Rpg/law effectiveness

[SPQR 0]

I'm french, so why would I want to do some advertisment about the Challenger ?

Did I write that the Leclerc was the best ?

These are just facts for people thinking the M1 is the best of the best and believing each word from commercial speeches (including french ones). I could have written the same about an invicible Challenger against a weak Abrams. Each tank has strength and weaknesses, because of different doctrines and/or costs.

OFP is a good game, but it isn't able to simulate many things.

[stgn 39]

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

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

Well as fare as I know the abrams is using 1st gen chobham and chalenger2 is useing 2nd gen.(not saying that its antiquated)

Leo2 has the thiges frontal amor(on the turret) Tho I think Abrams has the best protected hull.

STGN

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

May I add that this is the Leopard2A5/A6 and not the earlier versions. The older versions do not have the addon armor on the turret.

The leopard2 is the most succesfull tank is terms of how many were sold and is a very good tank, but is also quite old.

[jantenner 0]

leopard 2 a5 with the l55 gun is definately the best looking tank, maybe its also the best because the base design leo2 was constantly upgraded.

but main battle tanks may be useless in future because of better and better fire and forget computerguided missile systems.

most of these missile systems dont require a tank to be fired.

and their max engagement range ist much higher as the tank main guns max engagement range and mostly they are deadly to any contemporary and even maybe future tank armor(range up to 8000m for missiles and only 3000m for tank gun projectiles)

even foot soldiers and light armored vehicles can carry very effective anti tank missile systems, so the main battle tank design may become more and more useless in future.

[jantenner 0]

and to the rpg launchers, i think whey are quite an old design.. i dont know if there is any munition improvement, but i think the effectiveness of these weapons depends quite much on the skill of the soldier who fires it. if he has good knowledge of the targets weak spots, and gets into a good position, has a good aim and a little luck then im quite sure it can be very effective to even modern main battle tanks.

under circumstances that favor the usage of these launchers, and with a well trained soldier, i think a main battle tank would be probably disabled, and any light vehicle could be destroyed.

but what im very unsure about is if these rpgs fly a straight bow like in ofp, or partially uncontrolled like i had the impression they did in the black hawk down movie. if they really fly that wacky, aiming precision would be a more matter of luck and it would lessen the overall effectivity of the weapon.

[stgn 39]

leopard 2 a5 with the l55 gun is definately the best looking tank, maybe its also the best because the base design leo2 was constantly upgraded.

but main battle tanks may be useless in future because of better and better fire and forget computerguided missile systems.

most of these missile systems dont require a tank to be fired.

and their max engagement range ist much higher as the tank main guns max engagement range and mostly they are deadly to any contemporary and even maybe future tank armor(range up to 8000m for missiles and only 3000m for tank gun projectiles)

even foot soldiers and light armored vehicles can carry very effective anti tank missile systems, so the main battle tank design may become more and more useless in future.

No you are rong The Abrams is the worlds most beutefful tank and the Leo2 all versions are hedious but a good tank enyway. And you seem to forget one thing, jammers a guided missile is elektronik and there for it can be cheated while you cant Jam or cheat a Sabot well you can cheat the gunner but its the same whit missile lunchers, also I think Missiles has troubles goging thru a wall whit out exploding(year I know bunker busters buts thats not what we are talking about) also normaly(in temporated arears) you do not have a sight line much over 3000m.

STGN

[jantenner 0]

abrahams turret/head just looks a bit to big for me, otherwise it looks fine too

ok you are right with the best looking tank, i was definately wrong with the word definately

and what you say about missile jammers may be correct too in some way.

but i thought missiles are always a bit ahead of jammers, and with a good combined force strategy and superior airpower you can easily aquire targets far away, which are still in missile range. a tank as a target can only defend itself then with missile jammers, and it cant attack. thats a bad situation and no jammer works always.

try to think as this: if the key for succesful modern combat lies in air superiority, then the conventional main battle tank design is useless in both situations.

if you got air superiority, you only need good fire and forget missiles, it doesnt matter if they are fired from an armored tank missile launcher, from ships or from aircraft.

if you dont got air superiority, your mbts are even more useless, as theyll be easy targets for the missiles.

but this consideration only works if both sides are quite equal equipped. if you look in irak, there is a very different situation - the war seems to go on, no matter how advanced the us troops are. so really, the last equal and balanced classic war i remember is ww2.. could be then that all this above is bs because there is no classic war anymore.

[Swan-ORCS- 0]

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.

Two types? Three types, at least. If to consider the combined types it is more.

The list of rounds/grenade for RPG-7V/RPG-7V1:

1) PG-7V

2) PG-7VL

3) PG-7VM

4) PG-7VR

5) PG-7VS

6) OG-7

7) OG-7M

8) OG-7V

9) TBG-7V

10) ShMV

If AP grenade will get in the closed space (for example an trench or a helicopter's cabin, however ... enough one wall), effect not small.

[firedrake 0]

Well, the M2A2 wasn't even around in 1985 and the M2A1 was and it didn't have the improved armour. OF1 is not that military accurate or realistic. There is a fine line between realism and game balance.

For example the spigot AT-4 is a tripod crew served weapon and was never designed to be fired from the shoulder. The RPG-22 was around in 1985 and is the equivalent to the AT4 M136 but it never got in the game.

A fifty calibre AP round will penetrate a BMP-1 and in OF1 will destroy the BMP-1 killing everybody providing you fire along enough.

If you want almost realistic armour penetration play Combat Mission I can't see Bohemia going out of thier way to develop such commitment.

Operation Flashpoint is just a first person shooter with knobs on not a combat simulation.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Maybe not out of the box, but many mods such as WGL have done a VERY good job at making it much more realistic. BIS didn't make it uber realistic because of balance issues, each side has an almost equal counterpart, and in most games that's required, especially in multiplayer. Although in WGL you must use more strategy and all to beat the better equiped or stronger side, which is actually very fun with a few good players.

Anyway, RPG's are cheap, easy to produce, can fire a huge number of warheads and relitively easy to get. Because of this they out-do LAW's as they tend to be fixed to just a few warheads and aren't as easy to get. Also early LAW's had poor warhead shapes and bounced off things.

[USSoldier11B 0]

I'm sorry whoever said it, but I seriously doubt that an RPG-7 can take out an M1A1.

Quote[/b] ]LAW today is becoming slowly and maturally the obsolete Anti Armor vehicle.

It is obsolete, I've never even seen anything but some empty tubes sitting in a conex in my 5 years with the Army. They didn't train us on the LAW in Basic back in '99, only the AT-4. I've trained on TOW also but not Javelin since it's highly unlikely we will ever get them in a SOCOM unit. We long ago discussed this issue and of course all agreed that both weapons were severely overpowered in the game. However, without the reloadable rocket systems you wouldn't stand a chance in some OFP missions. They are fun still, and it takes some practice to become good with them in the game so I don't think it gives infantry too much of an advatage over armor. I generally don't shoot at anything farther out than 500m, up to 300m I can destroy anything moving reliably. It is so much more fun to steal an unlocked tank and reek severe havok though.

[blackdog~ 0]

Told by an active duty marine that a LAW can poke a hole through the T80 and disable it. The LAW is a 66mm HEAT round, unlike the RPG.

PS: LAW was phased out 10 years ago, there are none left in the inventory afaik - not even for training - they now use the SMAW for that.

In a side note, the M202 was a replacement for the flamethrower. The marine I was talking to told me about it and said that it shot napalm rockets that were made of glass, and if they hit ANYTHING, even a twig, whilst in flight, they would burst into flames. That is why they were such a dangerous weapon for the operator and why it never went into mainstream production.

[Gollum1 0]

Told by an active duty marine that a LAW can poke a hole through the T80 and disable it. The LAW is a 66mm HEAT round, unlike the RPG.

The RPG-7 fires a HEAT grenade too, 85-mm in the PG-7 version, 70-mm in the PG-7M, unlike the smaller 66 mm M72 LAW.

What's your point?

You can't say "the RPG", there are numerous grenades unlike the M72 which is a prepackaged tube. (Although there is one upgraded version of it?)

And from everything I've heard about it, I seriously doubt an M72 LAW could disable a T-80 with anything other than a one-in-a-million 'golden' shot.

Quote[/b] ]PS: LAW was phased out 10 years ago, there are none left in the inventory afaik - not even for training - they now use the SMAW for that.

The replacement for the LAW is mainly the M136-AT4. The SMAW is more like the RPG-7.

[wildbrumby 0]

Didn't I hear somewhere that the M1A1 can withstand much of the blast and radation of the nuclear explosion? Sounds a bit far fetched, but I got it from World Book.

[stgn 39]

well that problery true if it dosent stand where it hits(and is 5-10 Km away) I am just woringen about the crew and wheather they will survive?

Quote[/b] ]And from everything I've heard about it, I seriously doubt an M72 LAW could disable a T-80 with anything other than a one-in-a-million 'golden' shot.

Well maby form the top or you could fire at the wheels that should strop it from going forward

STGN

[adrenaline red 0]

I think the RPG's are represented pretty well in OFP, I dont necesarily think they should blow up a whole M1, but I think they should be able to at least disable it or injure the crew.

Heres some pics and vids of a javelin taking out a T-72. It is just a test so noone is injured, but basically there is just the tracks left of it. I know the javelin is by now means comparable to a RPG, but if it can do what it did to a T-72, you could imagine that RPGs do some real damage too.

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/jslide1.asp

Movie:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~sickle....T72.mpg

[InqWiper 0]

Theres obviously some explosives inside the tank that go off and blow it to pieces, not even a maverick does that to a tank.

[adrenaline red 0]

Nope, I dont think they had acess to dozens of rounds just to blow up

It came in from the top so it did allot more damage.

[Bobby - CSLA team 0]

Tank was loaded with explosives to make blow more spectacular for cameras. This was conclusion of people on armor related forums - some of them are real experts in armor .

[adrenaline red 0]

Im guessing to simulate the magazine going off?

So I guess in real life it would be like that, the dozens of rounds these things carry arent exactly firecrackers.

And the javelin hits the tank directly in the magazine, and from the top where it is most vulnerable.

[Bobby - CSLA team 0]

Concerning main gun ammo cooking off, there are tens of pictures of T-72, where autoloader carousel has been hit. In no pic I have ever seen such a catastrophic and spectacular explosion (or consequences) was shown. There were blown off turrets, burned tanks, but no tank torn to pieces. These hits/kills were made by APDSFS and HEAT tank ammo, RPGs, TOWs and Mavericks.

Estimated load was in hundreds kg of convetional explosives or tens of kg of plastic explosive.

I am not saying that T-72 can withstand Javelin impact, it would kill it, but it does not cause such a fireworks.

[adrenaline red 0]

They dont blow up that bad probably cause they are designed not to do that. All those weapons mostly hit them in the front.

The javelin hits them in the top where armour is lightest, directly above the magazine, so I think there would be no way for it not to blow up like that.

[adrenaline red 0]

This is another test of another ATGM. The effects are similar to the 1st. This one is an tank that im guessing its a m-60 or t-55 or something.

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/losat2.mpg

[InqWiper 0]

Javelin is not the only AT guided weapon that hits in the roof. When a tank is hit in the roof it can ignite the ammo and you will se flames shooting out everywhere on the tank. I have only seen a tank blow up like that in the Javelin video.

Look at the size of the Javelin missile. In the missle there is a guidance system, a propulsion sytem and explosives. The explosives are meant to penetrate armor so the force is concentrated in one direction right down into the turret. After it has penetrated the turrets armor do you seriously belive there is so much power left in that little missle to blow a tank to pieces?

If you saw a Javelin hit an empty tank in the roof you would see an explosion above the tank and maybe a hatch would fly off but other than that there would just be a hole in the roof. The turret wouldnt fly off and the tank would for sure not blow up like in that video. I think the tank was filled with explosives to make the tank blow up like that. In the other videos i have seen of tanks getting hit in the roof they just start burning very intensively unless they are empty.

-edit

In that other video you posted I dont see the turret going 50 meters into the air or the tank being completely blown to pieces. I see some pieces flying off to the left and a big cloud of dust.

[adrenaline red 0]

I know its not the only one. Allot of the newer ones are doing it.

Of course it can still blow the crap outta it. Whats in the thing isnt exactly plain ol black powder. When it hits the tank its gonna completely fuck up the turret right? U agree on that right? So if anything u can say that for sure the turret is gonna be gone. Ok, fine, what about all that flamable stuff in the turret? Not to mention the gas tanks etc.

Tanks are just waiting to explode considering all the stuff they carry. And that javelin hit it in the right spot where it could penetrate the armour the easiest, hit the magazine, thus setting of a chain of explosions of ammo and fuel which is pretty spectacular.

The other video was of a new kinetic energy ATGM, thus there was no explosives. Despite that it still blew the crap outta that tank, I didnt see the turret fly cause of all the smoke and dust but I think its safe to say that it isnt their anymore.

SO think of it, if a kenetic energy missile can do all that its no wonder the javelin completely anhilated that t-72.

The javelin has kenetic energy and very high explosives all concentrated on the weakest point of a tank, so the results are corect in my opinion.