Infantry AT weapons

[@bsurd]

sry guys i dont agree with you. If the LAT or HAT got even more power its senceless to use a tank or even an apc.

With a good sq now its is very easy to take out tanks or apcs. if you want it easier, everybody goes for a walk.

And what you said. I see a documentery on tv about soldier carriers or apc. The British one got hit 12 times bye a RPG and was even able to drive and shot and bring all home in a save zone.

Here you max. need 2 shots to totaly destroy it.

So imo the shoulder fired rockets have to much power @ the moment. How often we come with a tank to the bunkers of kashan, and you only see 2 Hat Rockets and the game is over...

If you want more firepower for LAT and HAT give the vehicles much more view distance. I dont think that it is so easy in RL to take out an tanke or apc.

And dont forget. We now have no gun stabi, no termal view and so on.

The game changes to the master infantry and all vehicles got more and more useless. Dont think thats the way this work in RL.

[Epim3theus]

^^ I don't think the military will be making documentaries about the times the apc's came back full om minced meat.
BTW in the last Libanon war i believe most casualties on Israeli side were amongst tank crews.

[Colt556]

In regards to Absurds post, why haven't tanks and the like been given turret stabilization? If I recall correctly, a tank can move full speed, and go over bumpy terrain and whatnot and the turret would compensate so it'd never deviate from it's target. Is there a specific reason why this hasn't yet been fully implimented?

[Lynx]

How about increasing the ammo for LAT and HAT by 1?

[@bsurd]

Originally Posted by Colt556

In regards to Absurds post, why haven't tanks and the like been given turret stabilization? If I recall correctly, a tank can move full speed, and go over bumpy terrain and whatnot and the turret would compensate so it'd never deviate from it's target. Is there a specific reason why this hasn't yet been fully implimented?

I think they want to make it this way because now you need skill to hit the target.

I agree with you, i want the stabi. Let´s wait for 0.8

And give the HAT only one round is only a good idea if you need more than one to take the tank or apc out

[Burlock]

Originally Posted by Colt556

In regards to Absurds post, why haven't tanks and the like been given turret stabilization? If I recall correctly, a tank can move full speed, and go over bumpy terrain and whatnot and the turret would compensate so it'd never deviate from it's target. Is there a specific reason why this hasn't yet been fully implimented?

the game doesnt support it, we have side to side stabalisation which was better than it use to be.

they tried up and down stabalisation but it doesnt really work.

[Cassius]

Light at isnt designed to kill a tank irl you could fire light at all day long at an leopard or abrams tank and it wouldnt go boom. One light at does take down an apc with one shot (rear) I dont know if it could theoretically sustain 3 hits if they were all at his most hardened point, but I havent seen that yet.

If you fire the light at at the rear tracks of a tank you disable it, I did it with one shot, it could have been damadged though necessitating 2. Light at is what you would typically use against unarmoured vehicles bunkers and to pop in windows not to take on a MBT.

Use it on Mestia to pop rockets inside the bunkers and you will love it again, though I use the hat there too if I can get it

[M.Warren]

As you can still see. Anti-Tank weaponry is still a focus of concern here in Project Reality. Yes, I agree that they should have thier effectiveness weighed against armor well. But at the same time I don't feel they're still implemented well.

Light Anti-Tank:
In all honesty, this kit is probably the most balanced. I have no complaints here as it still takes teamwork from a buddy rifleman to get your next Light Anti-Tank shot.

Heavy Anti-Tank:
This kit remains the major source of concern. After taking a closer look and evaluating this weapon furthur it is still overpowered. Granted that this AT weapon is highly effective against armor, please explain to me why it is necessary that the Heavy Anti-Tank gunner has 2 missles? In all honesty, this still defeats the aspects of teamwork. The Heavy Anti-Tank gunner still needs to have to rely on working with his nearby rifleman. I highly doubt a Heavy Anti-Tank gunner is going to be humping around two exceptionally large missles without a hand.

And/Or...

Heavy Anti-Tank should be removed from maps that focus on APC battles. Such as Jabal Al-Burj, Ejod Desert and Seven Gates (Seven Gates does infact have enough available TOW emplacements to offer a balance against the British APC's. No reason to complain for not having infantry HAT.).

There is a rather large risk to any person using APC's or attempting to run a Mechanized Infantry squad. The idea is to create a situation like Al-Kufrah Oil Field. If the players are unable to keep thier tanks operational, then the side that has lost all of them feels the blunt force of it's strength against them. These situations should also occur on APC based maps to create that potential advantage to having your armor remain operational and to be used against the enemy.

So basically, all APC based maps have no requestable Heavy Anti-Tank kits. However on maps that do feature any form of Tank should be considered an engagement where this kind of weaponry is imperative to be available to it's forces. Reguardless if there is a mix of Tank and APC's, it's the risk you take using an APC in an armor infested battlefield. This is because you have armor support to protect you so you don't have to do the main fighting. Maps in example of this theme are; Qwai River, Al-Kufrah Oil Fields, The Battle of Qinling, Kashan Desert, Fool's Road, etc.

Last thing people should be complaining about is: "The APC is WTF PWNING my squad!" then get Light Anti-Tank. "But it's too far away to hit!" then you request friendly APC support. "But the APC's are all destroyed!" sucks to be you.

[Tirak]

Warren, the LAT is horribly under powered, I firmly believe that all kits should be able to destroy at least one of their intended targets with the ammunition you carry, that being said, no matter where you hit, it takes two or more LAT hits to down an APC, and you only cary one tube. If you're ambushing, you don't have time to wait for the ammo to reload, then go through the reloading animation, zero in and fire, a good APC will have blown you away by then, but you do have time to shoot, reload, shoot. If anything needs to be done it's giving LAT another rocket.

[Cassius]

I think the guy who posted before me has it right. I see on this forum on one side infantery complaining about having to employ skill to take down a tank on their own and on the other side apc friends complaining about not being impervious to infantery. I feel its well balanced the way it is. Grunts are tank fooder not the other way around and if you employ some skill (and yes have some luck) the infantery can take down everything. That it isnt easy to sneak in the back of a tank and immobilize it with an hit in the rear tracks means you are the man if you succeed.

Also if your armour and airforce fail a tank is supposed to pwn your squad and win the game.