Apc ammo

[Stemplus]

if it's just a swimming armored truck, then why does it have a ATGM luncher, SAM site, or 30mm cannon? I know it's a silly answer, but you said "it's just a swimming truck with PKT for defence"

[saXoni]

MTLB was newer design to be an APC(Red Army has a BTR series for that role). It's just a swimming truck with PKT or NSVT for selfdefense.
It were designed to be an artillery tractor or a transport truck(like Ural-4320).

How is that relevant? The MTLB's role in this mod is to either transport troops (APC) or fight alongside with the infantry (IFV).

[izoiva]

ATGM launcher(or even 122mm howitzer - 2S1 Gvozdika variant) can't move themself, so soviet engineers designed a self-propelled weapon systems on base of MT-LB.

Read more about MT-LB here:
MT-LB Multi-Purpose Armored Vehicle | Military-Today.com

How is that relevant? The MTLB's role in this mod is to either transport troops (APC) or fight alongside with the infantry (IFV).

In this mod, but not IRL.

[saXoni]

In this mod, but not IRL.

Yeah, so what's your point? We don't care about what the MTLB is used as in real life as we're discussing Project Reality.
Maybe this section of the forum would suit you better?

[ComradeHX]

Yeah, so what's your point? We don't care about what the MTLB is used as in real life as we're discussing Project Reality.

...What?

Then why were people complaining about TOW-sniping back when fob-defense was first introduced?

In game MTLB is not exactly most awesome APC either.

[chrisweb89]

Btw the T72 doesn't suck as much as some would make it seem, at least vs the abrams in game. The T72 is harder to one shot kill than the abrams, which is a huge problem for two skilled tank crews fighting each other. You can get the first shot, and be in a better spot with the abrams and lose the fight because of the stupid materials on the tank's model. T72 vs challenger is a different story ingame, because of the challanger's insane hull downs and no weak points, ATGM tanks are the only thing better than a challenger.

I have engaged BMP-3s with the warrior on burning sands. Using the cty streets and by popping out and just shooting a bit we were able to make the BMP white smoke. But it was still able to just charge around a corner at us firing AP and kill us before his white smoke would die. Unless someone could get some real facts that the round that the BMP-3 fires does identical damage to the bradley's, or warrior's, all the while retaining accuracy, and being fired at super fast rates, can we either increase the AP damage of the warrior and bradley, or decrease the BMP's fire rate.

A BMP can finish off a tank with AP after an ATGM shot, if you try that in a bradley you will die because of your slow ROF.

[ComradeHX]

Unless someone could get some real facts that the round that the BMP-3 fires does identical damage to the bradley's, or warrior's, all the while retaining accuracy, and being fired at super fast rates, can we either increase the AP damage of the warrior and bradley, or decrease the BMP's fire rate.

How about you find some "fact" that 30mm does less damage than 25mm first?

In-game rate of fire is already lower than IRL.

[Rudd]

I have engaged BMP-3s with the warrior on burning sands. Using the cty streets and by popping out and just shooting a bit we were able to make the BMP white smoke. But it was still able to just charge around a corner at us firing AP and kill us before his white smoke would die. Unless someone could get some real facts that the round that the BMP-3 fires does identical damage to the bradley's, or warrior's, all the while retaining accuracy, and being fired at super fast rates, can we either increase the AP damage of the warrior and bradley, or decrease the BMP's fire rate.

Taking on the BMP with a warrior was just a bad idea tbh mate

the warrior has a shorter respawn time than the BMP, that is it's only advantage. If you wish to defeat a BMP with a warrior, you need to support and be supported by an infantry squad with a LAT/HAT (which they coincidentally can get from your apc and be rearmed by the same...not so coincidental perhaps)

[Stealthgato]

The T72 is harder to one shot kill than the abrams.

It sure isn't, the T72 has got a big really easy to hit one-shot-kill spot on it's front. But many people either don't know about it or fail to hit it. The Abrams ones are much smaller and less likely to get hit.

[tankninja1]

the T-72 has very weak armor, its one hit kill spot is the size of a barn, it is literally more protected in the rear for some reason...
As for the Bradley I've noticed its the A2 model not the A3 which has replaced most of the A2s IRL any reason they haven't in PR?

[Hunt3r]

IRL Russians have plenty of tungsten to make ammo out of. They do not feel a need for them.

Also, in PR, BMP-3 does not fire at 10 rounds per second, more like 5.

It's not about whether or not there's material for the ammo, what matters is maximizing stored kills. Firing slow reduces barrel movements that trash long range accuracy.

Also, doesn't matter, my point is that BMP-3's fire rate is pretty dumb for AP. HE is reasonable because IRL 30mm HE doesn't really have the blast radius to really take out multiple troops in a single shot, and the dispersion helps against multiple infantry anyways.

Also the BMP-3 has the massive advantage of a barrel launched beam riding ATGM. I think that's more than enough against the Bradley, don't you think?

[Hunt3r]

Dat bullshit.3UBR6 - APBC-T,3UBR8 - APDS.Don't tell anything,that you don't know please.

Let's start from things,that you don't know.Do you know,that automatic cannons as IFV weapon,were created in Afghanistan war,as anti-infantry weapon first,not as anti-vehicle?That because SPG-9(Didn't remember signature for vehicle variant),mounted on BMP-1,doesn't gives enough firepower in a mountains.And same reason,why maximum elevation angle to high on all fighting vehicles,with automatic cannons.

Holywar - what better US or Russian,I may say - tactics wins.Those,who can use their weapon potential - he will win.

3UBR6 is very weak, basically useless against IFVs, only helpful against APCs. 3UBR8 is better but not as good as APFSDS designs, less penetration and less range because it is still rifle stabilized.

I know, but in PR the automatic cannon is the best weapon to kill other IFVs in the BMP-3, in real life this was not so. I know that BMP2/3 both have high elevation angle for mountain fighting, but the issue here is that BMP-3's cannon fires far too fast in game for AP, IRL I highly doubt they would select 400 RPM mode.

Not only that, apparently BMP-3's 100mm has APFSDS rounds for it, which would be a far better antitank solution anyways, seeing as how 3UBR8 only has about 30mm penetration at 1500m. The Bradley's M919 APFSDS is something like 35mm or more at 2km, because of DU penetrator and less drag due to fin stabilized design.

[ComradeHX]

It's not about whether or not there's material for the ammo, what matters is maximizing stored kills. Firing slow reduces barrel movements that trash long range accuracy.

Also, doesn't matter, my point is that BMP-3's fire rate is pretty dumb for AP. HE is reasonable because IRL 30mm HE doesn't really have the blast radius to really take out multiple troops in a single shot, and the dispersion helps against multiple infantry anyways.

Also the BMP-3 has the massive advantage of a barrel launched beam riding ATGM. I think that's more than enough against the Bradley, don't you think?

You were the one saying there is no Apfsds ammo for Russian apc. If there is even a need for it(instead of 100mm APFSDS, for whatever reason) it will be used.

No reason to shoot slow IRL if engagement distance is as close as they normally are in PR.
Also, accuracy of 30mm is not that great in PR if you are going to snipe from maximum visual range anyway. Point is, it can fire at high rate of fire IRL; why not if it makes it more effective in game?

If you want to take away uber OP bmp-3 30mm gun, then just add 100mm APFSDS ammo to compensate.
That way BMP-3 does not need to shoot many rounds of 30mm to kill other APC; just one 100mm round.
Or perhaps make it 2-hit kill?

[Hunt3r]

You were the one saying there is no Apfsds ammo for Russian apc.

No reason to shoot slow IRL if engagement distance is as close as they normally are in PR.
Also, accuracy of 30mm is not that great in PR if you are going to snipe from maximum visual range anyway. Point is, it can fire at high rate of fire IRL; why not if it makes it more effective in game?

IRL Bmp-3 also has 100mm gun for teh lulz.

I said none in service. M929 is not in service with Russian forces.

PR's engagement distances are wholly unrealistic, on maps like Kashan desert the max engagement range would be 4-5 in AFVs IRL, scaling that down to 1 km VD would be self destructing ammo at about 500-600m, and massive loss of accuracy and penetration with even APDS. Point is, if it can fire at a high rate of fire in PR, the scaling needs to be realistic.

Also I've been saying all this time that the 30mm autocannon is meant for APCs and inf, not IFVs. The 100mm gun has APFSDS that will trash any Bradley in a single critical hit, and an ATGM for even moar explosions.

[ComradeHX]

I said none in service. M929 is not in service with Russian forces.

PR's engagement distances are wholly unrealistic, on maps like Kashan desert the max engagement range would be 4-5 in AFVs IRL, scaling that down to 1 km VD would be self destructing ammo at about 500-600m, and massive loss of accuracy and penetration with even APDS. Point is, if it can fire at a high rate of fire in PR, the scaling needs to be realistic.

Also I've been saying all this time that the 30mm autocannon is meant for APCs and inf, not IFVs. The 100mm gun has APFSDS that will trash any Bradley in a single critical hit, and an ATGM for even moar explosions.

If you did then you would have edited your original post long ago:

No Russian autocannon has APFSDS, most vehicles don't even have APDS.

What is this, a suggestion thread? lol

Remember that MEC still need stronger APC because just about every other faction it fights has better tank.

[40mmrain]

Actually the T72 is equal to the abrams, and challenger in PR, at least very closely. People claim there's a massive 1 hit kill spot on the front of the T72, but i'd really like to see some numbers to confirm that.

The BMP is far superior to most other APCs, I would agree to keep this the same if and only if the the T72 is nerfed. Iam in favour of bumping down the BMP's auto cannon accuracy the way it stands.

We've also discussed changing the nature of the wireguided ATGMs to not have that stupid turret activation delay.

[samogon100500]

If you want to take away uber OP bmp-3 30mm gun, then just add 100mm APFSDS ammo to compensate.
That way BMP-3 does not need to shoot many rounds of 30mm to kill other APC; just one 100mm round.
Or perhaps make it 2-hit kill?

100мм APFSDS doesn't exist.It's an 1950 year shells from T-55.BMP uses only HE-FRAG.But they uses ATGM as well.

3UBR6 is very weak, basically useless against IFVs, only helpful against APCs. 3UBR8 is better but not as good as APFSDS designs, less penetration and less range because it is still rifle stabilized.

That true.But one myth,that Makarov cannot penetrate even a thick layer of clothing.Those who saying it decline such test on yourseves.

I'll will be not saying that it's will be so much useless that you thing.
BTW IRL damage isn't overall.You may hit optics -> make blind your enemy.Hit an track -> stun vehicle.Not sure,that such such details armored as a hull.

[ALFABETAS]

The problem is that no one uses it.

And yes, it is a problem when the Bradley only gets a 200 RPM fire rate. The BMP-3 is basically guaranteed to always win against the Bradley if the Bradley isn't just sitting there ready to fire a TOW, if a BMP-3 gets the drop on a Bradley the Bradley is dead. If a Bradley gets the drop on a BMP-3, it's fully possible that either the Bradley sits there like a duck while the TOW loads and dies, or fires the autocannon only to lose because it's fire rate is too slow and damage too little.

So you need to learn play on bradley and stop crying that russians have made better equipment. Here people don't know what they want reality or balance!

[Hunt3r]

So you need to learn play on bradley and stop crying that russians have made better equipment. Here people don't know what they want reality or balance!

I don't even care because I haven't played PR in months, but the simple reality is that the Bradley can easily kill BMPs from long range only using APFSDS, while a BMP-3 would probably want to use 100mm HE or ATGM, either to K-kill or mission kill the Bradley. You have no clue what you're talking about and need to research more if you really want to join this debate.

100мм APFSDS doesn't exist.It's an 1950 year shells from T-55.BMP uses only HE-FRAG.But they uses ATGM as well.

ATGM is more than enough. 30mm APDS should only be killing Bradleys with rear and top shots at the current speed, possibly the sides. Shooting from the front should not be an easy kill for a BMP.

If you did then you would have edited your original post long ago:

What is this, a suggestion thread? lol

Remember that MEC still need stronger APC because just about every other faction it fights has better tank.

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? The 100mm 2A70 is not an autocannon. I'm not making any suggestions, the current AP ammo in PR is the 3UBR8 APDS, and as such the modeling of it should be realistic.

Remember that MEC already has a stronger APC because the BMP-3 has an ATGM that can be fired on the move or immediately after stopping. I know you want to claim that I'm trying to nerf the Russian equipment into oblivion, but the BMP-3 is just too much in game as is, with the ability to fire off ATGMs right after stopping, an autocannon that can easily finish off tanks after firing ATGM, and also an autocannon that can easily destroy every other IFV in the game. It's unrealistic and a game that is meant to be realistic shouldn't have a vehicle that has unrealistic attributes.

That true.But one myth,that Makarov cannot penetrate even a thick layer of clothing.Those who saying it decline such test on yourseves.

I'll will be not saying that it's will be so much useless that you thing.
BTW IRL damage isn't overall.You may hit optics -> make blind your enemy.Hit an track -> stun vehicle.Not sure,that such such details armored as a hull.

"Introduced in 1988, the A2 received an improved 600 horsepower (447 kW) engine with an HMPT-500-3 Hydromechanical transmission and improved armor (both passive and the ability to mount explosive reactive armor). The new armor protects the Bradley against 30 mm APDS rounds and RPGs (or similar anti-armor weapons)"

Yes, I know. However, APDS is not an area effect weapon. A TC that wanted to really cause a mission kill by taking out tracks and damaging external equipment would load 100mm HE.

[ALFABETAS]

I don't even care because I haven't played PR in months, but the simple reality is that the Bradley can easily kill BMPs from long range only using APFSDS, while a BMP-3 would probably want to use 100mm HE or ATGM, either to K-kill or mission kill the Bradley. You have no clue what you're talking about and need to research more if you really want to join this debate.


ATGM is more than enough. 30mm APDS should only be killing Bradleys with rear and top shots at the current speed, possibly the sides. Shooting from the front should not be an easy kill for a BMP.



Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? The 100mm 2A70 is not an autocannon. I'm not making any suggestions, the current AP ammo in PR is the 3UBR8 APDS, and as such the modeling of it should be realistic.

Remember that MEC already has a stronger APC because the BMP-3 has an ATGM that can be fired on the move or immediately after stopping. I know you want to claim that I'm trying to nerf the Russian equipment into oblivion, but the BMP-3 is just too much in game as is, with the ability to fire off ATGMs right after stopping, an autocannon that can easily finish off tanks after firing ATGM, and also an autocannon that can easily destroy every other IFV in the game. It's unrealistic and a game that is meant to be realistic shouldn't have a vehicle that has unrealistic attributes.




"Introduced in 1988, the A2 received an improved 600 horsepower (447 kW) engine with an HMPT-500-3 Hydromechanical transmission and improved armor (both passive and the ability to mount explosive reactive armor). The new armor protects the Bradley against 30 mm APDS rounds and RPGs (or similar anti-armor weapons)"

Yes, I know. However, APDS is not an area effect weapon. A TC that wanted to really cause a mission kill by taking out tracks and damaging external equipment would load 100mm HE.

this debate you are just trying to say that all usa equipment is better and now crying that opfor one equipment ir better and its need to be nerf. This is game and it is limited abilities. and stop playing that what if and if happen. you dont know what going to happen in war USA vs RUS maybe they just nuke each other.