Tanks are... Kinda weak...

[apocalypserisin 10]

If you want to see something hilarious, try shooting he-t at the feet of infantry. Apparently body armor can provide complete protection from he-t unless direct hit, and ive seen ap rounds sometimes go right through infantry and have them twitch as if hit, but keep on moving.

[Yairweinberg 1]

Lets hope they manage to fix this before release...

[mrcash2009 0]

If you want to see something hilarious, try shooting he-t at the feet of infantry. Apparently body armor can provide complete protection from he-t unless direct hit, and ive seen ap rounds sometimes go right through infantry and have them twitch as if hit, but keep on moving.

Have you added a ticket for it to be looked into or one that exists?

[RushHour 11]

Uh... 125mm tank rounds on aircraft is mightily obscure and irrelevant to gameplay. Let's give constructive feedback. A sabot isn't going to cut an aircraft in half anyways. It's highly unpredictable, with a round that small and fast.

Cutting it in half is just a saying... It should destroy the plane to the point where you need to buy a new one because parts are laying around everywhere. Don´t try and comb over the obvious fact that the damage model is so far away from realism it´s not even funny.

[Opticalsnare 12]

Urgggh i hope someone is modding a few new tanks, I really can't stand these tanks anymore.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

One thing. Tanks are not weak. But rather, the reason they get destroyed is because the people who don't know how to keep them alive. I know that first hand. I've taken shots after shots for days, and survived them all because i used cover, technique, terrain, and fire power. I mean seriously, they are pretty darn strong if you ask me.

[instagoat 133]

One thing. Tanks are not weak. But rather, the reason they get destroyed is because the people who don't know how to keep them alive. I know that first hand. I've taken shots after shots for days, and survived them all because i used cover, technique, terrain, and fire power. I mean seriously, they are pretty darn strong if you ask me.

Trouble is the AI needs to perform well with them too, and they do not understand "hull down", "bounding overwatch" or "hammer and anvil"

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well, that is expected. AI are AI. Since the beginning of gaming, it has, and is almost impossible, been able to make AI out do a thinking person. I doubt BI can solve that issue now. Don't expect AI to out perform much. They are already doing the best they can at their current state. Though over time, they will become even smarter.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

DPS (damage per second) for Main Battle Tanks is quite low, compared to high-DPS vehicles like Cheetah/Tigris, Marshall/Kamysh/Gorgon.

I have not done any specific testing, however that seems the likely problem.

One issue I have seen re this, is that it is rather easy to beat enemy AI-controlled tanks. How?

Once you damage a track, they will Get Out of the vehicle as if it is entirely disabled.

Hypothetical battle:

BLUFOR (player) Cheetah vs. OPFOR (AI) T-100.

The T-100 will have to shoot the player 3-4 times to really disable it. That takes what, 12-18 seconds?

Meanwhile the player-controlled Cheetah has no trouble disabling a track on the T-100 due to its medium damage/high-DPS 35mm autocannon.

If you plopped a Cheetah and T-100 down beside each other, I would bet the Cheetah wins every time.

Only out at ranges of >1000m would I start to put money on the T-100 winning the engagement.

Solution:

Mod the 120mm APFSDS-T shell to be a 1-hit-to-disable and 2-hits-to-destroy (optional: on critical low-armor points only).

That becomes overpowering in the hands of a player-manned tank crew, but an effective balancing tool in missions with enemy AI-crewed tanks.

---------- Post added at 07:03 ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 ----------

One thing. Tanks are not weak. But rather, the reason they get destroyed is because the people who don't know how to keep them alive. I know that first hand. I've taken shots after shots for days, and survived them all because i used cover, technique, terrain, and fire power. I mean seriously, they are pretty darn strong if you ask me.

Can you please elaborate on what you are doing, to take many direct hits from enemy tank shells?

---------- Post added at 07:07 ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 ----------

I actually don't have a problem with the 120mm APFSDS-T damage or the enemy AI gunners.

Currently the only issues I have with tanks:

1. AI crew bails after you lightly damage a tread.

2. AI rarely (if ever?) uses the HE shells to engage infantry/building targets. They should be able to target infantry with the main gun, and destroy light cover like walls and some buildings.

As it is, tank battles are enjoyable (for me) even against AI, and they are deserving of respect on the battlefield.

Edited October 23, 2013 by MDCCLXXVI

[progamer 14]

The merkava almost seems like the in game armor isn't as strong as the real life equivalent some times. But I do find the tanks act as CAS aircraft randomly.

And we're is the reactive armor? I would think reactive armor would be used on such a modern tank like the merkava.

The AA vehicles are fine, they are as powerful as they are due to the fact they may have just a few seconds to dish out as much damage as possible against aircraft. Built on the panther or merkava chassis it too almost at times seems to be lacking armor for the main crew compartment.

But I'd much rather someone who is more educated on the Namer and Merkava armor give us the proper sources for the correct armor rather than someone guessing or randomly comming with values.

Edited October 24, 2013 by ProGamer

[DaViSFiT 21]

Yep its broken atm. Cheetah/Tigris is the best vehicle out there beside transporting people. Best dps, can destroy all vehicles ingame, perfect against infantrie, melt down houses in seconds, can shoot down air, have a good amount of ammo. Yes, Ammo, look@Marshal he can stand one fight and after this he need ammo refill (a fight > 300m).

Look at the low speed uphill / missing tourque of the tanks. The good thing < 700m is the armor, nothing else. Just get good > 1000m if your team is holding the air superiority. physics are still not perfect, the drivers job is still not demanding enought.

when is this one comming? with a paydlc? :eek: this screen is rather old!

http://www.abload.de/img/arma3_screeenshot_egchx2t7.jpg

Edited October 24, 2013 by Numrollen

[progamer 14]

Yep its broken atm. Cheetah/Tigris is the best vehicle out there beside transporting people. Best dps, can destroy all vehicles ingame, perfect against infantrie, melt down houses in seconds, can shoot down air, have a good amount of ammo. Yes, Ammo, look@Marshal he can stand one fight and after this he need ammo refill (a fight > 300m).

Look at the low speed uphill / missing tourque of the tanks. The good thing < 700m is the armor, nothing else. Just get good > 1000m if your team is holding the air superiority. physics are still not perfect, the drivers job is still not demanding enought.

when is this one comming? with a paydlc? :eek: this screen is rather old!

http://www.abload.de/img/arma3_screeenshot_egchx2t7.jpg

It's not broken. You shouldn't be using it for other than its intended purpose. They are very powerful because of the intended purpose. The ammunition is realistic in amounts. Its fine as well.

Edited October 24, 2013 by ProGamer

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

AMV-7 Marshall is an amphibious landing craft, it was meant to secure an area around a beach for more significant incursion to follow, not to unilaterally engage tank platoons.

It's not quite a Stryker-type vehicle.

AFV-7 Gorgon (AAF) is easily the most formidable APC in the game, capable of tearing through a tank platoon on its own.

I forget the name of the weapons system mounted on the AFV-7 Gorgon, the same as the BTR-K Kamysh. Whatever it is, the AI has an affinity for it. I've seen it used masterfully in the hands of the AI.

It's potentially overpowered and has been removed from most multiplayer co-op variants due to its vehicle-denial capabilities. It's like a ZSU-39 Tigris that actually engages infantry, vehicles and air with impunity.

One of my best ArmA 3 memories so far is hunting a BTR-K in the forest just southwest of Kamino Light house on Stratis.

Had my Titan AT rocket out, my fireteam got killed by it. Was trying to get an angle on it for about 20 minutes but it maneuvered through the trees masterfully. The tables turned and suddenly I was the hunted, and it was the hunter. I could see the trees being knocked down around it, like a large dinosaur moving in the distance.

Finally got an angle on it, and it fired its 30mm cannon and nailed me. Game over!

Edited October 24, 2013 by MDCCLXXVI

[progamer 14]

AMV-7 Marshall is an amphibious landing craft, it was meant to secure an area around a beach for more significant incursion to follow, not to unilaterally engage tank platoons.

It's not quite a Stryker-type vehicle.

AFV-7 Gorgon (AAF) is easily the most formidable APC in the game, capable of tearing through a tank platoon on its own.

I forget the name of the weapons system mounted on the AFV-7 Gorgon, the same as the BTR-K Kamysh. Whatever it is, the AI has an affinity for it. I've seen it used masterfully in the hands of the AI.

It's potentially overpowered and has been removed from most multiplayer co-op variants due to its vehicle-denial capabilities. It's like a ZSU-39 Tigris that actually engages infantry, vehicles and air with impunity.

One of my best ArmA 3 memories so far is hunting a BTR-K in the forest just southwest of Kamino Light house on Stratis.

Had my Titan AT rocket out, my fireteam got killed by it. Was trying to get an angle on it for about 20 minutes but it maneuvered through the trees masterfully. The tables turned and suddenly I was the hunted, and it was the hunter. I could see the trees being knocked down around it, like a large dinosaur moving in the distance.

Finally got an angle on it, and it fired its 30mm cannon and nailed me. Game over!

Arma is not just a PvP game and not just a Coop game. Some vehicles just abslutely destroy and other others don't. Just the way things are in real life. Think of it like a food chain with jets on top followed by helicopters followed by AA followed by armor followed by infantry. If your AT team or aircraft didn't eliminate that AA then theres your problem. There is no such thing as overpowered or underpowered in arma, only not realistic enough.

[OMAC 254]

Currently the only issues I have with tanks:

1. AI crew bails after you lightly damage a tread.

If you are making your own mission, this command may be useful to you:

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/allowCrewInImmobile

[DaViSFiT 21]

It's not broken. You shouldn't be using it for other than its intended purpose. They are very powerful because of the intended purpose. The ammunition is realistic in amounts. Its fine as well.

I dont say tanks are not powerfull. They are good, but there are other vehicles (like C/T) that are stronger on most of arma used situations. you cant stay with your tank always over 1000m, going over 2000m will cause you laggy enemys that you cant shoot cause they Morphe around. we have very flat, but also very bumpy Islands atm here, so getting a good positions isnt possible. tanks are not lone wolfs Standing alone 1000 of meters away in best hull down position all the time. beaten down by an AA vehicle, maximum of 45kmh, uphill with 6-9kmh, no HMG for commander&gunner, very bad target designation from the commander to the gunner, missing degree, no active protection (smoke? great future protection), collission bugs (ramming a lamp will get one of your tracks yellow or vehicle flipping) and so on. So please dont tell me everything is cool.

[rocksoldier 1]

tanks really sucks at the moment... really i can't find anything that is working as i wanted...

-t-100 has no TGM? really ? i don't give a f*** of belance, i want realism

-only KE and HE rounds?

-aiming reticle is not aligned correctly, i mean there is a BIAS

[dm 9]

uphill with 6-9kmh... ...So please dont tell me everything is cool.

Not this crap again... FPDR

[king homer 1]

I like the firepower kills I see when it's MBT vs MBT, and the crew injuring and tracking from ATGMs... but the system is a pretty big mess. I have no desire to tease out all its subtleties when I know that nothing is actually based in reality. Wait for ACE 3 and the return of RHA.

This will be actually hard, how should anyone apply RHA values for tanks loosely based on real counterparts (Merkava, Black Eagle prototype). I'm neither satisified with this kind of bullshit, at least a fair laser range finder could have been implented so far.

[progamer 14]

Most of these issues are because of lack of time and resources so far. Vote up so we can get these things fixed and not have to use mods to fix it.

Some issues with the Merkava/ M2A1 Slammer include:

1. The coaxial gun has an incorrect caliber, it should be 12.7mm: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15664

2. What happened to the famous mortar the tank has as standard? http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15641

3. Missing a 7.62mm comander gun: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14264

4. Russian tanks use auto loaders, but the Merkava does not: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15642

5. Main gun stabalization is missing: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15695

For the T-100:

1. Coaxial gun is missing, not sure what caliber but maybe someone could find out the correct caliber: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13917

Edited October 27, 2013 by ProGamer

[mr_centipede 31]

Coaxial guns are 7.62. Commander guns are 50cal. No wonder ppl down vote. Its no realistic

[Crash 10]

This will be actually hard, how should anyone apply RHA values for tanks loosely based on real counterparts (Merkava, Black Eagle prototype). I'm neither satisified with this kind of bullshit, at least a fair laser range finder could have been implented so far.

Exactly what I think of the "futuristic" stuff - bullshit.

[progamer 14]

Coaxial guns are 7.62. Commander guns are 50cal. No wonder ppl down vote. Its no realistic

Unrealistic? The Merkava uses a 12.7mm coaxil for use against technicals. Commander guns are 7.62 on te Merkava. Go research "Merkava Mk4" , you will come to the same conclusion I have. In the tickets, I try to provide credible sources to back up my information. If you can find better sources then please let me know.

Edited October 28, 2013 by ProGamer

[Crash 10]

On the US M1, the coaxial is 7.62, plus a 7.62 for the loader. The commanders gun is 12.7 . This is probably what he's thinking of. And it makes sense. Really, for the coaxial, I would want 7.62, to spray advancing infantry with. Anything heavier that came into my sights would get the main gun. If the commander see's something that needs to be taken care of split second, the .50 is probably up to the task (hopefully). And the loader? Well, what does he care, he's busy loading. :p

[progamer 14]

On the US M1, the coaxial is 7.62, plus a 7.62 for the loader. The commanders gun is 12.7 . This is probably what he's thinking of. And it makes sense. Really, for the coaxial, I would want 7.62, to spray advancing infantry with. Anything heavier that came into my sights would get the main gun. If the commander see's something that needs to be taken care of split second, the .50 is probably up to the task (hopefully). And the loader? Well, what does he care, he's busy loading. :p

US M1? I am talking of the "Israeli Merkava Mk4", research it and you will see the coaxil is 12.7 and the commander gun is 7.62mm. I am using real facts, not justt saying i think it would use a 50 cal. Is not an American made tank. The loader would likely have access to an additional machine gun.

"The Merkava is equipped with a turret 12.7 mm caliber coaxial machine gun which enables the crew to lay down fairly heavy cover fire without the use of the main gun, which is relatively ineffective against individual enemy combatants. Like the new remote-operated weapon station, the coaxial machine-gun is fired from inside the tank without exposing the crew to small-arms fire and snipers." http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4761.html

"Merkava 4 LIC: The Merkava is equipped with a turret 12.7 mm caliber coaxial machine gun which enables the crew to lay down fairly heavy cover fire without the use of the main gun, which is relatively ineffective against individual enemy combatants. The most sensitive areas of a tank, its optics, exhaust ports and ventilators, are all protected by a newly-developed high-strength metal mesh. Rubber whip pole-markers with LED tips and a driver's rear-facing camera have been installed to improve navigation and maneuverability in an urban environment by day or by night."

"120 mm rifled gun, three 7,62 mm machine gun, one 12,7 mm machine gun, one mortar 60 mm, 12 smoke discharger."

http://www.armyrecognition.com/israeli_israel_main_batlle_tank_uk/merkava_4_iv_main_battle_tank_israeli_army_israel_pictures_technical_data_sheet_description_identifi.html