Rifleman AT weapon damage

[00SoldierofFortune00]

But that's where the trade off for CO trucks is, it's utility. It's not fast, it's not particularly durable, but it can transport supplies to the front (i.e. assets and supply crates). It's not supposed to be used as a front lines transport, why should it have the armor of one even if it does expose most of it's passengers?

The CO truck is for building assets and if it is not durable enough and cannot survive the punishment of attacks on Bunkers or Firebases, than it is pretty much useless. It's role for transporting is at one's own risk, but it needs to be trusted to get to a good spot and the front lines for building. I know that thing inside out, and it is already easy enough to lose. It is slow, easy to flip (hit a rock in the road and it will tilt), and is a big target with no bullet proof glass. It doesn't need any more disadvantages.

[Expendable Grunt]

RHA is Rolled Homogeneous Armor. It was the original method of armor plating on tanks in WW2. It's used to compare the armor of different armored vehicles, known as RHAe (RHA equivalency), as it provides a way to compare, say, Explosive Reactive Armor, and the armor on a Humvee (which is much more similar to RHA).

Yes, I know.

[77SiCaRiO77]

The CO truck is for building assets and if it is not durable enough and cannot survive the punishment of attacks on Bunkers or Firebases, than it is pretty much useless. It's role for transporting is at one's own risk, but it needs to be trusted to get to a good spot and the front lines for building. I know that thing inside out, and it is already easy enough to lose. It is slow, easy to flip (hit a rock in the road and it will tilt), and is a big target with no bullet proof glass. It doesn't need any more disadvantages.

yea! make CO trucks stand 5 hits of tanks ,since they are usefull they should be StRoNg!!!!

[HughJass]

yea! make CO trucks stand 5 hits of tanks ,since they are usefull they should be StRoNg!!!!

LOL that made my night

[charliegrs]

I would like to point out that 'killing' a vehicle in PR is the equivalent of disabling it for a significant (1 hour +) period IRL, and that the LAT weapons are mainly meant to engage infantry squads because of the small amount of damage done to vehicles.

light AT is meant for engaging infantry squads? thats news to me..

[Enderjmu]

A missile meant to kill infantry would kill them, yes?

The LAT does.
...
But infantry squads are effectively engaged with the RPG, especially on Archer where I have seen exchanges of rockets between a cave and the hill.

Well. Sniper Sniped at 350 meters with an RPG on Fool's Road.

Raise the damage slightly (take out jeeps and Com. trucks in one hit, but still require 2 for the APCs)

As someone has said before: "Light AT is Anti-infantry"

[BloodBane611]

Given, the LATs are **** for realism. Regardless of what they are in PR, they should realistically be an anti-vehicle weapon. Given the fact that the limit is one per squad, which is a reasonably high concentration of them, they should actually kill vehicles. Heavy jeeps and support trucks should burn in one hit, APCs should burn in one hit to the rear.

[[T]Terranova7]

What? Since when did you become the expert? Oh yeah. You're wrong.

It's always what I've assumed, especially when the idea was suggested before, and shot down. If it is possible, any chance of seeing something like that ingame?

[BloodBane611]

Jeeps and support trucks should DIE in one hit, APCs should burn in one hit anywhere and proceed to blow up in ~5 seconds.

Generally an RPG employed against a HMMWV is not going to kill all the passengers. Since this would be the case if the system you suggest was employed, I think something that at least gives people a chance to live is much more realistic.

But as katarn pointed out so pleasantly, there are ways to make the damage system much more realistic. The current damage system for tanks/APCs is a simple example, where vehicles can become immobilized if damaged. One way to have non-exploding vehicles is to give vehicles greater health, but then have them immobilized 100% of the time if that health falls below like 50%. Then you have a repairable vehicle sitting out in the field, but it is no longer useful as a vehicle.

[AnRK]

Depends what's loaded into the RPG launcher though doesn't it?

[Airsoft]

Well we all know that the RPG is a very old anti tank weapon and practically useless against modren armor. My change was for the AT4 and chinese equalivant to at least take a light vehicle out in 1 hit. The RPG may be less (2 hits mabye) since you carry 2 RPG rockets.

[Expendable Grunt]

Well we all know that the RPG is a very old anti tank weapon and practically useless against modren armor.

Wrong.

The antitank grenades for RPG-7 also came a long way, from original PG-7V grenade, with penetration of about 260mm/10inches of RHA, and up to 500mm/20inches of RHA or 1.5 meters/5ft of brick wall with single-warhead PG-7VL grenade, developed in 1977. By the late 1980s, a tandem-type PG-7VR grenade has been introduced. This grenade has two warheads and is intended against the most modern tanks, fitted with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor). Front warhead sets off the ERA, and second warhead then penetrates more than 600mm/24in of armor.

Just because it's used by middle easterners doesn't mean it's a **** weapon. It wouldn't be so common if it sucked.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Generally an RPG employed against a HMMWV is not going to kill all the passengers. Since this would be the case if the system you suggest was employed, I think something that at least gives people a chance to live is much more realistic.

But as katarn pointed out so pleasantly, there are ways to make the damage system much more realistic. The current damage system for tanks/APCs is a simple example, where vehicles can become immobilized if damaged. One way to have non-exploding vehicles is to give vehicles greater health, but then have them immobilized 100% of the time if that health falls below like 50%. Then you have a repairable vehicle sitting out in the field, but it is no longer useful as a vehicle.

If the HMMMV's/vodnik,nahjing are uparmored ingame, than it would survive a LAT shot. Since I hear they are going to use another model for it in future releases, the damage system for HMMMV's is fine IMO. It will usually kill the passangers, but allow some of the squad a chance to get away unless small arms fire is opened up on the vehicle. This makes taking out a vehicle more about teamwork than some random lone wolf with an RPG or LAT who gets lucky and racks up a bunch of kills.

The CO truck is fine as well since those things are pretty hefty and armored.

The APC should be disabled in 1 shot though since he can't just back up and repair. This would force apcs to move in with infantry.

But there is not much wrong with the current system though and it would still take 2 LAT shots to take out an apc if it is disabled in 1 shot. People need to learn to move as a squad to take out an apc.

[BloodBane611]

The CO truck is fine as well since those things are pretty hefty and armored.

Where is this armor? In real life supply vehicles are effectively unarmored, like tractor trailers and the HEMTT. That's why they're not taken into combat zones. Supply trucks are for supply and transport behind the lines, they're not assault vehicles.

Just because it's used by middle easterners doesn't mean it's a **** weapon. It wouldn't be so common if it sucked.

Yes, there are high quality warheads for the RPG-7. But employment of the PG-7VR is pretty limited, it's not something you're going to see commonly among insurgents. Also, the effective range of the PG-7VR is much less than the PG-7V.



Overall, LAT effectiveness should be increased, although some variety in LATs would be nice. Keeping the insurgents with the RPG-7 with PG-7V rockets, while giving the MEC PG-7VR rockets would be a nice touch.

[fludblud]

and while we are on the topic of LAT, why must the MEC LAT kit have just one rocket whilst a rag tag insurgent gets 2?

i mean, havent we concluded that mirror balancing was bad? and since the AT4 is a single shot weapon and newer than the rpg, i would expect it to be far more powerful thus nullifying any balance problems that would appear from multiple rockets.

[Expendable Grunt]

Well, MEC are dropping the RPG-7 in favor of something like the RPG-29.