PDA

View Full Version : The Amtrack


FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON
2011-03-14, 07:02
today on Fallujah i was transporting a full squad in an AAV, i rounded a corner, took an rpg and then died myself. When the gunner switched back and ran he noticed that EVERYONE else in the aav died except him.. then later in a humvee we managed to bail out of a humvee unscathed that was broadsided by another rpg. Bottom line? the aav's armor is broken

dtacs
2011-03-14, 07:14
It isn't broken, projectiles killing the passengers of the AAV including driver/gunner is a feature.

Which is what makes it such a terrible vehicle on all the maps it features on, its a total ticket sink and it has to rely constantly on infantry or solid cover to kill AT or enemy armor. Its literally a joke and has absolutely no benefits in game at all in comparison to other vehicles of similar build, such as the 30mm MTLB which has all the features of an AAV, but without the huge profile and frustrating main weapon (Mk19)

FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON
2011-03-14, 07:22
im pretty sure theres reactive ceramic armor on it ingame... aslo you (not the car)survive an rpg hit to a supply truck..humvee etc?

Mouthpiece
2011-03-14, 07:41
Which is what makes it such a terrible vehicle on all the maps it features on, its a total ticket sink and it has to rely constantly on infantry or solid cover to kill AT or enemy armor. Its literally a joke and has absolutely no benefits in game at all in comparison to other vehicles of similar build, such as the 30mm MTLB which has all the features of an AAV, but without the huge profile and frustrating main weapon (Mk19)

It's not that bad, at least compared to other APC's ingame. In Muttrah it's only natural predator is the 30 mm MTLB. And the Chinese APC's that are in Barracuda also have that "killable driver" feature, not to mention less firepower. But one thing that I really don't like is that the Mk19 overheats really quick.

FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON
2011-03-14, 07:46
i agree that its a great APC vs infantry, but the fact that 1 rpg can kill everyone inside WITH reactive ceramic armor on it is stupid... its not an m113

dtacs
2011-03-14, 08:02
It's not that bad, at least compared to other APC's ingame. In Muttrah it's only natural predator is the 30 mm MTLB. And the Chinese APC's that are in Barracuda also have that "killable driver" feature, not to mention less firepower. But one thing that I really don't like is that the Mk19 overheats really quick.
Often the first fired rounds hit short since the gunner has to adjust, allowing vehicles with a KPV (BTR's, VN3, BRDM) to knock it out in something like 50 rounds.

I've seen the .50 MTLB manage to take it down using hit and run tactics which was just silly.

It dies to 23 30mm rounds which is literally about 3 seconds of constant fire.

Ninjam3rc
2011-03-14, 08:12
I wish on maps like where it features as the only source of armor that the things would have about 50% replaced with LAVs.

Muttrah with the MEC getting a MBT and the USMC getting an as of yet unmade LAV-AT would be pretty legit.

cyberzomby
2011-03-14, 08:23
Dtacs I think you claimed that it was a feature before and than had a DEV saying it was not and it was merely a bug.

dtacs
2011-03-14, 08:35
Dtacs I think you claimed that it was a feature before and than had a DEV saying it was not and it was merely a bug.
I don't remember this, until a dev posts again or you source it I'm going to continue thinking its a feature. I mean it must be right, doesn't someone have to put in a line of code or whatever to actually make that happen?

I remember once hearing that vehicle crews are actually situated something like 200m under the vehicle itself so that doesn't happen, there is a chance that the AAV doesn't have that feature, or that the modeled interior is the cause of it.

I wish on maps like where it features as the only source of armor that the things would have about 50% replaced with LAVs.

Muttrah with the MEC getting a MBT and the USMC getting an as of yet unmade LAV-AT would be pretty legit.
A T-72 on a map with little open area where it can be dominated by the Cobra, TOW's and HAT kits? That would be terrible.

Muttrah had LAV's before the AAV was developed and it was very, very balanced. The BTR-60 was a formidable opponent and it was great to see the LAV support infantry properly.

Saarna
2011-03-14, 08:50
I don't remember this, until a dev posts again or you source it I'm going to continue thinking its a feature.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f254-v0-95-vehicles/94936-tanks.html#post1554555

cyberzomby
2011-03-14, 09:38
Thx Saarna.

Dtacs: Wasnt about me trying to prove you right but I seemed to remember something like that but couldnt remember what thread it was.

TheComedian
2011-03-14, 10:07
Often the first fired rounds hit short since the gunner has to adjust, allowing vehicles with a KPV (BTR's, VN3, BRDM) to knock it out in something like 50 rounds.

I've seen the .50 MTLB manage to take it down using hit and run tactics which was just silly.

It dies to 23 30mm rounds which is literally about 3 seconds of constant fire.

I have to disagree with dtacs on this one.

I use the Mk19 on infantry and the M2HB 50.cal on enemy armor with great success.

5 seconds of sustained 50. cal fire is enough to critically damage the MT-LB. In that time, the MT-LB can also critically damage the AAVP so sometimes you end up with both APCs destroyed.

It's all about who gets the first shot. Don't blame the equipment if you don't know how to use it.

dtacs
2011-03-14, 11:01
I have to disagree with dtacs on this one.

I use the Mk19 on infantry and the M2HB 50.cal on enemy armor with great success.

5 seconds of sustained 50. cal fire is enough to critically damage the MT-LB. In that time, the MT-LB can also critically damage the AAVP so sometimes you end up with both APCs destroyed.

It's all about who gets the first shot. Don't blame the equipment if you don't know how to use it.
I agree, all armor battles boil down to whoever sees the other first really. Its simply the survivability and effectiveness of the AAV in comparison to other heavy APC's in-game that grinds my gears.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f254-v0-95-vehicles/94936-tanks.html#post1554555
Awesome, at least that won't be in the next patch. Or preferably all vehicles have that happen..

Kain888
2011-03-14, 11:01
Don't blame the equipment if you don't know how to use it.

This.

Except the irritating bug AAVP is excellent vehicle.

Ninjam3rc
2011-03-14, 11:19
A T-72 on a map with little open area where it can be dominated by the Cobra, TOW's and HAT kits? That would be terrible.

Muttrah had LAV's before the AAV was developed and it was very, very balanced. The BTR-60 was a formidable opponent and it was great to see the LAV support infantry properly.

Use like the 30mm MTLB is used now. Tank supports infantry etc. You're probably correct though. I would like to see the return of LAVs to the map if they were there before.

Now Jabal(?) I believe has room for said T-72s and LAVs, the MEC has plenty of other assets and you still keep the USMC in it's nerfed state.

dtacs
2011-03-14, 11:51
On the new Jabal that Royal_Joe is making LAV's will probably make a comeback since its 4km and has ample room for them.

PatrickLA_CA
2011-03-14, 12:16
I have to disagree with dtacs on this one.

I use the Mk19 on infantry and the M2HB 50.cal on enemy armor with great success.

5 seconds of sustained 50. cal fire is enough to critically damage the MT-LB. In that time, the MT-LB can also critically damage the AAVP so sometimes you end up with both APCs destroyed.

It's all about who gets the first shot. Don't blame the equipment if you don't know how to use it.

I agree with you Comedian and on Muttrah I think that there are waay to much armored assets so if you make them to 2-3 BTRs and 2 AAVs and other light armored (like humvee) for transport for both teams so you get the real use of APCs instead of hunting purposes.

Psyko
2011-03-14, 12:24
i have noticed that the AAV has more wrecks lieing about than other apcs. (my memory goes back to rounds on barracuda and muttrah.)

Spuz36
2011-03-14, 15:05
i have noticed that the AAV has more wrecks lieing about than other apcs. (my memory goes back to rounds on barracuda and muttrah.)

May just be because they are new and you recognize them more on the field, but can't really argue with this screenie.

Nebsif
2011-03-14, 15:23
When I 1st saw it in teh Dev blogs I was like luls, "so huge.. will prolly suck" (b4 I even knew it has mk19).. anyway, that thingy about killing driver is 100000000% a bug cuz If everything is "right" U can kill him with an assault rifle ;)
(Do teh devs know how to reproduce it/need to know?)

Stealthgato
2011-03-14, 15:28
It can and does happen with the AAV, as its the only vehicle that actually represents that. A few rounds to the drivers position will kill him, which is what makes it such a terrible vehicle.

Hopefully its either removed for the next version or all vehicles will get the feature.

Outlawz;1554555']It doesn't "represent" anything, it's just another bug.

Herp derp.

dtacs
2011-03-15, 06:43
Herp derp.
Thanks for contributing something like your many other pos- oh wait.

MaxBooZe
2011-03-15, 09:02
On the new Jabal that Royal_Joe is making LAV's will probably make a comeback since its 4km and has ample room for them.

Actually, placing AAVPs on larger open maps compared to smaller urban maps is going to result in it getting killed more.

Seeing as it has to fire with an angle, line up shots etc. the longer range engagements can be fatal. Where as the BTR/BMP/BRDM/(several)MT-LB anything basically has a main gun that is bigger than the AAVPs .50, and doesn't have to line up it's shots like the Mk19.

Ninjam3rc
2011-03-15, 09:08
The Amtrak is an APC, not an IFV hence the need for LAVs to supplement.

Rudd
2011-03-15, 09:28
on Fallujah they are supplemented by a LAV and non respawning m2a2 (US army involvement like IRL)

on Jabal they arent because its a sea assault, LAVs are for small rivers

on Muttrah they arent because its a sea assault, LAVs are for small rivers

on Barracuda they arent because it is a sea assault, LAVs are for small rivers

I detect a pattern!

Ninjam3rc
2011-03-15, 09:36
And yet BTRs and BDRMs float ashore from a cargo ship in Beirut? I see flaws in this logic. Unless there's a way to implement LCUs, LCACs, or Ch-53s with sling loads you might as well let LAVs float ashore as well. Unless you'd like to have the first flag point on the assaults have Abrams, LAVs, and everything else the USMC brings to bear on such a task.

Also, while I assume the Fallujah mission must be the 04 assault, why aren't there Abrams with canister rounds? If the inclusion of a US Army Bradley into a USMC map is based on reality surely the presence of Abrams tanks wouldn't be an issue?

After all the Brits have a challenger on Basrah but if you wanted that based on reality it would really be a boring map for all sides wouldn't it?

Rudd
2011-03-15, 09:39
why aren't there Abrams with canister rounds?

the issue with bringing it in is that fallujah is a small map, when its been there in the past is has dominated too hard

After all the Brits have a challenger on Basrah but if you wanted that based on reality it would really be a boring map for all sides wouldn't it?

the challenger has worked gameplay wise on that map for a long time, which is why its still there whereas the m1a1 did not when it was on fallujah.

regarding beirut, if we had the sea assault equipment we wanted, then we'd use it, we have it for the USMC, so we're using it

Rhino
2011-03-15, 09:50
After all the Brits have a challenger on Basrah but if you wanted that based on reality it would really be a boring map for all sides wouldn't it?

Let me google that for you (http://tinyurl.com/4ccalvz)

Challenger 2 had already been used in peacekeeping missions and exercises before but its first combat use came in March 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. 7th Armoured Brigade, part of 1st Armoured Division, was in action with 120 Challenger 2s around Basra. The tanks saw extensive use during the siege of Basra, providing fire support to the British forces. The tank's availability was excellent and the problems that were identified during the large Saif Sareea II exercise, which took place eighteen months earlier, were solved by the issuing of Urgent Operational Requirements for equipment such as sand filters.

Some pics of the CR2 in Basrah:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/ops/basrah_sdg_bv.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01394/20030331-challange_1394295i.jpg

http://www.warshipsifr.com/LegacySite/media/basrah_cr2_cobra.jpg

http://miliblog.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/originalmodernbritisharmyiraq/challenger-2-tank-basra.jpg

dtacs
2011-03-15, 09:54
Actually, placing AAVPs on larger open maps compared to smaller urban maps is going to result in it getting killed more.

Seeing as it has to fire with an angle, line up shots etc. the longer range engagements can be fatal. Where as the BTR/BMP/BRDM/(several)MT-LB anything basically has a main gun that is bigger than the AAVPs .50, and doesn't have to line up it's shots like the Mk19.
I never said replace it. It would be idiotic not to have AAV's on Jabal 2, but having a LAR spawn on the beach to simulate an LCAC landing with a couple would be realistic, shame it can't be animated too.

Acecombatzer0
2011-03-15, 16:24
Rudd;1562389']the issue with bringing it in is that fallujah is a small map, when its been there in the past is has dominated too hard


I thought the tank on Fallujah was an M1A1 tank, which is used by the US Marines. And perhaps the M1A1 doesn't have the same technology as the Army's M1A2?

Rudd
2011-03-15, 17:26
IRL that is true, but ingame their difference is negligible

Ninjam3rc
2011-03-15, 17:45
Rhino;1562401']Let me google that for you[/url]



What is your point? I know challengers were in Basrah. I was talking about they way Basrah was handled in 07. Besides if it's just pictures used to justify the presence of vehicles on maps based on reality then I can justify all day.

Rudd
2011-03-15, 17:50
What is your point? I know challengers were in Basrah. I was talking about they way Basrah was handled in 07. Besides if it's just pictures used to justify the presence of vehicles on maps based on reality then I can justify all day.

I think there was a miscommunication

you said After all the Brits have a challenger on Basrah but if you wanted that based on reality it would really be a boring map for all sides wouldn't it?

which gives hte impression that the challenger is there in contravention of reality, I assumed that you meant what you have said now, but you cant blame someone else for taking your post at face value.

Rhino
2011-03-16, 09:46
What is your point? I know challengers were in Basrah. I was talking about they way Basrah was handled in 07. Besides if it's just pictures used to justify the presence of vehicles on maps based on reality then I can justify all day.

You said:

After all the Brits have a challenger on Basrah but if you wanted that based on reality it would really be a boring map for all sides wouldn't it?

Which from the way I'm reading that sentence, "The Brits have a challenger on Basrah when that's unrealistic because they didn't have them there in r/l".

If that isn't what you meant you should try making your sentences clearer.

Ninjam3rc
2011-03-16, 20:22
I apologize for the confusion in that I tried to make two points in one post, and ended up making just one confusing statement for the both of you.

I would still like to know if pictures of equipment in the places these maps take place are the means of justification, and a more well thought explanation to the fact that LAVs aren't on the amphibious assault maps. The "not crossing a river" line will not suffice when you consider the explanation for BTRs and BDRMs floating outside a cargo ship.

I hope that's clear enough, I would have typed in old english but I get my doths and haths mixed up >:]

AnimalMother.
2011-03-16, 23:01
a more well thought explanation to the fact that LAVs aren't on the amphibious assault maps. The "not crossing a river" line will not suffice when you consider the explanation for BTRs and BDRMs floating outside a cargo ship.

Rudd;1562389']
regarding beirut, if we had the sea assault equipment we wanted, then we'd use it, we have it for the USMC, so we're using it

question answered?


I hope that's clear enough, I would have typed in old english but I get my doths and haths mixed up >:]

waaaaay to sound not like a complete dick

Ninjam3rc
2011-03-16, 23:15
question answered?

Not really.

waaaaay to sound not like a complete dick

So they don't have humor (humour?) where you're from?

Stealthgato
2011-03-16, 23:54
Thanks for contributing something like your many other pos- oh wait.

I don't remember this, until a dev posts again or you source it I'm going to continue thinking its a feature.

I sourced it. Don't be angry, I didn't mean to offend you.

USMCMIDN
2011-03-17, 00:05
im pretty sure theres reactive ceramic armor on it ingame... aslo you (not the car)survive an rpg hit to a supply truck..humvee etc?

No the armor in game is a common armor add on called applique armor which gives the vehicle protection from 12.7mm, 14.5mm at 300 meters, and 155mm fragments. Also the applique armor makes bullets and charges deflect but does not work always.

The weak armor in the AAV has always been a downside to it. In combat Marines are not authorized to ride in them due to it being a coffin. For example in Fallujah Marines were given strict orders not to embark in them in hostile points. Maybe you should do what Marines do in real life and not stick a whole squad in one and ride in the middle of a cashe? ? ?

My former Major also told me they often threw their ILBE packs on the outsides to help with RPGs and other explosives hoping the RPG would catch the pack and detonate rather then the armor of the AAV or inside it. You would be surprised how well that works.

Main point, the AAV does not really have RPG protection, it protects against .50 from point blank all around and 14.5mm all around when it is shot 300 meters away. No APC IRL really has RPG protection without SLAT armor seen on the Strykers, Warriors, etc... or ERA as seen on the Bradleys, BMPs etc... Well maybe that IDF tank APC thing... There is no ERA or SLAT armor on the LAV or the AAV IRL due to weight issues. But APS should be along soon to fix that.

The LAV and AAV protect against bullets from up to 14.5mm just fine with the advantage going to the LAV but explosives not so well...

FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON
2011-03-17, 03:26
so it is a feature? well then that settles it

Conman51
2011-03-17, 04:02
No, its not, i cant find the post exactly but i remember a DEV saying it was a bug and is being looked at.

tntkid22
2011-03-17, 04:02
it...is...not...a...feature....


if you check out the link on the 1st page...OR HERE (https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f254-v0-95-vehicles/94936-tanks-4.html#post1554555)


dtacs says this
It can and does happen with the AAV, as its the only vehicle that actually represents that. A few rounds to the drivers position will kill him, which is what makes it such a terrible vehicle.

Hopefully its either removed for the next version or all vehicles will get the feature.

to which Outlawz so NICELY STATES

Outlawz;1554555']It doesn't "represent" anything, it's just another bug.

/ENDRANT

Have a nice day!


RAGE EDIT:I just went through and this convo~ RIGHT HERE ^^^ has been posted twice before in THIS TOPIC. READ PEOPLE.

ytman
2011-03-17, 04:12
May just be because they are new and you recognize them more on the field, but can't really argue with this screenie.

Not really relevant when the MEC get more than 5 apcs on Muttrah themselves, are defending and lying in wait for the AAVP7s, and whose opponents probably aren't making sure the cost is clear.

The AAVP7 is by far one of the most effective APCs in the game. Remember this though; it is an APC. IFVs are far different, sporting better armor and weaponry.

But all said and done I'd take a AAVP7 over a BTR-60 any day.