Project Reality Forums

Description:

Tanks can take an incredible amount of PG9 heat round from fired from SPG
Challenger can take 3 direct hit of heat on the back without dying you need 4 in the *** to kill what make impossible to kill a tank with an spg since you only have 3 round of heat and the frag 3 or you can fire 3 heat and 2 frag in the *** it will bring him down.

If you shot on the from of the tank you will need around 16 heats round !!!!! to kill it depend where you hit

Its the same for the Abrams

Also the chinhook can survive a direct hit of heat round which is pretty Realistic

Screenshots/Video:




16 Heat round to make it burn !!!

Tested On:

Dragon fly CQ 64

It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[11] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.

I really don't think it's a simple "bug"

Source

Ability to disable tank optics would be better idea to balance things out. For example direct hit with 2 7.62x39 and higher rounds at tank optics would disabe thermal vision and 4 hits for zoom.

nAyo wrote:I really don't think it's a simple "bug"

Source

In August 2006 in al-Amarah, a Soviet RPG-29 penetrated the frontal hull of a Challenger 2 through ERA in the area of the driver's cabin

Maybe we can have the PG-9VNT round with tandem warhead and from what i know there us no ERA on the back or the tank, we should be able to kill is from the back.

Armored Vehicles are already extremly weak, no point in making them more vulnurabel.
A SPG has roughly the same penetration as a RPG 7 (400-300mm) so dont expect to kill tanks in 1 shot with them.
And if you want the PG-9VNT rounds for the SPGs you should get some source of INS use, because i doubt that they are very common.

If iraqi insurgent can get Rpg 29 and PG-7VR they should be able to get the PG-9VNT/ TATR-7VM /TATR-9VMZ/ and from my research the same manufacturer make the tandem warhead for SPG and RPG Military Supply | Armaco JSC. Bulgaria

And bulgaria was well known for the arms traffic after the colaps of USSR

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/03/world/bulgaria-becomes-a-weapons-bazaar.html?src=pm

if you can hit the tank more than 3 times in a row then the tank driver and gunner, really need an eye test

i managed to hit 4 time once 3 heat and 1 frag this why i tested this i couldn't believe it

The SPG-9 is supposed to be the weak. IRL it can penetrate a approximate maximum of 500mm of steel armor, while most main battle tanks have about 1000mm of steel armor.

P.S. most of them don't have 1000mm of steel armor but composites and other armor technologies offer an equivalent of 1000mm of steel armor.

tankninja1 wrote:The SPG-9 is supposed to be the weak. IRL it can penetrate a approximate maximum of 500mm of steel armor, while most main battle tanks have about 1000mm of steel armor.

P.S. most of them don't have 1000mm of steel armor but composites and other armor technologies offer an equivalent of 1000mm of steel armor.

Depend which warhead you use and what kind of composite armor you have some coposite armor are made of polymer materials to give better protection against kinetic projectile but they offer low protection against HEAT because the plasma jet will burn the polymer, i read a report about that i need to find it i will post the link later.

tanks are weak enough in PR.

The WW2 era cannons on that map that struggled against tigers back in 1945 penetrates challengers even. A single 105mm arty piece simply annihilates MBTs in PR. The SPG-9 is a pretty dated piece of tech, it's not a modern tank killer that's for sure.

Militia and other unconventional need to be given proper tools to kill tanks, as opposed to making tools that could not do the job. That and map design has to accommodate for tanks. Armour, even the heaviest shouldnt be a threat on dragon fly because all their means of crossing rivers should be destroyed, or trapped, so making a super buff SPG isnt necessary.

40mmrain wrote:tanks are weak enough in PR.

The WW2 era cannons on that map that struggled against tigers back in 1945 penetrates challengers even. A single 105mm arty piece simply annihilates MBTs in PR. The SPG-9 is a pretty dated piece of tech, it's not a modern tank killer that's for sure.

Militia and other unconventional need to be given proper tools to kill tanks, as opposed to making tools that could not do the job. That and map design has to accommodate for tanks. Armour, even the heaviest shouldnt be a threat on dragon fly because all their means of crossing rivers should be destroyed, or trapped, so making a super buff SPG isnt necessary.

What kind of tools ?

What? Those field guns aren't scary if you know the map and have a competant gunner. By themselves that is.

T4nKbUS73r wrote:A SPG is able to destroy anything on PR's battlefield except for tanks.
I think that is powerful enough for such a crappy recoiless rifle.

Why crappy ?

chrisweb89 wrote:What? Those field guns aren't scary if you know the map and have a competant gunner. By themselves that is.

theyre pretty harmless, because theyre fixed and thus predictable, but im just trying to give examples of how the durability of MBTs misrepresented.

For tools, I would suggest a place-able METIS, or KORNET, more spandrels, BMP-1, tanks, and such. I like placeable ATGMS especially, because they require a degree of logistics, teamwork, but if used correctly have the enemy armour very scared, or dead.

Tanks shouldnt be OP, because in real life they DO have weaknesses, I just like to advocate realism.