Vehicles and Choke Points (objectives)

(senator) #41

[quote=]UBC[ McNite]lol u got an idea about the recoil of 30mm cartridges? In WWI they were using 20mm single shot guns against tanks, but only few soldiers dared to use them due to the danger of breaking your shoulder :lol:
U can do a lot with good recoil brakes but i doubt that any infantry based gun you can actually carry will ever get the penetration energy needed for heavy armour.
[/quote]

The average recoil of the GAU-8 Avenger is 45 kN, probably enough to shoot you straight across the map if you try to use it, but all you need is some counterweight beeing shot into the opposite direction to compensate, so gluing together two GAUs with one shooting backwards would negate any recoil… but might cause some Friendly Fire incidents :wink:

(AKA Sneaky) #42

Ok, this is just a game. And the problem is that you shouldn’t be advantaged in a vehicle against anyone on foot, but rather have a different experience/play than regular foot soldier, which should be fun. Vehicles should be just as vulnerable as anything else, or everyone is gonna wait for one in the base instead of playing. I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘‘but in real life vehicles rule the battlefield’’. Well, this is a game to have fun not replicate real life situation, not to mention it’s an action game mixed from quake and wolfenstein.

(Vengeance) #43

I tottaly agree.

(Flesh) #44

All I was trying to say is that devs should figure out a more logical, intuitive, way of destroying vehicles/tanks, since ppl are used to the fact that nowdays you CANNOT destroy a tank simply by shooting it with a portable, small calibar Machine Gun (not an anti-tank rifle, or minigun filled with depleated uranium nuclear warhead rounds with extra peanut butter but a simple machine gun). Therefore to destroy tanks (heavely armored vehicles) you should have grenades or some other antitank weaponery that all classes could use or whatever, the point is that such a solution would have made much more sense than just shooting an mg at the tank.

And btw if 60 years in the future a simple mg could somehow destroy a tank I can only imagine what would it do to normal infantry and buildings.

Edit: typo

(I3LiP) #45

So in 60 years time we have standard assault rifles that have tank killing bullets as standard…

Is it just me or is everyone forgetting the fact that the armour plating on tanks would also be improved upon?

(senator) #46

First, nobody (except the developers and the Alpha testers) knows for sure whether the standard assault rifle is still able to penetrate tank armor, it was the case in the Alpha version shown at E3 and GC, but it might have changed.

Second, whatever it’s current state, the decision of what impact rifle bullets will have on armored vehicles was taken based on consideration of how to improve gameplay, not on how to make this a better ‘future warfare simulator’

If you want a more likely Earth vs Strogg-attack simulation imagine this: Strogg arrive on planet Earth, Strogg annihilate Earth, the End. Fun?

(Vengeance) #47

i personally dont care anything about realism. all i care about is playing a fun teambased multiplayer game and having a lot of fun completing the objectives with the team. I know i would have a lot more fun knowing that everyone has the ability to damage everything and i certainly enjoy the notion of being that annoying little moth that is driving the vehicle driver insane.

Beside its easily countered, i mean this game is all about support and backing your team up to push forward, so if the vehicles are covered with good infantry support, then the vehicles can focus on their main target other vehicles.

(Zarkow) #48

There are no ‘sniper rifles’ that can take out any modern battle tanks of modern type.

(Desoxy) #49

Say, did you even see my post? :roll:

(senator) #50

There are no ‘sniper rifles’ that can take out any modern battle tanks of modern type.[/quote]

Oh, is that so? :twisted:

70mm penetration, enough to knock out even modern AFV/IFV/APCs, enough to damage any exterior tank sensory (thereby disabling the tank itself), even enough, if aimed at a weak spot (the mantle between the turret and the hull of a tank), to penetrate a MBTs armor.

You will have little luck against M1A2s, Leopard IIA6s or T-90s, but not every tank in the world is one of those, there are still many many T-55’s, T-72’s and who knows what driving around today :wink:

So much for my military lesson for today

(SCDS_reyalP) #51

But everyone knows that modern soldiers get around the battlefield by strafe jumping, and shock paddles are the cure-all for bullet wounds, right ? Marines get over high obstacles by pointing their rocket launcher at the ground, and jumping right before they shoot :lol: Oh, and aliens drop out of the sky with ray guns all the time!

It’s a GAME. A Quake game, no less. Realistically balanced armor would make a terrible game. Even in BF2, (which leans a bit more to realism than I suspect ET:QW does) the tanks are grossly underpowered. They take a somewhat realistic number of hits (3-4 shots with an RPG unless you get the weak spots), but the weapons are horribly underpowered compared to their real world counterparts. In the real world, things like cars and buildings don’t provide effective cover against machine gun rounds, never mind the main gun.

(Zarkow) #52

There are no ‘sniper rifles’ that can take out any modern battle tanks of modern type.[/quote]

Oh, is that so? :twisted:

70mm penetration, enough to knock out even modern AFV/IFV/APCs, enough to damage any exterior tank sensory (thereby disabling the tank itself), even enough, if aimed at a weak spot (the mantle between the turret and the hull of a tank), to penetrate a MBTs armor.

You will have little luck against M1A2s, Leopard IIA6s or T-90s, but not every tank in the world is one of those, there are still many many T-55’s, T-72’s and who knows what driving around today :wink:

So much for my military lesson for today[/quote]

Don’t tell me your a swede, or I will have to be ashamed…

No, the AG90 (Barret M82A1) cannot take out a MBT. Not even close.
You claim 70mm of penetration (no, it cannot, but let’s disregard that for a second) - a Main battle tanks turret has 800mm of armour in the front.

So even your 70mm is a chink in the armour - not anything that damages it. At best your can hope to damage a prisma, rendering targeting and spotting harder - but you cannot take out a MBT with it!

Again, no, it cannot penetrate a MBTs armour. Anyone that told you that should be dragged out into the forrest and shot.

With an AG90.

(Nail) #53

I prefer the McMillan Brothers TAC 50, a far superior weapon, and the only way to stop a MBT with one, is shoot the driver when he’s exposed.

but even now, there’s far too few Bradleys and LAV 25s with armor that will stop 14.5 mm rounds, a lot of early production LAVs won’t stop 7.62 AP shells

(senator) #54

Duh! A MBT does NOT have 800mm of armor, or a single MBT would weight 700t and would be immobile. A modern MBT will reach a protection equivalent of up to 800mm of steel against HEAT projectiles because of its composite and/or reactive armor, but an APFSDS or any other solid shot does obviously not contain a HEAT projectile. Therefore your 800mm is out of the window. A MBTs armor varries from model to model, but will average between 40mm (top)-150mm (front)

A modern IFV like the british Warrior or the US Bradleys armor is at about 30-50mm, and the new Strykes have only a thin 14.5mm of armor, therefore can be penetrated.

A MBT is something different, but as I said, destroy its external sensors and you can basically render a MBT blind and disable it. And even somewhat modern MBTs have their weak spots, like for example the mantle directly between the turret and the hull or the top armor, which is usually thin enough to be penetrated again.

Is a sniper rifle the designated anti-vehicle device of our time? Obviously not, or there would have been no need to develop the standart 120mm tank gun or AT missiles, but to state that modern AFVs are impervious against rifle bullets ist just as ignorant.

(ayatollah) #55

This is all very interesting, but completely irrlevent. The game is partially based on reality but it is Sci-Fi. As in fiction, therefore if I wanted to make a game with a fart gun, where when shot anyone in the blast radius without a gas mask dies, I could do it. If I want to make a game with SMG’s with bullets that penetrate 3 miles of solid steel, I could do it.

Lets not get bogged down with the shitness of reality.

(]UBC[ McNite) #56

Good luck with trying to blind a MBT on the move by shooting at its sensors :lol:

Back to the single shot flamethrower… was that kind of weapon too cruel? :stuck_out_tongue:

(Gringo) #57

Of course infantry can take out tanks. If u thinK not ur makin a mistake.

What mistake u might ask…RAMBO!

(Zarkow) #58

Senator>> You are all over the place trying to confuse the issue. The issue at hand is that there doesn’t exist a sniper rile that can take out a MBT.

You claimed there was and linked a AG90 (Swedish variant of Barret M82A1).

It’s not designed to shot at an MBT. It can be used at an IFV, but it rarely ever is. Why? Since there are some many other weapons better able to handle the threat. Not to mention any regulare TKSP (.50 cals) top-mounted on for instance a SISU could throw out the same caliber of projectil as the AG90, at a speed of 14 per second, as oppose to 1 per 4 seconds for AG90.

Anyway, why am I writing this, you are obiously an highranking armchair general. :wink:

(Bongoboy) #59

Um…

(kamikazee) #60

Muhnumunuh!