This is not a thread meant for trying to make PS2 more or less than real life. Heck, this isn't a thread meant to change the game at all. Just an informational thread about the vehicles and where they come from. So if you want to talk about how PS2 should or should not be more like IRL, that's on you. But don't blame it on me! The Flash is modeled after the "All Terrain Vehicle" (ATV), which while usually found in agricultural work or recreational activities has had some military application. The advantages are that the tiny ATV can get into areas where trucks cannot, and can cross terrain that would be difficult for other vehicles. It also has significantly more speed than infantry and they are incredibly inexpensive compared to larger trucks. The disadvantages are that it is extremely fragile and offers almost no protection to the rider. Differences between a Flash and ATV- Flashes are a bit more durable and more heavily armed than ATVs. They are also a bit slower. And there's that entire "invisibility" thing. The Harasser takes after the "Fast Attack Vehicle" (FAV), "Desert Patrol Vehicle" (DPV), or "Light Strike Vehicle" (LSV) (the name has changed quite a bit over the years!). Name is pretty self-explanatory. Generally not used very much by the military, and when it is used it is usually only used by special forces. The advantages are that they are fast and cheap, while packing a decent anti-vehicle or anti-personnel punch. The primary disadvantage is that they are extremely fragile. Generally because of that disadvantage it has been replaced by semi-armored trucks. Differences between a Harasser and FAV- The FAV actually doesn't move as quickly as you would think, despite the name. Also the Harasser is much more heavily armored, able to withstand more damage as well as protect its passengers. The Sunderer is inspired by modern "Armored Personnel Carriers" (APCs) or "Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected vehicles" (MRAPs). These are lightly armored transport vehicles that can withstand small arms and heavy machinegun fire, but are still vulnerable to other projectile threats. MRAPs are also specially designed to reduce damage from mines, explosives, and infantry AV weapons. The advantages are that they allow troops to be transported in relative safety from other troops. The disadvantage lies in a higher cost-per-unit than an unarmored transport, as well as a vulnerability to heavier non-infantry threats (the "Infantry Fighting Vehicle" or IFV is meant for that). Differences between a Sunderer and MRAP- The Sunderer is much more heavily armed and armored than an MRAP ought to be. MRAPs at most would have HMGs, while Sunderers can mount a variety of weapons including 60mm mortars. Sunderers also have logistical roles in repairing or rearming other vehicles, and can deploy to summon infantry. The Lightning is a "Light Tank", and while Light Tanks are fairly rare, a number of nations still field equivalents. The main use of Light Tanks today is to go where bigger tanks would be stuck, or to add extra firepower to fast-moving mechanized infantry. The advantages of a Light Tank are the lower cost, faster speed, and respectable firepower when compared to bigger tanks. The disadvantage of a Light Tank is that the armor is still relatively light... not much better than the IFVs that they are based on. Difference between a Lightning and a Light Tank- Lightnings are also more heavily armored than a Light Tank often is, but at a cost of armament. The Main Battle Tanks are (to no one's surprise) "Main Battle Tanks" (MBTs) in real life. These are the most heavily armored and armed vehicles on the battlefield. Although not as fast as other vehicles (40+ MPH), they have large caliber cannons that can easily flatten buildings, infantry formations, or other tanks. Their armor and protection systems makes them invulnerable to most infantry-carried weapons. The advantage of MBTs is that they have unparalleled firepower and protection. The disadvantage of MBTs is that they are vulnerable in urban areas and extremely vulnerable to aircraft. Difference between a MBT and a MBT- Planetside MBTs have neither the weapons nor armor of real MBTs and as a result are much more vulnerable to pretty much everything. Planetside MBTs do however have more powerful secondary weapons than most IRL MBTs. The Valkyrie is based off of fast helicopter transports. They can also be related to VTOL transports like the Osprey or hybrid transport/attack helicopters like the Hind (though both of those vehicles are often considered to be "failures" of design). Some of these are armed, but mostly only with HMGs for self-defense purposes. The advantage of helicopter transports is that they are faster than ground transports and are more accurate and flexible than fixed-wing air transports. The disadvantage is that they are more fragile than armored ground transports and lack the speed/capacity of bigger fixed-wing air transports. Difference between a Valkyrie and a Helicopter Transport- The Valkyrie is a bit more heavily armed (sporting rockets and ATGMs) while holding less troops. The ESFs come from a type of VTOL jet, or others would argue that they're closer to attack helicopters. Like VTOL jets, they are capable of hovering as well as conventional flight. But like helicopters they can actually hover far off the ground or use their hovering ability in actual combat. The advantages of VTOL and attack helicopters (as compared to traditional fightercraft) is that they can take off or land in very small spaces where an airfield or carrier is not available. The disadvantage is decreased speed, fuel capacity, and weapons load (VTOL or helicopter blades simply don't generate the same lift). Difference between an ESF and a VTOL Jet or Attack Helicopter- ESFs are able to use their hover ability to greater effect than jets and helicopters, but are also significantly slower than real VTOL jets. They are more heavily armored than either a jet or a helicopter and can carry more munitions (reloading in-flight usually doesn't happen IRL). Add to that the crazy flight physics of PS2 and you have quite the different animal. The Liberator gunship is related to the AC-130 gunship, the only one of its kind really. Made famous in video games through a certain competitor to PS2, AC-130s have been seen everywhere. But in reality they're slowly being phased out, moved towards more of a guided-missile bomber (AC-130J). Conventional wisdom is that it's much more useful to have helicopters or jet planes play the role of A2G firepower without being nearly as vulnerable as the AC-130 is (since it only flies 5,000-10,000 feet high that puts it in range of infantry-carried MANPADS). The advantages of the AC-130 is that it can stay over the battlefield for a long time and provide continuous fire (as opposed to other aircraft who generally fire and then have to rearm). The disadvantage of the AC-130 is that it is a gigantic, poorly armored target that is vulnerable to both AA as well as other aircraft. Difference between a Liberator and an AC-130- The Liberator is far more heavily armored, but lacks a 40mm cannon. Also it can hover while the AC-130 cannot. The Galaxy bears a strong resemblance to large, fixed-wing transport planes. Nothing fancy most of the time, just a nice way to get troops and vehicles from point A to B. Real life transport planes like the C-130 (on which the AC-130 is based) or An-124 can carry an enormous amount of cargo and troops, upwards of 60 per plane. Vehicles can fit inside these planes as well, and Light Tanks have been parachuted out of them onto the battlefield. The advantage of a large transport plane is that it can carry cargo quickly from place to place. The disadvantages are the same as the AC-130, except that it doesn't even have weapons to defend itself. Difference between a Galaxy and a Large Transport Plane- The Galaxy is far more heavily armed and armored than these fragile giants. Also the hover thing. Happy Thanksgiving (if applicable)!
Very nice. Really enjoyed reading that. Kind of off-topic, but our county just go an MRAP. When I drive by the police station, sometime I say to myself (jokingly, of course) something along the lines of, "Why isn't that thing deployed?" or "Where's the lumbifer?" LOL.
Cut them some slack man, they just got the thing, it's vanilla, they likely have not afforded lumi yet and being scrubs they have not found the deploy button either
At least the Prowler goes 60km/h Also: HOLY ****!! I knew I'd never want to meet a tank in battle (I don't want to meet anything in RL battle, really) but its high explosive ammunition has thirty-six metres explosion radius??
Pretty sure MBT HE at release was around 25 or so meters. Also pretty sure ESF rocket pods used to have explosions the size of our current HE shells, or if lower then not by much. (Does someone have the late beta / release value and could correct me plese?) Explosions used to be freaking huge in PS2. I'm glad those days are gone, though they have overnerfed them in some cases.
The requirements for the new HE-MP round is that it can destroy ATGM teams and dismounted infantry at 5,000m. Specifically the test was that it needs to be able to take out 50% of a 30 infantry formation in two shots, and that formation covers an 85mx50m rectangle. It works by air bursting over the battlefield and then showering the area below with a bunch of lethal tungsten balls. Sort of like a giant sky-shotgun. In actual testing, the HE shell far exceeded the 50% requirement... there was more like 80% lethality after two shots. I'm not 100% sure if the explosive area is a circle (it could be a rectangular dispersion pattern), so I just multiplied 85x50 to get 4,250 square meters. It also looks like the tungsten balls are projected slightly forward of where the shell air-bursts.
Well thats definitely scary and interesting. But mostly scary. So the area of effect is not the explosion per se, it is tiny metal balls propelled by the explosion that penetrate anything unlucky enough to be in the way... Sounds a lot like how a claymore works, you might even be the one who explained it to me. I guess you're a RL military guy?
Just a quick comment on your Prowler vs M1A2 graphic, any loader worth their salt in an Abrams can load a shell every 3 seconds, by which time the commander and gunner would have acquired a new target. Therefore the rate of fire should probably be listed as 20 rpm, or perhaps 15-20 rpm for the slower, 4 second loaders. One of my best friends was a loader in an M1A1, deployed in Iraq in 2004-2005, in case you wanted to know where I got my information.
You should see what our artillery can do A RL claymore has a kill range of about 300m to the front and it believe a 30m injury radius to the rear.
As a species, we spend way too much time and money on figuring out new ways to kill ourselves. Actually, no. Never have been, probably never will be. But security studies was part of my undergraduate program, so I guess old habits die hard. I'm glad that I posted a "work in progress" version then! I'll check it against the other literature. Could also be that I did the math wrong. I think it's potentially dangerous/lethal out to 300m, but the "kill zone" is only 50m or so in front.
I can assure you I'm not being dishonest. The loader sits between the ammo and the breach of the cannon, on his right and left respectively. To load a shell all you have to do is hit/tap the rear of the shell as it sits in the rack which causes it to pop out a bit, pull it out and flip it over right into the breach, push it in, slap a lever and lean back before yelling "up". Leaning back is important since the gun recoils directly in front of you, and you don't particularly want to get pulverized. Tanks in planetside are just embarrassing, particularly the prowler. WHY THE OFFSET GUNS? At least the vanguard looks like a real tank and the magrider is a sci-fi hover beetle so who gives a **** what it looks like.
Shell fragments will likely follow an artillery HE shell's dispersion: The tungsten balls will act like a shrapnel shell if they're fired "like a giant air shotgun": In other words, the area where there's lots of dangerous objects flying around at high speed is quite large, as the HE-MP will combine both.
Oh no, I would completely trust you. Just checking against other sources is a matter of principle, really. Sometimes the people using the equipment can actually push said equipment beyond specification. Just like how in WWII some Brits removed the speed governors from their tanks, making them exceed the "paper" top speed. Or Russian jets surprising their engineers by pulling off crazy maneuvers.
An offset gun can be explained away by saying the autoloading mechanism is take ups the whole of the turret, which is possible if they were trying to decrease the volume of the turret. Having the guns to the side really doesn't make much of a difference when hydraulics are involved, manual traverse has gone the way of the dinosaur so the gun torquing the turret after firing is now a non-issue due to the speediness of the hydraulics compensating.
