Project Reality Forums

40mm is too weak against armor, the spread and drop are too big. It would be good recude the drop and spread to ease engaging and increase damage against APCs. At the moment firing 40mm from a stryker will not destroy a simple MT-LB from 40-60 rounds. Had to hop out of the stryker to grab a specialist to kill an AAV in front of our APC just today on Khamisiyah, which is quite stupid tbh.

The round used is HEDP for MK-19. It's penetration is 50mm. Even said to be as high as 75mm by GD Ordnance. Normal APC armor is usually <50mm excluding heavier vehicles like Puma and Bradley.

The M433 HEDP grenade has a small shaped charge that penetrates better than the HE round. It also has a thin wire wrapping that bursts into a dense fragmentation pattern, creating casualties out to 5 meters. Because they explode on contact, HEDP rounds achieve the same penetration regardless of range.

The high explosive dual purpose round can penetrate 2 inches (50 mm) of armor plate, 12 inches (300 mm) of pine logs, 16 inches (400 mm) of concrete blocks, or 20 inches (500 mm) of sandbags at ranges up to 1,312 feet (400 m).

And being able to penetrate 20 inches of sandbags, it really shouldn't take as long as it does to destroy a firebase or a TOW emplacement. ATM you need a ridiculous amount of grenades to destroy a built asset.

The M433 cartridge is a dual purpose impact type round which is designed to penetrate at least two inches of steel armor at 0? angle of obliquity and inflict personnel casualties in the target area. This item is Code A, approved for service use. This is a training standard item used in both training and combat.

M433 40mm Cartridge

Vehicle coaxial guns should either not drop or drop a lot less, because IRL they either have laser range, sighting tables or both.

Yeah, the time it takes to destroy any MEC armor in Muttrah is always me telling to remind my driver to use the .50 cal more (though it seems that it have gotten less powerful against BTR-60 than I remember when AAV-7 was first introduced).

The APC's are somewhat weird in PR anyway right now. I've never seen BMP-2 firing so fast as the MEC one does, yet the Warrior now is STUPIDLY slow firing. I don't get it. If we strive for realistic fire rate then nerf the other APC's as well.

And a comment about armor. In silent eagle an enemy BTR-80A almost took out my Puma though we finished him off first (frontal armor against the BTR after we engaged it's side armor with AP rounds 3-4 seconds before it started firing back). Theoretically every round penetrated their side armor. But I pounded his side armor with more then 15-20 rounds. And that BTR-8A 30 mm gun totally doesn't overheat (and the fire rate - you made it OP because it lacks thermals or I'm just missing something?).

I ll check the 40mm HEDP. Problem seems to come from them using same materials as the UGL 40mm, but they are obviously different projectiles. If we were to just increase damage vs APC now, grenadiers could kill APC too easily too.

[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote:I ll check the 40mm HEDP. Problem seems to come from them using same materials as the UGL 40mm, but they are obviously different projectiles. If we were to just increase damage vs APC now, grenadiers could kill APC too easily too.

Well, I wouldn't say easily. Shooting multiple rounds with an UGL will take a long time and it is not accurate when firing over 50-100m. It's accuracy is also not at maximum when firing from most common stances: crouched and standing. APCs would easily be able to either drive away, or locate the person firing.

The 40-mm HEDP round can penetrate the armor on the flank, rear, and top of Soviet-made BMPs and BTRs. Troops can use the M203 from upper stories to deliver accurate fire against the top decks of armored vehicles. Multiple hits are normally required to achieve a kill.

Take a look at deviation/drop aswell, in the video they're firing several hundred meters away atleast and the spread is less than what it is in PR. Also, not sure if possible in PR, but the round only starts dropping drastically at the end of the trajectory.

The difference beetween MK19/GMG projectiles compared to handheld grenade launcher projectiles is the length of the casing. For example M203 fires 40x46 mm compared to 40x53 mm of the MK19. Reason for longer cartridge is higher velocity, thus longer firing range for vehicle-mounted grenade launchers. The warhead should be the same as they're both 40 mm, thus they both should do the same damage, only difference being muzzle velocity, accuracy and range. Even infantry uses HEDP rounds for M203 pretty often, here's a couple of pictures:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... oading.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 6d9c5c.jpg

Thus I think both vehicle-mounted grenade launchers and man-portable launchers should deal the same anti-vehicle and anti-personnel damage.

Also when talking about the Puma, something should be done to the lethality of the 30 mm rounds. It's the most unaccurate autocannon in the game, also the least lethal. AP rounds are very ineffective even against weak APCs like WZ-551s and ''HE'' rounds are least effective in the game. Even 14.5 HE ammunition has bigger splash than Puma's 30 mm rounds. The splash radius for the rounds is around 1 metre. IRL Puma has smart shotgun-like kinetic energy rounds with programmable fuse designed to airburst few metres before enemies to be engaged but as this is impossible to implement in PR, some balancing would be due.

ferrett wrote:The splash radius for the rounds is around 1 metre. IRL Puma has smart shotgun-like kinetic energy rounds with programmable fuse designed to airburst few metres before enemies to be engaged but as this is impossible to implement in PR, some balancing would be due.

It uses 25mm round currently, afaik. It should be largely buffed if it uses airburst, making it basically an APC variant of HE-FRAG.

Even 25mm wound/kill radius should be upped a bit, since it's less lethal IG than 14.5mm.

viirusiiseli wrote:Well, I wouldn't say easily. Shooting multiple rounds with an UGL will take a long time and it is not accurate when firing over 50-100m. It's accuracy is also not at maximum when firing from most common stances: crouched and standing. APCs would easily be able to either drive away, or locate the person firing.



Take a look at deviation/drop aswell, in the video they're firing several hundred meters away atleast and the spread is less than what it is in PR. Also, not sure if possible in PR, but the round only starts dropping drastically at the end of the trajectory.

We already have a discussion about UGL accuracy going right now, will expand it to Mk19 and other GMG.
The proper ballistic trajectory is possible in theory, but makes aligning it to the markers on screen a pain in the ***. For the current one w/o any or very low drag on projectiles we have a formula to give rough angles, but if we add proper drag that one wont be useful and we have to resort fully to try and error.

[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote:We already have a discussion about UGL accuracy going right now, will expand it to Mk19 and other GMG.
The proper ballistic trajectory is possible in theory, but makes aligning it to the markers on screen a pain in the ***. For the current one w/o any or very low drag on projectiles we have a formula to give rough angles, but if we add proper drag that one wont be useful and we have to resort fully to try and error.

Source :

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_22x27.pdf

Mouthpiece wrote:Yeah, the time it takes to destroy any MEC armor in Muttrah is always me telling to remind my driver to use the .50 cal more (though it seems that it have gotten less powerful against BTR-60 than I remember when AAV-7 was first introduced).

The APC's are somewhat weird in PR anyway right now. I've never seen BMP-2 firing so fast as the MEC one does, yet the Warrior now is STUPIDLY slow firing. I don't get it. If we strive for realistic fire rate then nerf the other APC's as well.

And a comment about armor. In silent eagle an enemy BTR-80A almost took out my Puma though we finished him off first (frontal armor against the BTR after we engaged it's side armor with AP rounds 3-4 seconds before it started firing back). Theoretically every round penetrated their side armor. But I pounded his side armor with more then 15-20 rounds. And that BTR-8A 30 mm gun totally doesn't overheat (and the fire rate - you made it OP because it lacks thermals or I'm just missing something?).

If we could change the fire rate of a weapon, w/out changing the mode(like what happens to a MG from Apex on Arma 3) we could make all APCs get 2 fire modes, one Fast Firing, and the second a trained fire, as the auto cannos, at least of the Bradley and BMP2 are chain guns...

But the problems are:
1 Can we change the Fire rate
2 can Vheicle change the "fire mode"
3 can we change the Overheat speed depending on fire rate

Gerfand wrote:If we could change the fire rate of a weapon, w/out changing the mode(like what happens to a MG from Apex on Arma 3) we could make all APCs get 2 fire modes, one Fast Firing, and the second a trained fire, as the auto cannos, at least of the Bradley and BMP2 are chain guns...

But the problems are:
1 Can we change the Fire rate
2 can Vheicle change the "fire mode"
3 can we change the Overheat speed depending on fire rate

They already did all of that, no need to make them select fire.

Mouthpiece wrote:Yeah, the time it takes to destroy any MEC armor in Muttrah is always me telling to remind my driver to use the .50 cal more (though it seems that it have gotten less powerful against BTR-60 than I remember when AAV-7 was first introduced).

The APC's are somewhat weird in PR anyway right now. I've never seen BMP-2 firing so fast as the MEC one does, yet the Warrior now is STUPIDLY slow firing. I don't get it. If we strive for realistic fire rate then nerf the other APC's as well.

And a comment about armor. In silent eagle an enemy BTR-80A almost took out my Puma though we finished him off first (frontal armor against the BTR after we engaged it's side armor with AP rounds 3-4 seconds before it started firing back). Theoretically every round penetrated their side armor. But I pounded his side armor with more then 15-20 rounds. And that BTR-8A 30 mm gun totally doesn't overheat (and the fire rate - you made it OP because it lacks thermals or I'm just missing something?).

The AAVP should be much more powerful against APCs with 40mm than the 50 cal, in that sense it is quite unrealistic.

The BMP-2 and Warrior auto cannons fire at a fairly realistic rate, the BMP-2 has linked dual feed ammo and has a 550 rpm and 300 rpm rate. The Warrior with 30mm Rarden's ROF is realistically like 90 RPM max because the cannon is fed with 3 round stripper clips and can only hold 6 rounds ready. The WCSP upgrade program will introduce a new turret with a CT40 cannon that can fire 180 RPM sustained with some burst modes for higher ROF and a proper ammo feed system but until the MoD actually starts deploying it there's not a lot of sense in trying to model something that doesn't exist.

Fed by stripper clips? Now that's interesting. And it explains the low ROF.

Yeah, realistically BMP-2 has a huge ROF potential, but I've never ever seen it been used IRL (nor in real life footage) to it's full potential. Usually they just fire in really short bursts or just single fire.

Anyway, totally agree about 40mm AAVP's granade launcher should be more lethal against armor (as noted - because of the double purpose rounds).

Mouthpiece wrote:Fed by stripper clips? Now that's interesting. And it explains the low ROF.

Yeah, realistically BMP-2 has a huge ROF potential, but I've never ever seen it been used IRL (nor in real life footage) to it's full potential. Usually they just fire in really short bursts or just single fire.

Anyway, totally agree about 40mm AAVP's granade launcher should be more lethal against armor (as noted - because of the double purpose rounds).

The 2A42 has definitely been used in exercises in the burst mode, but there is probably a rate limiter or a burst function in the high RPM mode to avoid sustained fire beyond what the barrel can handle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6F7MK1kDhI

In PR the bursts that the 2A42 can handle is relatively low as well, but for APC v APC engagements it's irrelevant.

Mouthpiece wrote:Fed by stripper clips? Now that's interesting. And it explains the low ROF.

Yeah, realistically BMP-2 has a huge ROF potential, but I've never ever seen it been used IRL (nor in real life footage) to it's full potential. Usually they just fire in really short bursts or just single fire.

Anyway, totally agree about 40mm AAVP's granade launcher should be more lethal against armor (as noted - because of the double purpose rounds).

Mouthpiece wrote:Fed by stripper clips? Now that's interesting. And it explains the low ROF.

Yeah, realistically BMP-2 has a huge ROF potential, but I've never ever seen it been used IRL (nor in real life footage) to it's full potential. Usually they just fire in really short bursts or just single fire.

Anyway, totally agree about 40mm AAVP's granade launcher should be more lethal against armor (as noted - because of the double purpose rounds).

Ukraine:

Ok, ok, I understood from Hunt3rs post that I was wrong. No need to rub more salt in my wounds

Pew pew pew need to add more ROF to bmp2 from what i see here