Project Reality Forums

Raaschou wrote:But as Enforcer said, the planes should be much harder to fly, much faster, and the Anti-Air defences should be much stronger... As IRL!!

Hear hear, bring on less stable flight physics & much higher stall speeds (which means a fast jet could not strafe infantry - this would be EXTREMELY unlikely in reality)

Either that, or make them a lot slower - so AA fire has a chance of catching them!!!!!

Reality VS Gameplay..... Hate it, Hate it!!!!!! (because I want both!)

If the jets are sped up then it'd make them completely useless as you'd run out of map in no time. I think faster more effective AA should do the job. Same with AT actually, they need speeding up. If you've ever seen a real AT rocket being fired you'll know it's immensly faster than the ones in vanilla BF2.

Mad Max wrote:If the jets are sped up then it'd make them completely useless as you'd run out of map in no time. I think faster more effective AA should do the job. Same with AT actually, they need speeding up. If you've ever seen a real AT rocket being fired you'll know it's immensly faster than the ones in vanilla BF2.

Like this one, and pls with the same effect!!!

http://fromtheinside.us/multi-media/vid ... m_test.wmv

the AT rockets are faster in PRMM, as for jets straffing infantry im sure the A-10 will be included and it is capable of that, but any other get shouldnt be able to do that.

Enforcer1975 wrote:Like this one, and pls with the same effect!!!

http://fromtheinside.us/multi-media/vid ... m_test.wmv

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! That vid was set up. They FILLED the tank with high explosives before hand so it'd go BOOM when it hit. A Javelin (or indeed ANY AT weapon) doesn't do that... unless it's filled with things that go boom. I think it was an old T72 aswell. Infact, Boeing (the company that make the Javelin) sent a letter of appology to the Russian government saying how sorry they were that they exaggerated the effects. A T-72 would only go up like that if it was full of nasty HE such as jet fuel (like the Abrams uses) and it hit the fuel line. It didn't though, it hit the top of the turret. The most it'd do is cause a pressure build up after going through it making the turret pop off. Even the ammo wouldn't cause that to happen, it'd cook off slowly (well.... over a few mins) or go off in a chain reaction and they'd fly all over the place. Oh and most tank shells don't get armed unless the percussion pad is hit. Which takes a bit if its just exposed to extreme heat, hense the slow "cook offs".

There's still the issue of the T-72 series autoloader keeping the 4-5 ready shells in the carosel around the turret. Those have a tendency of turning bad hits into catastrophic hits due to much increased chances of ammo cooking off. Still nothing like in that video though.

Mad Max wrote:Same with AT actually, they need speeding up. If you've ever seen a real AT rocket being fired you'll know it's immensly faster than the ones in vanilla BF2.

Correct, good point!

I've fired both AT4 (single-use 84mm AT-weapon) and the danish M/85 nozzle-gun (84mm multi-purpose (AT, HE, Light, Smoke)), and the grenades goes way faster than in BF2.

Tacamo wrote:There's still the issue of the T-72 series autoloader keeping the 4-5 ready shells in the carosel around the turret. Those have a tendency of turning bad hits into catastrophic hits due to much increased chances of ammo cooking off. Still nothing like in that video though.

Any Hit on a "T-Tank" is fatal, causing the turret to pop off due to the ammo explosion ( although the russian fanboys say those were monkey [ export ]models with less or bad armor and weapons systems ). Luckily the western engineers built in a case system so when the ammo on a M1 should be hit, the explosion goes upwards without toasting the whole tank. Anyway, imo the M1 is worth 3 or even more T-Tanks. You can't even change the barrel on the russian models because they are not supposed to survive that long.

well, the old soviet doctrine was aimed more or less at the enemy running out of ammo haha, keep sending waves of guys to get wasted until eventually they break the enemy lines right?

BrokenArrow wrote:well, the old soviet doctrine was aimed more or less at the enemy running out of ammo haha, keep sending waves of guys to get wasted until eventually they break the enemy lines right?

100%

Send wave after wave until you beat them. Compared to the M1 with a large compartment the T models are very tiny. Difficult to hit but if hit it's toast. Maybe with the better armor they developed in these days they have a better survival chance, but i won't count on that

Well the fact is, no matter what armour tanks have these days chances are a single hit from another tank of the same or similar generation will knock it out. Even Challenger 2's can be taken out with a single SABOT shell, like was the case in Iraq during a cross fire from another Challenger 2 during a tank battle with the Iraqi's

Russian tanks tend to be smaller, faster and harder to hit than western tanks, and they also use the "spam" tactic. A Russian "armoured charge" consists of some several hundred MBT's with countless motorised infantry and APC's in tow as support. I don't think anyone has ever been able to stop such a charge whenever one has been initiated (ask the Chechens).

Western armour may be superior, but the Russians have vastly superior numbers, which is why the west concentrated on so many new ways to knock them out, mainly with aircraft. The only way to stop a full scale Russian ground based invasion is with nuclear weapons because there's that many of them.

Oh and if you want to know about good SAM systems, look around for Russian ones. They have so many it's unbelievable. Russia is the most heavily defended air space on the planet, there's very little chance of bombers or anything getting to any major military sites. Oh and unlike the Patriot system, Russian AA is SUPERSONIC! Patriots are barely supersonic which is pretty dumb considering most jets will be traveling MACH 1+ if they knew there were AA sites around the place.

i suppose whether or not you can totally stop it is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things,k all you need to do is maul it and then counter-attack it before it's supply chain catches up and it gets reinforced., then the lines are back where they were. Had the cold war ever gone hot, my guess is it would have ended sort of like the korean war, the lines would shift back and forth but eventually it would really end up as senseless bloodshed.

Wow, this thread went from talking about SAMs and aircraft to talking about tanks, considering the name of this topic i decree that we are WAY off topic

One of the main reasons the Russian air defense grid is so strong is the fact that they've been layering their system for decades. The outer rings have the newest and longest range SAM's S-300 and S-400 systems with legacy systems taking up slack. Not to mention all the medium and short range weapons they have. I wouldn't be surprised if they had several dozen SAM's with nuclear warheads stashed away for a rainy day either. They never seem to like to retire anything that side of the world.

Probably one of the main reasons B-1B's and B-52's had rotary SRAM lauchers to build a path through the Warsaw Pact nations so they could hit strategic targets.

Mad Max wrote:I don't think anyone has ever been able to stop such a charge whenever one has been initiated (ask the Chechens).

The Chechens slaughtered such a charge when the Russians tried to take Grozny in 1994.

I think the real problem with the Anti aircraft and air to air missles in BF2 is their lack of speed (many air-to-air missiles are capable of Mach 3 or 4), their lack of proximity fuses, and the unrealistically portrayed effectivness of the countermeasures (flares/chaff). When planes drop flares in BF2 radars break lock (which makes no sense). Also, flares aren't always effective against IR missiles, sometimes some portion of the plane (Leading edge of wing, engine nozzles, etc.) is hot enough to draw the missile back to the plane, which is why IRL evasive manuevers are also important.

The ground based missles in BF2 all simulate radar guided weapons, and as such should not be effected whatsoever by flares. Now to combat this, the PRMM team should add in some "Wild Weasel" (electronic warfare and countermeasures) type aircraft to attack the ground based stuff. Those silly little shoulder fired systems should be removed in favor of real SAMS, whether fixed or mobile sites.

I know that would be a ton of work, but it would most realistically portray the capabilities of the machines.

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']The Chechens slaughtered such a charge when the Russians tried to take Grozny in 1994.

If you mean the Tanks that were slaughtered in Grozny, it was because they didn't have ( enough ) infantry support. And most AT gunners were sitting on rooftops, supported by machine guns.

Enforcer1975 wrote:If you mean the Tanks that were slaughtered in Grozny, it was because they didn't have ( enough ) infantry support. And most AT gunners were sitting on rooftops, supported by machine guns.

Since then the Russians routinely use AAA such as Shilka's and Tunguska's to shoot the guys on the rooftops whilst advancing with MBT's and APC's with infantry support. Not to mention air support.

There were other issues too such as Russian troop comms being overpowered by local TV and radio stations in some cases. Then there were radio operators who disconnected their antenna's so they wouldn't attract sniper fire, but couldn't properly send out messages if under attack.

Mad Max wrote: Oh and if you want to know about good SAM systems, look around for Russian ones. They have so many it's unbelievable. Russia is the most heavily defended air space on the planet, there's very little chance of bombers or anything getting to any major military sites. Oh and unlike the Patriot system, Russian AA is SUPERSONIC! Patriots are barely supersonic which is pretty dumb considering most jets will be traveling MACH 1+ if they knew there were AA sites around the place.

The russians do have the best SAM systems on the planet, example SA-10b, SA-15(kickass system). The patriot is a awesome SAM system the MIM-104 missile travels at about MACH 5. Actually russia isnt the most heavily defended airspace on the planet.