plus they never said anything about rpgs.

if there is one thing i hate more than cod its a unconstructive post and ive yet to see one like the one im about to reveal. the wars between avers and tankers needs to stop.

others feel free to leave comments and thoughts about this but please, dont act like a 8 year old and argue. this game needs balance, not brainless chimps throwing **** at eachother. and im a aver too so dont even try to critisize me.

First Paragraph of said article-

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.

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"

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.

I agree with you 100%, especially the last part. But it has to go both ways. I simply cannot accept any Tank arguments when Tanks flat out refuse to work with anyone else. A Tank with 2-4 (good) infantry supporting it on foot should be nearly unstoppable. A lone tank should be at the mercy of whatever AV is focused on it (to an extent of course).

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"

Yes, if it's mods are down it is vulnerable. Also, without support it will be getting hit with impunity. A tank should be able to make a reasonable retreat before it's mods give out when only one guy is bombarding it.

The tank is not a threat when it is having to roll out and is vulnerable. The new tank changes are pretty much going to be that. Tanks will be momentarily invulnerable and only with the skills and mods then they have to roll out for a longer period of time to recoup.

A solo AVer should have to work for their kill. Tuck in at a prime point they know the tank is going to be headed while it's down.

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*

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.

80, out of 1100, check that kdr out..... i think thats the point

you brought real life scenarios in with you 1st post, then attempt to prove you point by posting that link, which again, says 80 out of 1100 had to get sent home, (dust scenario, they went boom!) and again, 80 out of 1100 isnt many is it......

here read it again

"But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States"

"The casualties are the lowest in any Army vehicles, despite how often the Abrams is targeted GÇö about 70% of the more than 1,100 tanks used in Iraq have been struck by enemy fire, mostly with minor damage."

minor damage (dust scenario (taking my shields to 10, still got amour left))

why the **** your comparing video games to real life is beyond me though

i have both av prof v ccp buff tanks lol dunno what ur talking about op no aver honestly want vehicles nerfed more

if there is one thing i hate more than cod its a unconstructive post and ive yet to see one like the one im about to reveal. the wars between avers and tankers needs to stop. avers want tankers easy to blow up and not worth speccing into. this means for you avers, if you get a buff and tanks get a nerf, you wont have anything to kill with them proto swarm or lai dai grenade. tankers, if we didnt have demented avers suiciding in our red line trying to kill us and keep us under locks, than infantry would be scarce and we wouldnt have anything to kill. if either gets nerfed to the ground it means we are screwed. nobody seems to see this but me.


as for my opinion of balance, wp should be given for every thousand damage you do to tanks but not devastate tanks and blow them to bits. its not right that a guy running solo grenades that cost 10k and a swarm at 50k can blow up a 2 mill tank so you really need to consider balancing av too. we already lose plenty when we face other tankers. i really hope ccp takes this into account with 1.6 pretty soon(tm), but we need proto tanks back if we are going against this becouse this is just sad. ccp you shoulda nerfed the blaster turret instead of the tank if it was that big a deal. if you get 1.6 wrong ccp, i fear most for you. you already lost most of your good tankers. now everyone has av and tanking is a dying art.

others feel free to leave comments and thoughts about this but please, dont act like a 8 year old and argue. this game needs balance, not brainless chimps throwing **** at eachother. and im a aver too so dont even try to critisize me.

I'm sorry but I don't think tanks are gonna make "tankers" happy . . . . . . . . .
Not after the rework, it sounds like tanks are gonna be restricted to their engagement time!
Ammo is gonna be a big deal, it will limit them serverly, a new breed of vehicle users will rise, they always do, but tanks aren't going to be what you hope for!

Sorry!

1: From how the title sounded, and how you typed this up, you're neither AV nor Pilot, so why are you even talking?

2: WP awards for hitting vehicles up to a cap would make it perfect for them. Hit us until we run, keep on doing it, so if you're awarded, you still feel good for scaring it away, rather than killing it.

3: That's the whole premise of our argument: Even though I spent hours doing math on several fits trying to find the best fit possible, and spending months trying to perfect my skill, you just want to pull out a PROTO swarm and solo me in under 5 seconds. **** that, teamwork required. An HAV, a group of AV, EWAR, or a mix of the three should be required to either take me out of kill me.

I'm sorry but I don't think tanks are gonna make "tankers" happy . . . . . . . . .
Not after the rework, it sounds like tanks are gonna be restricted to their engagement time!
Ammo is gonna be a big deal, it will limit them serverly, a new breed of vehicle users will rise, they always do, but tanks aren't going to be what you hope for!

Sorry!

As long as it is a change and not q complete nerf, the good tankers will remain the best, because we've stayed around long enough to learn flexibility.

Also, tanks are already ruled by a 10-60 second engagement time.

1: From how the title sounded, and how you typed this up, you're neither AV nor Pilot, so why are you even talking?

2: WP awards for hitting vehicles up to a cap would make it perfect for them. Hit us until we run, keep on doing it, so if you're awarded, you still feel good for scaring it away, rather than killing it.

3: That's the whole premise of our argument: Even though I spent hours doing math on several fits trying to find the best fit possible, and spending months trying to perfect my skill, you just want to pull out a PROTO swarm and solo me in under 5 seconds. **** that, teamwork required. An HAV, a group of AV, EWAR, or a mix of the three should be required to either take me out of kill me.

As long as it is a change and not q complete nerf, the good tankers will remain the best, because we've stayed around long enough to learn flexibility.

Also, tanks are already ruled by a 10-60 second engagement time.

2 fine no problem their.
But humour me this, why should it require a team of people to take down a tank? Is a tank worth more than 1 person?
Tanks are meant to be force multipliers, not 1 man/vehicle armies!

10men = 10men
10men > 10 tank
10men < 9men + 1 tank

Think about that, you make your infantry stronger, you do not act like a hero unit in risk!

if you pull a tank, one tank is going to die. thats a fact. so why not be a man and show him which tanker is better? usually tank battles only last 1 minute. or if you so weak and pitiful, why not pull 2 tankers? it goes on like this in pc matches till someone gives or goes broke.

or even better, go anti-tank tanking. pull a rail if its a open map or missile if its closed. those battles are EPIC