Project Reality Forums

I wa getting Pissed off seeing Astovs Shilka Sig and no one had sugested it.

that is one kick *** AA vehicle.

MEC AA is fine right now, the USMC are hurtling, the default Linebacker is sooo weak..

I wa getting Pissed off seeing Astovs Shilka Sig and no one had sugested it.

Heh, i was curious why it hasn't been posted too ;]
Cool thing ;]
And yes linebacker is very weak

yeah id much rather see the... oh man i cant remember what its called. but it was an AA defense thing on the back of a hummer, they had them in POE. id like to see those instead of the bradley. and id also much rather see the normal bradley in a game instead of the AA varient.

I agree, I have a grave dislike of the Bradley linebacker being an AA vehicle in BF2, much more suited for an IFV role imo, but still open to opinion.

Yes, the Linebacker's ROF is way too slow to make it effective.

How 'bout some Flak 88's?

Please add the Shilka. It's a must-have

what about the (albeit kinda old now) M134 Mobile AA (the gatling cannon)?

i thought they no longer used that thing since the US doctrine is more on attaining air superiority rather than having the ground troops deal with air threats as they appear.

that may be US doctrine, but it certainly aint BF2 doctrine... so I would think either use the M134 or give maybe the AT kit a man-portable FIM 92 Stinger, or possibley the M1097 Avenger, which I think might be the AA-50 cal + stinger armed Humvee from Point Of Existence (the wiki article also mentioned possiblity of future versions having less Stingers, but the ability to carry Javeline missiles)

ADD A SHILKA. PERIOD. Also, make the US use the M163 AA vehicle. That's the one with the gatling gun. Either that or the AA LAV. It has missiles and a GAU-12 25mm gatling gun.

I think the AA version of the LAV-25 would work out for the US Marines in PR

What better for the PLA as a mobile AA piece?

Zantetsuken wrote:that may be US doctrine, but it certainly aint BF2 doctrine... so I would think either use the M134 or give maybe the AT kit a man-portable FIM 92 Stinger, or possibley the M1097 Avenger, which I think might be the AA-50 cal + stinger armed Humvee from Point Of Existence (the wiki article also mentioned possiblity of future versions having less Stingers, but the ability to carry Javeline missiles)

ah yes the avenger! thats what i was thinking of!

Cerberus wrote:I think the AA version of the LAV-25 would work out for the US Marines in PR

agree.

Yeah, those .50's on the Avenger are badass. They shoot WAY faster than the M2 and have fairly good accuracy. I remember them shooting em' offa the side of the Iron Gator on one of the elevators and remembering that it sounded like the minigun (on the blackhawk) but with a deeper bass sound to it. It would definitly be a great addition to PR.

Avenger would be a great addition

Lev_Astov wrote:Also, make the US use the M163 AA vehicle. That's the one with the gatling gun. Either that or the AA LAV. It has missiles and a GAU-12 25mm gatling gun.

The M163 PIVADS has been reitired for quite a while. The USMC does not use the Bradley in any form, so eventually the Linebacker will not be seen on maps where the USMC is represented. The LAV-AD is in service with the USMC, and I hope that its turret will eventually be used in an Army vehicle, as the Bushmaster cannon's slow rate of fire puts the Linebacker at a disadvantage.

Lev_Astov wrote:Yeah, those .50's on the Avenger are badass. They shoot WAY faster than the M2 and have fairly good accuracy. I remember them shooting em' offa the side of the Iron Gator on one of the elevators and remembering that it sounded like the minigun (on the blackhawk) but with a deeper bass sound to it. It would definitly be a great addition to PR.

The Avenger will probably eventually make it into PR. The .50 is the M3P. The Navy and Marines are installing the M3M, the mounted version of the same weapon, on helicopters now as the GAU-21. Much improved rate of fire; up to 1100 rpm cyclic. Personally, I think the infantry weapons companies should get them, too.

As for the ZSU-23-4, it is an very widely used system and its manufacturer and others are still supporting it.

I don't undestand why anti-air vehicles are always armed with a quad machinegun/cannon. Why not a gatling type weapon, you'de think those fired faster. Is it a cost issue? I seriosly don't know but there is obviosly some reason. Hehe, don't rip my head off for my ignorance, I won't feign knowing something.

Gatling style cannons add weight, they have a spin up time (possible to lose target of an aircraft during said process), complex, requires extra power and is heavy. In a lot of applications it seems like the Soviets never really cared much for the multibarrelled cannon approach. Of course a few fighters and ships have them, but they opted for a different approach in general.

I think there's also the issue related to ammo, 23mm ZSU or most modern AA gun shells are probably better than the 20mm shells that the M-163 used. Also it seems like modern dual barrel missle combo setups will do a much better job than legacy gatling/quad barrel weapons.

Every once in awhile you'll get strange bastardization of systems like this monstrosity.

"23mm ZSU or most modern AA gun shells are probably better than the 20mm"

Ya, when you look at the armor specs on something like an A10 or Apache, it says "survives rounds up to 23 mm"

BTW: that T72 looked pretty cool, I wonder if the 20mm was meant for ground troops and shot at aircraft as a last resort (meaning air superiority is slacking off or dead), or if it was meant to shoot at aircraft in the first place?