Project Reality Forums

ExeTick wrote:find it intresting that a vehicle that should protect crew members and passengers inside is unable to survive small arms..

all because it has tracks and no explosed crewmen, doesn't mean it's any better armoured than a humvee or landrover

the MTLB isn't a front line assault vehicle, its an old multipurpose vehicle that does all sorts of jobs including logistical ones iirc. It supports its big brothers - the T90 and BTRXX/BMP

ExeTick wrote:find it intresting that a vehicle that should protect crew members and passengers inside is unable to survive small arms..

MT-LB is basically a lightly armoured tracktor. Armour varies from 3 to 10mm of steel.

In-game, it does not have all those firing ports.
-------------------


I was wondering if it is possible to make sloped damage system like in FH2; where highly angled sides take less damage or none at all. This would be for APC against damage of small arms and LAT, of course.

That requires work though, but it would be good.

Heavy Death wrote:That requires work though, but it would be good.

What do you mean?

Man I am not sure whether this was bug or not, but when an enemy Huey flew over me on Ramiel, I shot at it with a Makarov and somehow I killed the pilot in it and the chopper crashed, I wish I have video proof to show you but I unfortunately dont. It has to be my best kill in the game to this day as the pilot was trying to fly over me after a successful landing and obviously did not expect a guy with a Makarov to kill him. Let's just say there was a lot of "Holy sh&ting" in RL when the chopper fell to the ground and when I got that kill point on the scoreboard.

probably just dumb luck or confounding variables there Doom, or epic skill?

I am just going to say that it was my epic haxor L33T skillz

About the mtlb not protecting the guys inside. It does, same with the humvee or brdm, but once you start getting shot at by inf, especially by a full squad its time to fall back and repair/get a new plan.

chrisweb89 wrote:About the mtlb not protecting the guys inside. It does, same with the humvee or brdm, but once you start getting shot at by inf, especially by a full squad its time to fall back and repair/get a new plan.

Armor personell carriers should just be called what they are in game most of the time. AGDC - Armor gunner and driver carrier. Rarely utilised for its INTENDED use.

On topic I don't see any balance issues.

When I was stationed in an Army artillery battalion I noted that the self-propelled M109A1 howitzers we operated were just alluminum alloy so that bullets didn't shrapnel but pass cleamly through. It was an uncomfortable thought at the time.

- sent using Tapatalk HD

Never realised the armour was that thin! Or quite how powerful small arms rounds are.. Aluminium being softer than steel presumably it takes more than a 1/2 inch (~12mm) of aluminium to stop a 7.62 at fairly close range..

Just looked it up. This was many moons ago 1979 (just gave up my age dimmitt!!) Alluminum alloy was 1.25" or 3.18cm. Same as the A6 Palladin. Tin can's. Glad we never saw any action

The way Armoured transports perform in-game seems fine to me.
I think people are a little discouraged at how quickly 8 men are killed by a SABOT/ATGM/HAT strike, and I think this could be improved by tweaking the damage system so that "kill shots" would make the vehicle burn and give troops that slim chance to get out, get to safety and heal.


...mongol...

Check out the [WGP] Pr Wiki.

Here is a chart of the dmg coefficient for all calibers and all types of armor.

This will give you an idea how much dmg a weapon can do. 'Trefferpunkte' is the german word for hit points.

To find out which vehicle has which armor, just click the flags below and scroll to the vehicle.
Here is a list of assault rifles and their dmg ('Schaden').

Dmg of weapon*coefficient armor*unknown dmg drop over distance = dmg to vehicle.
Now measure the rate of fire and add the hp of the vehicle... you can do the rest.

Wiki is still under construction, not every vehicle included. See more here.

the new 6.5x25 CBJ cartridge


I think its evidence enough to show that 5.56 and 7.62 cannot damage MTLBs.

To really test the armour piercing performance of the 6.5x25 CBJ cartridge a steel plate from
a Russian MT-LB (Multipurpose Armoured Veichle) was used.
The steelplate was 7 mm thick.
The hardness of this steel was 400 Brinell. (Russians are well known for making good steel for their armoured veichles.)
The distance was 50 m.

Beside the standard 6.5x25 CBJ, we also used the standard ball 5.56 NATO
and standard ball 7.62 NATO cartridges.

As you can see on the picture, the 6.5x25 CBJ projectile (all three) has fully penetrated the plate.

The standard ball ammunition of the NATO calibres 5.56 AND 7.62 failed to penetrate the plate!

God damn.. A pistol sabot. W.T.F.

ExeTick wrote:

the new 6.5x25 CBJ cartridge


I think its evidence enough to show that 5.56 and 7.62 cannot damage MTLBs.

What is "standard ball 5.56 NATO

standard ball 7.62 NATO"

exactly? Was exact designation of those rounds provided? As far as I recall; not even all of NATO use the same kind of 5.56x45mm rounds; even US army and US marines had used different ones(?).

chrisweb89 wrote:Incendiaries are just the glitchiest thing in PR. The vehcile desn't need to be already damaged to take damage, 30mm or 25mm will still hurt a tank that starts at full health, it just won't be noticeable, 2 ARs in good positions can mess up a brdm/vn3 or scare him away pretty quickly.

When it comes to choppers and the disable system its random, sometimes you can shoot at a huey and it will make it back to the carrier burning, other times you can shoot and disable the engine after half a belt. I've even been shot out of the apache pilot seat by a single rifleman, and on his first shot...

Lol I saw you get killed, Hamology shot you out with the Chinese rifleman.

DDS wrote:Armor personell carriers should just be called what they are in game most of the time. AGDC - Armor gunner and driver carrier. Rarely utilised for its INTENDED use.

lol. Please go reread the books youve read on russian, MEC, US, etc armour doctrine.

Fact is APCs are excellent fire support, recon, and IFVs function effectively as pseudo-tanks. A BMP-3 is not a ferry. SOme bradley variants barely even carry any infantry. The LAV-25 for the USMC is not infantry transport at all. Transporting infantry is not the INTENDED use of APCs, theyre multi-roled vehicles. It's indisputable that all kinds of APC vehicles in PR do excellent work without infantry near them, and help their teams a lot. The LAV-3 that gets on top of the UN out post before any mec get there on marlin and intercepts their trans, ambushes their MT-LB, or causes general havoc is total recon/interdiction, but far more useful than if he was just carrying inf to a flag.

ComradeHX wrote:What is "standard ball 5.56 NATO

standard ball 7.62 NATO"

exactly? Was exact designation of those rounds provided? As far as I recall; not even all of NATO use the same kind of 5.56x45mm rounds; even US army and US marines had used different ones(?).

Not sure where you got that idea, but the Army and Marines use the same round. The M16A2 and later variants are optimized for a different 5.56mm round than the now phased out M16A1, if that's what you're thinking of? SS109 is the standard NATO ball round per standardization agreements (STANAG). NATO / FN SS109, C77 and M855 are all just different designations for the same round made by different states and manufacturers. There are new variants of the M855 in service, thoug,h made of different materials. They don't have a NATO STANAG designation.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Eddie Baker;1884676']Not sure where you got that idea, but the Army and Marines use the same round. The M16A2 and later variants are optimized for a different 5.56mm round than the now phased out M16A1, if that's what you're thinking of? SS109 is the standard NATO ball round per standardization agreements (STANAG). NATO / FN SS109, C77 and M855 are all just different designations for the same round made by different states and manufacturers. There are new variants of the M855 in service, thoug,h made of different materials. They don't have a NATO STANAG designation.[/quote]

I was thinking of this US army "M855a1" thing.
The supposedly magic bullet that pens 9.5mm of steel at 300m and is environmentally friendly(lol).
If MT-LB is 10mm armour...I am not expecting it to bounce too much.

USMC was supposed to get something called "MK318" or something?

[quote="40mmrain""]lol. Please go reread the books youve read on russian, MEC, US, etc armour doctrine.

Fact is APCs are excellent fire support, recon, and IFVs function effectively as pseudo-tanks. A BMP-3 is not a ferry. SOme bradley variants barely even carry any infantry. The LAV-25 for the USMC is not infantry transport at all. Transporting infantry is not the INTENDED use of APCs, theyre multi-roled vehicles. It's indisputable that all kinds of APC vehicles in PR do excellent work without infantry near them, and help their teams a lot. The LAV-3 that gets on top of the UN out post before any mec get there on marlin and intercepts their trans, ambushes their MT-LB, or causes general havoc is total recon/interdiction, but far more useful than if he was just carrying inf to a flag.[/quote]
Read book on MEC armour doctrine.

Some APC/IFV are more multi-purpose and may be better off shooting stuff more than carrying stuff.

But we are talking about MT-LB and other light armour. MT-LB(other than 30mm version) has just about enough armament to defend itself... maybe a 12.7mm mg could be more offensive but it still lack thermals...etc. So MT-LB and, to some extent, BTR-60...etc. should be carrying infantry. And if you want to use MT-LB correctly; it is basically a traktor...