Project Reality Forums

If you couldnt disable a tank with an RPG then no m1a1s would have ever been lost in iraq. Even i have a few pics with m1s that have been disabled.

As for your tanking talk it all sounds pretty great! Providing the spawn points are kind of concentrated into roughly the same area so you can get to a tank and team mates easily on public servers....unless BF2 really does get a large ammount of players as well as this mod.

Another thing to keep in mind is that RPG rounds have improved since the days of Vietnam and the first Gulf War. The latest PG-7VR tandem-HEAT rounds (105mm) have more than twice the penetration of the older HEAT rounds and no doubt a few of those made it into Iraq during the so-called embargo.

Actually that M1AX that had it's side skirt punctured has been proven to have been done by an RPG. Most likely the tandem warhead kind as mentioned above. While it was far from the most armored part and wasn't close to a catastrophic hit, it's disturbing such a cheap and widely available weapon was able to do such damage. Hopefully it'll lead to the development of more active defense and countermeasures to complement passive armor. Tanks can't really afford to get much more heavier and most need to lose some weight.

In regards to the RPG hitting the window, that seems like a case of bad ammo. Happens quite a lot and those who it happens to definitely appreciate it. Who knows how many dud cluster munitions are in the average CBU/MLRS rocket.

Tacamo wrote:In regards to the RPG hitting the window, that seems like a case of bad ammo. Happens quite a lot and those who it happens to definitely appreciate it.

Heh, well, they appreciate it up to a point. One of the lessons learned from Mogadishu was that in urban combat when RPGs may not have the distance to fuse was that medics and surgical teams need to be prepared for the eventuality of impaled unexploded ordnance. (Yes, that scene in Blackhawk Down was based on real occurences, addressed by the senior Army surgeon during the operation at the RAND Urban Warfare symposium).

Tacamo wrote:Actually that M1AX that had it's side skirt punctured has been proven to have been done by an RPG. Most likely the tandem warhead kind as mentioned above. While it was far from the most armored part and wasn't close to a catastrophic hit, it's disturbing such a cheap and widely available weapon was able to do such damage. Hopefully it'll lead to the development of more active defense and countermeasures to complement passive armor. Tanks can't really afford to get much more heavier and most need to lose some weight.

In regards to the RPG hitting the window, that seems like a case of bad ammo. Happens quite a lot and those who it happens to definitely appreciate it. Who knows how many dud cluster munitions are in the average CBU/MLRS rocket.

\

as shown in the next type of tank, the armor will be a hardned form of plasic and have 2 poeople. though ill find prove of my claim it was on histroy channel for future weapons of war. i think no sure

I've heard of the tank you're refering to. It's the Future Combat System, that's supposed to mount either an EM or electro-thermal chemical cannon on one version. With warhead development passive armor is always the weakest link. It'll be interesting what happens when systems like the Arena anti-missle system mature. The Brits getting their electric armor in a working reliable battlefield form will change things a lot too.

solodude23 wrote:

On one occasion we recorded 32 kills and 0 deaths.

lol, just remember Pulaski, your the best tank driver we know

Well, who am I to argue.

Thank you.
/s Pulaski

yeah, from being a pilot that tried to attack him with a helo, hes a damn good tank driver...

I remember that, DC Dustbowl was the map, my top gunner was popping smoke like mad!

Do you think PR will have this version of the Abrams?



/s Pulaski

http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=6985

/s Pulaski

if that abrams is implemented at least we will be able to match the remote turret on the t-90 if there will be one(can't remember)

Archangel wrote:if that abrams is implemented at least we will be able to match the remote turret on the t-90 if there will be one(can't remember)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-90.htm

Yeah you are right. If you scroll to the bottom of the page you can see that it has a 12.7 mm remote controlled gun

Archangel wrote:if that abrams is implemented at least we will be able to match the remote turret on the t-90 if there will be one(can't remember)

Well, the Abrams has had the ability to fire the commander's M2 from under armor since the M1A1, maybe even earlier. But maybe this remote turret will have improved visibility and flexibility over the current system.

The remote-operated AAMG is also being offered as part of an upgrade package for the T-72M1.

Speaking of upgraded T72's does any nation actually use the version with the additional dual 20mm anti-aircraft cannons?

Look at it from a pub-game perspective...

Who is going to want to simply drive a tank, or load the gun..

I like the America's Army system where scores are tallied from a bunch of different things, such as how much you've been going after the objectives, if you support your teammates, etc; and in the end, those with the highest score get to choose what class they want first. Its a good way to promote people doing good things rather than hogging everything. And in AA, how many kills you got was really a secondary thing..

I wonder, if it would be possible to gain points simply by being near other teammates -- and the more teammates you're near, the more points you get, and the same for being in a vehicle with other mates. You'd also get points for healing and giving out ammo. And, of course, your flag-capturing abilities.. but kills should really be a low-priority point source. And then, at the end of the round, or the next map that comes up, those with the higher score get to spawn first, or have their pick of the good infantry kits, if it is possible to limit them at the spawn screen. Anyway, that's just my opinion on what would be good and fair..

Oh, as for tank crew spots: Driver/Gunner, Loader (seconds as a gunner for one of the top-turret machineguns, and can "button up".. perhaps, when buttoned up ie, inside the tank, the main gun loads faster.. anyway its just an excuse for having a 2nd top turret MG), and Commander.. and it'd be cool if that Commander got modified f-command buttons to tell the gunner that he spots a target at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock..