Project Reality Forums

I don't really have any knowledge about real-life anti-armor weaponry and how much damage they actually do to armored vehicles but is the insta-HAT-kill we see in PR really the case?

A tank can take 2 or 3 Light AT rockets. Actually, that's a guess since i never shoot Light AT at tanks. A tank can be insta killed with a HAT and if the crew is lucky it catches fire first before it blows up.
But how often do you see this sight:


APCs can be destroyed by a single LAT but on a bad angle, you only get the alarm. HATs is again insta killed.

I'd actually like to see more of the same as with the choppers, instead of an insta-kill, the tank or apc gets disabled and the crew survives (and bleeds). The crew can then try to defend the wreckage and wait for repairs. Right now, you are either destroyed, or you are able to get back to the repair-station. Crippled vehicles do happen but very rarely



in short:
- Remove ability to insta-kill armor with hand held weapons (ATM/TOW and mines) and make vehicles disabled instead.

I wonder if its possible to make it so that the crew is killed by HATs but the tank only tracked so theres a possibility of going back and reparing /securing it?

Is that a pic from airport/airfield?

Would like to see more disabling across the board of all assets.

Disabling vehicles doesn't work 100% of the time, so it can't be trusted.

Simple fix .... instead of vehicles blowing up instantly.... have the vehicles catch fire and burn the people inside .... Direct tank shots should remain the same except it doesnt blow up the vehicle just catches on fire and during the fire stage its invincible untill the FIRE destroys the tank..

Hats Should instantly kill a tank or atleast hurt the people inside and De track it fully with broken turret ... then catch fire while the Crew evacuates? i dont know this is a good forum because it IS hard to realy depict what happens when you get hit by a HAT .....

Maby Random???

Some times it blows up 100% other times it catches fire?? if thats even possible to doo

i think you will find that the ERYX is the only true heavy AT kit ingame
YouTube - ERYX

the NLAW at kit is a light AT weapon
YouTube - NLAW Anti Tank Weapon

the matador is also a light weapon
YouTube - MATADOR Demo

personally i would like to see the javelin back
YouTube - Javelin Missile & T72 Tank

danger01 wrote: personally i would like to see the javelin back
YouTube - Javelin Missile & T72 Tank

Deemed ridiculously overpowered, hence the reason we don't have it

goguapsy wrote:Deemed ridiculously overpowered, hence the reason we don't have it

just like the AK is ridiculously over accurate, but we still have that

in real life, a LAT such as AT4 will breach and kill the crew of most non-uparmored APC/IFV. A HAT such as ERYX will most likely do serious damage to a MBT, but i doubt that a ERYX would be able to breach a Leopard 2 ( or any other MBT that are comparable if it matter ). Only HAT such as FGM-148 Javelin will realy be able to obliterate a MBT.

So basicly, anything thats not as armored as a MBT, i seriously doubt you will survive or still be able to fight. But still, it depend on many factor, what vehicle you shoot, where you shoot and with what ammunition you shoot. If you shoot a RPG7 at a Abrams, it wont do a thing at all. If you shoot the same RPG on a LAV25 the IFV wont stand for long. Go the idea ?

Hotrod525, Armor Crewman, 12e R.B.C.

goguapsy wrote:Deemed ridiculously overpowered, hence the reason we don't have it

Not entirely correct, in the right balance circumstances in game it wouldn't be too overpowered. However this has been discussed many times and the big reasons the developers haven't put it in is engine limitations and the fact they haven't been able to make one that fits what they want to this point. Eventually its very probable we could see it in game but not at least for a few more releases and almost certainly not in .92.

I actually wrote a detailed paper on how the Javelin could balance in PR and if your interested i'd gladly show you to read.

Hotrod525 wrote:in real life, a LAT such as AT4 will breach and kill the crew of most non-uparmored APC/IFV. A HAT such as ERYX will most likely do serious damage to a MBT, but i doubt that a ERYX would be able to breach a Leopard 2 ( or any other MBT that are comparable if it matter ). Only HAT such as FGM-148 Javelin will realy be able to obliterate a MBT.

So basicly, anything thats not as armored as a MBT, i seriously doubt you will survive or still be able to fight. But still, it depend on many factor, what vehicle you shoot, where you shoot and with what ammunition you shoot. If you shoot a RPG7 at a Abrams, it wont do a thing at all. If you shoot the same RPG on a LAV25 the IFV wont stand for long. Go the idea ?

Hotrod525, Armor Crewman, 12e R.B.C.

This is true and thanks for the insight being a military member yourself. I have never been in the military but I have researched this extensively and believe that AT weapons in PR should be more realistic in the sense of the LAT and even the HAT for that matter.

For example you shoot a T-90 with a AT4 and it should do at least 1/3 damage and sound the alarm enough to cause significant damage and actually harm a tank not the rediculous 10 LATS it is now.

ERYX seems to do fairly realistic damage to a tank if a bit less in game.

APC's should instantly be destroyed for most models or disabled at the very least. In PR its based on chance sometimes A LAT will only do moderate damage or possibly track or destroy but it should be that way everytime.

To balance out have maybe a total 0f 2 LAT's per team and 1-2 HATs depending but AT should be more effective in my opinion.

I know you meant this in real life wise to give us a idea however I just wanted to relate this to gameplay.

danger01 wrote:i think you will find that the ERYX is the only true heavy AT kit ingame
YouTube - ERYX

the NLAW at kit is a light AT weapon
YouTube - NLAW Anti Tank Weapon

the matador is also a light weapon
YouTube - MATADOR Demo

personally i would like to see the javelin back
YouTube - Javelin Missile & T72 Tank

Right you are about those except i'd have to disagree about the NLAW and Matador. The NLAW can probably blow out the top and destroy about any modern main battle tank in its top attack mode but probably penitrate very little in direct attack mode. In short even though its name is "Light Anti Tank" its truely a effective anti tank weapon.

the Matador could probably destroy most tanks depending as well except the most armored and powerfull( T-90 Abrams, Challenger 2 etc) so that's debateable as well.

Also as a point the current NLAW and other HAT weapons in game donot have realistic tracking or firing featur just wire guidance which the most of the real weapon systems PR has does not use. Save the ERYX which is wire guided in real life and the Matador possibly which I believe is straight guidance.

However I also do agree with one thing HAT weapons in PR do need changed to either work realistically or to be TRUE HAT weapons, and I do agree with the Javelin as stated above.

well the javeline has two firing modes and i dont think you can incorporate that in BF2

left and right button with acquisition on x. the javelin has also been made for another mod and works very well. but as most think that it is TOO powerful (lol) i suppose it wont be put in. ( its like saying the 50cal is to inhumane to be used in a war lol)

Lange wrote:I actually wrote a detailed paper on how the Javelin could balance in PR and if your interested i'd gladly show you to read.

I'm very interested, linky?

Lange wrote: For example you shoot a T-90 with a AT4 and it should do at least 1/3 damage and sound the alarm enough to cause significant damage and actually harm a tank not the rediculous 10 LATS it is now.

The problem with that system is that it really is not a realistic portrayal of a LAT's capabilities. Surely a number of light AT rockets hitting in nearly the same spot would be able to penetrate the armor of practically anything, but the likelihood of hitting the exact same spot of an armored vehicle several times over using a LAT is low. Since the BF2 engine won't allow us to have a damage system that that would track damage to certain parts of the vehicle, it's all about playing with the numbers to make things a reasonable approximation of real life.

I think right now the balance is too far towards infantry in regard to AT assets, increasing the deadliness of LATs against armor would be bad both for gameplay and realism.

rushn wrote:well the javeline has two firing modes and i dont think you can incorporate that in BF2

Some mods (most notably NAW if I remember correctly) have incorporated the Javelin into BF2, and I believe they used two ammo-linked weapons to get the top attack and direct attack modes. It can be done, just takes 2x weapons slots instead of one.

We should compare vehile and stationary missiles too. Stationary TOW and HJ-8 can always destroy any tank with 1 shot. It feels OK becouse tanks should not rush towards enemies without infantry who can easily kill stationary AT gunner. BMP-3 can only stop a tank by ATGM if it hits to low side and destoy from behind. Bradley can fire 2 missiles fast and take down a tank. I am not sure about AT-BRDM, it can fire 5 missiles very fast but maybe it needs 2 for a tank? Have you got experiense about this from Beirut or Fools? In my mind things are all right but TOW-Humvee feels overpowered becouse it kills T-90 with 1 shot to front armor. Why it is so mutch powerfull than Bradley and BMP?

I'd worry about the fire mode. I've been able to break the ammo linked kits many times. Specifically the dragnov's deployed and undeployed modes. No idea how I've done it though.

I'd love to see dedicated H-AT weapons in PR... however, I also think armor has it really 'hit or miss' in PR now. However, that might change when FLIR comes out .

danger01 wrote:left and right button with acquisition on x. the javelin has also been made for another mod and works very well. but as most think that it is TOO powerful (lol) i suppose it wont be put in. ( its like saying the 50cal is to inhumane to be used in a war lol)

You're not seeing the point. Its not that .50 Caliber MG's are inhumane, its that BOTH teams have a equal chance of countering one/HAVING IT IN GENERAL. Having a Javelin removes the skill required to guide a Anti-Tank weapon, as well as the fact that its the only weapon of it's kind. MEC wouldn't have a Javelin equivalent, the Chinese wouldn't have a Javelin equivalent, and I'm sure as hell the Russians don't.

Drunkenup wrote:You're not seeing the point. Its not that .50 Caliber MG's are inhumane, its that BOTH teams have a equal chance of countering one/HAVING IT IN GENERAL. Having a Javelin removes the skill required to guide a Anti-Tank weapon, as well as the fact that its the only weapon of it's kind. MEC wouldn't have a Javelin equivalent, the Chinese wouldn't have a Javelin equivalent, and I'm sure as hell the Russians don't.

METIS for Russians maybe? But it still doesn't have top attack. I do think it's shoot and forget though. Maybe it could be used on USA vs Russia maps only? But it would bee too much hassle and work for too little gain I think.

I'm only talking about man portable ATW. even if FGM148 is barely portable [ i just dont imagine a soldier carrying all he's damn kit + that huge tube + the CLU. Even just 1 of the 2 ].

TOW, HJ8, Milan etc... in fact any H.A.T.W. like those i just said will probably breach a MBT. When you think about it, a LAV25 (without armor addon) do not withstand M903, surely not the Mk211 or even just the simple M2*. I dont know for other vehicle, since i dont work with them, except the LAV3 but it wont sustain those round either. So i guesstimate, that IFV and APC that have about the same weight will have about the same level of protection. So if you take a missile that goes as fast as mach 3, you can be sure it will breach alot of armor thickness. Kinetic speed + HE = wreckage. ( witch mean my chance are inexistant if my vehicle is hit by those thing )

Armored vehicle are primary target in conflict, so its pretty obvious that country field weapon that will take them out easily.


*.50 BMG cartridge type.

danger01 wrote:
personally i would like to see the javelin back
YouTube - Javelin Missile & T72 Tank

lots of burning comments under that video. actually can't decide which one to take seriously.

Drunkenup wrote:You're not seeing the point. Its not that .50 Caliber MG's are inhumane, its that BOTH teams have a equal chance of countering one/HAVING IT IN GENERAL. Having a Javelin removes the skill required to guide a Anti-Tank weapon, as well as the fact that its the only weapon of it's kind. MEC wouldn't have a Javelin equivalent, the Chinese wouldn't have a Javelin equivalent, and I'm sure as hell the Russians don't.

so what if one side does not have anything to "counter" it oe be an equivalent , war is hell, having equality on both sides all the time is itself unrealistic, but take mutra as an example on your statement, mec have nothing to counter the cobra when it is flown correctly, no one moans about that.

for the Russians i suggest the Kornet
Antitank missile system Kornet | Missilery.info

for the Chinese the HongJian 73 C version
HongJian 73 (HJ-73) Anti-Tank Guided Missile - SinoDefence.com

and as the MeC receive there missiles from Russia they could use the kornet

but as a counter to the HaT kits, i present the sniper team

no real skill is needed to hit a tank or any other vehicle for that point with a ToW, sure its not FaF, but keeping a cross-hair on a target is easy.