Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

QT3.14159
Corporal
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri 17 May 2013 23:41
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby QT3.14159 » Wed 17 Jul 2013 02:31

Bryan wrote:People expect too much from LAWs....
The new 'Matador' LAW Singaporean troops train with are taught to hit from the rears or turret ring, side shots aim for the tracks because it cant penetrate the tank even in the side armour. If a new LAW cant penetrate the side armour of tanks then what do you expect a 1980s LAW to do? I honestly expect it to ping off a tank.
LAWs are usually for killing IFVs, light armour and fortifications. You want to kill a tank? Call in CAS, another tank or ATGMs.


An RPG used by insurgents in Afghanistan can knock out a modern Abrams (I have no idea where the shots are aimed at so forgive the lack of detail). There is a reason the US use the Striker more often in urban environments.

You assume that armor has progressed steadily from the 1980s onward it might have had increased progression at some points and be a steeper line than you think. I don't know. It's an interesting line of discussion though.

Bryan
General
Posts: 5993
Joined: Mon 7 Jan 2013 07:16
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Bryan » Wed 17 Jul 2013 02:41

QT3.14159 wrote:
Bryan wrote:People expect too much from LAWs....
The new 'Matador' LAW Singaporean troops train with are taught to hit from the rears or turret ring, side shots aim for the tracks because it cant penetrate the tank even in the side armour. If a new LAW cant penetrate the side armour of tanks then what do you expect a 1980s LAW to do? I honestly expect it to ping off a tank.
LAWs are usually for killing IFVs, light armour and fortifications. You want to kill a tank? Call in CAS, another tank or ATGMs.


An RPG used by insurgents in Afghanistan can knock out a modern Abrams (I have no idea where the shots are aimed at so forgive the lack of detail). There is a reason the US use the Striker more often in urban environments.

You assume that armor has progressed steadily from the 1980s onward it might have had increased progression at some points and be a steeper line than you think. I don't know. It's an interesting line of discussion though.

Iraq, yes, tanks have weakspots but it Iraq it never killed the tank. Probably into the rearof the turret where the ammo bin is'ammobox hit'. The only way to kill a tank with a LAW is to hit em in weak spots or rear. People think LAWs kill tanks but they hardly do, they only disable them. Even in Chechnya, where poor use of tanks even show that it requires alot of RPGs to hit weak spots to kill a tank. Ingame is usually rpg hitting the front of the tank doing 1 damage or so which is already an overstatement in my opinion.

QT3.14159
Corporal
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri 17 May 2013 23:41
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby QT3.14159 » Wed 17 Jul 2013 03:00

Bryan wrote:
QT3.14159 wrote:
Bryan wrote:People expect too much from LAWs....
The new 'Matador' LAW Singaporean troops train with are taught to hit from the rears or turret ring, side shots aim for the tracks because it cant penetrate the tank even in the side armour. If a new LAW cant penetrate the side armour of tanks then what do you expect a 1980s LAW to do? I honestly expect it to ping off a tank.
LAWs are usually for killing IFVs, light armour and fortifications. You want to kill a tank? Call in CAS, another tank or ATGMs.


An RPG used by insurgents in Afghanistan can knock out a modern Abrams (I have no idea where the shots are aimed at so forgive the lack of detail). There is a reason the US use the Striker more often in urban environments.

You assume that armor has progressed steadily from the 1980s onward it might have had increased progression at some points and be a steeper line than you think. I don't know. It's an interesting line of discussion though.

Iraq, yes, tanks have weakspots but it Iraq it never killed the tank. Probably into the rearof the turret where the ammo bin is'ammobox hit'. The only way to kill a tank with a LAW is to hit em in weak spots or rear. People think LAWs kill tanks but they hardly do, they only disable them. Even in Chechnya, where poor use of tanks even show that it requires alot of RPGs to hit weak spots to kill a tank. Ingame is usually rpg hitting the front of the tank doing 1 damage or so which is already an overstatement in my opinion.


Hmm. I'm usually a little caught out by facts of modern wars. I have a huge interest in WWII so I get a little caught out by modern specs. I'll keep this in mind. Thanks.

User avatar
Drang
Major-General
Posts: 3705
Joined: Sun 3 Feb 2013 04:20
Location: Fighting on the edge of the world
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Drang » Wed 17 Jul 2013 04:30

LAWS are one thing. 84mm recoilless rifles and tandem-warhead RPGs are quite another.

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3619
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Gopblin » Wed 17 Jul 2013 04:50

RPGs used in Iraq are usually from a large batch of 30-year old expired stuff sold so Saddam at one point. They don't fly straight and often don't detonate. As said here, a modern fully working weapon is a different story.

Also, approximately rear half of Abrams can be penetrated by most any RPG, its 20-100mm RHA. The flanks past the midpoint and pretty much entire rear from what I understand; I'd guess the roof too. In the front though, not so much - only on a very lucky shot, or hope for mission kill by disabling the cannon or jamming the turret.

Best wishes,
Daniel.
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

Sevatar
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 18:50
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Sevatar » Wed 17 Jul 2013 07:33

Do some guys really read answers?
You aim always for weak spots, you try always to shoot in the flank of the tank or the rear. The LAWs or PzFst 44s penetration of 350mm is at that timescale enough for the most tanks if you shoot the flank, rear or top deck.

In chechenya the insurgents knocked out T72 and T80 with rpg 7 and the NATO tanks wouldnt fare that much better. Why shouldnt it work in a game that is settled 10 years before?

Bryan
General
Posts: 5993
Joined: Mon 7 Jan 2013 07:16
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Bryan » Wed 17 Jul 2013 08:05

Sevatar wrote:Do some guys really read answers?
You aim always for weak spots, you try always to shoot in the flank of the tank or the rear. The LAWs or PzFst 44s penetration of 350mm is at that timescale enough for the most tanks if you shoot the flank, rear or top deck.

In chechenya the insurgents knocked out T72 and T80 with rpg 7 and the NATO tanks wouldnt fare that much better. Why shouldnt it work in a game that is settled 10 years before?

Still it required more than one shot to penetrate in most cases. Ingame it is depicted that the infantry just shoot the tank despite ignoring weakspots.
You want to simulate weakspots? Give infantry higher critical chances to simulate, track/transaxial, ammo explosion, optical failure etc.

Sevatar
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 18:50
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Sevatar » Wed 17 Jul 2013 09:33

Yes of course you shoot several shots but only if you dont hit or the tank is not destroyed or you want to get sure it is destroyed.

The knocked out t72s and 80s where because of this shot several times this has nothing to do with the penetration ability. its near impossible to hit the same spot several times and no one uses this tactic to kill tanks. the penetration abilitys are enough if you aim for weak spots, which you do irl.

no one sane goes head on with a mbt.
With the critical hits im with you, could also be a tool to make standart infantry usefull again.

Bryan
General
Posts: 5993
Joined: Mon 7 Jan 2013 07:16
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Bryan » Wed 17 Jul 2013 09:56

Sevatar wrote:Yes of course you shoot several shots but only if you dont hit or the tank is not destroyed or you want to get sure it is destroyed.

The knocked out t72s and 80s where because of this shot several times this has nothing to do with the penetration ability. its near impossible to hit the same spot several times and no one uses this tactic to kill tanks. the penetration abilitys are enough if you aim for weak spots, which you do irl.

no one sane goes head on with a mbt.
With the critical hits im with you, could also be a tool to make standart infantry usefull again.

The thing is with armour is that if you follow up the shot in a cloe enough proximity it will penetrate the already weakened first shot, in the Chechnya case they were close enough to the vehicles so I say it shouldnt be a problem.
Then the T-80s and T-72s with their autoloader design and ammunition carousels, which distributes the ammo storage 360 degrees around the turret compared to Leo2 and M1 which was primarily to the rear. This distribution increases the chance of catastrophic 'kills' as there is a greater chance of hitting the carousel ammo with spall or even slight penetrations, though it may not flip the turret, the internal explosions would kill or severely injure(burn) the crew as proven in Iraq, Chechnya, Syria and to some extent Afghanistan.

Doing more criticals probability will fix this as right now criticals are random, infantry with 80-90% critical chance on vehicles will make them more deadly and simulate 'aim for the weak points!' Primary criticals should be Optical failure (shooting out the periscopes), track hit(mobility kill), firing computer reset(hit the FCS and jigle it about), ammo box hit(hitting the rear or triggering spalling).
Another fix could also be Field of Vision and an optics rework.

Gneckes
Warrant Officer
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 16:48
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Gneckes » Wed 17 Jul 2013 12:27

Drang wrote:LAWS are one thing. 84mm recoilless rifles and tandem-warhead RPGs are quite another.

Sure, 84mm versus 66? mm is a difference, and it's noted in-game: LAW gets what, 12 AP whereas the CG gets 18?
And there are no tandem-warhead RPGs represented in-game. They are out of era. The first Soviet one (RPG-29) was adopted in 1989, while the first NATO one (to my knowledge, the PzF 3-IT) was put into service in the late '90s.)
Common sense shall thus be referred to as rare sense.

MENTORImage

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests