Project Reality Forums

As viper said every tank can be destroyed. The tanks ingame are fine. M1A2 needs better armor that all.


btw, hotrod, 1 out of your 3 pictures show Bradley IFV's, Top Abrams is yes a IED kill but still, it was a MBT killed. And the middle one shows a M113, a light APC.

The thing is though, that there are sooo many ways a tank/apc or any vehicle for that matter can be damaged that the amount of possibilities are practically endless. I mean right now, vehicles don't react to the environment like you'd expect. If you drive a humvee full speed into the side of a building, all that happens is the humvee takes a bit of damage. In real life, the front hood would collapse in, and the crew would probably be seriously injured or dead.

Now with tanks it's almost the same thing. If we shoot it with a sabot round or something, you might expect the crew inside to be killed or seriously injured but we don't have that. So the only way to simulate a kill is to have the tank spontaneously explode into star wars dust.

Waaah_Wah wrote:
If a tank is shot multiple times with SABOT rounds it will most likely be damaged beyond repair.

You would be surprised m8, there is no explosive content in sabot rounds and during Desert Storm soldiers from the 14/20 Hussars reported shooting some enemy tanks 6-7 times as they saw no obvious damage, upon closer inspection they had killed the crew with the first hit but as there was no explosion, they were unaware, so kept shooting.

Hotrod525 wrote:Look at this Bradley you think Crew get out of this uninjured ?

By The Way, Coalition have lost many tank.

Actually, not to be a pain. But I belive that is the overturned wreckage of an M113 armored personnel carrier. Far to small to be a M2 Bradley, in my opinion.

Take note of the wheel size and spacing. Including the generally plain looking side armor that isn't fitted with additional armor plating or reactive armor as an M2 would have.

M113


M2A2

[R-DEV]Undies wrote:You would be surprised m8, there is no explosive content in sabot rounds and during Desert Storm soldiers from the 14/20 Hussars reported shooting some enemy tanks 6-7 times as they saw no obvious damage, upon closer inspection they had killed the crew with the first hit but as there was no explosion, they were unaware, so kept shooting.

If they killed the crew, they probably messed up the tank pretty badly dont you think?

Btw, isnt there a big chanse of SABOT rounds setting off amunition or fuel in the tank they hit?

Airs0ft_S0ldier11 wrote:Actually in some of those pictures, the tanks were destroyed by allies to prevent enemy from salvaging key components of it.

Yeah i was going to say that too. Its standard procedure to destroy any allied equipment if it can not be moved/salvaged in time for w/e reason(i.e continued combat or not enough time). This happened a lot apparently, especially during the opening weeks of the war where everything was still very fast pase combat.

Waaah_Wah wrote:If they killed the crew, they probably messed up the tank pretty badly dont you think?

Btw, isnt there a big chanse of SABOT rounds setting off amunition or fuel in the tank they hit?

I would imagine it was quite a mess inside, but the turret and hull were, aside from a few holes, sound. There is a chance of ammunition being set off yes, but i work with some of these guys who are quite adament a lot of them didnt explode or give any real indication they'd been hit.

i hafta agree with everyone else, as realistic as it might be you have to remember, in real life the insurgents dont have the same amount of guys you do, they got 10 times as many. and the ieds they got are much more powerfull than the ones in PR, they are hand made bombs meant to take out tanks and torture their crews.

they have hundreds of other elements to help them destroy these vehichles, in PR they dont. like you said a tank took around 70 consecutive rpg hits, well guess what here in PR we only got 2 per man. so if you take that all into acount, its perfectly balanced to real life scenarios now just to a lesser scale.

I am actually satisfied with the actual damage managements for armored vehicles. Especially tanks offering turrets and track disfunction.

According to BF2 engine and the ennemy equipment compared to real life.

M.Warren wrote:
Actually, not to be a pain. But I belive that is the overturned wreckage of an M113 armored personnel carrier. Far to small to be a M2 Bradley, in my opinion.

Take note of the wheel size and spacing. Including the generally plain looking side armor that isn't fitted with additional armor plating or reactive armor as an M2 would have.

M113


M2A2

Im afraid you wrong... Check the roadwheels. 6 for a bradley and 5 for a M113 (Only the danish M113 G3 "long" has 6 roadwheels)

Theres also a video report somewhere with the overturend bradley. As far as i remember, sadly everbody inside where killed.

The last pic doesent look to be an MBT, looks like a stryker or bradley to me

Its a BMP

Waaah_Wah wrote:Ehh.. A guy lost his leg in that tank. Are you sure that they drove away after getting penetrated?

Yes the tank made it back to base under it's own power, the driver lost some toes, when a CR2 got hit with a massive IED the driver lost his leg.

Bringerof_D wrote:i hafta agree with everyone else, as realistic as it might be you have to remember, in real life the insurgents dont have the same amount of guys you do, they got 10 times as many. and the ieds they got are much more powerfull than the ones in PR, they are hand made bombs meant to take out tanks and torture their crews.

That's what the insurgency mode is made to simulate. The insurgents respawn quicker to simulate more people. The only IEDs used to take down a tank successfully have been shaped charges. They are actually smaller than the large IED explosions you would see in video. There is a video of a large explosion underneath a tank. The tank is lifted up 2-3 feet onto one tread, then falls back down and the turret is seen traversing. No crew were harmed.

they have hundreds of other elements to help them destroy these vehichles, in PR they dont.

I think you are grasping at straws here. IEDs are mortars, shells or the charges used to shoot the shell. Hence the term, improvised. The weapons they have were shit when they were sold 2nd hand to them. Now its 30 years later.

like you said a tank took around 70 consecutive rpg hits, well guess what here in PR we only got 2 per man. so if you take that all into acount, its perfectly balanced to real life scenarios now just to a lesser scale.

It didn't take 70 hits to disable the tank. The tanks sight was disabled after a few hits with RPG7s and an Anti Tank missile. The tracks were thrown by another couple of hits. While the tank was sitting, disabled, the crew endured a total of 70 rpg hits, including the original hits. Think about that for a second. They were hit by at least one RPG every 5 minutes. It wouldn't be hard for an insurgent to do that in PR, by standing on a cache or running to a cache. By bombarding the tank with RPGs, the crew will stay inside until extraction forces are there.
It may take two people off the battlefield (armor crew) and one squad for extraction, but as I have said before there really is no excuse to lose a tank against insurgents.



So I am thinking that perhaps after 4 or 5 well placed turret hits, the turret is disabled.
After 8-10 track hits, the tank becomes immobile. An immobile tank can only be recovered using M. Warrens FARPS idea. Since the immobile vehicle isn't destroyed, the tanks would be put on auto respawn every 60-75 minutes.

Teonanacatl wrote:
I think you are grasping at straws here. IEDs are mortars, shells or the charges used to shoot the shell. Hence the term, improvised. The weapons they have were shit when they were sold 2nd hand to them. Now its 30 years later.

An IED can be made of anything that goes *boom* but for the most part they are made of bigg *** artillery shells, not puny little mortars

Teonanacatl wrote:
I think you are grasping at straws here. IEDs are mortars, shells or the charges used to shoot the shell. Hence the term, improvised. The weapons they have were shit when they were sold 2nd hand to them. Now its 30 years later.

yes but you're also forgetting the large drum of fuel fixed with a sensitive detonator. and dont forget again yes its not just an artillery shell, it could be 2 or 3 rigged up with a land mine.

and btw i aint imagining this, i'm a cadet in canada and i've seen pictures from a soldier who came by and talked to us, he had first hand experience with one of these, the 2 LAVs he was with were completely destroyed by a single IED consisting of one field artillery shell and 2 oildrums full of gasolene. out of 10 or so people, 4 badly injured 3 dead

btw fastwinston they are made with puny mortars...for anti personell use on the sidewalk, not at all meant to take on armoured vehichles

I can't understand why people keep bringing up APCs when it clearly states in the thread title, MBT (main battle tank).

no, armor in the game is potreyed well, but the c2 should be fixed up, m1 needs a new model, and the chinese tank needs to be switched or something, that thing is terrible.