T90 weak as hell?

[vasmkd 12]

Serious bug if u ask me, needs to be fixed. U can't make tanks blow up from machine guns, sniper rifles

Anyone complaining about not fixing this has been watching too much rambo movies and needs to look at playing some other game where 10 yr olds play with superhero powered characters that throw tanks into space from earth

Sorry but lets get serious as this is meant to be a realistic but fun game. Id'e rather watch spoungebob square pants than be able to destroy tanks with machine guns in realistic style war simulator.

[Redfield-77 10]

Read This about abrams tanks taking over 50 hits from rpg's and the crew survives. After that decide what you think a .50 caliber round would do to a MBT.

[walker 0]

Hi Redfield-77

It is the warhead and where on the tank that it hits that counts. Same as a 50 cal SLAP round will go through more armor than normal 50 cal round. A standard hollow charge RPG can penetrate 12 inches of steel but of course the Abrams has a composite armor and the TUSK system for urban tanks is designed to defeat it but the aluminum road wheels, the tracks, and the engine compartment hit with an RPG would still give you a mobility kill on any tank in existence.

There has however been speculation that a single RPG round of an as yet unknown type or perhaps a PG-7VR tandem warhead was the cause of a full crew compartment hit on an Abrams on the 28th of August 2008. What that round is and where it was sourced has been the subject of speculation on the Internet and investigation by the military of many nations. There is some talk it was a Russian test others that the round was Iranian; both could be true. In either case the round penetrated, there was no spalling as per the usual hollow charge just a pencil sized hole all the way through into the crew compartment. The round caused a fire and minor injuries to the crew. The event was discussed in detail on this forum if you do a search.

It is also believed that an Explosively Formed Penetrater (EFP) may have been the culprit. An EFP of sufficient width could well achieve a full kill against any tank. That is just physics. There is some speculation it was Pure Gold Round. Gold is very malleable with high Ductility and ideal for an EFP as they require high purity dense metals. High purity copper and pure iron are also used. The original article mentioned a yellow metal. There has been some speculation that it may have been a Tantalum liner obtained from a dud US SADARM round recovered from the battlefield but as I say this is all just speculation all we know is that the event happened.

Tanks such as the T90 that rely on Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) are particularly susceptible to EFP weapons.

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 1, 2009 by walker
spelling

[ricbar89 0]

Wait are people even arguing over whether this is realistic, its not, simple as that, you could shoot a 50 cal at a tank all day and it wouldn’t do squat, apart from maybe damage some of the external equipment and systems.

This game needs a proper amour penetration system like WW2 online.

[vasmkd 12]

Tested it properly on all tanks and also had enough time to try it on BMP-3

With the M240 machine guns the t-72 (2 mags) was easily destroyed, t-90 easily too (about 4 mags), t-34 (2 mags) as good as t-72, m1a1 took about 6 mags, m1 tusk about 18 mags.

Tried 6 mags in BMP3 with no damage at all, thats all i have time for now

Now the results tell me there is a serious bug here

[Guest]

I am fed up of this thread, a certain couple of you are being complete idiots, i'm sorry but this is just BS.

In real life, if you DO NOT do something, why would it possibly be relivent in a game???

Why would anyone want to try and disable a tank with a sniper??

This isn't the world war 2 era, get over it. Angryermen, all you do is make it clear to me that my knowledge on this matter is useless, well if your so clever why don't you actually give me some facts? Becuase so far all you've done is talk a whole load of crap trying to sound like some sort of god.

Walker, i honestly have no issue with you, but seriously look at what your saying. You are making some quite remarkable speeches about how to disable a tank, but they all just seem like john rambo hollywood stunts. Maybe when your a taliban, charging a tank and hitting it with a hammer is a great idea, but i don't think any trained soldier would do that. But then again, i have no knowledge whatsoever so i'm probably wrong.

And as for myself, well i've cleary contributed to the derailment of this thread, i apoligise, I won't post about this subject again.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Guest

[walker 0]

Hi richiespeed13

Using a large calibre MG weapon to take out tank optics is SOP; a blind tank has less chance of killing you. I agree some of my descriptions of how to defeat a tank are johny rambo! I posted them as theoretical methods, the jackhammer method for instance, and I posted them precisely to point out how absurd the method of firing a 50 cal at an active tank to destroy it is! Others such as the placing a flaming object and fuel on the engine compartment have actualy been used in battle for decades but each of these johny rambo methods requires that mobility kill first.

Taking out a track or the roadwheels or the engine are the easiest ways of gaining a mobility kill on a lone tank. Around 20 Abrams were disabled in Iraq. Top down attacks from overpasses and high buildings have been the main culprit along with EFPs and very large IEDs. The TUSK project and sensible deployment of tanks have largely reduced the number of Abrams disabled. When some one is getting the upper hand you change tactics and improve you technology to counter it.

Exploitation of the mobility kill has, AFAIK, never been achieved in Iraq. Tanks do not deploy on their own. They are in a platoon for mutual support and in potentialy urban environments should always have and infantry screen. Supporting Infantry is also important in open ground as israel found to its cost in the last Lebanon war.

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 1, 2009 by walker

[akd42 10]

Taking out a track or the roadwheels or the engine are the easiest ways of gaining a mobility kill on a lone tank. Around 20 Abrams were disabled in Iraq. Top down attacks from overpasses and high buildings have been the main culprit along with EFPs and very large IEDs. The TUSK project and sensible deployment of tanks have largely reduced the number of Abrams disabled. When some one is getting the upper hand you change tactics and improve you technology to counter it.

Way more than 20 tanks have been knocked out in Iraq, but the lesson there is that it takes a lot of HE to destroy a tank. An Abrams crew doesn't bailout because of a lucky shot to the gunner's primary sight.

Edited August 1, 2009 by akd42

[Guest]

Hi richiespeed13

Using a large calibre MG weapon to take out tank optics is SOP; a blind tank has less chance of killing you. I agree some of my descriptions of how to defeat a tank are johny rambo! I posted them as theoretical methods, the jackhammer method for instance, and I posted them precisely to point out how absurd the method of firing a 50 cal at an active tank to destroy it is! Others such as the placing a flaming object and fuel on the engine compartment have actualy been used in battle for decades but each of these johny rambo methods requires that mobility kill first.

Taking out a track or the roadwheels or the engine are the easiest ways of gaining a mobility kill on a lone tank. Around 20 Abrams were disabled in Iraq. Top down attacks from overpasses and high buildings have been the main culprit along with EFPs and very large IEDs. The TUSK project and sensible deployment of tanks have largely reduced the number of Abrams disabled. When some one is getting the upper hand you change tactics and improve you technology to counter it.

Exploitation of the mobility kill has, AFAIK, never been achieved in Iraq. Tanks do not deploy on their own. They are in a platoon for mutual support and in potentialy urban environments should always have and infantry screen. Supporting Infantry is also important in open ground as israel found to its cost in the last Lebanon war.

Kind Regards walker

I completely agree with that :)

Thanks!

[MQ-9 Reaper 10]

Tested it properly on all tanks and also had enough time to try it on BMP-3

With the M240 machine guns the t-72 (2 mags) was easily destroyed, t-90 easily too (about 4 mags), t-34 (2 mags) as good as t-72, m1a1 took about 6 mags, m1 tusk about 18 mags.

Tried 6 mags in BMP3 with no damage at all, thats all i have time for now

Now the results tell me there is a serious bug here

You may be onto something...

After reading your post, I did some quick tests within the mission editor.

-M240 vs T72 : T-72 destroyed with 4 mags (firing in the right flank)

-M240 vs BRDM-2 : unable to destroy the vehicle (firing in the right flank), I used the 4 mags but the brdm-2 still had a little less than half of its armor.

-M240 vs T90, several tests : T-90 destroyed with 2,3 or 4 mags when firing into the right flank. But, I was unable to destroy the vehicle when I fired into the armored panels on the right front side (no damages...).

-M240 vs BMP-3 : unable to destroy the vehicle (no damages)

I hope BIS will look into this.

[vasmkd 12]

You may be onto something...

After reading your post, I did some quick tests within the mission editor.

-M240 vs T72 : T-72 destroyed with 4 mags (firing in the right flank)

-M240 vs BRDM-2 : unable to destroy the vehicle (firing in the right flank), I used the 4 mags but the brdm-2 still had a little less than half of its armor.

-M240 vs T90, several tests : T-90 destroyed with 2,3 or 4 mags when firing into the right flank. But, I was unable to destroy the vehicle when I fired into the armored panels on the right front side (no damages...).

-M240 vs BMP-3 : unable to destroy the vehicle (no damages)

I hope BIS will look into this.

The BMP-3 had full armour after the 6, not a bar down

I was just shooting the right flank in a rough area between turrent and main body so i guess i hit some weaker spots somewhere to get the t-72 detsroyed in 2 mags. I'll try it a few times to see if i get any variation. I'm using the latest patch 1.02 just incase this needs to be known.

Will try more vehicles when i have finished my set of shifts at work. Be good if everyone can test this and post results. Also try a few different firearms/weapons to see how they perform too

---------- Post added at 08:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 AM ----------

[oyman 0]

bis just needs to up the

damageResistance = ;

in the cfgvehicles

the bmp3 has a value of damageResistance = 0.014030;

while the t90 has a value of damageResistance = 0.003890;

[Windexglow 10]

What does that value do? Reduce damage by percent? Reduce it it by damage (Damage - Resistance)

[oyman 0]

What does that value do? Reduce damage by percent? Reduce it it by damage (Damage - Resistance)

i dont know lol

The regular t90 only took 2 box mags of m240 ammo to the right side hull to blow up. I just made a quick addon that gives the t90 the damageresistance of the bmp3 and after 2 box mags to the same spot as other t90 it didn't explode. There was only little damage to the hull which was showing the color yellow in the tank HUD.

[chuckles 10]

Sadly, I haven't the time to read the last three pages of this post.

The original issue was that you could blow up a tank a couple belts of .50 cal ammunition.

Is this possible from the front? Try a stationary tank.

If it's possible then something's stupid. Looking up the specs on a T-90, front armor vs APFSDS rounds is 800-830mm RHA equiv. So if you're using anti-tank rounds (which wikipedia tells me will generate roughly 3.5 tonnes of force at the point of impact) you've still gotta penetrate the equivalent of 4/5th of a metre of rolled steel. .50 cal will not do this; Granted, on the sides, top or back the armor is thinner, but a catastrophic kill on a modern MBT using a .50 cal crew served weapon? No, not likely.