Project Reality Forums

VipersGhost wrote:. I don't want to see one shot kills

i want , that would stop one man tanks .

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:well, right now two man tanks are WW2 tanks

they stop to fire , when tanks IRL can fire moving .

Once they fix the jittery targeting when fully zoomed in, this won't be a problem.

Thats true, but they haven't. Until we get stablised turrets tank warfare will remain as it is with stop-fire-move rather than the continual rolling it should have. Also, I would suspect its is near impossible to replicate the active defense features of the tanks featured in PR.

dont think so , poe make it by adding flares that can confuse ATGM

I look at it this way: you need two people to use an attack chopper to its fullest, so the same should go for tanks.

People won't have to have three person crews. They can skimp and just go with a driver/gunner. However, they'll pretty much be just tossing away one of their team's biggest assets if they do that once the wrench is removed from the crewman kit.

Will fully crewed tanks consume lots of a team's manpower? Absolutely. It just means everyone will need to figure out how to play with that new constraint.

Armored columns will continue to be death incarnate in the open, but manpower shortages might force those same tanks to have to roll into a built-up area to cap a flag--making them vulnerable to mines/C4, etc. Armor squads could go with less crew and move with a repair truck, but then they become dependent on a vehicle that will the primary target for every LAT and sniper around.

Bigger crews will just take more teamwork--both within the squad and within the entire team. I don't really see anything bad with that.

To the best of my knowledge, there has only been one US M-1 taken out by an enemy tank, that was a partial side turret breach by two T-72's Sabots during the Battle of 73 Easting. The sabots were stuck in the armor of the tank (note, this is thinner side armor, not frontal). All other tank vs tank kills of Abrams were done by other Abrams shooting DU Sabots. There are many HEAT based weapon systems which could kill an Abrams (or any other MBT for that reason) such as Hellfire, TOW, Javelin, Eyrx, and many gun based HEAT rounds, it all depends on where they hit and the size of the warhead.

There has been at least one confirmed through and through side armor hull penetration by an RPG using a PG-7VR tandem warhead, so RPG's can take out an Abrams. In fact, you can take out any MBT with a well placed brick if you get lucky enough, its all a question of shot placement and weapon capabilities.

Numerous Abrams have been destroyed by very large IED's. Numerous have been knocked out of service by smaller IED's and RPG's. An RPG hit to the tracks which knocks out a single link is a "mobility kill" in military terms. You could also disable a buttoned up tank by taking out its optics, its weapons, or its engine depending on the weapon you are using.

If anything causes the tank to not be 100% operational and it cannot be repaired by field units it is removed from service and sent to the USA for overhaul or to be scrapped, so the numbers of tanks sent back is not a good indicator of numbers "destroyed" by enemy fire. For instance, if an RPG cleans off a bussle rack (storage on the back of the turret) the tank must be repaired at the "depot" level (welding on composite uranium armor is not recommended in the field) and would be sent stateside for repairs.

The T-90 has no combat record. In fact, of all the modern MBT's only the M1, T-72, and the Israeli Merkava have a combat record. Its easy to say the "(insert your favorite tank here)" is superior because it has "(insert you favorite system here)" and the M-1 does not. The reality is MOUT is hell on tanks, and in all likely hood none would perform any better than the M-1 does. In combat vs. the T-72 the M-1 does quite well. In fact, in combat vs. M-1's the M-1 does quite well as there has been no frontal armor penetrations, even by a DU round.

While the T-90 has never faced off against the M-1, the T-90 uses the same gun as the T-72 (2A46M). The 125mm gun has a demonstrated max range of 2000m, vs the M-1's 120mm range of 4000m. This is imbalance is why the Soviets invested so much in tank launched guided missiles when the west abandonded them, the Soviets just could not get the range out of their guns that the Germans can, advantage NATO. US also used DU penetrators, export Soviets tanks use Tungsten, advantage US.

IMHO, probably the most "lethal" tank in the world today is the Leopard 2A6. It has all the most modern features of MBT design, and sports what is currently the most powerful gun, the Rheinmetall L55. The Germans also produce a special MOUT version of the 2A which might fair better than the M-1. The one "weakness" of the Leopard is that the Germans do not use DU, prefering the less toxic Tungsen penetrators, which might give an M-1 a leg up despite the smaller gun should they ever meet in combat.

As it applies to the game, 3 man crews would suck IMHO. I like the current set up (with a few tweaks as mentioned below). A map like Kashan would be impossible to run until we get 128pp servers if the crew sizes were that large.

I strongly agree with the critisim of the lack of a gun stabilzation system, we are running the WWII model of the Abrams and T-90 here.

I also want to see the TC to Gunner spotting tweaked a bit. IRL the TC can override the gunner's controls and swing the gun to point at the target he wants engaged. Currently we're stuck with "NO NO NO, more to the left, higher higher, lower... damn he got us first"

The TC's view needs to be fixed so the 50cal does not block his vision when the turret is swung in certian directions, or we need to be able to switch views down to the driver's seat so when moving with threats to the left or rear you can see where you're going.

How about giving the tank driver the ability to mark the target to the tank gunner??

Right now the driver seat is best to shoot than the gunner's (it's zoom is even bigger), so it would be interesting for the driver to play the role of commander as well

Liquid_Cow wrote:
While the T-90 has never faced off against the M-1, the T-90 uses the same gun as the T-72 (2A46M). The 125mm gun has a demonstrated max range of 2000m, vs the M-1's 120mm range of 4000m. This is imbalance is why the Soviets invested so much in tank launched guided missiles when the west abandonded them, the Soviets just could not get the range out of their guns that the Germans can, advantage NATO. US also used DU penetrators, export Soviets tanks use Tungsten, advantage US.

IMHO, probably the most "lethal" tank in the world today is the Leopard 2A6. It has all the most modern features of MBT design, and sports what is currently the most powerful gun, the Rheinmetall L55. The Germans also produce a special MOUT version of the 2A which might fair better than the M-1. The one "weakness" of the Leopard is that the Germans do not use DU, prefering the less toxic Tungsen penetrators, which might give an M-1 a leg up despite the smaller gun should they ever meet in combat.

i REALLY doubt that the t90 cannon opnly has a range of 2000 m , but i dont have info about it so maybe you can share some links about that .

but what im really sure is that the amunition of the t90 is very diferent that the used of the t72 in irak , AND you are forgeting that t90s can fire AT-11 sniper ATGM that have a range of 5000 m, point to the t90 .

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:but what im really sure is that the amunition of the t90 is very diferent that the used of the t72 in irak , AND you are forgeting that t90s can fire AT-11 sniper ATGM that have a range of 5000 m, point to the t90 .

True, it is unlikely that it would be using the old Chinese steel penetrators or fairly elderly Russian Tungsen ones used during the Gulf Wars.

However, even with the latest Russian Triple Charge HEAT rounds, its still restricted by the range of the 2A45M gun it uses. All the sources I've seen quote its maximum range at 2100m.

Example

Another

A third (scroll down to the bottom)

The ability to fire ATGMs is indeed a significant advantage of the Russian guns, but on pure gunnery Western tanks win out.

all of those examples are from the 2A45M , the one that was used by t72s and early t80s , but the t90 has a 2A46M .

Ok, Sources on the 2A46M state it has a maximum range using shells of 3,000m (one site stated 4,000m with HE-Frag, but that doesn't really count in tank to tank warfare, now does it?). Still falling 1000m short of the Western Tanks.

Now, lets look at the next contender for the West: Merkava. Armed with an IMI copy of the Rheinmetall L44 and an advanced Fire control system. This makes it as accurate as the M1A1, giving engaugement ranges with kinetic ammunition of 4,000m or more.

So what? You say. The T-90 can still bust it wide open from 5,000m with its AT-11 Sniper ATGM.

This is where The Merk shines. The LAHAT ATGM. Range: 8,000m.

Game, set and match to the west.

Chance of hitting and disabling T-90 (with Shtora, Arena and Kontak5) with ATGM would not be high.
BTW how strong LAHAT is?

I was reading in a book, how the Russians considered tanks in Generations. I forget the exact years, but basically they consider 3rd generation to include the T-72 and T-80 (and includes the T-90, as it is not a new design over either those two tanks). They consider 4th generation the Leopard 2, M1, Challenger 2, and 5th generation the LeClerc (not sure why). So the Russians themselves consider themselves behind, and thus they are probably working to catch up and create themselves a at-least 5th generation tank.

[R-CON]GeZe wrote:I was reading in a book, how the Russians considered tanks in Generations. I forget the exact years, but basically they consider 3rd generation to include the T-72 and T-80 (and includes the T-90, as it is not a new design over either those two tanks). They consider 4th generation the Leopard 2, M1, Challenger 2, and 5th generation the LeClerc (not sure why). So the Russians themselves consider themselves behind, and thus they are probably working to catch up and create themselves a at-least 5th generation tank.

IIRC Unlike the rest of the NATO tanks the LeClerc has an advanced active defense system (which the Ruskies seem to be rather keen on, in fact iirc the T-90 actually uses various French made bits and pieces) where as the other NATO tanks on that list depend on their passive defenses (ie having really tough armor) to defeat threats. Thats the only reason I can think of.

Aljen, the LAHAT has a claimed penetration of 800mm of RHA.

Bob_Marley wrote:Ok, Sources on the 2A46M state it has a maximum range using shells of 3,000m (one site stated 4,000m with HE-Frag, but that doesn't really count in tank to tank warfare, now does it?). Still falling 1000m short of the Western Tanks.

Now, lets look at the next contender for the West: Merkava. Armed with an IMI copy of the Rheinmetall L44 and an advanced Fire control system. This makes it as accurate as the M1A1, giving engaugement ranges with kinetic ammunition of 4,000m or more.

So what? You say. The T-90 can still bust it wide open from 5,000m with its AT-11 Sniper ATGM.

This is where The Merk shines. The LAHAT ATGM. Range: 8,000m.

Game, set and match to the west.

Lahat do not exist in any army, because IDF dont want it, official no money.
And 8.000m its only the biggest distance not same as effective one.
Also T-90 good protected against such weapons, unlike western tanks.




About 2A46M, watch T-72:
Range, maximum: 4000 APFSDS
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/doc ... /C3III.htm

You dont need more, cause at distances much over 2km modern tanks cant destroy each other with APFSDS by hitting the front.

Bob_Marley wrote:
Now, lets look at the next contender for the West: Merkava. Armed with an IMI copy of the Rheinmetall L44 and an advanced Fire control system. This makes it as accurate as the M1A1, giving engaugement ranges with kinetic ammunition of 4,000m or more.

how effective is the fire control system at hitting a moving target at 3,000-3,800m though?

Bob_Marley wrote:Aljen, the LAHAT has a claimed penetration of 800mm of RHA.

Thanks I have just found it.
According to one trial (which we can believe or not) was Kornet ATGM (850mm of RHA) not able to penetrate T-90 front armor but it is not a tandem warhead. So LAHAT should be able to penetrate T-90 hull if its not stopped by Arena in the flight.

I still believe in domination of russian technology

tandem warheads are only useful against reactive armor i believe, and if it if the same test i seen they didn't use reactive armor bricks on the front of the tank.
it would help if you posted your source.

I thought that everyone knows about that trial. ops: Sorry.
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

One T-90 was fitted with Kontakt-5 ERA and another one was without it and they tested both versions.