PDA

View Full Version : APCs: Thoughts about their role


jerkzilla
2011-10-19, 15:51
I'd first like to point out that, yes, there are plenty of threads pertaining to APCs in this sections of the forums, but all are quite specific, usually talking about a specific vehicle or problem.
Also if this is too long, just scroll to the end.

My intent here is to discuss their effectiveness in their supposed role, transport and fire support, and the conditions that need to be met in order for them to fulfill that role.

Let's start with their supposed primary purpose: transporting infantry. So far, in my experience (feel free to disagree), I've only ever seen them used for transport in 2 situations and neither of these happen very often:

1. Immediately after a JDAM for short distances, and it often feels like it's done more for show than anything else.

2. When there are no FOBs and transport helos are down. If your team is ever in this situation and not at the beginning of the round, well, you're probably not going to get transport either :?.

The way I see it, APCs have 2 advantages: speed and firepower. You'd think they make perfect assets for wide flanking maneuvers, as yours will be the only infantry squad close by and the APC can make up for that lack of fire support. But when 1 LAT can score 8 kills and 10 tickets (or whatever value they have now) worth of damage, combined with the fact that they make a TON of noise and you need to cover a distance that much bigger, it's not hard to see why infantry prefer moving on foot. I think Wanda Shan was sort of a lesson in that.


Now onto their second role, fire support.

You'd think they're doing this very well as it stands but they really are acting more like mini-tanks fighting a battle parallel to that of the infantry. Sure if they get enough kills they will make a difference, but you rarely see them consistently covering infantry, which is to say, they aren't very reliable.

This is because no APC driver in their right mind will stand around because that's where the infantry needs them to be. Mobility is their greatest defense, standard "procedure" is to always be on the move, stopping for very short periods of time, all in a not very predictable manner. It's good for harassing the enemy, but not to suppress on command. It's no surprise that infantry don't bother coordinating with APCs since these need to do their own thing to survive.

The reason this happens is that taking a LAT shot virtually anywhere will pretty much kill you (getting tracked is, in most cases, a death sentence). Surviving a LAT without losing mobility is something that happens very rarely and thus hardly inspires any confidence.


So my conclusion is that APCs are too vulnerable to a weapon available to practically all infantry squads in order to accomplish teamwork oriented goals. I understand PRs general idea of promoting caution, but as it is now you're either forced to stay well back with minimal impact on the outcome, or do your own thing without much input from the infantry, or just hope the enemy team is blatantly incompetent.

Having 2 shots to the side completely destroy an APC, with one taking out the turret control, and 1 to the rear to make it burn would give them enough leeway to attempt to get their hands dirty without turning everything with legs into their metaphorical b****, and even get rid of their reputation as metal coffins for whoever is in the back.
I'm not sure how realistic this is, but I feel it would make gameplay much more varied for both infantry and APCs.

tankninja1
2011-10-19, 21:07
Actually I prefer the APCs attack the enemy and get them pinned down, afterword infantry moves up on foot to capture or kill the objective, killing a cashe or securing a flag. APCs resoponsiblity to transport infantry in minimal because, APCs are east to kill can if a squad is in it your team stands to lose about 25 tickets. Also because most of the more common APCs like the Stryker/LAV-3 have no ability for the infantry in the back to look out and get a tactical awareness that you can only get on foot or in a light vehicle.

jerkzilla
2011-10-20, 10:44
Exactly my point, if APCs could afford to close in on the enemy, you'd see them used more as transport.

Killer0Monkey
2011-10-20, 19:01
The main problem for me is that they are slow and dangerous for a squad to take compared to taking a chopper, they also mean that a squad cannot set up a FOB unless there is a following logi truck.
The 128 tends to do better with APC usage as it enables full mechanised infantry squads to operate where you get the support directly to that squad so both can operate more efficently. Without direct coms to the APC covering it can be very difficult for the APC and infantry to co-ordinate effectively.

Hunt3r
2011-10-21, 00:03
When your vehicle is made of paper, you don't have much choice in your tactics.

DesmoLocke
2011-10-21, 06:38
I was thinking the same thing the other day while playing some Muttrah.

APCs are great at providing transport and some infantry fire support. However, especially on Muttrah but not exclusively, the APCs can have a very limited lifespan near the front. With 2 HAT kits per 32 players and now the added TOW emplacements, it is just too easy to lose this great asset.

I think its great though to get hit by a LAT and limp back to a repair station as its great for gameplay.

Trooper909
2011-10-21, 08:10
I like APC's to have the role of armored personnel carrier personally.

PFunk
2011-10-21, 11:56
"An armoured personnel carrier (APC) is an armoured fighting vehicle designed to transport infantry to the battlefield."

Armoured personnel carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier)

"An infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), also known as a mechanized infantry combat vehicle (MICV), is a type of armoured fighting vehicle used to carry infantry into battle and provide fire support for them."

Infantry fighting vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_fighting_vehicle)

I like the second one more.

APCs suck for a reason. They're 2.5 ton trucks with bullet shields on them. An IFV is supposed to work with the inf.

My main issue with people saying an APC (*cough* IFV) isn't effective at the front is because people don't work with them in an appropriate manner.

Example: Muttrah - In a dense urban setting armor is never supposed to act alone or ahead of infantry. They are incredibly vulnerable to shoulder mounted and static Anti-Tank weaponry in this setting. The standard solution to this issue is to use the IFV to lock down the streets and advance with the infantry rooting out enemy AT threats in the surrounding buildings. In Muttrah the APCs or IFVs or whatever do their part of this, and so does the infantry. The problem is that they don't work together very well. Most of the time if you can get an APC to stop shooting stuff and running around like an idiot they just drive you somewhere and the relationship ends there, even when you're on mumble together.

Mumble affords us the opportunity to use the combined arms aspect of the IFV properly. You can have squads talking to the crewmen clearing the roads or agreeing on how they'll move ahead. No HAT kit is gonna waste a round on infantry when armor is in the area and at the very least infantry can spot enemy positions and locate likely AT positions and work with the APC crews to attack them in a way which negates or limits the AT threat.

Its not perfect and I'm not saying that it'll magically improve APC survivability in urban settings, but it can work better. Often infantry in buildings get cut off and assaulted in turn while cut off. APCs can keep them safe from the street while they use the elevation to scout with binos and lay fire from their positions knowing they're relatively safe. APCs can use comms to cautiously advance knowing the infantry have at least tried to clear likely AT positions rather than just sit back or go balls to the wall driving ahead hoping they dont get HAT'd.

Another thing to consider is that if you're in a non urban or mixed terrain situation, like a map with open ground, heavy brush and forest, and urban spawl all mixed together the APC offers a fast and safe way to get to a point where the infantry can proceed to attack a position while the APC sits back and puts fire down from a position or an angle that limits or prevents returning AT fire. This works really well in any map like Dragonfly or Shijia (or whatever its called).

On the other hand, going back to the APC versus IFV definition, some of these vehicles are definitely not IFVs and just APCs. Warrior is the obvious candidate. Its weak, its slow, its loud, and its gun isn't much compared to say a BMP. This vehicle is definitely best used to transport to the outskirts of contact (usually on extra large maps something like Burning Sands) and can then use its gun with thermals to do some long range suppression or area damage. In this situation its better to let the MBTs do what they're good at.

Finally, as for the preference of having a chopper ride cause then you don't need a logi to follow you, well thats just part and parcel of having a coordinated team. If you can get the crewmen to play along with you past dropping you off then you can probably get someone to drive a logi up to you. Not every bit of infantry maneuvering is about establishing FOBs. Sometimes you want some armor to push up with you and use the big guns to help you take a position before you think about burning a free bundle of tickets in a vulnerable mad charging Logi truck on the horizon.

I've seen plenty of examples of APCs acting like proper IFVs in organized play before. It works, it just takes people who understand the tactical and strategic limitations of the armor piece. It also takes a willingness to actually coordinate. Its not the asset thats broken (usually) its the players and how they approach the game.

End thesis.

PLODDITHANLEY
2011-10-21, 12:03
Mech inf squads are sometimes very succesful.

If inf could stay infront of APCs it would be a good move.

Mikemonster
2011-10-21, 18:36
Trouble is that the flanks in PR are never protected.. The APC is always an island even with infantry, meaning they have to worry about 4 sides instead of just the objective.

Hopefully in 128 servers there is enough support to allow for a 'front line' of sorts? That would at least allow fire to be directed on the assault objective.

Either that or 'Mech Inf' squads should have an APC and two full squads of inf, one for security and the other for assault. But I think this is far too complex and will/can never happen.

jerkzilla
2011-10-22, 13:07
PFunk,
The problem is that there is no such thing as "likely AT positions". On urban maps like Muttrah, sneaking up with a LAT on APCs providing fire support is surprisingly easy, and on bigger maps they can be absolutely everywhere. Heck, a favorite tactic on Shija is to make a 2 man squad, grab HAT and a Puma, then just drive close to the front and wait for armor reports. Combine that with the jack in the box move (crouch close to embankment or obstacle, wait for deviation to settle, the stand up and shoot), and they'll never see you coming. AT is completely unpredictable in this game.

And right now, in Mech inf squads, it honestly seems that APCs need more firepower to protect them than they actually deliver.

HAT isn't the point though, you can't really do anything about that, there's only 2 on the team and the TOWs are static anyway so neither are that big a problem when supporting infantry. But giving the APC the ability to defenselessly limp back to a repair station after a LAT hit would give them a much easier time working with infantry, without making them unstoppable.

karambaitos
2011-10-22, 13:27
apcs IMHO just need their cannons to be more powerful against inf behind cover, and tracked apcs need a bit more armor compared to wheeled ones since for them their speed is their shield.

it would be nice if some kind of engine damage could be done (either through tracking or some other way) so the apcs can actually limp back to a repair station.

i think the MTLB has the best AT damage system for all apcs except for its self, it can be killed by small arms, but a lat hit in the back doesnt kill it

TheComedian
2011-10-22, 15:24
i think the MTLB has the best AT damage system for all apcs except for its self, it can be killed by small arms, but a lat hit in the back doesnt kill it

Yes it does. It is insta-gibbed in fact.

Hunt3r
2011-11-01, 00:07
The problem is that all armor in PR is extremely dangerous to drive in and there is no room for error to screw up.

For comparison, in Steel Beasts Pro Personal Edition, the infantry almost never engage armor unless it's at less than 200 meters, and even then the chance of a hit is shaky. On the flip side, one can identify infantry heat signatures as far as a kilometer away. Simply put, armor in general needs to have a serious effectiveness buff.

I've driven armor in PR for long enough to know that dueling with TOWs is not something to be trifled with. Even if they aren't paying attention, it takes steady hands and quick reflexes to take out the threat before your vehicle ends up a smoking wreck when in reality it takes a lifetime for a TOW to reach targets far away, and a very very steady hand to not waste precious rocket fuel. Every twitch of the joystick burns off energy, and if the target is constantly moving abeam to you it's very possible you will force the missile to run out of energy before it can reach the target.

Mikemonster
2011-11-01, 10:29
To be fair, people seem to be expecting an IFV to be able to run them into the middle of a firefight, RPG's bouncing off it, and then allow them to assault a building 10m away and blast the crap out of everything.

It is my understanding that IFV's are APC's until they reach the battlefield, whereby they become a heavy gun emplacement capable of repositioning if needed. They won't carry troops around under immediate effective fire, they will drop troops off to fight as infantry and simply provide fire support.

I.e this is not an infantry squad attached to a tank -> This is an armoured gun attached to an infantry squad.

Hence if you take a map on PR as being the battlefield, in actuality the troops would, 99% of the time, be dismounted and covering the flanks/possible HAT empowering sand dunes. The two would be fighting together as they currently do..

What PR does not cover is travelling the preceding 40 miles 'buttoned up' in the back of the IFV, which is presumably what they would be doing until they reached contact.

dtacs
2011-11-01, 11:20
APC's with any sort of weapon on them are and always will be used as light tanks, as is their most effective role. Celestial hit the nail on the head:
IFV. Bradleys/BMPs are some of the most versatile weapons in the game. To underestimate their application as light tanks is to ignore their ample armament.
It all comes down to ticket count. Players with the best K/D ratios are doing the most for the team, if victory is the goal. A mortar team who has got 40 kills has already cost the enemy team a whopping 80 tickets. The exact same situation can be applied to an APC crew, hence why you often see Bradley's and BTR's - vehicles designed to support and transport infantry - being used solely as attack platforms, a valid tactic which helps the team which can only be shown through the EOG ticket count.

I personally love APC's to bits when they transport infantry, but feel no discontent that an APC will deny transport requests in order to ground pound.

Thankfully, the GPO editors have appeared to identified this was more important than infantry transport, with maps such as Karbala having overloads of vehicles so the Stryker's can operate as tanks without worry of squad transport. This same asset layout is present on Kozelsk, Ramiel and Al Basrah.

Be sure to Search (https://www.realitymod.com/forum/search.php) next time please. The threads below aren't 'specific' as you've outlined, rather following the same vein as this thread.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-bf2-general-discussion/83971-did-you-hate-apcs-otherwise-love.html

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-bf2-general-discussion/81515-apc-btr-etc-transporter-vs-infantery-l33t-killing-tank-kill-machine.html

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-bf2-general-discussion/78950-love-god-apc-ifvers-transport-squads.html

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-bf2-general-discussion/73527-apc-btr-mean-transport-support.html

Web_cole
2011-11-01, 12:22
For me the job of any APC/IFV is to:

1. Transport and work together with Infantry.

2. Be "Ticket Effective"

I would say that a lot of APC crews in PR are not Ticket Effective, which means they do no inflict an equal or greater amount of ticket damage on the enemy than they take themselves. E.g. if a BMP crew makes 12 Inf kills and loses 3 BMPs in a round, they have lost tickets for their team.

For me, because any armour piece in PR is essentially a glass cannon a lot of of the time (they are often very easy to destroy), being Ticket Effective does not mean trying to get more kills, it means trying to stay alive.

jerkzilla
2011-11-02, 19:38
Bleh, I searched the vehicle feedback subforum because this thread is exactly that, feedback on vehicles.

And I agree with Web_cole in that, as far as I could tell, most APC crews just barely break even in tickets, which makes me skeptical of their use as light tanks. Even if they did have a real impact on the round by acting as light tanks, it'd be more because a friendly infantry squad probably decided to attack near the same time the APC started firing, maybe leading to capturing whatever flag they're moving on. But it seems this happens mostly by pure coincidence rather than actual organization, so it's disappointingly rare.

I'll say this again. My problem with APCs now is that their damage model is preventing them from being used as reliable fire support for infantry. I just can't call out to an APC on my team to come and suppress building x while I advance. Way too many a time I did that, or someone near me did that, it ended badly for the APC.

I'm not contesting that they can do fine on their own, it's that they're not doing fine when infantry is relying on them.

Mikemonster
2011-11-03, 15:08
Jerkzilla, perhaps the problem also lies in the availibility of RPG's/LAT's. Fewer RPG kits would possibly make the APC's bolder.

Would perhaps make them too invincible though.

jerkzilla
2011-11-03, 17:19
Jerkzilla, perhaps the problem also lies in the availibility of RPG's/LAT's. Fewer RPG kits would possibly make the APC's bolder.

Would perhaps make them too invincible though.

We're already at 1 per squad and an infantry squad still needs something to fend off harassing armor, even if just temporarily. With one shot disabling the APC, the infantry can get it off their backs while the APC can afford the risks of providing reliable fire support.

Himalde
2011-11-04, 02:16
Things that could be changed to make the situation better.

Make APC and IFV less noisy (smaller sound range) would help on large maps.
Give the driver lots of smoke (realistic or not, it would help)
Remove TOW thermals.
Stop HAT "jack in the box" and reduce the HAT deviation time (allow effective tracking at really close ranges).

Mikemonster
2011-11-04, 15:40
I did think, what about removing the ability to fire the HAT from a certain stance, i.e. Standing?

jerkzilla
2011-11-04, 17:31
We're pushing off topic with the HAT jack in the box thing but I agree, and for the Erix at least, AFAIK it would be kind of realistic.


The noise is pretty hard on the IFVs and other tracked vehicles, and somewhat less on wheeled APCs though. As it is now, the noise level might be realistic, but with the totally not realistic view distances, it doesn't seem to be working out.

Personally, I don't see TOWs as such a big problem. I rather think they provide good defence against armor that isn't moving with infantry, as infantry would probably spot it first.

USMC scout sniper
2011-11-04, 18:42
I think APCs should be used to transport the infantry more safely, soften up enemy resistance, making the infantryman's job easier.

ShockUnitBlack
2011-11-06, 19:31
There are a couple of problems here -

A - APCs on urban maps are rather ineffective against infantry thing as cover is so easy to get to and most carry MGs rather than cannons. LATs on these maps will disable APCs with ease.

B - APCs on large, open maps are close to worthless due to the effectiveness of TOWs/HATs/CAS/tanks.

C - Helicopters are tougher to kill and are faster than APCs. They also carry crates.

D - Generally communication between APCs and infantry is limited.

Shock's suggestions:

A - Reduce APC vulnerability to LATs. Everything but a hit to the top or rear of the vehicle should not knock it out in a single hit.

B - Reduce helicopter speed and armour by a lot. Possibly remove helicopter crates.

C - Do not increase the number of HATs available in 128 player games, meaning APCs are more of a threat to infantry.

40mmrain
2011-11-20, 08:51
yes the problem with PR's apcs (and a shitload of other things too) are the tiny view distance, and small games.


Essentially it can be broken down to this. As an APC crewman here is what can kill you: HAT, LAT, tanks, other apcs, and CAS. This is just like real life, of course, however there is an issue. In real life an APC will have much greater effective range with it's 30mm cannon than handheld AT, which is a view dsitance issue. Secondly, in real life the enemy stationary AT and handheld is less CONCENTRATED.

What I mean, is that with 32 enemies, literally EVERY SINGLE squad has the means to instantly destroy you. Lets take a typical map like burning sands for example. The enemy has 3-4 tanks active, 2 smaller armoured vehicles like scimis, bmps, btrs, warriors or tow-mtlb, their CAS helo, 2-3 infantry squad of which ALL carry AT along with stationary AT, and their trans helicopters. In real life Im fairly certain there arent two pieces of AT per six guys, along with a TOW to deploy anywhere.

That accounts for their whole team. Every single person on their team that you meet besides the trans helicopters will be able to destroy you. that is why these vehicles fail. You never have to hide from a mobile 30mm auto cannon that has powerful optics and thermal vision. all you have to do is get your HAT to warm up, pull out your LAT, or let your buddy on the TOW blast him.

If it were upto me, possible active TOWs and LATs should be reduced to 1, and 2 respectively. (i think there are three lat kits available?)

Crazy_Monkey
2011-11-22, 08:55
I have to agree with all of you on the point that APC are weak against any type of heavy weapon, but then again they aren't really made for that purpose really, unlike lets say the British Warrior which is an IFV personlly I love this vehicle it can take withstand so much damage (Most i have taken: 1mine, 2IED, 1RPG).

People just tend to use them wrong I will always go and help out infantry that need my help or extract them etc even if they dont ask and most of the time my team really appreciats it, but most people tend to just drive around shooting at shit which is mostly a death sentence.

Most IFV drivers have a 360degree view and thermal image which gives them a huge advantage against Inf in Cities.

Xander[nl]
2011-11-23, 16:10
128 players could fix a lot, because the bigger squads would allow for 8 player mechanized squads that can work together more closely than two seperate squads. Especially on larger maps this could turn out to be fairly awesome, having squads using an APC for transport instead of jeeps and using them for fire support when dismounted.

Right now, APCs on AAS usually fight their own wars and do some transport in between when it's needed. Hopefully more players and bigger squads can integrate APCs and infantry.

DieVoorJe91
2011-11-23, 22:54
In real life i am a IFV gunner, and we use are vehicle (CV9035) most of the time seperate from infantry.

Each platoon has 4 IFV's linked to 4 squads of inf. Most of the time the inf walks most of the distance to the target and the 4 IFV's go there own way and only supporting the inf if they need it.

So what im trying to say is that the way the IFV's are operating in PR is pretty realistic. But to make at more fair for IFV"s, they need; 1. increase IFV view distance. 2. decrease lat/hat effective range or damage scales.

PFunk
2011-11-24, 00:10
In real life i am a IFV gunner, and we use are vehicle (CV9035) most of the time seperate from infantry.

Each platoon has 4 IFV's linked to 4 squads of inf. Most of the time the inf walks most of the distance to the target and the 4 IFV's go there own way and only supporting the inf if they need it.

So what im trying to say is that the way the IFV's are operating in PR is pretty realistic. But to make at more fair for IFV"s, they need; 1. increase IFV view distance. 2. decrease lat/hat effective range or damage scales.

I was reading that Canadian infantry squads are being trained to never expect to fight without the support of their LAV3. So I have no idea what the actual on the ground result is, but the FMs seem to imply that Squad ops independent of LAV support is unlikely. I was also reading some retired officer's OpEd piece about how training has not focused on complex fire and maneuver tactics and instead relies on the assumption of APC support at all times to allow for simplistic frontal assault tactics.

I have no frame of reference for whether or not thats all BS but its what I ran into while reading up on my Forces.

As for the way YOUR forces operate, are the IFVs operating like they're on their own mission, going off and conquering the entire map, or are you guys more like sitting back, waiting for Infantry to get into contact and then moving up if they need support? I often find the way APC/IFVs work in PR to be annoying just because they'll go get themselves blown up trying to be heroic and blatantly ignore infantry requests for support. Even getting one to stop to let us draw a kit can be hell.

View distance should be increased and survivability maybe as well. I'm not sure on the numbers for APC/IFV survivability versus Light Infantry Anti-Tank.

Mikemonster
2011-11-24, 15:08
Building and terrain penetration and lack of stand-off ability hamper the APCs enough not to seem realistic in my uneducated opinion.

I.e if an infanty unit was pinned down in dead ground behind some dunes and had a LAT, in real life I would presume the APC would just fire THROUGH the dune/berm/ditch and obliterate them. From 1500m away.

Same for a squad of infantry trapped in a building complex, just level the complex with them in it.

DieVoorJe, please stay around, you can give excellent insight into this issue.

DieVoorJe91
2011-11-24, 15:33
DieVoorJe, please stay around, you can give excellent insight into this issue.

I'm always around. ;)

As for the way YOUR forces operate, are the IFVs operating like they're on their own mission, going off and conquering the entire map, or are you guys more like sitting back, waiting for Infantry to get into contact and then moving up if they need support?

Well what I can tell from our last excercise, is that in a defensive way of fighting, we fight combined. One continuous line of infantry with intergraded IFV's. But if we are talking about a attacking way of fighting, we most of time stayed in the rear in a holdig area or trying to seek out enemy IFV's and let the infantry fight each other.

But in my opinion on of the great things about a IFV's is there versatility in combat.
And as off a few months ago they are our armies main strike force cause of budget cuts, all our tanks have been taking out of service. So why are trying to let our IFV's maneuver a bit more like tanks.

Xander[nl]
2011-11-24, 16:15
DieVoorJe, one important aspect you left out is, which type of combat is it that you're talking about? Counter-insurgency ie. Afghanistan, or Open Warfare against capable armies?

Because I think in PR the way APCs work in Insurgency is rather nice and most of the time like you describe, staying in the background providing long range support and mostly minding their own business. That's not really where the problem lies IMO.

They however lack effectiveness (in teamwork) in AAS. I would like to know how you'd operate in a full scale war (that AAS represents). :)

DieVoorJe91
2011-11-25, 16:36
The way of fighting i talked about is that we call in holland, groen optreden, or in english conventinal warfare with 2 or more regular armies fighting each other in non urban battlefields.

But the methods we use in reallife cant be implemented in PR unless 4 squads or more are working thightly together as a platoon. Only then you can achieve the manner of fighting with 2 or more IFV's supported with inf.

For as the way IFV's are operating now on insurgency is the best way IMO.

BulletPr0of
2011-12-05, 04:02
Trouble is that the flanks in PR are never protected.. The APC is always an island even with infantry, meaning they have to worry about 4 sides instead of just the objective.

Hopefully in 128 servers there is enough support to allow for a 'front line' of sorts? That would at least allow fire to be directed on the assault objective.

Either that or 'Mech Inf' squads should have an APC and two full squads of inf, one for security and the other for assault. But I think this is far too complex and will/can never happen.

^ this

The maps are simply too big for 64 players.

Once everyone has claimed their assets, and sniper squads, you're left with around 18 people to fill the role of inf, usually split into more than 3 squads, 1 squad defending a flag, the others attacking, so generally speaking the attacking force on a 4km map pretty much comes down to 12 blokes and an APC going up against a force anticipating the attack, with an extreme chance of having some form of AT, and often with CAS on call, an example of this would be any of the flags outside of the Bunkers on Kashan, the armor can be heard, and spotted from such distances, that they're pretty much exposed any where they go.

40mmrain
2011-12-05, 04:29
^ this

The maps are simply too big for 64 players.

Once everyone has claimed their assets, and sniper squads, you're left with around 18 people to fill the role of inf, usually split into more than 3 squads, 1 squad defending a flag, the others attacking, so generally speaking the attacking force on a 4km map pretty much comes down to 12 blokes and an APC going up against a force anticipating the attack, with an extreme chance of having some form of AT, and often with CAS on call, an example of this would be any of the flags outside of the Bunkers on Kashan, the armor can be heard, and spotted from such distances, that they're pretty much exposed any where they go.

Yes, I was playing on a server with about 120 capacity today, on AAS iron ridge. I had 3 apcs under my lead. We all advanced in a line with infantry on a flag and security from AT was not a problem.

With 20 infantry armed with rifles, 2 30mm cannons, and a 14.5, along with carious machine guns we were quite a secure attacking force, infantry was easy picking for the APCs, an spg or HAT was easy picking for infantry.

And then i crashed to desktop :(

ESsentially, APCs must always be together and not in front of infantry to be successful which doesnt fair to well with small servers

Hunt3r
2011-12-18, 21:36
If LATs are limited to a 400m range or so before they explode that would likely fix most of the issues. HATs IRL have around 2500m range so there's no getting around that.

jerkzilla
2011-12-19, 22:17
If LATs are limited to a 400m range or so before they explode that would likely fix most of the issues. HATs IRL have around 2500m range so there's no getting around that.

Unless their effective range in game is scaled for the view distance, but that's a pretty drastic measure.

chrisweb89
2011-12-19, 22:49
I was reading that Canadian infantry squads are being trained to never expect to fight without the support of their LAV3. So I have no idea what the actual on the ground result is, but the FMs seem to imply that Squad ops independent of LAV support is unlikely. I was also reading some retired officer's OpEd piece about how training has not focused on complex fire and maneuver tactics and instead relies on the assumption of APC support at all times to allow for simplistic frontal assault tactics.

The following information is just from readin aswell, and you may have alreayd known it just not mentioned it. I believe Canada's mechanized infantry(2 battalions in each regiment, 3 regiments total) are trained to always fight with the LAVs, but our light infantry(the remaining 1 battalion in each regiment) are trained to fight light, either motorized with G-wagons, boats, helicopters or only on foot.