Project Reality Forums

PLODDITHANLEY wrote:It all depends on how the AAV3 with Mk19 pans out in the hands of the unwashed masses. Surprising that a BTR-60 and MT-LB are so affected by .50 fire.

The BTR-60 is a notoriously lightly armored vehicle. But I'm surprised about the MT-LB being so vulnerable. But there are some APCs like the BTR-60. The LAV-25 could easily be penetrated by .50 caliber before they were modified to the A2 standard, the Stryker is vulnerable to 14.5mm, and the Bradley, before any armor upgrades, was only resistant 14.5mm (but thats when it still had portholes).

I'm guessing the AAV7s will be outnumbered? Or will MEC have to make up with better defenses?

Well, there's only maybe 10mm of armor, that's right up the 50 cal's alley.

Also, even if a Bradley gets the drop on a BMP-3, they will have to risk having the BMP swing around and pummel the Bradley to death before the Bradley actually has the time to finish getting enough rounds into the enemy. It only takes about 3 seconds for a BMP-3 to deliver enough lead to finish off a full-health Bradley, it takes 6.4 seconds for the Bradley to finish off a BMP-3. In other words, twice as long, when the BMP-3 is a 20 ton vehicle that can probably only stop HMG at the most, and the Bradley is a vehicle that can effectively stop 30mm APDS from making a red smoothie inside of the vehicle in the glacis and possibly the turret.

I'd put my money that it would probably take about as many rounds for the BMP to take out the Bradley as it takes for the Bradley to take out the BMP for everything but the frontal arc. If preferable, I'd like the BMP-3 to take around 50-60 rounds of APDS in order to destroy it when engaging the frontal arc, but only take about 30-40 anywhere else. The BMP-3 has the firerate to kill the Bradley within the time it takes for the Bradley to try and kill it with around 20 rounds, if they have a side shot, but will have to have the Bradley already damaged a good bit if they want to try and take it out through frontal engagement.

30mm APDS at 400 rounds a minute really packs a punch, but the 30mm or so of armor on the BMP-3 can't really resist the M242 APFSDS-T. I'd hedge my bets on the M2A3, but only if it can keep it's front to the enemy.

Also there will be a 30mm autocannon equipped MTLB for the MEC.

Yeah and HEI should hurt people inside LAV... No it may not breach the armor, but just the blast on the armor will make shrapnel on the inner side of the armor....

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:No, the UGWS cannot fire both the Mk-19 and M2 at the same time; you will have to switch between the two weapons.

Will this apply ingame? Have to switch between the M2 and Mk 19 in weapon slot form?

And to add on, doesn't the AAV7 have the capability to use the M242 Bushmaster?

Drunkenup wrote:Will this apply ingame? Have to switch between the M2 and Mk 19 in weapon slot form?

Yep!

And to add on, doesn't the AAV7 have the capability to use the M242 Bushmaster?

Not that I've ever heard of, at least not in USMC service. Are you sure you're not thinking of the EFV? In the case of that vehicle, it's the Bushmaster II; 30 x 173mm (same rounds used by the GAU-8 on the A-10).

Hotrod525 wrote:Yeah and HEI should hurt people inside LAV... No it may not breach the armor, but just the blast on the armor will make shrapnel on the inner side of the armor....

And then we give the crew suppression effects to render them unable to return-fire.

Gyah, if the change between the M2 and Mk19 isn't near instantaneous, then I'm going to have to choose whether the LATs get me or the MT-LBs/BTRs do.

Dev1200 wrote:PR Meters are a lot smaller then real ones. When I last tested it with some friends, 4-5 people can stand side-by-side, so it looks like this:

wrong, this was disproven when deviation/ballistics were being worked on. 1m ingame is the same as 1m irl

Also, I get the feeling that the current power of the T-72 and M1A2 in AP is not quite right, per se. For the sake of balance, it'll be for the best to have the T-72 and M1A2 to carry the same gun power, and possibly equivalent reload times. Both should be able to shrug off shots to anywhere in the frontal arc, except for the area where the turret and hull meet, without taking much damage, eating as many as 5 sabots before finally biting the dust. However, shots to the sides and rear should be deadly, taking two shots for the side turret and hull, one shot to the rear turret, two shots for the rear hull.

Tank combat in Kashan feels as if T-72s can only take two shells before dying, even on frontal shots, and Abrams' can take as many as 3-4, with a faster reload time than the T-72s. If this is going to be true, the T-72s either need to be greater in number, or brought up to equal power. Material checking may be in order, but there is a possibility that this is just an MP glitch.

Kim Jong ill wrote:Yes, no shit. It's a good thing we're talking about self oxidising explosives and not alkali metals then. This has already been covered by both myself and Jaymz.

The M67 Hand Grenade has an effective range of 15ms due to shrapnel effects, with lethal effects inside of 5ms. The M792 disperses it's incendiary agent in a radius of 5ms, there are no ifs or buts. The M67 has a larger effective radius then the M792, which one would expect considering the relative sizes of the two rounds.

mr. korean knows his stuff