tanks vs infantry combat/ combat damage Thread - WIC: Modern Warfare Mod for World in Conflict

I have been watching a lot of COH replays of late, and i was taking particular notice to tank on infantry combat. I remember reading posts about how infantry are very fragile as is, so i thought in order to strike some fear into tank commander's hearts at closing infantry or close in inf. I think that implementing some of the tools that infantry use in COH would help do that:
1. sticky bombs: could actually just be c4 that inf throws onto the tank, ex: demo inf closes in on a unsuspecting tank they throw a c4 pack it lands on the rear engine compartment, not really "sticking" to the tank but unable to be removed. Tank blown up from careless error of charging into inf.
2.reduce the hull rotational and acceleration speed of heavy tanks like Abrams to allow inf to skirt around tanks to improve inf close in survivability.
3.give buildings more health(granted probably very difficult to implement) to give inf a suitable place to garrison instead of just forests,i am not talking super buildings but even with a direct hit by say 155mm shell the whole building shouldn't go to dust maybe lose only a 1/3 or 1/4 health.
4.Part damage to tanks( treads, engines, guns etc.) to discourage careless charging plus no feeling like chasing down a limping tank and destroying it, i know that Blahdy already said that would be very difficult and time consuming to do, but i just wait to put in on the wish list for down the road.

lastly to encourage to the use of other things than send in the t-90s and abrams, maybe increase their cost so other new anti-inf vehicles like the stryker Mgs have a place

i know most of these ideas would probably do some crazy things but i would like to hear someones else s opinion on the subject

Thank you for your suggestion.

My opinion: This isn't World War 2. In World War 2 tanks were slow, in Modern Warfare they are not. The abrams is not a "heavy tank" it is a "main battle tank". It is capable of going at 45 mph.

All of your suggestions act like this is World War 2, when in fact it is 65 years after.

1. It would take a hell of a lot more than 1 C4 charge to take out a modern tank... also, C4 needs to be manually "planted", and you are never going to be able to get that close to a tank as infantry.
2. No. It is set to a realistic value, an Abrams can go up to 45 mph and 0-20 in 7 seconds... it is not WW2 anymore, sorry.
3. Easy, but no. Buildings generally aren't made to survive artillery that is made to destroy buildings
4. Probably going to happen, but the tank will not get easier to kill.

--
Heaney

Edited by: Heaney

well when i said heavy i meant abram's class of tanks 70 tons sure isn't light

1. Tank commanders worry all the time about infantry causing mischief when they have are in urban terrain especially when sappers arrive besides a c4 pack is like 10 lbs of explosive, if it doesnt kill the tank it would surely destroy a trend or take out the engine(there is only slat armor on the back of abram's tanks). at least slow the bastard down for a jdam or at strike. Just like in fallujah( or however the thing is spelled) the tanks would stop if the infantry wasnt there to protect their flanks.
2. hmmm i didnt figure the abrams could accelerate that fast, those gas turbines lol.
3. Building right now take large amounts of damage for misses and fragments, i am not debating if a building takes a direct 500lb jdam it shouldnt go down but if a 155m hits 15m away half the building's health shouldn't go away.

I do agree some buildings go down a little to easily, against mlrs black rain, I have a hard time believeing that black rain would completly demolish a house, kill everything inside sure.

Last I checked 155mm HE doesn't drain down half of building health even if it's a direct hit... were you hitting a weak building perhaps?

The artillery explosions in MW Mod do same damage as artillery shells in vanilla WiC, so the way buildings crumble is same as vanilla.

But in any event, with the introduction of Javelin missiles, urban warfare has become a complete utter nightmare for T-90 drivers. So I think your dream of town becoming no-tank-zone is now possible.

automatkas, you obviously are listening to anti-abrams talk about gas turbine engines
The gas turbine engine is actually BETTER for performance, the BAD thing is the fuel consumption, it's crazy.

Here are the statistics to prove it (I use tons here, not short tons):

T-90 M1A2SEP Abrams
Weight 46.5 tons 63 tons
Top Speed 37 mph 42 mph
Range (shows fuel consumption) 340 miles 243 miles

So, as you see, the Abrams is a whole 16.5 tons heavier than the T-90 yet it is 5 miles per hour faster (and acceleration far faster), but the problem is that the Abrams is very "gas guzzling" (poor fuel efficiency).

Oh and it is NOT 70 tons, that is the statistic in short tons...

PS. Before you ask, no I am not American

Edited by: Heaney

yeah i have never heard good things about putting an aircraft engine into a tank, damn things are so finicky granted the turbines will consume everything including the kitchen sink for fuel lol.
i had no doubt that the abrams was better than the t-90, just a t-72 with some new crap slapped on with duct tape, Russians dont make very good engines so that was a given.
i thought that was long tons because if your weight is true shouldn't a c-5 be able to carry 2 instead of one?
Yeah i knew you weren't American, northern Irish correct?
i am surprised you dont remember me, i used to play beta with you guys, remember i had the unstoppable abram spam lol

Edited by: automatkas

Remember you? I'm lucky if I remember what day it is
What was your name on WiC multiplayer?

Oh and the reason I just said I'm not American is because any time I talk about the Abrams being superior online I get called a dumb American...

Edited by: Heaney

really trying for that irish sterotype lol jk. Same name as on here, automatkas

Hmm I really don't remember things like peoeple's names from mutliplayer games.

yeah i tend to only remember them because a lot of people use the same name on massgate and xfire