Project Reality Forums

I like this idea. I actually kinda hate 3RB on QBZ-95\Optics. It is absolutely useless with 4x zoom..

I disagree. Also, the primary purpose is not to use burst at range, but anyhow. I would like to see a realistic representation of the QBZ-95, which means no burst.

Can we please just get a reflex sight on the MEC & PLA SF weapons? =B

If they actually used them I'm sure we would...but as Jaymz said the PLA doesn't equip them as such, and mounting reflex sights on HK G3 type rifles is a pain as well as being relatively uncommon.

the L85A2 carbine for the GB crewman with 20 round mag

http://www.precisionairsoft.com/usrimage/cat1344.jpg

http://world.guns.ru/assault/sa80-l22a2.jpg

http://www.precisionairsoft.com/usrimage/cat1343.jpg

PLA SF:
-Knife
-Pistol
-QBZ-95
-SLAM x 3
-Flashbang Grenade x 2
-SOFLAM
-Field Dressing x 1
-Green Signal Grenade x 2
-No body armor

PLA Engineer:
Knife
Entrenching Tool
QBZ-95
AT Mines x 1
C4 Explosive x 1
Wrench
Binoculars
Field Dressing x 1
Body Armor

As different in equipment as it seems, what would be the incentive to use the Spec-Ops kit? The Engineer can fulfill almost every role the spec-ops can and then some.

The SF class isn't about sneaking into the enemy base and blowing everything to ****. It allows squadmembers without an SL to call in air support, allows the destruction of light vehicles, has flashbangs, and is decent at all ranges.

Whereas the engineer can blow things up, set mines, has no grenades, and is relatively hard to use beyond 100 m.

BloodBane611 wrote:The SF class isn't about sneaking into the enemy base and blowing everything to ****. It allows squadmembers without an SL to call in air support, allows the destruction of light vehicles, has flashbangs, and is decent at all ranges.

1) You shouldn't be seperated from your SL
2) The engineer can also destroy light vehicles with efficiency
3) SL also has flashbangs (go figure) which corresponds to point 1.
4) NO body armor
5) Decent at all ranges? What? I am comparing them when they are using the same gun as the engineer (QBZ-95). They should have the same performance.

BloodBane611 wrote:Whereas the engineer can blow things up, set mines, has no grenades, and is relatively hard to use beyond 100 m.

1) You obviously haven't used the engineer to its fullest
2) SF has no frag grenades, flash grenades that are limited at range and open distances, rarely used on servers that I've been on, and green smoke grenades??
3) Is NOT relatively hard to use beyond 100 m
4) Can repair vehicles
5) Can build and repair commander assets
6) Can have grapples on certain maps
7) Body Armor

I still see the engineer as more useful and have not seen the incentive to use the PLA SF kit once they change him to have the QBZ-95. Adding claymores or something to that effect may change my mind.

Yeah... I made a thread about this awhile back, and no the Chinese SF does not use the qbz95B.

It would make more sense if the SF is armed with the QBZ95 or the QBZ03. Currently, the only people who have been seen armed with QBZ03's are the recon teams (not the Marine Recon)... here are some pictures:

Putfile - Uploaded Picture
Putfile - Uploaded Picture

The qcw05 smg has seen some action with the PAP but I don't know if the PLA is planning to equipe crewmen with this weapon. The Chinese crewmen nowdays mostly carry pistols, But I've seen them carry QBZ95's...Maybe they have one or two QBZ95's in their tank... I Don't Know.

and while we are on the topic of chinese weapons, what about their OTHER frontline assault rifle, the Type-03



i have been told this is being produced in the same qualntities as the 95 although i am unsure whether it is intended to complement or replace its older cousin

Like I said in my previous post, the PLA Recon teams are getting this weapon. By the looks of things, the QBZ03 isn't going to replace the QBZ95's anytime soon because most of the PLA are or are going to be equiped with qbz95.

i love the desing of the qbz03 , was my first model ever.!

ReaperMAC wrote:1) You shouldn't be seperated from your SL

SF works well with an air squad to mark targets.

4) NO body armor

Requested kits inherit the armor of your current kit.. meaning SF always has armor (or was this changed?)

Every conventional faction soldier has body armor now.

From the thread I posted in MP:

PLA crewman weapon? - Military Photos

someone posted this pic:



along with PRC_Heavy_Z saying:

I don't know if the PLA is planning to equipe crewmen with this weapon. The Chinese crewmen nowdays mostly carry pistols, But I've seen them carry QBZ95's...Maybe they have one or two QBZ95's in their tank... I Don't Know.

It seems the best option when considering realism and balance is to have the Chinese crewman be the QBZ-95, like in .708

Project Reality is set in near future, so who knows. Maybe in PR's universe, PLA suddenly thought QBZ-95Bs are nice for spec ops. It's certainly very believable as it's in the same family as QBZ-95.

Since it doesn't hurt the realism atmosphere of PR it should be kept around, as it's always nice to have diversity in weaponry choices.

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote: US crewman: vBF2 M4 (with a three round burst )
US SF: No change

Why not the PR m4?

Can someone post here barrel length of both QBZ95 and QBZ95B? Imo it would make sence if crewman will get QBZ95B as:
1) PR is taking place in near future
2) AKS-74U, SiG-552, Colt Commando, H&K-53 etc aren't used as a frontline carbines - they are more a PDW then a carbine. If I'm correct and QBZ-95B barrel length is less then 300mm then it is probably the same class weapon. Actually they are closer to SMG's by their stats , the only difference is cartrige they fire and gas automatics from assault rifle. Though overall accuracy\range are only a little bit better then SMG's.


p/s please replace MEC crewman G3 with something...I can't emagine having full-size G3 inside of T-90...

[R-DEV]Katarn wrote:Why not the PR m4?

Is it already in-game?

Longbow* wrote: p/s please replace MEC crewman G3 with something...I can't emagine having full-size G3 inside of T-90...

*ahem*

MEC crewman: HK53A3 (sorry bob, I know you wanted the P90 )
MEC SF: Same

now in case that isn't clear, rather than the G3 (or P90) for the MEC Crewman class, it will have the HK53.

I really think I'm getting the hang of this subliminal messaging jazz

Bob, you see, the real reason we're not getting a P90 for MEC crewman is simple.

I'd whore it

I'm serious. I know how the G3 is great at range.

I know how *** it is in CQB.

I'd have a man in my squad with Crewman at all times, to take point.

Expendable Grunt wrote:Bob, you see, the real reason we're not getting a P90 for MEC crewman is simple.

I'd whore it

I'm serious. I know how the G3 is great at range.

I know how *** it is in CQB.

I'd have a man in my squad with Crewman at all times, to take point.

And issuing them with a 5.56x45 carbine thats rather good at close range helps that problem how?

'[R-CON wrote:GeZe;582191']

along with PRC_Heavy_Z saying:

It seems the best option when considering realism and balance is to have the Chinese crewman be the QBZ-95, like in .708

But are those armor crewmen or mechanized infantry mounted and using firing ports? The poster did not give any context.