Russian ATGMs

[db_zero]

I've been experimenting with the editor and testing out Russian ATGMs to get a better feel for them. I've noticed a couple of things. One is they will spot enemy targets like M1's, but sit and do nothing unless you target them or use a firing arc command.

The AT-4C has a tendency for the first missile fired to fly into the ground a short distance after launch. After that they seem to be more stable.

So far against target M1's all including the AT-14 seem to be ineffective against the frontal armor on a M1 tank. This has held true when firing from the 7th story of a building downwards. I haven't done a lot of testing so I won't say its conclusive, but for now I'm going to be under the assumption that all Russian ATGMs are ineffective against the frontal armor of a M1.

[antaress73]

At-14 will get through gun mantlet, middle of front lower Hull , driver,s hatch , turret ring, and front upper Hull (this one if fired from an elevated position or with the Abrams going down a hill) most of the time. You get maybe a 15-20% chance of a kill using an At-14 or Kryzanthema frontally against the Abrams at the same elevation. That's not negligible and firing in salvos is effective even frontally.

 

You were probably extremely unlucky. I lost and killed plenty of Abrams with frontal Kornet shots. 

Edited January 20, 2016 by antaress73

[Melchior]

Kornet is no guarantee against an Abrams though. More than once i've seen an Abrams whip its turret around and ice the launcher and its whole crew mid-shot. 

[antaress73]

Kornet is no guarantee against an Abrams though. More than once i've seen an Abrams whip its turret around and ice the launcher and its whole crew mid-shot. 

at closer range yes. Mid-range shots, foxholes and trench in woods or inside buildings deployment with veteran or higher crews is highly. Recommended. Also,  Vanir said that tanks detected flank or rear missiles laubches and turned their turret too  easily (without  APS of course) and it should be corrected in a Patch along with the Abrams side turret armor bug (it is way too resistant to HEAT rounds,  At-13s will never  penetrate  despite 900mm of penetration  after ERA). 

[Sublime]

I think the new patch should have m1a2s without laser warning receivers as an option. Yes like aps they could be bolted on but the tanks dont have them now.

[antaress73]

I think the new patch should have m1a2s without laser warning receivers as an option. Yes like aps they could be bolted on but the tanks dont have them now.

That would make the kornet quite formidable. But the AT-13 being able to correctly penetrate and kill an M1A2 with a side turret hit would much improve that missile's lethality. I've lost many kills to that bug. Another bug is that small and fast SACLOS missiles (like the AT-13 ) are being detected too easily by tanks when coming in from the sides or rear (like a sixth sense). This enables the tanks to unexpose their weak flanks on an unrealistically regular basis (hurts the russian side more than US). When both bugs are fixed then the AT-13 will be a great solution  against the Abrams. Difficult to detect the launcher when deployed properly, very low set-up time , mobile and little to  no warning its coming your way . Can also be fired from the shoulder with less accuracy.

[Sublime]

Yes that 7 second setup in buildings ( my only thermal proof solution) is nice. I still use saxhorns they pick off brads well and i still ko abrams just not on the turrets :/

 

And the kornet SHOULD be quite formidable - when the US lost an Abrams in the 03 invasion of Iraq the US flipped out on Syria briefly accusing them of giving Iraq Kornets..

Edited January 23, 2016 by Sublime