Project Reality Forums

Out of interest.. how many SLAMs should it take to KO a T-72?

Really I don't think a SLAM should be able to take out a tank at all IRL. But in this game isn't it like 3 or 4?

Well, a team of myself and 2 other spec ops put 6 on a tank, all over, and it drove off.

Yeah, I never much understood the use of the SLAMs. They are timed so the only uses I can think of are against

• Parked Light Vehicle
• Parked APC
• Enemy Rally Point
• Enemy AA Placements
• Destructable terrain (Fencing)

... ok thats actually quite a lot ... I shall shhhh

Lothrian wrote:Yeah, I never much understood the use of the SLAMs. They are timed so the only uses I can think of are against

• Parked Light Vehicle
• Parked APC
• Enemy Rally Point
• Enemy AA Placements
• Destructable terrain (Fencing)

... ok thats actually quite a lot ... I shall shhhh

Pretty much.
Keep in mind that they also stick to the target. Throwing some on a passing APC will damage it badly.

I use SLAMs primary against enemy assets (Artillery) and Rally points.
I think they will get much more interesting when they add destroyable buildings in .6 or whatever.
"The enemy's behind that wall! *klick beep*"

its takes 6 to destory an insurgent tank on basrah, i would presume its the same for the other tanks aswell.

Against tanks, they are as useless as LightAT/RPG

'[R-CON wrote:BLind']its takes 6 to destory an insurgent tank on basrah, i would presume its the same for the other tanks aswell.

I got 10 Slams on one M1A2 and only his tracks where disabled.

Is a SLAM not an EFP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosivel ... penetrator

So would it not be more likely to take out the people in a vehicle than the vehicle itself?

DirtyHarry88 wrote:Is a SLAM not an EFP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosivel ... penetrator

So would it not be more likely to take out the people in a vehicle than the vehicle itself?

It certainly looks like one and they are primarily designed to blast through armour. Same principle behing AT missiles such as the Milan. Charge creates a slug of molten copper which will blast through a good bit of armour

JDFryer wrote:It certainly looks like one and they are primarily designed to blast through armour. Same principle behing AT missiles such as the Milan. Charge creates a slug of molten copper which will blast through a good bit of armour

http://tech.military.com/equipment/view ... -slam.html

wow, is that why there is that glitch were i die without the tank being damaged when a SLAM goes off. The Devs were trying to test something new O.o

If it's 6 to kill a T-62 it must take a lit more to kill a T-90. One night my squad got 10 on the rear armor and it all blew up, disabled the turret but no noticable damage other than that.

I think that if you can deploy them on the TOP of a tank turret, it should either disable the turret or kill the crew.

The idea is for SF to use it on the commanders assets only. Thats why they did timed I believe.

It takes at least ten SLAMs.

why would you SLAM a tank anyway, leave the job for those who are designed for it, H-AT, L-AT or engineers.

the slams are only light explosives, used to knock out light to medium targets. e.g. AAA, jeeps, RP's, TOW's, bridges etc

Fair enough, I guess in that respect I was being a touch Vanilla.

The situation was that the tank was a target of opportunity that was in between my spec ops squad and their main base on EJOD. It was causing no end of trouble for our side by staying out the way and using its optics to pick people off trying to make it to north desert. Several AT guys had tried unsuccessfully to take it out. We managed to sneak up to tank and thought whilst we were so close it would be rude not to, no?

3 of us planted SLAMs and did one, expecting to at least disable the tank but like I say it drove off. In the end I called an artillery strike on it and that did the job

Then Place them on the little circle on its behind. That's I aim for (1 hit BOOM!)