Project Reality Forums

normaly i dont use tanks but i was playing around with one and i think the armor needs to be changed so there used right.
I dont know much about tank armor but the front armor usualy is realy thick and almost Impervious to most AT weapons right? They got the special armor and it really thick and dense. curentaly it takes 2 shots and that is it to take out a tank from the front, it should be 1 to the back and 1 or 2 to the sides and a lot of hits to the front. Im not sure but I think usually they can take a direct hit in the front armor with little sever damage. The guy in side might be hurt but the tank should be good right. Just think it should be changed but im not sure how much it should be able to take damage wise.

is this right and do u think it should be changed


also i think this would make peiople use tanks the way they are usualy used and more realistic tactics.

and what about apc?

I agree. Originally I had assumed that BF2 would take into account angle of attack, but it doesn't seem to for AT weapons. Realistic or not, gameplay wise it makes good sense.

I would argue that that tanks aren't that powerful in their current state. If there are 2 AT guys, a tank would be eliminated every single time.

Now, in a real life engagement, the tank would have the option of staying at a descent enough distance so that the AT guys wouldn't be able to do much.

With the BF2 engine though.. even at 100% view distance, a tank would be in plain sight of the AT infantry.

The type of AT weapons used in BF2 don't grow on trees either. Since an AT soldier can simply respawn and keep shooting, this needs to be countered by a stronger armored material for the tanks. Otherwise, the tank will stand no chance... ever.

Usually, a Company will be careful how they use their AT soldiers, because it takes training to use those weapons properly. Not to mention, they aren't cheap :] Unless we are talking about an RPG-7 which is extremely cheap (about $20 last i heard) but isn't effective enough against new age armor.

not effective versus modern armour? try telling that to all the armour crews out in Iraqi that have been hit by them since the conflict began

RPG-7's?

Modern armor is specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from the RPG-7. Someone posted earlier about the Challenger II taking something like 17 direct hits from an RPG-7. Note that I was referring to the RPG-7, which is a dinosaur by today's standards and wasn't designed for modern tanks in mind (as it was devised quite a long time ago).

Artnez.com wrote:RPG-7's?

Modern armor is specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from the RPG-7. Someone posted earlier about the Challenger II taking something like 17 direct hits from an RPG-7. Note that I was referring to the RPG-7, which is a dinosaur by today's standards and wasn't designed for modern tanks in mind (as it was devised quite a long time ago).

Out of those multiple RPGs 2 were in fact hits from Milan. The Milan took out the TOGS sight. The Challenger in question was removed and the repairs took some 6 hours.

It depends on the warheads you use. Most common warheads are cheap made (mostly Ukrainian, Russian stuff is less common to get hold of and is higher grade but I think they used most up themselves) PG-7 HE. These are old multi-purpose rockets meant for light armour, machine gun/mortar positions and taking out infantry concentrations (remember Russia didn't sign Geneva so they can make their weapons for whatever they like).

These things are "ok" against tanks, generally older ones, but there's the exeption of the Abrams which are quite poorly armoured on the back and sides, even worse on the top (it's something like 15mm of steel on the top of the turret). They'd need a huge spam if they were to shoot them from the front though because that's where about 70% of their Armour is.

The AT weapons in BF2 are pretty much one hit one "BOOOM" weapons if they hit something like the Abrams. They're dedicated anti-modern-armour weapons. It's hard to say what the T-90 can take because there really isn't that mucg known about their armour packages and so on, which have been vastly improved from earlier tanks.

Anyway back to the RPG-7. That's just the launcher name, there are several warheads made for it, one being a tandem warhead with a two stage boom maker. It's VERY effective against MBT's and renders RPG meshing useless (that stuff is made to stop the HE warheads so they explode before impacting the actual vehicle). One explosion triggers the SABOT like spike on the front and launches it at the target, and the second is HE. The idea is the spike drives a hole through the armour, then the HE explodes inside to kill or injur the crew. It's also very effective on engine areas or ammo magazines.

Anyway, I'm glad people don't use the tanks as much, they're annoying as hell. I prefer more infantry based gaming, especially with the smaller maps. The 64 player maps are fine with tanks and stuff, but I'd rather have Humvee's or FAV's and a few APC's instead of god knows how many tanks driving around. It ruins things too, becuase people dont need to work together as much in tanks, they can just go on Rambo's (speaking of they're talking about making Rambo IV!). The changes made promote more team work , which is always a good thing!

Anyway, rant/random stuff over.

Thx for the info Max, it was invaluable.Now I can sound like I know what I'm talking about at dinner parties

I think tanks play an invaluable role in the battlefield, but they somehow need to be made so:
- If you move close, you will be very vulnerable.
- If you stay at a distance, you will be almost invulnerable (from infantry that is).

Maybe if they make it so the front damage takes 2 hits, while anywhere else is 1 hit. That would force people to stay back and face the front line.

where the hell did Iraqis get the money for Milans?

Mad Max wrote:It ruins things too, becuase people dont need to work together as much in tanks, they can just go on Rambo's (speaking of they're talking about making Rambo IV!). The changes made promote more team work , which is always a good thing!

Not entirely true. I've been playing the Project Reality minimod for quite sometime and I devoted most of it to testing out the armoured vehicles, mainly the MBT's for each of the sides. I agree that something should be done in regards to a bigger realistic factor concerning the armour quality, but as for team work in regards to being in a tank-...

A tank with no one to communicate with it is essentially a death trap for its driver and the commander in the pulpit - even more so when the driver and the commander cannot communicate with one another. Many a time I have died because the commander in the pulpit could not tell me of advancing AT forces and opposing armour. However, when you integrate an armoured MBT in an adequate squad that knows how to effectively communicate with each other, then the tank, like any other piece of equipment that's integraded into a decent squad and the modifications done to it by the mod, becomes more than a valuable asset. I've been able to avoid many AT rockets and tank shells thanks to my squad.

I agree with the poster.

Given the circumstances of close range combat, the MBTs are going to be a lot more vulnerable than they would in thier natural environment. We got, C4, Mines, Mounted AntiArmor, Mobile AntiArmor, and last but not least, other armor to worry about. Not to mention the time to react due to the close ranges is a marginally depleted.

Now, realistically speaking the frontal attacks would be quite ineffective against any modern MBT. Actually, all the armor on almost all modern MBTs can withstand quite a pounding. I think we should beef the frontal armor up to maybe 4 direct hits while the rest requires 2 and of course the rear requiring only one to immobilize the tank.

Now IRL, when an AntiArmor missile is fired at the tracks of any MBT, one shot in the tracks and the tank is going no where but in circles. This is the main reason the US never engages its MBTs in known close quarter sections of hostile anti armor.

Is it possible to disable a track when its hit? I would assume probably not or you guys would have already done it. But if that was the case, that would definatly set tanks up to be used realistically. One shot and the track should become instantly decommisioned.

If not, maybe we can set it up so that two shots in the tracks will simply render the MBT immobile, but still able to be fired?

Basically my concept is to have the side armor and frontal armor require 3-4 hits. The rear should have a sweet spot and require one hit that would, 1. Cause the tank to catch fire and force the crew to bail, or 2. Just completely immobilize the tank but still give it enough hitpoints to still be operated and fired..(if its possible.) And the tracks should, without a doubt, render the tank immobile in one hit to each side...

GRB wrote: Now, realistically speaking the frontal attacks would be quite ineffective against any modern MBT. Actually, all the armor on almost all modern MBTs can withstand quite a pounding. I think we should beef the frontal armor up to maybe 4 direct hits while the rest requires 2 and of course the rear requiring only one to immobilize the tank.

Now IRL, when an AntiArmor missile is fired at the tracks of any MBT, one shot in the tracks and the tank is going no where but in circles. This is the main reason the US never engages its MBTs in known close quarter sections of hostile anti armor.

Is it possible to disable a track when its hit? I would assume probably not or you guys would have already done it. But if that was the case, that would definatly set tanks up to be used realistically. One shot and the track should become instantly decommisioned.

If not, maybe we can set it up so that two shots in the tracks will simply render the MBT immobile, but still able to be fired?

In vanilla BF i mainly shoot the tracks, not because it immobilizes it. I do more damage when i score a frontal hit against the tracks ( needs 2 to destroy or at least make the crew bail out ) Much better than 4 or 5 against a random spot on the armor.

Enforcer1975 wrote:In vanilla BF i mainly shoot the tracks, not because it immobilizes it. I do more damage when i score a frontal hit against the tracks ( needs 2 to destroy or at least make the crew bail out ) Much better than 4 or 5 against a random spot on the armor.

Right...I just feel that immobilization is something that was overlooked in BF2. Realistically, a lot of the vehicles should become immobilized BEFORE thier destruction..

Especially the HMMWVs and VODs. This is something that really bugs me. For some reason its almost like they are filled with super high octane jet fuel. Why are these vehicles so combustable?

In real life, most vehicles that are shot up with small arms (even the mighty 7.62) would, at most, only catch fire, have flat tires and a lot of holes... After about 10 minutes of fire, then MAYBE the fuel tank may blow.

I wonder if it would be possible to make more vehicles catch fire more often than simply explode. Then, on top of that, instead of having the destroyed model stay visible longer, i wonder if it would be possible to have these vehicles stay on fire longer before they actually explode. During which time the vehicle may still be entered, but any occupants will continuously get burned...This will force the crew out and anyone thats dumb enough to get back into a flaming vehicle will also feel the burn of reality!

GRB wrote:Especially the HMMWVs and VODs. This is something that really bugs me. For some reason its almost like they are filled with super high octane jet fuel. Why are these vehicles so combustable?

Maybe because of their "combustion engine"??

In real life, most vehicles that are shot up with small arms (even the mighty 7.62) would, at most, only catch fire, have flat tires and a lot of holes... After about 10 minutes of fire, then MAYBE the fuel tank may blow.

That's the way it works in OFP. It's pretty fun shooting a vehicle's tire rendering it immobile or difficult to drive ( in most cases the driver hits a wall or whatever is next to him ) watching the crew run for cover and pop their helmets with some .30 cal sniper bullets. I hope AA is as good as OFP gameplaywise and that it will be released sooner than later. But i don't think this will be adable to BF2. The engine might not be programed for such difficult stuff. In the end it's just an action game.

Read above

GRB wrote:Right...I just feel that immobilization is something that was overlooked in BF2. Realistically, a lot of the vehicles should become immobilized BEFORE thier destruction..

Especially the HMMWVs and VODs. This is something that really bugs me. For some reason its almost like they are filled with super high octane jet fuel. Why are these vehicles so combustable?

In real life, most vehicles that are shot up with small arms (even the mighty 7.62) would, at most, only catch fire, have flat tires and a lot of holes... After about 10 minutes of fire, then MAYBE the fuel tank may blow.

I wonder if it would be possible to make more vehicles catch fire more often than simply explode. Then, on top of that, instead of having the destroyed model stay visible longer, i wonder if it would be possible to have these vehicles stay on fire longer before they actually explode. During which time the vehicle may still be entered, but any occupants will continuously get burned...This will force the crew out and anyone thats dumb enough to get back into a flaming vehicle will also feel the burn of reality!

Damn I hate this engine sometimes

Artnez.com wrote:Damn I hate this engine sometimes

Art, let's play Armed Assault together when it's released

Edit. Double post

I say give the AT guy 1 rocket so he has to use it well and wont go head on with tanks and will actually need to flank instead of the "duck", reload, fire, "duck" reload, fire they do know. Give him a rifle and he will do fine. This is where the team play comes in. Now the AT will have to rely on the support guy and others to occupy the tanks intrest if he wants to be succesfful and get rockets. Smoke grenades might actually be used contructively.

Enforcer1975 wrote:Art, let's play Armed Assault together when it's released

I am too waiting for the release of that game. I currently play WWII Online which is world war II MMOG simulation. I play modern combat games for a change of pace from WWII but most seem to arcady. Armed Assault looks like it will fill my Modern Combat Itch. Right now PRMM does the best it can for me at the moment, well it and Close Combat: First to Fight.

Artnez.com wrote:Damn I hate this engine sometimes

I wasnt suggesting that we implement flat tires or anything.

I was just pointing out if it's possible to make more vehicles catch on fire more often than simply explode. Then, on top of that, instead of having the destroyed model stay visible longer, i wonder if it would be possible to have these vehicles stay on fire longer before they actually explode.

lol, very funny, combustion engine, har har...

Still, they are not able to be blown up with small arms. Ever watch the MythBusters? They busted that myth a long time ago. Even rounds up to 7.62 cannot cause the gas tank to ignite into an explosion.

They fired many different kinds of guns DIRECTLY into the gas tank of a car. Nothing happened for the majority of the time, until they got determined to blow it up..lol. Besides leaking fuel all over the place hell, it didnt even catch on fire.

Now of course if you fire at a RUNNING engine and rupture the fuel line or crack the engines manifolds or block, a fire may break out. In which case the fuel will still not ignite like a bomb. It will just continuously burn until the whole vehicle is in flames.

My point is, firing small arms fire, even that COAXIAL 7.62 cannon on the MBTs should not cause any vehicle to miraculously explode...Im just curious as to wether or not its possible to not have these vehicles be blown up with gun fire.

IRL, even when a tank fires at another tank, the tank that gets hit doesnt just blow up. It either catches on fire or just becomes completely useless(disabled/destroyed). In the event that a shell is hit inside the tank, yes, THEN its possible to get an explosion.

I dont know, i just feel, if this is a realism issue, then most of BF2 is too HOLLYWOODish if ya ask me. Especially with thier "pyrotechnics"...lol.

A simple way to go about doing this might be to do something like this:

At 65% HP from lets say a .50cal the vehicle will catch on fire instead of the current 10-15%...Basically make the vehicle catch fire a lot sooner in its HP as opposed to it only catchin fire at the brink of its hollywood explosion..A long with this you would also have to decrease the amount of damage done to light vehicles by small arms weapons such as the .50 cal.

Another cool thing ide like to see with these light vehicles (HMMWV and VODs) is high caliber rounds piercing right through them like they should. A .50 cal would go through the door of any HMMWV or VOD, through the person/s in it, and mostlikely out the other side.

But then you get the complication of when a good time is based on what type of weapon is doin the damage. In which case a whole lot would have to be changed.

So again, i dont know..But realistically, these vehicles are very unrealistic currently. They are too vulnerable to small arms fire in terms of overall destruction yet at the same time it takes too long to stop or disable them!

I think this would be a perfect realistic solution.