Firing to tanks side/rear

[tneva82]

One problem I have with BF:evo rules is that the penalty for letting your tank be hit on side is too small. If anything modern tanks are MORE heavily armoured in front proportionally than say in WW2(I'm fairly sure this is right). And it makes sense concidering distance tanks engage is longer...Less need for side protection.

So what does it do? It's armour save gets reduced...That's it. With high armour save modifier on main tank killers anyway effect is very small. But in reality effect would be much more profound. Tank shot hitting side armour is VERY bad news for victim.

Maybe Mongoose should have gone for reduction to target and kill score instead? Generic -1(or even -2) or even better variable depending on wether it's side or rear(maybe unit specific. Isn't Abrams notoriously well known for it's weak rear armour?).

Just a thought.

EDIT: It would also encourage combined arms method as tanks would really need that infantry in urban enviroment etc to ensure no sneaky infantry reaches your side...That D10 from RPG might not worry too much M1A2 abrams normally! But get +2 from shooting to rear and things get "bit" different...

Somehow that sounds realistic as well

 

[Mr Evil]

i agree here actualy, the M1A2 can be dissabled from close range fire arms hiting the engine area i think attacks from the rear should be at +2 to kill and hit and side at +1 to hit only

on armour units only, iFv's tend to be equaly protected all round with engine up front.

As an intersting note its impossabel to destroy a M1A2 as its always recoded as disabled apparently acording to my mate on a US base working as an engineer. from a wheel beyond felid repair to the turret popoing of its always classified as disabled, as long as 1 part is reusable of course evan if its a door handle.

 

[tneva82]

on armour units only, iFv's tend to be equaly protected all round with engine up front.

Well the good thing with this is that the difference is essentially noted in unit datasheets. It's not universal rule in rulesheet. So if unit type like IFV is all around well protected no problem!

As an intersting note its impossabel to destroy a M1A2

How then did US army manage to destroy one of their own M1A2?-)

It's not impossible. It just takes bloody good gun. In Iraq they faced very old Russian type. Likely their cheapest one. Possibly without advanced ammunition.

I would assume Mongoose has done some studies so if they have rated Challenger II as tougher then I assume it has some reality base and Challenger II has been destroyed by...tadaa! Another Challenger II.

 

[Mr Evil]

point is small arms from close range can dissable a tank from the rear.

maybe have a rule that infantry from 6" and under get a +2 to target and hit rolls if attacking armour from the rear, while +1 to hit only from the side, again from 6" and under center point to center point.

as a fun rule put in any mkisses are applied to the shooting unit for the purposes of supressing to represnet them hitting the ground from ammo rebounds of the armour.

bit romantic vision i know but fun.

 

[tneva82]

point is small arms from close range can dissable a tank from the rear.

ALL weapons benefit massively from being in side/rear. It's not just small arms.

Tanks are in some serious trouble if they run into ambush with ATGM missiles at side...Front armour can withstand those buggers but side armour are much weaker. And rear more so.

And tank main gun hitting rear would be just plain brutal.

 

[emperorpenguin]

As an intersting note its impossabel to destroy a M1A2 as its always recoded as disabled apparently acording to my mate on a US base working as an engineer.

Aha I understand the US army logic now explains how the US army is never defeated because Vietnam was draw? :wink: :lol:

Actually reminds me of Orks in 40K, they never get beaten, if you kill them that doesn't count because they're dead then.....

 

[BuShips]

You are forgetting something. The new Mongoose Abrams has the TUSK reactive armor defense. Although that doesn't cover the tracks from getting whacked, it can explain an upgraded side protection. Wait until Mongoose adds the Trophy system to the rules... :wink:

 

[Paladin]

Consider the Target staying the same as the weaker armor being offset by the target area being almost doubled in size and easier to hit.

 

[Mr Evil]

Trophy system ?

 

[tneva82]

You are forgetting something. The new Mongoose Abrams have the TUSK reactive armor defense. Although that doesn't cover the tracks from getting whacked, it can explain an upgraded side protection. Wait until Mongoose adds the Trophy system to the rules... :wink:

It's not just abrams but ALL tanks...And I seriously doubt that the TUSK would make them so much more resilient against say main gun of any tanks as current rules make. As it is the difference between do you shoot at the front of main is pretty minimal.

This is first game(computer or minimal) where getting hit to side or rear doesn't REALLY bad. And I think that's one area for improvement.

As it is I doubt players are going to be overly worried wether his tank is pointing toward infantry or not. He'll just keep on firing rather.

 

[Chiwie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jzAupr044

 

[tneva82]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jzAupr044

Not bad. So another system for weapons to defeat.

Noticed it stated injury probability less than 1% so it's not bullet proof so sooner or later(likely sooner) ways to get around that will be found.

 

[Captain_Nemo]

Noticed it stated injury probability less than 1% so it's not bullet proof so sooner or later(likely sooner) ways to get around that will be found.

Tneva82 you seem to have hit it right on the head.

I was reading the commentary section to that video and besides all the comments about "Death to Israeli Zionazis and the US", already their are people pointing out that the system would have trouble with overload.

Like a rapid firing system or just throwing grenades and stuff at it until Trophy ran out of ammo, since it looked like it used some kind of "shotgun effect" to defeat incoming munitions, like an advanced form of Reaction Armor.

Zionazis???? Man, I learned a new bad word today

 

[Daddy Dragon]

i agree here actualy, the M1A2 can be dissabled from close range fire arms hiting the engine area i think attacks from the rear should be at +2 to kill and hit and side at +1 to hit only

on armour units only, iFv's tend to be equaly protected all round with engine up front.

As an intersting note its impossabel to destroy a M1A2 as its always recoded as disabled apparently acording to my mate on a US base working as an engineer. from a wheel beyond felid repair to the turret popoing of its always classified as disabled, as long as 1 part is reusable of course evan if its a door handle.

/rant on

I don't know if its because your so abrasively biased, or because I have to claw my eyes out to read through your posts (which often contain some elements of useful/quality commentary), or because you attempt to speak from the authoritative position of the arm chair expert, but I've about had enough of the drubbing you hand out to the M1.

When you match up the M1A2, Challenger 2, Merkava Mk4, Leopard 2 and even the Le Clerc, they are all exceptional examples of western heavy armor theory realized. There really is no one of them that is substantially better than the other, mainly due to the cross pollination of the technology between the various NATO members. I give credit and all due respect to anyone who crawls inside one of these steel behemoths and drives into battle to put steel (or depleted uranium) on targets. And I expect that the next time you run your fingers off at the mouth about which one is better, that you take a more respectful tone.

As previously mentioned, there is not a tank in existence today that isn't vulnerable to something. To categorize the M1 as being vulnerable to small arms fire from the rear is ignoring that that is a vulnerability shared by the Challenger 2, Leopard 2 and Le Clerc. There is always someone luckier than he deserves to be. But getting close enough and lucky enough is not something that can be done consistently, I assure you. Cause when you mess with the bull, you will end up getting the horns.

Additionally, every army has various categories that are applied to damaged military hardware. A tank can be mobility killed, and though it can't move, it can still kill. The severity goes up from there. But NO military operating main battle tanks is going to waste that vehicle just because they have to scrape the crews remains out of it, patch it, throw some paint on it and roll it back out into the fight. Any vehicle that can be restored to combat capability was only ever disabled. /rant off

I know and fully understand rooting for the home team, and I support patriotism toward one's own nation and the support of their soldiers. But we're allies, and we are all supposedly fighting for the common good of all of our citizens. The constant denigrating comments are just starting to set me off.

Now, with regards to the Trophy system. That's just bad ass. One step closer to Hammer's Slammers!

Regards,
Larry

 

[Paladin]

Trophy system ?

The IDF are coming. I expect this system to be in place on their tanks when they arrive or I will be sadly disappointed.

 

[Paladin]

Noticed it stated injury probability less than 1% so it's not bullet proof so sooner or later(likely sooner) ways to get around that will be found.

I'd don't buy that 1% propganda statistic. The major problem is the danger it exposes your own friendly troops to from the unit itself and the incoming shot. Say your infantry is supporting the tank and moving down the road with it when some twit fires an RPG and the Trophy deploys it's chaff/pellet spray your ground pounders are going to get pelted with shrapnel and debris from the incoming missile. Your multi-million dollar tank is alive, but some family just lost a loved one they can't replace. Sure the Trophy system may only hit friendly troops 1% of the time, but what about the effects of that Hellfire missile that just blew up in the face of the infantry?

 

[tneva82]

I'd don't buy that 1% propganda statistic.

1%, more. Point is even the propaganda movie revealed it's not bullet proof system...

Which means that it's just matter of time before way to get past that is devised. Humans are geniouses in developing new ways to make war(thankfully incentive to FIGHT war has been somewhat lessened since WW2!!!).

"Ultimate weapon" has been declared many times Heck 1973 experts were sure tanks were at the end of their time when effectivity of ATGM was revealed.

Trophy will be nice protection for some time but sooner or later somebody figures out way to make killshot through that.

 

[Mr Evil]

or to set the trophy of in a way that reneders it useless from there on.

 

[cordas]

Infantry should be able to kill a tank if they get up close and personal, they can do horrible things like poor petrol into the engine compartment, or down exhaust pipes, they can wedge explosives under the turret ring, or try and break into the turret and kill the crew, as well as the aforementioned shooting into the engine and stuff.

The real question is are they desperate enough to try, and can the tank crews do enough to stop them if they are. There is currently no moral or motivation score in BF: Evo so making it a moral roll isn't possible, but we are talking about trained professional armies in 3 cases and fanatical forces in the 4th so they should be just as capable of following the order assault that tank as they are to assault that defended fortified building.

I would suggest giving infantry a D6+D10 when assaulting tanks, maybe with a ready action needed before they launch the assault (summoning the nerve and preparing molotov cocktails, making sure they have the needed explosives to wreck the turret ring e.t.c.) or instead of the infantry needing a ready action allow the vehicle to react before the attacks come in (ala assaulting in cover)

Afterall at the moment it horrible playing the ETFT or USMC and loosing your tank and having to forfeit the game as the enemy PLA has kept its infantry hidden so is miles from its break point.

 

[Paladin]

Afterall at the moment it horrible playing the ETFT or USMC and loosing your tank and having to forfeit the game as the enemy PLA has kept its infantry hidden so is miles from its break point.

No offense, but if you lose your Challenger II against PLA's tanks that easily you are probably doing something wrong.