Project Reality Forums

Okay, if i understand things correctly, HEAT is something that was used vs tanks long time ago, but as the armor got thicker, it got less and less effective so SABOT rounds were instead used for anti armour duties.

But, again, if i understand correctly HEAT is still more effective than SABOT against soft vehicles and APCs coz it explodes on impact when SABOT rounds can penetrate the whole vehicle and not do as much damage (meaning if it penetrates completely)

But in PR, this isnt like that. Heat rounds severely f*ck up APCs, but often it doesnt kill them in one shot. Same with soft vehicles, i have multiple times hit humvees with HEAT rounds and have a couple passengers escape coz the vehicle didnt explode but cauth on fire.

So my suggestion is this:

Increase HEAT damage to APC's and soft vehicles to the point where it immidiately blows them up in one hit, and decrease SABOT damage to APCs and soft skinned vehicles so the vehicle starts burning after being hit, but doesnt explode, to similate the round passing though the vehicle and severely damaging it. But since it doesnt explode upon impact it lets some passengers escape.

Yay or nay?

EDIT: Note that im only talking about tank rounds here. Not APC rounds

hmm,

i´ve i hit soft skinned vehicles with a tank round it goes boom...(AP or Heat dont make a difference. And if someone jumps out b4 hit, use the mg and he is gone.) and an apc u have to hit with AP Rounds...(its like a tank imo)

Dont feel that changes needed here.

nah dont think so...
just let it like it is, SABOT for APC and Tank, and HEAT vs INF and no armored
cuz if you change it for the APC´s, who´ll be using SABOT anyway? after almost all tanks are gone in 15 mins, youre one of the last, you swith only to HEAT and dont fear INF, APC´s and have ultra blasting power... see what I mean?

and anyway, let the AT things like they are, you have enough problems driving an APC allready, like a LAT is instant, HAT anyway, mines all **** and so on... I dont often see an APC live for more than 5 mins and this is allready very good
what I want to say, make it real, but leave a bit of gameplay

As far as I understand it HEAT is less effective against reactive/composite armour types which need the piercing effective of SABOT, where as 'traditional' plate armours are still vulnerable to heat rounds.

HEATs not anti infantry. Its another shell to be used against armor. It spins through the air and when it hits a target it sends hot molten steel in the armor. I think to the best of my knowledge?

I actually use Heat when i'm in a tank vs. an APC just because i dont want to waste my SABOT rounds on something i know will go into flames after one hit.

APC vs. APC = all sabot though for the armor penetration.

Feuerwaffen wrote:It spins through the air

Well that would depend on whether the barrel is smooth bore or rifled I suppose?

its got bigger fins than sabot :/

Feuerwaffen wrote:HEATs not anti infantry. Its another shell to be used against armor. It spins through the air and when it hits a target it sends hot molten steel in the armor. I think to the best of my knowledge?

HEAT shells don't spin, spinning lowers the shells effectiveness in HEAT. Except the challenger 2 MBTs use smoothbore so none of their shells spin.
HEAT basically works on a cone shape hollow on the front of a explosive charge lined with metal. When the shell hits the explosive goes off which causes the liner to collapse into a slug of "liquid-solid" metal which is projected at incredible speed forward. The slug bores through armor using kinetic energy, it will obviously destroy anything in its path but explosive pressure and heat coming in behind it can cause immense damage to a enclosed cabin.
It is favored over SABOT on sub-tank vehicles since a SABOT penetrator will probably go straight through but HEAT has its blast and heat effects.

^^So HEAT would be more effective vs APCs?

Flanker15 wrote:HEAT shells don't spin, spinning lowers the shells effectiveness in HEAT. Except the challenger 2 MBTs use smoothbore so none of their shells spin.
HEAT basically works on a cone shape hollow on the front of a explosive charge lined with metal. When the shell hits the explosive goes off which causes the liner to collapse into a slug of "liquid-solid" metal which is projected at incredible speed forward. The slug bores through armor using kinetic energy, it will obviously destroy anything in its path but explosive pressure and heat coming in behind it can cause immense damage to a enclosed cabin.
It is favored over SABOT on sub-tank vehicles since a SABOT penetrator will probably go straight through but HEAT has its blast and heat effects.

Yeah the CR2 uses a rifled barrel, most other modern tanks and certainly all others within NATO use smoothbore.

A SABOT damage reduction vs APCs would maybe represent this better?

And i think you're agreeing with him Masaq, I think he means "all expcept" where he has except.

HEAT (High Expolsive Anti-Tank) is not considered effective any more against modern armor.

Similar rounds would be HEP (High Explosive Plastique) or HESH (High Explosive Squash Head)

This is all older technology. I am sure there is new ammunition out there that is clssified that I havn't heard of.

Abrams is smooth bore.

50 caliber fire penetrates IFV's like the LAV25, a 120mm or 25/30mm round, heat or sabot wouldn't give a lick about it.

[R-DEV]Katarn wrote:50 caliber fire penetrates IFV's like the LAV25, a 120mm or 25/30mm round, heat or sabot wouldn't give a lick about it.

Was that you argeeing with my suggestion?

[R-DEV]Katarn wrote:50 caliber fire penetrates IFV's like the LAV25, a 120mm or 25/30mm round, heat or sabot wouldn't give a lick about it.

I said that to fuzzhead on Xfire and he replied with '.50 cals do not penetrate most modern APCs" then logged off.

So which Dev is correct now?

If a AP Saibot round hits an armored vehicle or a tank Im pretty sure it would cause massive dustruction and shrapnel, killing or horribley wound the occupants. I am not in the military but the forces and hard materials involved would cause alot of damage even though it does not 'explode'

IAJTHOMAS wrote:A SABOT damage reduction vs APCs would maybe represent this better?

And i think you're agreeing with him Masaq, I think he means "all expcept" where he has except.

Ah yeah, he missed an "all" hence the confusion. Ta Thomas, my post edited.

^^What the hell? Your a dev now??