ATGMs?

Doedel · Post by **Doedel** » 2005-08-24 03:53

Just a question,

I don't know THAT much about ATGMs, but I am almost sure that a TOW missile can take out an APC... today, while playing PRMM I was strolling around in an LAV and came upon an enemy Chinese APC.. I shot a TOW in its side and nothing happened -- pretty much, as far as I could tell, almost exactly damages as BF2.. so I'm wondering...

I've been talking with a friend of mine (clan-member) who has been an M1 Abrams tank crewman for 6 years and he assured me of the "fact" that a TOW missile, heck, even something like a HOT, Eryx or Dragon, etc, would be quite capable of taking out an M1 let alone a piddly IFV.

So please tell me what's goin' on? Thanks.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-08-24 03:58

i believe its that the devs are trying to find a sort of balance in gameplay, keep in mind this is a mini mod, the real deal is still on the way.

Post by **Paladin-X** » 2005-08-24 04:23

In our first release we focused more on the infantry combat. Our next release should contain some changes to the damage system in regards to vehicles.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-08-24 05:52

in POE and the mini mod for the tournament i was in TOW's were PGM's and they were one shot one kill it was awsome and they made the bradleys a devistating weapon

Earwig · Post by **Earwig** » 2005-08-26 02:57

TOW II has 1500mm of penetration. MBTs don't even have that much side armor. Any APC without reactive armor would be toast.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-08-26 04:21

most mondern mbts have reactive aromor on the sides an turret

Djuice · Post by **Djuice** » 2005-08-26 04:21

Actually you info on the TOW II Missiles are incorrect.

TOW II = 800mm, Tandem Warhead

TOW IIA = 400mm, Tandem Warhead, Bunker Buster

TOW IIB = 600mm, Dual EFP penetrator, Top Attack Mode

TOW IIB Aero = Same thing as TOW IIB but longer range, 4.5KM

TOW IIB RF = Same thing as TOW IIB, but uses Radio Frequency instead of Wire Guided.

TOW II FF = Same as TOW IIB but uses advanced imaging infrared staring focal plane array seeker. This was cancel by the US Army.

Doedel · Post by **Doedel** » 2005-09-11 07:50

Yeah exactly.. 800mm.. jesus, I'd like to see the tank that has that much armour. TOW's should obliterate all. I doubt even reactive armour would be able to defeat it, but then again... in any case, good to hear you guys are making some changes to the vehicle damages.. I was beginning to get worried.

Djuice · Post by **Djuice** » 2005-09-11 08:43

Most modern tanks have frontal armour against chemical attacks of about 900mm+, the Challenger II has about 1450-1700mm

Wonder · Post by **Wonder** » 2005-09-11 09:18

In case some of you doesn't know the armour values are of course measured in comparison to rolled homogenous armour, RHA (eg. steel). It doesn't mean that the tank's skin is actually 2 meters thick!

Wonder · Post by **Wonder** » 2005-09-11 09:21

Beckwith wrote:most mondern mbts have reactive aromor on the sides an turret

I haven't seen any Abrams, Leopards or Challengers fitted with ERA. They rely mostly on passive armour (Chobham) rather than active (ERA)

Djuice · Post by **Djuice** » 2005-09-11 10:37

The Leopard 2A5 and later models come with Spaced armour on the turret, this provides greater resistances against HEAT type rounds, as there uses roughly 2 30-40mm plates and about 40cm of space between the armour and the add-on modules.. NOt that effective againts APFSDS tho.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-09-12 00:36

doesnt the M1A2 TUSK have reactive armor in alot of places?

Djuice · Post by **Djuice** » 2005-09-12 01:10

THe Tusk upgrade gives the M1A2 reactive armour tiles on the side skirts, and SLAT armour on the rear engine compartment. The Top turrets, is still very vulnerable to RPG attacks still.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-09-12 03:20

isnt chobham good enough to stop n rpg?

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2005-09-12 03:23

The majority of the time yes. But there's several warheads for each variant of RPG. Even though the RPG-7 is probably fielded the most.

Djuice · Post by **Djuice** » 2005-09-12 03:26

Chobham armour on the Challenger 2 and M1A2, are usually founded only in the frontal arc, and turret. The rear/side hull are usually made from just steel. From what ive seen the side skirt on the M1A1 ares only 10mm thick

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-09-12 03:38

then what protects the turret just steel?

Djuice · Post by **Djuice** » 2005-09-12 03:53

Frontal turret, its Chobham, side also, rear is just steel.

Doedel · Post by **Doedel** » 2005-09-12 05:30

Well some differentiation between what can outright DESTROY a tank and what can otherwise render it inoperable by damaging it into incapacitation, is needed.. It would take a lot to utterly destroy an Abrams to the point it's turret flies off into the air but from experience (well, not personal experience, obviously) more tank "losses" come from damage to the tracks, the turret, the engine or some other part of the tank that disables it, and the crew bails.. as opposed to utterly annihilating the tank. I think a fair bit of weapons should be able to disable a tank (ie put it into the "red" where everything's beeping and flashing and the tank becomes immobile.. tank isn't destroyed, but rendered inoperable).