Project Reality Forums

Heres my realism, Abrams should load in 7 seconds flat, and have 57 rounds of various 120mm

Has all the info you will ever need about USA land based systems.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/index.html

Rest of the World

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/index.html


M829E3

The M829E3 is the Army's next generation 120mm Armor-piercing Tank round. It replaces the M829A1 and the M829A2 projectiles. These rounds are widely regarded as the most effective tank-fired anti-armor weapons in the world. The E3 round will provide the army greater armor penetration capability than its two predecessors and also with improved accuracy.

Talk on miltary fourms this round will go throw any tank in the world with one shot, even the m1a2/Challenger 2.

InFuSeR wrote:Has all the info you will ever need about USA land based systems.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/index.html

Rest of the World

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/index.html


M829E3

The M829E3 is the Army's next generation 120mm Armor-piercing Tank round. It replaces the M829A1 and the M829A2 projectiles. These rounds are widely regarded as the most effective tank-fired anti-armor weapons in the world. The E3 round will provide the army greater armor penetration capability than its two predecessors and also with improved accuracy.

Talk on miltary fourms this round will go throw any tank in the world with one shot, even the m1a2/Challenger 2.

Yeah I think even the m829a2 would go through the challenger2/m1a2 sep tanks pretty easily

fas.org is a great website. I have viewed many things on it in the past.

I noticed a few of you complained that the high-tech countermeasures on the T-90 are either unrealistic or would ruin AT. Iasthai, I assure you, the T-90 indeed has advanced missile detection and jamming systems. It is a relatively easy thing to do, and I am ashamed that the Abrams doesn't have the same thing. The jammers on the T-90 are those two "eye" looking things on either side of the gun and the sensors are positioned all around the top of the turret.

I also assure you it won't completely ruin AT, but will require more intelligent AT strikes. Multiple AT will have to work together so one attacks from the front and the other from behind. IRL, it is possible for one well made anti-tank missile to kill all of the crew in the tank, so those one-hit-kills should happen when the missile strikes the right place.

It should also be noted that tanks will still be very effective at killing other tanks, and that all tanks will require a skilled crew to man them.

Lev_Astov wrote:I noticed a few of you complained that the high-tech countermeasures on the T-90 are either unrealistic or would ruin AT. Iasthai, I assure you, the T-90 indeed has advanced missile detection and jamming systems. It is a relatively easy thing to do, and I am ashamed that the Abrams doesn't have the same thing. The jammers on the T-90 are those two "eye" looking things on either side of the gun and the sensors are positioned all around the top of the turret.

I also assure you it won't completely ruin AT, but will require more intelligent AT strikes. Multiple AT will have to work together so one attacks from the front and the other from behind. IRL, it is possible for one well made anti-tank missile to kill all of the crew in the tank, so those one-hit-kills should happen when the missile strikes the right place.

I agree that the T-90 and the Type 98 (which, according to the sources I have seen should actually be the Type 99 as the Type 98 was never produced in large numbers) should have their anti missile/laser aquisition/rangefinder/guidance system equipment. That would balance them with the M1A2 and the Challenger, as otherwise giving them the same protection as the western tanks is not very realistic.

And the easy way to get round them is to do what I do to take out tanks: Get in close and dumb fire.

If the T-90 had it's full suite of defensive mechanisms it would be a living hell for AT missiles to take one down. The T-90 doesn't have spectacular physical armour but the combination of 'Shtora', 'Arena', and 'Kontakt' would be quite hard to get through. Shtora can guide the missile away or spoof it, Arena can try to shoot it down through directed explosive charges, and Kontakt can defeat it if it makes contact. Though the T-90 would have the weakest defences against another tanks guns. The Challenger II and M1A2SEP would have heavy defences via their thick physical armour, and I think that the Type-99 would have to be somewhat of a middle ground as it's true capabilities are rather unknown. Although the laser system on the 99 is rather interesting as it intends to direcly attack the optics and the gunner of the enemy tank. There is little word about it's anti-missile abilities.

how ever the armor is tweaked, it should be balanced.
don´t create relistic "über tanks" so that infanterie has no chance to take out.

the problem with implementing all these is that BF2 engine has no detailed physics system in particular with the vehicle's armour, if someone aimed right at a tank's engine then a direct hit there should immobilize it but not kill it, if i fire at a non ERA protected part of a T-90 for instance i expect better performance from HEAT warheads, if i blast the top turret of it with a fresh RPG even if it did not penetrate it should very well screw up whatever sensor suite plus defensive mechanism stationed there. But as far as i know of, we can't do so with BF2 engine.. or it would take far too much resource than we posses to do it, so balancing it will have to be done with some generalization and simplification with whatever the BF2 can do, but all in all i think that if we can't do it close enough to the real one within acceptable degree then we might as well forget about it.

in the abrams you should hear some one reloading the gun (in stead of a machine) and reloading should be faster.

T90's& Type 98's should blow up easier when hit on the turret because the realoading machine requires a live shell to be in the turret at all times plus it take a long time to reload compared to the abrams.

'[R-PUB wrote:Hitperson']in the abrams you should hear some one reloading the gun (in stead of a machine) and reloading should be faster.

T90's& Type 98's should blow up easier when hit on the turret because the realoading machine requires a live shell to be in the turret at all times plus it take a long time to reload compared to the abrams.

Oh and t-90's and the russkies in their infinite wisdom apparently put a fuel line somewher just under the main gun so if you hit there, the tank is instantly destroyed as the turrent is blasted off....

we need a source to validate that

dunkellic wrote:we need a source to validate that

that is true there is fuel all the way roud the turret ring and there are the big tanks of No2 disel on the back as well.

fyi, we have 3 position tanks in 0.4 atm.

not sure about the other stuff.. we need to take a broad look at vehicle combat dynamics, what it will take to implement stuff (even if it's possible) and what cost that will have (what we don't work on otherwise) and what impacts it will have on gameplay dynamics.

but in any case, we do plan to have 3 pos tanks (gunner, driver, cupola gunner) and 6 pos APCs (gunner, driver, 4 passengers) in the next release (assuming all goes well in test).

egg

'[R-PUB wrote:Hitperson']that is true there is fuel all the way roud the turret ring and there are the big tanks of No2 disel on the back as well.

kk

can it be code so that depending on ammounts of ammo in a tank the change in severity of the exposion when shot and M1A2's have blash panels on the top of the ammo stores to divert the force of exploding ammo upwards and way for the crew in side. greatly increasing survivability of the crew in imobalisation of the vehicle.

Harmless_Mad_Man wrote:Oh and t-90's and the russkies in their infinite wisdom apparently put a fuel line somewher just under the main gun so if you hit there, the tank is instantly destroyed as the turrent is blasted off....

The turret separations u see of T-XX series tanks is due to ammo
-using sensitive charge bags.
-being placed all over the tank.
This can result in spectacular cook-offs in the event of a penetration, with the turret separating from the tank.

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']fyi, we have 3 position tanks in 0.4 atm.

not sure about the other stuff.. we need to take a broad look at vehicle combat dynamics, what it will take to implement stuff (even if it's possible) and what cost that will have (what we don't work on otherwise) and what impacts it will have on gameplay dynamics.

but in any case, we do plan to have 3 pos tanks (gunner, driver, cupola gunner) and 6 pos APCs (gunner, driver, 4 passengers) in the next release (assuming all goes well in test).

egg

Seperate driver/gunner seats for armor will RULE! Will the passengers in the APC still have their little invisible guns?

Skullening.Chris wrote:Seperate driver/gunner seats for armor will RULE! Will the passengers in the APC still have their little invisible guns?

Not sure heh .. haven't even played with it yet

egg

Skullening.Chris wrote:Seperate driver/gunner seats for armor will RULE! Will the passengers in the APC still have their little invisible guns?

Those are stupid, IMO. would be better to be able to see the inside of the APC

Yeah, I agree. I like riding in the back of BMPs in BF2SF cuz you have that freaky feeling of not knowing what's going on outside.