Project Reality Forums

Ytman knows. I got him and three others with one on korengal the other day.

sent from the phone using magic

ytman wrote: You are skipping my point due to a poor choice of words in one location. Its not standard practice to booby trap your own position.

It is not standard practice to shoot civilians, it is not standard practice to have unscoped marksman rifle, it is not standard practice for every rifleman to carry light AT rockets in a squad.

In this game, standard practice does not mean much.

Not to mention you still have not posted anything about where you heard this grenade trap(I am talking about 0 second fuse + string here, nothing elaborate) is outside standard pratice.
Also, if they are not standard practice; why does Russian offensive and defensive grenades both have 0 second fuse??? for suicide? I think at least it is appropriate for Russian rifleman AP to have some grenade traps when fighting against the Militia.

Part of what makes PR fun is that you can do all sorts of things you cannot do in vBF2(such as building fobs and defenses, or use mortars) while making the game more realistic.

If a grenade trap(not some elaborate booby trap that takes a load of time to set up and take down) is practical in securing the perimenter, it will be used.

It does not even have to be grenade trap; just throw butterfly mines(small, easy to carry in significant number, will blow off a foot if stepped on) on the ground for instant b&w for anyone who step over them.


I just confirmed with one of the veterans of the Russian Army I know:

Q: "By the way, could you tell me how standard of a procedure it was to use RGD5 or F1 grenades as traps(with 0 second fuse + a string)?"

A: "Usually f1, coz rgd has a small kill radius. Answer is: very common, because you don't need to carry extra mines. Just switch the fuses and it's ready to go. Rgd was used in urban environment more then f1"

So...forget Mon50; give rifleman AP 8 grenade traps for win.

What about my original suggestion of a pimped anti-personnel rocket launcher?

As a currently serving military member with ample and recent experience with claymores, I can happily inform you they are much more effective in real life. As for the balance reasons behind not making them realistic we're sitting in a thread that decries them as useless compared to alternative kits.

ShockUnitBlack wrote:What about my original suggestion of a pimped anti-personnel rocket launcher?

I would love to have one of those; sometimes LAT is just not good enough to blow up an entire squad in one shot.

But are those common enough?

ComradeHX wrote:It is not standard practice to shoot civilians, it is not standard practice to have unscoped marksman rifle, it is not standard practice for every rifleman to carry light AT rockets in a squad.

In this game, standard practice does not mean much.

Should I face palm? Standard practice is the justification for nearly every thing in this game. Just stop.

Not to mention you still have not posted anything about where you heard this grenade trap(I am talking about 0 second fuse + string here, nothing elaborate) is outside standard pratice.

I have no burden of proof as I'm not claiming anything against the status quo. You on the other hand have all the burden of proof. You need to, beyond anecdotal accounts, show that any specific army (at this point Russian) will actively set grenade traps in 'occupied territory' when in full scale high intensity conflict with a comparative force.

Its not enough to say; "I think something should be like X instead of Y because a bud told me about it."

Part of what makes PR fun is that you can do all sorts of things you cannot do in vBF2(such as building fobs and defenses, or use mortars) while making the game more realistic.

If a grenade trap(not some elaborate booby trap that takes a load of time to set up and take down) is practical in securing the perimenter, it will be used.

You are telling me its better to place down a single solitary grenade at a house, take the three minutes to get a can, some string, tie them together, set it up at a door, perfect the trigger so there will be no accidental tripping... is more time effective than having a person in your squad on security detail?!

Huuur?

ytman wrote: You are telling me its better to place down a single solitary grenade at a house, take the three minutes to get a can, some string, tie them together, set it up at a door, perfect the trigger so there will be no accidental tripping... is more time effective than having a person in your squad on security detail?!

Huuur?

You take three minutes to setup a grenade trap because you need to find a can for it? Durr?
Perfect the trigger? What are you trying to setup? A gun that automatically shoots people when they come in the door? huehuehue?

Grenade trap uses a grenade, you attach string to the pin. There is no accidental tripping unless some idiot walks into the door way when you are setting it up; after that it is all very intentional and unfortunate(for the victim).


You get a string, and something(more string? sure) to tie the grenade to something solid and that is it; it is standard procedure for people to at least have something for carrying extra gears(such as a veshmeshok as old example).

The can simulates somthing solid to secure the grenade on; not necessarily a can(just like how deployable foxholes are sandbags but are simulating holes dug into the ground).

In addition, there is a reason to use grenade traps. It is a force multiplier(if you have no idea what that means, google it). You cannot ALWAYS have a guy watching one door and you do not always have a good position from which to do so.
And this is especially effective in PR because going prone = maximum deviation(makes killing multiple enemy who try to storm through the door possible if they do not sacrifice one or two on grenade traps). IRL the wire is much harder to see and a simple grenade can free up a guy to shoot more people elsewhere.

ytman wrote: I have no burden of proof as I'm not claiming anything against the status quo. You on the other hand have all the burden of proof. You need to, beyond anecdotal accounts, show that any specific army (at this point Russian) will actively set grenade traps in 'occupied territory' when in full scale high intensity conflict with a comparative force.

Let me facepalm for you instead. You are completely against the status quo.
U.S. , China, and Russia did not ever ratify the AP mine ban. There certainly is a lot of willingness to use such things like AP mines(which does more than just temporarily securing the perimeter and is actually a problem); and for Russia, grenade traps are the best alternative(because you do not need to carry extra weight on mines that are useless until setup and a pain to disarm). F1 grenades are very effective when used in this manner because it is a "defensive" grenade which is designed to be used when retreating or when behind cover because the kill radius is very big.

Then the fact is that Russian grenades have easy to set 0 second fuses. Again, why would they have that if not for grenade traps? Suicide?(unless that counts as 'standard procedure' in your book)

In this case I know veterans who know much more about Russian/Soviet Army than you will ever find on internet while sitting in your armchair. So if you cannot prove them wrong, you have nothing here.

It is not enough to say something is not standard procedure in an army you know nothing about in conflict you only heard of from internet wikipedia/google. In reality even a single soldier from such army(I know two, but one was from the Cold War) is not enough to prove anything(such as whether something is truly standard issue or not); but all evidence supports that grenade trap is common practice at least in the Russian army.

Unless you have some Advisor in the Russian Army right now who can prove it wrong; your words have no value.

In this case: I heard this from a friend who was there in the real Russian Army for real conflict and he said this is true, the other friend from Soviet Army(stationed in East Germany) said that they were trained to use them; also all the evidence points to the same conclusion, therefore it is most probably the case unless someone with more knowledge on this matter(which is not you) can prove him wrong.

I think you forgot that they also pick them up very easily/quickly when they move out, not leave the grenade traps there permanently...

As for standard procedure: no **** of course PR is about following the standard procedure. And players can/probably will decide to do things that are not following standard procedure. In this case setting grenade trap is pretty standard(justified!); while leaving them there forever is not(and they will be punished from teamkills resulted from disappearing mine marker).

I'm going to stop after this. If you have more than annecdotal proof and hearsay please share. You keep putting the burden of proof on me to justify a grounds against your change and suggestion... that is not how you fight for a suggestion.

I have no doubt people were trained to use traps, its done in the US military as well, what I have doubts on is if whole platoons use them commonly enough to warrent simulation in PR. The incendiary grenade can be used to fabricate anti tank weapons, and troops are train in that, yet we don't see it in game.

This is my evidence that its trained by the US:

======Formerly mislinked======

http://library.enlisted.info/field-manu ... 2/CH13.PDF

but I see no indication that they use it in the situations we'd be playing.

===


(Edit: Sorry wrong links guys.... embarrassing that I linked to a myth)

ytman wrote:I'm going to stop after this. If you have more than annecdotal proof and hearsay please share. You keep putting the burden of proof on me to justify a grounds against your change and suggestion... that is not how you fight for a suggestion.

I have no doubt people were trained to use traps, its done in the US military as well, what I have doubts on is if whole platoons use them commonly enough to warrent simulation in PR. The incendiary grenade can be used to fabricate anti tank weapons, and troops are train in that, yet we don't see it in game.

This is my evidence that its trained by the US:

The Russian booby-trap grenade - Topic

but I see no indication that they use it in the situations we'd be playing.

===

I loled at that link.

Grenades and fuses are stored separately in box; end of story.

When you ask the common soldier in that army whether it something is standard procedure and he says commonly; that counts for something. I would like to see our PR Russian MA shed some light upon this, though.

Not like you would know anything about the Russian Army. You can doubt all you want but all evidence points to "yes they use them a lot." It does not mean that Russian Army drop grenade traps everywhere they go; but they ALWAYS have the option. If there is that option IRL; it should make sense in PR(after all, you have option of hitting footsoldier in the open with TOW; not that encouraged IRL but people will use it just for s**ts and giggles).

ytman wrote:I have no doubt people were trained to use traps, its done in the US military as well, what I have doubts on is if whole platoons use them commonly enough to warrent simulation in PR. The incendiary grenade can be used to fabricate anti tank weapons, and troops are train in that, yet we don't see it in game.

You're way off from fact. During the era of WWII/Korea/Vietnam maybe, but US troops have NOT been trained to use any form of "booby trap" for quite a long time. With the obvious exception of Special Operations forces who do take courses on improvised explosives, normal soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen/etc are trained to use explosives and destructive devices only as designed and intended by the manufacturer, and as detailed in FM's and TM's.

This is my evidence that its trained by the US:

The Russian booby-trap grenade - Topic

but I see no indication that they use it in the situations we'd be playing.

===

What? Now you've totally lost me. What does that link supposedly show the US trains for? Are you attempting to claim that link somehow proves that US military forces train to use improvised explosives such as booby traps? If so, either the posts you saw were deleted (not likely), or you need to put down the meth pipe.

Not only does that linked discussion have nothing to do with US forces using booby traps such as trip-wire mine/grenades, but it's a MYTHBUSTERS forum. It's just a bunch of kids or gimps posting their own fantasies, with absolutely zero confirmation by any authentic source or authority.



Just some advice: If anyone wants to try claiming something is factual, you should provide links to verify the source of information, or provide enough evidence of personal experience. Otherwise the mods are likely to start deleting posts or heavily modifying them. And having shouting matches back and forth is just going to lead to infractions.

Everyone is free to post opinions (that comply with forum regulations), but don't confuse opinion with fact.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:You're way off from fact. During the era of WWII/Korea/Vietnam maybe, but US troops have NOT been trained to use any form of "booby trap" for quite a long time. With the obvious exception of Special Operations forces who do take courses on improvised explosives, normal soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen/etc are trained to use explosives and destructive devices only as designed and intended by the manufacturer, and as detailed in FM's and TM's.


What? Now you've totally lost me. What does that link supposedly show the US trains for? Are you attempting to claim that link somehow proves that US military forces train to use improvised explosives such as booby traps? If so, either the posts you saw were deleted (not likely), or you need to put down the meth pipe.

Not only does that linked discussion have nothing to do with US forces using booby traps such as trip-wire mine/grenades, but it's a MYTHBUSTERS forum. It's just a bunch of kids or gimps posting their own fantasies, with absolutely zero confirmation by any authentic source or authority.



Just some advice: If anyone wants to try claiming something is factual, you should provide links to verify the source of information, or provide enough evidence of personal experience. Otherwise the mods are likely to start deleting posts or heavily modifying them. And having shouting matches back and forth is just going to lead to infractions.

Everyone is free to post opinions (that comply with forum regulations), but don't confuse opinion with fact.

M18 Claymore

As for personal experience, talk to your military advisors in more detail. When you let off a claymore, you can hear it from kilometres away easily. You feel it through the ground from about 600m away as a deep thump. It sends spoil rattling off the sides of unfinished fighting pits from at least 300m. The target area gets peppered with thousands of puffs from the impacting shrapnel; a moonscape of pockmarks easily identifiable out to at least 200m. The explosion makes a plume that lingers in dusty conditions for a good 45 seconds and in reasonably enclosed spaces produces a brownout comparable to a hit on a mud structure from an 80-90mm HE, HEAT or HEDP.

Against targets where you can actually track the impacts, you find the impact marks out to the stated safety distance. The only inaccurate part of the official tab data is the rear safety distance. I've been on the other side of a pack, with a claymore flush on it when it was set off. This is reasonably common practice in the New Zealand Army, though certainly not in Australia (can't speak for Britain, Canada or America).

Claymores should e instantly killing people out to probably 35-50m in the frontal 550mil arc and putting anyone not killed on black and white. Damage should taper off from there by distance but people should still be bleeding at 150 meters. Outside the main arc people should still be bleeding inside 100m.

As for proving experience and currency of service, I'm happy to do so by other means.

The M18 Isn't an IED or a Booby trap though, it's a manufactured device designed to be used.

Truism wrote:As for personal experience, talk to your military advisors in more detail.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan

PR Military Adviser

I'm not sure what that comment was intended to mean, but because you quoted one of my comments then I'm assuming it's directed towards me. If you look at the title under my username, you'll see that I am one of the MA's.

Technical data on the M18A1 Claymore provided to the PR team has already come directly from MA's with field experience using such equipment, and from non-classified documentation of such equipment.

The only inaccurate part of the official tab data is the rear safety distance. I've been on the other side of a pack, with a claymore flush on it when it was set off. This is reasonably common practice in the New Zealand Army, though certainly not in Australia (can't speak for Britain, Canada or America).

In the US, we generally use a sandbag (or a few) on the rear facing of the M18. This helps contain the rearward blast to limit fragments and shock to friendlies, and also to help ensure the mine is stabilized before/during detonation. While this is usually good enough to prevent any rearward fragments, it's still not enough to stop the full force of the blast shock. You're still detonating 1.5lb of C-4, so you'll still get that nice thump. But yes, the chart shown in FM 23-23 appears to be based on full potential without any barriers/obstructions.

Claymores should e instantly killing people out to probably 35-50m in the frontal 550mil arc and putting anyone not killed on black and white. Damage should taper off from there by distance but people should still be bleeding at 150 meters. Outside the main arc people should still be bleeding inside 100m.

You'll have to ask one of the other DEV team or look for previous public comments on in-game specs. But generally, many of the munitions in-game have been modified from actual values in order to comply with game requirements.

As for proving experience and currency of service, I'm happy to do so by other means.

My comment was in regards to posts that attempt to state something as fact when it's usually not, such as people posting military TT&P when that person has never served in the military themselves or is making technical statements without the use of reference/source links.

So far I haven't seen any recent posts by you personally that go against known technical data, nor have I seen any recent posts by you that attempt to state opinion as fact. If you wish to discuss the capabilities of the Claymore, you have already provided a link from FAS.org of the FM 23-23 charts to back up your comments. There is no need to provide any further proof of personal experience or military service under those conditions, unless you intend to directly argue against the technical data based on real-world experiences/knowledge.


If posts by anyone do go against known technical data, such as attempting to state something as fact when it is not, moderators aware of this will probably contact the poster to request links be added from sources/reference, or that the posts be edited. I don't think it's necessary to post any personal information to the public.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:What? Now you've totally lost me. What does that link supposedly show the US trains for? Are you attempting to claim that link somehow proves that US military forces train to use improvised explosives such as booby traps? If so, either the posts you saw were deleted (not likely), or you need to put down the meth pipe.

My complete bad. Wrong link is wrong link

http://library.enlisted.info/field-manu ... 2/CH13.PDF

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 11/ch8.htm

I'm not trying to talk out of my *** but eventually I know I'll be called out on my googling. I'm not trying to say that improvised explosives are normal fare, far from it, but the FM does show that we will employ it if need be. Obviously I think there is very little reason to employ booby traps in any current combat situation as I'm fighting against 'conventional forces' employing it.

Sorry for any offence or ire.

On the subject of AP mines in game and their 'nerf'. I do remember a dev/playtester saying they were toned down from a previous version where they were able to destroy tanks when placed en masse....

Personally, I'm all for increasing the kill/wound distance on the claymores. I think it would greatly increase its value. Also I believe they should be able to be destroyed or impaired as well. In BF2142 a specific sniper rifle could destroy mines (a way for me to force tk's and grief at the time ^^) .

ytman wrote:I'm fighting against 'conventional forces' employing it.

Conventional forces:
Americans who would shoot AT missiles at footsolders over plain ground and buy some of their own gears(pretty sure this was proven to be true in a complaint thread about TOW sniping infantry/helicopter back in...0.91?).

Russian soldiers who sometimes buy their own gears and "improvise" a lot of gears in field(look in most Soviet Afghanistan photo before Lifchik was issued... they used captured Type56 chest rig or made a 'bra' out of two mag pouches and some slings + party-issued sewing kit).

They are conventional; at least a small portion do such unconventional things.
Rifleman AP is a small portion of the team, that would be simulating doing of such unconventional things.
Even though grenade trap is not very unconventional(force multiplier = always popular as long as its use is not limited by international law; grenade traps in this case does not equal to booby traps/minefields that takes time to set up...because grenade traps are so easy to use and so effective, they are used and are very popular) because I have better source than google.



Instead of google; try militaryphotos.net.

I don't think anything would be gained by simulating such nuance and time consuming weapons. Perhaps in PR:ArmA II I'd be sold... in fact I think I have a new suggestion for the Takistan army (as they mostly are the ones who play Defense with a ticket/win condition that works). As it is though, simply no good in this game. Leave it with the unconventional forces.

ytman wrote:I don't think anything would be gained by simulating such nuance and time consuming weapons. Perhaps in PR:ArmA II I'd be sold... in fact I think I have a new suggestion for the Takistan army (as they mostly are the ones who play Defense with a ticket/win condition that works). As it is though, simply no good in this game. Leave it with the unconventional forces.

Again, grenade traps are not time consuming and are very effective.

If they are no good in this game; ask the people who got blown up when running in a building and people who had to go prone when entering the room only to get into fullauto spray war against someone to the side of the door and lost because deviation is so great.

They are not effective enough if it is just one guy who can only carry 2 of them; conventional forces IRL should have at least 4 grenades each person and all of the Russian ones can be converted into grenade trap VERY quickly.

In regular buildings; drop the two grenade traps in the two entrances(there are usually only two) and be very secure. This takes very little time in game and also very little time IRL(although it is obviously not as quick as dropping a can on the ground).

PR should consider giving Rifleman AP 4 grenades with option to build grenade traps and pick up grenade traps(via G, perhaps; this is good because they cannot just run around picking up traps like candy since running over them = boom) and maybe just keep the Claymore/Mon-50 like it is.

what? Grenade traps are totally worthless, for every enemy kill you acquire, 10 friendlies die as well

40mmrain wrote:what? Grenade traps are totally worthless, for every enemy kill you acquire, 10 friendlies die as well

1. tell friendlies to stay the **** out of the building with mine marker or stop running into building like idiots.
2. do not place grenade traps without informing anyone.
3. seriously if they keep stepping on your grenade trap; they need to l2p.
4. this is only viable when option to pick them up is available via coding...otherwise grenade traps in the game is too stupid(real f1 can be disarmed very easily...just cut the string and switch the fuse back to 3-4 second or more) to be used.

In your case, your friendlies are worthless and they made your grenade traps worthless by taking those with them to blackscreen-land. There is a big a** black line in the door way; they either watch where they are going or they need to learn to watch where they are going.

That should not discourage the use of grenade traps(IRL you would inform friendly forces in the area(radio is easy to use especially with actual radioman in the section) about where they are very easily and they would not act so stupidly as to run into every building).

Also, if you told your friendlies about where the grenade traps are and you STILL end up killing more friendlies(obviously sometimes you killed more enemies but they do not show up in score board fast enough to be noticed), then you are perhaps placing the grenade traps in wrong places.

Oh god I can't stop.

ComradeHX wrote:Again, grenade traps are not time consuming and are very effective.

In the scale of quick action intense volume close quarters combat; Yes. They. Are. Last I checked this is the situation of urban PR battles where your 'covering a door with a soldier' is a bad idea opposed to placing a grenade trap down.

One grenade trap is going to be pretty ineffective for a squad defending downtown Beirut with the IDF knocking down their doors and windows (assuming the IDF has ample reinforcements/FOps).

Simply put you are suggesting that grenade traps be implemented by conventional forces in situations where they do not belong. Grenade traps are nuance weapons designed to be placed far from any friendly occupying force. The point of nuance weapons is psychological more so than offensive.

It slows the opposing force's advance and makes them cautious in situations when they wouldn't need to be normally. That caution makes the opposition a tiny bit less effective. In PR this isn't simulated well due to the potential of respawns, rallies, and generally it being a game where ones life isn't risked.

If they are no good in this game; ask the people who got blown up when running in a building and people who had to go prone when entering the room only to get into fullauto spray war against someone to the side of the door and lost because deviation is so great.

If anything I think the above shows the problem with the grenade trap as it stands. They need to be able to be disarmed or gotten around of in some easy manner. Its incredibly cheap to force people to prone through a wired trap when, given how easily seen they are, one could simply step over them.

Jumping is no alternative either.

Also, you are missing my points, I like the grenade trap. I like the kind of conflict in can create (of course its not perfect). I just do not believe it needs to be represented in conventional warfare. The reason the unconventional forces deserve them is their defensive nature, the traps, when utilized properly are capable of really slowing down and hindering entire teams leaving them open for a counter attack or bying just a little more time.

Again I love the grenade trap.

They are not effective enough if it is just one guy who can only carry 2 of them; conventional forces IRL should have at least 4 grenades each person and all of the Russian ones can be converted into grenade trap VERY quickly.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should. Are you suggesting every Russian soldier needs to carry cans with them as well? Maybe when the grenades are used up the Russians get four empty cans throw around like rocks.

The other issues about the lower number of grenades in PR soldiers is a gameplay issue. Everyone knows the Grenade fests of Karakand... please don't bring that to PR... two is more than enough.

With the better and more realistic mechanics of PR:ArmA II you see more grenades being fielded in a not-so-gamey manner.

In regular buildings; drop the two grenade traps in the two entrances(there are usually only two) and be very secure. This takes very little time in game and also very little time IRL(although it is obviously not as quick as dropping a can on the ground).

And now, in real life, you've completely trapped yourself in a building. Proceed to fire from said building; wait... wait... oh a tank has come up and wrecked the building.

You are trying to justify bizarre IRL tactics in a game where the tactics aren't so bizarre due to limitations of representation.

There is a good saying, I think it's one of Murphy's laws; If you leave the enemy no way in you have no way out.

And before you suggest that "Well the G button pickup would let you out super quickly." Thats. Not. Realistic.

PR should consider giving Rifleman AP 4 grenades with option to build grenade traps and pick up grenade traps(via G, perhaps; this is good because they cannot just run around picking up traps like candy since running over them = boom) and maybe just keep the Claymore/Mon-50 like it is.

Only if they are unconventional forces would I agree... but that being said most unconventional forces have grenade traps as standard rifleman/sapper weapons.