do more damage? I find that taking out a tank with C4 is easier and more effective in BF2 than trying to hit a tank 3 times with a rockets. If the rockets were to stay the same and C4 is usless against armour then what is there to stop it.

Forgive me if this has been covered, I have just begun to read through the forums.

also, TerribleOne where did you get that picture. I rember seeing that same picture on another forum. IIRC the poster was ivolved with the laying of that C4.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-08-26 20:52

welcome jeeves! good to see more people interested in project reality.

In PR armor will be much more vulnerable to the AT rockets and (if you havnt played it already) the turret rotation on the tank is much slower, as well as the loading time between rounds. also the driver operated machine gun wont be able to fire an infinite amount of rounds. this should take away the lonewolf style you see used by armor in vanilla BF2. tanks now depend on infantry for side and rear cover.

again welcome to the forums and ill see you on the battlefield.

Jeeves · Post by **Jeeves** » 2005-08-26 21:12

BrokenArrow wrote:welcome jeeves! good to see more people interested in project reality.

In PR armor will be much more vulnerable to the AT rockets and (if you havnt played it already) the turret rotation on the tank is much slower, as well as the loading time between rounds. also the driver operated machine gun wont be able to fire an infinite amount of rounds. this should take away the lonewolf style you see used by armor in vanilla BF2. tanks now depend on infantry for side and rear cover.

again welcome to the forums and ill see you on the battlefield.

Yeah I played it last night, I saw that the turret was a pain to turn

. The reload time had me scared alot since I could not see the progress and didnt realize it had been changed. It is kinda fun to try to find all the changes, so far I have enjoyed all that I have found. I am very happy to hear that the rockets will do more damage, mabey now I will be more opt to use that kit instead of SO.

TerribleOne · Post by **TerribleOne** » 2005-08-29 12:43

I got the image of a video , i just print screened it.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-08-29 15:38

everytime i try and print screen from a video it never works grrrrr

Street · Post by **Street** » 2005-09-08 23:51

hold hold hold on...who said we needed to use the BF2 models? Since we're basing the actual force being mostly outward, surely by now some military guy has realised that C4 on tank=not cool But to damage a tank hardcore couldn't you just create another form of AT explosive? Soft underside, hard casing on the sides and top. Focus the damage into about the size of a quarter like the guy said with the RPG-7. Thats should be able to neuter a tank wouldn't it?

Since i'm pretty PRETTY sure that 4 packs of C4 has more explosive power than an RPG. It's just not so focused. If a way of delivering C4 in a concentrated form has been thought up then couldn't PR put it in? Spec forces can and are likely to get some custom kit if they're in an area with lots of Tanks and urban surroundings.

If there is no form of C4 delivery which does that then screw it. We are focusing on Reality here.

(btw does it HAVE to be C4? couldn't it just be an explosive AT mine?)

Scribble · Post by **Scribble** » 2005-09-09 00:46

erm. I think the engineers (and PR anti-tank?) already carry those Street.

TerribleOne · Post by **TerribleOne** » 2005-09-09 17:45

Beckwith wrote:everytime i try and print screen from a video it never works grrrrr

Thats because your pc doesent support video capture.