Project Reality Forums

Bringerof_D wrote:^lol? i didnt think international treaties were imaginary

anywho as others have allready mentioned AP mines are illegal, not sure about anti tank mines. also the one mentioned by the Brazilian fello is called a bouncing betty, very effective against infantry, it does not fly to head level, it is meant to shoot up to about waist level and blow your crotch away. it was meant to scare the **** out of the enemy and demoralize them as the man hit by it ussually stayed alive for a while.

i agree with remotely detonated explosives, although it would likely bring back fighting over such kits so they could plant explosives everywhere and just go boom. would make PR a bit gamey again. a solution to this could be to make it so that you have to be within a certain distance from said claymore as they are commonly detonated via a wire instead of a wireless remote.

maybe you have to slowly feed the wire out of a roll, then click to finish, then he spends time cutting it off and attaching to to the detonator, then you can fire it.

Herbiie wrote:maybe you have to slowly feed the wire out of a roll, then click to finish, then he spends time cutting it off and attaching to to the detonator, then you can fire it.

that works great for me not sure if other players will share the same enthusiasm of seeing a minute long animation on their screen though.

Bringerof_D wrote:that works great for me not sure if other players will share the same enthusiasm of seeing a minute long animation on their screen though.

I kinda meant like walking away at aim speed (so you're vulnerable and slow) to a safe location then you can set the detonator. Would make it better for ambushes because you would need the rest of the squad covering you while you set it up.

Also it should be only half as powerful as C4, instead of a maximum hurting range of 19m maybe 10m or 15m?

Like the US cares about humanitarian law's like the world cares, Napalm is banned but they will still uses them given a good course. crist not to long ago American was torturing prisoner's, these treaty's mean very little there is no way for the UN to be enforce them against western governments or police them.


So don't worry about the treaty's there worth bugger all,


any way anti personal mines are just too indiscriminate for PR
and they take way to long to place to be effective.

There are new mines that have been developed one of them is the Dragon tooth mine or the PFM-1 mines.

thay are both easily dispersed and don't take a long time to deploy.

But if mines are going to be put in PR, they should be used on map’s that have big area’s perhap's

Like Kashan for example is perfect for mines.

RHYS4190 wrote:Like the US cares about humanitarian law's like the world cares, Napalm is banned but they will still uses them given a good course. crist not to long ago American was torturing prisoner's, these treaty's mean very little there is no way for the UN to be enforce them against western governments or police them.


So don't worry about the treaty's there worth bugger all,


any way anti personal mines are just too indiscriminate for PR
and they take way to long to place to be effective.

There are new mines that have been developed one of them is the Dragon tooth mine or the PFM-1 mines.

thay are both easily dispersed and don't take a long time to deploy.

But if mines are going to be put in PR, they should be used on map’s that have big area’s perhap's

Like Kashan for example is perfect for mines.

Iu think mines would work in Urban maps, would be great for ambushes.

RHYS4190 wrote:Like the US cares about humanitarian law's like the world cares

The world, including India, Israel, China, Russia, North Korea the rest of this list? I can guarantee you we care much more than most others on that list, and most importantly we are doing more about it than all of the others on that list, and probably most of the actual signatories to the treaty (however, both the government and especially private groups and individuals in the UK have done TONS, and should be commended).

The US is a signatory of Protocol II of the Geneva Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (UN Doc. A/CONF./95/15, 1980) and abides by the provisions laid forth in it.

The United States has also actively engaged in humanitarian de-mining operations since 1994 (the Ottawa Convention was in 1997). We've been deploying regionally oriented Army Special Forces detachments to advise and train local humanitarian de-mining and explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams and, supported by Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations personnel, create civilian mine awareness programs. DoD even commissioned DC Comics to create a mine awareness comic book in several languages to prevent more kids in those countries from being killed or crippled.

We have also done everything we can to live up to the spirit of the treaty without having signed it:

• The minefield around Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba has been dismantled
• Our stockpile of non self-destructing mines has been destroyed (except for those lining the border in Korea, and even those are clearly marked by a perimeter).
• The use of the Claymore in victim-initiated role is not used except under certain ROE

Even George W. Bush hoped to have the US eventually sign and ratify the treaty.

RHYS4190 wrote:these treaty's mean very little there is no way for the UN to be enforce them against western governments or police them.

So don't worry about the treaty's there worth bugger all

Your last statement is completely true; your first statement is only partially true because of the "western governments" qualifier. There is little or no way for the UN to enforce jack or shit against ANYONE without the cooperation of its member states. And this is the basic fallacy of all international organizations and agreements.

You just said this:

dominator200 wrote:MAYBE JUST MAYBE i WOULD RESEARCH THIS IF IF IT WERE RELAVENT TO REAL LIFE BUT AS IT ISNT I WONT THANKS

In a slightly better way.

Dev1200 wrote:Even if it WERE legal, they would just be placed all around the map for friendlies to step on. It's like the grenade trap.. with 360 angle of destruction.

It's only illegal if you get caught and lose the war. The grenade trap already has a 360 degree angle of destruction; it's a frag grenade. "Toe-popper" APERS mines direct the blast upward and directional mines spread it in a fan-like arc. Only bounding APERS mines direct it in a 360 degree pattern.

Since certain factions in the game are not signatories of the treaty (especially the non state faction), and since if WWIII comes around, that would have long been thrown out the window, I don't see anything wrong if classes in those factions received victim-initiated, non-improvised APERS mines.

But this has been suggested before.

Dev1200 wrote:Also, what goguapsy said, Insurgents aren't always terrorists. Sometimes they're just a group of people trying to overthrow their government, a leader, etc. Similar to Russian and Chechnea

IRL what u said its true, but I believe in-game insurgents are terrorists.

btw, anti-presonell mines rarely kill, because they are designed to injure and maim (<-not sure how this is spelled) infantry units, so they would move slower.[/QUOTE] Completely right. Anti personel mines are for causing alot of damage to one person. This means it takes 2 more people to carry him of the field, or to a casavac

Herbiie wrote:Bayonets are not banned... The British Army uses them as do most forces around the world...

Bayonets are banned. This was because british and US troops use to dip them in motor oil, and then stab their foe, causing all sorts of problems.

robert090993 wrote:Bayonets are banned. This was because british and US troops use to dip them in motor oil, and then stab their foe, causing all sorts of problems.

No they aren't they are standard issue for every military force in the world.

First of all, bayeonets are not banned, banned are only fixed bayonets, couse do more damage to friendly troops then to the enemy. Seconde. all mines which are digged in are banned only mines simmilar to russians PMN mine, this is becouse PMN mines arent dadly, they sre small and they could injure only one soldier. Mines like claymore arent banned. Mines which are banned are banned for a reasons, couse they do more damage after war then when was war, they are digged in and forgoten, children ae playing and boom, there goes their proofesional carrier of football player.
Seconde of all, Attacking forces arent using mines, couse they advance to fast to digg it out.
So why we need a mines for coalition forces.
Solute

mines would be a viable option if the commander could make a border on the map, or an area of operations. but people would most likely ignore it and cross it anyway.

the reason why anti personel mines arnt in game is because its counter productive to have a silly intangable flag sticking out the top of it saying "WEEE LOOK AT ME IM A NICE BIG FRIENDLY MINE" because it looks unrealistic. The implimentation of AP mines would need to coincide with a yellow python message saying "A friendly unit has deployed AP mines in your area." - At least that the only way i think it could be done properly to simulate the unit reporting it's location.

First of all, resuggestion. Second, this just isn't going to happen.

Locked.