Project Reality Forums

Hey

Ive searched the AAS thread but couldnt find anything.

Currently (0.86) when you fire AP rounds from an APC aganist a light vehicle, (such as a humvee) it doesnt take many shots before you have blown it up.

This is what I am suggesting: that when you fire armour-piercing against a light-vehicle you will make it unable to move (blown the engine block appart). If you want to blow it up, you have to use HE rounds. I would like this to happen especially for APC rounds, but also maybe for tank rounds. So if you want to blow a light vehicle appart you have to use the HEAT round. I dont know if it should also work like this for tanks, APCs, saying that AP rounds only disables the vehicle. The difference however, between a tank and APC and a light vehicle, is that those vehicle carry alot of high explosive ammonition in it.

Also a question: currently, can you blow an APC appart by using a HEAT round? I havent tested for myself yet

tell you the truth AP rounds are made to destroy a vehicle. It uses a massive amount of force to push its way through the armour and destroy anything in its way, that includes ammunition. Often enough of a tank is hit badly enough that it can cause the entire tank to brew up.

I fail to see the point of this suggestion. What would you gain by making a tank/apc shoot a light vehicle twice...

I think the point is, that AP should be used against hard targets like in real life.
While HEAT is used against soft targets, wich includes jeeps.
If this could be impleted i would say, yeah this would make more realistic use of round i think.

But AP should kills anything that is above the APC's
And HEAT should be used to kill anything below APC's

When AP rounds hit a HMMWV they would not only penetrate it, but due to the big pressure (and therefore big heat accumulation) it would kill everyone inside it.
Limiting the effectiveness of AP rounds just because the gunner don't know when to use them is ridiciulous.

But I think it would make sense if 12.7 mm NATO would cause that effect. Although I am not sure if it is able to penetrate the engine block of a HMMWV.

At the moment, AP rounds are more effective than HE against any vehicle. So basically usage is HE for infantry and AP for everything else. Now, at first this seems unrealistic but if you stop and think it's actually perfectly alright. HE rounds tend to detonate on the surface of the vehicle whereas AP will penetrate and do huge damage to vehicle internals.

Stu.

Nimise wrote:I fail to see the point of this suggestion. What would you gain by making a tank/apc shoot a light vehicle twice...

The point is to make the mod more realistic IMO. Isnt that the ideal of any suggestions in this mod? Though the main point is that you will need to choose you ammo type wisely.

arjan wrote:I think the point is, that AP should be used against hard targets like in real life.
While HEAT is used against soft targets, wich includes jeeps.
If this could be impleted i would say, yeah this would make more realistic use of round i think.

But AP should kills anything that is above the APC's
And HEAT should be used to kill anything below APC's

Man, you should have written this suggestion for me, that is exactly what I mean. At least when HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti Tank. Though it should be renamed to HEAAPC (high explosive anti APC) IRL. I suppose its a tricky name though.

StuTika wrote:At the moment, AP rounds are more effective than HE against any vehicle. So basically usage is HE for infantry and AP for everything else. Now, at first this seems unrealistic but if you stop and think it's actually perfectly alright. HE rounds tend to detonate on the surface of the vehicle whereas AP will penetrate and do huge damage to vehicle internals.

Stu.

Good point Stu. Though I belive HE rounds would rather rip a vehicle appart.

StuTika wrote:At the moment, AP rounds are more effective than HE against any vehicle. So basically usage is HE for infantry and AP for everything else. Now, at first this seems unrealistic but if you stop and think it's actually perfectly alright. HE rounds tend to detonate on the surface of the vehicle whereas AP will penetrate and do huge damage to vehicle internals.

Stu.

Ive noticed the russian tanks heat rounds pwn sprandels better than AP's

rampo93(FIN) wrote:Ive noticed the russian tanks heat rounds pwn sprandels better than AP's

really? cool But doesnt the spandrel have about as many HPs as a humvee? I really dont know a shit about that, just guessing really.

rampo93(FIN) wrote:Ive noticed the russian tanks heat rounds pwn sprandels better than AP's

I can confirm that.

IMO, and I've been thinking about this for a while, I think that vehicles should only ever (EVER) explode/wreck under a few conditions...

(1) AntiTank weapons. Of course, a rocket is gonna do some damage.
(2) Crashes/World Damage
(3) Excessive damage of any other form... and I mean excessive.

Instead:

Vehicles employ a similar disabling system to helicopters (tweaked, for proper damages, of course) so that damage to the vehicle itself will first and foremost disable the vehicle, not destroy it outright. There should be a lot of slack for hitting the vehicle in non-vital areas (roof, doors, etc), whereas knocking out the engine or the axels will stop it immediately.

Armor Piercing rounds do damage to the vehicle itself, and any passengers in it's path through the vehicle.
High Explosives do little damage to the vehicle itself, but damages everyone in the vehicle where it hits.

Bullets penetrate the vehicles themselves more easily where appropriate; they do little damage to the vehicle itself if not firing at vital points, but penetrate the sides of the vehicle properly, especially glass.

This means that the vehicle itself stays around a lot more often, allowing for people to run out of the vehicles (and, with a little luck, to safety) and people to be shot out of vehicles by otherwise non-threatening means (ie, shooting .50 cal through the front windshield may quickly kill the driver, and then you can finish the rest off...)

It's a change that would make HE more effective for light vehicles to just outright kill the occupants, but AP will still be effective in it's own way (you can shoot the vehicle, disabling it, and then use the coaxial to kill the survivors as they run for cover). Also, I think that there would be some sick adrenaline moments after being hit by a tank round and surviving, attempting to make it to cover.

more disabling and less simple explosions is just more fun Makes the vehicles seem more durable while balancing them at the same time.

i agree here however i would think this type of thing is very limited by the engine, the way it works now for helicopters isnt where you damage it but how much.

Bringerof_D wrote:i agree here however i would think this type of thing is very limited by the engine, the way it works now for helicopters isnt where you damage it but how much.

Yep, right now the armor system that IS in for the tanks is not applied to the helos.

Would be cool to see it though.

Yep, more disabling and less "total" destruction the only drawback is that then the engine doesnt know that it needs to respawn a new vehicle in 20 mins for example.

jbgeezer wrote:The point is to make the mod more realistic IMO. Isnt that the ideal of any suggestions in this mod?

Never, ever, forget that 99/100 times, if the devs have a choice between balance or realism that is code-able either (but not both) way, we get the balanced option.

As long as people inside the vehicle die, I can see that it wouldn´t just explode, but it wouldn´t just stop in pristine condition to let everyone out and run away. Though I think nerfing isnt the right way to go about it, if you want people to use a certain ammo type, make it more effective and not a chore to use. If it takes 30 seconds to switch, why switch? In that time the vehicle will be gone.

Never, ever, forget that 99/100 times, if the devs have a choice between balance or realism that is code-able either (but not both) way, we get the balanced option.

You will find that alot of the time balance will more or less come with realism if it is the objective.

First of all get your facts straight. The bushmaster cannon on the LAV-III and Bradley fires either the M792 HEI-T (high explosive incendiary with tracer, not a HEAT round and the M791 or M919 armor piercing round with tracer. Either is quite capable of destroying light vehicles very quickly. For that matter, yes a .50 cal round can penetrate an engine block quite easily. When I was first instructed on the Tac-50 the instructor told us all to stand up and look around the range and the surrounding area (buildings, vehicles, walls etc). He then told us "Gentlemen, when you let one of these go keep in mind that it will penetrate anything you see here while still retaining enough energy to give someone a very bad day standing on the other side of your target. Choose your shots wisely". That has stuck with me to this day.

As .50 cal or 12.7mm has the potential to go clean through a humvee do you really think that it matters which 25mm round you pump into a light vehicle to kill it?

Actually I was referring to the disabling effect. If you hit the engine block of a HMMWV with a .50 cal, the HMMWV shouldn't be able to drive around anymore.

Agree. Thats my point to, heavy rounds like the 12.7mm should be able to disable a light vehicle, and even an APC.