Project Reality Forums

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:yeah cuz that would make great gameplay

we could rename the mod to "Project Reality - US military pwns all you weakling countries"

No, its realistic. The BTR's should always hunt in packs, but in the current situation the 25mm not being able to properly penetrate 7mm of side armor on the BTR is stupid.

I've been in a BTR a number of times and laughed when I've ran away from a LAV with my *** showing to him and not dying.

dtacs wrote:No, its realistic. The BTR's should always hunt in packs, but in the current situation the 25mm not being able to properly penetrate 7mm of side armor on the BTR is stupid.

25mm should blow right through piddly-*** BTRs. :\

you comment is more considered, specifying that you think that certain armour sectors should be weakened, whereas his was just...uninspiring.

imo, almost every single vehicle ingame needs to have more critical components than now, and stronger regions than now, but that kind of stuff is above my pay grade I've learned much...but thats not something I have a clue about.

The real problem is that we doing it wrong. The BTR is not supposed to engage armor unless absolutely necessary. The only logical decision that would make sense for gameplay is to have it try to avoid armor contact if possible, and instead have it be used as a troop transport, and instead leave the job of engaging armor up to the BMP as it should be, or to AT assets.

Adding to that, heres the BTR-60s armor thicknesses from Wikipedia (Which in this case is a valid source, who would really edit it?)

Welded steelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Pancerni_1-1
7 mm at 86° hull upper fronthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Pancerni_1-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Gary.27s_Combat_Vehicle_Reference_Guide-5
9 mm at 47° hull lower fronthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Pancerni_1-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Gary.27s_Combat_Vehicle_Reference_Guide-5
7 mm hull sideshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Gary.27s_Combat_Vehicle_Reference_Guide-5
5 mm hull upper rearhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Gary.27s_Combat_Vehicle_Reference_Guide-5
7 mm hull lower rearhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Gary.27s_Combat_Vehicle_Reference_Guide-5
5 mm hull floorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Gary.27s_Combat_Vehicle_Reference_Guide-5
7 mm hull roofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Gary.27s_Combat_Vehicle_Reference_Guide-5
10 mm turret fronthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-FAS-6
7 mm turret sideshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Gary.27s_Combat_Vehicle_Reference_Guide-5
7 mm turret searhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#cite_note-Gary.27s_Combat_Vehicle_Reference_Guide-5
7 mm turret roof
I'm pretty sure an armor piercing 25mm round could penetrate 1cm of steel with ease. To be honest, the MEC should ride on the outside of the BTR, riding on the inside is a very bad idea as demonstrated by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Just look at the way they get out, its simply an impractical vehicle (0:45)

All those stats are cut and paste from Jane's Armour and Artillery, so that is a reliable source.

The real problem is that we doing it wrong. The BTR is not supposed to engage armor unless absolutely necessary. The only logical decision that would make sense for gameplay is to have it try to avoid armor contact if possible, and instead have it be used as a troop transport, and instead leave the job of engaging armor up to the BMP as it should be, or to AT assets.

The Russians clearly never intended the BTR to be anything more then a Stryker, so why is it engaging armor with the equivalent of an HMG?

Bah, double tap.

The BMP's autocannon can eat LAVs for breakfast, however, and the only counter for it on Jabal would be ATGMs and AT rockets, and possibly CAS. In fact, in APC/IFV vs IFV/APC, you might as well make them tracked as soon as a burst of 3 APFSDS-Ts hit the rear. The simple reality is that these vehicles are not designed to take rounds, short of strapping on enough armor to make them only transportable by C-17 or C-5, and only in tactical airlift, which would never happen in the USAF.

Sorry to revive this 15 day old thread (ok not that old), but I got something interesting.

Here, I made a table to show the actual damages cause by a LAV and a BTR in PR. I made this to clear a bit the difference between BTR-60 and LAV-25 and how they can withstand each others.

I rounded most of the values, so it doesn't take exactly the same amount of bullets and times to take out an APC, most because of the "critical state" that eat up Hitpoints each seconds when the APC lose 90% of his HP...

-----------------------------
25mm HEI vs BTR-60
-----------------------------
Rate of fire : 200 rpm
Body | Dam. 3%/shot | Will kill with 34 shots within 10 sec.
Glass parts | Dam 10%/shot | Will kill with 10 shots within 3 sec.
Thin metal plate | Dam 10%/shot | Will kill with 10 shots within 3 sec.
Wood parts | Dam 10%/shot | Will kill with 10 shots within 3 sec.
Tires | Dam 7.5%/shot | Will kill with 14 shots within 4 sec.
----------------------------
25mm AP vs BTR-60
----------------------------
Rate of fire : 200 rpm
Body | Dam. 2.17%/shot | Will kill with 47 shots within 14 sec.
Glass parts | Dam 10.8%/shot | Will kill with 10 shots within 3 sec.
Thin metal plate | Dam 10.8%/shot | Will kill with 10 shots within 3 sec.
Wood parts | Dam 10.8%/shot | Will kill with 10 shots within 3 sec.
Tires | Dam 8.13%/shot | Will kill with 13 shots within 4 sec.
----------------------------
14.5mm vs LAV-25
----------------------------
Rate of fire : 550 rpm
Body | Dam. 1.72%/shot | Will kill with 59 shots within 7 sec.
Glass parts | Useless (no damages at all)
Thin metal plate | Useless
Tires | Useless

I don't think the KPVT users need to be nerfed, just maybe lesser the effect of 14.5mm against LAV for balance sake. Other then that, the fire rate of both should stay at it is, so we still keep some asymmetry to make things better.

Source: Of course, me

-Bob

[R-CON]Rudd wrote: we could rename the mod to "Project Reality - US military pwns all you weakling countries"

Thought that was what I was playing

Really tho no apc should engage any armor even if its LAV vs BTR with the LAV being far better but still does not mean the LAV should be a BTR hunter.

I know its been said 1000 times but and apc's job is to ferry troops around and give a little fire support if needed vs other infantry (the glamer huh? ).

Apc's should function more like how a trans chopper does right now IE if needed it will be called by infantry with intell of the area like no AT near no other armor etc not how peaple drive them right now.

HEI rounds kill a BTR-60 better than AP rounds?

Something is seriously wrong here, definitely needs to be looked at.

Next time shoot the wheels, does more damage

Trooper909 wrote:Thought that was what I was playing

Really tho no apc should engage any armor even if its LAV vs BTR with the LAV being far better but still does not mean the LAV should be a BTR hunter.

I know its been said 1000 times but and apc's job is to ferry troops around and give a little fire support if needed vs other infantry (the glamer huh? ).

Apc's should function more like how a trans chopper does right now IE if needed it will be called by infantry with intell of the area like no AT near no other armor etc not how peaple drive them right now.

If the entire PR playerbase had this attitude, we would not have this thread.

Quite often the LAVs will end up filling a hunter/killer role when a server is only around 30-40 players, making highspeed passes through hostile territory. The US need only win the first "fair" fight vs. enemy AT and BTRs, and if they do the MEC heavy assets become fish in a proverbial barrel as they respawn. On full servers, this still happens, but less often. More infantry results in more AT/AA, and it becomes much harder to decisively win that first fair fight LAVs intact.

The reality of it is that the LAV weapon systems are very capable, and skilled crews can easily take a tactically advantageous situation and turn it into utter domination. In these situations, very few players will take the high road and play LAV the way you suggest: as infantry transport and support. Why would you, when putting your boot on the neck of your opponent is within your means?

APC is not meant to fight other APC's. Use AT for it and see that btr can be destroyed by on LAT shot, but you need 2 to kill LAV. Also remember that 25 HE is very effective against infantry.

I don't think I've ever had an infantry squad tell me my cover fire is not appreciated. Sure some people seem to cling to the idea that an APC should sit idle in main waiting for someone to need trans, but majority of the time we have air trans setup. Why would you want a mobile gun platform to sit idle when infantry are being slaughtered by an enemy APC/IFV? The BTR/LAV have something many people seem to forget, intimidation factor. I know if my squad is holed up inside building with no AT (thankfully other players took them before we had a chance, which tend to be the case when you need it most) and an APC rolls up infront of us and there is a friendly APC idle in main doing nothing I'd be rather angry at them. There are soo many modes of transport APCs are usually a last resort, so relegating them to strictly transport roles is misuse of the asset.

BTR vs LAV is a fairly decent matchup if you understand their strengths and weaknesses, I think a lot of people are just playing favorites. Sure the armor/hit boxes are somewhat unrealistic, but there are always a lot of compromises for the sake of balance, and enjoyment.

I did find that dmg break down very interesting though. So what you mean to say is that a BTR sustains the same dmg regardless of where they take hits, where as the LAV has weaker points in the armor?

Yes, that is a very good point. If you bring the air superiority into the scenario an LAV would only have to worry about AT personnel/emplacements, but now we are reliant on a CAS squad that may or may not be relevant the next time the BTRs respawn. The Cobra has as many countermeasures as the APCs do, and if they are being effective more people will start to focus on bringing him down because if US CAS is dominating MEC forces can't really do anything but play defensive and wait for someone to take him out.

With alot of exp. being a Cobra gunner the main thing we do is take out BTRs one after the other and the MEC team is at a standstill and our inf. AND lavs start to move up and win and the LAV's stood a good chance and actually did very well that round.

Tim270 wrote:Its fine as it is, you need 2x BTR's if you want to kill a LAV easily or get good with the BTR.

lol Tim, as if u are

Its just tactics. Learn your tactics well, and NEVER split up. Power in numbers.