1-3 depending on the tank.

I know it only takes one to kill either of my tanks.

Just for reference, RL tanks can be soloed, in any time period. Not saying it's easy or common, and I am in no way taking sides in the actual discussion. Just saying.

Couple 155 rounds daisy chained together under a road surface says otherwise. Most tanks have very little armor on the bottom, that is why the US has stopped using them in favor of the MRAP. Really all flat bottom vehicles are a no go if the enemy is suspected of using IEDs. Weapons evolve to kill defenses and defenses evolve to counter weapons. Vicious cycle war is.

It depends on your definition of destroyed. For me (in any sense, not just in game) destroyed means it cannot fight. Of course a tank cannot be reduced to rubble by a single infantryman in the way that a jet is reduced to rubble by smashing into the ground.

At the same time the 4 supposed top tanks today (USA-M1 Abrams England-Challanger II, Germany-Leopard II, France-Leclair) have not faced an advanced military yet. I would imagine those 4 countries have a 1 shot kill infantry operated anti-tank system.

There are pictures on the internet of destroyed Abrams (though i'm sure most weren't soloed). It's tough to get exact info as well, seeing as how the military is tight lipped about what kills its stuff.

Also, the Abrams has a modular design, so something is always salvagable, making it harder to declare an entire tank destroyed.

I will say what is probably a big part of why many tanks now a days seem so untouchable (in RL) is tactics. Unless it's an all out tank vs tank battle out in the open (such as 73 Easting, the last such battle to my knowledge), you will always see heavy infantry support around tanks. To this day, a tank in a city environment, even with infantry support, does not generally have the advantage. The defender (being infantry) would theoretically have the advantage in that scenario.

I would like to see the power of tanks somewhat dictated by teamwork with infantry, but thats a lot to ask. I really don't know where the balance for Dust truely lies. Ever since the swarm buff i barely touch AV, cause almost everyone is better at it than me (absolutely 0 SP into AV. Well, I do have AV nades, but I don't run them), and the extent of my vehicle knowledge is my BPO Saga used for disposable transportation. I do think vehicles should have counter measures.

One more thing I usually forget on this topic until way later. I could honestly buy into an overall boost to how powerful tanks are when I think about the fact they still need to introduce the mech things, the apc things, and the other aircraft, one of which I would imagine would have to be a bomber.

If someone can solo a tank right now, who the **** would want to use a mech, which would have to have less shields and armor. And if we can solo a tank now with what we have, whats the point in wasting SP on something like a bomber?

Tricky stuff man.

Yea, most HAV users are too arrogent to even call themselves HAVers, preferring the term 'tanker.' We all tanks, Heavies moreso than Scouts. They drive HAVs. If the HAV boosts the single player too much with no obvious weaknesses then it will be a bane on the game. Why use suits when vehicles are just better in all areas, that sort of thing.

There's a reason mechs don't tend to exist in real life, and that's because of how non-effective they are in combat. Too easy to damage a leg and render the whole thing a sitting duck :c