Project Reality Forums

Having tanks get damaged by side/back hits is fine imo. But they also get heavily damaged from frontal hits, which is not realistic or really good for gameplay.

LAT penetration IRL: around 200-400mm RHA
Third generation tank armour in RHA equivalent (front) ranges from 600-1300mm depending on tank and possible external plating.

In the latest version, tanks are heavily underpowered due to this. 3-5 frontal hits can destroy a tank depending on LAT and tank. IRL the chances would be slim to none.

TBH. Since tank armor is more or less standardized and hitpoints are all around the same number (barring the Merkava). A simple change in the damage multipliers vs the materials mentioned, and this would be a realistic situation.

TBH it should be this:

Front (From full HP)
AT4\RPG-26: 6
RPG-7VM: 8
RPG-7VL: 7
RPG-7VR\Any HAT: Same as now

Side (From full HP)
AT4\RPG-26: 2-3 hits
RPG-7VM: 5 hits
RPG-7VL: 3 hits
RPG-7VR\Any HAT: 1 Hit

Rear (From full HP):
AT4\RPG-26: 2 hits
RPG-7VM: 4 hits
RPG-7VL: 3 hits
RPG-7VR\Any HAT: 1 Hit

X-Alt wrote:TBH. Since tank armor is more or less standardized and hitpoints are all around the same number (barring the Merkava). A simple change in the damage multipliers vs the materials mentioned, and this would be a realistic situation.

TBH it should be this:

Front (From full HP)
AT4\RPG-26: 6
RPG-7VM: 8
RPG-7VL: 7
RPG-7VR\Any HAT: Same as now

Side (From full HP)
AT4\RPG-26: 2 hits (Also makes T-62 a 2 hit kill, since it has no front armor material and sub-400mm effective armor)
RPG-7VM: 5 hits
RPG-7VL: 3 hits
RPG-7VR\Any HAT: 1 Hit

Rear (From full HP):
AT4\RPG-26: 2 hits
RPG-7VM: 4 hits
RPG-7VL: 3 hits
RPG-7VR\Any HAT: 1 Hit

I could get behind this. ATM front is way too weak.

EDIT: Didn't read closely enough, 2 LATs to the side would be a bit too bad still, something like 3-5 to the side would be better.

2 AT4s to kill a tank on side and/or rear armour? Ummm, no?

Frontliner wrote:2 AT4s to kill a tank on side and/or rear armour? Ummm, no?

Well, that is how it would be IRL or quite close. Tanks have very little armor at the rear. A LAT round to the back would most likely end up destroying the engine, whereas a round to the front will most likely do nothing.

EDIT: Didn't read closely enough, 2 LATs to the side would be a bit too bad still, something like 3-5 to the side would be better.

A side shot on any MBT with an AT4 would go into the turret crew and severely cripple the tank, composite armor isn't god. I'm usually an armor supporter, but I think 2 AT4s to go to critical and 3 AT4s to kill would be both realistic and manageable. This allows the T-62 to get nerfed, and also LATs can be reverted to a less spammy state.


The DEVs also seemed to pay attention to the real armor models for tanks. For example, take a look at this M1 Abrams. We can see that the front armor material is across all ends of the turrets, as even 1991 Sabot penetrators could not achieve a kill on the turret side, meaning only the weaker hull side can be used to achieve a 2-3 hit kill.




Now, lets take a look at the much weaker Leopard 2A6, which has side armor no thicker than a hair. This means that hitting it on the turret side is a viable option, again differentiating the tanks.



Jumping to the T-90, same affair. The side armor is, like the Leopard, quite weak, and excluding the little pieces covered by the frontal ERA, should be vulnerable to the RPG-26 and AT4.



The final case, the Merkava. What we can see here is that the turret armor counts as side armor, but since it has over 50 more hitpoints and it will resist LATs better, as is to be expected from one of the most well-protected tanks in the world.

X-Alt wrote: and also LATs can be reverted to a less spammy state.

Only in that case 2 LATs should be able to disable a tank. But in the current state, hell no.

Do note that while many of our in-house assets are made with great care to their collision meshes as you see in X-Alt's examples, this can't be said for all of them Some of our own stuff does have bad collision setups and things that came from other mods often don't have exactly what we would want it to be. Therefore it's not that easy to streamline armour setup to all our vehicles and make it exactly how we/you would want it to be without re-exporting them(which is relatively impossible given the workload for some of these vehicles without the original export 3dsmax-scenes).

Just as a little side-note of information

X-Alt, the exact specifications of modern tanks are kept secret, so the damage models of the PR Tanks are more or less up to whoever does these damage models and thus not representative of their real-life capabilities. I see no reason to believe that any MBT(bar the Merkava) is better protected than any other when comparing the frontal(strongest), side(mediocre) and rear armour(relatively weak) of said MBTs.

I also would argue that besides the Pzf 3 no "LAT" would be able to penetrate the armour of any given MBT outside of weak spots such as the tracks or at the top of the turret, but for the sake of gameplay it should still do some damage. 2 LATs to the side is far too extreme though.

Frontliner wrote: -snip-

Compared to the Leopard 2 or T-72's mashed potato sides, the M1A1 and Chally are much better protected and has been proven time and time again. Back in 1991, M1A1's turret side was unable to be penetrated by M892A1 during field destruction, but the lower hull is supposedly just as good, so if the PR devs can, that too could be changed to front armor material. The Chally 2's sides also could be remapped to the front armor material, as it is estimated to be around M1A2 (8-900mm) levels as well.

Anyways, 2 LATs to track or turret (go critical) is pretty acceptable, as a HEAT shell into the crew compartment would probably kill the people manning it, and 3 to destroy is perfectly fine. Remember, we're talking about RPG-26s and AT4s (~450mm pen) here, they aren't exactly cookie cutter for tanks with no care whatsoever about anything but the front armor. Two to the rear also seems fine, no MBT is really protected there, and in the case of the Abrams, the entire rear turret is full of 120mm ammo ready to cook off. The point is, if the LATs are buffed to realistic damage, we can end the massive LAT spam that is going on right now, while also maintaining a "realistic" gameplay experience.

X-Alt wrote:Compared to the Leopard 2 or T-72's mashed potato sides, the M1A1 and Chally are much better protected and has been proven time and time again.

Which is why both Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams are some of the widely exported tanks worldwide, because they're so good, am I right? Oh wait:

Challi:

United Kingdom
Oman

Abrams:

Australia
Egypt
Iraq
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
United States

Leopard 2(only 2A4 and later variants):

Austria
Canada
Chile
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Greece
Indonesia
Netherlands[currently phasing out their existing tank bataillons]
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Singapore
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey

I know that nations like to buy their shit cheap but this is not even remotely a contest. Half of NATO is using the Leopard 2, whereas both Challenger and Abrams are used by a handful of nations at the most. Furthermore, Saudi-Arabia, one of the current Abrams users, has reached out to Germany because they would like to buy some of the new Leo 2 A7+M for urban warfare.

I mean, if it were proven time and time again, it would be nice to see some evidence for that(which you didn't deliver), so as of now I see no reason to retract my statement.

And again, even IF the Leo 2A6's side armour was noticeably weaker than the Abrams it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to incorporate that in the game. The T-72 can stand up to the Abrams in game which it couldn't do in reality, yet we have roundabout the same values of HP and armour for the sake of gameplay.

Remember, we're talking about RPG-26s and AT4s (~450mm pen) here, they aren't exactly cookie cutter for tanks with no care whatsoever about anything but the front armor.

I would expect most MBTs to be able to withstand that(outside of weak spots, as I mentioned before). Case and point, the Pzf 3 has a 700mm penetration with its normal warhead, but somebody figured that may not be enough and thus we also have 800mm penetration tandem warheads. By your reasoning it would be way of proportion to do that but then again you're neither designing tanks nor their counter measures, are you?

Also, gameplay reasons, mate. 2 LATs to the side is too much.

Frontliner wrote:
I would expect most MBTs to be able to withstand that(outside of weak spots, as I mentioned before). Case and point, the Pzf 3 has a 700mm penetration with its normal warhead, but somebody figured that may not be enough and thus we also have 800mm penetration tandem warheads. By your reasoning it would be way of proportion to do that but then again you're neither designing tanks nor their counter measures, are you?

Also, gameplay reasons, mate. 2 LATs to the side is too much.

Maybe because you know, the Leopard 2A6 has only 250mm RHAe side armor.

You know, if you want to prove a point you should probably post some evidence so I'm gonna dismiss it since you're not a known Leopard 2 producer. The Leopard 2 is actually wider than the Abrams, probably just cause, eh?

I mean, you can go ahead and believe that we let our Panzergrenadiere run around with handheld AT warheads of and above 700mm of penetration power while our MBTs can barely withstand a third of that to the side, but that sounds like bollocks to me and it very likely is.

250mm is roughly what has in Steel Beasts, which is one of the most detailed and accurate tank simulators out there, look it up if you haven't heard of it. Probably the exact figures are classified, but this is about as good as we can get.
This looks to be for the 2A4 rather than the 2A6 we have ingame, but the figures shouldn't be too different from the side IIRC.

Abrams sold to export nations do not have DU armor and some advanced electrical systems, so its hardly an argument that Leopards are better because it's more popular

Yea frontliner and xalt thats great and all but can you not completely derail the thread with an inconsequential argument that probably wont lead anywhere. Maybe just keep it to discussing whats good for gameplay/realism without going too far into the "my tank is better than yours" discussion. Thx

[R-DEV]M42 Zwilling wrote:250mm is roughly what has in Steel Beasts, which is one of the most detailed and accurate tank simulators out there, look it up if you haven't heard of it. Probably the exact figures are classified, but this is about as good as we can get.
This looks to be for the 2A4 rather than the 2A6 we have ingame, but the figures shouldn't be too different from the side IIRC.

That appears to be the 2A4, yes. The 2A4 is hardly the same tank as the 2A6(The Leopard 2A5 upgrade focused on increased armour protection. While upgrading a Leopard 2 tank to the Leopard 2A5 configuration, the roof covering the armour modules is cut open and new armour modules are inserted.[21][22] New additional armour modules made of laminated armour are covering the frontal arc of the turret. They have a distinctive arrowhead shape and improve the protection against both kinetic penetrators and shaped charges.[22][23] The side skirts also incorporate improved armour protection.[23] Furthermore, a circa 2.5 cm-thick spall liner reduces the danger of crew injuries in case of armour penetration), + we have 30 years of technological advances since the 2A4 came out. I would therefore argue that the protection values seen in the picture are not reflective of the current capabilities of the German Leopard 2A6 and 2A7.

Yea frontliner and xalt thats great and all but can you not completely derail the thread with an inconsequential argument that probably wont lead anywhere. Maybe just keep it to discussing whats good for gameplay/realism without going too far into the "my tank is better than yours" discussion. Thx

I've done that from the get-go. Sorry that the discussion went astray with some references to reality but nobody forces you to read this so yeah.

Frontliner wrote:I've done that from the get-go. Sorry that the discussion went astray with some references to reality but nobody forces you to read this so yeah.

I made the thread to try and make a point to DEVs about LAT damage, don't want it to be obscured by your argument.

Frontliner wrote: I mean, you can go ahead and believe that we let our Panzergrenadiere run around with handheld AT warheads of and above 700mm of penetration power while our MBTs can barely withstand a third of that to the side, but that sounds like bollocks to me and it very likely is.

That's why the Canadians needed huge slats to stop RPGs, right? The fact of the matter is, very few tanks are designed to be engaged from the side, the RPG-29 (which has similar pen to the PzF 3 mind you) vs M1A1 stories will tell you something. Am I saying that the Leo 2 is a bad tank, no, I am saying that it is not as well protected in the flanks, than say an M1A1, more in line with something along the lines of a T-64B. I don't want to keep derailing the thread, so lets get back to the gameplay problem.

ANYWAYS, what could be done to create a new type of balance LAT balance in PR is simple. Have some parts of a tank be completely invulnerable to a HAT\LAT, and others not. Let's say David is driving a Leopard 2, he runs into an angry HAT, and it hits the front of his turret, no damage done. The HAT reloads, and hits him in the less armored front optic (already modeled in game), which will count as side armor in the collision model, David's tank is now on alarms, it's time to RTB. David comes back, and three RPG-26s wait for him in the bush, they hit him in the engine, which will count as rear armor for this example, and now his tank is on fire, time to bail out.

This will allow LATs and HATs to both have realistic power, while maintaining a balanced environment for INF. What this means as well is that each tank will perform differently in combat. The T-90 will have HE-FRAG for example, but that advantage will be offset by the fact it is more vulnerable to RPGs than say, an Abrams or Merkava. The HAT kit can also become more available, 0.97 style.

In short.

1. Side Armor material should be much weaker vs HATs and LATs
2. Rear Armor material should be even weaker vs HATs and LATs
3. Front Armor material should be immune vs HATs and LATs
4. Tanks such as the Challenger 2 and Merkava should have more front armor material assigned to them.
5. Weaker ATGMs such as the Malyutka and Konkours should useless against front Armor, better against side (Malyutka).
6. Stronger ATGMs (Refleks, Bastion, Kornet, TOW, HJ-8, MILAN) remain the same[

[/list]

I'm going to get a PR edit set up to test some of these basic armor changes and see if I can work with some of the older vBF2 vehicles.

That probably won't happen as Mineral said that not all assets are made with good collision meshes and it would take a lot of time to make it.