APCs: Thoughts about their role

[Himalde]

Things that could be changed to make the situation better.

Make APC and IFV less noisy (smaller sound range) would help on large maps.
Give the driver lots of smoke (realistic or not, it would help)
Remove TOW thermals.
Stop HAT "jack in the box" and reduce the HAT deviation time (allow effective tracking at really close ranges).

[Mikemonster]

I did think, what about removing the ability to fire the HAT from a certain stance, i.e. Standing?

[jerkzilla]

We're pushing off topic with the HAT jack in the box thing but I agree, and for the Erix at least, AFAIK it would be kind of realistic.


The noise is pretty hard on the IFVs and other tracked vehicles, and somewhat less on wheeled APCs though. As it is now, the noise level might be realistic, but with the totally not realistic view distances, it doesn't seem to be working out.

Personally, I don't see TOWs as such a big problem. I rather think they provide good defence against armor that isn't moving with infantry, as infantry would probably spot it first.

[USMC scout sniper]

I think APCs should be used to transport the infantry more safely, soften up enemy resistance, making the infantryman's job easier.

[ShockUnitBlack]

There are a couple of problems here -

A - APCs on urban maps are rather ineffective against infantry thing as cover is so easy to get to and most carry MGs rather than cannons. LATs on these maps will disable APCs with ease.

B - APCs on large, open maps are close to worthless due to the effectiveness of TOWs/HATs/CAS/tanks.

C - Helicopters are tougher to kill and are faster than APCs. They also carry crates.

D - Generally communication between APCs and infantry is limited.

Shock's suggestions:

A - Reduce APC vulnerability to LATs. Everything but a hit to the top or rear of the vehicle should not knock it out in a single hit.

B - Reduce helicopter speed and armour by a lot. Possibly remove helicopter crates.

C - Do not increase the number of HATs available in 128 player games, meaning APCs are more of a threat to infantry.

[40mmrain]

yes the problem with PR's apcs (and a shitload of other things too) are the tiny view distance, and small games.


Essentially it can be broken down to this. As an APC crewman here is what can kill you: HAT, LAT, tanks, other apcs, and CAS. This is just like real life, of course, however there is an issue. In real life an APC will have much greater effective range with it's 30mm cannon than handheld AT, which is a view dsitance issue. Secondly, in real life the enemy stationary AT and handheld is less CONCENTRATED.

What I mean, is that with 32 enemies, literally EVERY SINGLE squad has the means to instantly destroy you. Lets take a typical map like burning sands for example. The enemy has 3-4 tanks active, 2 smaller armoured vehicles like scimis, bmps, btrs, warriors or tow-mtlb, their CAS helo, 2-3 infantry squad of which ALL carry AT along with stationary AT, and their trans helicopters. In real life Im fairly certain there arent two pieces of AT per six guys, along with a TOW to deploy anywhere.

That accounts for their whole team. Every single person on their team that you meet besides the trans helicopters will be able to destroy you. that is why these vehicles fail. You never have to hide from a mobile 30mm auto cannon that has powerful optics and thermal vision. all you have to do is get your HAT to warm up, pull out your LAT, or let your buddy on the TOW blast him.

If it were upto me, possible active TOWs and LATs should be reduced to 1, and 2 respectively. (i think there are three lat kits available?)

[Crazy_Monkey]

I have to agree with all of you on the point that APC are weak against any type of heavy weapon, but then again they aren't really made for that purpose really, unlike lets say the British Warrior which is an IFV personlly I love this vehicle it can take withstand so much damage (Most i have taken: 1mine, 2IED, 1RPG).

People just tend to use them wrong I will always go and help out infantry that need my help or extract them etc even if they dont ask and most of the time my team really appreciats it, but most people tend to just drive around shooting at shit which is mostly a death sentence.

Most IFV drivers have a 360degree view and thermal image which gives them a huge advantage against Inf in Cities.

[Xander[nl]]

128 players could fix a lot, because the bigger squads would allow for 8 player mechanized squads that can work together more closely than two seperate squads. Especially on larger maps this could turn out to be fairly awesome, having squads using an APC for transport instead of jeeps and using them for fire support when dismounted.

Right now, APCs on AAS usually fight their own wars and do some transport in between when it's needed. Hopefully more players and bigger squads can integrate APCs and infantry.

[DieVoorJe91]

In real life i am a IFV gunner, and we use are vehicle (CV9035) most of the time seperate from infantry.

Each platoon has 4 IFV's linked to 4 squads of inf. Most of the time the inf walks most of the distance to the target and the 4 IFV's go there own way and only supporting the inf if they need it.

So what im trying to say is that the way the IFV's are operating in PR is pretty realistic. But to make at more fair for IFV"s, they need; 1. increase IFV view distance. 2. decrease lat/hat effective range or damage scales.

[PFunk]

In real life i am a IFV gunner, and we use are vehicle (CV9035) most of the time seperate from infantry.

Each platoon has 4 IFV's linked to 4 squads of inf. Most of the time the inf walks most of the distance to the target and the 4 IFV's go there own way and only supporting the inf if they need it.

So what im trying to say is that the way the IFV's are operating in PR is pretty realistic. But to make at more fair for IFV"s, they need; 1. increase IFV view distance. 2. decrease lat/hat effective range or damage scales.

I was reading that Canadian infantry squads are being trained to never expect to fight without the support of their LAV3. So I have no idea what the actual on the ground result is, but the FMs seem to imply that Squad ops independent of LAV support is unlikely. I was also reading some retired officer's OpEd piece about how training has not focused on complex fire and maneuver tactics and instead relies on the assumption of APC support at all times to allow for simplistic frontal assault tactics.

I have no frame of reference for whether or not thats all BS but its what I ran into while reading up on my Forces.

As for the way YOUR forces operate, are the IFVs operating like they're on their own mission, going off and conquering the entire map, or are you guys more like sitting back, waiting for Infantry to get into contact and then moving up if they need support? I often find the way APC/IFVs work in PR to be annoying just because they'll go get themselves blown up trying to be heroic and blatantly ignore infantry requests for support. Even getting one to stop to let us draw a kit can be hell.

View distance should be increased and survivability maybe as well. I'm not sure on the numbers for APC/IFV survivability versus Light Infantry Anti-Tank.

[Mikemonster]

Building and terrain penetration and lack of stand-off ability hamper the APCs enough not to seem realistic in my uneducated opinion.

I.e if an infanty unit was pinned down in dead ground behind some dunes and had a LAT, in real life I would presume the APC would just fire THROUGH the dune/berm/ditch and obliterate them. From 1500m away.

Same for a squad of infantry trapped in a building complex, just level the complex with them in it.

DieVoorJe, please stay around, you can give excellent insight into this issue.

[DieVoorJe91]

DieVoorJe, please stay around, you can give excellent insight into this issue.

I'm always around.

As for the way YOUR forces operate, are the IFVs operating like they're on their own mission, going off and conquering the entire map, or are you guys more like sitting back, waiting for Infantry to get into contact and then moving up if they need support?

Well what I can tell from our last excercise, is that in a defensive way of fighting, we fight combined. One continuous line of infantry with intergraded IFV's. But if we are talking about a attacking way of fighting, we most of time stayed in the rear in a holdig area or trying to seek out enemy IFV's and let the infantry fight each other.

But in my opinion on of the great things about a IFV's is there versatility in combat.
And as off a few months ago they are our armies main strike force cause of budget cuts, all our tanks have been taking out of service. So why are trying to let our IFV's maneuver a bit more like tanks.

[Xander[nl]]

DieVoorJe, one important aspect you left out is, which type of combat is it that you're talking about? Counter-insurgency ie. Afghanistan, or Open Warfare against capable armies?

Because I think in PR the way APCs work in Insurgency is rather nice and most of the time like you describe, staying in the background providing long range support and mostly minding their own business. That's not really where the problem lies IMO.

They however lack effectiveness (in teamwork) in AAS. I would like to know how you'd operate in a full scale war (that AAS represents).

[DieVoorJe91]

The way of fighting i talked about is that we call in holland, groen optreden, or in english conventinal warfare with 2 or more regular armies fighting each other in non urban battlefields.

But the methods we use in reallife cant be implemented in PR unless 4 squads or more are working thightly together as a platoon. Only then you can achieve the manner of fighting with 2 or more IFV's supported with inf.

For as the way IFV's are operating now on insurgency is the best way IMO.

[BulletPr0of]

Trouble is that the flanks in PR are never protected.. The APC is always an island even with infantry, meaning they have to worry about 4 sides instead of just the objective.

Hopefully in 128 servers there is enough support to allow for a 'front line' of sorts? That would at least allow fire to be directed on the assault objective.

Either that or 'Mech Inf' squads should have an APC and two full squads of inf, one for security and the other for assault. But I think this is far too complex and will/can never happen.

^ this

The maps are simply too big for 64 players.

Once everyone has claimed their assets, and sniper squads, you're left with around 18 people to fill the role of inf, usually split into more than 3 squads, 1 squad defending a flag, the others attacking, so generally speaking the attacking force on a 4km map pretty much comes down to 12 blokes and an APC going up against a force anticipating the attack, with an extreme chance of having some form of AT, and often with CAS on call, an example of this would be any of the flags outside of the Bunkers on Kashan, the armor can be heard, and spotted from such distances, that they're pretty much exposed any where they go.

[40mmrain]

^ this

The maps are simply too big for 64 players.

Once everyone has claimed their assets, and sniper squads, you're left with around 18 people to fill the role of inf, usually split into more than 3 squads, 1 squad defending a flag, the others attacking, so generally speaking the attacking force on a 4km map pretty much comes down to 12 blokes and an APC going up against a force anticipating the attack, with an extreme chance of having some form of AT, and often with CAS on call, an example of this would be any of the flags outside of the Bunkers on Kashan, the armor can be heard, and spotted from such distances, that they're pretty much exposed any where they go.

Yes, I was playing on a server with about 120 capacity today, on AAS iron ridge. I had 3 apcs under my lead. We all advanced in a line with infantry on a flag and security from AT was not a problem.

With 20 infantry armed with rifles, 2 30mm cannons, and a 14.5, along with carious machine guns we were quite a secure attacking force, infantry was easy picking for the APCs, an spg or HAT was easy picking for infantry.

And then i crashed to desktop

ESsentially, APCs must always be together and not in front of infantry to be successful which doesnt fair to well with small servers

[Hunt3r]

If LATs are limited to a 400m range or so before they explode that would likely fix most of the issues. HATs IRL have around 2500m range so there's no getting around that.

[jerkzilla]

If LATs are limited to a 400m range or so before they explode that would likely fix most of the issues. HATs IRL have around 2500m range so there's no getting around that.

Unless their effective range in game is scaled for the view distance, but that's a pretty drastic measure.

[chrisweb89]

I was reading that Canadian infantry squads are being trained to never expect to fight without the support of their LAV3. So I have no idea what the actual on the ground result is, but the FMs seem to imply that Squad ops independent of LAV support is unlikely. I was also reading some retired officer's OpEd piece about how training has not focused on complex fire and maneuver tactics and instead relies on the assumption of APC support at all times to allow for simplistic frontal assault tactics.

The following information is just from readin aswell, and you may have alreayd known it just not mentioned it. I believe Canada's mechanized infantry(2 battalions in each regiment, 3 regiments total) are trained to always fight with the LAVs, but our light infantry(the remaining 1 battalion in each regiment) are trained to fight light, either motorized with G-wagons, boats, helicopters or only on foot.