Project Reality Forums

[R-MOD]Thermis wrote:Alright.

1. You obviously don't know how armored vehicles in modern armies operate. If you immobilize a armored vehicle in a battle it will not just be left behind. Someone will have to come rescue the crew. Which means the infantry which are supporting the armor or more armor will be coming to your position. Plus if its an APC you might have to deal with the troops inside of it.

So? You still have a APC which is out of action until it is towed back to base and repaired (assuming it can be). If recent experience in the Middle East is anything to go by, the tendency is to evacuate the crew and destroy the vehicle with a Hellfire missile. Either way it's one less asset to be used against the enemy. The assumption that an armoured vehicle has supporting elements works both ways too. The opposing force likely include more that one man with a mere grenade launcher.

[R-MOD]Thermis wrote:2.I was speaking as to real life when firing a M203 which has a fairly distinct sound that can be located by infantry in the area. It also produces a muzzle flash just like any other weapon that can be located.

No doubt.

[R-MOD]Thermis wrote:IRL: APCs and Tanks are covered in composite armor these days. Most also have a reactive armor component either added or built in. So your argument is invalid. Reactive armor completely neutralizes any damage that a HE round would do, and thats even if it makes it through the composite, which is made up of all kinds of things, not just steel. M2 .50Cal MGs are only effective against thin skinned vehicles, mostly wheeled type vehicles, anything classified as Armor should not be engaged by a M2 if the gunner wants to live.

Sources are personal experience and TM-55-2350-252-14 and TM 9-2350-264-10-1/2

How many APC's out there use explosive reactive armour (the discussion is about APC's not tanks)? I imagine ERA is not that friendly when it explodes near the infantry who have dismounted their vehicle. I'm fairly sure that most do not use it. Please give proof of APC's which do incorporate it. In particular, for the ones that are in PR.

Also don't take what I'm saying as an personal attack or anything like that. I'm just enjoying having a little debate.

I don't take this as a personal attack I just like debates.

1. If you have other assets, ie an AT4 or a Javelin then you wouldn't expend the 203 round, like wise goes if you can call in support from the air or armor. I figure'd we were assuming that the 203 was your best available weapon other than your rifle. Chances are down range you'll never be without something else to call in.

3.The Bradley has reactive armor just like the Abrams its incorporated into the vehicle. I am not familiar with Russian block APCs armor and if it has incorporated reactive armor but I doubt it. I do know they have a steel type composite that would make engaging it with a 203 a dumb idea.

dtacs;

This game is based in reality, so reference real life comes into play since we were talking about tracking a vehicle which can be done in real life with a M203. So its relevant. The idea here is to discuss things with real life in mind and figure out how they translate. Not write them off as not translating at all.

A BRDM would probably have problems if a Mk19 fired HEDP into it.

Screw firing the normal rounds at it, you have smoke for a reason 3 smoke nades will completely engulf the apc and allow you to move past it or escape, also firing nades at is a good way to piss it off or atleast make it move.

[R-CON]nedlands1 wrote:A smoke round to the front of the enemy APC also causes mayhem too I find.

This is indeed the case. I often use smoke to force Merkavas, APCs, pretty much anything I can't kill with my rifle and M203 to move. It is quite effective.

Remember, if you're enemy can't see, he's probably not going to start firing blindly, especially if he thinks he's well protected (talking to you, Merkava drivers who think RPGs can't hurt you. Just wait until some more hit you).

[R-CON]nedlands1 wrote: How many APC's out there use explosive reactive armour (the discussion is about APC's not tanks)? I imagine ERA is not that friendly when it explodes near the infantry who have dismounted their vehicle. I'm fairly sure that most do not use it. Please give proof of APC's which do incorporate it. In particular, for the ones that are in PR.

ERA is not the only type of reactive armour, therefore APCs can have NERA or whatever that will make M203 useless against it.

ComradeHX wrote:ERA is not the only type of reactive armour, therefore APCs can have NERA or whatever that will make M203 useless against it.

The question is not theory, it's practice. How many of these APCs are actually fielded with ERA/NERA/NxRA? Certainly none of the vehicles in PR are modeled with ERA/NERA/NxRA, and I doubt it could even be coded within the BF2 engine, but the question is how realistic is it actually?

I tried to find information on the number of bradleys equipped with tile sets.
Google found me this:
General Dynamics To Supply Reactive Armor For Bradley Fighting Vehicles | AFCEA SIGNAL Scape
$33 million would provide somewhere upwards of 120 sets of RA for bradleys, out of 1600 bradleys in service (globalsecurity link below). That is one of a number of articles I found, with one dating back to '05. So the US probably has a fair number, is deploying them on M2A3s/M3A3s, but probably not 1600, since the cost of that would be ~$320 million minimum(given a price of $200,000/set, which is lower than any quoted in the WP119 report below). Also, probably they are not all brand new sets, given the low production rates and high cost.

If you look at the globalsecurity.org picture section for the M2A3/M3A3 (found here), you'll see that the bottom of the page has some images of the Bradley's RA. It's fairly obvious from the pictures that it is designed to protect the crew and passengers, and its usefulness in preventing mobility kills is fairly low, as it leaves most of the tread and wheels exposed.

This is the fastest data I could find on RA costs, it's from a 1999 report (source, see pg 3)

First of all, a huge increase in weight. For the bradley, reactive armor in production at the time weighed 6,900 pounds, and the next level was predicted to weigh 7,600 pounds. For a vehicle that weighs 50,000 lbs (source), that is a very significant weight increase, although the report claims it would not cause a decrease in mobility or reliability, so eh.
The cost for 1999 production tiles was $262,000 per vehicle, with future tile costs predicted at $288,000 per vehicle. Given the unit costs (from above source) of $3.166 million, that's an 8-10% increase in vehicle cost.

Just some info for thought, I really should be working on a paper. However, there's no real point in arguing about it without facts, speculation is fairly useless in a reality mod.

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:
*crew die from heart attacks brought on by stress and hamburgers*

and a lack of physical activity due to months of sitting in front of a computer screen and doing nothing but playing a mod for an old game engine...

well good to see this has brought up some conversation, but to thermis ive personally fired the m203 and recently the m320 and neither of them really make entirely that much noise so as to how that would give away a position is beyond me, its not like the mk19 which screams hey im over here and ive turned my magnets on!!!!

and 2 sometimes if armor is disabled its not retrieved, i on a personal basis work with a marine recon sniper who in 2008 got to play overwatch on an abrahms that got stuck and they could not get it out.

For good conversation ill reveal what it took to be deemed a dead asset so it could be abandoned.

at first they tried c4 but that didnt do enough to satisfy the colonel overseeing the whole thing (if im not mistaken he was the commander of 1st armor div usmc but not 100% sure)

then a javelin which made a hole but didnt obliterate it.

and finally courtesy of the USAF and 2000 pound bomb which from the video of the after pretty much pancaked the thing.

if i can get the video ill put it on youtube its great watching the thing still exist after the first two attempts.

odd.. i thought the HEDP cannot be used on the M203..
there is a slight difference in caliber or a hotter load.. i know the Mk19 can shoot it-(training, never used in combat) like in 7.62x51 vs 7.62x39-difference
---***EDIT***----
quick search-found out that there IS a slight difference but there IS an HEDP round for the m203
just that on the mk40, you have a slightly different round for it. mix up there


but ingame, not even worth using HE rounds from the nade launchers on an armored vehicle, just use smoke and more smoke.

great tactic is to blind him to buy time for the AT(hat/lat) to settle deviation and kill him.

You are correct.

Belt fed GMG's tend to be 40x53mm

UGL (M203/SA80 UGL) are 40x46mm