Tanks: Destroyed or Damaged?

Sadist_Cain · Post by **Sadist_Cain** » 2008-01-21 21:33

Hopefully SLAMs would be more effective to detrack a tank and such with this...

Edit:

Heskey wrote: I agree that tanks should suffer A HELL OF A LOT more on-board and functionality damage, rather than vehicle damage to prolong the life of tanks in infantry support roles, but without increasing their functionality over-time in combat.

Inside a nutshell if ever there was one...

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2008-01-21 22:47

Without teamwork you are already doomed to fail, unless the other team is as anti-teamwork as you are. Having enough engineers to recover vehicles from the field means that you REDUCE the amount of combat in the game, and with a max of 64 players that is a bad thing. I like the idea, but with current server restrictions it is a bad one.

Heskey · Post by **Heskey** » 2008-01-23 01:44

I agree.

Tanks should be able to support infantry squads without the enemy going "Enemy tank; start spawning as AT kits - Click, Click, BOOM."

I agree that tanks should suffer A HELL OF A LOT more on-board and functionality damage, rather than vehicle damage to prolong the life of tanks in infantry support roles, but without increasing their functionality over-time in combat.

Like this around 2:15:

YouTube - Call of Duty 4: War Pig - Escort the M1A2 Abrams Tank

Death_dx · Post by **Death_dx** » 2008-01-24 17:22

Ghost1800 wrote:... why can't the engineers C4 be used for that? It's most likely strong enough for the job right now.

Well, if an engy went to the tank he could repair it, and he only has a single c4, which takes a tank to about half hp atm, so as I said it would depend on how the hp is tweaked. Also since the "downed" tank is generally going to be behind the enemy front specops would be a more natural choice to go after it with (smoke/flashbangs).

markonymous · Post by **markonymous** » 2008-01-24 17:45

are you sure tanks take up to 6 shots to go down? i dont think its realistic not sure though

just a question whats up with the HEAT rounds theyre supposed to be incredably affective against armour instead they are use to kill infantery. (HEAT= high explosive anti-tank)

Post by **OkitaMakoto** » 2008-01-24 17:52

markonymous wrote:are you sure tanks take up to 6 shots to go down? i dont think its realistic not sure though

just a question whats up with the HEAT rounds theyre supposed to be incredably affective against armour instead they are use to kill infantery. (HEAT= high explosive anti-tank)

Wikipedia, take it or leave it

:

Armor developments in response to HEAT rounds

Increased size and changes to the armor of main battle tanks have reduced the usefulness of HEAT to a degree, by making the needed warhead size large enough to be no longer man portable. Today HEAT rounds are primarily used in shoulder-launched and in jeep- and helicopter-based missile systems. Tanks mostly use the more effective APFSDS rounds.

The reason for the ineffectiveness of HEAT-munitions against modern main battle tanks can be attributed in part to the use of new types of armor. The jet created by the explosion of the HEAT-round must have a certain distance from the target and must not be deflected. Reactive armor attempts to defeat this with an outward directed explosion under the impact point, causing the jet to deform and so penetration power is greatly reduced. Alternatively, composite armor featuring ceramics erode the liner jet more quickly than rolled homogeneous armor steel, the then preferred material in the construction of armored fighting vehicles.

&

With the effectiveness of gun-fired single charge HEAT rounds being lessened, or even negated by the increasingly sophisticated armoring techniques, a class of HEAT rounds known as high explosive anti-tank multi-purpose, or HEAT-MP, has become more popular. These are essentially HEAT rounds which are effective against older tanks and other armored vehicles, but have improved fragmentation, blast and fuzing. This gives the projectiles an overall reasonable light armor and anti-personnel/materiel effect so that they can be used in place of conventional high explosive rounds against infantry and other battlefield targets. This reduces the total number of rounds that need to be carried for different roles, which is particularly important for modern tanks like the M1 Abrams, due to the sheer size of 120 mm rounds used. The M1A1 / M1A2 tank can carry only 40 rounds for its 120 mm M256 gun - the M60A3 tank (the Abrams' predecessor), carried 63 rounds for its 105 mm M68 gun.

Sadist_Cain · Post by **Sadist_Cain** » 2008-01-24 18:16

markonymous wrote:are you sure tanks take up to 6 shots to go down? i dont think its realistic not sure though

just a question whats up with the HEAT rounds theyre supposed to be incredably affective against armour instead they are use to kill infantery. (HEAT= high explosive anti-tank)

Read through again dude.
it takes the same amount of hits for a tank to go "down" it just dosn't spontaniously combust every time you hit it twice in pretty much any location.

it also isnt a suggestion to make it possible to drive a tank around and take 4 hits and keep going.

and it isn't an arguement about tanks exploding or not. Read through annnnything about tanks being destroyed in warfare and youll more than likely find that most tanks were merely damaged NOT just *pop* explosion, dead tank (thought I'm not disputing that happens)

Really getting bored of answering this one... Tis a long post but read it ALL and maybe I won't have to keep filling my own thread with ****

Edit: With reference to Okitas post, That was a good read

Just read it.
Wouldn't you think that a fiddling of the damage model how I've suggested would greater simulate the effects of Reactive armour weak spots with the tank becoming crippled rather than fully destroyed?

Plus HE could have a greater effect on injuring crew within tanks or something, the possiblities are endddless!!... you chaps surely get where I'm going here

Edit: I'm too lazy for BIIIG text

but I've posted some references in the OP

Death_dx · Post by **Death_dx** » 2008-01-25 06:48

I think this should sum it up for the lazy readers.

If you don't think this is a good idea
then you are wrong.

Sadist_Cain · Post by **Sadist_Cain** » 2008-01-25 16:28

Will we ever get an official reply on this one...?

I know there may be plans to increase to time to live of the wrecked models but that dosn't reaaally add too much for a gameplay perspective...

Sergeant_Banner · Post by **Sergeant_Banner** » 2008-01-29 19:19

Great idea !

Would bring some real teamwork into the vehicular side of PR !

Like the idea of an injured crew, i can imagine it in game

*APC with squad in back gets hit by LAT, .50 cal fire etc.*
*crew suffer 50% (?) damage*
"Bail Out Squad !"
*Squad assembles at nearst safe point*
*Medic heals*
*etc.*

I endorse this product.
Sarge

$kelet0r · Post by **$kelet0r** » 2008-01-29 19:48

Again this is something I'd like to see and not just for tanks.
From the civilian cars to the tanks, functionality damage should be far more prevalent, rather than 'shoot it 'til it goes boom' mentality currently
It would also go along way to encouraging armour cohesion - nothing pisses me off more than lone pieces of armour not supporting infantry and not sticking or moving in convoy with friendly vehicles ... something that is the norm 99% of the time ingame, not just a common problem. The one thing that makes me want to throw something at my computer screen is seeing the commander and teamwork squads frantically defending an asset or firebase while the most powerful unit in the game is parked miles away scoring occasional cheap kills with 120mm HEAT shells ...
This way if tanks are more vulnerable to being disabled rather than destroyed and respawn in 10 minutes, that forces tankers to stay close to infantry in the hope that an engineer will fix them up enough for them to limp back to the command post for repairs with infantry benefiting from truly integrated combined arms.

mammikoura · Post by **mammikoura** » 2008-01-29 20:36

Sergeant_Banner wrote: Like the idea of an injured crew, i can imagine it in game

*APC with squad in back gets hit by LAT, .50 cal fire etc.*
*crew suffer 50% (?) damage*
"Bail Out Squad !"
*Squad assembles at nearst safe point*
*Medic heals*
*etc.*

I endorse this product.
Sarge

OR (the more likely scenario)

*apc with a driver and crewman gets hit by LAT, .50 cal fire ect*
*crew suffers 50% (?) damage*
*Bail Out!*
*both crewmen die*
*apc sits idle at a hilltop for the rest of the round*

Sadist_Cain · Post by **Sadist_Cain** » 2008-01-29 21:17

Sergeant_Banner wrote:Great idea !

Would bring some real teamwork into the vehicular side of PR !

Like the idea of an injured crew, i can imagine it in game

*APC with squad in back gets hit by LAT, .50 cal fire etc.*
*crew suffer 50% (?) damage*
"Bail Out Squad !"
*Squad assembles at nearst safe point*
*Medic heals*
*etc.*

I endorse this product.
Sarge

mammikoura wrote:OR (the more likely scenario)

*apc with a driver and crewman gets hit by LAT, .50 cal fire ect*
*crew suffers 50% (?) damage*
*Bail Out!*
*both crewmen die*
*apc sits idle at a hilltop for the rest of the round*

What's stopping a squad from retrieving the APC with new crewmen from an RP? or another squad/APC destroying the wrecked apc (if it's too far gone) so we'll get reinforcements.

Should see more people valuing the armour and working together to keep it in operation in these circumstances... At least myyyy Squad will try to get the armour going again