Project Reality Forums

Yesterday I had a very nice fight on Muttrah V2.
I was leading a Mechanized Infantry Squad and we did very good.
Our squad had the following set up

1. Squadleader - Officer
2. Medic
3. Engineer
4. Light AT
5. APC Driver
6. APC Gunner.

During the battle, we mainly drove around with the APC to a target area, where we would disembark and cover the APC. Or visa versa where the APC would cover us while we rushed a building. With the support of the engineer and Light AT we could handle a encounter with a MEC BRT and when we spotted a MEC LAT/HAT, we would go on foot and take it out.

Anyway, we did so well that the question rose up in my mind: "Why doesn't this happen more often?"

APC quote from Wikipedia:

Armoured personnel carriers (APCs) are armoured fighting vehicles developed to transport infantry on the battlefield. They usually have only a machine gun although variants carry recoilless rifles, anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), or mortars. They are not really designed to take part in a direct-fire battle, but to carry the troops to the battlefield safe from shrapnel and ambush.

In PR itself, APC's are mainly used as a fighting vehicle alone. If you request transport of one, the driver or gunner will usually bluntly ignore your request. Isn't there a way to promote infantry transport by the APC's?



-ps-
Sorry for those who were with me in the squad...i'm bad at remembering nicknames

The Stryker is the only true APC in PR, all the rest are IFVs.

Well, the only practical difference between APC's and IFV's are that IFV's are heavier armed.

I always offer to pick up troops if I'm in an APC... but that's me \shrugs

I also love mechanised infantry gameplay supported by APC.

I guess its all about the players...

The line between APCs and IFVs is often blurry. The main difference how they were designed to be deployed, with the IFV being an evolution of the APC concept. Really, though, the Stryker's RWS makes it a viable weapons platform for infantry support, even if it doesn't have much capability against armored vehicles. They call it an Infantry Carrier Vehicle, for what it's worth.

The thing about transporting infantry is that one hit on the vehicle can take out 8 people. This is true in real life, and that's why APCs/IFVs are often used for cover while the infantry advances ahead. In PR, you can only hope that the APC driver won't drive you right into RPG country without letting you out to clear the road for him first. Plus, people like choppers more, cause they look cool and are faster, I guess.

APC's will become a much bigger role in troop transport in upcoming v0.85.

To put it bluntly, majority of conventional/heavy combat, you will NOT be transporting troops into combat zones with lightly armored recon vehicles, you will be riding in armored vehicles, and that has not really been reflected in PR as much as it could have been, and players still have misconception about APC's carried over from vbf2 that they are essentially "light tanks", which is NOT what we want to see them used as.

daranz wrote:The line between APCs and IFVs is often blurry. The main difference how they were designed to be deployed, with the IFV being an evolution of the APC concept. Really, though, the Stryker's RWS makes it a viable weapons platform for infantry support, even if it doesn't have much capability against armored vehicles. They call it an Infantry Carrier Vehicle, for what it's worth.

The thing about transporting infantry is that one hit on the vehicle can take out 8 people. This is true in real life, and that's why APCs/IFVs are often used for cover while the infantry advances ahead. In PR, you can only hope that the APC driver won't drive you right into RPG country without letting you out to clear the road for him first. Plus, people like choppers more, cause they look cool and are faster, I guess.

Choppers are also more fragile and can't provide as much effective direct fire support.

If the brits the Bulldog then you'd have the british equivilent of the stryker, plus that only has a cupola 7.62 machine gun on top mayb a 50.

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:APC's will become a much bigger role in troop transport in upcoming v0.85.

Can you elaborate a bit?

All the "APCs" in PR are really just IFVs, which are meant to take a more offensive role. The stryker is the only pure APC, and even then people just park it on a hill and use it to rape infantry from afar.
Personally, I'd rather be riding in an armored vehicle with a deadly autocannon on top then in a tin can with wheels. I think the big problem is getting the APC driver to let the infantry in, because in many games, I have begged an APC sitting in the main to let my squad ride with them, and they just say no, or something along those lines. APCs refusing to transport squads from the main (not asking to roll into the enemy base, just to carry us to the objective and support us) is as bad an offense as soloing armor or TKing.

Is it realistic to have an unarmed APC?

Armoured personnel carrier

Maybe only give the APC crew a sizable amount of points if they carry extra troops? That might encourage some people, if only a little, when they think: "Omgz0rz! how c4n teh puny 1nf4ntry wit n0 killz has m0ar points than me?"

Not that I think it shouldn't be used as a mini battle tank if there are only 5 people on the server, just if a squad is requesting a pickup, go for it, and kill enemies later, depending on their threat level (ie, don't try chasing after fleeing riflemen, but go ahead and take out that cobra before returning to give infantry an evac).

I also think that if any infantry squad is pinned down by something, you need to go there and pick them up ASAP.

APC - Fighting Vehicle or Personal Carrier?

Well a fighting vehicle would be a AFV not a APC

nvm

To CRF and Sakils, I think the OP is asking why APCs are often used as IFVs in pr, instead of a true mechanized infantry role. Although, truth be told, the title is as misleading as a Fox "news" headline.

Or, for those outside of America, Here.

I was replying to gclark03.

Oh, well it didn't make much sense, or maybe its just me.

Oh wait, nvm, you must have thought he siad unarmoured APC, which would have indeed been stupid