Project Reality Forums

dtacs wrote:It can and does happen with the AAV, as its the only vehicle that actually represents that. A few rounds to the drivers position will kill him, which is what makes it such a terrible vehicle.

Hopefully its either removed for the next version or all vehicles will get the feature.

[R-DEV]Outlawz wrote:It doesn't "represent" anything, it's just another bug.

Herp derp.

Stealthgato wrote:Herp derp.

Thanks for contributing something like your many other pos- oh wait.

dtacs wrote:On the new Jabal that Royal_Joe is making LAV's will probably make a comeback since its 4km and has ample room for them.

Actually, placing AAVPs on larger open maps compared to smaller urban maps is going to result in it getting killed more.

Seeing as it has to fire with an angle, line up shots etc. the longer range engagements can be fatal. Where as the BTR/BMP/BRDM/(several)MT-LB anything basically has a main gun that is bigger than the AAVPs .50, and doesn't have to line up it's shots like the Mk19.

The Amtrak is an APC, not an IFV hence the need for LAVs to supplement.

on Fallujah they are supplemented by a LAV and non respawning m2a2 (US army involvement like IRL)

on Jabal they arent because its a sea assault, LAVs are for small rivers

on Muttrah they arent because its a sea assault, LAVs are for small rivers

on Barracuda they arent because it is a sea assault, LAVs are for small rivers

I detect a pattern!

And yet BTRs and BDRMs float ashore from a cargo ship in Beirut? I see flaws in this logic. Unless there's a way to implement LCUs, LCACs, or Ch-53s with sling loads you might as well let LAVs float ashore as well. Unless you'd like to have the first flag point on the assaults have Abrams, LAVs, and everything else the USMC brings to bear on such a task.

Also, while I assume the Fallujah mission must be the 04 assault, why aren't there Abrams with canister rounds? If the inclusion of a US Army Bradley into a USMC map is based on reality surely the presence of Abrams tanks wouldn't be an issue?

After all the Brits have a challenger on Basrah but if you wanted that based on reality it would really be a boring map for all sides wouldn't it?

why aren't there Abrams with canister rounds?

the issue with bringing it in is that fallujah is a small map, when its been there in the past is has dominated too hard

After all the Brits have a challenger on Basrah but if you wanted that based on reality it would really be a boring map for all sides wouldn't it?

the challenger has worked gameplay wise on that map for a long time, which is why its still there whereas the m1a1 did not when it was on fallujah.

regarding beirut, if we had the sea assault equipment we wanted, then we'd use it, we have it for the USMC, so we're using it

Ninjam3rc wrote:After all the Brits have a challenger on Basrah but if you wanted that based on reality it would really be a boring map for all sides wouldn't it?

Let me google that for you

Challenger 2 had already been used in peacekeeping missions and exercises before but its first combat use came in March 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. 7th Armoured Brigade, part of 1st Armoured Division, was in action with 120 Challenger 2s around Basra. The tanks saw extensive use during the siege of Basra, providing fire support to the British forces. The tank's availability was excellent and the problems that were identified during the large Saif Sareea II exercise, which took place eighteen months earlier, were solved by the issuing of Urgent Operational Requirements for equipment such as sand filters.

Some pics of the CR2 in Basrah:

MaxBoZ wrote:Actually, placing AAVPs on larger open maps compared to smaller urban maps is going to result in it getting killed more.

Seeing as it has to fire with an angle, line up shots etc. the longer range engagements can be fatal. Where as the BTR/BMP/BRDM/(several)MT-LB anything basically has a main gun that is bigger than the AAVPs .50, and doesn't have to line up it's shots like the Mk19.

I never said replace it. It would be idiotic not to have AAV's on Jabal 2, but having a LAR spawn on the beach to simulate an LCAC landing with a couple would be realistic, shame it can't be animated too.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:the issue with bringing it in is that fallujah is a small map, when its been there in the past is has dominated too hard

I thought the tank on Fallujah was an M1A1 tank, which is used by the US Marines. And perhaps the M1A1 doesn't have the same technology as the Army's M1A2?

IRL that is true, but ingame their difference is negligible

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;1562401']Let me google that for you[/url]

What is your point? I know challengers were in Basrah. I was talking about they way Basrah was handled in 07. Besides if it's just pictures used to justify the presence of vehicles on maps based on reality then I can justify all day.

Ninjam3rc wrote:What is your point? I know challengers were in Basrah. I was talking about they way Basrah was handled in 07. Besides if it's just pictures used to justify the presence of vehicles on maps based on reality then I can justify all day.

I think there was a miscommunication

you said

After all the Brits have a challenger on Basrah but if you wanted that based on reality it would really be a boring map for all sides wouldn't it?

which gives hte impression that the challenger is there in contravention of reality, I assumed that you meant what you have said now, but you cant blame someone else for taking your post at face value.

Ninjam3rc wrote:What is your point? I know challengers were in Basrah. I was talking about they way Basrah was handled in 07. Besides if it's just pictures used to justify the presence of vehicles on maps based on reality then I can justify all day.

You said:

Ninjam3rc wrote:After all the Brits have a challenger on Basrah but if you wanted that based on reality it would really be a boring map for all sides wouldn't it?

Which from the way I'm reading that sentence, "The Brits have a challenger on Basrah when that's unrealistic because they didn't have them there in r/l".

If that isn't what you meant you should try making your sentences clearer.

I apologize for the confusion in that I tried to make two points in one post, and ended up making just one confusing statement for the both of you.

I would still like to know if pictures of equipment in the places these maps take place are the means of justification, and a more well thought explanation to the fact that LAVs aren't on the amphibious assault maps. The "not crossing a river" line will not suffice when you consider the explanation for BTRs and BDRMs floating outside a cargo ship.

I hope that's clear enough, I would have typed in old english but I get my doths and haths mixed up >:]

Ninjam3rc wrote:a more well thought explanation to the fact that LAVs aren't on the amphibious assault maps. The "not crossing a river" line will not suffice when you consider the explanation for BTRs and BDRMs floating outside a cargo ship.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote: regarding beirut, if we had the sea assault equipment we wanted, then we'd use it, we have it for the USMC, so we're using it

question answered?

I hope that's clear enough, I would have typed in old english but I get my doths and haths mixed up >:]

waaaaay to sound not like a complete ****

Animal.Mother wrote:question answered?

Not really.

waaaaay to sound not like a complete ****

So they don't have humor (humour?) where you're from?

dtacs wrote:Thanks for contributing something like your many other pos- oh wait.

dtacs wrote:I don't remember this, until a dev posts again or you source it I'm going to continue thinking its a feature.

I sourced it. Don't be angry, I didn't mean to offend you.

FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON wrote:im pretty sure theres reactive ceramic armor on it ingame... aslo you (not the car)survive an rpg hit to a supply truck..humvee etc?

No the armor in game is a common armor add on called applique armor which gives the vehicle protection from 12.7mm, 14.5mm at 300 meters, and 155mm fragments. Also the applique armor makes bullets and charges deflect but does not work always.

The weak armor in the AAV has always been a downside to it. In combat Marines are not authorized to ride in them due to it being a coffin. For example in Fallujah Marines were given strict orders not to embark in them in hostile points. Maybe you should do what Marines do in real life and not stick a whole squad in one and ride in the middle of a cashe? ? ?

My former Major also told me they often threw their ILBE packs on the outsides to help with RPGs and other explosives hoping the RPG would catch the pack and detonate rather then the armor of the AAV or inside it. You would be surprised how well that works.

Main point, the AAV does not really have RPG protection, it protects against .50 from point blank all around and 14.5mm all around when it is shot 300 meters away. No APC IRL really has RPG protection without SLAT armor seen on the Strykers, Warriors, etc... or ERA as seen on the Bradleys, BMPs etc... Well maybe that IDF tank APC thing... There is no ERA or SLAT armor on the LAV or the AAV IRL due to weight issues. But APS should be along soon to fix that.

The LAV and AAV protect against bullets from up to 14.5mm just fine with the advantage going to the LAV but explosives not so well...

so it is a feature? well then that settles it