Project Reality Forums

six7 wrote: think APC cannons should not be manned by the driver. It would force the APC to at least have to people, and maybe actually be treated more like a carrier than a devastating small tank . I could care less if tanks have 2 crewmen, but with APCs it is a must. If you argue that its too hard to get a decent gunner, then you shouldn't be using an APC as it is supposed to carry and provide covering fire for infantry-nothing more.

Good thinking, that'd make a lot more sense and it really prevent them being the anti-infantry superweapons they are at the moment, just rolling around with one man in. Now if a lone wolf takes one he'll be forced to stop moving to gun down troops, or not shoot at all.

Solitas wrote:So, Would you (as a passenger) be willing to give up your ability to fire your weapon (unless mounting the turrey) and be restricted to just a passenger if you had greater protection?

How about having the choice? I know in BF2:SF there were two types of hummers, one of which carried a TOW and only had one passenger slot in the back and then the standard version we're all accustomed to. Now 0.3 is basically removing light jeeps, there could always be a true heavy jeep category with better protection, weapons and less seats... Hmm...

As 'Top _Cat the great' pointed out passengers in a HJ RARELY have the oppertunity to fire their weapons anyway. If they do it's normally because the vehicle is stopped, and if they are firing it means the vehicle is at risk and the driver shouldn't have parked there.

Now I'm talking about changing the current HJ's. But I see no reason why a more combat orientated vehicle could be introduced, with less seats and more firepower.

But in terms of the current HJ's Malik, would be you happy to leave firing to the gunner and have the HJ's as a fast, protected transport vehicle?

Neuromante wrote:Recently italian soldiers sustained an IED attack to a convoy and died. The shaped charge hit the vehicle they was in (Italian equivalent to the HMMW) right under the passenger area and completely destroyed it. Then the vehicle caught fire. I guess that a shaped charge hitting a hummvee anywhere and destroying it is quite realistic...

I wonder how many kilo's of explosives were used in that shaped charge

An AT4 for example only packs about half a kilo of high explosives, which is hardly enough to crumble anything and definately not a hummer, so I guess something more has happened, or that a serious amount of explosives where used. Mind, that crew being close to and not protected from a blast of 0.5 kilos of high explosives cut still be seriously damaged and maybe even killed.

On comparison to the AT4, a classic AT-mine, which destroys by utter force, and which I guess most IED's are modelled around, packs around 10 kilos of high explosives, which by any means would make a hummer stop. Even so, soldiers have run into such beast in lighter vehicles than hummers and survived the encounter (Needless to say that the vehicle did not ).

My point being, that most likely the shaped charge you quote as the main destructive force, propably was way more powerful and way less sophisticated, than the ones used in warheads. And that I've been told that a shaped charge from a warhead would likely penetrate right through a crew compartment without killing all the crew. And finally that a shaped charge does not make anything blow up, unless it hits some other explosives in its target. I won't deny however, that a shaped charge might set burnable objects on fire

Btw, check out this excellent source on shaped charge theory:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm

Solitas wrote:As 'Top _Cat the great' pointed out passengers in a HJ RARELY have the oppertunity to fire their weapons anyway. If they do it's normally because the vehicle is stopped, and if they are firing it means the vehicle is at risk and the driver shouldn't have parked there.

Now I'm talking about changing the current HJ's. But I see no reason why a more combat orientated vehicle could be introduced, with less seats and more firepower.

But in terms of the current HJ's Malik, would be you happy to leave firing to the gunner and have the HJ's as a fast, protected transport vehicle?

Who said they need to fire their weapons? It's possible to drop exposives and ammo from the bag of a jeep to team mates if you're on the move. And sometimes it's quite possible to engage troops from the back. Though rare, you can still do it. Like I said, having two types of jeep would solve this dispute, keeping the currently heavy jeeps as the light variety designed to take lots of people places but without fighting, and a heavier variety packing a stronger weapon and more protection to passengers, without making it too overkill. Perhaps the current heavy jeeps could have a weaker turret (something less than .50) to allow the heavier jeeps to have them, or even just give the heavier jeeps some for of missile (TOW, RPG etc).

Malik i would trade all that off to not be in a death trap. This anit BF2 where you jsut randomly throw stuff out the back AND any way jeeps now give out ammo in the latest version.
AND I CAN AGREE WITH YOU again on the changing machine guns form 50 clas to 30 cals to avoid bloodbaths.

So we have come up with the idea of having 2 tpyes of "heavy jeeps" , i will edit adn finnsih off in a mo.............

To summarize these ideas:

All current heavy jeeps will become 'light jeeps'. They will have a slight speed increase. They'll be able to take 6 people, including the driver. The armour will not be changed. The gun may be downgraded.

A new class of vehicles will be created, a TRUE heavy jeep class. They will have the same speed, if not slower speed than current heavy jeeps. They'll carry a driver, a gunner and probably two or three passengers. The vehicle will be immune to standard gunfire as it'll have a covered rear and bullet proof class. The passengers will have a reasonable view, but they won't be able to fire. The gunner will have a .50 calibre weapon and on some models perhaps something stronger, maybe even a rocket launcher.

why not let all 6 people ride in a heavy jeep? just make it slower and less common on the map.

Malik wrote:Won't that limit jeeps to 5 men, 4 of which are unable to shoot? Jeeps are only meant to get troops from A to B and handle any infantry they may see on the way, and heavy jeeps like the hummer are supposed to add a certain degree of protection too, but if you want proper protection you want an Armoured Personnel Carrier, commonly referred to as an APC. Yes, that's right, that's what those things were designed for, though the common misconception is that they're just light tanks...

APC's are transport vehicals and IFV's or Infantry fighting vehical's such as the Warrior and Bradley are used in battle to get the men into position and then dismount them, the men then assault the position and the IFV gives covering fire.

i am almsot in complete agreement and good you underline what you siad and bold it gfor others to see please Malik.
BEFORE I SAY ANY MORE: you cant easily afit 6 peeps in a fully armoured hunvee. 5 can be done alot easier. The vodnick could easily accomadate 7 but iff you wnat a different between light and heavy jeeps you need to balance abilities and design!!!!

In semi confermation i would like to see heavy jeeps carry 5. This means in a normal humvee - 2 front, 2 back and 1 gunner. HOWEVER in the Vodnick at present is modeled very poorly and should any changes that make it more realistic would affect it design and therefore we have to be more carefull. I personaly do not know much about the vodnick and the CHINESE vehicle to make any suggestion aimed at them, NOT ALL THE JEEPS are the same and should therefore be TREATED DIFFERENTly

In the light version i would like to see jeeps able to carry 7, with 2 extra in the back.
I would alos like to see "heavy" jeeps to be less manourvable and slightly slower as you suggested.
I would like to see a serious consideration on replacing 50 cals with 30cals on certain vehicles due to their HUGE power and ability to cut throught even "heavy" jeeps armour, heavy jeep vs heavy jeep = Bloodbath (repeated before but still revalent)

As Malik also mentioned a TOW or another kind of rocket launcher shoudl be considered, thsi being equipted to only a "heavy" jeep. HOWever this question must be asked: how will it imporve gameplay, will it make hHunvees tank killers - is that unbalanced, how often would you get in a humvee only to wish it had a machine gun and not a rocket, cos you wnat infantry protection.

I would be very greatfull if some one could provide some RElavent information about the Vodnick and the chinse jeeps please.

Malik wrote:To summarize these ideas:

All current heavy jeeps will become 'light jeeps'. They will have a slight speed increase. They'll be able to take 6 people, including the driver. The armour will not be changed. The gun may be downgraded.

A new class of vehicles will be created, a TRUE heavy jeep class. They will have the same speed, if not slower speed than current heavy jeeps. They'll carry a driver, a gunner and probably two or three passengers. The vehicle will be immune to standard gunfire as it'll have a covered rear and bullet proof class. The passengers will have a reasonable view, but they won't be able to fire. The gunner will have a .50 calibre weapon and on some models perhaps something stronger, maybe even a rocket launcher.

Sounds good though one change should be add BP glass to the Hummer and Nanjing windows. The reason for this would be to balance them alongside the vodnik which has no windows and as such the troops aren't as exposed.
The actual armour of the vehicles however would remain as it is.

six7 wrote:why not let all 6 people ride in a heavy jeep? just make it slower and less common on the map.

Well the amount of space in an enclosed hummer is limited. The space allows a driver, a front seat passenger, a gunner standing up in the middle, two back seats and that's it. With the open plan interface, it's possible to pack more in because there's no headroom restrictions out the back and people can hang from the back. The vodnik can probably deal with the full 6, but if the heavy jeeps could carry as many as light jeeps, why would anyone bother using light jeeps? If you want speed and lots of people, grab a light jeep, if you want some protection, you can't take everyone with you. It's that keyword 'balance' again.

May i remind you that gameplay balence is still a major factor, and if you have a TOW launcher that is mounted on your jeep, you are makeing the jeep as powerfull as a tank.

i tryed to put this point across in the previoous post.
Repeated but..: THe Vodinick could confortably fit 7, odd numbers work out far better due to the fact we have a middle gunner.

As both i and Malik put "It's that keyword 'balance' again".
I would like to put forwed the idea that we only have one vodnick version because there is only 2 things that can make it more armoured - glass in windows in the front and a door on the back. It seems all most rediculaous to have 2 very siomilar versions.
I would be jsut far better to just have a slightly more armoured version with 7 seets. THIS would be a change, having a difference between the vehicles for each team.
It is far more appropriate to have 2 version of the bumvee bceause it has alot mreo windows and the back can be removed.

P.S we appear to be repeating ourselves, Both Malik, pence and I ahve to be alittle more carefull. Both the above posts repeat what i said 3 post back.
I will also try not reapeat OK - make for a more interesting converstion, sorry the above it a bit of a repeat aswell, sorry.

I think it would be alot more realistic for realistic seating to be included in the Humvee, it's just completely rediculous for this mod to have guys grouching and hanging off the back end, exposed like morons...wth

all i want is the vod and HMMWV to be protected in the back.. I think too many different vehicles is going over the line.

I started a topic devoted to the idea of having a new jeep class for all in favour of that idea. I'll adjust the layout of the ideas soon so it's easier to read, but by all means suggest anything about that idea over there.

Link is: http://realitymod.com/forum/t5608-new-j ... hread.html

THe reason we consired having 2 design of HUNVEE not VODNICK. Is because certain people (alot) dont wnat more armoured jeeps and preper speedy, large capcity death traps. Ironically meaning massive death when one is destroyed and less death with a more armoured one - lol

While the other half wnant a more armoured version.
By each one having different abilities we could atleast make a case for having 2 version but then again the difference between them is not much.

A QUESTION TO ALL PRESENT JEEP supporters, (rather have less armoured verison that a more arm one - only have one type) WHY WOULD YOU MAKE THAT CHOICE????

- i prob wont get a answer from a harden non armour peep but might as well ask! ONly answer if yu would choose speedcapcity over armour.

2 variations of HJ simply solves issues in gameplay. Less armour, firepower = More speed, passengers. More Armour, Firepower = Less Speed, Passengers.

Anyway back on topic, what other additions do poeple feel jeeps are lacking?
Suspension? Handling? etc

i feel that every thing you mention should be added but they cant do most of em.
I would love to seee mirrors, i need them so bad. I am only a teenager (cant drive for a while but it will be only 1 years tommorow,heee) but i understand the absolute need for them, this problem is made worse by the lack of thridperson view.

2 slightly off topic ideas but still very relavent:

1 - doors that open and close, even though you still appear instanly in and out. Imgine watching an APC doors fling open and watch a whole quad dissmount

2- For mud and and dirts to get on the windscreen and have the ability to duck while in a jeep seat, to avoid gun fire coming through the wind screen.

A vodnik will seat 1-2 up front, 1 in the turret, and 9 in the back. The HMMWV can fit more than 5 with a hard back. Its a bit cramped, but this isn't supposed to be first class- its a rugged military transport.... I think 6 in either is perfectly reasonable.