Project Reality Forums

LATs are fine IMO except against MTLBs where they only leave it smoking white and yet they kill a BTR

I'm not sure about LAT, but HAT is overpowered for sure

Jonathan_Archer_nx01 wrote: but HAT is overpowered for sure

HATs are designed to fight-off Main Battle Tanks (MBTs). Go ahead and use it against an APC. The thing is, those babies have thermals and you take some time to deploy that gun.

+ it's more limited than LAT.

I don't think LATs are overpowered myself. Generally they don't kill in one, and when they do kill in one it's because you've been hit from above or behind. A lot of it's down to the operator. Whenever I use a LAT I try and get in nice and close, by either waiting on a rooftop to get a roof shot on muttrah, or when I'm an insurgent getting close enough to get 2 accurate shots off before they return fire. The best way to use APCs is with supporting infantry, who can either catch the LAT before it hits you, or flush him out after they've fired.

With all LATs it's really very difficult to hit moving things unless they're close, stay a distance away and reposition often. If you see an RPG trying to sneak up on you, move around to a position where you can shoot them, and don't wait for them to stick their head up before you fire because they'll get the shot off regardless.

HATs are less of a threat to APCs than LATs. A LAT operator can wait for deviation to settle before they turn the corner, but the HAT has to wait for the ambush since their deviation maxes out if they move. They also have to be scoped up to fire quickly making them vulnerable to basically anything out of their FOV.

I think a HAT is way more of a threat to any armor then a LAT could ever be. First the HAT can see exactly when he is settled, second he can guide a shot which otherwise would miss, and third he can engage accurately at huge ranges.

OT:

Since the 0.95 patch LAT kits feel like they have been slightly lowered in damage, on the other hand RPG kits seem to have had a slight boost in damage. Either way I wish the LAT had a higher probability of disabling a turret it seems to happen less often now, most of the time a hit to the turret results in little to no dmg done. I understand that it is a nicely armored portion of the armored vehicles but the space between it and the hull is surely a deadly zone when struck by molten copper.

Yo dawg, the AT-4 can go through 400mm of armor. That means that it will do fine against older tanks(T55s, early T72s), but modern tanks, with composite armor, ERA and other stuff will render ur AT4 useless.

i just want to point out that the expected amount of AT4s (lat) to take out a fully operational APC accordingly to the swedish manual if the AT4 is 3, perhaps its just to be sure but that what it says

Runnan wrote:i just want to point out that the expected amount of AT4s (lat) to take out a fully operational APC accordingly to the swedish manual if the AT4 is 3, perhaps its just to be sure but that what it says

Indeed it is, as judging if a vehicle is knocked out is not always as easy IRL as it is in PR.

IIRC, the manual also tells you to fire 6 AT4s, as half are expected to miss.

I think a good change to the LAT would be to reduce the deviation and setup time, and decrease the damage.

Tartantyco wrote:I think a good change to the LAT would be to reduce the deviation and setup time, and decrease the damage.

Also remove HAT one shotting tanks in the front armor. :"x