Infantry AT weapons

[M_Striker]

I know there's a lot of controversy over the fact of over overpowered or under powered rocket launchers, but I mean, seriously... 8 hits from a light AT rocket takes out a tank. It should be more like 3 or 2, and even at 2 hits or something, the tank should be immobilized and the crew should be wounded to a slight bleeding stage. APC's, should be taken out even more easily. I mean, something should definately be done about the damage that explosives do against armored vehicles. I'm just wondering if something is going to be done about this.

[Colt556]

I have to agree with APC's, not so much tanks. A LAT should deffinently kill an APC in two or so hits, much the same as a HAT with a tank. Since, as far as I know, an APC is waaay less armored then a tank. It also kinda renders the LAT kit pretty useless, since anything the LAT can kill effectivly can be killed by other means (I.E. jeeps and the like). So it would be very helpfull if the LAT would be sort of the unofficial APC killer, and the HAT would be the tank killer.

[IAJTHOMAS]

A LAT does kill or set burning an APC one of two hits, depending on where in my experience.

As to LAT v tank: i think it a compromise between the fact that IRL LATs are only really effective at all on certain parts and the fact that a truely relastic damage model including mobility/functionality damage can't be implimented.

For instance, I believe I read that in trials the C2's turret remained unpenetrated by the AT that was shot at it and its gunsight remained in working order...

[Rudd]

A LAT does kill or set burning an APC one of two hits, depending on where in my experience.

same here

afaik something like the RPG 7 simply will not do the job.

and actually APCs have been known to take several shots IRL and survive, or at least remain operational long enough for their crews to reach safe areas for extration via another vehicle, so don't go assuming that APCs are made of tissue paper

But LAT vs tank = fail in every way, and this is the way it should be. Infantry in prepare positions can fight tanks, i.e. they have a firebase or have brought HAT with them which reflects RL more than making LAT epic gunwank because the javelin is buggy and illbalanced, and is a platoon based weapon (?)

[nedlands1]

A tank could take hundreds of hits from the light anti-armour weapons portrayed ingame. This is on the proviso that there is enough spacing between the hits and each of hits are on places with enough armour. In real life you would need concentrated fire to break through the heavily armoured parts of a tank and this is approximated by the damage model in-game.

[ReaperMAC]

L-AT as a one-shot APC kill is just **** for gameplay. Not to mention how plentiful they seem to be. APCs and Tanks should be feared even more, especially if you don't have something to take it out with.

Plus, at the moment, APCs take 2 hits from a L-AT to severely cripple if not destroy it.

[Bringerof_D]

a LAT shell does kill an APC with 1 hit, i do it all the time!, but then again i always somehow hit the turret or the back, but the point is it kills with 1 hit most of the time unless you're really unlucky or you're trying very hard to hit its strong points

[Thermis]

I too believe LATS are way underpowered. The AT4 can burn through 400mm of HRA stock. That's enough to hurt most modern tanks. APCs are sitting ducks for light AT weapons in real life unless upgraded with defenses against shoulder fired AT weapons. My proposal is that we make the APCs have a longer burn time once heavily damaged by AT weapons. Giving the passengers time to bail out before it blows. So, short of a HAT or a Tank round the APC wouldn't be an instant wreck. An maybe bring the spawn time down a little bit.

[Razick]

Well none of the modern APCs you see in game use HRA so I dont know what you are getting at. HRA is just a stat to use for measuring the penetrating power of the weapons not really used to test its effectiveness.

[Thermis]

Yeah there are very few modern things that still use HRA. What I'm getting at that it's still a lot of punch. And it would be nice if they where a little more powerful. Like maybe four or five could take out a tank.

[@bsurd]

sry guys i dont agree with you. If the LAT or HAT got even more power its senceless to use a tank or even an apc.

With a good sq now its is very easy to take out tanks or apcs. if you want it easier, everybody goes for a walk.

And what you said. I see a documentery on tv about soldier carriers or apc. The British one got hit 12 times bye a RPG and was even able to drive and shot and bring all home in a save zone.

Here you max. need 2 shots to totaly destroy it.

So imo the shoulder fired rockets have to much power @ the moment. How often we come with a tank to the bunkers of kashan, and you only see 2 Hat Rockets and the game is over...

If you want more firepower for LAT and HAT give the vehicles much more view distance. I dont think that it is so easy in RL to take out an tanke or apc.

And dont forget. We now have no gun stabi, no termal view and so on.

The game changes to the master infantry and all vehicles got more and more useless. Dont think thats the way this work in RL.

[Epim3theus]

^^ I don't think the military will be making documentaries about the times the apc's came back full om minced meat.
BTW in the last Libanon war i believe most casualties on Israeli side were amongst tank crews.

[Colt556]

In regards to Absurds post, why haven't tanks and the like been given turret stabilization? If I recall correctly, a tank can move full speed, and go over bumpy terrain and whatnot and the turret would compensate so it'd never deviate from it's target. Is there a specific reason why this hasn't yet been fully implimented?

[Lynx]

How about increasing the ammo for LAT and HAT by 1?

[@bsurd]

In regards to Absurds post, why haven't tanks and the like been given turret stabilization? If I recall correctly, a tank can move full speed, and go over bumpy terrain and whatnot and the turret would compensate so it'd never deviate from it's target. Is there a specific reason why this hasn't yet been fully implimented?

I think they want to make it this way because now you need skill to hit the target.

I agree with you, i want the stabi. Let´s wait for 0.8

And give the HAT only one round is only a good idea if you need more than one to take the tank or apc out

[Burlock]

In regards to Absurds post, why haven't tanks and the like been given turret stabilization? If I recall correctly, a tank can move full speed, and go over bumpy terrain and whatnot and the turret would compensate so it'd never deviate from it's target. Is there a specific reason why this hasn't yet been fully implimented?

the game doesnt support it, we have side to side stabalisation which was better than it use to be.

they tried up and down stabalisation but it doesnt really work.

[Cassius]

Light at isnt designed to kill a tank irl you could fire light at all day long at an leopard or abrams tank and it wouldnt go boom. One light at does take down an apc with one shot (rear) I dont know if it could theoretically sustain 3 hits if they were all at his most hardened point, but I havent seen that yet.

If you fire the light at at the rear tracks of a tank you disable it, I did it with one shot, it could have been damadged though necessitating 2. Light at is what you would typically use against unarmoured vehicles bunkers and to pop in windows not to take on a MBT.

Use it on Mestia to pop rockets inside the bunkers and you will love it again, though I use the hat there too if I can get it

[M.Warren]

As you can still see. Anti-Tank weaponry is still a focus of concern here in Project Reality. Yes, I agree that they should have thier effectiveness weighed against armor well. But at the same time I don't feel they're still implemented well.

Light Anti-Tank:
In all honesty, this kit is probably the most balanced. I have no complaints here as it still takes teamwork from a buddy rifleman to get your next Light Anti-Tank shot.

Heavy Anti-Tank:
This kit remains the major source of concern. After taking a closer look and evaluating this weapon furthur it is still overpowered. Granted that this AT weapon is highly effective against armor, please explain to me why it is necessary that the Heavy Anti-Tank gunner has 2 missles? In all honesty, this still defeats the aspects of teamwork. The Heavy Anti-Tank gunner still needs to have to rely on working with his nearby rifleman. I highly doubt a Heavy Anti-Tank gunner is going to be humping around two exceptionally large missles without a hand.

And/Or...

Heavy Anti-Tank should be removed from maps that focus on APC battles. Such as Jabal Al-Burj, Ejod Desert and Seven Gates (Seven Gates does infact have enough available TOW emplacements to offer a balance against the British APC's. No reason to complain for not having infantry HAT.).

There is a rather large risk to any person using APC's or attempting to run a Mechanized Infantry squad. The idea is to create a situation like Al-Kufrah Oil Field. If the players are unable to keep thier tanks operational, then the side that has lost all of them feels the blunt force of it's strength against them. These situations should also occur on APC based maps to create that potential advantage to having your armor remain operational and to be used against the enemy.

So basically, all APC based maps have no requestable Heavy Anti-Tank kits. However on maps that do feature any form of Tank should be considered an engagement where this kind of weaponry is imperative to be available to it's forces. Reguardless if there is a mix of Tank and APC's, it's the risk you take using an APC in an armor infested battlefield. This is because you have armor support to protect you so you don't have to do the main fighting. Maps in example of this theme are; Qwai River, Al-Kufrah Oil Fields, The Battle of Qinling, Kashan Desert, Fool's Road, etc.

Last thing people should be complaining about is: "The APC is WTF PWNING my squad!" then get Light Anti-Tank. "But it's too far away to hit!" then you request friendly APC support. "But the APC's are all destroyed!" sucks to be you.

[Tirak]

Warren, the LAT is horribly under powered, I firmly believe that all kits should be able to destroy at least one of their intended targets with the ammunition you carry, that being said, no matter where you hit, it takes two or more LAT hits to down an APC, and you only cary one tube. If you're ambushing, you don't have time to wait for the ammo to reload, then go through the reloading animation, zero in and fire, a good APC will have blown you away by then, but you do have time to shoot, reload, shoot. If anything needs to be done it's giving LAT another rocket.

[Cassius]

I think the guy who posted before me has it right. I see on this forum on one side infantery complaining about having to employ skill to take down a tank on their own and on the other side apc friends complaining about not being impervious to infantery. I feel its well balanced the way it is. Grunts are tank fooder not the other way around and if you employ some skill (and yes have some luck) the infantery can take down everything. That it isnt easy to sneak in the back of a tank and immobilize it with an hit in the rear tracks means you are the man if you succeed.

Also if your armour and airforce fail a tank is supposed to pwn your squad and win the game.