Page 9 of 9
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-08-10 13:23
by PatrickLA_CA
Will the armor changes have any impact on other types of shells versus the armor? For example the 30mm on the Apache takes too many shells to kill a BMP-2 or 3 now while it should be able to rip it apart with no problems, especially from above?
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-09-08 02:09
by SovietBear4
tobi-the-fraggel wrote:There are a lot of videos on lubetupe where you can find tanks 'partly' surviving atgm hits. At least 1 or 2 of the crew.
The video cuts out too early to judge but you can only see the commander jumping out.
Also don't forget that this is more or less actual footage so it shows battle proofen combatants on both sides. These tank crewmen probably have years of battlefield experience now. The 'shitting pants' time is over. I doubt they would leave their tank if they don't have to.
But who knows. Both of us were not there. Just be careful with judging like this about those fighters.
Let's not forget it's a t-72 which is not famous for it's armour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72
EDIT: Wait, that's actually a T-90. Well the armour protection is better with this one.
EDIT2: That indeed changes things a bit. I stand by my point though. If the crew didn't saw a need to leave then they would probably not have left. Might have been a lucky shot then, considering it hit the front turret.
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/20160 ... /t_907.jpg The tank looks fine, tbh, the guy must have shitted himself, as the news claim the tank drove itself back to base after the hit.
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-09-12 17:50
by uzipaz
I am quite excited for this change in armor. Now, tanks will have to extra careful in Towns with LAT kits surrounding them. This also means that tanks will have to take into account the direction they are facing at all times.
Given this, when you need to retreat, you will have to reverse your tanks instead of doing a 180, exposing your weak armor and running away. But, I've noticed that the reverse speed of tanks in PR is generally very slow, similar to crawl speed in infantry. In light of this game-play update, are the reverse speeds of the tanks going to be increased or adjusted?
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-09-14 06:46
by QuickLoad
uzipaz wrote:I am quite excited for this change in armor. Now, tanks will have to extra careful in Towns with LAT kits surrounding them. This also means that tanks will have to take into account the direction they are facing at all times.
Given this, when you need to retreat, you will have to reverse your tanks instead of doing a 180, exposing your weak armor and running away. But, I've noticed that the reverse speed of tanks in PR is generally very slow, similar to crawl speed in infantry. In light of this game-play update, are the reverse speeds of the tanks going to be increased or adjusted?
ahahha ikr.
i always apply logic to this game and start reversing my tanks on accident.
gunner: WHY ARE YOU REVERSING?
"I gotta keep my frontal armor facing the enemy!"
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-09-16 02:15
by Psyko
should the front of the tracks really have the front armour too?
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-09-16 05:23
by camo
Psyko wrote:should the front of the tracks really have the front armour too?
Yeah, otherwise people will just straight away aim for the tracks over and over, it's a little bit cheesy if the fastest way to kill a tank is shoot its tracks lots of times.
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-09-16 09:35
by Mineral
To add to what Camo said correctly: it would obviously make sense to have different purposes to shoot a tank. Such as shooting the tracks to disable it, shooting the turret to make it incapable of firing. But we can unfortunately only accurately simulate one: Shoot to kill it and do maximum amount of damage. And with only that, we cannot have weakpoints cause that's just exploitable.
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-09-16 22:29
by Psyko
From a distance It would take quite a good aim to hit the tank in the tracks, not just with AP rounds, but also with TOW, there's only about a foot of space between the hull and the ground. Also it might force drivers to protect their lower bit? Cautious driving, might be a good thing.
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-09-17 12:27
by LimitJK
Yes, it would make sense to make the front lower hull weaker too, both from a realism and gameplay standpoint, as its usually way less armored than the turret front and would give a real advantage to cautious driving and hull down positions, seeing that lowering your profile alone isnt that effective with PRs usual engagement ranges and high gun accuracy.
So the proposal is, lower front hull gets side armor values. Would for example penalize uncautious cresting or standing with exposed belly on a ridgeline.
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-10-06 00:28
by PeppeJ
Psyko wrote:From a distance It would take quite a good aim to hit the tank in the tracks
Hardly, the shooting in the sights exploit that existed was abused to hell and resulted in a lot of easy kills. The sights are also a lot smaller than a track, but people still hit them with ease. The hull down point is interesting though, but the unrealistic nature of it kinda defeats the cool stuff it could bring.
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-10-09 21:52
by LiamNL
Just asking, will there be a special amour type that could resist mines that would still be tracked by a mine but not destroyed? For example MRAP vehicles such as the bushmaster?
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-10-10 17:34
by Mats391
LiamNL wrote:Just asking, will there be a special amour type that could resist mines that would still be tracked by a mine but not destroyed? For example MRAP vehicles such as the bushmaster?
Not for 1.4. Maybe in future updates when we find a use for the bushmaster again.
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-10-10 21:12
by LiamNL
Good to hear it's at least being considered for future use, if someone would ever update the Leo 2 to the A7 or A6M variant then the same armour could be used on the bottom of that and several other "mine resistant" vehicles.
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-10-17 23:08
by adrenalinetooth
Everyone is worried the TOW won't be effective anymore because the frontal armor is buffed, but can't you just add in the option to fire the TOW missile above the tank and have it land on the roof? Most modern ATGMs do this, such as the NLAW, TOW, or Javelin.
I noticed in the last patch that if you try to fire a MANPAD at a ground target the missile is coded to go straight down and hit the dirt in front of the intended target. Surely it's possible to code the same thing for ATGMs with this firing feature?
Example of NLAW firing top down (watch from 2:20)
https://youtu.be/byR9EfOTeZg
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-10-21 13:13
by viirusiiseli
adrenalinetooth wrote:Everyone is worried the TOW won't be effective anymore because the frontal armor is buffed, but can't you just add in the option to fire the TOW missile above the tank and have it land on the roof? Most modern ATGMs do this, such as the NLAW, TOW, or Javelin.
I noticed in the last patch that if you try to fire a MANPAD at a ground target the missile is coded to go straight down and hit the dirt in front of the intended target. Surely it's possible to code the same thing for ATGMs with this firing feature?
Example of NLAW firing top down (watch from 2:20)
https://youtu.be/byR9EfOTeZg
shoot the side or roof by aiming at it, its usually visible
no need for over-complicating
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-10-22 20:47
by happygoogleboy
Reduce the thermal signatures of tows so that they aren't spotted as easily by armour so that the operator has a better chance of getting a 2nd shot off.
Re: Tank armor changes
Posted: 2016-10-29 11:21
by inb4banned
The TANK - TOW balance is already bad with TOW having such a long delay before firing and not being able to actually see what you're shooting at unless it's super far away. This just makes it way worse with 0 trade off on 4km asset maps. Not a well thought out change.
