Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
1981
   |
Posted - 2013.09.23 20:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Delta 749 wrote:Why do tankers always try to bring in real life example and ramble on about how "its a tank it dominates everything" when in real life the niche of the MBT has been on the way out since the 90s due to large strides weapons technology keep making
Even CIWS and trophy counter measure systems designed to destroy in coming rockets and missiles to defend the tank are easily overwhelmed just by firing in volume and all it takes is on javelin to turn that million dollar tank into a pile of scrap metal
Oh my favorite is when you mention these things to counter them talking about real world examples they come back with "yeah but this is a game" Have you seen the cruise missile box? Entirely automated, you drop it in a feild away from the battle, an infantry commander pops a lasersight and BOOM a 10 second fligh path on a cruise missile that can pierce 30 foot of concrete!! :)
Indeed, these guys dont know how good they have it
All that said though they should still get counter measures like a CIWS that can take down a missile from a swarm closing in on them but they absolutely should not get their health and resistance buffed up to stupid levels
Like it has been said this is a game, you will die in this game, suck it up and respawn and if what you were doing got you killed then dont do it again or at least take some counter measures *cough* stoprunningsolomorons *cough* |
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
1983
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 20:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Crash Monster wrote:Dunk Mujunk wrote:WASHINGTON GÇö The U.S. military's Abrams tank, designed during the Cold War to withstand the fiercest blows from the best Soviet tanks, is getting knocked out at surprising rates by the low-tech bombs and rocket-propelled grenades of Iraqi insurgents.
Oh man, Chase, you gotta be getting full. You have eaten a hell of a lot of your words over the past 30 minutes or so. In game, a single suit should not equal a tank. I know many want that to be "in balance" but a tank <> a suit. From the web... the M1A1/A2 tank is the most advance piece of steel we have in Iraq; it has been disabled by knocking tracks with RPGs, but I have not heard of a single incident where a single RPG shot has destroyed an M1A1, I've heard (and seen) a few M1s being damaged by RPGs, hell, I've even seen an M1 being launched in the air by a daisy-chained IED on a road, but the tank managed to drive on and the crew survived, despite a massive case of ringing in the ears and bruises galore from being bounced around inside this M1, but an RPG-7D (currently used RPG rocket launcher in Iraq) cannot by itself defeat the composite (Chobham/Burlington) armor on an M1 tank; some of the newer RPGs being smuggled into Iraq through Iran have penetrated the sideskirt armor of the M1 and partially penetrated the turret armor, but not enough to disable the tank or kill the crew.
In Desert Storm, we had 18 M1A1 tanks disabled by not only enemy fire, but also by fractricide.
During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoiless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. Unfortunately, the tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick was fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Ironically the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior. (took a lot of ammo to destroy this M1)
On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was badly damaged and its driver killed from shrapnel wounds when an extremely powerful improvised explosive device (IED) consisting of three M109A6 155 mm shells with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg detonated next to the tank. The other three crew members were able to escape.
On December 25, 2005 another M1A2 was disabled by a roadside bomb that left the tank burning near central Baghdad, Crew member, Spc. Sergio Gudino, died in the attack.
On June 4, 2006 two out of four soldiers died in Baghdad, Iraq, when an IED detonated near their M1A2.
Some were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. This damage usually corresponds to the tracks of the Abrams. Another one was put out of action when heavy machine gun rounds struck fuel stowed in an external rack, starting a fire that spread to the engine.
So, in short; you could disable an M1 tank with an RPG-7 round, but you will NEVER destroy one by just using an RPG-7 alone.Edit: A tank site dealing with this topic. It doesn't resolve the debate either but it's interesting.
I wonder why they always choose to use the RPG 7 as their anti vehicle weapon when making these comparisons
Hell you bump it up to the RPG 29 developed in the 80s and you have a weapon that will penetrate the armor and kill the crew even if it doesnt leave the Abrams a smoking wreck, and thats not even something modern like the RPG 32 |