Striker Recoil

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

So when are AK-47s gonna be incorporated?

they already incorporated shotgun..

 

 

<_<

and so far all the videos you showed were by tanks several times the relative size and weight of a mammoth. how about one from the size of a wasp?

 

 

 

that is not how i justified recoil. i justified recoil from the fact that a countermass is needed to counteract recoil from this sort of mechanics. (it's the pdf btw) the examples i provided simply act as proof that this sort of mechanics do exist.

 

 

 

as for MATADOR... there is definately still a lot of recoil and sound and some backblast despite the countermass... I haven't studies exactly how it works but i know that because... i have used it myself. i used it as an example a few times because it had the highest recoil and sound of all the weapons i ever used. it's a bloody monster, destroys everything i shot at. i know where they are, i shoot at them and they die. others who hear me 10 footbal fields away think I commanded zeus to strike lightningbolts at  where i shot at. no idea why it's classified as low recoil, that ain't true

Edited February 27, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI

[shafter9 156]

Alright, I can’t find any good videos of the MATADOR firing that show whether or not there is recoil, and you claim not to know the physics, so I don’t know.

I strongly feel it makes no physical sense for the MATADOR to have recoil, you probably are feeling the exhaust from the missile hitting you as it flies in front of you, away from you. If the plastic countermass doesn’t quite balance the blast of the launching mechanism, there might actually be recoil. During the launch portion, the MATADOR acts as a recoilless rifle; the rocket part lights later.

Edited February 28, 2019 by shafter9

[wolverine848 13,097]

they already incorporated shotgun..

 

and so far all the videos you showed were by tanks several times the relative size and weight of a mammoth. how about one from the size of a wasp?

 

AK-47 is an assault rifle.

Scattershot (shotguns) already exist for tanks... cannister.

 

 

None of the videos I showed were tanks. All smaller/lighter.

Bradley is an IFV... smaller and much lighter than a tank.  With the armour it has would be equivalent to a hornet.

 

Really - use the internet.  It is your friend.

[Maf 32,306]

and so far all the videos you showed were by tanks several times the relative size and weight of a mammoth. how about one from the size of a wasp?

I feel like the size of tanks in Tanki is greatly underestimated. Most likely due to the fact that some of the props were not designed to accurately reflect the game's official scale, which is that 1 prop = 5 metres. If you look at this house, the door on it is actually higher than the tank:

 

 

 

 

 

 

This makes even a Mammoth look like it's the size of a typical car.

 

But if you compare a tank to the size of a prop, you can see that a Mammoth is actually around 6.5 metres long, while a Wasp is around 4 metres long (which is closer to a typical car):

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if you take this as the official size, and compare it to some real life objects, you can see that a Mammoth is actually pretty damn massive. Here's a Mammoth compared to a car and a human, as well as the Stryker vehicle shown in one of the videos wolverine posted:

 

 

Doesn't really relate much to the discussion, but I think it's interesting to consider. And I'm pretty sure that none of these vehicles are "several times the relative size" of a Mammoth.

[shafter9 156]

I was thinking about that today. But... Say mammoth is 6.5 meters long. An M1 abrams is 8 meters long. Viking (5.2m) is shorter than a suburban (5.6m). It’s hard to tell the size, but I think the tanks in Tanki are smaller than their real-world counterparts.

 

Also, the Stryker is 7m long, and mammoth 6.5, so the Stryker should be bigger in that image you have.

 

Tanki X is better about the scale thing, but it feels weird. Many of the buildings in TX’s Iran, for instance, are 2 stories high where they are 1 in tanki.

Edited February 28, 2019 by shafter9

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

AK-47 is an assault rifle.

Scattershot (shotguns) already exist for tanks... cannister.

let me just ask you one thing. you rather they incorporate a more common tank fitted rocket launcher..; or you rather they incorporate something that makes you feel like someone under orders of comrade stalin sent to war for the motherland? 

 

okay that was a joke, but anyway cannister was desgined for tanks BUT not to use against tanks, it's designed to be used against infantry. i thought you said that because infantry doesn't exist in the game there shouldn't anything to do with them? 

 

 

 

None of the videos I showed were tanks. All smaller/lighter.

Bradley is an IFV... smaller and much lighter than a tank.  With the armour it has would be equivalent to a hornet.

as pointed out by my 2 friends above... a mammoth is actually smaller than that stryker... ;)

 

 

 

Alright, I can’t find any good videos of the MATADOR firing that show whether or not there is recoil, and you claim not to know the physics, so I don’t know.

I strongly feel it makes no physical sense for the MATADOR to have recoil, you probably are feeling the exhaust from the missile hitting you as it flies in front of you, away from you. If the plastic countermass doesn’t quite balance the blast of the launching mechanism, there might actually be recoil. During the launch portion, the MATADOR acts as a recoilless rifle; the rocket part lights later.

that was definately recol i felt. you might think that's how it works but... seriously, each one costs 15 thousand euros each, how could something so simple cost that much?? i wouldn't be surprised if it's actually an antimatter rocket. how else could something so small and light be so much more powerful than anything else like it... 

[GorgoBlesk 831]

AK-47 is an assault rifle.

Scattershot (shotguns) already exist for tanks... cannister.

Tanks have usually 2 machine guns, coaxial and roof-mounted. Most WW2 tanks had also hull-mounted machine gun (often a weakpoint). Some WW2 tanks got 2 coaxial machine guns (T-50, Panzer 3 B-E), some got mini-turrets (T-28, T-35, Crusader, M3 Lee, SAU 40). Interwar M2 Medium had 1 coaxial machine gun, 4 in sponsons and 2 fixed in hull (useless).

 

M1 Abrams uses 5,56mm light machine gun M249 SAW as coaxial. SAW has less weight than AK-47 (!) so it is commonly used by infantry. M1 Abrams also uses canister shots against infantry.

 

If Tanki think that huge shotgun can be effective against tanks, same can apply for huge machine guns (autocannons). Vulcan is not a standard autocannon, it is a rotary autocannon.

[wolverine848 13,097]

let me just ask you one thing. you rather they incorporate a more common tank fitted rocket launcher..; or you rather they incorporate something that makes you feel like someone under orders of comrade stalin sent to war for the motherland? 

 

okay that was a joke, but anyway cannister was desgined for tanks BUT not to use against tanks, it's designed to be used against infantry. i thought you said that because infantry doesn't exist in the game there shouldn't anything to do with them? 

 

as pointed out by my 2 friends above... a mammoth is actually smaller than that stryker...

Recoil depends on weight - not length, or width or height.

Even if the launchers have a slight recoil (if a person can fire an RPG - the recoil is slight at most) the weight of a vehicle would totally negate that.

 

M1 Abrams is 60 tons.  A Mammoth would be comparable - it's the heaviest tank in TO.

 

The videos of vehicles I posted are not even close to that weight - and yet - they exhibit no recoil when firing a missile.

M3 Bradley = 23 tons

Stryker - appearing larger - is only 20 tons.  As IFVs they have much less armor, and thus much less weight than a TANK.

 

These Anti-tank vehicles would correspond to wasp/hunter/ possibly Viking in terms of armor/weight.

So even in TO a Wasp would not exhibit recoil effects while mounting a missile launcher simply because is has substantial weight as a TANK.

[shafter9 156]

^Yup, the effects of recoil would be indiscernible, the tanks are just too massive, and rocket launchers have little or no recoil to begin with.

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

M1 Abrams is 60 tons.  A Mammoth would be comparable - it's the heaviest tank in TO.

what utter rubbish. 6O tons is 54431 kg, mammoth only weighs 4000kg. you idea of "comparable" is 13,6 times??

 

 

The videos of vehicles I posted are not even close to that weight - and yet - they exhibit no recoil when firing a missile.

M3 Bradley = 23 tons

Stryker - appearing larger - is only 20 tons.  As IFVs they have much less armor, and thus much less weight than a TANK.

 

These Anti-tank vehicles would correspond to wasp/hunter/ possibly Viking in terms of armor/weight.

So even in TO a Wasp would not exhibit recoil effects while mounting a missile launcher simply because is has substantial weight as a TANK.

how many times to i have to explain that none of the rocket launchers shown in your videos work the same way as rocket launchers that do need countermass systems to counter the recoil? (proof of that is in the pdf) you can show all the videos you want, unless you show me 1 video of every single rocket launcher in existence you won't prove that a rocket launcher with recoil doesn't exist.

 

yes i know that such systems aren't usually for tanks BUT then again your shotgun canister example isn't for tanks either. it's for infantry which doesn't exist in this game. btw, does your canister have any recoil?

Edited March 1, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI

[wolverine848 13,097]

what utter rubbish. 6O tons is 54431 kg, mammoth only weighs 4000kg. you idea of "comparable" is 13,6 times??

 

 

how many times to i have to explain that none of the rocket launchers shown in your videos work the same way as rocket launchers that do need countermass systems to counter the recoil? (proof of that is in the pdf) you can show all the videos you want, unless you show me 1 video of every single rocket launcher in existence you won't prove that a rocket launcher with recoil doesn't exist.

 

yes i know that such systems aren't usually for tanks BUT then again your shotgun canister example isn't for tanks either. it's for infantry which doesn't exist in this game. btw, does your canister have any recoil?

Sigh.

 

It's all relative.  The Mammoth is the Abrams of TO.  Hunter is the T34, etc.  I hope you can understand that.

You think a real-world Mammoth with lots of armor would actually weigh 4000kg?

 

There's no real reason to introduce a missile launcher with recoil in the game since there are plenty of examples that show it is not needed.

 

As for Hammer - that's fantasy.  Just like Freeze.  And Twins.  And Ricco.  There are no real-world equivalents.

 

And yes canister would have recoil because it is fired from a closed breach system

Just like a hand-held shot gun has huge recoil - way more than a rifle.

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

Sigh.

 

It's all relative.  The Mammoth is the Abrams of TO.  Hunter is the T34, etc.  I hope you can understand that.

You think a real-world Mammoth with lots of armor would actually weigh 4000kg?

 

There's no real reason to introduce a missile launcher with recoil in the game since there are plenty of examples that show it is not needed.

 

As for Hammer - that's fantasy.  Just like Freeze.  And Twins.  And Ricco.  There are no real-world equivalents.

 

And yes canister would have recoil because it is fired from a closed breach system

Just like a hand-held shot gun has huge recoil - way more than a rifle.

there's no real world equivalent for striker too. I'm sorry you thought it was supposed to be a real world equlivalent of whatever videos you were showing me... striker is really just another fantasy.

 

like how hammer is based on shotgun, striker is based on those examples i gave you which, like hammer, aren't usually for tanks but, like hammer, get put on tanks here

[wolverine848 13,097]

there's no real world equivalent for striker too. I'm sorry you thought it was supposed to be a real world equlivalent of whatever videos you were showing me... striker is really just another fantasy.

 

like how hammer is based on shotgun, striker is based on those examples i gave you which, like hammer, aren't usually for tanks but, like hammer, get put on tanks here

What do you mean there is no real-world example of striker?  :wacko:

 

Every video I posted is a real world example.  There's one called Stryker.   S-T-R-Y-K-E-R.

Take the 25mm cannon off of m3 bradley IFV and you pretty much have exact same thing Striker in TO is.

1) Armored vehicle... check

2) Movement via tracks... check

3) Double-tube TOW anti-tank missile launcher... check

What more do you want?

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

What more do you want?

recoil

[shafter9 156]

We’ve come full circle, folks!

 

Your argument: Striker should have recoil, because it is a fantasy weapon which is incomparable to real-world weapons, as evidenced by the fact that it has recoil. Striker can only be compared with real world weapons that have recoil.

 

Edited March 2, 2019 by shafter9

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

We’ve come full circle, folks!

 

Your argument: Striker should have recoil, because it is a fantasy weapon which is incomparable to real-world weapons, as evidenced by the fact that it has recoil. Striker can only be compared with real world weapons that have recoil.

 

and youre? striker should not have recoil because it can only be compared to tank mounted rocket launchers and they do not have recoil even though they are typically mounted on tanks about 20 times their weight as contrast to the tanks striker gets mounted on in the game

 

since when are you the one who decides what it should be compared to.. they were okay with making a flamethrower for a tank, they were okay with making a shotgun for a tank... but now, when they make a RPG for a tank you got a problem

[wolverine848 13,097]

and youre? striker should not have recoil because it can only be compared to tank mounted rocket launchers and they do not have recoil even though they are typically mounted on tanks about 20 times their weight as contrast to the tanks striker gets mounted on in the game

 

since when are you the one who decides what it should be compared to.. they were okay with making a flamethrower for a tank, they were okay with making a shotgun for a tank... but now, when they make a RPG for a tank you got a problem

Nothing in this post is correct - a big fail.

 

I'm done debating this since you refuse to use even a bit of common sense.

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

Nothing in this post is correct - a big fail.

 

I'm done debating this since you refuse to use even a bit of common sense.

okay get out

[shafter9 156]

and youre? striker should not have recoil because it can only be compared to tank mounted rocket launchers and they do not have recoil even though they are typically mounted on tanks about 20 times their weight as contrast to the tanks striker gets mounted on in the game

since when are you the one who decides what it should be compared to.. they were okay with making a flamethrower for a tank, they were okay with making a shotgun for a tank... but now, when they make a RPG for a tank you got a problem

There are flechette rounds for tanks. There are Churchill Crocodiles. So I have no problem with flamethrowers or shotguns. These are anti-personnel, but they could be anti-tank too. Because of the high acceleration but low top speeds these tanks have, we must conclude that they’re pretty lightly armored. A flamethrower might damage such a tank, and a big shotgun could too. There is some suspension of disbelief I use, sure.

But whereas the other stuff contributes to a fun gameplay or are just reasonable things for a game, or involve somewhat sci-fi elements, giving a rocket launcher recoil has no balance purpose, and is not required for good gameplay. It is a simple parameter that is blatantly in contradiction with the laws of physics.

Edited March 8, 2019 by shafter9

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

it is fun for me to be able to use a soviet weapon here. maybe not for you, but for me it is

[wolverine848 13,097]

it is fun for me to be able to use a soviet weapon here. maybe not for you, but for me it is

So you need Russian example ...    9P157 2 Khrizantema S   - mounted on a BMP-3 which has armor like a light tank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How much recoil in this Russian anti-tank missile launcher?

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

I'm more interested in why the topic title says "merge" when it hasn't been merged into anything yet.

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

So you need Russian example ...    9P157 2 Khrizantema S   - mounted on a BMP-3 which has armor like a light tank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How much recoil in this Russian anti-tank missile launcher?

this is not the one i like. the one i like is the one with recoil

 

which part of "soviet" can you not understand? 

 

and i want something lesser than the weight of a mammoth (4000kg)

Edited March 8, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI

[wolverine848 13,097]

this is not the one i like. the one i like is the one with recoil

 

which part of "soviet" can you not understand? 

 

and i want something lesser than the weight of a mammoth (4000kg)

Do you understand what the term "relative" or "proportional" means?

 

A mammoth in the real world would be an Abrams main battle Tank - or bigger.

 

So that makes wasp/hornet = the AIFVs I've shown you.

 

 

But hey - never change.  We like you just the way you are.  :wacko:

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

Do you understand what the term "relative" or "proportional" means?

 

A mammoth in the real world would be an Abrams main battle Tank - or bigger.

 

So that makes wasp/hornet = the AIFVs I've shown you.

 

 

But hey - never change.  We like you just the way you are.  :wacko:

in the real world mammoth would be a light tank. it's shorter than a man sized door

 

you know what is relativity and proportion? with your heavy tanks there is close to no recoil, but when used on tanks 5% of their weight here the recoil gets amplified. this is proportion

Edited March 9, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI