i think it is good this way and i never have problems taking down a tank in KArkand the tank cant manouver.. i can move throught every street and i will shoot at the tank from a other side all the time.. works with meRDMC wrote:
1 shot 1 kill is absolutly bull.. the american Abram tank can actually take 3/4 hits and still be able to get away.Rotter wrote:
I'd like to tell some people what I've read and heard about tanks. In BF2, if you are in a tank, you are pretty much guaranteed of making many kills before being killed if you have any skill at all. I mean, you just sit there, watch where the enemy spawns, and shoot anything that moves. And, it takes four to five missiles to kill the tank from the front. Do you know what? In Israel, when fighting Siria, Israel has had major losses of tanks, due to anti tank hand held weaponry. (Thus, they're now relying mostly on air) You know why? Because, you fire an anti-tank shoulder launched missile at a tank, and it's dead. One shot, one kill. Period.
Now, to make it more realistic and feasable for the ant-tankers in BF2, I think that EA should make the tanks killed by three shots to the front, two to the side, and one or two to the front. And, I think that Transport and Choppers should ALWAYS explode on the first shot from a tank, APC missile, or anti-tank missile. This would make the game more fun, and more realistic. That's my vote, and I've said this before, but I just wanted to tell people how much damage an anti-tank missile can do in real life.
And the transport should actually be stronger.. the american Humvee is like indestructable.. shoot a missle at is and it keepss on drivin.. and its a game.. so it doesnt need much realism.. and they need to make a balance.. if a tank could blow a chopper right out of the sky.. then choppers would be in a disadvantage.. that's my vote..
difference between tanks in RL and in BF2 are that... tanks in real life don't get damaged a whole bunch from hitting a bump...
I hate to say it, but I'm right. A nice anti-tank missile like the SRAW or ERYX will destroy a tank in one shot. Sry, but it's true.
All the real world semantics aside, this is how it goes down in BF2.
Vehicles on a map are a team resource. How this resource is used is up to the team, however, the tank's main use is a hand in hand motion with the team to steadily gain ground. Someone in a tank is going to be greater than someone running around on the ground, as they are utilizing a resource.
Vehicles exist to work hand in hand with ground infantry to facilitate a steady movement into the enemy base. Without armor support, many battles would be endless stalemates. This, in my opinion, would be a hell of a lot more lame than the odd spawn camp, which is usually necessary to actually capture flags on maps like Kark (prevent the next wave of defenders from spawning so you can get the flag captured and over with).
Could you imagine trying to cross from the train accident over into the MEC compound if armor didn't exist? The snipers would have you picked off before you even stepped into the water. This is why armor exists. It gives both the attacking and defending forces the ability to breach the enemy lines, protected from conventional weapon fire. Games with no good armor are horrible to play in, the last one I remember was literally two sides on either side of the river at train accident, just holding on and mass deaths each side due to the constant lameass artillery barrages. You need to keep the game in motion.
Now, I'm about to touch on the true source of the problem, which is that Anti-Tanks are severely underplayed. People will simply not switch to this class, no matter how many times they die to a tank. They'd rather run around tubing people and just take the odd death to the tank, which in turn, leads to tank whoring, as you call it. Know this that Anti-Tank is exceptionally good at what it does. I guarantee you that if you actually aim at the WEAK points on an APC, it's dead in 2 hits, 3 for a tank. If you know how to work the terrain, you can often nail them twice before they can even realize your position. Alone, I know I can turn back any tank and make him run for repairs, encountered in numbers of more than one, anti tanks will make absolute short work of any armor.
The reason why? Anti-Tanks receive absolutely no acknowledgement of their contribution toward the team. A single good anti tank will push the enemy armor out and away from your ground troops. It may not be enough to kill the tank, but it forces it back, and allows your troops to gain ground without the tank's interference (or at least at a minimal). What does Anti-Tank get? Well if they land the 3 or so rounds, they may get a kill. Whoopty frigging doo. Hardly worth it for the deaths you may take due to the tank's teammates raping you, or the times when the terrain isn't going to support a stealthy approach and you take a death doing damage. This is why Anti-Tanks should be considered a SUPPORT CLASS, and should receive TEAMWORK POINTS for every rocket they successfully land on an enemy tank. Something like 2 teamwork points (give it a category called Anti-Vehicle) would suffice. That way, you can actually see what Anti-Tanks are actually worth anything to their team.
The difference a single good Anti makes to his team, who wouldn't have a single one otherwise, is undeniable. Suddenly that spawn camping tank has run his dumb ass off to square, not to return until he thinks the coast is clear.
Vehicles on a map are a team resource. How this resource is used is up to the team, however, the tank's main use is a hand in hand motion with the team to steadily gain ground. Someone in a tank is going to be greater than someone running around on the ground, as they are utilizing a resource.
Vehicles exist to work hand in hand with ground infantry to facilitate a steady movement into the enemy base. Without armor support, many battles would be endless stalemates. This, in my opinion, would be a hell of a lot more lame than the odd spawn camp, which is usually necessary to actually capture flags on maps like Kark (prevent the next wave of defenders from spawning so you can get the flag captured and over with).
Could you imagine trying to cross from the train accident over into the MEC compound if armor didn't exist? The snipers would have you picked off before you even stepped into the water. This is why armor exists. It gives both the attacking and defending forces the ability to breach the enemy lines, protected from conventional weapon fire. Games with no good armor are horrible to play in, the last one I remember was literally two sides on either side of the river at train accident, just holding on and mass deaths each side due to the constant lameass artillery barrages. You need to keep the game in motion.
Now, I'm about to touch on the true source of the problem, which is that Anti-Tanks are severely underplayed. People will simply not switch to this class, no matter how many times they die to a tank. They'd rather run around tubing people and just take the odd death to the tank, which in turn, leads to tank whoring, as you call it. Know this that Anti-Tank is exceptionally good at what it does. I guarantee you that if you actually aim at the WEAK points on an APC, it's dead in 2 hits, 3 for a tank. If you know how to work the terrain, you can often nail them twice before they can even realize your position. Alone, I know I can turn back any tank and make him run for repairs, encountered in numbers of more than one, anti tanks will make absolute short work of any armor.
The reason why? Anti-Tanks receive absolutely no acknowledgement of their contribution toward the team. A single good anti tank will push the enemy armor out and away from your ground troops. It may not be enough to kill the tank, but it forces it back, and allows your troops to gain ground without the tank's interference (or at least at a minimal). What does Anti-Tank get? Well if they land the 3 or so rounds, they may get a kill. Whoopty frigging doo. Hardly worth it for the deaths you may take due to the tank's teammates raping you, or the times when the terrain isn't going to support a stealthy approach and you take a death doing damage. This is why Anti-Tanks should be considered a SUPPORT CLASS, and should receive TEAMWORK POINTS for every rocket they successfully land on an enemy tank. Something like 2 teamwork points (give it a category called Anti-Vehicle) would suffice. That way, you can actually see what Anti-Tanks are actually worth anything to their team.
The difference a single good Anti makes to his team, who wouldn't have a single one otherwise, is undeniable. Suddenly that spawn camping tank has run his dumb ass off to square, not to return until he thinks the coast is clear.
2 AT's Versus 1 Tank = dead tank within 5 seconds.
I don't understand how people can get killed by a tank more than once and not switch to an AT and seek vengeance, except that they'd prefer to run like a little girl to protect their precious k:D
2 points for each missile hit on a tank is excessive, 1 point would be fair enough though imo.
Trying to maintain a decent k:d as AT is hard, which is hardly surprising seeing you're a foot slogger up against the pinnacle of ground based military might. Jumping in a tank yourself and turning the tables helps to make your k:d a little more respectable.
As for Choppers V Tanks, why the hell can the one that dodges in 3D, has light armour and can easily run and repair at base survive a direct hit from a tank shell, yet in return it can blick the one with heavy armour that can only dodge (read dodge as "slowly move") in 2D.
And don't even get me started on Jet's surviving a direct hit from a tank shell, this should result in steel confetti raining from the skies every time.
I don't understand how people can get killed by a tank more than once and not switch to an AT and seek vengeance, except that they'd prefer to run like a little girl to protect their precious k:D
2 points for each missile hit on a tank is excessive, 1 point would be fair enough though imo.
Trying to maintain a decent k:d as AT is hard, which is hardly surprising seeing you're a foot slogger up against the pinnacle of ground based military might. Jumping in a tank yourself and turning the tables helps to make your k:d a little more respectable.
As for Choppers V Tanks, why the hell can the one that dodges in 3D, has light armour and can easily run and repair at base survive a direct hit from a tank shell, yet in return it can blick the one with heavy armour that can only dodge (read dodge as "slowly move") in 2D.
And don't even get me started on Jet's surviving a direct hit from a tank shell, this should result in steel confetti raining from the skies every time.
Last edited by Warsloth (2005-12-12 16:21:28)
I think you are talking about HESH rounds (High Explosive Squash Head) which pancakes against armour before detonating causing a shock wave through the armour. The metal fragments into splinters which fly though the crew compartment. Outside scorched paint.....Inside carnage. But this only works against older cast armour not newer types or reactive armor.starman7 wrote:
There are other types of tank rounds, but those are mostly to kill softer targets like bunkers or cars. Some will mention a third type, but that is basically a HEAT round with a broader jet to take advantage of thin top armor (and besides, I think that that might be limited to missiles).
The problem is that IRL ALL modern battle tanks are more or less imune to hand-held anti-armor. The RPG is based on WWII technology and IRL is only effective against light armour. BOTH the ABRAMS and the ChallangerII can take RPG hits all day and only a fluke will disable them.
IRL the only thing a tank crew fears in the open is either another MBT or an aircraft/Helo.
ALL the allied fatal losses in gulf war I were Blue on Blue ABRAMS hitting ABRAMS or USAF hitting Warriors.
Brittish Tank crews were more scared of US A10s and Apaches than they were of Iraqi T60s and RPGs.
Remember that this is a GAME. 2 or 3 well aimed shots from your rpg will take out that tank. If you want more realism you would have to hide, get on the radio and wait for the chopper whore to do his thing....
Last edited by cannon_fodder (2005-12-12 16:32:03)
The Challenger tank is quite a good piece of kit, it's even better when fitted with a radio though. Reduces the risk of friendly fire...
Anyhoo more importantly
http://www.secretsofbattlefield.com/hitpoints.php
That pretty much sums up the weak points on most of the vehicles in BF2. Now hopefully more people will actually start using that AT properly and stop complaining "OMFG TEH TENK DIDNYT BLOW UP WIT !!11 SHOT OMFG LOLOLLlolllllZZZZzz etc."
Anyhoo more importantly
http://www.secretsofbattlefield.com/hitpoints.php
That pretty much sums up the weak points on most of the vehicles in BF2. Now hopefully more people will actually start using that AT properly and stop complaining "OMFG TEH TENK DIDNYT BLOW UP WIT !!11 SHOT OMFG LOLOLLlolllllZZZZzz etc."
t-35,54/55,62? ... HA, no wonder why the abrahms didnt take any tank on tank losses<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:
In desert Storm, the M1 Abrams had 2 confirmed losses vs about 3000 Iraqi tanks. An M1A2 Abrams IRL can take a shitload of abuse, and even when it is crippled, the operator of that vehicle has a pretty good chance of survival.
Back to the original topic - you can take out a tank in 2 hits if you hit the tracks. That isn't too bad and in fact its pretty balanced.
huh... i dont think anyone's thought of going in groups of 3 or 4 AT's and just concentrating fire on a tank...
same thing about teh m95 sniper, but if it was as powerful in RL, it'll be like CS and AWPs... and if the antitank was one shot one kill, well there would be no point in having vehicles, would there?
I have to admit with you in almost every respect, and you put together your statement very well. Bravo. But, remember, in many maps, when you respawn as AT, the tank is right infront of you, aiming his slimy barrel down your slimy throat. Then, you're dead. Usually, when this happens, you can only get one shot off before you're dead. It's unnavoidable.Sud wrote:
All the real world semantics aside, this is how it goes down in BF2.
Vehicles on a map are a team resource. How this resource is used is up to the team, however, the tank's main use is a hand in hand motion with the team to steadily gain ground. Someone in a tank is going to be greater than someone running around on the ground, as they are utilizing a resource.
Vehicles exist to work hand in hand with ground infantry to facilitate a steady movement into the enemy base. Without armor support, many battles would be endless stalemates. This, in my opinion, would be a hell of a lot more lame than the odd spawn camp, which is usually necessary to actually capture flags on maps like Kark (prevent the next wave of defenders from spawning so you can get the flag captured and over with).
Could you imagine trying to cross from the train accident over into the MEC compound if armor didn't exist? The snipers would have you picked off before you even stepped into the water. This is why armor exists. It gives both the attacking and defending forces the ability to breach the enemy lines, protected from conventional weapon fire. Games with no good armor are horrible to play in, the last one I remember was literally two sides on either side of the river at train accident, just holding on and mass deaths each side due to the constant lameass artillery barrages. You need to keep the game in motion.
Now, I'm about to touch on the true source of the problem, which is that Anti-Tanks are severely underplayed. People will simply not switch to this class, no matter how many times they die to a tank. They'd rather run around tubing people and just take the odd death to the tank, which in turn, leads to tank whoring, as you call it. Know this that Anti-Tank is exceptionally good at what it does. I guarantee you that if you actually aim at the WEAK points on an APC, it's dead in 2 hits, 3 for a tank. If you know how to work the terrain, you can often nail them twice before they can even realize your position. Alone, I know I can turn back any tank and make him run for repairs, encountered in numbers of more than one, anti tanks will make absolute short work of any armor.
The reason why? Anti-Tanks receive absolutely no acknowledgement of their contribution toward the team. A single good anti tank will push the enemy armor out and away from your ground troops. It may not be enough to kill the tank, but it forces it back, and allows your troops to gain ground without the tank's interference (or at least at a minimal). What does Anti-Tank get? Well if they land the 3 or so rounds, they may get a kill. Whoopty frigging doo. Hardly worth it for the deaths you may take due to the tank's teammates raping you, or the times when the terrain isn't going to support a stealthy approach and you take a death doing damage. This is why Anti-Tanks should be considered a SUPPORT CLASS, and should receive TEAMWORK POINTS for every rocket they successfully land on an enemy tank. Something like 2 teamwork points (give it a category called Anti-Vehicle) would suffice. That way, you can actually see what Anti-Tanks are actually worth anything to their team.
The difference a single good Anti makes to his team, who wouldn't have a single one otherwise, is undeniable. Suddenly that spawn camping tank has run his dumb ass off to square, not to return until he thinks the coast is clear.
This is gonna sounf like BS but: in the first gulf war a British Challenger ll MBT took approx. 2 dozen RPGs and 1 AT missle and the crew reported only a bump from the AT missle
SOE You are right bud I was a tank commander in the Gulf War So I know first hand what the Abrams can do !! Me and my men had many kills in our M1... If any of you guys were in the abrams in real life you know were I am coming from. Bf2 does not do the machine justice<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:
That's not true at all. The British Challenger tanks can fire from 3 miles and not one loss has every been reported.Rotter wrote:
I'd like to tell some people what I've read and heard about tanks. In BF2, if you are in a tank, you are pretty much guaranteed of making many kills before being killed if you have any skill at all. I mean, you just sit there, watch where the enemy spawns, and shoot anything that moves. And, it takes four to five missiles to kill the tank from the front. Do you know what? In Israel, when fighting Siria, Israel has had major losses of tanks, due to anti tank hand held weaponry. (Thus, they're now relying mostly on air) You know why? Because, you fire an anti-tank shoulder launched missile at a tank, and it's dead. One shot, one kill. Period.
Now, to make it more realistic and feasable for the ant-tankers in BF2, I think that EA should make the tanks killed by three shots to the front, two to the side, and one or two to the front. And, I think that Transport and Choppers should ALWAYS explode on the first shot from a tank, APC missile, or anti-tank missile. This would make the game more fun, and more realistic. That's my vote, and I've said this before, but I just wanted to tell people how much damage an anti-tank missile can do in real life.
In desert Storm, the M1 Abrams had 2 confirmed losses vs about 3000 Iraqi tanks. An M1A2 Abrams IRL can take a shitload of abuse, and even when it is crippled, the operator of that vehicle has a pretty good chance of survival.
Last edited by Possum61 (2005-12-18 21:12:02)
It takes just 2 shots with AT missile from front or from any other side and 1 shot with tank from front (there's damn small weak area, and it's lucky shot but anywas it take max. 2 shots) or 2 from any other sides (or maybe there's also some weak areas)
well the chopper already has advantage, since the turret can't aim at it from all angles and neither can the helicopter so we've got something there.
BUT GUYS IT'S A GAME WE DON'T NEED REALISM, WHAT WE NEED IS A GOOD OLD FASHIONED SLUG-FEST WITH LOTS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION.
YES! MINDLESS DESTRUCTION!
BUT GUYS IT'S A GAME WE DON'T NEED REALISM, WHAT WE NEED IS A GOOD OLD FASHIONED SLUG-FEST WITH LOTS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION.
YES! MINDLESS DESTRUCTION!
It would be nice if the tank, when hit on different areas, lost abilities accordingly.
For example, a hit on the wheels/caterpillar could cause immobility when the tank is over e.g 70% damaged, but allowing the tank to still fire at enemies.
I'm not a supporter of 100% realism, because that would probably kill all enthusiasm to play the game. The level of realism at this stage is totally sufficient. It's up to the players to make it more realistic and/or fun at this point. By this I mean:
In real life,
Would you jump up and down 10+ times in 5 seconds while carrying 30 kg of material on you and there's a f***ing war going on around you?
When seeing an enemy (on foot), would you, instead of firing 2-3 shots with your assault rifle, reach for your 120mm projectile firing bazooka, take off the covers, power up the trigger, calibrate the scope, evaluate distance to target, check for obstacles behind you so you wont get burned by the flame, take the safety off, and finally, squeeze the trigger...?
I myself have made the decision to avoid firing anti-tank rockets on enemy infantry at all times. There should be a poll on this somewhere..
-DonFck-
For example, a hit on the wheels/caterpillar could cause immobility when the tank is over e.g 70% damaged, but allowing the tank to still fire at enemies.
I'm not a supporter of 100% realism, because that would probably kill all enthusiasm to play the game. The level of realism at this stage is totally sufficient. It's up to the players to make it more realistic and/or fun at this point. By this I mean:
In real life,
Would you jump up and down 10+ times in 5 seconds while carrying 30 kg of material on you and there's a f***ing war going on around you?
When seeing an enemy (on foot), would you, instead of firing 2-3 shots with your assault rifle, reach for your 120mm projectile firing bazooka, take off the covers, power up the trigger, calibrate the scope, evaluate distance to target, check for obstacles behind you so you wont get burned by the flame, take the safety off, and finally, squeeze the trigger...?
I myself have made the decision to avoid firing anti-tank rockets on enemy infantry at all times. There should be a poll on this somewhere..
-DonFck-
Last edited by DonFck (2006-03-07 04:33:45)
I need around tree fiddy.
The weakest area on the tanks in BF2 is under the turret's barrel. You can only hit this if the tanks is aiming as far up as it can, and you are directly in front of it. An AT round that hits this area usually glances off the armour, basically causing 2 hits from the one shot.
Well, this topic is really interesting. Not that I need to know real-world stats of a tank, but some hints on an AT tactics are invaluable. Thanks, everyone. Looks like I should learn more about this class.
Again, blame EA - I don't know anything about BF2 version released in your countries, but in Poland the manual does not contain ANY gameplay information. It's hardly installation manual... I got PrimaGuide, but it doesn't say anything about details like weak spots of a tank.
Still, I think that points for killing armoured vehicles as infantry should be increased to keep the game balanced. I mean that points aren't distributed according to the effort taken to get them. Come on, is one point for killing somebody with heli rocket / tank round equal to one point got for infiltrating enemy territory as SpecOps and destroying UAV trailor? Which one brings more benefit to your team? The same thing is with killing tank as AT and killing AT with a tank. It's obvious, isn't it?
Thanks again!!!
Again, blame EA - I don't know anything about BF2 version released in your countries, but in Poland the manual does not contain ANY gameplay information. It's hardly installation manual... I got PrimaGuide, but it doesn't say anything about details like weak spots of a tank.
Still, I think that points for killing armoured vehicles as infantry should be increased to keep the game balanced. I mean that points aren't distributed according to the effort taken to get them. Come on, is one point for killing somebody with heli rocket / tank round equal to one point got for infiltrating enemy territory as SpecOps and destroying UAV trailor? Which one brings more benefit to your team? The same thing is with killing tank as AT and killing AT with a tank. It's obvious, isn't it?
Thanks again!!!
They didn't use T-90 tanks ; they used older T-72S and T-80U tanks. The current T90S is the pinacle of main battle tank technology sporting a 125mm 2A46M Smoothbore cannon (5mm larger than the M1A2SEP) with the fire capacity for four 9M119 Refleks (NATO designation AT-11 Sniper) anti-tank guided missiles, which have an operation radius up to 4,000 metres. These Refleks missiles have an armor penetration rate off 700mm. And the tank is protected by ERA armor.CRUSHER wrote:
The T-90 for instance, is a POS Russian made tank. It's one example of what the Iraqis' used against use in the Gulf War (along with T-60's), it served them well mhmm?
~I didn't look any of this up, it's all personal knowlege and is subject to error.
And the T90S is fitted with the Shtora-1 defensive aids suite which is produced by Electronintorg of Russia. This system includes infrared jammer, laser warning system with four laser warning receivers, grenade discharging system which produces an aerosol screen and a computerised control system.
Not to mention it is 20 tons lighter than the M1A2, has 480bhp and can submerge in water up to 5 metres, which the M1A2 can't.
So before bringing in your American "knowledge", 90% of you americans know as much off the world history then martians and martians don't exist, read the facts out and ask yourself the question:
Why are the americans constantly building different tank frames, while the russians perfect their T-Series, it is because Russian T's have always been superiour, especially during the end off WW2 when they rolled over the German Panzers. Note: Sherman M4's where bicycles compared to the Panzer Tiger & King Tiger.
Ow yeah, and these are facts, not knowledge.
Set the bots on easy and crawl under one in single player... The ultimate weak spot and hard to miss...Shin_Seffron wrote:
The weakest area on the tanks in BF2 is under the turret's barrel. You can only hit this if the tanks is aiming as far up as it can, and you are directly in front of it. An AT round that hits this area usually glances off the armour, basically causing 2 hits from the one shot.
One AT rocked will completely destroy a tank from beneath (only managed this 3 times on a ranked server). Out of the 10 times I tested in single player something like 4 times I survived unharmed from the blast...
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I think that hitting a tank where the treads are should at least slow it down a bit until an engineer gets there. It'll give the engineer a bit more use. Just a realistic idea.
yes it would be realistic come everybody we make it super realistic if your death you can throw away the game because your death .... or even better you computer will explode because you should die in real life 2
It would be nice to have "partial dammage". I mean you could lose part of your tank. Shoot and destroy a track and the turret could still be functionnal... Until the next strike.
Last edited by mporlier (2006-03-07 08:48:25)
Then you would have to limit the amount of AT players on each team..