Anyone noticed some of the weapons and armor is underpowered?

[LJF 0]

OK, I can agree that the M1A2 might be a better tank than the T-90. But there are still two things I absolutely refuse to believe:

1. That the M1A2 is TWICE as powerful as the T-90.

2. That there is so little difference between the T-90 and the T-72 in terms of performance (when combating western M1's).

I tested the effectiveness of all three tanks and found the above. Tank combat is ridiculous in ArmA2 as it was in ArmA1 (though I don't remember it being this bad), there is no cause for strategies beyond "buy an M1A2 TUSK".

Edit: And I also find it rather annoying that a flank shot effectively does the same amount of damage as a frontal one. As it stands I don't use Aircraft or Armour when playing ArmA2 for two reasons:

1. No countermeasures for aircraft.

2. No penetration system.

These two completely ruin the fun of it for me. ArmA2 can do infantry combat brilliantly but that's as far as it goes I'm afraid.

Edited July 18, 2009 by LJF

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

OK, I can agree that the M1A2 might be a better tank than the T-90. But there are still two things I absolutely refuse to believe:

1. That the M1A2 is TWICE as powerful as the T-90.

2. That there is so little difference between the T-90 and the T-72 in terms of performance (when combating western M1's).

I tested the effectiveness of all three tanks and found the above. Tank combat is ridiculous in ArmA2 as it was in ArmA1 (though I don't remember it being this bad), there is no cause for strategies beyond "buy an M1A2 TUSK".

Edit: And I also find it rather annoying that a flank shot effectively does the same amount of damage as a frontal one. As it stands I don't use Aircraft or Armour when playing ArmA2 for two reasons:

1. No countermeasures for aircraft.

2. No penetration system.

These two completely ruin the fun of it for me. ArmA2 can do infantry combat brilliantly but that's as far as it goes I'm afraid.

An Agreeable statement. i know the M1A2 is the most powerful tank in the game but the t-90 and t-72 just feel useless against it. I also did a test with an M1A2 against 12 T-72s, guess what the M1A2 managed to destroy at least 6-7 of them till it exploded.

Edited July 18, 2009 by =Spetsnaz=

[kremator 1065]

Spetsnaz ... you are too close for the Javvy!

[sandzibar 0]

I'm too close for missiles.. switching to guns

oh wait.

[Titan127 10]

First people should understand that the T-90 is in FACT an IMPROVED T-72 (but with an another designation). This means that the M1 Abrams, specially a M1A2 TUSK variant should in equal terms always have the upper hand over the T-90.

The T-90 just like the T-72 is a much lighter weighted tank (almost 20 tons less) which means that the Abrams is considerably much more armored than the T-90 (and therefore than the T-72).

Yes, the T-90 has a higher caliber gun but the SABOT rounds carried by the Abrams are considered within the best/most effective in the world and the Abrams gun is loaded manually which means that the rounds are usually loaded in a faster pace compared with what happens with the T-90 gun which is loaded automatically and this in the end means that M1 Abrams will have higher rate of fire than the T-90.

All of this IMO are more than enough reasons to give the advantage to the Abrams in a similar way that you described.

BTW, the Russian "direct" counterpart to the Abrams is the T-80U and NOT the T-90! (again the T-90 is a "lighter" tank)

Fair enough, I was under the believe that the T-90 was a brand new modern Russian tank made to be a match for the M1A2 etc.

But still the T-90 seems rather underpowered as some meantioned he tried 1 M1A2 vs 12 T-90's and the Abrams managed to destroy 7 T-90's before getting destroyed itself. Now that can't be right, 12 T-90's should be able to beat the Abrams with less than 7 losses, the T-72 should be able to beat it with less losses imo...

[luckyhendrix 10]

The reflex missile to be bugged also it's almost impossible to aim with it , you must aim considerably over the target if you want to hit (same goes for all ATGM on BMP2 and 3 )

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Fair enough, I was under the believe that the T-90 was a brand new modern Russian tank made to be a match for the M1A2 etc.

But still the T-90 seems rather underpowered as some meantioned he tried 1 M1A2 vs 12 T-90's and the Abrams managed to destroy 7 T-90's before getting destroyed itself. Now that can't be right, 12 T-90's should be able to beat the Abrams with less than 7 losses, the T-72 should be able to beat it with less losses imo...

i was stating the T-72 not the T-90, however the T-90 will still have a similar result even though its gun is a bit more powerful. I notice the M1A2 could take a T-90 out with one hit

[Titan127 10]

i was stating the T-72 not the T-90, however the T-90 will still have a similar result even though its gun is a bit more powerful. I notice the M1A2 could take a T-90 out with one hit

Ahh sorry meant to say T-72, yeah I too noticed the M1A2 can destroy a T-90 with one hit from any angle it seems. It takes like 2-3 shots from a T-90 to destroy a M1A2, the exact amoung am guessing may be due to where the shot hits.

[Baff1 0]

First people should understand that the T-90 is in FACT an IMPROVED T-72 (but with an another designation). This means that the M1 Abrams, specially a M1A2 TUSK variant should in equal terms always have the upper hand over the T-90.

The T-90 just like the T-72 is a much lighter weighted tank (almost 20 tons less) which means that the Abrams is considerably much more armored than the T-90 (and therefore than the T-72).

Yes, the T-90 has a higher caliber gun but the SABOT rounds carried by the Abrams are considered within the best/most effective in the world and the Abrams gun is loaded manually which means that the rounds are usually loaded in a faster pace compared with what happens with the T-90 gun which is loaded automatically and this in the end means that M1 Abrams will have higher rate of fire than the T-90.

All of this IMO are more than enough reasons to give the advantage to the Abrams in a similar way that you described.

BTW, the Russian "direct" counterpart to the Abrams is the T-80U and NOT the T-90! (again the T-90 is a "lighter" tank)

Finally, I want to say that I agree that the M136 seems quite underpowered in ArmA2.

No mate, the Abrams SABOT round has 2/5 of the range and 2/3 of the RHA penetration value of a Russian tank launched ATGM.

Both T72 and T90 have a superior weapon system to the Abrams.

Simply put if you are firing Russian SABOT rounds at an Abrams, you deserve to lose. Don't use Russian SABOT vs MBT's, that's not what they are for.

Current generation auto loaders also match the speed of the Abrams manual loading, 5-6 seconds and, unlike a human, can maintain this rate of fire even while moving over rough terrain.

The Russians direct counterpart to the Abrams are both the T72 and the T80, these are simultaneous developments of the same generation from two different tank manufacturers.

Nose on, the Abrams SABOT round does not have the RHA penetration value required to defeat T72, T80 or T90 armour on paper.

The same is true of the Russian ATGM vs Abrams. The game should require side, rear or top hits to achieve 1 shot kills.

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

What the heck is that nonsense? They fire out of the same gun tube.

The ATGM has an 8 second flight time at maximum range.

It must also be guided in by laser beam.

You could theoretically fire off a second shot in that time, but it would be well out of range of a conventional tank round (except perhaps Challenger II and Leopard II) and it may disrupt the targeting of the missile.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Baff1

[Dark-Light 10]

Javelin flight path is wrong anyway since the missile should go almost straight up and come down vertically on target. In game, they fly slightly up, but no more than being able to reach the top side armour. I don't know if thats why it fails to kill an M1A1 with a direct hit, but I'm pretty sure it would be toast.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Can you make your experiments downloadable so people may test and confirm or deny your results. Otherwise all we have is: "he said she said."

A bunch of hot air, a whole thread that means nothing, nada, bupkis.

Kind Regards walker

[An Fiach 10]

I personally haven't had any issues with the Javelin but a note about the M136, IRL it will take several shots from an M136 to destroy a tank, and it is a single shot weapon, no reloads.

[frederf 0]

In real life the AT-4 might get a MBT kill on the first shot or the 100th. Real life doesn't have hit points. It's not an issue with the weapon that the AT-4 is not an uber MBT-killer, just the expectations of the operator. The AT-4 is to give the squad some self defense against a BMP popping up at short range, not to go roaming around the countryside wiping out T-80 platoons.

[akd42 10]

Yes- it is nonsense, and totally unrealistic. HOWEVER, in ArmA 2, you can do that. You can quickly fire the missile and switch to the main gun. Same goes for the BMP-3's 100mm gun- you can fire the Arkan missile than quickly fire an HE shell.

But seems totally uneccessary. I can't fire SABOT and switch instantly to HEAT. I have to reload the different type of round. Why not have the missiles as a main gun reload instead of a separate weapons system?

People have to accept that there is no way to make a hitpoint-based system achieve realistic results. Arguing over whether it should take 5 SABOTs or 10 SABOTs to kill an Abrams is silly. Either you achieve penetration or you don't. If one shot doesn't penetrate, why should 10?

It's just a broken system.

Edited July 18, 2009 by akd42

[frederf 0]

I don't know if the same weapon can have simulation=shotShell and simulation=shotMissile.

[guynumber7 0]

But seems totally uneccessary. I can't fire SABOT and switch instantly to HEAT. I have to reload the different type of round. Why not have the missiles as a main gun reload instead of a separate weapons system?

People have to accept that there is no way to make a hitpoint-based system achieve realistic results. Arguing over whether it should take 5 SABOTs or 10 SABOTs to kill an Abrams is silly. Either you achieve penetration or you don't. If one shot doesn't penetrate, why should 10?

It's just a broken system.

Thats the way it should be. The missie's are treated as rounds, and they should act like such in game. They shouldnt be a seperate weapon, they should be a type of ammo. Of course, BIA dosent get it.

And the whole hitpoints system is retarted. I hope ACE fixes all this stuff.

[Squigibo 10]

Here's two video's I did of the Javellin acting odd. The first I see that I shot at 144Meters. Not the magical 150Meters. The second was at 150Meters. If you watch in HD, you can clearly see it saying 150 Meters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NQdHlp_rlI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsy9sY7YJLw

In Arma2 there is No direct attack mode which can be fired at a minimum range of 65Meters. So it always fly's as a top attack. The problem also is that the Javelin in real life get's a much higher altitude before it comes streaking down to the top of the target. In arma2 it's more of a lob attack. To actually get a solid kill in Arma 2 you have to be nearly 200Meters for a 100% chance of a kill. Anything less it's "iffy".

Edited July 19, 2009 by Squigibo

[jakerod 254]

To use a direct attack mode just aim lower. Instead of having the cross hair on the tank aim it below it. I got kills on T-90s from behind with it.

[frederf 0]

In Arma2 there is No direct attack mode which can be fired at a minimum range of 65Meters. So it always fly's as a top attack.

Um what? The flight profile for the Javelin in ArmA2 is by absolutely no means the top-attack profile. It might might approach the altitude that the direct-attack profiles uses but is likely under.

[Momaw 10]

The reflex missile to be bugged also it's almost impossible to aim with it , you must aim considerably over the target if you want to hit (same goes for all ATGM on BMP2 and 3 )

You do know that the Refleks is a command guided laser-riding missile, yes? Keep the gun sight pointed where you want the missile to hit until it hits.

[LJF 0]

It seems to come in at about 30 degrees or something, not exactly from the top but it seems to get the job done.

[TangoRomeo 10]

Top attack profile

Direct attack profile

FM 3-22.37 JAVELIN MEDIUM ANTIARMOR WEAPON SYSTEM

[Murklor 10]

Well that Javelin profile make about sense because I'm guessing very few engage targets at more than 500m, so its always the lowest possible climb lol.

Especially considering we cant even see tanks at 1000m+ :rolleyes: