ATGM

Hitman.2.5 · Post by **Hitman.2.5** » 2010-04-17 00:02

Would it be more realistic to have a ATGM Stryker on Qwai than a TOW Humvee?

mangeface · Post by **mangeface** » 2010-04-17 03:51

I doubt it. Stryker's are more of transports than Humvee's are. In the USMC, we use the Humvee's in conjunction with TOW's in CAATs (Combined Anti-Armor Team) to hunt down enemy armor. The reason being is that the Humvee is big enough to support the weight of the TOW and it's ammunition, along with the crew and their gear for extended periods and not waste a ton of extra space like you would with a Stryker. Plus, the Humvee seems more easily accesible to the launcher to get a new missle in after it's fired. That's just my opinion. Others may differ.

Post by **Rudd** » 2010-04-17 03:55

I'd prefer the removal of 2 strykers, one put on delayed spawn, and a bradley added, the idea being that instead of hit and run tactics you'd move in convoy with the bradley there for AT power, but with enough stopping power not to die as easily or have its gunner sniped.

Would be perfect if the Chi could get a tank instead of one of its APCs, and then it would be balanced. Not sure where the map currently stands when it comes to tank sound bugs.

Thats how I'd do it anyway

goguapsy · Post by **goguapsy** » 2010-04-17 04:00

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:I'd prefer the removal of 2 strykers, one put on delayed spawn, and a bradley added, the idea being that instead of hit and run tactics you'd move in convoy with the bradley there for AT power, but with enough stopping power not to die as easily or have its gunner sniped.

Would be perfect if the Chi could get a tank instead of one of its APCs, and then it would be balanced. Not sure where the map currently stands when it comes to tank sound bugs.

Thats how I'd do it anyway

The bradley idea would be nice, but I wonder if there is even space on Qwai for a tank to maneuver...

Excavus · Post by **Excavus** » 2010-04-17 04:06

goguapsy wrote:The bradley idea would be nice, but I wonder if there is even space on Qwai for a tank to maneuver...

I think it worked fine in .85, just the sound bug was the problem. I believe that has been fixed.

Dev1200 · Post by **Dev1200** » 2010-04-17 05:23

I'm not sure how 3 VN3, 3 Cannon LAV's, 3 .50 cal apcs, and a wasp vs 4 .50 cal strykers, a tow humvee, and a littlebird with hydras is balanced..

1 tank and 2 LAV vs 1 Bradley and 2 Strykers would be fair.

Startrekern · Post by **Startrekern** » 2010-04-17 05:35

Considering they returned the littlebirds, I don't think there'd be a soundbug with the tanks anymore due to the view distance changes. Could be wrong.

samogon100500 · Post by **samogon100500** » 2010-04-17 10:55

1 TOW can destroy all china APCs!!!
If TOW have good crew thats really cheaters mashine =)
If TOW have noobs in crew = dead TOW
If make 2 or more TOWs = US Army always win on Qwai!

Tannhauser · Post by **Tannhauser** » 2010-04-17 11:33

Those suggesting the addition of Bradley and Tank seem to make their sneaky way towards reinstilling good ol' Qwai River from the older PR releases.. When China had a tank and USMC had LAVs and TOW...!

Can't say I'm against that.
An ATGM Stryker would be fun, but it's work to be done and I doubt DEVs want too much more of that.

Their call IMO.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2010-04-17 12:29

Hitman.2.5 wrote:Would it be more realistic to have a ATGM Stryker on Qwai than a TOW Humvee?

Yes, because unless they are attached or part of a provisional composite unit, Stryker infantry battalions do not have HMMWV TOW carriers; those are part of the Infantry battalion (Light, Airborne, Air Assault) weapons companies. Stryker ATGM or MGS (the latter has not yet entered full rate production and only equips one or two brigades, so far) are part of the Stryker infantry company organization.

Likewise, unless somebody decided to attach them in advance or things have really gone to Hell, you won't see a Bradley, Abrams or M113 in a Stryker brigade, and vice versa.

Stryker ATGM has been suggested before, though. Please use search and the *** thread in the future.

samogon100500 · Post by **samogon100500** » 2010-04-17 13:08

Sorry my bad =(
Anaway i think Stryker have heavy armour,China APC can't destroy that armour!!!
China must have Tank or ATGM - WZ550
WZ550 ATGM Carrier - SinoDefence.com

killonsight95 · Post by **killonsight95** » 2010-04-17 14:10

your kidding right the stryker is almost as bad as the Zippo

USMCMIDN · Post by **USMCMIDN** » 2010-04-17 15:45

darkside12 wrote:I doubt it. Stryker's are more of transports than Humvee's are. In the USMC, we use the Humvee's in conjunction with TOW's in CAATs (Combined Anti-Armor Team) to hunt down enemy armor. The reason being is that the Humvee is big enough to support the weight of the TOW and it's ammunition, along with the crew and their gear for extended periods and not waste a ton of extra space like you would with a Stryker. Plus, the Humvee seems more easily accesible to the launcher to get a new missle in after it's fired. That's just my opinion. Others may differ.

We do use this like that but in the future with the LAVA2 having the TOW system and the 25mm cannon (something like the USArmy M2/M3) I think we will phase out this tactic and adopt something like combined arms between the LAVs and Abrams to hunt armor while being able to combat ground personal.

Here is a cool little pic of the new turret for the LAVA2 TOW.

http://www.gdls.com/systems/lav25-tow.html

ATGM

ATGM

Re: ATGM

Re: ATGM

Re: ATGM

Re: ATGM

Re: ATGM

Re: ATGM

Re: ATGM

Re: ATGM

Re: ATGM

Re: ATGM

Re: ATGM

Re: ATGM