ComradeHX wrote:It is quite realistic.
Think of the days when tanks were manually loaded(and a lot of them are still manually loaded to this day)... Two tanks on opposite side encounters eachother when going over a hill; both missed first shot.
What does the drivers in their own tanks do? They scream at their reloader to get another round in and hit the other tank.
With this, you will be doing the same screaming at your gunner over mumble(and probably pressed local chat on accident so your teammates nearby hears it and laugh).
Having APC move-shoot the TOW just means lots of thing considered to be dumb IRL happens in game(apc actively hunting for tanks).
If the gunner gets overexcited and misses, that should be from his own fault, not from not waiting long enough before firing. IFVs/CFVs/ATGM carriers should be able to move very slowly (PR soldier sprinting) without having to wait another 10-15 seconds before using TOW. This at least makes it possible to make the APC not have to sit there and wait for the enemy to come to them, IRL these vehicles with TOWs can actually function as tank destroyers.
Having to get another round reloaded as someone else stares you down is scary but actually that you know you have a shot at living after a seriously close brush to death in a visceral way helps with the tension of AFV warfare a lot.
jerkzilla wrote:Now hold on there. That may be true for the actual armor of the vehicle, but while there's no arbitrary "health" bar in real life, there are a ton of subsystems that can get damaged and compromise the effectiveness of the tank. Things like the engine, tracks, weapons, ballistics computers, sights and even the crew themselves can be knocked out in real life, but this can't realistically be represented in game. So we get the health bar...
True, in IRL subsystems can be damaged, but for just conventional HEAT/ KE warheads it should be all or nothing damage. HE should have a logarithmic curve because once we get to about 120mm-150mm HE is usually big enough to just put an enormous hole into the vehicle through sheer blast force, 155mm HE from artillery to anywhere on the vehicle is generally a mission kill.
That should fix most of the problems.
tankninja1 wrote:I think the problem is not the TOW so much as it is the "thermal sights" on the Bradley, and most other Western vehicles for that matter, the thing is they dont actually use thermals sights they use infared (FLIR) which looks for infared heat signature (body heat, warm engines, ect). The diffrence is a bit unclear but it seems that thermal sight are less effective in desert evirments where body heat and engine heats are closer to ambient air temperature, thus harder to make out on an aiming screen, especially without computer filtering, where as FLIRs looks at actual infared values, not comparing a value to a background abient temperature, so after a computer refines the image a little it and the image becomes more clear. Thermals also can see through light snow, dust, haze, and smoke, whereas FLIRs can see through considerable heavier snow, dust, have, and smoke, certaily proved in Golf War I. My suggestion allow Western armored vehicles (atlest TOW mounted on) to see just little bit futher (100m-300m) than thier Russian/Chinese clone counterpart.
P.S. In Gulf War I it was common for Bradley's, and Abrams to work side to side because the Bradleys had more powerful optics and could see further than the Abrams
Sources:
Thermal Weapon Sight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Forward looking infrared - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
AN/AAQ-26 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The problem is that it's going to make for frustrating games for those who don't absolutely love Russian armor.
The M1 original 105mm tank had an immensely better FCS than the T72M1. Russian FCS is incredibly hard to work with and they originally didn't even have passive IR (you can see a big lamp on the turret that's used to see in the dark). These days AFAIK Russia's armor has actually caught up and is no longer subpar. Their FLIR (yes, they all use FLIR now if it's modern) should be on par with US sensors.
lucky.BOY wrote:How can you even supress that Bradley IRL?
Imagine that if that thing is 4000m away and you have less than 20 secs to react. I dont think that the tank can put more than 1 round down the range before it gets hit, and that is not supression. That is either kill or get killed. Its like if a sniper duel would be a duel in supression...
Only thing the tank could do, if its T90 with those IR reflectors (shtora, is it?), it can blind the TOW computer, which then cant track the missile onto target. But thats only T90.
Funny thing is how this thread started saying how bad it is now for bradley ingame, and yet Hunt3er turned it into a complaint about poor tankers' life.
-lucky
IRL I can tell you that Bradley commanders can and will see the gun rotate to face them and if they're out in the open the first thing you do is stop engaging and pop smoke and try to move to not get hit. A tank IRL can fire off a 120mm shell within 4 seconds, if laploading, reloading within 3, and fire again within the next 3 seconds if they can see the target and still have proper range/lead. Without laploading reloads might take 5 seconds. 20 seconds at max range is positively excruciating. Firing within 3 km to keep some space to maneuver the missile and not lose rocket power too soon wouldn't be unreasonable.
IRL ATGM crews on foot can be suppressed by autocannon and MG fire. If they stay too long, they also risk artillery shells crashing down on them or CAS strafing them.
IFVs in general need some rebalancing. The BMP-3 is okay IMO because it's made of paper so there's really no way to deal with that besides minimizing exposure and using it as a mobile field gun, but fixing the "filled with helium" handling would help immensely, the Bradley should be a bit more armored and stop 30mm front and side turret, and the front of the hull, it should be fine in the armor department. Properly modeling the gun and the ATGM system is also nice.
Basically, it would be nice to see munition flight time properly scaled for distance. Small arms don't need it because they don't shoot at far enough ranges to run into these issues, but anything as big as autocannon or greater should have "scaled" flight time.
Another idea I have to make ATGMs more "real" is to set their flight time so that it self-destructs if you fire it as a rocket at 1000m, so that way if you force the ATGM to have to turn too much it'll simply run out of rocket and self destruct. (IRL it just falls short of the target like a rock.)
