Project Reality Forums

I would like to see if the light AT can do a bit more damage. After doing a few tests upon firing an AT4 on a humvee just set on fire and on a command truck only smokes it. Not sure how effective it is in real life, but i would suppose it could do a bit more damage than that.

Agreed. I actually just quit out of PR to go bring this up. You beat me

There are several different projectiles for the AT4. Note that since the AT4 is a one-shot weapon, these projectiles are preloaded into the launcher tubes.

HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank)
The AT4 HEAT round can penetrate up to 420 mm of RHA.

HEDP (High Explosive Dual Purpose)
For use against bunkers and buildings. The projectile can be set to detonate on impact or with a delayed detonation.

HP (High Penetration)
Extra high penetration ability (up to 500 to 600 mm of RHA.)

IIRC, the BMP-3 only has 35mm of armor, though I'm not sure if it's RHA or not. This being said, an AT4 should SERIOUSLY screw it up. Same for rear shots on all the other APC's. Can't be arsed to go look up thicknesses though.

EDIT: I once brought up having different LAT options at some point in time, either based on map or as 2-3 different LAT's working off of one "pool", but nobody talked about it.

would it be possible to have a sub-catagory for lat, where you could pick heat, hedp or hp.

same goes for the chinese PF-89

Let's see... things I have found:

Taking a L-AT and shooting it at a transport helicopter only smokes it. That, and gives the cleaning guys one heck of a night.


I find that a bit strange...

oh, and when I shot the AT4s at Humvees, they blow up just fine... but it could be that everyone else is firing their guns at them...
same with com. trucks.

And a foot-and-a-half of metal? pretty thick...

same here , lat in general should do a lot more damage to vehicles , usualy killin hummves/vodnicks in one shot , seriusly damaging apcs (with only few seconds to bail before it explote), and completaly screwing choppers , FORCING them to land(crash) or destryoing them in mid air .

as far as playing, the only thing light AT does as a 1 shot kill is the insurgent and militia technicals.

LATs will set the heavy jeeps (humvees, vodniks, nanjings) on fire, and they will explode approximately ten seconds later. It takes two LATs to kill a supply truck, and two for an APC.

I think the supply trucks should be given the same health as the heavy jeeps and APCs should be given weaker rear armor.

The thing about L-AT systems is that in real life they function in that they penetrate the armor and kill the occupants inside, they don't just hit the target and make a jeep and/or APC spontaneously explode into little pieces. Unfortunately, the BF2 engine can't really do something like that for vehicles, as it's been discussed before. Otherwise, I would love for 12.7mm rounds to shred the occupants inside jeeps to pieces, or a tank's sabot round to penetrate and kill the crew inside a tank, APC, jeep or something.

I think the current damage system is fine. Infantry will mostly dismount the jeep after being hit with AT, or the jeeps will usually catch fire, especially when assisted by small arms. APCs only take around 2 L-AT shots to kill, so it's a mere shoot and rearm to destroy one.

'[T wrote:Terranova7;635020'] Unfortunately, the BF2 engine can't really do something like that for vehicles

What? Since when did you become the expert? Oh yeah. You're wrong.

i was going to make a topic about this, but this thread seems to be fitting, but seriously the commander trucks are wayyy over armored in PR. like someone said earlier, you can put a sabot through it and it will keep going. this is extremely unrealistic. after all theres a reason why the soldiers had to weld on metal plates to the 5 ton trucks in iraq.

BloodBane611 wrote:LATs will set the heavy jeeps (humvees, vodniks, nanjings) on fire, and they will explode approximately ten seconds later. It takes two LATs to kill a supply truck, and two for an APC.

I think the supply trucks should be given the same health as the heavy jeeps and APCs should be given weaker rear armor.

No, the CO truck should be left alone. If you have a full CO truck, you will most likely kill everyone in the back with a Light AT shot, but the driver will usually survive. The CO truck is wayyyy to valuable to be that fragile. I wouldn't mind LAT doing more damage to APCs though.

ok if a lat can go through half a foot of steel think of what it would do to a apc, it would pass right through the steel and explode inside killing everyone and it could set off the amunition inside, that would kill every one inside very fast. i think a lat should make a apc stop moving and kill or hurt everyone in side but not turn the apc into a black wreck that looks like it has been there for days.

If you have a full CO truck, you will most likely kill everyone in the back with a Light AT shot, but the driver will usually survive. The CO truck is wayyyy to valuable to be that fragile.

Don't drive your supply truck into my LAT sights then. People drive in PR like they're going to the store in their volvo. If you act like that in combat, expect to die. If you're not willing to protect your important assets, there shouldn't be unrealistic freebies to help you out.

BloodBane611 wrote:Don't drive your supply truck into my LAT sights then. People drive in PR like they're going to the store in their volvo. If you act like that in combat, expect to die. If you're not willing to protect your important assets, there shouldn't be unrealistic freebies to help you out.

I never said that the people in the back shouldn't die, I agree with you on that. But the CO truck is a pretty heafty truck and shouldn't be able to be taken out in 1 shot because you can hear it a mile away and sometimes you are forced to drive through a dangerous area. That is why there is a tradeoff for speed for durability. If you want to take out a CO truck, you should have to have 2 LATs or a HAT or lay an ambush for it. The humvees/vodniks/nahjing are disposable because they are quick transports while the CO trucks are for building.

And you have to think, how much armor does an apc or 5 ton truck have in real life. The trucks are soft vehicles, and most apc's have very little armor, not enough to stop an AT4 or PL89. Both should be one shot disabled/on fire.

I also think that if there is a way, they should have rear hits on apcs kill all the passengers.

Expendable Grunt wrote:Agreed. I actually just quit out of PR to go bring this up. You beat me

IIRC, the BMP-3 only has 35mm of armor, though I'm not sure if it's RHA or not. This being said, an AT4 should SERIOUSLY screw it up. Same for rear shots on all the other APC's. Can't be arsed to go look up thicknesses though.

EDIT: I once brought up having different LAT options at some point in time, either based on map or as 2-3 different LAT's working off of one "pool", but nobody talked about it.

RHA is Rolled Homogeneous Armor. It was the original method of armor plating on tanks in WW2. It's used to compare the armor of different armored vehicles, known as RHAe (RHA equivalency), as it provides a way to compare, say, Explosive Reactive Armor, and the armor on a Humvee (which is much more similar to RHA).

The BMP-3 has 35mm of RHAe, so the AT4 should easily penetrate it. However, The lethality of the explosion probably would be enough to damage only a small area of the tank. The crew compartment, the transport compartment, the engine, the drive chain/treads, or some other system could probably be taken out, rendering the vehicle less useful/killing some of the occupants. However, killing all the occupants, or destroying the vehicle in one shot, isn't really reasonable.

I think the same logic generally applies to the whole IFV/APC class of vehicles in PR.