Tank armor changes

[Acecombatzer0]

What type of TOW missile hit the T-90 in the video?

Maybe it was the one without the tandem warhead so it could not penetrate the reactive armor

[ctbear1996]

ATGM should deal more damage, cuz I need akbar in Syria battle, other things are fine for me

[ferrett]

If you want to make tank armor more realistic, you could do a bit more areas on the armor than in the picture if it's possible in the mod. For example it's a great difference whether you hit the tank on the frontal hull or turret. Turret is far better armored than hull. Turret sides are pretty well armored aswell. Another addition would be to immobilize the tank (not tracks, but engine) if rear part of the tank is hit with anything lighter than ATGM or KEP.

It also seems that ATGMs get nerfed too much in terms of reality and gameplay. This update will make TOW FOBs useless and expose infantry completely. Instead of building TOW they will have to rely on couple of soldiers with LATs hitting tank in the rear? I think stationary TOWs should have serious fear factor on tank crews like in current version. Fixed ~33% damage from TOW seems like bad idea as you require like 3 hits to kill a tank. IRL a powerful ATGM will likely penetrate if it hits the frontal hull area. ATGM might or might not kill tank if it hits on the turret front. When nerfing ATGM for the sake of ERA, bear in mind only T-90 and ZTZ-99 carry ERA, and usually only part of the turret is covered by ERA. On armor without ERA, ATGMs are just as effective as any shaped charge warhead.

The reason why the Syrian T-90 survived the TOW hit was mostly because it hit the ERA. T-90 is such a tin can that TOW hitting anywhere but ERA, would light it up. Then again, more recent ATGMs feature tandem warhead to defeat ERA, we don't know what TOW version it was that hit the tank. Remember aswell that ERA works against kinetic energy penetrators too. Explosion from ERA might be enough to snap KEP into 2 or more pieces, greatly decreasing its penetrating capabilities. Also, contrary to popular belief, tanks can get seriously damaged or crew dazed even though the tank doesn't blow up with a hollywood style fireball. A penetrating hit might be able to light up the ammunition storage leading to a cook off or it might penetrate the armor just partially for example taking out the fire control computer or other equipment rendering the tank useless. It's not like the tank either blows up or is completely fine, they can get damaged aswell, just like crews.

[MIA89]

thumbs up!

[tobi-the-fraggel]

[quote=""'[R-CON"]Spook;2122186']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.[/quote]

[quote="Steeps""]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.[/quote]

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

Wow wow wow.
First of all I never said it did not survive it. I just said the video itself is not proof for either one or the other conclusion. All I am saying here is that there is a possibility it disabled the tank.

I doubt any one of you knows how it feels to be in a tank which got hit by an atgm and neither do I. Painting the situation as if it is 100% logic and sure the tank survived and no one got hurt is something you simply can't say by the looks of it.

And I don't trust SAA nor other war parties propaganda. They say though, in the facebook link, the tank needed to be driven back to be repaired. So how ever you gonna look at it, you can say the tank has been disabled after the tow hit. It's just not fully destroyed and again you can say that doesn't mean this is what happened!
The very first objective is to remove combat effectiveness. If something can't fight anymore then this is good. Logic dictates that. This has nothing to do with armchair generaling.


This is going far ot though so I am not commenting further on it.

[72Shaman]

I love the new reality implemented features, the problem is that we often fail to realize this is a game, and running in between buildings and getting behind some sort of armour when carrying an AT kit is far easier than RL.

But still I love the new stuff <3

[Madar_al_Fakar]

My T-72 received a front hit from a canadian ATGM today, we survived to get repairs, which I was perfectly fine with. xD

[CURRENT_YEAR]

My T-72 received a front hit from a canadian ATGM today, we survived to get repairs, which I was perfectly fine with. xD

A tank has always been able to take a hand-held ATGM (like the Predator and ERYX) on its front armor in this game. It does only about 50% damage. Even a TOW-2 on the front does around 85% damage. This is the current balance already, which makes the change in the future update even more baffling.

[Jacksonez__]

What type of TOW missile hit the T-90 in the video?

Maybe it was the one without the tandem warhead so it could not penetrate the reactive armor

Must have been single warhead ATGM missile. The T-90 probably had ERA on the front which blew up the ATGM, since you can see a huge explosion outside the tank, indicating (imo) the atgm hit ERA.

I doubt highly that the insurgents know what kind of ATGM they are using. "If it missile shaped, it kills the tank" is their motto I guess. I am very sure they can get their hands on out-dated TOW missiles (single warhead etc), stolen from army warehouses and so on, unless the Yanks supplied them with the newest models.

[ferrett]

We don't have exact information but most likely the TOW that hit the T-90 and the ones syrians have are probably the older ones without tandem warhead. Tandem warhead negates the effect of ERA, thus the missile penetrating as much armor as it would without hitting ERA. T-90 is pretty light tank and in terms of armor (without ERA) inferior compared to most modern western ones. TOW hitting the turret of T-90, or tandem TOW hitting the ERA should have reasonable chance of penetrating the turret armor.

Then again TOW 2B should pretty much take out any tank without active defence systems as the missile flies over the tank and fires explosively formed penetrator to the weakest roof armor of the tank. NLAW works in the same way.

[inb4banned]

A TOW not being able to do half decent damage to a tank now is a terrible change and I can't imagine it going well. It's just bad for gameplay, what's the logic behind it?

[Roque_THE_GAMER]

one thing, does the other explosives such C4 and IEDs will take advantage of those weak spots? like if i plant a small C4 to the rear it will cause more damage?

[schakal811]

For gameplay reasons one TOW hit should atleast make a tank unmaneuverable imo.

[tankninja1]

Wait shouldn't the LAV be stronger in the front based on that photo, the BTR is yellow in both, LAV changes from yellow to blue.

[Rhino]

Wait shouldn't the LAV be stronger in the front based on that photo, the BTR is yellow in both, LAV changes from yellow to blue.

The colour doesn't represent the actual materiel type (MatID) in the BF2 Editor (or BFMeshView either for that matter), it only represents the "mapMaterial ID", which the exporter determines the order of and exporters have very little control on what material gets assigned what "mapMaterial ID" / colour, With:
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 0 = Yellow
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 1 = Green
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 2 = Dark Blue
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 3 = Teal
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 4 = (iirc) Pink
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 5 = Grey

For example here are the LAV-25s Materials:

Code: Select all

ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 0 Side 3032
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 1 Rear 120
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 2 Front 3032
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 3 Top 120
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 4 Wreck 60
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 5 Wheels 102

And the BTR-60s Materials:

Code: Select all

ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 0 Front 27
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 1 Top 120
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 2 Side 120
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 3 Rear 120
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 4 Wreck 60
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 5 Wheels 102

[Roque_THE_GAMER]

Rhino;2122705']The colour doesn't represent the actual materiel type (MatID) in the BF2 Editor (or BFMeshView either for that matter), it only represents the "mapMaterial ID", which the exporter determines the order of and exporters have very little control on what material gets assigned what "mapMaterial ID" / colour, With:
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 0 = Yellow
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 1 = Green
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 2 = Dark Blue
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 3 = Teal
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 4 = (iirc) Pink
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 5 = Grey

For example here are the LAV-25s Materials:

Code: Select all

ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 0 Side 3032
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 1 Rear 120
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 2 Front 3032
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 3 Top 120
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 4 Wreck 60
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 5 Wheels 102

And the BTR-60s Materials:

Code: Select all

ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 0 Front 27
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 1 Top 120
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 2 Side 120
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 3 Rear 120
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 4 Wreck 60
ObjectTemplate.mapMaterial 5 Wheels 102

so, color does not represent armor?

[Rhino]

so, color does not represent armor?

Colour represents each material on the col mesh, but what that material is defined as, is down to the code, not the colour shown in the editor of the material

[Roque_THE_GAMER]

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rhino;2122716']Colour represents each material on the col mesh, but what that material is defined as, is down to the code, not the colour shown in the editor of the material [/quote]

also i see that you guys wanna make heat rounds work better against light armor, it will be applied on the next update?

and also:

[quote="Roque_THE_GAMER""]one thing, does the other explosives such C4 and IEDs will take advantage of those weak spots? like if i plant a small C4 to the rear it will cause more damage?[/quote]

[Rhino]

Explosives do not take into account the collision mesh no, they only affect the vehicles "default material", from w/e side of the vehicle they are set off.

And ye, these changes will be in v1.4

[DesertFox284]

ATGMs to tank frontal armor already don't oneshot them half of the time. I really don't see how these changes will improve the situation.
Even if it helps vehicle launched ATGM-vs-tank combat, it's just going to completely ruin the tank-vs-FOB combat. Right now it's already fairly easy to take out a TOW on a fob with a tank, but at least there is a risk that TOW will take the tank out. If these changes are implemented you will be able to simply roll up without even thinking and just devastate said FOB.