Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Like said above, they aren't invincible. ATGM's are meant to take out tanks quickly and reliably. Which can be argued in real life due to many more factors, but this is a game, once the tank is hit there is a good chance it is game over.
You play tanks smart, not drive them in thinking nothing can take you down (Especially in a game where armor is not as well implemented as it would be in Steel Beasts PE).
This is 2035, the tanks should be stronger than this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGuTPLCoWf8 dont know if this still be the same after the updates till now
If only tank combat was more realistic.
Okay, hold up for a moment.
Lets say for specs reason; the PCML Warhead is based off of the AGM-114RII Hellfire missile.
which the specs are;
Weight 100–108 lb (45.4–49 kg)[2]
Length 64 in (1.63 metres)
Diameter
7 in (178 millimeters)
(17.8 cm)
Warhead High-explosive anti-tank (HEAT); 20 lb (9 kg) tandem anti-armor
Metal augmented charge (MAC); 18 lb (8 kg) shaped charge
Blast fragmentation
Engine Solid-fuel rocket
Wingspan 13 in (0.33 m, 330 mm)
Operational
range
546 yd – 5 miles (500 m – 8 km)
Speed Mach 1.3 (995 mph; 450 m/s; 1591 km/h)
Guidance
system
Semi-active laser homing
millimeter wave radar seeker
and for example the M2A1 Slammer is based off the Merkava IV
which here's the specs;
Weight 65 tonnes (143,000 pounds)
Length 9.04 m or 29.7 ft (incl. gun barrel)
7.60 m or 24.9 ft (excl. gun barrel)
Width 3.72 m or 12.2 ft (excl. skirts)
Height 2.66 m or 8.7 ft (to turret roof)
Crew 4 (commander, driver, gunner, and loader)
Passengers Maximum 6 passengers[5]
Armor Classified composite/sloped armour modular design.
Main
armament
120 mm (4.7 in) MG253 smoothbore gun, capable of firing LAHAT ATGM
Secondary
armament
1 × 12.7 mm (0.50 in) MG
2 × 7.62 mm (0.300 in) MG
1 × 60 mm (2.4 in) internal mortar
12 smoke grenades
Engine 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) turbocharged diesel engine
Power/weight 23 hp/tonne
Payload capacity 48 rounds
Transmission Renk RK 325
Suspension Helical spring
Ground clearance 0.45 m (1.5 ft)
Fuel capacity 1,400 litres
Operational
range
500 km (310 mi)
Speed 64 km/h (40 mph) on road
55 km/h (34 mph) off road
(And yes, the Slammer looks relatively close to the Merkava 4M Windbreaker)
Frontally the Merkava has an effective armor rating ~1200mm turret and the hull ~600mm at best frontally.
These are estimates because they kept the actual armor thickness classified.
Now lets say in 2035 we're in the age that our MBTs dont need to rely on actual armor thickness versus proper combat angling and angled armor (I mean, they'd still be thick, but the angling would be way aggresive)
The only real parts that dont get improved armor are the sides of the hull/turret. (mainly hull) but most will have ERA or skirts for protection while angling or from HE.
If your tank is getting hit from your sides by again; a projectile improved past-
Warhead High-explosive anti-tank (HEAT); 20 lb (9 kg) tandem anti-armor
Metal augmented charge (MAC); 18 lb (8 kg) shaped charge
Blast fragmentation
range
546 yd – 5 miles (500 m – 8 km)
Speed Mach 1.3 (995 mph; 450 m/s; 1591 km/h)
Guidance
system
Semi-active laser homing
millimeter wave radar seeker
A projectile faster, and heavier than any regular APFSDST (or Sabot) Shell, you're ♥♥♥♥♥♥. Even the 114RII would still be combat effective against tanks like that in 2035 assuming we dont revert to Germany and their Maus (Throwing massive slabs of armor on a rolling bunker essentially)
I'd say Bohemia is in their right minds (Give or take a bit of physics and ballistics) for where they're at; however, ADS would still be a great improvement.
Pardon the wall.
EDIT: Am I no way saying it's realistic, but it is decently close for what we have on fantasy vehicles.
You've got to be kidding me if the PCML is based on a Hellfire, which is not a man-held AT weapon. Your entire argument is rendered moot. One-hundred pounds for a missile is for good reason, the Hellfire has a warhead that weighs more than entire PCML rockets. Compare it to an AT4 give or take a few dozen mm's of armor penetration.
AT4 penetrates 400mm of RHA, which is far and away inferior to the armor on a theoretical 2035-era Merkava. You're failing to account for armor sloping and deflection. "Even the 114RII" try carrying that, yeah, seriously, carry that into battle. The most modern Russian RPGs will penetrate a modern-day Abrams' armor but we're talking 2035 here and later in the case of Apex. Tanks should have souped-up armor that should appropriately laugh off a modern-day launcher like the RPG-32 or the PCML purely because they are modern-day threats that are in the process of being rendered obsolete by tommorow's tank armor. 2035 is a long way away from a year from now.
The AGM Hellfire can be Pod (Tripod/Static) mounted, so on foot yes. I only took the PCML for example because it's a common launcher i've seen used.
So before jumping the gun, do a little bit more research.
EDIT: Am I no way saying it's realistic, but it is decently close for what we have on fantasy vehicles.
fantasy
Pod mounted. The PCML is not pod mounted. Before jumping the gun, do some logic. The Hellfire requires several men to carry, putting it in the same class as a TOW Missile. Doesn't count. Your argument is invalidated by the fact the PCML is several times lighter than a 100-108 pound missile, not counting the launcher. It will have a correspondingly smaller warhead. A correspondingly smaller warhead will have a correspondingly smaller amount of power assuming the same explosive filler is used.
Again, I used the PCML as an example because it's a commonly used launcher compared to the Titan (Which is pod mounted)
If you really think im inferring the PCML launcher and Warheads are in the same line as a TOW; you're wrong.
However, they are both ATGM (AGM/ATs)
if you want to put the PCML in the same class as shoulder fired then I'd have done it with the javellin.
22.3 kg (49.2 lb) (carry weight)
Detachable Command Launch Unit (CLU): 6.4 kg (14.1 lb)[11][12]
Length Missile: 1.1 m (43 in)
Launch tube: 1.2 m (47 in)
Diameter Missile: 127 mm (5.0 in)
Launch tube: 142 mm (5.6 in)
Crew 2
Effective firing range original: 2,500 m (1.6 mi)
current: 4,750 m (2.95 mi)[13][14]
Warhead Tandem shaped charge HEAT
Penetration 600-800 mm RHA[15]
Warhead weight 8.4 kg (18.5 lb)[16]
Detonation
mechanism
Impact force
Engine Solid fuel rocket
Guidance
system
infrared homing
My original intention was to give people an image in their head if they wanted to try and imagine ballistics physics (As I AGAIN reference, that the PCML is a commonly used launcher;) so users have generally seen the PCML operated and know how others use it.
Anyways the keyword that i'll use in this post is Figurative
EDIT; Double f's fixed, also deleted a reply that for whatever reason, happened.
See, that's more like it. I wouldn't want the argument to go astray with using the Hellfire missile, a crew-served TOW-class weapon, as a comparison marker instead of an actual man-fired missile that can be carried launcher-and-missile by one soldier. The way your argument was presented did absolutely infer the PCML was in-line with a one-hundred-pound Hellfire missile because it was compared with no mention that the PCML is several dozen pounds lighter as a weapon. People around here may not have the technical knowledge required to use the figurative reasoning required to walk back the numbers to man-fired-launcher levels. You seem to not have intended that, although that is certainly what your argument may likely be interpreted as.
Now, the greater problem is that the Javelin's current variants will have been countered by a technologically superior CSAT by 2035. The T-100 should be capable of defeating the PCML, easily. The Merkava's LIC variant as well as its later versions are designed for counter-insurgency combat and are not supposed to take first-rate AT missiles left-and-right.
Simply put, CSAT needs a better tank.
Apologies. But yes; my in game examples were just common assets i've seen used; however my specs were modern day warheads that would more than likely smurf; if not severely cripple tanks in Arma 3.
I personally think that the tanks in Arma III, being that the game takes place in 2035, should seriously be capable of countering these modern-day (2018) threats. CSAT especially should have a stronger tank, being that they're a gigantic industrial titan with the combined might of Iran, China, and Russia in an era where the west is weaker. They have the technological advantage.
Quite frankly, the T-100 should have its railgun back and it should get thermal insulation just like that of the Viper suit, but that would make KOTH a s.hitstomp in CSAT's favor even more than it already is.