Project Reality Forums

I don't know, the non-clipping barrel is huge.

Truism wrote:I don't know, the non-clipping barrel is huge.

The Challenger 2 has it, except for knocking myself a few times off a bridge, it never posed an issue.

From realistic point of view I think its not uncommon for anti tank launchers to disable tank so badly as to write it off but from gaming pov, I think only CAS and TOW should be able to kill armor instantly, where HAT only disables the armor, which will again in return demand more teamwork and the necessities of building proper fobs.

Just as is the case with squad medic in the field ( IRL too ) its more beneficial to wound someone rather than outright kill so that the wounded can get treatment. If hes dead, the squad will just keep advancing. The same should apply to armor also.

Disabled tank will require time and other effort from their team that would otherwise be used elsewhere and therefor I think HAT should have disabling capability only

Brainlaag wrote:The Challenger 2 has it, except for knocking myself a few times off a bridge, it never posed an issue.

In real life that would either severely damage the barrel or knock it out of alignment. You would then have only your non-coax machineguns to use reliably.

That's a pretty big issue.

Truism wrote:In real life that would either severely damage the barrel or knock it out of alignment. You would then have only your non-coax machineguns to use reliably.

That's a pretty big issue.

Oh but the lack of FCSs isn't?

Name me one scenario in PR, except for the bridge, where barrel collision would have serious impact on gameplay.

On maps like Yamalia and Wanda it would perhaps tinker with current tactics but besides that, tanks are usually in open spaces with enough liberty to turn their guns in whatever direction.

Brainlaag wrote:Oh but the lack of FCSs isn't?

Name me one scenario in PR, except for the bridge, where barrel collision would have serious impact on gameplay.

On maps like Yamalia and Wanda it would perhaps tinker with current tactics but besides that, tanks are usually in open spaces with enough liberty to turn their guns in whatever direction.

FCS? Are you kidding? Every tank has FCS in PR even if it doesn't have it in real life - rounds have basically flat trajectories in PR, much more so than real life. Gunnery is retardedly simple in PR.

And yes, clipping barrels is huge. I think you grossly underestimate how often you clip your barrel in PR and how it not clipping lets you employ AFVs unrealistically.

For the people saying to remove a HAT/AA kit because the one that it is used on can't see you easily, is like saying to remove the sniper kit because the dude that was sniped couldn't see the sniper. It's the exact same thing.

The hat IMO should be a one hit if it is like others say, a one per team kit. This is helpful because most of the time armor is busy handling other targets and a tank is on your ***, and no one can support you, you fire a HAT that only immobilized, and what you gonna do? Get shot up because the tank will more than likely see you after you fired.

This is controversial, but that is my opinion.

Truism wrote:FCS? Are you kidding? Every tank has FCS in PR even if it doesn't have it in real life - rounds have basically flat trajectories in PR, much more so than real life. Gunnery is retardedly simple in PR.

The main advantage of FCS is the ability to fire on the move, that ability is absent in PR, which turns all vehicles into a static target for the jack in the box (on a side note, this discussion is somewhat obsolete now since they altered the AT kits perfectly in the most recent version, just as I would have imagined it).

Truism wrote:And yes, clipping barrels is huge. I think you grossly underestimate how often you clip your barrel in PR and how it not clipping lets you employ AFVs unrealistically.

As said, Challenger 2 has barrel collision, never run into any trouble with that one, in fact it actually makes for some slightly more realistic and careful armour gameplay in tight spacings. I'd approve of collision for all vehicles.

Infantry-carried ATGM missiles are one of the many reasons tanks and other armoured vehicles are extremely dependent on recon and infantry/artillery support in any real life combat situation.

People moan about ATGMs spelling certain doom for tanks entering towns, but this is just like it works in reality. You enter the engagement ranges of the infantry and they carry !AT! weapons. AT, ANTI TANK. Designed to !destroy tanks!. Tanks are not invincible god machines. They have strengths and weaknesses, situations to use them in and situations to avoid.

Instead of trying to change realistic mechanics so you can roll into any town and brutalize the infantry without them having any weapon to fight back, you may want to create an understanding of how modern day engagements work and where you should and shouldn't be as an unsupported armoured vehicle.

In real life conventional armies can have multiple 2-4 men heavy AT patrol walking around or ambushing armor. And possibly each one of them carry also light AT. So one patrol can take out a few MBTs, in theory. Tanks need recon or infantry to support them.

So one HAT for 50 players is not "too good".

Problem solved with HAT not killing tank(except maybe T-62...etc.) from front in one shot(assuming tank was 100%) and useful smoke + FLIR.

Add a medium AT kit that utilizes rockets instead of ATGMs. Have the MAT launchers be weapons like the Carl Gustav, RPG-29, and SMAW. Could also give them two rocket types, HEAT for combating armor and frag rounds for infantry. Then limit the HAT kit to only maps that have heavy armor assets (IFVs and tanks).

Firepower01 wrote:Add a medium AT kit that utilizes rockets instead of ATGMs. Have the MAT launchers be weapons like the Carl Gustav, RPG-29, and SMAW. Could also give them two rocket types, HEAT for combating armor and frag rounds for infantry. Then limit the HAT kit to only maps that have heavy armor assets (IFVs and tanks).

Yo, thats actually a great suggestion. I always thought SMAW was too much to be an AT, but too weak for being a HAT

Firepower01 wrote:Add a medium AT kit that utilizes rockets instead of ATGMs. Have the MAT launchers be weapons like the Carl Gustav, RPG-29, and SMAW. Could also give them two rocket types, HEAT for combating armor and frag rounds for infantry. Then limit the HAT kit to only maps that have heavy armor assets (IFVs and tanks).

If you will make all those assets for our 15+ factions that I'm sure we'll find a way to implement it

[R-DEV]Mineral wrote:If you will make all those assets for our 15+ factions that I'm sure we'll find a way to implement it

Tbh, most of this is code work rather than modeling work that needs to be done.
The RPG29 and the LAW80 are the only ones which would need to be modeled.
Unconventional forces have no definitive answer, but most likely have a few captured weapons with them. A number of weapons can be used multiple categories as their effectiveness depends on the warhead used.
US Army: LAW, AT4(penetration of the AT4 depend on warhead), SRAW
USMC: LAW, AT4, SMAW, SRAW
UK: AT4, LAW 80, SRAW
Russia: RPG26, RPG7(like the AT4 depending on warhead), RPG29
China: PF89, Type 69(RPG7 copy), PF98
Germany: RGW90(Matador), Pzf 3(like AT4 and RPG7)
Israel: LAW, RPG7, Matador, SRAW?(wikipedia lists it)
Hamas: RPG7, Matador?(captured)
Mec: fictional, a mixture of equipment from the above like now would be the most likely option
Militia: AT armament similar to Russia
FSA: Similar to Russia? Syria uses the RPG29 as well
Taliban: RPG7, likely to lack a true heavy AT
Insurgents: RPG7

NVA/US70s:
current equipment is fine, it's mainly infantry combat anyways.

Falklands:
?

WW2:
AT rifles for LAT? Not sure how common they were in Normandy.
Panzerfaust 60, Bazooka for MAT
Panzerschreck for HAT

Frontliner wrote: WW2:
AT rifles for LAT? Not sure how common they were in Normandy.
Panzerfaust 60, Bazooka for MAT
Panzerschreck for HAT

AT-rifles weren't that practical. The bullet usually ricocheted from tank armor or did little damage. They were heavy, too. Around 20 kg to 50 kg.

And people would use them for sniping humans, seriously

I'm aware that AT rifles had little effectivity on some of the heavier Tanks unless you're hitting a weak spot, but Tanks weren't the only thing driving around in WW2, and thus AT rifles could be useful against unarmored vehicles such as Jeeps and lightly armoured vehicles such as the M3 halftrack. I put them as Light AT candidates for a reason

Frontliner wrote:The RPG29 and the LAW80 are the only ones which would need to be modeled.

PR Dose actually have an old LAW 80 model we used back in the day, can see it here at 1:50 in the v0.5 trailer: https://youtu.be/m6tqEVV9jUs?t=110

But it was removed since iirc, its been pretty much retired from active service, but wiki etc list it as still active, although its not on the main Army website: Light anti-structures missile - British Army Website

Also have seen it at all in Afghanistan etc, did see one back in 2007 however in the Bennington Armoury:


According to the wiki it only has a max shelf life of 10 years so possibly the reason why its been removed from service?


The PF98 is also more of a "M-AT" as you put it, than a H-AT. China doesn't really have a hand-held guided AT weapon.
EDIT: Other than after doing a little research it looks like China is working on a new missile called the HJ-12, which looks to be more or less a copy of the Javelin missile:



But we also don't have a Javelin missile

Frontliner wrote:Falklands:
?

Would be the L14A1 84 mm Carl Gustav for the Brits and the M67 90mm Recoilless Rifle for the Argies, which would also be their H-AT kits, and they are both currently using the M20 Super Bazooka as a PH for each.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:PR Dose actually have an old LAW 80 model we used back in the day, can see it here at 1:50 in the v0.5 trailer.
According to the wiki it only has a max shelf life of 10 years so possibly the reason why its been removed from service?

Well, I was just looking at the possible candidates since at this point we are -for the most part- theorycrafting anyways. Though I must say that it's really, really annoying having only one HAT to keep both Tanks and IFVs at bay(as the current LAT's fail to one-hit-KO IFVs; the Puma can withstand even 2 RPG7[Rus LAT] hits) so I would appreciate to have a medium class that can bridge the gap between HATs and LATs, the [current]Russian HAT doing what MATs should be able to do, one-shot IFVs and two-shot Tanks.

The PF98 is also more of a "M-AT" as you put it, than a H-AT. China doesn't really have a hand-held guided AT weapon.

Neither have Germany, Russia and others, and you still wouldn't want to get hit by an RPG29 or Pfz3. Guiding has nothing to do with penetration power, the PF98 sits at 800mm against reactive armour, which is by all means good enough to consider it a HAT.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote: But we also don't have a Javelin missile

Wait, what!? We never had javelins? What about the british HAT before thermals? I have a small memory about javelins in PR 7 years ago. But I guess I'm wrong, can't argue with Rhino's knowledge