Rpg/law effectiveness

[Lucretius 0]

You guys have a lot of goo comments, And Finish Soldier it wa sme that said that. I also would like to see this implamented in addons. It is not fun seeing a rpg-7v hit your t-90 and you dieing.

My other point is that tanks now a days are vulnerable but tanks do not go on operations alone. They have infantry support they go in with air power and AA. so it is rare to see a full tank battalion lose half its tank. Even the russians did not lose alot of their tanks in Afganistain(except the crapy T-55). I still think the T-90 and The abrams are the best tanks out there for protection.

your kidding right?

The t-90's explosive reactive armour is still nowhere near good enough

the abrams is using armour 10 years out of date

The Challenger 2 and Leapord are the two best protected tanks out there AFAIK

[Milkman 1]

Realism discussions always drift into these childish 'fact'-dropping sessions. Why do people insist on writing things like 'my ÃœBER-tank can take a hit from your KABAAM-missile and keep on going, check for yourself by looking at this picture' - truth is it is all about luck and you cannot make statistics on a single or very few cases.

Then we have:

You guys have a lot of goo comments, And Finish Soldier it wa sme that said that. I also would like to see this implamented in addons. It is not fun seeing a rpg-7v hit your t-90 and you dieing.

My other point is that tanks now a days are vulnerable but tanks do not go on operations alone. They have infantry support they go in with air power and AA. so it is rare to see a full tank battalion lose half its tank. Even the russians did not lose alot of their tanks in Afganistain(except the crapy T-55). I still think the T-90 and The abrams are the best tanks out there for protection.

your kidding right?

The t-90's explosive reactive armour is still nowhere near good enough

the abrams is using armour 10 years out of date

The Challenger 2 and Leapord are the two best protected tanks out there AFAIK

Good job buddy on meeting the criteria for childish fact-dropping argument. To make this post constructive I would like to say that nomatter what people say about the way OFP armor and anti tank weapons are done, poor or not, it will not solve anything. OFP2 will hopefully solve all of these issues. The game engine should solve many of these problems so hold on people and in the meantime don't let a game get you all worked up.

[Placebo 28]

Keep it civil please people.

[jantenner 0]

in ofp i find that law is a bit too strong,

it should kill an apc 50% of the time and not 100% and there should be random survivors of crew passengers

[Rishon 0]

You guys have a lot of goo comments, And Finish Soldier it wa sme that said that. I also would like to see this implamented in addons. It is not fun seeing a rpg-7v hit your t-90 and you dieing.

My other point is that tanks now a days are vulnerable but tanks do not go on operations alone. They have infantry support they go in with air power and AA. so it is rare to see a full tank battalion lose half its tank. Even the russians did not lose alot of their tanks in Afganistain(except the crapy T-55). I still think the T-90 and The abrams are the best tanks out there for protection.

your kidding right?

The t-90's explosive reactive armour is still nowhere near good enough

the abrams is using armour 10 years out of date

The Challenger 2 and Leapord are the two best protected tanks out there AFAIK

Well, Why change what works, I'd also like to let you know that the M1A2 SEP can take a Challenger 2 and a Leopard. but Fact-Dropping discussions are pointless. the RPG - LAW weapons systems cannot destroy tanks and APC's directly.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, Why change what works, I'd also like to let you know that the   M1A2 SEP can take a Challenger 2 and a Leopard. but Fact-Dropping discussions are pointless.

You say its pointless, then why do you do it.

Is that a fact ?

-edit

reminds me of the silent game when I was little. Trying to see who could stay silent the longest time. As soon as someone spoke there would be someone who was smart enough to say, haha you spoke!

[Milkman 1]

You signature comes to mind when I read this thread InqWiper.

[Rishon 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, Why change what works, I'd also like to let you know that the M1A2 SEP can take a Challenger 2 and a Leopard. but Fact-Dropping discussions are pointless.

You say its pointless, then why do you do it.

Is that a fact ?

-edit

reminds me of the silent game when I was little. Trying to see who could stay silent the longest time. As soon as someone spoke there would be someone who was smart enough to say, haha you spoke!

lol, *hits self on head* Well, I do have some points to back it up.

The Challenger 2 has a much thinner layer of Chobram armor that the Abrams. The Abrams was designed to fight Russian Tanks and does this very well and as you should know, the Challenger 2 is based of the T-90. Of course This AGAIN brings us off the main topic. Handheld AT Missles ARE off balanced in OFP, it will prolly be fixed in OFP 2 and You can always make the abrams/t-80's armor stronger to resist the attacks.

[InqWiper 0]

I have a bunch of American Scientists here who dont agree with you.

You say the challenger 2 is based on the T90.

Quote[/b] ]The hull and automotive parts of the Challenger 2 are based upon its predecessor Challenger 1,

Quote[/b] ]The turret of Challenger 2 is a totally new design.

Quote[/b] ]Armour is an uprated version of Challenger 1's Chobham armour.

You say it is not as well protected as the Abrams.

Quote[/b] ]The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO (10) incorporating Chobham second-generation armour plating.

Here you go, quotes and link.

Feel free to do the same to back up your own statements.

Note that it is an american site saying the british tank is better protected. Not a british site yelling our tank is better than your tank.

[Rishon 0]

The Challenger 2 IS based of the Challenger 1 I'll give you that, but whats the Challenger 1 based off of?

Quote[/b] ] Challenger is a development of the Centurion/Chieftain line, modified to produce the Shir/Iran 2 originally planned for service with the Iranian forces.

It's Turret IS a new design (my mistake)

Quote[/b] ]The Challenger 2抯 fire control system is the latest-generation digital computer from Computing Devices Company (CDC) of Canada and is an improved version of that installed in the US M1A1 Abrams tank

Quote[/b] ]The 2nd Gen FLIR is a fully integrated engagement-sighting system designed to provide the gunner and tank commander with significantly improved day and night target acquisition and engagement capability. This system allows 70% better acquisition, 45% quicker firing and greater accuracy. In addition, a gain of 30% greater range for target acquisition and identification will increase lethality and lessen fratricide. The Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides a hunter killer capability. The 2nd GEN FLIR is a variable power sighting system ranging from 3 or 6 power (wide field of view) for target acquisition and 13, 25 or 50 power (narrow field of view) for engaging targets at appropriate range.

This means that the M1A2 SEP Abrams has a MUCH better targeting system than the Challenger 2, and has a longer range.

[Messiah 2]

And I really hate the BIS made it so that they could reload and reload and reload those LAW bitches.  That makes me really mad.

with scripting its possible to correct BIS' 'mistake'

[wildbrumby 0]

I don't know. In the excellent book, "Afghan Gurillea Warfare", it details many missions by the mujahdeen against the Soviets. Countless times it talks about a Russian tank being destroyed with one RPG round. I don't know what kind of tank, but it's in there.

[wildbrumby 0]

But on second thought, after reading "Black Hawk Down" it seems that RPGs are pretty useless. Sure they brought down about 5 US choppers with them (2 in the city, three crashlanded near base). But when they used them on armour, they didn't appear to do anything. One Hummer got hit, and the round only poked a hole in the door. Another guy got hit by the rpg round sitting in the car. The round didn't go off, but stuck into him. Finally, a US Ranger had rpgs go off all around him, but still wasn't killed.

[Messiah 2]

But on second thought, after reading "Black Hawk Down" it seems that RPGs are pretty useless. Sure they brought down about 5 US choppers with them (2 in the city, three crashlanded near base). But when they used them on armour, they didn't appear to do anything. One Hummer got hit, and the round only poked a hole in the door. Another guy got hit by the rpg round sitting in the car. The round didn't go off, but stuck into him. Finally, a US Ranger had rpgs go off all around him, but still wasn't killed.

thats called hollywood

[somebloke 0]

Yeah the soldier was with the rpgs round him was Grimes in the film(Ewan Mcgregor, Stebbins in BHD book). I nkow i have bhd on video. Quite funny since grimes keeps drinking coffee in the battle.

[stgn 39]

thats called hollywood  

No thats called old equipment and bad shooting, when the hummer got hit hit had its window rolled down(bullet proof glass between bullet proof doors) I think it was just pure luck that the guy hit whit RPG dident explode. Remember that was real life and not OFP where you kill every body whit in its range.

STGN

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

real-life warfare is often stranger than hollywood can think of. It's the x-factor that plays a really big role. See those fights in Iraq right now. Dozens of marines fight dozens of enemies. In a movie losses would be enourmes and in OFP it's quite likely only a few will live. In RL only one or two guys get killed.

An other example is the battle at Ia Drang Valley. The movie about it (we were soldiers) is actually one of the few movies hollywood made that got it right; only 52 (or some more, but I believe it was 52) guys died on the US side. That's completely nuts considering the intensity of the battle and the enourmous amount of enemies killed.

But back the RPG's;

There are plenty of examples where RPG bounced of bradley's. The just bounced of the sloping armor. Try that in OFP.

About the RPG's fired at the ranger; There are two types of RPG rounds; one for armour and one for armour/infantry. If you fire a the armour round it will do VERY little area damage and it's very unlikely a person will get killed by it unless he takes a direct hit. The combined armour/infantry round causes shrapnel to fly around and that works a lot better. So perhaps they used the armour round. The other round is newer and I believe it's only for the RPG-7. AFAIK the RPG-2 doesn't have an anti-infantry round.

RPG in somalia in general;

if you don't know how to shoot and the general way they used it was something like; "jump up, aim the tube like object in the general direction of the target and pull the trigger", than you're not really considered a very succesfull RPG-gunner. Most of the times these guys lacked proper training if they had training at all.

[Bobby - CSLA team 0]

Reading this thread I must laaaaugh. When CSLA 2 introduced new armor values and armor penetration values to CSLA MOD, everybody screamed about LAW/RPG underpowering. People were used to unrealistic (but player friendly) BIS values.

CSLA2 set up as much realistic values as possible, balanced with other vehicles as well as other weapons. All this was done according to my almost more than 7 years armor and anti-armor weapon studying.

No offence, but this thread is full of armored fight myths and halftrues.

[stgn 39]

Reading this thread I must laaaaugh. When CSLA 2 introduced new armor values and armor penetration values to CSLA MOD, everybody screamed about LAW/RPG underpowering. People were used to unrealistic (but player friendly) BIS values.

CSLA2 set up as much realistic values as possible, balanced with other vehicles as well as other weapons. All this was done according to my almost more than 7 years armor and anti-armor weapon studying.

No offence, but this thread is full of armored fight myths and halftrues.

So what I don't understand what you are laughing about never played CSLA2 cause its too big but whats your point. And no offence but teory is not always = reality.

So what are halftrues and myths?

STGN

[Bobby - CSLA team 0]

I must laugh, because we introduced balanced, I think, values to config of our mod. But a lot of people had completely oposite view, when mod was released. Game become different than they were used to, it was more difficult to take out AFVs. E.g we set up RPG vs. BMP such, that crew was able to escape vehicle sometimes. A lot of people cried about underestimated power of AT weapons and did not realize, that there are e.g. different warheads for RPG7. RPG is RPG for them...no difference...

I agree with some statemets here, such as that AT weapont are overestimated. So I must laugh because two monts ago there was completely opposite discussion in CSLA thread.

I agree with theme of this thread. maybe this will lead to more reality in OFP.

Myths for instance -

Abrams can survive Hellfire impact.

Abrams is highly vulnerable and Challenger is invincible.

ERA will kill everybody close to vehicle, which is equiped with it.

Abrams is equiped with antiquated 1st gen chobham. (my comment - Abrams could be M1, M1A1, M1A1 SEP, M1A2...)

Javelin makes T-72 to fierce explosion.

Russian flying turrets are due to life ammo lying in turret ready to be loaded.

Challenger 2 and Leo2 are best protected tanks. Abrams and T90 are crap.

RPG is...(if type of warhead is not specified).

I am glad that there are several people with good view here to correct such a myths.

[aj_addons 0]

if i remember correctly the reason t-72 and later model tanks turrets come off is becasue of the ammo stored in the autoloader magazine which is below the turret being set off, the ukranian oplot has its ammo stored in the rear of turret similar to the abrams to avoid this problem but im am not an expert and would never claim to be one

[Bobby - CSLA team 0]

aj_addons - that's the point.

I don't want to show myself as a expert. But I know little bit about the problematics. I can be mistaken as well.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

No you are right, that's why those T-72 are so much fun to shoot at. And that's also the reason why almost no crewmember surfives a direct hit.

[SPQR 0]

The Challenger 2 IS based of the Challenger 1 I'll give you that, but whats the Challenger 1 based off of?

Quote[/b] ] Challenger is a development of the Centurion/Chieftain line, modified to produce the Shir/Iran 2 originally planned for service with the Iranian forces.

......

This means that the M1A2 SEP Abrams has a MUCH better targeting system than the Challenger 2, and has a longer range.

That's a nice bussiness speech, "our weapons are better,...".

In reality, any tank is vulnerable. A hit in the track and one in the gun (HE rounds would be enough) and your mega tank is now a weaponless bunker. A 30+ kg explosive charge would be enough to blow to pieces a MBT when its floor would be passing over it (see the shreds of the "so-powerful" Abrams and its 24 tons flying turret in November 2003, near Bagdad, not leaving a single survival chance to the crew).

The Chieftain/Challenger family was developed to destroy at long range, while in defensive position, hull down, soviet tank waves. That's why the hull front is less armored, explaining why they need additional reactive armor on the lower front armor.

Chobham armor is a british engineer invention. US tankcrews should thank them (Patton's armor made of steel and flawed casting is... you know what !). Maybe the last Abrams have a better chobham-like armor. But don't think the British still use the first-generation coposite armor.

Abrams and Challenger have two different guns, smoothbore for the first one, rifled for the second. While rifled guns fire less efficiently APFSDS rounds (need to control and block the spin in the tube), they fire with a true higher efficiency and more accurately at long range than smoothbore guns could do.

And to end this, the Abrams still use its "ridiculous" (relativist point of view) 44 caliber length gun, while most modern armies are equiping themselves with 52-55 caliber length guns.

M1 Family, Leopard 2A1 to 2A5 : smoothbore 120 mm/L44

Leopard 2A6 : smoothbore 120 mm/L55

Leclerc : smoothbore 120 mm/L52

Challenger family : rifled 120 mm/L55

I forgot to mention that the gas turbin of an Abrams drinks more than an alcoholic could'nt bare with alcohol

HEAT (excluding HEAT-MP) and AP rounds effects are more similar than BIS have programmed them...

[Placebo 28]

Let's not turn this into a "my tank's bigger than your tank" debate please