Get rid of exsisting APC's.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-03-19 11:32

I AM IN FULL SUPPORT of tracked APC. GET RID OF THE LAV adn the other 2. PLAIN AND SIMPLE -WARRIOR, BRADLY AND BMP.
AND ONE FINAL THING: have doors that open at the back to allow troop to leave properly. HAve a look at the my General suggesions title.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-03-19 15:45

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']For the LAV-25, we will, since it is unrealistic. However, the BTR-90 does have an ATGM launcher mounted on the roof. LAV-25 does not have firing ports for embarked infantry, but the BTR-90 does. As for the auto-cannons not being able to damage a tank, that is not true, either, especially in the case of the BTR-90. The 2A42 30mm cannon fires rounds slightly smaller (30 x 164mm) than those used by the GAU-8 Avenger found in the A-10 (30 x 173mm). Just to note, this family of ammunition is used in the GsH-30 series aircraft cannons mounted in the MiG-29, Su-27 and Su-25 and the anti-aircraft cannons mounted in the 2S6 Tunguska.

But its a gameplay problem that tanks sucome to a lightly armoured weeling gay!
Mabey 'Doncaster' 2nd Generation Chobham could withstand it? By the way Eddie/PR devs, Will there be realistic armour values for the armoured vehicals epecialy the MBT's, Abrams being blown up by a single RPG while the Challenger 2 can take 12+ RPG's, realistic.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-03-19 15:53

Whats the deal with the "get rid of insert here" threads?
you get killed by something or have a hard time destroying something you want it removed?

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']I can tell you now getting rid of the LAV-25 and BTR completely is not going to happen; they will be altered to make them more realistic. They may be on different maps, but that's it.

Tracked APCs and IFVs will be added later.

Im glad the Devs are taking a stand on this nonsense, first it was IronxMortlock who said airplanes would stay in, and now its Eddie Baker who says the LAV-25 and BTR are staying in.

deal with it.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-03-19 16:12

I understand public education is not what it once was so ill help you.

But its a gameplay problem that tanks sucome to a lightly armoured weeling gay!

I am not saying remove APC's i am saying MBT's should not be too vunarable too them.

you get killed by something or have a hard time destroying something you want it removed?

Haveing a highly mobile APC ram your tank is not realistic, it does not happen oftern on PR but it still happens.

I am sick of people who half read posts, i am also sick of "Get rid of" posts myself, this is a suggestion to weaken the APC's ability to destroy main armour not asking for the evaporation of the APC, eventualy tracked IFV's will replace the current APC's but in the meantime can we have a realistic compromise.

beta · Post by **beta** » 2006-03-19 16:27

I am not saying remove APC's i am saying MBT's should not be too vunarable too them.

The title "Get rid of existing APCs" seems to say otherwise ...

Perhaps rename the thread?

this is a suggestion to weaken the APC's ability to destroy main armour not asking for the evaporation of the APC

The BTR-90 should be able to destroy MBTs if they ambush them, they DO have ATGM weapons, MBT are NOT invincible ...

I think the problem with the heavier vehicles is that they don't seem to be HEAVY. You can acceralte away a little too quickly, and do the armour whores favourite tactic of "strafing" with a tank (driving forwards and backwards really fast to avoid getting hit).

Making the vehicles less "agile" would go a long way towards more realistic armour.

eventualy tracked IFV's will replace the current APC's but in the meantime can we have a realistic compromise

Didn't [R-DEV]Eddie Baker just say that the LAV-25 and BTR-90 WILL NOT be taken out?

How do you think tracked APCs will replace these APCs?

I don't understand this new found hatred for wheeled APCS, I guess its time for some counter-propaganda ...

Now for some reasons why militaries choose wheeled APCs:

- less down time, easier maintainence
- better fuel efficiency on road
- lighter vehicles, easier for air transport
- less noise, especially useful in an urban setting

They do have their cons, but obviously they aren't completely worthless next to tracked APCs or else many country's militaries wouldn't have adopted them.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-03-19 16:44

Well beta already said most of what i was going to say.

Pence wrote: Haveing a highly mobile APC ram your tank is not realistic, it does not happen oftern on PR but it still happens.

If it does not happen often then i don't see a problem, you cant stop things from happening. I dont get knifed too often in prmm, but it has happened, doesnt mean i want the knife removed

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-03-19 18:26

Pence wrote:I understand public education is not what it once was so ill help you.

Stow the attitude, especially since someone who misspelled "vulnerable" and "succumb" should not be remarking on the state of someone else's education.

If you're upset by how fast the LAV-25 and BTR-90 are, they really are faster than MBTs; that isn't going to change. However, this means they also have a wider turning radius. Learn their limitations and exploit them. For ramming, the damage done by that can be reduced. Remember, however, that when an APC rams a tank it is not the lightweight that a car or HMMWV is.

As for the "realistic" armour values you suggested, if you want to conjecture about an Abrams being "blown-up" (disabled is more accurate) by a single RPG hit, sadly there are countless threads for that here, but I recommend doing research in more authoritative sources before posting in them, and keep your attitude civil.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-03-19 20:15

M1A2 blown up by a single RPG? WTF?!

Armor definitely has to be less mobile, in my opinion. They're basically like cars right now

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-03-19 21:09

^^^ Lol yea you can stop and go on a dime. Take the TOW of the "gay wheelies" and they'll be fine.

I saw this one Chinese APC with a flamethrower on it instead of a cannon. Imagine that in PR!

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-03-20 11:44

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']Stow the attitude, especially since someone who misspelled "vulnerable" and "succumb" should not be remarking on the state of someone else's education.

If you're upset by how fast the LAV-25 and BTR-90 are, they really are faster than MBTs; that isn't going to change. However, this means they also have a wider turning radius. Learn their limitations and exploit them. For ramming, the damage done by that can be reduced. Remember, however, that when an APC rams a tank it is not the lightweight that a car or HMMWV is.

I was getting carried away.

"Get rid of existing APCs" - "Exsisting" as in the ones at present, take the TOW off.

As for the "realistic" armour values you suggested, if you want to conjecture about an Abrams being "blown-up" (disabled is more accurate) by a single RPG hit,

Have a look here http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://bitterfact.tripod.com/iraq/images/war/usloss/abrams2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://bitterfact.tripod.com/iraq/coalition_losses.html&h=549&w=720&sz=81&tbnid=hfy6PpJ7hJIqKM:&tbnh=105&tbnw=139&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddestroyed%2BM1%2BAbrams%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN, I grant you that they could be taken back to the factory and be repaired but i count them as destroyed seeing as thogh you cannot operate them (Any part of them) and ingame it counts as destroyed if the weapon is inoperable.