Tank armor changes

[Rhino]

Well, the video shows clearly the tank crew is leaving the tank after the hit. Do you need a tank turret blowing off into the air to consider a tank dying??

More likely from the crew sh*tting their pants than anything else tbh. If the missile did succeed in penetrating then the entire crew would most likely be dead, since its easier to kill the crew inside than to actually disable the tank to a point where it can't fight any more, and as such, what the missiles are designed to do.

[tobi-the-fraggel]

More likely from the crew sh*tting their pants than anything else tbh. If the missile did succeed in penetrating then the entire crew would most likely be dead, since its easier to kill the crew inside than to actually disable the tank to a point where it can't fight any more, and as such, what the missiles are designed to do.

There are a lot of videos on lubetupe where you can find tanks 'partly' surviving atgm hits. At least 1 or 2 of the crew.
The video cuts out too early to judge but you can only see the commander jumping out.

Also don't forget that this is more or less actual footage so it shows battle proofen combatants on both sides. These tank crewmen probably have years of battlefield experience now. The 'shitting pants' time is over. I doubt they would leave their tank if they don't have to.
But who knows. Both of us were not there. Just be careful with judging like this about those fighters.

Let's not forget it's a t-72 which is not famous for it's armour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

EDIT: Wait, that's actually a T-90. Well the armour protection is better with this one.
EDIT2: That indeed changes things a bit. I stand by my point though. If the crew didn't saw a need to leave then they would probably not have left. Might have been a lucky shot then, considering it hit the front turret.

[solidfire93]

this update made me ***....
great job,keep up the good work.

[CURRENT_YEAR]

So an ATGM can mission kill a T-90 with a front-side hit. Good. Please reflect that in-game instead of chipping off its paint.

[mries]

Love the updates!

But I do think that because the TOW is less effective in front now that you need to ambush/counter tanks with TOWs now. Could it be wise to higher the range of 200m from where you can place a tow from a FOB distance? So you can place the TOW more on an ambush position to lure the enemy tanks in to your FOB (which most of the time is guided by UAV or infantry) and then kill a tank from the side.

[Scheintot887]

Forget the reality as the one and only reference. When you implement something into PR you need to think about the balance first. You could also give us an AC-130. Give us an AC-130 on Karbala....

It does not realy matter if a tank gets disabled or not by a front hit. It was about the balance between a good gameplay and realism, remember?

[CURRENT_YEAR]

It does not realy matter if a tank gets disabled or not by a front hit. It was about the balance between a good gameplay and realism, remember?

Absolutely, and right now, the balance is already tilted towards assets, especially heavily armored mobile ground assets, and against defensive-minded infantry on the defense statically defending a static defensive position defensively.

This change will worsen that bias.

[Spook]

There are a lot of videos on lubetupe where you can find tanks 'partly' surviving atgm hits. At least 1 or 2 of the crew.
The video cuts out too early to judge but you can only see the commander jumping out.

Also don't forget that this is more or less actual footage so it shows battle proofen combatants on both sides. These tank crewmen probably have years of battlefield experience now. The 'shitting pants' time is over. I doubt they would leave their tank if they don't have to.
But who knows. Both of us were not there. Just be careful with judging like this about those fighters.

Let's not forget it's a t-72 which is not famous for it's armour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

EDIT: Wait, that's actually a T-90. Well the armour protection is better with this one.
EDIT2: That indeed changes things a bit. I stand by my point though. If the crew didn't saw a need to leave then they would probably not have left. Might have been a lucky shot then, considering it hit the front turret.

Dude you ain't gonna continue sitting in a turrent if you still got arms and legs left after a direct TOW hit. Especially if you are used to operating tanks which usually do not survive such a hit. Their heads were ringing and they probably shat their pants but the tank made it. Otherwise the video would not have been cut so shorty and they would have filmed its cookoff or at least pose with it. This is the first case where a T-90 gets hit by an ATGM, they would have propagandaed the shit of of that.

[Madar_al_Fakar]

Dude you ain't gonna continue sitting in a turrent if you still got arms and legs left after a direct TOW hit. Especially if you are used to operating tanks which usually do not survive such a hit. Their heads were ringing and they probably shat their pants but the tank made it. Otherwise the video would not have been cut so shorty and they would have filmed its cookoff or at least pose with it. This is the first case where a T-90 gets hit by an ATGM, they would have propagandaed the shit of of that.

Exactly as you said it, all of it. Leaving a tank after a hit like that was an instinctive decision, once they got some fresh air and took 20 seconds to assess what happened they ran back into the tank and drove away.

[Cossack]

Seems like right now Stationary AT is useless for denying area of the map. Now tanks will dominate, because guy with Eryx can carry only one rocket and tank crew instead of RTB or run away will charge in because - "this isn't a threat anymore".

Either give more AT capability (more LAT's and HAT's) or increase the damage taken. Right now, sensing nothing good about it.

[PatrickLA_CA]

Yes, finally, tanks will be feared by infantry and will require some more tactics to kill them instead of crouching behind a hill until the deviation settles then shooting a rocket and killing a heavily armored tank.

[izvil]

dont read all topic. but have some ideas about it.
1. its cool. really.
2. ATGM damages should been fixes.
you totaly kill infantry gameplay and non-nato gameplay.
hat cant kill tank. inf ggbb
tow cant kill tank. inf and FOB ggbb
russians tank vs nato. now we can shoot with ATGM and won battle, with new system atgm is shit. and all NATO tank win us apriory becouse have more higher ROF.

please do not ruin gameplay (

[Steeps]

Well, the video shows clearly the tank crew is leaving the tank after the hit. Do you need a tank turret blowing off into the air to consider a tank dying??

There was very little to no damage done to that tank. The guy that jumped out was in the open hatch of the MG on top. The concussion is what made him want to get out of the tank.

He didn't even look hurt, he was holding his ears after the concussion.

[Frank Jeager]

If you think those changes would make the game more unbalanced, make the turret disabled when it is hit by an ATGM. So the gunner has to switch seat inside the tank (or get out and get in) and wait few seconds in order to take back the control of the turret. Or just disable the turret during few seconds (of course only if it is not hardcoded). Thus, it would simulate a tank crew who is disturbed by an ATGM hit.

[PatrickLA_CA]

The thing is the T-90 had its hatch open and the guy might not have worn headphones or whatever those are called. Also the crew of that tank were probably used to the T-72 which wouldn't stand a chance vs the TOW since those T-90s are quite new.

[Rabbit]

As an inf whore I like these changes.

[Koskettelija]

Well, the video shows clearly the tank crew is leaving the tank after the hit. Do you need a tank turret blowing off into the air to consider a tank dying??

Ayy 5/5 armchair generaling there

If ur tank gets hit like that while hatch is open, two things will happen: ur gonna shit ur pants(no jk) and panic the fuck out, very few person are gonna be able to rationally think for shit in that situation

Cant tell if the tank got destroyed(probably not cos they published only the video of shootin the tank&impact, not the aftermath) but its panic and survival instinct that takes over there

[blayas]

It is possible to set different levels of protection in the same area of a tank by applying more meshes in it? this would allow a more complex detail level in the tanks and a deeper/dynamic game , a T-72m1 for example, represented in PR, has considerably different levels of protection in the same frontal area between LFP, UFP, mantling and tower cheeks, and their general level of resistance could be simulated by a differences in life bar based on estimates of their armor, so for the other tanks to.




would not be necessary to deal with a very complex model, but something like this I did in that ugly painting , thus if would enable weakspots in the the front section to ATGMs (HEAT penetrators ) in some MBTs

[CURRENT_YEAR]

Do we know what happened after that video? Only one man jumped out, yet it is said in this thread that every crew member would be rattled and choose to jump out. Yet they didn't.
Are the rest of the crew killed? It's a very real possibility. After all, that's what most AT weapons are designed to do, kill the crew inside with shrapnel.

[viirusiiseli]

Regarding the video, read this

https://www.facebook.com/syrianmilitary/photos/a.349106328504089.83004.349059891842066/1000219070059475/?type=1&theater