Project Reality Forums

didnt know it was BTR-80^^ well that says everything

seems like M113 is only good to be a mortar carrier. that 50cal up there is not so good against other apcs, I think it can kill BDRMs fairly easy.

but it would be sexy to see it as a mortar carrier

It's not supposed to kill other vehicles. It's supposed to transport troops.

then again, it isn't supposed to take on other vehicles.

edit: damn, ninjaed!

Increase the view distance to 2000m to reflect reality and then find out if it needs a shield vs infantry..

Otherwise use it as a small-arms proof taxi, not a gunbus!

M113 are not used for combat for a looooong time in the IDF. It is only used for transport, ambulance support , carrying a mortar or using a SPIKE NLOS Tamuz missile

Stealthgato wrote:Well that's because the BTR-80 is immune to .50, doesn't matter how much you improve the M113 - it won't damage the BTR-80 if it doesn't have a bigger gun...

bigger gun? Israelis could really use one of these on beirut and iron as AAVs

wikipedia tells me the israelis even have stinger pods on theirs, even if that is only wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machbet

lol the reference is dead.

they have MA on IDF so they know what's going in and not.

as for people saying it's bad for trans, it protects against small-arms. it isn't supposed to be used in fighting AT ALL. Remember the word APC, people in PR rarely knows what it means...

APCs in real life are mostly for fire support, and perform recon, and interdiction all the time.

if they were just to ferry people, you'd be better off with light vehicles like humvees, theyre cheaper, easier to crew, faster, etc.

In fact, replacing the IDF M113s with .50 humvees would be great..

Ghost1800 wrote:Ya, I dunno, I almost think taking any wheeled vehicle is a better choice due to how noisy and AT magnetic the thing is. Hell, I would prefer to walk over getting in the clown box car.

i thought you were dead

Make them like this:


And give them a zoom equal to the amount the FOB M2s get

Mmmmm.. Imagine scopes on the HMG's

Firepower01 wrote:And give them a zoom equal to the amount the FOB M2s get

Thats far too much zoom, it needs a little zoom like the land rover

Smiddey723 wrote:Thats far too much zoom, it needs a little zoom like the land rover

That's too little

Mikemonster wrote:Mmmmm.. Imagine scopes on the HMG's

They do exist

Yo ! dev my dawg, i will have one of these


.
.
.
.
.

40mmrain wrote:APCs in real life are mostly for fire support, and perform recon, and interdiction all the time.

Not really, no. Transport is the primary function.

Though a lot of vehicles are often labeled as APCs out of laziness, convenience, ignorance, etc.

Firepower01 wrote:

They do exist

Yes but not in PR you silly goose!

Out of interest, whilst on the subject, why is the aim on the HMG 'blocky' so to speak? The barrel/weapon sort of 'jumps' in blocks if you're sighted in and slewing the gun (in PR).

The unfortunate reality is that some armies field outdated equipment which is as much a liability as an asset. The M113 was considered a liability by Australian commanders in Vietnam shortly after entering service for the very reasons this thread exists. It had its turret modified for more protection and firepower. Ultimately, it has never been particularly well liked in Australia and was not deployed in the GWOT because ultimately its a 50's design that had completely outlived its useful life by the 80's.

Whether or not you like it, the M113 is an outdated, inadequate pile of **** which is primarily kept and deployed because of the low capital investment involved. A reality based mod should reflect that when people try to use it for direct fire support, whether they are bluefor or not.

Mikemonster wrote:Out of interest, whilst on the subject, why is the aim on the HMG 'blocky' so to speak? The barrel/weapon sort of 'jumps' in blocks if you're sighted in and slewing the gun (in PR).

Often wondered myself...even thought it was sth wrong on my end for quite a while.