Opinion of armor in PR?

[darklord63]

M1A1s are sexy, but honestly what this game needs is a massive Insurgent US Army/MC map. (Which I'm pretty is coming in .95) This is needed so vehicles can do their job, without constantly dying. Honestly, I can't wait for that one map. M1A2s and an Apache or two destroying villages and techies.

[Wh33lman]

Usually I run an armor squad, and will almost always manage to take out their armor without the enemy ever knowing what hit them. Unless they manage to predict my strategies right off the bat, in which case all bets are off, but I will still probably manage to bounce back.

I almost always will pop up from behind to kill everything, and if I end up in frontal engagements I shoot back while popping smoke and running, because if I'm in a fair slugout, I've done it wrong and the best I can hope for is to live to go back for repairs, then try again.

again, i dont know where you play, but were talking 6 pubbers that think their tank is an unstopable war machine. in respect to Kashan, hey're always in the hills to the east of the bunkers waiting to get lazed, in the hills north of the bunkers waiting to be flanked, or running around the MEC outpost looking for each other.

i cant say anything about Silent Eagle seeing as i have only been able to play a total of 15, very laggy, minutes since .9 was released. i once saw a tank against the skyline there, where i promptly mowed down by the coax, so i assume the crews are jst as stupid on SE as Kashan.

[CommunistComma]

All the armor in PR is wrong. All of it. It's all Americanized bullshit.
My neighbours think so too, even the coloured ones. It's all very dishonourable.
All the Brits know what I'm saying.

Infraction given for flaming.

Dunehunter

[Silly_Savage]

All the armor in PR is wrong. All of it. It's all Americanized bullshit.
My neighbours think so too, even the coloured ones. It's all very dishonourable.
All the Brits know what I'm saying.

I hope so, because I sure as hell don't.

[Rudd]

All the armor in PR is wrong. All of it. It's all Americanized bullshit.
My neighbours think so too, even the coloured ones. It's all very dishonourable.
All the Brits know what I'm saying.

wow...






just wow.



no idea what you're saying mate though I hope the comment of the 'coloured' once was facetious.

[Rhino]

All the Brits know what I'm saying.

no idea.... And saying something is bullshit without giving good reasons is bullshit as well.

[Rudd]

no idea.... And saying something is bullshit without giving good reasons is bullshit as well.

thats bullshit rhino



wait....I just said some bullshit


I DID IT AGAIN!



the only thing about armour that could be really considered WRONG imo is how one kind of tank is basically the same as another kind of tank apart from teh T90 and merk, the merk cuz its awesomsauce and teh t90 cuz it has TOWs.

[Rhino]

All Russian tanks and the BMP-3 have cannon fired missiles

Also in .91 our tanks match there r/l speeds as closely as we can get it and in later versions we are doing as much work as possible to make each tank unique based on there r/l data.

[Psyko]

i wish the gunner had to aim using the keys instead of using the mouse, with a cool looking targeting system.

completly cosmetic, i know... but it would feel more like PR than driving a Heavy Gear. hope that made sense, look up heavy gear if confused.

[cyberzomby]

I dont know. Most of my experience has the tanks chasing each other and than waiting for the respawned tanks to battle them. APC's tend to support infantry but tanks are usually in a league of there own.

I also feel that infantry supporting vehicles is useless. Theres always a hat guy somewhere that you missed or is sniping from long range tugged away on a hill, rooftop or what not.

[Rudd]

i wish the gunner had to aim using the keys instead of using the mouse, with a cool looking targeting system.

I tried that in combined arms, its just too hard man

what would be best is a WSAD system...but the mouse still works for very fine adjustments.

so you'd turn the turret to the target, then move the mouse to get an accurate shot. would be sweet as hell imo, but so hard to do afaik

[Psyko]

yea i tried CAS's one as well. i think if you used WASD to move the turret quickly to the approximate direction, got the target in the center apature then you had a square cursor that hung like a lazer designator, that would be cool too. same deal for using the coax. wonder how well that would work.

[Nitneuc]

I used to use a lot of IFV/APC/MBT from PR 0.5 to 0.87 but now I avoid them since I hardly score with them anymore (static TOW and AT kits on the ground for 5 mn made them a lot more difficult to keep alive).

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

Armour is always good. But it is missused. In real life you use armour for breakthrough. But since everybody play the AAS gamemode this becomes a none factor, since you can't make a breakthrough because you are forced to cap in order. Armour in PR will be much better used in C&C.

Real armour tactics would be to have a columm breaking through at a weak place and camping the enemies supply lines, mostly destroying trucks and FOB and commanders. Armour is not a weapon to be used against armour. This is a fact. Just look at the latest Iraq war, majority of the American Armour was separated from the infantry and pushed through the flank towards Baghdad to finish the country leadership and force a surrender. That is how tanks are used, to ensure strategic victories. Not slowly pushing forward with dismounted infantry, that you could use a more dedicated weapon for instead, more artillery would be more cost-effective in that use. If a tank was designed to kill other tanks it would not be a tank, it would by definition be a tank-destroyer.

Also people in the military all parts are not equal. Everything is not considered of equal value and importance, even it it is combined-arms. First aircraft, then helicopters, then tanks, then IFV, then APC, then infantry. Everything support the types that are higher in the hierarchy. Tanks never supports infantry as such, it is actually the infantry that helps the tank get through terrain which the tanks have trouble with, this those not equal tank being their to give the infantry man a better chance to live, this is just a byproduct of the overall goal of getting the tank on it's marry way.

That is why mechanized infantry was developed in the first place! To help fast advancing tanks to clear dangerous areas. If any of you are going to rebute me you better have a another better explanation why mechanized infantry exist before i will even bother answering your post.

I have the book "Warriors of Death - The Final Battles of Hitler's Private Bodyguard" infront of me, a memorable section is when a SS commander is pushing through at the battle of the bulge, but is held up by a minefield. He gets very angry, the forces he has is Germany's finest, kingtigers, excellent halftracks and good weaponry. His objective is to push through to capture fuel and push to cities and to the sea, this can only be achived by speed. The beast tool he has is the tanks have the armour and firepower to survive in enemy backside. Time is of the essence. So what do he do? He orders the halftracks to drive through the minefield to clear a way for the tanks. Does he do this because he is SS? Yes partially, but mainly because the tank is more valuable for the victory, in a broader since for the survival of his country then the APC is.

tldr; Most of you guys would not recognize Armour tactics and modern/moobile warfare it it ran up and bit you in the face.

[Rudd]

yea i tried CAS's one as well. i think if you used WASD to move the turret quickly to the approximate direction, got the target in the center apature then you had a square cursor that hung like a lazer designator, that would be cool too. same deal for using the coax. wonder how well that would work.

that lock on system worked sometimes, but sometimes it resulted in insane bending trajectories etc, so I doubt thats gonna happen in PR, it also had the problem of allowing air assets to lock on to vehicles etc without any help, which was a bit OP.

[BloodBane611]

[MoW];1450371']Just look at the latest Iraq war, majority of the American Armour was separated from the infantry and pushed through the flank towards Baghdad to finish the country leadership and force a surrender. That is how tanks are used, to ensure strategic victories. Not slowly pushing forward with dismounted infantry, that you could use a more dedicated weapon for instead, more artillery would be more cost-effective in that use. If a tank was designed to kill other tanks it would not be a tank, it would by definition be a tank-destroyer.

The thunder run into Baghdad forced a surrender? Perhaps it forced surrender of whatever remaining conventional forces (though I have never seen any reporting stating that is the case), but it certainly did nothing to slow down or stop the insurgents who were active in Baghdad from the minute 2nd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division arrived. Perhaps in a conventional war that 'doctrine' might have been effective, but in Iraq it was simply the opening blows of an insurgency that is nowhere near finished.

[MoW];1450371']Also people in the military all parts are not equal. Everything is not considered of equal value and importance, even it it is combined-arms. First aircraft, then helicopters, then tanks, then IFV, then APC, then infantry. Everything support the types that are higher in the hierarchy. Tanks never supports infantry as such, it is actually the infantry that helps the tank get through terrain which the tanks have trouble with, this those not equal tank being their to give the infantry man a better chance to live, this is just a byproduct of the overall goal of getting the tank on it's marry way.

I would point to the 2003 battle in Nasiriyah, where 1st Battalion 2nd Marine Division primarily used tanks to support their infantry companies in securing the bridges on the north and south sides of the city. Fact is that tanks are still widely used for fire support, especially in urban environments where the majority of targets are personnel rather than vehicles. The IDF uses its merkavas in a similar way - they sit outside cities/towns and support the infantry by fire. In urban combat (which is by far more common than conventional war in this era), tank doctrine is completely reversed.

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

The thunder run into Baghdad forced a surrender? Perhaps it forced surrender of whatever remaining conventional forces (though I have never seen any reporting stating that is the case), but it certainly did nothing to slow down or stop the insurgents who were active in Baghdad from the minute 2nd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division arrived. Perhaps in a conventional war that 'doctrine' might have been effective, but in Iraq it was simply the opening blows of an insurgency that is nowhere near finished.

Yes i mean in conventional war. Insurgents are not factored in when discussion modern mobile/armoured warfare in a conventional war.

I would point to the 2003 battle in Nasiriyah, where 1st Battalion 2nd Marine Division primarily used tanks to support their infantry companies in securing the bridges on the north and south sides of the city. Fact is that tanks are still widely used for fire support, especially in urban environments where the majority of targets are personnel rather than vehicles. The IDF uses its merkavas in a similar way - they sit outside cities/towns and support the infantry by fire. In urban combat (which is by far more common than conventional war in this era), tank doctrine is completely reversed.

First of a majority of the forces were pushing through the city, and it was a small battle. The fact why tanks are still used as fire support in the US army because they lack a proper IFV. First of, it is ridiculous that a 60-ton vehicle that can move 40km/h and still hit and destroy moving enemy tanks at a distance of 2500 meters, is delegated to be used as a simple static fire plattform, which a ww2 staurt tank could perform with equal performance, or a vietnam era M-60 Patton that still that could still take rpg hits. Also the 2nd Marine Division is not a tank division, thus the tanks here that you are referring to is infantry support tanks since they are assigned to a none tank division.

But now i am rambling, the point is that US in this case simply lacked a better combat vehicle for infantry fire support use. A russian BMP-3M can fire a 20kg HE round up to 7000 meters, which in this case as infantry support is much much much better then the 2500 meters of the M1A1 Abraham and provide armour deterrence with it's atgm range 5500 meters, or the russian BTR-90 with automatic grenaderifle weapon would have finished the mission with out binding up valuble tanks. Or the Puma or CV9040 have adequate anti-personal weapons for the illustrated case. Or as many countries do, simply have older tanks left as infantry support weapons instead of the finest tank you have in the army.

Tank doctrine is to not have tanks in cities. If you are forced to use tanks in slug matches in cities, you are doing it wrong and are wasting assets. This is why the germans developed the Stug series, infantry support combat vehicles, specialty urban warfare. Which's role was later given to grenaderifles, something american infantry lacks. A Carl Gustav m/86 per squad perform miracles, or an rpg with high-explosive anti-personnel ammunition per squad.

[Rudd]

which a ww2 staurt tank could perform with equal performance

stuart tanks had thermal vision and fire and control systems?! wow, didn't know that.

[General_J0k3r]

stuart tanks had thermal vision and fire and control systems?! wow, didn't know that.

haxx!!! that explains why germany lost. US was hacking

i think we will see armor used more appropriately in PR:A2 since you can destroy all buildings and being in a building does not provide too much cover against an HE round also: one can level whole cities with a tank and view distance allows for srsly long range support.

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

stuart tanks had thermal vision and fire and control systems?! wow, didn't know that.

Is thermal vision and fire control system necessary to act as a static gun emplacment shooting at a city from range smarty pants? Also it is bad conduct to pick out a part of a sentence from a large post only to nit pick and write a ironic slander remark.