Project Reality Forums

USMC:

2 LAVs, 1 respawnable only, 10 minute respawn for the one respawning.
1 Bradley, 10 minute respawn at docks repair station, only if Docks is held by US.

MEC:

2 BTR-80As, all respawnable on 10 minute respawn times, but spawn 15-20 minutes in.
1 BTR-60, or BTR-80, on 10 minute respawn time, spawning with BTR-80As.
1 BRDM, respawn on 10 minute respawn, spawn with BTR-80As

I've only listed heavy assets, and everything else would be the same as the previous version of Muttrah.

This would give the USMC a decisive quality advantage, but the MEC have quantity, and if they play right, the USMC could be very crippled by the sheer numbers of the MEC APCs. The Bradley would also stop respawning if Docks is lost, which really would screw over the USMC if they didn't move hard and fast.

1 Bradley, 10 minute respawn at docks repair station, only if Docks is held by US.

1) don't TOW armed APCs have a spawntime of 20mins?

2) USMC don't use bradleys?....

3) AAV7 hopefully will be in one day

tbh I prefer how it is now its nice and balanced

1) They do? Oh.

2) The Bradley could possibly be a placeholder for a LAV-25 with TOW turret, or the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

3) Well, imo, I'd prefer the EFV.

It would be nice to have the LAV-25s replaced with EFV models, with the bigger cannon.

I personally think that the PT-76 tank should be introduced from PR vietnam to PR. But even better, leave mutrah like it is, its better.

PT-76 tanks is old but i wouldn't mind it of course

They are amphibious, so they would be used in the defense of a coastal urban center.

Hunt3r wrote:1) They do? Oh.

2) The Bradley could possibly be a placeholder for a LAV-25 with TOW turret, or the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

3) Well, imo, I'd prefer the EFV.

It would be nice to have the LAV-25s replaced with EFV models, with the bigger cannon.

2)The marines do apparently have 95 LAV-ATs (source), but I don't know how common they are on deployments. I've never seen pictures of one in theater, but some feedback from an actual marine would be nice

3)You know what's interesting about the EFV? It's not in production. Personally, I'd like the LAV-25s to be replaced with amphibious M1A2s with JDAM cannons. Just as realistic, and a whole lot more fun

As far as the PT-76 goes, is there any reason to believe that anyone in their right mind would actually deploy them in a conventional war? As far as I can tell only North Korea, Vietnam and Russia have any reasonable sized stocks of them. If we're going to randomly assign an amphibious vehicle to the MEC, perhaps we could choose one designed in the last half century? If the MEC really need an amphibious vehicle on muttrah the BMP should simply be put on, not a random hanger on from the Vietnam era.


Overall, I agree with Rudd. Muttrah has a really good and balanced setup right now, I see no reason to change it.

'[R-COM wrote:BloodBane611;1326423']2)The marines do apparently have 95 LAV-ATs (source), but I don't know how common they are on deployments. I've never seen pictures of one in theater, but some feedback from an actual marine would be nice

3)You know what's interesting about the EFV? It's not in production. Personally, I'd like the LAV-25s to be replaced with amphibious M1A2s with JDAM cannons. Just as realistic, and a whole lot more fun

Overall, I agree with Rudd. Muttrah has a really good and balanced setup right now, I see no reason to change it.

2) USMC does have LAVs with AT capabilities. There are many variants of the LAV.
•LAV-25, base model, armed with an M242 25mm chain gun
•LAV-AT, Antitank, equipped with TOW missile system
•LAV-C2, Command and Control (C2), outfitted with a robust communications suite
•LAV-LOG, Logistics vehicle, providing cargo and maintenance capacity
•LAV-M, Mortar 81mm Mortar carrier
•LAV-R, Recovery vehicle
•LAV-MEWSS, Mobile Electronic Warfare Support System
•LAV-EFSS, Expeditionary Fire Support System replaces the LAV-M with a 120mm mortar
Source-http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_lav.php3

3) The EFV has been postponed now. IOC (Inital Operating Capability) is expected around 2014. Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) – Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle - Army Technology
And super LOL on the M1A2 idea. I support.

Hunt3r wrote:USMC:

2 LAVs, 1 respawnable only, 10 minute respawn for the one respawning.
1 Bradley, 10 minute respawn at docks repair station, only if Docks is held by US.

MEC:

2 BTR-80As, all respawnable on 10 minute respawn times, but spawn 15-20 minutes in.
1 BTR-60, or BTR-80, on 10 minute respawn time, spawning with BTR-80As.
1 BRDM, respawn on 10 minute respawn, spawn with BTR-80As

I've only listed heavy assets, and everything else would be the same as the previous version of Muttrah.

This would give the USMC a decisive quality advantage, but the MEC have quantity, and if they play right, the USMC could be very crippled by the sheer numbers of the MEC APCs. The Bradley would also stop respawning if Docks is lost, which really would screw over the USMC if they didn't move hard and fast.

No one middle east country use BTR-80 and BTR80A!
They use only old BTR60 and some old US APCs(like M113 in Iraq army)
But am agree - muttrah is really unbalanced map,US side need more heavy assets!!!MEC side no needed some assets,cuz they have good positions in the sity!

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:1) don't TOW armed APCs have a spawntime of 20mins?

2) USMC don't use bradleys?....

3) AAV7 hopefully will be in one day

tbh I prefer how it is now its nice and balanced

1)Like on some maps!
2)I think better idea - M1A1 or vBF2 LAV25 /w TOW!But USMC must use strykers as placeholder of AAVP7
3)I can't wait see new vehicle,but LAV25 is better =)

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:1) don't TOW armed APCs have a spawntime of 20mins?

Personally I think thats silly. Spawn time should be proportional to map circumstances and layout.

aye, wait for the amtrac

Well, hey the BTR60 is much younger than the PT76. It was used by Iraq, and i guess, some lie in the army deposits of some countries that have/had coasts to defend. If you want to be more realistic though, put a BMP1 on Mutrah, its even better.

Hunt3r wrote:1) They do? Oh.

2) The Bradley could possibly be a placeholder for a LAV-25 with TOW turret, or the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

3) Well, imo, I'd prefer the EFV.

The EFV doesn't go till service till around 2015, PR if I recall correctly, does assets from current time (In use now), so it would be useless to have it

Marine LAV-AT have been all but "grounded" because of problems with the Emerson "Hammerhead" turrets. As far as I know plans to replace them are still unfunded, but still has a projected initial operating capability of mid-2013 (which could mean 1 platoon fielded, another in training and another under construction). At one point they were talking about replacing them with the LAV-25 with "saddlebag TOW" turrets found on the mid-east foreign military sales Warrior and LAVs, but their most recent requests for bids (from last year) stipulates that the missiles must be auto-loaded or have the capability to be upgraded to an auto-loader in the future.

In other words, they probably won't get them until LAVs reach the end of their service life, anyway.

Bazul14 wrote:I personally think that the PT-76 tank should be introduced from PR vietnam to PR. But even better, leave mutrah like it is, its better.

Why bother? The BTR is already amphibious.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:Marine LAV-AT have been all but "grounded" because of problems with the Emerson "Hammerhead" turrets. As far as I know plans to replace them are still unfunded, but still has a projected initial operating capability of mid-2013 (which could mean 1 platoon fielded, another in training and another under construction). At one point they were talking about replacing them with the LAV-25 with "saddlebag TOW" turrets found on the mid-east foreign military sales Warrior and LAVs, but their most recent requests for bids (from last year) stipulates that the missiles must be auto-loaded or have the capability to be upgraded to an auto-loader in the future.

In other words, they probably won't get them until LAVs reach the end of their service life, anyway.

Now I know why I've never seen them.......other than the fact that I try to steer as clear as possible from Camp Lejeune. <-That base is evil. (N/R)

Personally, I don't see the point for any AT capable APCs for the US on Muttrah. There's already 3 HATs and 2 TOWs in the city. As long as you have a competent shooters using them, you should run the MEC armor squads insane.

Oh, and you can't exclude the LATs, the poor little ********. They can still make an APC run in fear, or destroy trucks and jeeps.

Well, I suppose that the M242's APFSDS needs to be pumped up in power, because in reality the BTR-60 is absolutely terrible for taking out anything. No FCS, no stabilization, a cannon that the LAV-25 is armored to resist, and the BTR-60 will be easily penetrated by 25mm DU APFSDS.

General Dynamics Land Systems - Strength On Your Side

If you poke through their website, you'll find the LAV-25TOW turret, which seems to be just the ticket. The new turret also has a 150/90 split for ready ammo on the M242.

Hunt3r wrote:If you poke through their website, you'll find the LAV-25TOW turret, which seems to be just the ticket. The new turret also has a 150/90 split for ready ammo on the M242.

As I said, the Marines thought so too up until the the bid proposal last year, and it has never been in USMC service otherwise. If they don't buy it and field it, it's not going in game.

Well the map itself is fine, but the vehicles have some issues to be fixed.