[Suggestion] Remove AP rounds ability to OHK infantry

Because no one who plays a game to have fun wants everything to die in 2 bullets like you.

I actually agree with that. I'm realizing that infantry must be OP to stop a 500ms 200 lb. tank shell. Holy ****.

To answer the question, it takes around 4000 certs to get started on your tank. Much less for a lightthing but you get the meaning.

So basically you want tanks do die all the time to kill infantry. We had that, but the tanks were effective in killing Infantry

more like WW2 stuff, since planes and tanks only came in at the end of WW1



and the RPG is amazingly powerful.....took a tnak museum tour and there was a british tank from the 80s with a tiny hole at the back....RPG hit it and shredded the transmission

In this game it means. Armor Piercing

Actually, tanks carry multiple types of munitions at the same time.

No. NOOO NOOOOOOOOOOO NO never ever. That's idiotic and short-sighted. This is a game, not a strategy game.
Are you referring to Metro 2033 with "lurker"

He is actually.

*delete the thread.

I would say that PS2 tanks are much closer to this:



Than this:



Why? Low caliber cannon (37mm versus 75ishmm) and weaker armor (WWI tanks were vulnerable to AP HMGs). PS2 tanks shoot spitballs and can be damaged by even Basilisk HMGs, so to me they're much closer to WWI tanks. Perhaps interwar tanks, but WWII tanks would probably be superior to what we have in PS2.

That and military doctrine in PS2 is much closer to the trench warfare of WWI than the highly mobile mechanized warfare of WWII. Give us destructible bases and we'll move closer to mechanized WWII warfare!

ive actually stood next to and climbed around on both of those tanks




tanks today are still able to be killed with 20 MM rounds, the basilisk is 20 MM


combat wise.....i think its more like WW2 considering tanks were onl used in the latter half of WW1 and not to great effect. WW2 saw extensive use of them and fotified structures.

PS2 tanks are used to great effect? Oh, that's absolutely hilarious.

In PS2 tanks would be like armored cavalry trying to siege an indestructible castle... hardly effective tools for the job. At least by WWI, tanks could try to clear obstacles and such. Or just blow them up with cannon that were more effective than what we have in PS2.

Kinda sorta. Not really. True, some M2/M3s took out some really old T-55s, 62s, and a handful of poorly-made 72s using 25mm cannon... but against the T-55s and T-62s that's a rather unfair comparison since those MBTs were decades obsolete (and even then most fatal hits were lucky turret ring shots or rear/side hits). The hits against the T-72s that did cause damage were also lucky shots at extreme close range (for armor anyhow).

Most autocannon in the 20mm-25mm range wouldn't be typical weapons to engage equivalent MBTs with... if it were that easy to kill enemy armor we wouldn't be outfitting our modern tanks with 120mm-125mm cannon! I think that might have been one of the reasons why the US military was looking towards 30mm/40mm cannon for the next generation IFVs (and even these probably would not be too effective against MBTs).

i guess it really depends on where you hit the tank and what tank it is. a tank like the merkava would not be susceptible to rounds of that caliber. but the rear of the challenger or the M1A2 could be.

we have tanks now days that use 20-30 mm autocannons....we wouldnt use them if they werent at least effective against armor.

but the A2 uses a 120mm (smoothbore?) cannon mainly for variable ammmunition.


and yes PS2 tanks are useful.....bases like crossroads, gravel pass, amp stations, indar excavation and several others are a testament to what tanks CAN do in PS2 when they are able to take advantage of the base design

This thread just keeps going.. by far my most popular thread ever.

The Abrams uses a German 120 smooth bore gun made by Rheinmetall that's a bit over 5 meters long (incidentally a shorter version than what the later Leopard 2 models use).

Hope you're getting lots of up-votes from it.

My forumside K/D needs work, just like my in game game characters..

I passed out more upvotes in this thread than I received, I can tell you that.

No you didn't.

Take for instance the "next generation" AP-Tungsten 25mm round... which is advertised as penetrating 30mm of RHA (60 degree hit, so a bit more penetration for a perpendicular hit).

M1/A1/A2 tanks have 450-600mm of RHA equivalents (as far as things like the 25mm round are concerned) on their frontal hulls, so 25mm penetration is extremely unlikely. Turrets are even more heavily armored than hulls usually.

No clue as to rear/side armor values, but they would have to be less than 10% of the frontal armor thickness for 25mm to stand any chance at penetration at all. Which is highly unlikely under normal battlefield conditions. I think there is one incident where a M1 tank was wrecked by an M2 IFV firing into its rear, but in that case it was extreme close range. There are also reports of M1 tanks shrugging off fire from other M1 tanks, so for the most part the armor should be decent.

I'm not aware of any contemporary MBT that uses autocannon instead of a single large cannon. IFVs are often equipped with autocannon, but those are to engage other IFVs, helicopters, and infantry targets. The ATGMs on IFVs are for MBT work. Otherwise against competent targets IFVs are toast.

The M1A1/A2 uses a 120mm cannon because the 105mm cannon of the M1 was made ineffective due to improvements in armor technology. Size does matter. Which is why the Russians and Chinese MBTs are now up to 125mm. And why in the future the Vanguard is shooting a 150mm cannon with little to show for it.