Stryker vs Tugunska

[dan/california]

Should a Styrker be able to take a more or less full burst of fire from a Tunguska at less than a thousand meters?  I had built my entire plan on the assumption that it couldn't. More or less Frontal aspect. If that seems reasonable to those in the know, I will just file it under lesson learned. But I would like second opinion.

[sburke]

As a one off or as a regular event?  In testing one scenario I had a Stryker surprise a T 72 and hose it down with 40 mm.  The Tanks optics etc were demolished, but the tank itself was fully capable of swatting the Styrker.  Instead it backed up out of LOF and a nearby infantry team promptly eliminated it.  If I were to ever try that again I expect my Stryker would be toast 99.999% of the time.

 

That Tunguska fire should (I would think) turn that Stryker into swiss cheese.  I'd have to have a closer look to try and figure out why it wouldn't.

[MikeyD]

Stryker ceramic armor tiles were designed specifically to withstand 14.5 hmg fire from 50m, I think. That's actually pretty decent for light armor. BTR-70, by contrast, can get easily holed by 7.62. How that translates into withstanding 30mm at 1000m is anyone's guess. At the very least it would break everything affixed to the hull and shred the tires. Tunguska, on the other hand, does not like .50 cal fire at all

[mikeCK]

I know the Tunguska is designed for anti-air, but can its weapon system fire armor piercing rounds?...like the 25mm cannon on the BRADLEY

[animalshadow]

I know the Tunguska is designed for anti-air, but can its weapon system fire armor piercing rounds?...like the 25mm cannon on the BRADLEY

Yes, Tunguska should have mixed ammo instead of current HE only.

 

P.S. Had same issue as dan/california has - My Abrams was ambushed by opponent's Tunguska. Tunguska was shooting at my Abrams, then my Abrams just turned his turret and with "OK" face shot Tunguska.

 

 

 

 

That shouldn't happen - my Abrams crew wasn't even disturbed and there was no sign of suppression.

Edited March 1, 2015 by animalshadow

[Andrew H.]

Interesting about the Tunguska vs. Abrams.  In the small number of battles I've played, I've had two Abrams lose main guns to close range (˜300m) 30 mm fire.  And I've had a lot of other equipment stripped off...so much so that I think that getting in close with 30mms isn't a bad solution for dealing with Abrams.

 

If you can get close.

[Thewood1]

In CMSF, I used to use a sacrificial Shilka to strip off thermals and optics so my T-90s could come at M1s on equal terms.

[Stagler]

Yeah that abrams subsystems would of been borked.

[sburke]

Yes, Tunguska should have mixed ammo instead of current HE only.

 

P.S. Had same issue as dan/california has - My Abrams was ambushed by opponent's Tunguska. Tunguska was shooting at my Abrams, then my Abrams just turned his turret and with "OK" face shot Tunguska.

 

 

 

That shouldn't happen - my Abrams crew wasn't even disturbed and there was no sign of suppression.

Immobilized the Abrams though.  I am betting DMS would have loved one of those.

[Macisle]

I've had an Abrams stripped of every weapon system but its coax from a single frontal-impact 30mm burst from a BMP-3.

 

The main advantages an Abrams has on Russian tanks are its speed of attack and enhanced spotting abilities. Sometimes, this means that the speed of a BMP-3's 30mm attack will give it a better chance to hurt the Abrams than a tank would have. Yes, the tank might kill the Abrams if it actually gets a shot off, but the Abrams is likely to get its shot in first.

 

I remember taking a company of T-72s against a platoon of Abrams. They never managed to get any shots off and were decimated in engagements of 3 T-72s vs 1 (and sometimes 2) Abrams at a time.. However, my BMP-3s sacrificed 3 dead for 2 severely degraded (immobilized and nearly toothless) Abrams. I think if I'd had a whole company of BMP-3s and sent them as a mass, I might have come out on top in that one.