Project Reality Forums

All forces are capable off taking down a apc in 2 shots, while in real life its mostly 1 shot,
except for the RPG i think, i suggest the following:

US/GB/PLA Light At:
- 1 rocket capable of takeing down a APC in 1 shot.

MEC/MIL/INS Light At:
- 2 rockets capable of takeing down a APC in 2 shots.

US/GB/PLA will be having the advantage off killing a apc or target in 1 shot.
MEC/MIL/INS will be having the advantage off being able to inflict damage to multiple targets

Would make things abit more realistic and add abit more assymetrical balance.


Discuss

First the MEC is a conventional force, second the RPG7V which the MEC/MIL/INS all use has more penetration power than the AT4 since they are probably all using PG-7VL ammo.
Edit: had a look at the RPG7V in PR and they do indeed seem to be using the PG-7VL warheads which have about 100mm more penetrating power than the AT4.

Flanker15 wrote:First the MEC is a conventional force

I allready know that, just was thinking of RPG's and other AT's.

But the insurgents allready have 2 rockets, wye not add it to the militia and MEC too. and give PLA/US/GB/ 1 rocket but stronger. Or maybe even give the MEC the power to kill a apc in 1 shot, to simulate they can afford a more expensive warhead

I was reading 'barefoot soldier' by Johnson Beharry VC, his Warrior IFV took multiple hits on multiple occasions. Once infact, the powerpack burnt out and he had to drag his CO's bloody body from the top hatch and remove all equipment the enemy might have used before extracting in another IFV. iirc the warrior was beyond repair, but all the crew survived (the CO was banged up, but was ok in the end and soon returned to duty)

thats the problem, an RPG-7 with a PG-7VL warhead is stronger than the AT4 in real life, therefore making the AT4 one hit kill while the RPG killing in 2 would be completely unrealistic.

oh and the MEC RPG-7 is going to be replaced with the single shot RPG-26 anyway so anything involving the MEC in this thread is moot.

^ Agreed. RPG's have been known to really do some damage to Allied Armor. At the right place they can have a devastating effect.

i say they ought to increase the likeliness of disabling a part of the vehicle with a single LAT hit, but keeping total damage the same.

WildBill1337 wrote:i say they ought to increase the likeliness of disabling a part of the vehicle with a single LAT hit, but keeping total damage the same.

I would have said decrease the damage (or increase the armour) slightly and increase the likelihood of disabling, but it might be good to have the vulnerable parts of the APC hitbox even more vulnerable to damage, and other parts less vulnerable than they are now, but I guess the MAs know their business better than I do.

I think what they should do is simply change the turret/engine damage to be a guaranteed conditional effect, rather than a possible conditional effect. Instead of having a chance of being disabled every time it takes damage, they should just have set values for at which point the APC starts getting bits of it disabled, and then simply leave HOW it's damaged up to chance from there.

As an example, APCs all have 1000 HP. Let's say that at the 500 HP mark, it's taken enough damage that something has gone wrong. They can do a series of elsif conditions that determine whether the turret is disabled, whether the vehicle simply stops moving, or whether something else happens instead. Then, at the 750 or 850 HP mark, a different damage effect occurs. This would simulate an anti-tank munition disabling the APC, but the people within still being able to hop out and flee as needed, just like in real life.

I'm not sure if that's even possible, but from what little coding I know, that seems to make sense... o.O though I could've sworn in the BF40k forums, they said something about having trouble with that.

Flanker15 wrote:First the MEC is a conventional force, second the RPG7V which the MEC/MIL/INS all use has more penetration power than the AT4 since they are probably all using PG-7VL ammo.
Edit: had a look at the RPG7V in PR and they do indeed seem to be using the PG-7VL warheads which have about 100mm more penetrating power than the AT4.

Isn't this kind of ammo kinda expensive? Wouldn't the Insurgent forces be using something a little more affordable?

Would be understandable with the Militia, cos their a bit better funded and probably better connected too.

Can't wait for the new MEC L-AT, the RPG looks so ridiculously out of place.

I want to see 1 hit for command trucks since the passengers sit in the open with no bulletproof glass or anything.

I think we should not forget that it keeps staying a game. If APC's can be taken out with just one lat than how much safer is it to ride than a humvee?

As it turns out, both are either used as one-way transport or raped by LAT/HAT anyway. An APC is just a large target with teeth.

APCs should be able to take multiple LAT hits, and tanks should be virtually invulnerable to LAT (excluding lucky shots).