Anti Tank Infantry too weak (RPG)

[SemperFi]

Hello,

I found during testing that the anti-tank infantry is too weak.
It takes nine hits to the side armor to destroy older tanks (T55 / M60 Leo1).

RPG.trk

[NoJoy]

A Marines Cpt. told me some years ago that one of their Abrams was hit around 15 times by an RPG and after silencing that launcher he made it back to base by himself. Can't proof this that's for sure and maybe a bit off-topic but I found that very impressive 

Edit: We definitely need Javelins in the game!

Edited Thursday at 05:16 PM by NoJoy

[SemperFi]

That may be true. Older tanks without ERA or composite armor shouldn't be allowed to survive side hits.

TOW or 9K113 Konkurs would be better for the infantry.

Edited Thursday at 06:13 PM by SemperFi

[skynetsysadmin]

9 hours ago, SemperFi said:

Hello,

I found during testing that the anti-tank infantry is too weak.
It takes nine hits to the side armor to destroy older tanks (T55 / M60 Leo1).

RPG.trk 27.38 kB · 1 download

This isn't unheard of. In Syria, there were many cases where RPGs were largely ineffective against the T-55. 

It would be better if we had more realistic AT weapons. Even the LAW would be better than an RPG. The Dragon or TOW would be very effective. I was an 11BC2P in the Army, so I am biased.

[jubuttib]

For me the bigger problem is that we're missing anti-tank troops with actually effective weapons. Though an RPG-7, especially with the better warheads like the tandem ones, should still be pretty deadly when used right.

[SemperFi]

Of course, armor penetration and its effectiveness depend on various factors. Simulating that isn't relevant for DCS, though.

I think 9 hits for an old tank is too many.

The RPG is a versatile and dangerous weapon if it hits the right spot with the right warhead.

 

It would, of course, be nice if we had more choice in terms of infantry and weapons.

[Lace]

Contemporary US Army TRADOC estimates a 1st hit Pk of 5-10% at 300-500m against a non-moving M60 for an RPG-7.  If DCS have simply plugged that figure or something similar into their calculations then you would expect 10-20 hits to achieve a kill.  I don't know how the mechanics of DCS damage models work though.

The calculated Pk incorporates a 30% chance of a 1st round hit, so with a guaranteed hit the PK would be higher, and the number of hits might work out to 3-7.  The warhead is technically capable of penetrating 11" of steel armour, so anything other than a direct front-on hit would be effective against most older MBTs, I guess the variation in the probabilities reflects the different orientations of the target.  Best case and a guaranteed hit you might get a kill with one shot, but in reality 3-7 shots fired seems a reasonable estimate.  Nine side on seems excessive, especially with 100% hits.

[jubuttib]

10 hours ago, Lace said:

The warhead is technically capable of penetrating 11" of steel armour

Gotta ask, which warhead are we talking about? The RPG-7 has been capable of launching a bunch of different warheads, and they've varied in effectiveness over time. There's at least the PG-7V, VM, VS, VS1, VL and VR that came out between the 60s to late 80s period, with penetrations ranging from 10 inches to over 20 inches of RHA.

[Lace]

5 hours ago, jubuttib said:

Gotta ask, which warhead are we talking about? The RPG-7 has been capable of launching a bunch of different warheads, and they've varied in effectiveness over time. There's at least the PG-7V, VM, VS, VS1, VL and VR that came out between the 60s to late 80s period, with penetrations ranging from 10 inches to over 20 inches of RHA.

The paper doesn't state the specific version but was based on the HEAT type and written circa 1976, so I'd imagine it related mainly to the 7VS.  Wikipedia has a wide range of penetration figures, but, you know, it's Wikipedia so a good chance it's not particularly accurate.

I would share it but rules on here are pretty clear, even for older documents.