Project Reality Forums

viirusiiseli wrote:No, no, no. Gets a tank burning from frontal hit. Just like all the other ATGMs. Malyutka is the only ATGM I've fired at a tank without getting it burning/blowing up. Don't lie.

Regarding the OP, yes, ATGMs are really good. You know what you're going against though, so you should act accordingly. Find a place where most of your hull is behind cover and play defensive etc etc. The only real problem is the AP shells seem to be buggy in PR, they don't damage tanks with every round. You're supposed to be able to kill a tank with 2 AP shells at the moment but a lot of the rounds that are fired just don't register any damage. Fix that and AP only tanks are more balanced again.

I don't know what defective (or pre-damaged) M1 Abrams you were shooting at, but I've had a few times(rest of the times it was one shot kill from side/rear) on Kashan where one shot to the front didn't even track it.

Jacksonez__ wrote:This game/mod does not also simulate delicate optical devices outside of the tank. You shoot LAT at them, those optics are gone for good and the tank becomes pretty damn blind to its surroundings.

Modern ATGM can penetrate pretty much every tank armor. If it doesn't penetrate, the crew will suffer very badly though (sound, explosion shockwave etc)

There are backup optics.

Sound? Explosion shockwave? If a round does not penetrate, it won't have much of either; tanks have more than just hard armour, there are generally also anti-spalling layers on the inside.

ComradeHX wrote:I don't know what defective (or pre-damaged) M1 Abrams you were shooting at, but I've had a few times(rest of the times it was one shot kill from side/rear) on Kashan where one shot to the front didn't even track it.


There are backup optics.

Sound? Explosion shockwave? If a round does not penetrate, it won't have much of either; tanks have more than just hard armour, there are generally also anti-spalling layers on the inside.

So you say it's okay and good to go after ATGM hits the tank, crew is OK and fully operational? If the tank does not have self-defense missiles to destroy ATGMs, the crew will-fee-the-impact.

Haven't been in a tank when ATGM hits it and rather would not be but I say the odds are low for tank to survive an ATGM hit,, since most missiles (if not all modern) can penetrate 1000mm RHA.

Back-up optics, good luck replacing them on the battlefield. You will become pretty blind without optics, you need another tank to cover you most likely.

Jacksonez__ wrote:So you say it's okay and good to go after ATGM hits the tank, crew is OK and fully operational? If the tank does not have self-defense missiles to destroy ATGMs, the crew will-fee-the-impact.

Haven't been in a tank when ATGM hits it and rather would not be but I say the odds are low for tank to survive an ATGM hit,, since most missiles (if not all modern) can penetrate 1000mm RHA.

Back-up optics, good luck replacing them on the battlefield. You will become pretty blind without optics, you need another tank to cover you most likely.

There are examples of APC(bradley) penetrated in Iraq by M1's 120mm gun yet the crews were mostly alive.
Such as: TAB H -- Friendly-fire Incidents
Idea that HEAT or whatever creates overpressure that kills crew instantly is a myth.

They don't all die instantly even when vehicle was penetrated; what makes you think they would take serious damage when vehicle wasn't even penetrated?

Backup optics. The joke is that you failed to realize what it means; no need for "replacing."
If commander's optics is destroyed, he can look(assuming it's a T-90 or something) through gunner's optics, or through multiple auxillary observation devices around the tank(here assuming T-90MS), in worst case he can unbutton and use Mark I.

It would take a very big explosion to take out all of the optics on a tank at once.

ComradeHX wrote:There are examples of APC(bradley) penetrated in Iraq by M1's 120mm gun yet the crews were mostly alive.
Such as: TAB H -- Friendly-fire Incidents
Idea that HEAT or whatever creates overpressure that kills crew instantly is a myth.

They don't all die instantly even when vehicle was penetrated; what makes you think they would take serious damage when vehicle wasn't even penetrated?

Backup optics. The joke is that you failed to realize what it means; no need for "replacing."
If commander's optics is destroyed, he can look(assuming it's a T-90 or something) through gunner's optics, or through multiple auxillary observation devices around the tank(here assuming T-90MS), in worst case he can unbutton and use Mark I.

It would take a very big explosion to take out all of the optics on a tank at once.

Well I was talking about ATGM not tank shells.

Idea that HEAT or whatever creates overpressure

atgm tandem warhead metal spray(/and shrapnel) will eliminate stuff inside the tank or ignite the ammo storage (e.g carousel storage in T-90) and then it's RIP.
----

I'm fine with ATGMs killing a tank outright as long as it's side or rear armour, however most, if not all, modern tanks have means of protection against reactive warheads, and the game isn't simulating this at all atm. Having the ability to survive an ATGM hit on frontal armour on MBTs would help to even the odds a bit when it's ATGM tanks vs. no ATGM tanks

Well, it does not matter. ATGM have tandem-warhead which destroy the explosive reactive armor, then penetrate through the actual armor.

So my point here is that ATGMs will destroy any tank. They could modify it a little bit though, hit in front should at least kill the driver or commander (so one of the players) leaving the tank tracked and badly damaged. So it might get rescued by logistic truck.

Little survival chance leaving tank badly damaged (tracked etc turret locked) if hit in front, rest is kill.

Jacksonez__ wrote:Well I was talking about ATGM not tank shells.


atgm tandem warhead metal spray(/and shrapnel) will eliminate stuff inside the tank or ignite the ammo storage (e.g carousel storage in T-90) and then it's RIP.

ATGM that failed to penetrate.

Are you implying that crew will "feel" it more with atgm that failed over apfsds that did pen?

Jacksonez__ wrote: Well, it does not matter. ATGM have tandem-warhead which destroy the explosive reactive armor, then penetrate through the actual armor.

So my point here is that ATGMs will destroy any tank. They could modify it a little bit though, hit in front should at least kill the driver or commander (so one of the players) leaving the tank tracked and badly damaged. So it might get rescued by logistic truck.

Little survival chance leaving tank badly damaged (tracked etc turret locked) if hit in front, rest is kill.

You missed active protection.

T-90's "eyes" are not just for looks.

It might be hard to simulate the effect of APS softkill system but we can make atgm have 50% chance to fail to do damage.

Jacksonez__ wrote: Haven't been in a tank when ATGM hits it and rather would not be but I say the odds are low for tank to survive an ATGM hit,, since most missiles (if not all modern) can penetrate 1000mm RHA.

The Challenger 2 supposedly has 800mm RHA front armor. The only Russian missiles we have that can penetrate this are:
9M119 (AT-11 Sniper): 700-900mm penetration. Used in T90, ZTZ-98 and ZTZ-99
9M120 (AT-9 Spiral-2): 800mm penetration. Used on Havok.
All others cannot penetrate. Now all those numbers have to be taken with grain of salt, but hopefully both sides exaggerate their numbers so that it cancels out
For future updates we will look into balancing ATGMs and AP rounds more. We wont be able to simulate hitting essential parts like optics, but at the same time the impact angle doesnt affect the damage either. We have a simplistic damage model to play with and are trying to get the best for realism and gameplay out of it.

[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote:The Challenger 2 supposedly has 800mm RHA front armor. The only Russian missiles we have that can penetrate this are:
9M119 (AT-11 Sniper): 700-900mm penetration. Used in T90, ZTZ-98 and ZTZ-99
9M120 (AT-9 Spiral-2): 800mm penetration. Used on Havok.
All others cannot penetrate. Now all those numbers have to be taken with grain of salt, but hopefully both sides exaggerate their numbers so that it cancels out
For future updates we will look into balancing ATGMs and AP rounds more. We wont be able to simulate hitting essential parts like optics, but at the same time the impact angle doesnt affect the damage either. We have a simplistic damage model to play with and are trying to get the best for realism and gameplay out of it.

Challenger 2 was frontally penetrated by RPG-29 once.

So I'm assuming it's Challenger 2 that really exaggerated its numbers.

ComradeHX wrote:Challenger 2 was frontally penetrated by RPG-29 once.

So I'm assuming it's Challenger 2 that really exaggerated its numbers.

You mean the steel underbelly that now is covered with the good stuff?

I'm assuming you don't know much about that incident, do ya?

ComradeHX wrote:Challenger 2 was frontally penetrated by RPG-29 once.

So I'm assuming it's Challenger 2 that really exaggerated its numbers.

RPG-29 has 750mm penetration w/o reactive armor according to wiki, so that is not that far off The 800mm RHA are also average across whole front. There are certainly strong and weak points in there.

[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote:RPG-29 has 750mm penetration w/o reactive armor according to wiki, so that is not that far off The 800mm RHA are also average across whole front. There are certainly strong and weak points in there.

Abrams has also been immobilized by rpg-29, one incident included death of crewmen.

Souls Of Mischief wrote:You mean the steel underbelly that now is covered with the good stuff?

I'm assuming you don't know much about that incident, do ya?

I meant the shitty frontal armour, yes.

IIRC they claimed it was bad ERA block and supposedly now has better ERA block.

Are you implying "good stuff" is going to stop tandem warhead without problem now?

ComradeHX wrote:I meant the shitty frontal armour, yes.

IIRC they claimed it was bad ERA block and supposedly now has better ERA block.

Are you implying "good stuff" is going to stop tandem warhead without problem now?

It was a plain steel underbelly. Now it has a thick layer of Chobham or whatever it's called placed on it.


Did I struck a nerve or something? You've gotten awfully defensive all of a sudden.

But to answer your question, no I'm not.




This will, though. TEEE HEEEEEE

Souls Of Mischief wrote:It was a plain steel underbelly. Now it has a thick layer of Chobham or whatever it's called placed on it.


Did I struck a nerve or something? You've gotten awfully defensive all of a sudden.

But to answer your question, no I'm not.




This will, though. TEEE HEEEEEE

Defensive? How?

I was merely pointing out the fact that Challenger2 has been penetrated frontally before.

It having had shitty plain steel isn't any excuse for...anything, really. Not that you ever provided evidence that it was plain steel.

Time of the incident fits just fine within PR's time(almost as old as PR); so it makes sense for it to be easily penetrated by any ATGM in-game.

IIRC they don't call it chobham anymore, it was manchester or something.

ComradeHX wrote:...

Somehow it seems like you're just here to derail threads into lenghty discussions about what happens in real life instead of letting people discuss how the game should be. Just why?

viirusiiseli wrote:Somehow it seems like you're just here to derail threads into lenghty discussions about what happens in real life instead of letting people discuss how the game should be. Just why?

What's this game called?

If you are going to disregard every real life example, then you might as well go play Battlefaild 4.

I can buy comrade's argument about tow penetrating atgm would spare the crew. Problem is...how the fuck do you implement that mechanic?

ComradeHX wrote:I was merely pointing out the fact that Challenger2 has been penetrated frontally before

But it wasn't destroyed and could return back home, which would be the reason as to why I'm suggesting for ATGMs to not kill MBTs when hitting the front. The other reason would be game play.

sweedensniiperr wrote:I can buy comrade's argument about tow penetrating atgm would spare the crew. Problem is...how the fuck do you implement that mechanic?

Maybe let crew be damaged like in certain APC?

I would be perfectly okay with having ATGM hurt the commander/driver from the front while lowering tank hp to about 30%.

Frontliner wrote:But it wasn't destroyed and could return back home, which would be the reason as to why I'm suggesting for ATGMs to not kill MBTs when hitting the front. The other reason would be game play.

The point was that, at that point, they are more concerned with getting back to base than killing more brown people.
And they did go back to base.


Which you also do when you spawn roughly 30 seconds later.

Real people don't respawn.

ComradeHX wrote:What's this game called?

If you are going to disregard every real life example, then you might as well go play Battlefaild 4.

Project Reality, it's a game depicting realism. It's not trying to be realism itself. You don't have to argue every single little detail to this extent. You'll probably find some military enthusiast forums more pleasing, since you probably post here more than actually play the game to see how it is.

viirusiiseli wrote:Project Reality, it's a game depicting realism. It's not trying to be realism itself. You don't have to argue every single little detail to this extent. You'll probably find some military enthusiast forums more pleasing, since you probably post here more than actually play the game to see how it is.

Project Reality is obviously not trying to be reality....

It's a representation of reality.

That's why ATGM can/should one-shot tanks even though IRL it might not disable the tank completely.
I didn't argue about details, I pointed out evidence that serious damage can and has been done to front of MBT even by man-portable AT weapons such as RPG-29. Translation: ATGM can and should one shot tanks because it's probable IRL.

I post here just as often as I play the game.

Maybe you don't see me so much because I prefer Infantry and RedFor.
You will recognize me when choppers get shot out of sky by RPG.

Don't get so angry when I bring real life facts into a discussion about this game(such as in that threat about APC autocannon damage)...it's nothing personal.