HEAT rounds caused a revolution in anti-tank warfare when they were first introduced in the later stages of World War II. A single infantryman could effectively destroy any existing tank with a handheld weapon, thereby dramatically altering the nature of mobile operations. After the war HEAT became almost universal as the primary anti-tank weapon. HEAT rounds of varying effectiveness were produced for almost all weapons from infantry weapons like rifle grenades and the M203 grenade launcher, to larger dedicated anti-tank systems like the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. When combined with the wire-guided missile, infantry weapons were able to operate in the long-range role as well. Anti-tank missiles altered the nature of tank warfare throughout the 1960s and into the 80s, and remain an effective system today.

Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you...

Tanks in real-
-take multiple hits of RPG's
-Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology
-have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto
-kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell
-They practically have auto aim
-have a 5 man highly trained crew

Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving...

Are you familiar with the sea wiz anti-missile system?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0Dh6qJ3RE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I am quite certain that if America was in combat with enemies capable of manufacturing and deploying the kind of tech you are talking about (such as the javelin) then you would very quickly begin to see miniature version of the sea wiz being mounted to every American tank, if there isn't already a top secret project with tanks that are fitted so.

This real life talk opens me up for some cool ideas.
Role for the logi drop ship.

If a tank gets its hp reduced to zero, it gets disabled and enters a self destruct. If a logi ship reaches it within one minute and uses a module on it, it can be revived. A vehicle version of the nanotechnology injector, if you will.

This will not work if the AV continues to kick it while it's down.

Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you...

Tanks in real-
-take multiple hits of RPG's
-Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology
-have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto
-kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell
-They practically have auto aim
-have a 5 man highly trained crew

Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving...

Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you...

Tanks in real-
-take multiple hits of RPG's
-Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology
-have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto
-kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell
-They practically have auto aim
-have a 5 man highly trained crew

Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving...

Tanks cost WAY more than the weapons you need to destroy them (just like in Dust) and you can attach as many defense systems as you want, destruction power wins (just like in Dust)

It's was, is and will be harder to protect something, than to destroy it.

@lol at the IED, challenger blown up by cheap c4, wired by an civilian electrician

Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you...

Tanks in real-
-take multiple hits of RPG's
-Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology
-have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto
-kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell
-They practically have auto aim
-have a 5 man highly trained crew

Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving...

lots of anti tank weapons out there

old style RPG's may not take out a tank with one shot - the challenger 2 MBT has debatably the best protection out of all current MBT.

here is a little extract for you about it in service

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was at the time unprotected by "Dorchester" armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[15] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.

surviving and being operational are 2 different things though. the tanks were disabled so for dust purposes destroyed.

the other factor not taken into account was that these are vintage RPG and the Milan anti tank missile is from the 70's vs the latest armour in the best protected tank out there. modern AT missiles would make a lot easier work of the challenger 2.

tanks are not immortal, simple things such as an IED can effectively take out a tank for all operational purposes. AT vs tank of the same generation there really is not too much in it.

tank should be god mode........if your fighting mercs with rifles.
tanks should be vulnerable to mercs with AV and mines. if you think they should be able to stay around while getting attacked by AV then imo your wrong.

Tanks in real-
Get owned by 1 JAvelin Missile.
Get owned by 1 or 2 mines.


anything else?

Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you...

Tanks in real-
-take multiple hits of RPG's
-Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology
-have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto
-kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell
-They practically have auto aim
-have a 5 man highly trained crew

Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving...

Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you...

Tanks in real-
-take multiple hits of RPG's
-Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology
-have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto
-kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell
-They practically have auto aim
-have a 5 man highly trained crew

Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving...

While I understand the point that you are trying to make in regards to this thread, British tanks during the Iraqi conflict had a lower casualty rate than their Abrams counterparts due in large part of their deployment in only ONE city in the whole of Iraq, whereas Abrams were tasked with patrol and operations in the rest of the countryside. The casualty rate would have been far greater had they moved north to join their armored counterparts in Fallujah/Ramadi/Eastern Baghdad.

That said, I would much rather take an RPG shot or two behind the reactive armor of an Abrams, then the more effective shape charge IED, which attacks the underside between the treads, especially since most insurgents have notoriously bad aim...

In real warfare there would be a tank killing aircraft ready to blow it up with a Hellfire or worse. And it only takes one hit from an RPG to cause it to be immobilized. IEDs and other heavy mines also level the playing field.

what does this have to do with balance in a videogame?

Using real life examples to gain leverage in an argument about balancing game mechanics leads to convenient bias. If you want realism, go play Red Orchestra.

Using real life examples to gain leverage in an argument about balancing game mechanics leads to convenient bias. If you want realism, go play Red Orchestra.

tanks in real snipe from 2-3 miles away having more accuracy than a sniper rifle OHKO anything within 10 m of the shell it landed ( most likely the shell will hit you in the face directly because technology has allowed tanks to have unbelivable accruacy and the turrets auto aim (kind of)) they can see targets in the dark, in bad weather and they can tack them.... so what if it goes down to one javilin (probably not) Tanks have anti missile systems that destroy missiles coming at them and many tracking systems to help figure out from where the missile is coming from before it even hits the vehicle. And from 2 miles away, plenty of time to do this stuff. Do you really want tanks that can OHKO any dropsuit from miles away (practically invisible tank if it came with camo) Do you really want tanks that never miss? exactly... htfu