Suggestions & Balance

[Instinct]

Please use this topic to provide us with feedback!

[Carl Hamilton]

I am actually a huge fan of the AT-4 in this game aswell

[Carl Hamilton]

引用自 Tenacious Li Shlong：

And where does that matters ?

It matters because you're asking for data that doesn't exist, you don't know how it would perform, and neither do I. No one does, because there is no real test data for this.
So why do you think it can't other than you want it to be so?

[Carl Hamilton]

引用自 Tenacious Li Shlong：

引用自 Sunbeam：

If it penetrates Challenger 2, pretty sure Abrams isn't any better

It does not tell where does it penetrated it tells frontal era which is only on hull and that area is only about 600-800mm thick. And no M1A2 has a lot more protection.

Who told you it has more protection when both armous are secret.

[Carl Hamilton]

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but those pictures show that Sunbeam is right about the challenger, so your effectively just proved yourself wrong.

Also using a video game as a source is stupid.

[Sunbeam]

引用自 Tenacious Li Shlong：

引用自 Carl Hamilton：

Who told you it has more protection when both armous are secret.

Use search option.

M1A2 http://imgur.com/SbGKCTf
Challanger 2 http://imgur.com/QqidWFb

So what backs those pictures up? Only thing known is that both use modified Chobham composite armour but I would put my $ on UK.

http://pds27.egloos.com/pds/201301/11/11/d0141011_50ef700e0617e.jpg
That T-90 armor

[Carl Hamilton]

Steel Beasts consumer version is silly.

[Carl Hamilton]

Depleted Uranium is not the ultimate material of protection.
Abrams doesn't have Reactive armour on the front like the T90 does.
And so what?

[Carl Hamilton]

You don't know how reactive armour works clearly.

Also reactive armour works against Kinetic rounds aswell.

[Sunbeam]

引用自 Tenacious Li Shlong：

引用自 Sunbeam：

So what backs those pictures up? Only thing known is that both use modified Chobham composite armour but I would put my $ on UK.

http://pds27.egloos.com/pds/201301/11/11/d0141011_50ef700e0617e.jpg
That T-90 armor

Challanger 2 does not have depleted uranium layer and T-90 too.

Depleted uranium is overrated and if Chalanger 2 doesnt have it, It doesnt mean that it Dorchester Level 2 (classified) upgrade of Chobham is worse

Even more depleted uranium have it own problems.

引用自 Tenacious Li Shlong：

引用自 Carl Hamilton：

Depleted Uranium is not the ultimate material of protection.
Abrams doesn't have Reactive armour on the front like the T90 does.
And so what?

Reactive armor is useless against Rpg29.

It also depends on generation of ERA. There is also NERA and so on.

[Carl Hamilton]

引用自 Tenacious Li Shlong：

How come ? It works well against non-tandem charge rpg`s.

Just because it disables some RPGs doesn't mean it doesn't reduce RPG-29 aswell.

[Carl Hamilton]

Yes, you're trying to say you don't really understand how this works, but you really want the abrams to be the end all be all design.

Truth of the matter is that the basic design of the abrams is nearly unchanged since 1980, and it's actually very outdated. There isn't anything that the abrams have done that newer tanks cannot do if they choose to, if they choose not to adopt the solution of the abrams it's probably because it isn't the best solution. The americans don't need a new fleet of MBTs so they haven't made one, but that doesn't mean the one they have is the best. The Challenger 2 is more than a decade newer than the abrams in its basic design. And the RPG-29 was specifically made to destroy modern NATO tanks, so it isn't surprising that it what it does.

[Carl Hamilton]

You can just deny everything and use your video games as a source, I prefer science.

infoflash:

In physics, you can't disable the laws of motion, there isn't any obstacle that is useless. Unless the presence of the RPG-29 makes K-5 ERA disappear from the realm of reality.
Then it isn't useless, if you look up the RPG-29 penetration tests, they even tell you the difference.

Who knew.

[jacksdog]

引用自 Carl Hamilton：

引用自 jacksdog：

Anyways the "anti tank squad" feels abit lacking with the at4s, should atleast get a maaws. or make a "anti armour" squad with the maaws and a "anti tank" squad with the jav.

What should the GRM get for their basic AT squad if you want to buff the US one?

I guess it could be something like at4/rpg7 Maaws/rpg 29 Javelin/Kornet. Basic at squad everybody gets let's say 1 at4 or as GRM one rpg7 with several grenades. advanced AT one soldier with maaws and several grenades, maybe one smoke two HE/HEDP and two HEAT rounds or as GRM one rpg29 with several grenades. And then the "elite" squad with one javeline launcher and two missiles or one kornet launcher with two missiles.

[Carl Hamilton]

That sounds fair enough, though the way crew served weapons work in the game, it would be really overpowered to be honest, in Red Rising heavy long range ATGMs are so incredibly useful and powerful.
If they could make it work then I guess that would be okay, though i think the SMAW is a more realistic request than the javelin.

[Lucius]

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds.

ATGLs
T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
ATGMs
T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate.
APFSDS
T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

This might interest you guys.