Upping tank health

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-02-25 03:42

There are many problems with tanks being damaged by stupid things like the enviroment(I took my tank down to 2/3 health in steel thunder after some bad driving), grenades, grenade launcher rounds, etc. that take away from the realism of how strong tanks are. This could easily be solved by just raising the amount of punishment a tank can take. In turn, the AT rockets, tank shells, landmines, and c4 damage should go up proportionately. I didn't mention the apc cannon because I didn't think that their cannons were able to pierce the armor in an MBT. Feel free to tell me what you guys think of the idea.

Rifleman · Post by **Rifleman** » 2006-02-25 10:31

It has been fixed in 1.2.... not all terrain damage has been removed, but reduced a lot. So just wait for 0.25 to believe... i mean see

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2006-02-25 19:10

Rifleman wrote:It has been fixed in 1.2....

No it hasnt. The Abrams still cut into terrain like its a rolling paper box.

Its really ridiculus anyway. Need far less damage.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-02-25 19:18

I think Granades of any type and terrain should be cut off completely, tank shells and landmines should be the only two things able to take out a tank wile C4 and hand held anti-tank weapons should damage it bit by bit before they manage to take it out.

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-25 19:25

A hand grenade dossent damage a tank at all in RL right or am i wrong...

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-02-25 19:27

^Camper^DK wrote:A hand grenade dossent damage a tank at all in RL right or am i wrong...

Ask an Abram's driver, And then ask a Challenger 2 driver.
You will get two different answers.

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-25 19:44

Okay can you give me them or? what contry do they got the challenger 2 in??

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-02-25 20:21

Only the UK and Oman use the Challenger 2.

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-02-25 20:33

Pence wrote:I think Granades of any type and terrain should be cut off completely, tank shells and landmines should be the only two things able to take out a tank wile C4 and hand held anti-tank weapons should damage it bit by bit before they manage to take it out.

I don't know if they could make it so that grenades and terrain do no damage at all, or at least if this was done it might effect all vehicles. If it could be done, then it should be though. As far as the personal at weapons go, I think a hit to the top of the tank should make it go critical and catch on fire. A hit to the rear bring it to the brink of this, hits to the side do significant damage(maybe half) and hits to the frong do minimal damage. Later on, when heavier anti tank kits are put in, like the javelin, then the lighter AT launchers should not do significant damage to tanks, but until then they are fine the way they are. C4 should be able to take a tank out, but only if it was placed directly on the tank, not close by.

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2006-02-25 20:40

lonelyjew wrote:I don't know if they could make it so that grenades and terrain do no damage at all, or at least if this was done it might effect all vehicles.

Yeah I thought of that... The problem is, one cant make it so the tanks doesnt take any damage. Just imagine the exploits it would bring in terms of terrain driving, jumping off bridges and stuff. But then again it WOULD be nice to drive a tank down the hillsides in Kubra Dam

There still need to be some damage, it just shouldnt be nearly as much as it is now for the little bumps.

AznLB · Post by **AznLB** » 2006-02-25 22:24

A grenade cannot harm your typical modern tank. It dosn't matter if it's a Challenger or an Abrams. Right now, grenades to way to much damage to tanks. IMO, grenades and grenade lauchers souldn't affect tanks one bit.

Right now, the Abrams's worst enemy is a gentle bump in the road, not an enemy tank.

Man-portable AT missles are perfect right now. They're a one shot kill if you hit the right place, and anywhere else does considerable damage. It would NOT be good or realistic to "hurt them bit by bit", that's a really stupid suggestion, and takes us right back to Vanilla.

IMO, TOW and HJ-8 missles should be one shot kills no matter where you hit, not only would that be realistic, it would balance things out very nicely. The same goes for tank shots, but they're so close to one shot kills, I don't think it's a big issuie.

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-25 22:41

One time i was testing PR with my m8 and a shot a tow on the front shield of the Abrahams, and it only lost about 50% of life i think, cuz when i shot it afterwerds with an AT missile it start burnin......

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-02-25 22:54

Yeah, TOW's do need to be powerful, but I don't think it would blow up an mbt in one hit to the front. At most, put it in critical health where it burns. I found a video of a TOW hitting an already destroyed old tank and it didn't blow it to bits.

http://forsvaret.dk/NR/rdonlyres/133343 ... nghjul.mpg

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-02-25 22:58

probably because there wouldn't have been any ammo or fuel in that tank when a live tank has these and thus it is more combustable.

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-26 08:58

LooL that video is from a danish site

Rifleman · Post by **Rifleman** » 2006-02-26 13:27

No it hasnt. The Abrams still cut into terrain like its a rolling paper box.

Not completly... but is much better than before, at least IMO

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-26 14:08

What does IMO means????

dunkellic · Post by **dunkellic** » 2006-02-26 14:17

"in my opinion"
but it´s true, the abrams gets really much damage due to "terrain"

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-26 15:11

Yea sure does man...i have tryid driving in a tank in some event the army made

and it can drive in almost every tarrain without taking damage at all....