For those who dont know how big a SRAW actually are.

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-03-02 19:13

Hey look at this picture. I think it is some British soldiers who carry it, now llok how big it actually are. then would it be more realistic if the AT guys only had one of them?

Post by **Wraith** » 2006-03-02 19:19

Sure give them one of those and the L85 and the kit would be perfect. I think leaving it alone is a good idea...

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-03-02 21:22

yeah i agree, if someone complains about no sub machine gun (like myself) throw them in an effective squad and itll keep them quiet

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-03-02 21:48

Well as you se it looks pretty damn heavy

Sgt.Sappo · Post by **Sgt.Sappo** » 2006-03-02 23:38

hmm, interesting.. that looks an awfull lot like a LAW rocket with packing foam around each end... correct me if im wrong?

Braddock096 · Post by **Braddock096** » 2006-03-02 23:39

No, its much fatter and longer than a LAW.

Peter-SAS · Post by **Peter-SAS** » 2006-03-02 23:45

Unless you give them a primary weapon, having only 1 would nerf the class even more so. Also tipping the balance further infavour of armour

Eglaerinion · Post by **Eglaerinion** » 2006-03-03 01:25

Yes give them a standard M16 rifle and 1 SRAW, but the classes in PR need a complete overhaul. I think the classes in DCR were more realistic and very well done. Something similar would be nice.

00SoldierofFortune00 · Post by **00SoldierofFortune00** » 2006-03-03 02:38

I wish they would just get a better pistol like the 1911, USP .45, or the Navy Sig P226 .40. I would trade less ammo for a little more power anyday. People would it is also because the weapon would look a lot nicer.

Grey_Ghost · Post by **Grey_Ghost** » 2006-03-03 06:59

You sure that's not a SMAW? Wasn't the SRAW canceled a couple years ago?

As far as the issue of carrying a 2 Swhatever's and a PDW with the kit. I guess it depends on how heavy the extra pack/pouches are that he's carrying (which we don't in PRMM).

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-03-03 19:00

No, a smaw isn't a fire and forget weapon. You could, realistically, carry one or two sraw's on your bag, as well as gear and a rifle on top with ammo(not to say that your pack wouldn't be insanely heavily). I'm not sure exacly how the SRAW's will be deployed but my guess is that only one would be issued to a soldier so he could take out light armor or a fortified position. The SRAW itself isn't designed to engage mbt's though, it's used for penetrating light armor, masonory/brick, and earthen/timber fortifications.

For now, because vBF2 was stupid in their weapon choices, use your imagination and pretend that the SRAW is a javelin or SMAW. Later, when a heavier launcher is added, the SRAW will either be allocated to the Light AT class or maybe it will be completely replaced by the AT-4 Launcher.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-03-03 20:52

That's not a SRAW, I believe it is a Bofors MBT-LAW, which is being purchased by the UK as their Next-generation Light Anti-armour Weapon (NLAW) to replace the LAW-80 94mm. Don't know how many have been fielded for evaluation in Iraq, but they are one of three systems being used by UK forces. The other two are the LAW-80 and the Interim-LAW (ILAW), which is the Bofors 84mm AT-4 (Confined Space).

The Predator SRAW started being retrofitted with an HEDP warhead; not sure if this has been cancelled outright or is just delayed because of a change in specifications.

The M1911, USP Tactical and SIG P226 are not used by conventional forces, so they will not appear as a standard sidearm. To quote our esteemed (I didn't say highly) SECDEF, "you fight with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

00SoldierofFortune00 · Post by **00SoldierofFortune00** » 2006-03-03 23:15

Sometimes though, they buy sidearms with their own money because they grow tired of the horrible M9 which the soldiers and Marines have been complaining about forever. It is plausible that they would use a 1911, but not so much as the other weapons I suggested, but then again, the game is in the future anyway. Why not give it to them?

And man, that camoflauge on the top is pretty bad. Looks like a bed spread.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-03-04 03:57

I wonder if anyone would really ever want the pure AT class kit.

the way the scoring system works as it is, they give u a wonderfull score of 2 at max against the main target of these guys... a bit depressing considering that u don't have that many ammo plus it takes more than one shot to kill an MBT with some exception.

and with just a sidearm, getting infantry kills is out of question for most part as well. Sure, the snipers only got the sniper rifle and a sidearm in vBF2, but it comes loaded with enough ammo to wipe 2 dozen ppl if ur good, the chance of that happening with AT guys r close to nil except on some circumstances.

Is there anyway to improve the scoring a bit to provide more incentive for AT guys? I mean if i killed an MBT i sure as hell should get something more than just a single point for killing the gunner.

edit: just read the second thread... ignore my post >_<

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-03-05 00:17

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:Sometimes though, they buy sidearms with their own money because they grow tired of the horrible M9 which the soldiers and Marines have been complaining about forever. It is plausible that they would use a 1911, but not so much as the other weapons I suggested, but then again, the game is in the future anyway. Why not give it to them?

It is set only one year in the future. Also, service policy on bringing privately owned weapons (POWs) into the field, even on exercises, is generally highly restrictive; they may be confiscated immediately (or after an amnesty period, as I heard once happened in Panama) and you may receive some kind of penalty for doing so. To give you an example, the Army has recently threatened loss of KIA benefits to soldiers who purchased and brought their own body-armor to Iraq. Simply put, it would not be realistic. Those weapons will be in-game eventually, but on maps/in classes representing the special operations forces that are known to use them.

Post by **Ghostrider** » 2006-03-05 22:11

Well, I think that if the AT kit was to get only 1 rocket, it would need to be a 1 shot kill against vehicles and armor....or at LEAST set them on fire to explode like 5 secs later....but given that irl there aren't as many AT soldiers together (like a 6 man squad full of only AT kits) this would make the AT kit way too powerfull when there're a lot of them, or way too underpowered if they only get 1 rocket and not a damage increase.

Also, if you guys want this suggestion to take effect, there should also be less vehicles (overall) in the maps. It's always a balancing act and many many things have to be taken into account. Anyways, I will not guarantee anything, but would leave it open for discussion. You never know what's around next corner, until you reach it.

-Ghostrider

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-03-06 18:36

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker :
roughly a year or so ago however there was no restriction on what the soldier use for his body armour as long as it was specifically intended to offer personal protection or further their mission capabilities while in theater.

it is also apparent that quite a number of the soldiers in the army decided to purchase their own armour to replace the inferior interceptor armour being issued.

it is ALSO known that the company that made the interceptor armour was plagued by so many issue and scandal such as the infamious 10 million dollar birthday party by one of the high official of point blank, and they were sued before as well for providing one of the police department with defective body armour. And more recently, the marines recalled several thousand of the interceptor body armour because their quality is so poor that they failed the 9mm protection test.

so, i don't think it's a coincidence, and if it wasn't for this whole ordeal that the PR from the armed forces tried their best to supress, chances are i take they would have still let the soldiers use their own body armour.