AT rockets and Tank?

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-05 09:59

Hey would it be more realistic if the AT guy could take out a tank in a single shot? but over longer distances the rocket would start to drop just a little bit?

Maybe its not a good idea cuz then it would be hard to be a tanker, but give me an answer about what you think af it

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-05 10:09

as far as i know, there is no portable AT weapon capable of taking out a modern MBT such as Abrams in one hit. You can put it out of commision perhaps if you are really lucky by blasting the engine out or the track, pretty much most of the other area can take a direct hit from any portable AT weapon and still functional.

the exception to this is top armour and even though we do have portable AT weapons designed to attack tank's top armour they are not modelled in game so adding them is probably not gonna be easy, that and i don't even know if BF2 model a damage side for top (i know they have front, side, back, but top?).

you also have to consider that a single hit kill from AT guys to tanks with dozens of them in the map would pretty much equal to no tank gameplay wise.

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-05 10:12

But then a single ahot on the wheels and it can't drive, but still kill?

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-05 10:19

that's the problem, the BF2 engine cannot model specific component of the vehicles. the best it can do at the moment is have different dmg value for different side, the vehicle itself is still a single entity to the engine.

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-05 10:26

Okay thanks for the information

But i can still take out a tank on two shots anyway

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-02-05 10:36

Zepheris Casull wrote:as far as i know, there is no portable AT weapon capable of taking out a modern MBT such as Abrams in one hit.

Wrong, RPG-7 can take out an Abrams

, but any modern MBT can not be defeated by hand held AT weapons - the only thing that can is High-Volcity AP rounds (You know the form of anti-tank shell that Chobham armour was desinged to defeat).

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-05 10:54

if you are talking about the infamous Abrams that were shot by originally thought mysterious missile and later on deduced to be an RPG round then yes, the abrams were knocked quite a bit after taking the hit. Report said it to be an RPG-7 with PG-7VR munition and even though RPG-7 is indeed a portable AT weapon the tank was NOT out.

what happened was that an Abrams got shot on the side armour and the round actually penetrated the armour. The blast didn't punched enough to do serious dmg to the internal or crew compartment but 2 crew was injured and the tank's TNB was pretty much screwed, but the tank itself is not seriously damaged.

note: chobam is designed against shaped charge warhead, not KE type penetrator shells used by most MBTs.

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-05 11:01

Okay then the film Black Hawk Down is far from realistic, in that movie a Humwee is getting hit by an RPG an only the window in the car crashes

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-05 11:09

if the round smacked the window and nothing else, i doubt that will be enough to set off the detonator.

if it smacked the hummer dead on a solid part of it like the door, front cover, anything really solid aside of the glass then that should detonate the round and depending on where it hit, might or might not breach the crew compartment.

note: interestingly the weapon they used to took out the blackhawk in the incident was an RPG-7 according to the report i read, not sure what round they used though.

Raaschou · Post by **Raaschou** » 2006-02-05 11:19

Zepheris Casull wrote: note: interestingly the weapon they used to took out the blackhawk in the incident was an RPG-7 according to the report i read, not sure what round they used though.

If I remember correctly, they used HE rounds, set to explode after x meters (I don't recall the exact distance).

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-05 12:57

Okay but in the film it seems like its hitting the front of the car?

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-05 13:03

this is my own guess based on what i read on the millitary hummer claim,
the engine block would be toast but i don't think the crew compartment should be breached.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-02-05 14:15

^Camper^DK wrote:Okay then the film Black Hawk Down is far from realistic, in that movie a Humwee is getting hit by an RPG an only the window in the car crashes

If you didnt notice it hit the wall next to the vehical and the explosion sent shrapnle into the glass and althogh the glass did withstand it, it sent a few shards of glass into the drivers face (Not into the passengers face because he was obviously on the oposite side of the blast).

About the M1 Abrams that was destroyed - the RPG was shot from a bridge and it hit from an almost 45degree angle into the Rear-Port side of the vehical, the crew were all injured and the tank was beyond field repair (Disabled is not a term i would use if i had to sent that lumbering beast back to the States for a suvear repair). They said the fule tank was to blame at first and then they said it was the engine vent's, whatever the case - there was a medium sized hole and flames comeing from every vent and pipe that was exposed.

There has been meany Abrams desrtoyed (Even ine by a Sabot round) - i am happy all Challenger 2's deployed around the world have been serviced in the field.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-05 14:31

this is from the official report on the tank sent back for repair after the incident,

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/solved1.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

The following information is provided concerning a Malfunction/Accident/Incident involving TACOM equipment:

a. Location of MAIR: Baghdad, Iraq

b. Date and Time of MAIR: 5:20 AM (before dawn), 28 August 2003.

c. Identification of Unit involved: 2/70 Armor Battalion, 1 AD

d. Injuries/Fatalities: The Tank Commander received minor shrapnel wounds to the legs and arms and the Gunner got some in his arm.

e. Identification of Weapon/Ammunition/Equipment/Vehicle (SN, bumper #, ammo lot #) Involved: M1A1 Tank, serial number L13170, bumper number B 24.

f. Property Damage: The #4 right-hand skirt (TM 9-2350-264- 24P-1 dated March 2003, Figure 274, Item 17, NSN 2510-01-166- 2049, p/n 12323656), the Hull, the NBC hose behind the Gunner’s Seat (TM 9-2350-264-23P-2, dated April 2003, Figure 225, Item 13, NSN 4720-01-320-5774, p/n 12324460-9), the back of the Gunner’s seat (Figure 137, Items 1 & 30, Frame NSN 2540-01-362-5768, p/n 12931155, Cushion NSN 2540-01-144-1458, p/n 12312153), the safety guard that stands upright on the loaders side of the slip ring cover (Figure 132, Item 28, NSN 1015-01-250-5976, p/n 9377649), and the TNB (Figure 139, Item 22, NSN 5975-01-316-9270, p/n 12549752) were all damaged. The skirt and hull can be repaired by the unit, the safety guard is still serviceable, and they can replace the others. The TNB is beyond repair because the housing is damaged.

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

the material penetrating the armour left a pencil sized hole on the tank, i don't know what is your medium size of course, so perhaps that qualify. despite the size of the dmg to the tank though, the material produced enough heat to trigger the internal halon fire extinguisher. And from the photo of the impact location i cannot see how the penetrator can hit fuel tank or engine.

And comparing the record with challenger 2 is quite impossible, granted that the millitary released very limited report on attacks against their forces in occupational duty. The reports that are available obviously shows more hummer, abrams, and bradley damaged or destroyed (no abrams have been destroyed by enemy warhead ever yet) than any other modern vehicles used by the other western force, but at the same time they are also the one getting shot at most often. Sure, there haven't been as many record of other MBTs damaged beyond field repair, but how many modern MBTs are actually getting shot at? The abrams by the simple fact of being in a hostile condition would receive a heck a lot more heat directed at them than most other MBT, so it's natural to see some of them taking damage.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-02-05 19:19

Raaschou wrote:If I remember correctly, they used HE rounds, set to explode after x meters (I don't recall the exact distance).

The PG-7 series HEAT rounds were the primary used rounds in Somalia. These rounds self-destruct after around 900 meters. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Mujaheddin learned to use this self-destruct airburst against helicopters.

With the close ranges involved in the firefight, it is quite possible that an RPG could hit the window and not explode, since RPG rounds have an arming range/time like most weapons of their type. As you saw in the movie, the possibility of casualties with impaled unexploded ordnance is very real, and more emergency medical training and procedures have been developed in response to this incident.

worst 3 · Post by **worst 3** » 2006-02-06 04:48

i think they it should be 1 hit to the back and top of turet 2-3 on the sides and in front alot 7+ becuse that armour is "suposed" to be hit (and it like 2feet thick". i think (key word) that the front armor of an m1a1 was took muliple tank rounds to the front armour with out any damge inside (and i think it was a t60) or something like that. this will make the tank more effective becuse it front armor is suposed to be hit but and now tanks wont go in cities where they can get hit from the back. also tank battles would be more then geting the first shot but there accuracy and and position.

also the armor is sloped in fornt to make the shell bounce off and also make is less efective if it starts to digin to the armour.

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-02-06 04:57

I thought javelines could be powerful enough to take out an mbt with one hit, or at least disable. Not even a javeline to the rear could kill an abrams? I don't really know, but I figured that they could.

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-02-06 05:02

Found a nice video of a javeline, I guess they do hit from the top, but still, it could be powerful enough to blow up a mbt from the rear.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &q=javelin

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-06 05:29

there are several other portable AT weapon with top attack design other than javelin, and theoretically you would prefer top attack rather than rear. It's much more likely for a penetration to occur from top than the turret's rear. And penetration of the hull's rear would kill the engine but quite likely the tank would survive, and would probably still be able to return fire.. which you don't want.

But as far as i know, none of these weapons have been used against modern MBTs, operation Dessert Storm even, pit the coalition against outdated T-72s.

btw, i don't understand what do you mean by penetration to the rear by javelin, considering javelin's arching flight pattern which brings it high above the target.