Assualt on mestia HAT??

Anxiety · Post by **Anxiety** » 2007-12-24 08:39

well , i was wondering guys, is it really realistic for the GB to have brought Heavy Anti-TANK lunachers and LAT luanchers for a group of people who they don't know have APC's and such , i just think its really un-realistic

1. its dense forrest no helicopter scout would have been able to pin point a Car that has a gun and a bit of armor

2.Rebals would make all there things as they don't have access to convential weapons and vehicles like tanks...

3. the british wouldn't expect them to have a Tank , so i doubt they would bring weapons to destory tanks..

DavidP · Post by **DavidP** » 2007-12-24 08:57

The Heavy AT is used for taking out APC's and Hardpoints. Something which Light AT should'nt be wasted on. Oh and spelling!

Raic · Post by **Raic** » 2007-12-24 09:02

I dont think thats really so unrealistic, as for now we dont have many means to bust a bunker(?) so H-AT is sort of useful there. Also I think every army corp got somekind of Anti-Armor weaponry somewhere, even if they arent expecting to see any armor. And, where did the Militias APC go? They do still have it, right?

charliegrs · Post by **charliegrs** » 2007-12-24 09:17

well the US had javelin missiles deployed in iraq and afghanistan and use them frequently, yet the insurgents they are fighting do not have any tanks or equivalent guided missiles. irl the javelin and other HAT weapons have multiple uses such as taking out bunkers, massed foot soldiers, cars, small buildings etc. they are not just tank busters. so no i dont think its unrealistic for GB to have a HAT kit on mestia.

Sadist_Cain · Post by **Sadist_Cain** » 2007-12-24 09:27

I like this idea

going into battle with faulty/incorrect equipment is sometimes just a fact of life in the military. The SAS squad Bravo 2-0 had to make their own claymore mines out of ice cream tubs iirc because of a screw up in the kit department...

Anxiety · Post by **Anxiety** » 2007-12-24 10:05

So This isn't un-realistic? And we do have Apcs to bust the bunkers and SLAMs work quite effectivally , I just find it extremely annoying when you find your malitia squad running for the hills becuase one GB soldier is running around with a HAT. imo it really ruins game play , i think the SLAMS and APC's should be fine...

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-12-24 10:54

This is the problem with most of the maps, the kits are based on amount of people on a team, rather than the map.
I think, it also wouldn't make any sense if British brought Heavy AT and Snipers on Helmand to fight a few Insurgents hiding in buildings made out of mud.

Jagger · Post by **Jagger** » 2007-12-24 10:57

I just find it extremely annoying when you find your malitia squad running for the hills becuase one GB soldier is running around with a HAT

What's wrong with shooting him and nicking his load-out?

A whole squad scared at a single HAT man?It ain't that good a weapon without the support of a squad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wEZysEe ... re=related

hx.bjoffe · Post by **hx.bjoffe** » 2007-12-24 12:33

There are more maps without armoured vehicles than Mestia. Like Op. Phoenix. Or insurgencymaps. Or Street.
I agree. IMO H-AT should be present on maps without MBTs.
If the brits make their way to the towers with their Rockets, i use it against them. If they take the fight there, i HATsnipe them back. Its only fair. Even on TG.

ruzsa · Post by **ruzsa** » 2007-12-24 13:04

Anxiety wrote:i just think its really un-realistic

in WW2 US soldiers destroy Japan bunkers to Anti-Tank weapons and tanks to flame-thrower