Up the number of LATs.

[Cassius]

You can not equip your squad in good coscience with a LAT "in case you run into something", because with 3 pieces max one would be too afraid to loose all of them in case the team needs them badly.

Can Lats be upped to max 4-5 per side ?

[Sprats]

Depends what faction, in chechen maps, chechen team should have special squad kits, which would consist of ak47 or ak74 and rpg7 with 1 rocket, that would make it real.. Anyways back to the post, think what madness would it be, if the mec would have 5 lats around and like 2 US apcs would come to the place where the lat guys are? The game has been balanced and it works, so i dont think it should be changed.

[rampo]

Im just afraid of the LAT spammage some people might begin whit a supply crate

[SomebodySomeone]

Everyone would just defend FOB's with LAT's and armor would be practically useless...

[TheLean]

There is also the HAT kits so that means atleast five squads can have some form of AT, not counting mines. I agree with you though that somehow more LATs should be included if it can be done while preserving game balance. The ratio of LAT vs HAT irl is very different I think, with much more LAT´s being used. Maybe remove a HAT and add four LATS or something instead. I dont ever take a HAT "just in case" but a LAT is something you should be able to take if you suspect you might run into armor.

[ma21212]

gud idea. relatively speaking a LAT would cost much less that a HAT and increase to 4 would not be bad as its mainly used to kill APCs and in some casses Inf. (it will do nothng to MBTs and most APCs take 2 hits from LATs)

[Herbiie]

Tbh a good SL should always have one in the squad. It's good for much more than just AT - it can clear out an enemy position just as easily.

[Redamare]

I like the idea im a supporter of giving more LATS to the teams

[Rudd]

I wouldn't mind seeing alot more LATs in PR, but the critical damage areas of APCs and other armoured vehicles would need to be revised so that hits on areas other than critical compenents would result in minor damage, otherwise the battlefield would just become too hazardous for armour.

[Farks]

Like somebody pointed out, keep the H-ATs in mind too. With them, you have up to five AT-weapons on your team.

[Cassius]

Tbh a good SL should always have one in the squad. It's good for much more than just AT - it can clear out an enemy position just as easily.

exactly, or just for use on manned trucks/vehicles.

[BloodBane611]

I wouldn't mind seeing alot more LATs in PR, but the critical damage areas of APCs and other armoured vehicles would need to be revised so that hits on areas other than critical compenents would result in minor damage, otherwise the battlefield would just become too hazardous for armour.

Agreed. More LATs, but make them more realistic

[Jedimushroom]

I'd agree with 4-5 LATs per team, or perhaps even a squad limited kit (if that is possible), so that every squad of more than four people can have one or something.

[joethepro36]

IMO it should be 6-7 available to the team, one per squad of six men. So long as the AT guy isn't being killed every minute or so, there should be no shortage of LAT. It's pretty unrealistic when squads in real life (of 10 men or so) have up to 3-4 AT4's between them as well as a javelin.

[WilsonPL]

I wish to see more lats/rpgs for chechens and less BRDM2-Spandrels. Im sure they dont have so many armored vehicles now :>

[RHYS4190]

Yeah your too right we need way more lat's, And i don't think it make things unbalanced ether, Lat's really only have a effective range of 50-70 beyond that it really hit and miss./ And there a one shot deal so i really don't see a recipe for disaster here.

And as for lat spaming, i really doubt it would get as bad as people seem to think, it be more like it is now.

What i find unrealistic right now is, Modern armies with a shortage of light anti tank weapons.

the whole peropus of the bloody things is really to be issued and made accessible to the solders as a fairly cheap way of defending them self’s.

It not uncommon in certain mission that this weapon can be issued to every single infantry man.

[-.-Maverick-.-]

Yup, Im for this. But then the apc's critical damage area needs to be revised a bit aswell.

[Cassius]

gud idea. relatively speaking a LAT would cost much less that a HAT and increase to 4 would not be bad as its mainly used to kill APCs and in some casses Inf. (it will do nothng to MBTs and most APCs take 2 hits from LATs)

I wouldnt want to pick up a HAT on a map where I do not expect to run into APCs or tanks.

Some say making the LAT more realistic, can a LAT breach an Chinese apc irl with a hit in the front, side, or not ?

[killonsight95]

I wish to see more lats/rpgs for chechens and less BRDM2-Spandrels. Im sure they dont have so many armored vehicles now :>

i don't think they are there for realism more for balence but yes fools road only need one