HAT kits are too powerful and unrealistic

[MINTEEER]

Good idea but I think they should only reduce the range to 800m due to certain maps which have a lot of open areas from which the tank can just destroy the whole infnatry team if it is well positioned.

[[F|H]Zackyx]

The real problem is not the HAT being OP its more OP in real life but the fact that APC and tank Amunition dont have peneration capability, you can hide behind a 10cm of sand and survive 120mm and 30 mm Shells like you were behind a 3 meters reinforced concrete wall.

Some times you are in a city you know there is a Hat in the building but you can't kill him because shell fail to penetrate and he just have to pop up and can kill you especialy on roof because there is no surface where the shell can impact on.

ahal Brigade who had been airlifted into position.51 As the 401st
moved toward its objective through the Saluqi valley
on August 12, it was ambushed with anti-tank guided
missile (ATGM) fire; 11 tanks were hit, and 12 soldiers
were killed

Note that when loaded for firing, the missile would be fixed in
a launch tube just above the guidance package shown; only the
optics and the tube would be visible above the mask, providing
an exposed cross section of under two feet square to be detected
by targets multiple kilometers away.

7 Antitank missile positions were
especially difficult to locate, given the often extended
range of ATGM engagements and Hezbollah?s success
at concealing launchers and crews

Hezbollah
ATGM crews, by contrast, could strike targets from
extraordinary ranges: Israeli armored vehicles were
regularly hit by missiles fired from 4-5 kilometers away.

Barriers and overwatching ATGM
positions were sometimes integrated with considerable
skill over multikilometer distances: east of Ghanduriyih, for example, a series of minefields were placed in
locations that canalized Israeli columns into engagement
areas exposed to ATGM fire from concealed launchers
located north of the Litani River some five kilometers
away

Saluqi valley, Hezbollah ATGM teams occupying a
series of positions in depth received return fire from
Israeli Merkava tanks after their initial launches, but
stood their ground and continued to fire at least 10
additional missiles

Hezbolah AT weapons

Kornet AT-14 3.5 mi 1,100?1,200 mm laser
Konkurs AT-5 75 m 800 mm wire
Metis-M AT-13 80 m to 1.5 km 460?850 mm wire
Sagger AT-3 3 km 200 mm wire
Fagot AT-4 70 m to 2 km 400 mm wire
Milan 400?2,000 m 352 mm wire
TOW 600?3,700 m 800 mm wire
RPG-29 460 m 750 mm manual
RPG-7 500 m 330 mm manual

source:

ATGM are OP in real life IDF suffered heavy losses during the 2006 campaign because of ATGM so HAT is not OP in PR the tank and apc dont have penetration capability this is what make them weak in some situations. ANd in PR we have the same weapons.

[40mmrain]

METIS, KORNET and other weapons you've listed are not man portable, and shoulder fireable like an SRAW. Giving the insurgents a buildable METIS would be a very good tool for them to have in my opinion. REalistic, a certain counter to armour, but still hard to make cheap, and requiring a fair bit of work to make.

The issue is usually taken up with a guy who pops up and down in a little ditch, or is way behind enemy lines with a SRAW. Like you can NOT kill a guy who is on top of the mountain on kashan because he can just expose the top of his helmet while firing, and he only has to pop up for half a second to shoot.

I dont think this thread has much purpose anymore though, HAT kits are limited to 1 per team next patch, and that makes a HUGE difference I assure you.

[[F|H]Zackyx]

Metis-M

changes from the traveling to the firing position?and vice versa?in 15 ? 20 seconds

[40mmrain]

there's been arguments about this around here before. Look I wont speak for the MAs but im pretty last time they said that it's ineffective to shoulder fire the METIS, and it always deployed on a tripod when fired, therefore, being able to fire from standing, or crouched, made little sense.

A prone only fire state would make sense I think.

[chrisweb89]

Another major problem is right now infantry have the ability to engage anything except for aircraft with relative ease, while in real life, infantry have to rely on armour/air support when engaging armour or a large cluster of infantry.

I agree with previous suggestions in the thread about reducing the range of HAT kits and changing it to only have the ability to disable a tank unless it hits their rearmost area. I would also add another suggestion of my own, reducing the amount of ammo carried by the rifleman, so HAT kits could no longer be rearmed by simply throwing a bag on the ground in the midst of battle.

Here's the situation in PR right now:
An "Elite" 6-man squad of clan members grab a HAT, AR, Medic, Specialist, Officer, and Rifleman. HAT effectively engages most armour, AR takes care of infantry, Medic revives the entire squad after they've been killed or at least a surviving member of the squad picks up the kit and revives everyone, and the rifleman gives the HAT kit operator enough ammo for another rocket.

Here's the situation after the implementation of these changes:
"Elite" 6-man squad notices enemy armour, has to wait until it drives closer to the squad, engages the tank at the risk of taking casualties. This way, both the tank and the infantry squad have a fair change of inflicting damage on each other. After engaging the tank, the HAT kit must be rearmed at either an ammo box or supply crate.If the infantry squad decides to avoid engaging the tank to avoid casualties, then they will use the radio and/or mumble to call for armour support/CAS.

Overall, I believe nerfing the effects of the HAT kit can promote more teamwork, decrease lone-wolfing and the concept of "elite" in PR.

Elite squads are just smart squads. What is wrong with being good and using the advantages of putting the proper assets together with some teamwork to get a squad of killing machines. If 6 people on one team can do it, than 6 people on the other team can do it. If the squad has a good defensible position than of course they will hold it, unless they are threatened by more than a tank.

Center hill on kashan is just a place for armour to stay out of view unless your inf have it. There is so much more to the map than that hill, and you can still shoot at all of bunkers and not be visible to the hill. ATGMs lock down an area just like a tank does, so why should one be nerfed? The ways I deal with HATs popping up over a hill is either find a spot where they can't see me, try to flank them so they don't have a hill to hide behind, or if I really need to put my front armour to the HAT, take a hit and reverse, repair and repeat.

If your tank is positioned correctly, and you haven't taken damage a HAT usually won't one shot you (Challenger may bounce, chinese tank may burn), you might get tracked, but usually I can fall back over the ridge to my logi and repair and try it again. There are the odd times where ATGMs one shot my tanks in the front armour but I live with it, because I have tard rushed too many HATs after they shoot and wiped their squad out. Once the HAT shoots and if you are close you get 30 seconds of freedom to kill the squad unless they have more support, so even if you are smoking its all about risk vs. reward.

[Truism]

Could I reignite this discussion. I just had a round where on multiple occasions I hit enemy Abrams with the Eryx, and all but one drove away and repaired. The crew of the destroyed Abrams had time to bail out. Side shots didn't even disable them.

On the final shot, I was in cover about 150m from a hull down Abrams engaging another target. I fired the shot and at the last minute the missile veered off and missed. I went prone and went for ammo, but by the time I had it the Abrams just ran me over and I rage quit.

In total, I engaged tanks 6 times for zero kills. Destroyed one tank. One wonky miss, five hits. In every case of a hit, I outplayed overcommited crews, firing from a strongly advantageous position.

I also fired 4 hats at humvees 500-700 meters away, but the new spiral effect made all of them misses. I know I was aiming right on them, and I used to be very successful with HAT.

This kit is heinously unrewarding right now, even for a very skilled, experienced user.

[RedWater]

you should try the SRAW next time, that thing is outright ridicoulous.

Numbers will probably proove me wrong, but last time I used it on Kashan the flight-speed of the rocket felt atleast twice as fast as the Eryx.

[Wadziu]

I dissagree, with current HAT implemintation and how easy it is to use (jack-in-a-box) it would be total annihilation of tanks on battlefield if they one-shot or insta-kill MBTs. Tanks already have hard time with HATs, TOWs, ATGM platforms, APCs with ATGMs, tanks with ATGMs, Helis, Jets with most of those things inta-killing them. The fact that it has to RTB for repairs which excludes it from battle for 5-10 minutes is enough. It's not about HAT operator scoreboard.

Although I agree that side hits or tower hits dissable those components more often

I also fired 4 hats at humvees 500-700 meters away, but the new spiral effect made all of them misses. I know I was aiming right on them, and I used to be very successful with HAT

.

Eryx operational range is up to 600 meters so I guess it could be difficult to hit such small target at that range, especially from handheld platform.

[Truism]

I totally disagree. Yes, frontally they should resist, but they aren't having a "hard time" when they can push until I'm in a flanking position, eat a HAT to their lower side hull and drive away. Tanks should be the gods of land warfare when applied with good tactics, and a 60t coffin without.

The tanks I played against utilised unrealistic and bad tactics and couldn't be punished for it because the current armour vs HAT iteration iteration is too far slanted in tank's favour. I'm not asking to go back to 0.7 1 shot kill anywhere, laser accurate HATs, I'm talking rear armour as it is now, side armour disabled, front armour shrugs it off.

[Souls Of Mischief]

Eryx operational range is up to 600 meters so I guess it could be difficult to hit such small target at that range, especially from handheld platform.

So is the SRAW's, but unlike Eryx, SRAW is a breeze to use out to the range of 800m.

[UTurista]

Just because there's a cross in the scope doesn't mean you aim, fire and score. You need to watch the project and guide it.

Guided HATs are just fine, you just need decide if its worth the shot or you need to flank first.

Unguided hats are another subject, I think its retarded having a tank 5m away, wait 5~6 seconds and miss just because we needed to wait 7 seconds.
Like the guided ones, unguided Hats should have a Deviation Indicator, or, seeing they're unguided and have no "intelligence" their Turn deviation should be zero, meaning that while we were standing we could correct the target, even if he is moving w/o worrying about missing.

Unguided Hats need more love deviation wise, and scope wise for the SMAW, I'd love to use it but not with that scope.
(Redirect me to a "How to make scopes for PR" and I'll do it)

[Brainlaag]

I'm talking rear armour as it is now, side armour disabled, front armour shrugs it off.

From what I recall, the disabled value is random, you can disable it from shooting at the front, back or rear but it always happens based on a random dice role figure, unless you are talking of every hit to the side armor (which isn't possible since BF2 only allows one "healthbar" that only has a changed multiplier based on where you hit) causing the "disabled" state, which in return would lead to all tanks getting disabled, all the time, irregardless of the type of damage, once they drop below the 50% threshold.

Currently I have no complaints for HATs whatsoever. I did get into some "wtf" moments when the missile swayed off into the ground but to be fair, those were long range risky shots. I have to say, right now is probably as far as we can go in implementing AT systems of this kind properly.

[Truism]

From what I recall it's a health value thing.

[Truism]

Entirely aside from this, from a realism point of view the Abrams doesn't have 900mm RHA equiv vs CE on the sides. Even with an ERA upgrade pack installed, a tandem warhead Eryx should penetration the side.

Having it create no appreciatable effect from the side is frustrating, unrealistic and encourages undesirable, unrealistic employment of armour.

[Brainlaag]

From what I recall it's a health value thing.

It is a health value thing with a randomizing dice roll. Disabled mod kicks in once the vehicle health points drop below a certain threshold (currently 60%?) following a random figure how often. You cannot code getting disabled only by side armor shots, since "side armor" is simply a damage modifier to the global healthbar of the vehicle. If you make always disabled at 40%, then a single tank shot, too much terrain damage, whatever, will get you disabled.

Entirely aside from this, from a realism point of view the Abrams doesn't have 900mm RHA equiv vs CE on the sides. Even with an ERA upgrade pack installed, a tandem warhead Eryx should penetration the side.

Having it create no appreciatable effect from the side is frustrating, unrealistic and encourages undesirable, unrealistic employment of armour.

Even less so is the jack-in-the-box crouch-stand mechanic. It's one of the drawbacks we have to take into consideration when dealing with an old, hardcoded engine.

[Truism]

And tank crews don't get thrown around the cabin when they go over rough terrain. Tanks never throw tracks when driven badly. There are no minefields on PR and all mines are above the surface. Barrels don't get shorn off or knocked out of alignment by maneuvering near trees or buildings. Optics can't be destroyed by small arms fire. What's your point?

[Mats391]

The Eryx is wireguided that is why it is tumbling, cause thats what it does in real life. It also has only wire for ~600m so after that it goes unguided and hitting anything becomes luck based. Want long shots? Take Milan
The SRAW on the other hand is fire and forget, that is why it does not tumble. The missile knows where to go and doesnt get information send from launcher with delay. It can fly for way longer and is not limited by a wire. It is a more modern system, so it has better capabilities.
The Eryx also uses an incredible slow missile. Its max speed is 240m/s and it accelerates rather slow.
As for damage, i think it is totally fine. You can crack tanks with one shot and certainly make them fall back. Hitting an M1A2 anywhere will make it go below 40% and thus possible to disable. Hitting him in soft spots (back, tracks) bring it below 20% and thus increase the chance to get it disabled.

[matty1053]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRbhH4si6X8

There is a Eryx firing.

It's nearly the same IN PR.



I don't think Eryx is OP Though. Yeah, you might say that if you get fustrated from being killed by one in Tank or APC.

[Brainlaag]

And tank crews don't get thrown around the cabin when they go over rough terrain. Tanks never throw tracks when driven badly. There are no minefields on PR and all mines are above the surface. Barrels don't get shorn off or knocked out of alignment by maneuvering near trees or buildings. Optics can't be destroyed by small arms fire. What's your point?

That all those things combined aren't as bad as the lack of destructible cover. I can sit behind a wooden fence and blast of at the tank, while being safe.