ATGM Balance

[JohnF0X]

ive done a lil testing on armor and the ATGMs which wasnt very extensive yet but already made me think of how hard they got nerfed
some vehicles are able to 2 hit MBTs with atgms others need more ATGMs then they carry to destroy the exactly same vehicle

personaly i would want that ATGMs are getting looked at again especialy the ones of modern vehicles and AFVs, AFVs seem to have barely any chance now against MBTs and on some MBTs even parts of the side armor is equal to the frontal armor

i think a fair change of the ATGM system would be if ATGMs for MBTs, T90, Merkava etc should be able to 3 shot acros the board to make them equal to AP shells which was the problem pre patch that ATGMs would destroy certain vehicles only able to fire regular amo.
and AFVs should get a extensive buff beeing stronger and having a chance, when facing against the frontal armor of MBTs, in that they would get a nearly 2 hit kill chances by that i mean a almost guaranteed fire chance when firing 2 ATGMs of as an example of a bradley
alternatively one could buff the armor of all AFVs so that they take 2 hits before beeing destroyed where the 1st hit wont be able to set them on fire something like an overpenetration where vehicles will take less damage from kinetic penetrators and reducing the damage a AFV takes from Heat based projectiles to still give AFVs a chance on maps where one faction gets a Tank and the other a APC/IFV

Vehicles with multi launchers shoudl get a delay betwen the shots even after the impact and acros the board id suggest the removal of the lasetime since ATGMs either dont use it(the bradley as example) or laser guided systems which will activate emediatly at the time the triger is pressed and the weapon released

addition: i tihnk its realy sad when you have a better chance just spaming heat out of vehicles like the BMP1 since the ATGM is prety much useles against everything it sees, granted its a old system but still this is not reality this is a game and you cannot ask random armore crews which propably arent very well experienced to try and flank the enemy tank just to take it out, and even if they would try its not guaranteed they will succed due to the fact that tank can turn around prety quickly and from my testing it seems like you arent guaranteed a kill when hitting something in the rear

this is more of a problem of APCs and IFVs then MBTs but as much as ive seen MBTs dont use atgms at all anymore just because they are so underpowered and AP shells just get the job done anyways

my honest opinion of the change is that it did more harm then good, by that i mean AFVs are basicly useles if they are alone against tanks and tanks just destroy everything

[PatrickLA_CA]

Well that was the problem in 9.13, that an AFV can effectively take out an MBT frontally. I like it how it is right now. If you go in front of a tank, you're dead, that's it. Vehicle TOWs are still effective versus MBTs, just not in the easy way they were in the previous version.

[JohnF0X]

tbh when you have to hit a vehicle like 8-10 times in the front and have a chance of getting the same result on the side i dont think thats very efective, i mean sure there are some exceptions but vehicles like that just are to much...

[PatrickLA_CA]

Well that's the point. Don't shoot it at the front. Think of it like a well-defended house that has MGs looking towards the front and 1 guy guarding the back. You can try storming the front entrance and respawning all the time or you can go out the back and take that 1 guy out.

[JohnF0X]

well yea but there are certain maps where its near imposible to do something like that efectively espeicaly since the front of the vehicles changes all the time

[viirusiiseli]

well yea but there are certain maps where its near imposible to do something like that efectively espeicaly since the front of the vehicles changes all the time

I don't get what your problem is, more often than not there is also side, top or tracks visible from a tank. Just aim for that instead of doing a dumb-dumb, or just switch to AP.

[JohnF0X]

I don't get what your problem is, more often than not there is also side, top or tracks visible from a tank. Just aim for that instead of doing a dumb-dumb, or just switch to AP.

Tracks as much as ive understood it fromt he armor changes arent considered armore anymore so deal 0 dmg to the take, the side is barely visible if you are looking at the front same twith the top and bothe are almost imposible to hit with ATGMs fromt he front

AP doesnt make any sence sine im mostly talking about APC/IFVs

[camo]

Track is still counted. Still deals damage.

[DogACTUAL]

Honestly, if you find yourself attacking an MBT from the front with an IFV you did something wrong.
Even before the armor update i would only attack the MBT from the side with my IFV, because there was a high chance he would see you first and wreck you with a sabot round if you attacked him from the front. Maybe even after you launched the atgm and it was still in flight. If the atgm hit him in the front he would also not catch on fire and would be able to fire back and rtb.

Instead i hid the IFV, gathered intel on the tank and then rolled up on his side/back when the gunner was looking the other way. You can still do that, it is even more effective now because the atgm effectiveness to the side/back armor is increased now.

It never really made sense to attack a MBT from the front, so complaining about the armor update is wrong imo, it only encourages you now even more to attack the tank from the flank what you should do in the first place.

Look at it this way, if atgms are supposed to be so effective against the frontal armor of modern MBTs with compound armor, reactive armor and possibly even active defence systems in your opinion, why does the military keep spending so much resources to build those tanks? Why don't they just build IFVs with light armor and put a lot of atgms on top of them? Why doesn't every tank use atmgs? There is a good reason for all of that.

To summarize, IFVs and other light armored vehicles are not supposed to attack MBTs from the front anyway, a tank is build to destroy all kinds of armored vehicles and withstand their attacks, IFVs are build to mainly support the infantry, withstand small arms fire, some heavy machineguns and maybe light rockets. Therefore they should focus on avoiding tanks, if they want to attack a tank they should employ ambush tactics. The atgm on IFVs is more of a defensive weapon against tanks.

[viirusiiseli]

AP doesnt make any sence sine im mostly talking about APC/IFVs

My bad, too much text for my attention span. Anyway, don't go at a tank from the front with an IFV. Even before when ATGMs were better it wasn't a good idea, now it is even less.

If you really wanna go kill a tank with one, you kinda need to know where it is. Makes it easier on yourself on account of not getting rekt so easily

[JohnF0X]

the intel is hard enought to gather with all the random players but ok, i had a match the other day onkozelsk where i was using the BMP1 and fighting the T90, iw as trying to manovuer around tot he rear of the T90 and always had the problem that manouvering was extremly hard in the grids around the tank and added to that i got loads of missinformation and the tank kept moving and propably turning its hull, i also tried to ambush the vheicle which didnt work since the T90 always kept rolling throught thick forrests it seemed and when i found myself chasing the T90 from the rear half a minute later i drove right into our tank since he turned around, the only way we managed to destroy the T90 was when we where in the water withthe Spandrel and the T90 missed his shot since he aparently knew about us and tried to take us out and hiting 2 hits from the spandrel and destroying the vehicle after that

my problem after that was that i tested the ATGM and HEAT ont he side and rear armor on groznys T72B with the BMP1 and there was no chance of onehiting it with either on the side and rear, and by that i have to clarify that i tested the side front and side rear seperatly, the side rear took 2 or mroe hits the side front took around 10 again like the front and the rear of the vehicle still ate at least 2 hits, i cant even imagine how it would look like if id test the same thing against the T90

so even if i would have goten a nice shot on the rear or side of the T90, my gunner wasnt very experienced so he would have propably hit the ERA panels on the side and after the 1st hit we are dead sicne it takes ages to reload an ATGM

[DogACTUAL]

First, you can gather intel yourself by letting the driver jump out before you cross a hill, dune or crest and look what's behind it with binoculars so you don't run into the enemy tank unprepared. Do regular soundchecks also to listen for the engine and gun sounds. From that you can get a very good idea where the enemy tank is and where he is looking at, works for me almost everytime.

Second the bmp 1 atgm is supposed to be ineffective, it is very small, look up the translation of its russian name. It really is only good for killing IFVs or APCs, it doesn't even have a tandem heat warhead and therefore will have a hard time defeating explosive reactive armor, it is basically a stronger LAT that is guided. Before the armor update it might have been a little bit stronger, but even then you had no chance against a tank with it.

[JohnF0X]

before the update you could destroy the T90 in a single hit on the front with the malyutka and im not new to armor i know how important sound checks are
also ERA is a onehit wonder meaning that when its hit and blown of its not efective anymore

[Jacksonez__]

before the update you could destroy the T90 in a single hit on the front with the malyutka and im not new to armor i know how important sound checks are
also ERA is a onehit wonder meaning that when its hit and blown of its not efective anymore

Malyutka has like 200 mm penetration at 60 degrees angle, meanwhile T-90 front armor:

550-650mm, with Kontakt-5 = 800-830mm

idk something was broken if that was true.

I believe PR cannot simulate ERA block blowing off, so too bad for that.