JF-17 Thunder Discussions

Vehicle damage modeling is very simplistic at the moment, so it‘s hard to make a comparison to real life.

Vehicle damage modeling is very simplistic at the moment, so it‘s hard to make a comparison to real life.

I agree, but it will be very stupid if they remove that weapon just because one or two person cant believe that it can destroy a MBT.

In DCS I can destroy EVERY tank with A-10`s 30mm GAU-8 gun (even T-90), why I cant with 90mm AP rocket then?

There are a lot of anti-tank weapons worldwide, who has а caliber smaller than 90mm. Just for example - russian SPG-9 is 73mm, but it was main AT weapon for russian infantry troops for many years, and its deadly weapon against tanks even today.

I mean, S-8 KOMs and can kill abrams too if you shoot them from the side, rear or top, and they're only 80mm. Even 70mm MK5 HEAT can kill MBTs from weak spots.

If those 2 can score kills on armored targets on their weak points, a 90mm guided HEAT will too, regardless of the simple damage model.

I mean, S-8 KOMs and can kill abrams too if you shoot them from the side, rear or top, and they're only 80mm. Even 70mm MK5 HEAT can kill MBTs from weak spots.

 

If those 2 can score kills on armored targets on their weak points, a 90mm guided HEAT will too, regardless of the simple damage model.

Exactly.

Seems you lack the basic skill of reading and understanding, VDV, but on the other hand have master the skill of spewing garbage.

I have not asked for anything to be removed. I asked twice for information on the rocket.

NO, you cannot kill an MBT in ONE shot to the front with an MK5, S-8 KOM or the GAU-8. Even the Vikhr can't do that.

Not being able to damage something in a certain situation doesn't mean it doesn't have anti-armor capabilities. Anti-armor capabilities are not a simple ON/OFF.

So please, stop creating drama and spamming, when people are asking normal questions. Thank you !

Well does it have that capability ? I asked if we could get more information, or if you could direct me where to read.... if it is capable, there is no issue.

 

Kinda hard to believe a 90mm HEAT (Is it even HEAT ?) rocket can 1 shot a modern MBT from the front. That doesn't mean that it cannot kill it eventually. So please, lets look at this objectively...

 

Information and possible correction is what I am asking for, not removal

It seems that players wont accept that BRM-1 have AP capability,

we will remove AP, it will have HE damage only. :)

Well does it have that capability ? I asked if we could get more information, or if you could direct me where to read.... if it is capable, there is no issue.

Well, a Anti-Tank weapon actually is designed to destroy Tanks. When a modern shaped-charge portable Anti-Tank Gun like the Panzerfaust 3 can do it, why shouldn't a tandem HEAT /Penetrator from a chinese/pakistani version of the APKWS be able to do it?!

The PF3 is a 110mm bottle-rocket with a 13kg warhead, and it probably can't one-shot anything either, unless it gets lucky. The idea that a 90mm rocket will penetrate the front armor of a modern MBT is laughable, period. We don't really have enough information in public about BRM1, but you can approximate with S-8KOM which is the closest known rocket.

That would indicate that the BRM1 can gain up to an 8kg tandem AP/HEAT warhead, which isn't quite up there with the PF3, never mind dedicated anti-tank missiles.

AP doesn't mean 'kills tanks', it means 'Penetrates armor', and you don't have to be an MBT to be armored. MBTs just happen to be much, much more heavily armored.

Shadow_KT, your knowledge about weapons is really like...shadow. Where I said that I can destroy MBT with one shot from GAU-8 only? But GAU-8 can destroy every tank, with between 20-50 rounds, and If you want I can demostate you.It was developed for that. Same for S-8 KOM. Then why 90mm AP cant? In real life you can destroy a MBT even with SPG-9 (73mm). Have you seen SPG-9? Have you seen even a real weapon...ever?

So pls stop, because of "professors" like you we may lose one of JF-17`s core weapons.

Even the BRM1 literature doesn't mention destroying tanks with a single shot - they mention being 'dangerous' to tanks in salvos, which is quite reasonable - and even then they're describing overcoming active or passive defense to hit more vulnerable tank areas.

As seen in modern combat, even much heavier weapons will not guarantee stopping, let alone destroying a tank.

One-shotting an MBT with a single 90mm rocket whose primary target is infantry and light vehicles is simply incorrect.

It seems that players wont accept that BRM-1 have AP capability,

we will remove AP, it will have HE damage only. :)

I don't doubt that they are armor penetrating but doesn't it sound a bit much to one hit kill an abrams with one? A salvo of a few of them or one to a specific spot ok but it does strain credibility to think it could penetrate the frontal armor.

Then again I do not know as I have no first hand knowledge of the weapon system. Based on what the development team knows Loop8back, is this really accurate? Thats an honest and not a sarcastic or rude question.

Okay. From what I see, this is more of an issue with how tanks receive damage so it is an ED problem. If Deka are so fragile to remove the effectiveness of a weapon based on some guy just asking questions. I suppose I will have to hold off on getting the JF-17 on release just in case they start changing too much around on how the people think a weapons should behave. So close to release and the way developers are responding is making me nervous.

Okay. From what I see, this is more of an issue with how tanks receive damage so it is an ED problem. If Deka are so fragile to remove the effectiveness of a weapon based on some guy just asking questions. I suppose I will have to hold off on getting the JF-17 on release just in case they start changing too much around on how the people think a weapons should behave. So close to release and the way developers are responding is making me nervous.

I read his comment as sarcasm but I don't know for sure.

also its a plane firing rockets. it could very well wreck face if it lands from up high, without warning.

The PF3 is a 110mm bottle-rocket with a 13kg warhead, and it probably can't one-shot anything either, unless it gets lucky. The idea that a 90mm rocket will penetrate the front armor of a modern MBT is laughable, period. We don't really have enough information in public about BRM1, but you can approximate with S-8KOM which is the closest known rocket.

 

That would indicate that the BRM1 can gain up to an 8kg tandem AP/HEAT warhead, which isn't quite up there with the PF3, never mind dedicated anti-tank missiles.

 

 

 

AP doesn't mean 'kills tanks', it means 'Penetrates armor', and you don't have to be an MBT to be armored. MBTs just happen to be much, much more heavily armored.

Penetrating armor is basically everything required to disable the Tank. Not necessarily destroy and explode it, but a maimed or dead crew can't operate a Tank. I've seen nice pictures of Tank interiors hit by penetrators and/or shaped charges during my time in the armed services. In addition the momentary increase in pressure when the penetrator reaches the interior usually burst lungs and eardrums...

Depending on where it hits, even the front may be vulnerable, around the turret ring, the driver compartment, sensor booth beside the gun...

The real issue here, is DCS' limited damage model for vehicles that can't accurately model detailed hitzones.

Given that you can lase these nifty little bastards onto specific areas of the Tank, I can see something like a Leopard 2 or Abrahams be "killed" with 1-4 from the front, may be 1-2 from top/rear, depending on where exactly it hits, IRL.

For the Game I would go with 2 hits to kill a modern MBT.

Just my 2 cents.

EDIT and by the way even the Huey had Hydra 70 ffar with AP warheads (M247, MK5) in the 60/70ies, so yes there have been rockets against armored targets and Tanks since over 50 years, why isn't it reasonable they improved the warheads during the last 40 plus years?

It seems that players wont accept that BRM-1 have AP capability,

we will remove AP, it will have HE damage only. :)

See my post above. It is by no means "wrong" or "unrealistic" that HEAT or APDFS warheads can penetrate even MBT armor. It just isn't likely to get a perfect hit Everytime, even with laser guidance.

An MBT should take a typical 3 to 4 hits to be disabled and an occasional "lucky shot" where 1 or 2 hits suffice. Though disabled means the crew is incapacitated, not the Tank explodes. I am not sure this is possible to represent so detailed in DCS.

The speed of a ffar rocket fired from a jet at 350 to 400 kts depending on type of penetration can add considerable energy, that the PF3 propulsion system lags.

Not convinced speed plays a real role for a HEAT system.

Penetrating armor is basically everything required to disable the Tank. Not necessarily destroy and explode it, but a maimed or dead crew can't operate a Tank. I've seen nice pictures of Tank interiors hit by penetrators and/or shaped charges during my time in the armed services. In addition the momentary increase in pressure when the penetrator reaches the interior usually burst lungs and eardrums...

And yet larger projectiles have hit tanks, penetrated and failed to disable.

Given that you can lase these nifty little bastards onto specific areas of the Tank,

That laser spot is both large AND the rockets aren't guaranteed to hit the exact center.

I can see something like a Leopard 2 or Abrahams be "killed" with 1-4 from the front, may be 1-2 from top/rear, depending on where exactly it hits, IRL.

For the Game I would go with 2 hits to kill a modern MBT.

Just my 2 cents.

I wouldn't. If it was hitting the front you could keep hitting it all day. There is plenty of evidence of M1s surviving even their own ammo (friendly fire) from the front, and that's way more capable than a 90mm rocket. Yes, people were killed, that's true it took multiple APDFS hits. That 90mm rocket can't hope to match the firepower of those guns.

EDIT and by the way even the Huey had Hydra 70 ffar with AP warheads (M247, MK5) in the 60/70ies, so yes there have been rockets against armored targets and Tanks since over 50 years, why isn't it reasonable they improved the warheads during the last 40 plus years?

What's reasonable is that there is plenty more armor than MBTs. Everyone reads anti-armor warhead and instantly imagines an MBT killer. These things are there to attack APCs, IFVs etc. Finally, physics get in the way. There's only so much mass to use up.

It seems that players wont accept that BRM-1 have AP capability,

we will remove AP, it will have HE damage only. :)

which players? wtf? the rockets are the best thing about this jet. KEEP 'EM!!! I even wanna try and use em in A2A for the lols.

Please do not remove the AP rockets! The tank damage system and overall ground vehicle damages in DCS is not really scientific.

The way I see it: A rocket doesn't need to destroy the tank, just disable it. In DCS we have alive or death and I think this is a great compromise for a disable tank.

Please do not remove the AP rockets! The tank damage system and overall ground vehicle damages in DCS is not really scientific.

 

The way I see it: A rocket doesn't need to destroy the tank, just disable it. In DCS we have alive or death and I think this is a great compromise for a disable tank.

Yep. IRL a 90mm rocket, while it wouldn't necessarily blow up the entire tank, it would certainly mess up the engine or tracks, thereby essentially killing it in one shot :)

Even if it makes the crew shit itself and run back to where it came from, thats effective....right? lol why am I even......pls just keep the rockets as they are. This is a flight combat sim right? who cares if the tanks suffer? amirite?

Here's a cool tandem landing video I found:

Hopefully its real.

I'm just watching the Buddy Spike stream test #2... they even got the cluster ammo on the GB-6 working effectively whereas ED's Mk. 20, CBU-87, JSOW A and other containers are almost useless unless you drop at least 4 of them on the same spot...

I'm just amazed of literally everything I've seen so far... except for the WIP cockpit textures

Even if it makes the crew shit itself and run back to where it came from, thats effective....right? lol why am I even......pls just keep the rockets as they are. This is a flight combat sim right? who cares if the tanks suffer? amirite?

No, it's a digital combat simulator. The rockets can be left as is right now, but the damage model for tanks should be updated someday.

Not convinced speed plays a real role for a HEAT system.

 

 

 

 

And yet larger projectiles have hit tanks, penetrated and failed to disable.

 

 

 

That laser spot is both large AND the rockets aren't guaranteed to hit the exact center.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't. If it was hitting the front you could keep hitting it all day. There is plenty of evidence of M1s surviving even their own ammo (friendly fire) from the front, and that's way more capable than a 90mm rocket. Yes, people were killed, that's true it took multiple APDFS hits. That 90mm rocket can't hope to match the firepower of those guns.

 

 

 

What's reasonable is that there is plenty more armor than MBTs. Everyone reads anti-armor warhead and instantly imagines an MBT killer. These things are there to attack APCs, IFVs etc. Finally, physics get in the way. There's only so much mass to use up.

An APFSDS round simply relies on the kinetic energy to penetrate composite armor. HEAT benefits from kinetic energy on impact when done right.

Again, I am not saying each hit will penetrate a MBT armor, but if it hits right (90° angle, good spot, etc.) it can disable a tank with one hit.

As said before, DCS can't perfectly model this at the moment, so they should either tone it down, or add a random chance to disable a MBT with 1 to 2. 1 to 2 hits even with plain HE munition will damage the optical systems, sensors and disorient the crew, even a good chance to damage the tracks and immobilize the Tank.

There is a certain misconception of invulnerability to modern Tanks, that could not be further from the truth.

In the 90ies estimated a couple hours (can't remember the exact number) for a tank surviving on the battlefield, opposed to a couple days for an infantryman... I know statistics, but the reality behind it is: a Tank is A) a big, slow, juicy target and B) a lot of effort has been put into the design weapons that can disable Tanks.