Project Reality Forums

Why? While I do realize people rarly actually use it. But with some teamwork it's actually very very effective in defending the APC gunner's blind spots!

Often time when APC's parked somewhere and laying down suppressing fire. There would be a few hostile engineers and commandos trying to sneak explosives in from the direction they think the turret isn't looking. Untill the moment they see the muzzle flashs spitting out of the ports, which's pretty much the last thing they'd witness before being gunned down.

I've developed a tactic during last few patchs of being a dedicated engineer for the APC crew. I constantly switching between gunports for spotting ambushes on the move and for defending the perimeter while stationary. You wouldn't believe how many careless AT rifleman, Spec Ops, and Engineers I've gunned down in the defense of the vehicle. Not to mention with me around the APC can actually cover multiple directions all at once. We were able to completly lock down crossroads for long durations in urban maps as the result.

So please put the feature back in! It's something that encourages teamwork! I beg of you!

im just wondering how many more then you do it and how many use them like noobs firing for fun and revealing the APCs position.

markonymous wrote:im just wondering how many more then you do it and how many use them like noobs firing for fun and revealing the APCs position.

But if you put it that way. Then we'd have to consider how many n00bs does the exact same thing of firing for fun while maning the mounted MG, Blackhawk Gatling, ETC. And those spots were left in the game despite that.

Another thing to add is that with the APC's troop spawning capability removed. There's even more reasons to put gunports back in. Perhaps even increase the number so that every passenger gets one. Since now the APCs are more specialized to the roles of infantry fighting vehicles.

The problem is that firing ports are no longer present on IFV/CFV's. There used to be ports on Bradley variants, but those were removed once enhanced armor was installed. The only vehicles that still have ports on them are the M2's, with ports on the rear ramp only.

If you get info from the Wiki page, either for the Bradley or the M231, it states the M231 is still maintained and used by crew. This is not fully accurate, and I myself haven't seen an M231 leave an arms room since around the end of '97. I have been responsible for servicing these weapons, but like I said I have never seen one issued out.

I'm not a Marine, and have only taken a cruise in a LAV once. But to my knowledge, those vehicles didn't have weapon ports. Can anyone verify exactly what vehicles in game have ports in reality?

I did like the function of the weapon ports in game, but as others have said there were just too few people using them realistically, and far too many just blare them off at base. I have seen more TK's from port weapons and blackhawk miniguns than any other vehicle-mounted weapon.

I'm glad they took that away.The actual ports are still open,but no weapons are mounted on them.In real Life,I've never seen,or heard of them being used.

I like the BMP on Kufrah, in that you don't get weapons ports. I think that as far as realism goes, being all buttoned up in the APC is a good thing, as you need to communicate with the APC crewmen, and you're not as aware of your surroundings, so you can't be so sure you're getting out of at a safe location.

I do get the feeling right now that my face is bolted to the glass for no reason...

Ninja2dan wrote:I'm not a Marine, and have only taken a cruise in a LAV once. But to my knowledge, those vehicles didn't have weapon ports. Can anyone verify exactly what vehicles in game have ports in reality?

LAV-25 USMC does not have firing ports, only small vision blocks for the dismount scout team. If they want to shoot, they have to open the roof hatches and stick their heads out, then duck when the turret traverses.

The following vehicles currently in the game have firing ports in real life:

ZSL-92A (WZ-551)- number unknown, stated figures found are for APC version without turret.

BMP-3: two firing ports each side, one firing port in left rear door.

Vodnik- number unknown.

BTR-90: 6 known; 3 each side, one in the side entry hatch, and one on each side of the hatch. This vehicle really shouldn't even be in PR, at least not for the MEC, since only 10 have been built.

BRDM-2: 2; 1 each side in front of 3 vision blocks.

Please take a look at the following image:



This is a screenshot I took from FM 3-21.77 (formerly FM 7-7J), Mechanized Infantry Platoon and Squad (Bradley). As you can see based on the seating arrangements, soldiers do not face outward. There are several APC's worldwide that use central seating (facing outward), but only a few presently have viewing or firing ports. EDIT: This information has been confirmed by EB above

SOP pretty much states that when the APC stops for what ever reason, the troops should dismount to provide cover. Another tactic that I rarely see in PR is the dismounted troops to move forward of the APC, with the APC to the rear to provide support fires. Forward-moving troops help provide better detection of roadway ordnance (mines, IED, etc) and also assist in engaging ATGM teams.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:LAV-25 USMC does not have firing ports, only small vision blocks for the dismount scout team. If they want to shoot, they have to open the roof hatches and stick their heads out, then duck when the turret traverses.

That's pretty impossible for the BF2 engine then... Oh well...

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:BTR-90: 6 known; 3 each side, one in the side entry hatch, and one on each side of the hatch. This vehicle really shouldn't even be in PR, at least not for the MEC, since only 10 have been built.

Can always justify that with the "near-future" argument.

danshyu wrote:Can always justify that with the "near-future" argument.

Too much dumb shit was already in BF2 because of that.

Too much dumb shit was already in BF2 because of that.

Definitely agree.

That's pretty impossible for the BF2 engine then... Oh well...

Then it should be ditched, not have us given firing ports.

Another tactic that I rarely see in PR is the dismounted troops to move forward of the APC, with the APC to the rear to provide support fires. Forward-moving troops help provide better detection of roadway ordnance (mines, IED, etc) and also assist in engaging ATGM teams.

I agree, but I think part of the problem is keeping an APC even with an infantry squad. You can advance in jumps behind them, but since your speed is much faster than theirs you can't make small movements. Playing with my PRT squad I found that using an APC in direct support is very challenging, especially in hilly terrain, just because you're always sliding around and movements are very hard to make. I think we need a bit of a lower movement gear, coupled with the standard and high gears we have right now.

I think if anything is done, it would be removing MORE vision ports, not adding more in. I would like to see a realistic portrayal of all the vehicles in the game, so some vehicles need more ports, but the majority need fewer.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote: BTR-90: 6 known; 3 each side, one in the side entry hatch, and one on each side of the hatch. This vehicle really shouldn't even be in PR, at least not for the MEC, since only 10 have been built.

So when do we get BMP3s on all MEC maps with APCs?

The USMC APC still has view ports and it still firings smaller MGs out of them. There is no way to aim them at all but they still fire. Spray and pray.

kilroy0097 wrote:The USMC APC still has view ports and it still firings smaller MGs out of them. There is no way to aim them at all but they still fire. Spray and pray.

Nope, the M231's on them where removed this edition.