Maxximus Meridious
The Exemplars
Top Men.
0
   |
Posted - 2013.12.05 19:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
taxi bastard wrote: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.
While I understand the point that you are trying to make in regards to this thread, British tanks during the Iraqi conflict had a fewer 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...
|
Maxximus Meridious
The Exemplars
Top Men.
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 22:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Anmol Singh wrote:Maxximus Meridious wrote:taxi bastard wrote: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.
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... Also, many modern tanks had ied detection systems and here is a video of what happen when an ied does hit a tank... (good tank) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q6BHfKzH-Qhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVJqBSr_FEshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQQff8TnYiU
Actually, they are still equipped with countermeasures, among other things.
To the poster with the youtube link showing "destroyed" M1A2's- nearly all of those in your link are not destroyed, but merely incapacitated, i.e missing treads. I've never seen a tank roaming around by itself, as they are usually deployed as a platoon or larger element, so there's that. Modern armor is designed with two purposes in mind- mission completion and crew survivability. I would say that based on the damage shown in that video/propaganda clip that most crews walked away alive.
In regards to game mechanics, there really isn't much that is realistic to begin with, so applying real world characteristics is futile. |