[Vehicle] Rockets vs Tanks math question

Thats why I said most examples, even then people who like to bring up the M1 in a balance discussion about a game that takes places like 400 years in the future is just a bit silly to me, we have no idea what the weapon dynamic is going to be like then. but I can agree, its just the way it is in PS2 at the moment, and that has a lot to do with making the game fun for people who arent in tanks.

Tank get hit bad in the back, koochiekoochiikoo.

Here comes the Liberator, EEEEEEEeeooooooooowwwww, they kill your tank in 1 second in every direction, PAKOO PAKOO PSSSSHHHH!!!

Problem is people are too stupid to figure out that tanks are supposed to obliterate infantry like they're ants. And Maxes are supposed to be far superior to normal troops

So I doubt any higher cost, for better quality will come.

I imagine defensive armors will always lag behind offensive weapons designed to penetrate them. So it is entirely feasible that our MBT armor would laugh at a puny Abrams tank firing at it, but the ML-7 might have a chemical warhead or a thermite injection styled system that laughs at MBT armor, or possibly causes severe damage to the engine block (hence why when in the red the tank catches on fire).

But whatever, its a game and I imagine that 400 years in the future we will still have methods of killing armor that are man portable.

Yeah, the current death screen is really bad at communicating what actually killed you (I think it's somehow even worse than the previous death screen which was also bad.)

A player who used C4 then shot it with a rocket would basically only show up with the killing weapon doing whatever percentage of damage (33%?) and you'd see no other sources of damage, and be left wondering "WTF?!"

Yeah, you'd figure that with all that computer power, PS2 would know what and how something was killed.
I actually have 21 kills in a Liberator, in my TR record.. only I never flown a Liberator..
I have killed 21 enemies while they were in their Liberators.. but according to my killboard, I killed them with a Liberator..
Makes no sense.. it's not helping..
Maybe that's on the long list of bug fixes..

If i am a Heavy and find the rear of a tank to hit, i'll throw a anti vehicle grenade first and then rocket launcher it. If you test AV grenades in VR you'll see they do serious damage but only if they are on the tank, the further away they do less and less damage. So..If thrown against the back of a tank THAT DOES NOT MOVE it will take out about 1/2 the tanks health.
For some unknown reason I have had better effect with a launcher at very close range than at long range also. Dont ask me why.
I also carry a brick of C4 and if the Tank or Sundy is exposed and doesn't notice me, i'll walk up and plant the C4, step back throw a AV grenade and then hit it with the launcher, and i guaruntee it'll be smoking bad, after that.

dumbfires have something around a 50% bonus vs tanks (all damage is displayed in anti infantry damage, the amount of damage any given weapon does to a vehicle can vary greatly from that displayed). so its not doint 1135 but doing about 1700

On the other hand you DO have armor that reduces incoming damage, in the case of a prowler its 30% at the rear, which equates to it taking 5714 damage to the rear to kill you. which is 4 stock dumbfire rockets.

TLDR, you got hit by more than 2 rockets

Actually I think if you observe tanks and infantry from WWI until today, you'll notice that the trend is the opposite of what you'd imagine.

In WWI tanks could be brought down by what we would consider to be LMGs. The British Mark IVs, for example, could be damaged to non-operation by German 7.9mm AP bullets.

In WWII LMGs and HMGs would not be effective against medium tanks, though simple infantry-carried weapons like Panzerfausts could still deal with medium tanks like the American Sherman. Even frontal Panzerfaust hits had a chance to penetrate.

In the early Cold War the first MBTs like the Russian T-55 were vulnerable to simple rocket launchers like RPGs or LAWs.

In the later Cold War the more modern MBTs like the Russian T-80 or American M1 needed advanced tandem warheads for armor penetration... if the warheads could get past active defense systems like ARENA in the first place. You would need a significant hit with a heavy RPG like the RPG-29 or a heavy ATGM like the Javelin in order to damage these MBTs. Older ATGMs like the Dragon or older RPGs simply wouldn't cut it.

So we see in each stage of tank-infantry development that tanks are getting more powerful when compared to infantry at each stage, and that AT weapons capable of damaging tanks are more and more rare. Compared to WWI LMGs or WWII light AT weapons (there were 6 million Panzerfausts made by the Germans alone), heavy ATGMs like the Javelin are pretty rare. The main issue here is a combination of expense and weight... infantry AT weapons are simply getting heavier and heavier (with less rounds carried).

If this 100 year trend were to continue, we would expect to see future tanks being more effective against infantry, not the other way around.