|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wolf Ritter vonKaldari
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
97
   |
Posted - 2012.09.11 14:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
q00t wrote:In conventional terms, tanks should be scared ****less of air power, at the moment they're not because it only takes one guy with a swarm launcher to scare the air power off.
Why? The dropship is the equivalent of a transport helicopter with two door gunners, not the Dust analogue of an attack helicopter. |
Wolf Ritter vonKaldari
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 20:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
q00t wrote:your reading 'dropship' too literally; read Skihids' post for essentially what was meant:
He's arguing via realism, by the same measure I could argue that another tank or av weapon of equal weapon should one shot a tank, because the silver bullet, the disposable AT rocket, and the man-portable ATGM are also the, to follow his metaphor, "natural predators of the tank". |
Wolf Ritter vonKaldari
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 23:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thor Thunder Fist wrote:and just think about what your saying for a minute if there was an uber downside that would let an infantry men kill a tank why would tanks have been invented?
In World War I the German Empire developed the Patrone SmK Kurz 7.92mm for the Gewehr 98 which could penetrate up to 12-13mm of armor at 100m, the British Mk I-Mk III tanks had 12mm of armor. In June 1917 the UK came out with the Mk IV which rendered it useless by using a better steel but still keeping 12mm thickness, the Germans responded a year later with the Mauser 1918 and it's 13.2mm Tank und Flieger which could penetrate 22mm of the higher grade steel at 91m and 19mm at 500m.
In WW2 the very first of the Panzerfaust, Faustpatrone, could penetrate up to 140mm of RHA and was available in 1942. The earliest US and Soviet tanks to be able to laugh off a direct hit to the front glacis plate (the most heavily armored part) were the M60 Patton that was made in 1960 and the T-64 in '63. The Germans also had by 1944 the Panzerfaust 60, which could penetrate up to 220mm of armor. The Soviets being ahead of us in armor schemes up until recently were able to beat it with the T-64, we didn't have one until 1979 when we made the Abrams.
And this has always been the case throughout human history, offensive abilities always outpace defensive ones. So, yes, whilst the tank has been the fear of the infantryman, that is only because it is impractical for a sufficient number of troops to be equipped with the latest of anti-tank weaponry, the ones that were equipped with the latest in anti-tank weapons, however, were capable of destroying tanks with hilarious ease such that even an RPG-7 with a PG-7VT tandem warhead was capable of crippling the most heavily armored tank in the world with a single shot as was such when in 2003 Iraqi insurgents knocked out an Abrams by hitting it in a left-side rear panel and a man portable Metis-M ATGM can penetrate the armor of an Abrams from any angle. |
Wolf Ritter vonKaldari
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 17:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Saying you can blow up an Abrams with an RPG-7 is just asinine. A well placed hit will disrupt the treads. That's quite a bit less impressive than actually destroying such a monster..
The instance in 2003 did not cause the tank to throw a track, as I said it was a shot to the rear side of the tank which hit a fuel compartment which proceeded to flood the engine.
Thor Thunder Fist wrote:unless I am mistaken(which I might be I wasn't there) 1 person didn't shoot an RPG at a tank it was a squad of people ambushing said tank. another thing I'm also betting that they didn't shoot their AR's at the tank then wonder why it turned around and killed them -.-
You are mistaken, you're thinking of different incidents (probably one where the open hatch directed fragments into the crew compartment) involving standard PG-7V and PG-7VL warhead which an Abrams can take all day, the incident I'm speaking of involved the use of a much more advanced PG-7VR tandem warhead.
Sparten 269 wrote:Oh yeah, forgot we were talking about old and modern tanks not futuristic supertanks!
Oh yeah, I forgot the denizens of New Eden are blithering ******* retards whose weapons don't utilize the more advance manufacturing processes, chemical and material advances, or handwavium that the tanks do. How silly of me to assume EVE and Dust had a consistent background. I mean it's not as if you could have AT missiles with shield projectors of their own with their shields geometrically orientated specifically to bypass shields and penetrate armor. That'd make too much sense. |
|
|
| |
|