Project Reality Forums

this question has been eating away at me since i saw the the AAV. why is the AAV replacing the LAV in PR? is the LAV being phased out? the the AAV better? is it simply to get rid of the vanilla model?

please dont lock my thread before i get an answer, its killing me!

Wh33lman wrote:this question has been eating away at me since i saw the the AAV. why is the AAV replacing the LAV in PR? is the LAV being phased out? the the AAV better? is it simply to get rid of the vanilla model?

please dont lock my thread before i get an answer, it driving me nuts!

As far as I know, it's not replacing the LAV completely, just where it is more realistic to use the AAV.

Its quite a few things tbh.

First of all the LAV-25 isn't a true APC, its more of a recon vehicle. In r/l it can only transport 4 guys in the back iirc (need to check with the MAs if you want the full info) and we only had it being able to transport 6 guys ingame so it acted like an APC, but with the addition of the AAVP7A1 there was no need.

The AAV7 is also a much more realistic vehicle for most of the maps the USMC are in, since most of them are actually amphibious assault maps, a LAV-25 being part of them dosen't make that much sense since they are amphibious, but are not designed to be able to travel in rough seas like the AAV7 is, its more just for crossing small rivers etc.

The LAV-25 isn't being Phased out as such, but I dont think its in any maps in v0.95 but that dosen't mean we wont see it in PR in the future acting as a Recon vehicle, just need the right map and setup for it.

ocean assault = AAV

everything else = whatever is appropriate

Wh33lman wrote:this question has been eating away at me since i saw the the AAV. why is the AAV replacing the LAV in PR? is the LAV being phased out? the the AAV better? is it simply to get rid of the vanilla model?

please dont lock my thread before i get an answer, its killing me!

Let me try to answer this in the order presented:

why is the AAV replacing the LAV in PR?

Speaking from a point of realism (which is relevant considering this mod is called Project Reality), it's much more common to see Marines fighting from AAVs than LAVs. Aside from the point that AAVs are used for ship-launched amphibious landings, they also spend more time around line infantry companies than LAVs. AAVs are not organic to the Marine infantry battalion, rather, AAV formations are attached to infantry outfits for task-specific operations. This means, beyond an amphibious landing, infantry Marines will be riding inland and fighting from AAVs on sustained land operations. LAVs are not attached to line infantry units, they are organic to LARs - Light Armored Reconnaissance battalions, where their role is more akin to recon, surveillance, and maneuvering/transportation of scouts. So in the scenarios we see in PR, AAVs make more sense, realistically.

is the LAV being phased out?

The question has been answered by DEVs but I assume not, as long as we get a map that hosts a scenario where a LAR unit in combat would be plausible.

[Is]the the AAV better?

AAV and LAV are two different vehicles for two different roles. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. For example; LAV is faster and is able to take out BTRs relatively well with the 25 Bushmaster. AAV will likely do better off-road, and has an armament layout more suited to supporting infantry in combat (not to mention it carries a **** ton of troops, about a whole platoon's worth, irl). An interesting question, as I was skeptical on another thread related to this discussion about how PR players will receive the AAV, and the difficulties they'll have adopting it for use, as it is certainly and decisively NOT in the same category as LAVs, and is not made to handle the same roles.

Well to Add my two cents: When I think of AAV I think Marines.

Its just that since we have played vBF2, we have forgotten that the LAV has a much different role to play.

My Questions:
1. Will the AAV have the front flap deployed when its in the water?

2. Will we be able to fire from the removable roof? (a "ctrl" toggle or something)

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:The LAV-25 isn't being Phased out as such, but I dont think its in any maps in v0.95 but that dosen't mean we wont see it in PR in the future acting as a Recon vehicle, just need the right map and setup for it.

Wait, what happened to the LAV-25s on Fallujah? And the LAV-3s for Yamalia and Archer?

The LAV-3 and Stryker are not effected since they are for different factions and they are also true APCs unlike the LAV-25.

The LAV-25 on Fallujah I'm pretty sure is being replaced by the AAVP7A1, iirc they where much more common in the Fallujah.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:The LAV-3 and Stryker are not effected since they are for different factions and they are also true APCs unlike the LAV-25.

The LAV-25 on Fallujah I'm pretty sure is being replaced by the AAVP7A1, iirc they where much more common in the Fallujah.

LAV3 and LAV 25 are like the same things though arent they?

No they are very different. The LAV-3 and Stryker are pretty much the same thing (other than one has a 25mm turret and the other dosen't) hence why I mentioned the Stryker.

The LAV-25 is an armoured recce platform. The LAV-PC is the troop carrying variant of it. The version you see in the game is a mangled hybrid - it's not actually an LAV-25 or an LAV-PC but retains the 25mm chaingun of the gun car 25 and some of the pax transport capability of the PC variant.

I for one am sick of seeing gun cars being used as APCs and look forward to having more distinct differences between APCs, amphibious assault vehicles, IFVs and light armoured vehicles.

jdsner wrote:thanks communistman,your answer is good.

Sure! I figure--what's the point of posting a response if you don't successfully answer the question, right?

In any case, Based on what I know about the AAV7 (and, if it counts, my experience using them in other games, most notably Combat Mission: Shock Force), this thing will do best as infantry support in the form of transportation and overwatch. As a battle taxi and as a weapons platform used as overwatch from (preferably) stand-off ranges, meaning outside the danger zone of RPGs and with enough room to see bomb cars coming. The 40mm *might* be able to disable the BTRs (especially mobility kills, if this is possible with the BF2 engine*), but its important to remember that the AAV is by no means an AT capable platform.

Just remember:

Avoid enemy armor
Stay at Stand-off range
Support your infantry
HAT support should be nearby on AAS maps to protect you from armor threats

So they might be difficult to use well on maps like Fallujah, Muttrah, where good stand-off positions are hard to come by, but they'll be a beauty on maps like Karbala, where long-distance infantry transport is crucial and there is plenty of ground between you and the city. That 40mm would decimate villages...

And yes, I did write that so it spells, "ASSHAT". Now, whenever an AAV squad is made in game in .95, I want squadleaders telling their crews, "Remember! ASSHAT!"



*I know mobility kills are possible in PR, by, "if this is possible with the BF2 engine", I was referring to whether or not the game engine could simulate an un-compromised hull, but wheels torn to all holy-hell.

Addendum: "Will we be able to fire from the removable roof? (a "ctrl" toggle or something)"

I'm gonna say, no. Just because the feature exists in vehicles like the LAV series, and the stryker for example, but isn't in the game. It would seem technically possible to add "air guard" positions to vehicles i.e. like turrets without mounted guns that you can crouch into, but for one reason or another its not like that and my intuition tells me it won't be.

The 40mm grenades can penetrate armour and are a serious threat to light armoured APCs, although you need to get a direct hit for the grenade to penetrate, just having the rounds explode next to the APC wont do anything.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:The 40mm grenades can penetrate armour and are a serious threat to light armoured APCs, although you need to get a direct hit for the grenade to penetrate, just having the rounds explode next to the APC wont do anything.

True. Under the very best conditions, the 40mm (the AAV's heaviest armament), assuming it's loaded with HEDP, could penetrate almost 2 inches of steel, when fired at medium-close range, at a 0 degree angle. Long story short I'd estimate that this translate roughly to taking on anything more than a BTR=almost complete suicide, and a sure no-go for a conservative armor player like myself. Keep the AT assets near!

There where reports of AAVs taking out quite heavily armoured vehicles in the Iraq war, can't remember what vehicles now but I was surprised when I heard it. Anyone know what it was?

Also the Mk19 dosen't fire ordinary 40mm grenades, will have to have the MAs fill you in on excatly what they fire thou.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Also the Mk19 dosen't fire ordinary 40mm grenades, will have to have the MAs fill you in on excatly what they fire thou.

I believe they use mainly this old boy:

M430 HEDP (high-explosive, dual-purpose)


Like I said, those numbers represent penetration capability under unrealistically ideal conditions, and I think they're a bit optimistic in any case, but I stand ready to be corrected by a Marine whose actually fired the thing

Just IF that will be the case, would "It arms between 18 to 30 meters" mean, you just have to get in very close combat as BTR or MTLB vs AAVs?

Predator.v2 wrote:Just IF that will be the case, would "It arms between 18 to 30 meters" mean, you just have to get in very close combat as BTR or MTLB vs AAVs?

That sounds about right. You could also engange at very long range, since it will be alot harder to hit with a grenade than with the autocannons at longer range.

communistman wrote:I believe they use mainly this old boy:

M430 HEDP (high-explosive, dual-purpose)


Like I said, those numbers represent penetration capability under unrealistically ideal conditions, and I think they're a bit optimistic in any case, but I stand ready to be corrected by a Marine whose actually fired the thing

that thing is so badass.

Yeah Mk19's are loaded with HEDP rounds and we've modelled that. You can take out APC's but only with direct hits....which are hard to achieve at long ranges due to the significant spread of the rounds. Infantry and light vehicles will be pretty damn scared of the AAV7 specifically because of the Mk19. It's scarier than 25-30mm autocannons firing HE-I rounds for several of reasons....

• The projectiles have the same kill/wound radius as 40mm UGL's in-game currently
• They're fired at 300rpm
• They have a lob trajectory meaning you can both fire indirectly and land rounds inside cover

It's a good thing we're only having automatic grenade launchers premier in a limited fashion on one vehicle. People will see why we're a little reluctant to put them everywhere.