Give the light assault the anti vehicle grenade

I am all for the AV grenade replacing C4 on LA.

I don't like the 'in the future, everything will be better' argument. Reason for it is you never know when the next dark ages is around the corner. Technology in Ancient Rome was far more advanced than pre-1500's. And many Sci-Fi's do explain why some things just aren't advanced as you think they would be by a downturn in tech sometime in their past.

Star Trek is the exception. Yeah if tech kept going up for the next 200 years, that's about where we'd be (or better). But if something catastrophic or just general apathy continues, then no, we might be back to using dial up or even telegraph in 2200.

Best bet is to say, "this works, this is why.. and reality be damned." Takes less effort, makes for a good story or game, and we don't rattle our brains too much. At least to a certain extent to where its believable. PS2 is doing alright. It doesn't have Space Paladins.

So we're all set on LA having c4 and av nade.

Good stuff i love you guys lol.

You seem to work on the assumption that defensive technology will out pace offensive technology, even though demonstrably the opposite is true; our capability to destroy is leaps and bounds ahead of our capability to protect. 29th Century Armor is going to be facing 29th Century Weapons, and if the status-quot is being maintained all the way until Planetside 2 times then 29th Century Armor was made to defeat 28th Century Threats, while 29th Century Weapons were designed to defeat 29th Century Armor.

The RKG-3, for example, penetrates between 170 and 220mm of RHAe in ideal conditions [cheap vs expensive version]. The German Puma, which is considered one of the best protected traditional IFVs being fielded today, is only base rated against the Russian 14.5x114mm cartridge - which has an ideal penetration of only 40mm RHAe. It relies on armor packages that make notable sacrifices to its mobility to get additional, meaningful protection. Baby-Tank IFVs like the CV90 top out around 100 to 125mm of RHAe. The noteably chubby Bradley only weighs in at 90-100mm of RHAe.

Now, main battle tanks are much better protected, with their RHAe values in the 180mm range on the low end, and greater than 1500mm on the high. What this translates to is a platform this is largely immune to our example Anti-Tank grenade, but not invulnerable. This is emulated in Planetside 2 by the pitiful damage AT Grenades actually do to MBTs - some don't even notice it.

Of course this thought exercise was only considering complete penetrations, and theoretical hard kills resulting from. As I've mentioned before, Planetside 2 doesn't really have the concept of a mission kill - which the grenade would be certainly capable of against any target. Particularly as our weapon systems become more and more automated.

This ignores the fact Planetside 2 vehicles armor is demonstrably worse than their real life counterparts. I've babbled off a theory as to why this is in some other thread, so I won't repeat myself here and derail the core topic even further.

Every class, especially cloakers should have access to AV nades.

Sweet dancing jehovah, I fkin hate MAXs

Okay... but is PS2 set in an era where people have regressed back to sticks and stones? Of course not. We have nanite-based constructors, anti-gravity technology, and all sorts of advanced weaponry that suggests the 29th century is at least more advanced than it is now.

I think it is safe to say that based on context, the future is indeed a case where things are more advanced than what we have in the 21st century. And tank armor should reflect that.

I think this is an absolutely safe assumption to make. If you follow the tank-infantry balance since the introduction of tanks in WWI, you will note that tank armor has definitely outpaced whatever weapons infantry can field. Even today in the 21st century we are getting to a point where infantry-carried ATGMs need triple-warheads in order to defeat MBTs, resulting in heavier and heavier launchers. I'll quote myself from another thread:

So despite whatever advances there have been in materials science and miniaturization, we see that this is about the last generation of tanks for which there is an infantry-mobile counter. And this gap has been widening... from when infantry could use their service rifles to take out tanks to when anti-tank missiles are too heavy for most infantry to carry on foot.

Of course... just adding one of these pretty much nullifies the AT grenade completely:



Which... yea. I'm going to go with "obsolete".

Oh, and if you thought the Puma was one of the most heavily armored IFVs around... try the BMO-T... and it's just an APC!



Or maybe the Israeli Namer... another APC with top-notch armor. This is pretty much the trend to urban transports.

As somebody who's played a lot of Light Assault and will often go out of his way to hunt down vehicles for a C4 paintjob renovation: No. Honestly, just no. I'll defend LA having C4 anyday because (despite what some will have you think) that can be an exceptionally difficult job, but I think a fleet of jetpackers just bouncing over walls to chuck AV nades at vehicles 30-50m distant is a step too far.

FTFY.

Projectile based weapons vs Directed Energy Weapons.

Closest thing is the Vanu Weapons, but even that is merely ionized gas being shot.

Amen to that. Truly. I'd love there to be less utility to these classes, or at least a rethink of what makes them unique other than player A has repair gun, B has healing tool, and C has rocket launcher. I've always been under the impression medics got C4 way-back-when, when it was band-aid for some OP aspect, and then they couldn't/wouldn't revert the changes. And the arsenal a heavy carries around? Man, even the universal soldier would be panting after fifty yards.

Everyone needs to edit their posts to the correct replies.

Thank you.

Nah, 2 LAs with 2 C4s and 4 AVs would clear whole max crash. 1 LA would solo any sunderer.
IMO its uncreative to reinforce image of "explosives delivery class", that would be like giving extra rocket launcher to HA in pistol slot. Give LA more different status nades, like AV or even AA jammers, buff flash and smoke bangs, give them tension wire tool to turn any grenade to mine, add some utility tool, like laser pointer etc.

Honestly I don't see why Light Assaults shouldn't be allowed to use AV Nades, they can probably make more use of it than Heavies can. I am not aware of a single Heavy who willingly takes AV Nades anymore after the nerf and would probably be in better hands in the Lighties.

So much this.

I use AV nades (sometimes). Each does slightly less damage than a Decimator, and as a bonus, you can throw them faster than you can fire the rockets, and throwing one doesn't make you show up on enemy minimaps. Not useful in all situations, but, an unattended Sundy is easy prey (even with deploy shield).

To follow your quote, you will notice that more and more nations are transitioning to active defense systems. This is because passive defenses are coming up short against modern threats.

This also represents something lacking in Planetside 2; and that is the difference of mission and hard kills (which I have expounded on with you before). The need for active defenses comes from the fact that while the platform may not be catastrophically destroyed, and the crew may survive - heavily armored platforms are no more difficult to render combat ineffective to infantry forces than they were fifty years ago.

Light, Infantry borne, Anti-Tank weapons still have teeth against armored threats. The AT4 for example, can penetrate 400mm of RHAe. That is actually enough to score penetrating hits on the frontal armor, with an aimed shot, of the T-72 (the base of the BMO-T). I certainly wouldn't recommend, as an infantryman, standing infront of a T-72 to aim and fire an AT4 - but the point is the capability is there and the armor isn't particularly thicker elsewhere.

You will note this is why the T-72, as deployed by well funded militaries, is covered in additional armor (in this case, ERA). Which, again, results in a poorer power-to-weight ratio, which translates to worse mobility. I would also like to point out, that even countries with "impregnable" tanks - like the Abrams, Leopard and Challenger, have raced to get their own applique armors in the field. Specifically because infantry borne options, particularly in close quarters engagements, are lethal.

Actually, the next generation of tanks are shaping up to be highly automated and thinly armored - with the priority on protecting the small crew and exploiting high mobility and threat detection ranges. We are likely to see a threatscape evolve where light, dumb, munitions are more effective against Main Battle Tanks than heavy guided munitions - as they can better defeat the "smart" protection systems. The challenge, instead, will not be in penetrating the physical armor so much as it will be in penetrating the sophisticated battlespace management suite and detection capabilities of the vehicle.

This actually describes the Planetside 2 battlefield fairly accurately, now that I have put it in words.

This is a matter of physics, slat and spaced armor also almost completely nullifies the effectiveness of any shaped charge by increasing standoff distance.

That slat armor is going to ruin the day of an 155mm HEAT shell just as well as it will ruin the day of an AT grenade. Making some assumptions on the 155mm shells fuse, of course, but the point is valid.

The point also remains that the slat armor was specifically introduced, despite not being seen mainstream since World War II, because there was an immediate and clear need for a method to defeat infantry portable HEAT platforms - which had been assumed to be a "non-threat" due to advances in armor technology.

I also feel the need to point out, that a crafty infantryman could still ruin that Strykers day - just by getting close enough (or having a good enough understanding of what they are doing) so that the drogue chute on their AT grenade made it land on the roof, instead of the side. Alternatively, they could just drop it from a second story window.

We also don't know that the AT Grenade in Planetside is a shaped charge, and what we know of shaped charges would imply that it isn't. Given that the AT grenade does damage regardless of which face is exposed to the enemy, and a shaped charge would need a specific standoff and face to impact the structure, it is more likely the AT grenade is a hyper-advanced continuous-rod warhead of some sort that is using unknown-to-us explosives to hyper-accelerate KEPs.

I briefly touched on this topic in a previous paragraph, but it is worth mentioning that the topic of discussion was related to IFVs, not APCs. The specific APCs you mentioned, the Namer and the BMO-T, are built on tank chassis. The BMO-T based on the T-72, and the Namer based on the Merkava IV. The Namer's predecessor, which you could say started the trend, the Achzarit is based on the T-55.

In all cases however, these vehicles are sacrificing firepower and mobility for one thing; protection. Their only purpose is to get their gooey infantry center to their destination alive.

No one offensive platform is going to defeat every threat, just like no one defensive platform is going to defeat every threat. So besides the obvious "hit the weak point for massive damage" meme, this wouldn't be the right scenario to use your AT grenades in if you only want a hard kill; but you could likely effectively apply other infantry portable options to get the desired effect.

A molotov cocktail, for example. As, despite engineers best efforts, armored vehicles are still distressingly uncomfortable being on fire.

That's not correct. It is more accurate to say that in addition to passive defense systems and plain old-fashioned armor, active defense systems are the just latest layer of a tank's defenses.

For example, consider the new 5th generation Russian tanks. They feature improved natural armor (sealing the crew in an armored capsule), improved reactive armor (better ERA), and of course APS to intercept incoming projectiles. In each case the tank simply becomes more and more protected on all elements.

We see in battlefield reports that advanced infantry ATGMs really aren't effective at penetrating modern passive defenses. Take the Namer I mentioned. Multiple ATGM hits but no penetrations. Even the heavy RPG-29, which while scoring some penetrations against older MBTs, more often fails to penetrate than it succeeds (resulting in very dead infantry AT teams).

When they implement mission kills for infantry you might have a point about mission kills. When I get to fire a HE shell and wound infantry just by hitting somewhere close to them to not only render them helpless but to also force enemy forces to care for their wounded, then mission kills are fair game to mention.

But when an infantryman can still fight at 100% even though he/she's riddled with shrapnel and probably covered in massive burns over their entire body, it is extremely lopsided to ask for mission kills against tanks (who will certainly fare better than infantry in similar situations).

Against 1970s models, sure. But you're essentially using a late 1980s weapon against a target decades older. A newer model T-72 that is a contemporary of the AT-4 (say a T-72B) would have over 900mm of RHAe taking into account reactive armor. In that case infantry don't really have a shot (pun) at taking down a MBT with their light AT weapons.

I mean I could take a modern 20mm rifle and shoot it at a WWI tank and claim that anti-materiel rifles were still effective, but that would hardly be an academically sincere comparison.

By lethal... I'm not sure what experience you're drawing on. In the most recent Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, even older tanks like the Abrams have shown exceptional resiliency. As of 2005, only 7% of deployed tanks needed more significant repairs that couldn't be done in the field. And the majority of these came from massive IEDs using old artillery shells or other collections of explosives.

Less well-armored "export" Abrams given to the Iraqi military experience a higher 20% "mission kill" rate but only a 4% actual kill rate. And again, these lack the DU plating that the Abrams is supposed to rely on.

Some other conflicts involving modern MBTs was Russia's actions in Chechnya and Israeli maneuvers against Lebanon. In Chechnya there were some 65 tanks heavily damaged, abandoned, or destroyed. But the quality of these tanks ranged from older T-64s to T-80s. And reports suggest that these tanks were rather poorly equipped, missing ERA blocks, etc. Considering all that, the tanks were still remarkably effective.

The Israelis in the 2006 Lebanon War lost two Merkava IVs... one to a massive IED and one to a Kornet ATGM. In total only 15 tanks were lost to ATGMs. Which is a fairly successful rate of usage.

So I would hardly call infantry "lethal" to tanks except in the most strict and limited usage of the word. It would be like generally referring to peanuts as "lethal" because they happen to kill a very small percentage of the population. Sure it's a possibility, but in practice infantry as a whole are fairly harmless to modern MBTs.

If by "next generation" you mean 5th generation, then this is incorrect based on the models that we see now like the T-14. It's simply better in all respects than previous generations. Innate armor is better, ERA is more advanced, ADS systems more complete. Radar from jet fighters. Sure the speed is improved, but no other characteristic was sacrificed for that goal.

There's simply not much evidence to suggest that the T-14 has worse armor than prior Russian tanks.

I would believe that any HEAT shell from a tank would simply punch through the slat and not be set off... unlike an AT grenade which simply does not have that force. I don't know of a single modern MBT design that incorporates slat armor as a method to protect itself against tank shells... only lower velocity infantry-carried weapons.

I'm sure that it's probably more effective than not having slat armor, but the difference is much less pronounced than against AT grenades (completely deflected) or infantry-carried rockets.

I'm just going to go with the better, more logical response that AT grenades just shouldn't exist in PS2. Just like how C4 obviously isn't a shaped charge and also shouldn't damage tanks.

The difference between an APC and IFV only being armament. Sure a slightly heavier cannon would take up more weight (reducing available armor) and the shells would require more space for stowage, but at any rate you'd still wind up with a very heavy vehicle (probably could still be afford to be more heavily armored than the tank it was based on).

For example, here's a prototype Namer with a 30mm autocannon and ATGMs (essentially an IFV):



Would an up-gunned Namer be slower than traditional aluminum-armored IFVs? Sure. It does give that up. But on the other hand when nothing can actually hurt you (save maybe a tank or aircraft), what's the rush?

I do agree with you here. This is about one of the few last things that infantry can effectively do to tanks, and to my knowledge there isn't much in tank design that renders them over-heat proof. Heck, most tanks will do that just fine even without help from enemy infantry!

I feel we are reaching the point where our interpretations of doctrine and equipment development and implementation, combined with the differences between Video Games and Reality, are our primary point of contention.

For example, here; it has been my experience - having been on both sides of the Military / Defense Contractor fence - that defensive systems are developed expressly because current systems are incapable of defeating current threats. So while it appears to be another layer in an already impressive system, to me it highlights a defense deficiency identified in the field, acknowledged by command, and determined by the bean counters to potentially cost more in life or materials than the proposed cost of developing a new defensive measure.

Obviously the T-14s actual specifications are classified, but there are several things we can extrapolate from what we do know. Though touted as having a heavily armored crew cabin, the effective thickness is estimated by analysts to be about 900mm RHAe. This means the vehicle is relying heavily on its applique armor and active defenses for its protection, and that means the actual armor thickness on the rest of the vehicle is notably thinner - particularly given the vehicles expected mobility for its moderate 1500hp engine. Applique armors and active defense systems are expensive in their weight and electronics load, which means weight is being sacrificed elsewhere to maintain a suitable power to weight ratio.

Most telling, is the fact the T-14 is "coming from the factory" with slat armor on the hindquarter. This means the armor thickness in this area, even with the added thickness and spacing from the tracks and track covers, is expected to be insufficient. This is expounded by the fact the T-14s powertrain is designed to be replaceable quickly and easily; which means it is expected to be rendered inoperable frequently.

All of these combined, and a touted "modular design", paints the picture of a platform that is likely (as the Russians say) more combat effective than its predecessors but that is still expected to suffer heavy casualties.

This is where Real Life and Video Game differ so much. Just because the round failed to penetrate and kill the crew, doesn't mean the round failed to remove the vehicle from combat.

This reminds me of the Challenger 2 in Iraq. The vehicle was struck by multiple RPGs and MILAN ATGMs, but the crew cabin was never penetrated. This was touted in western media as evidence of how amazing our tanks are - but everyone seemed to gloss over the fact that the tank was rendered inoperable after the second or third RPG. The fact the insurgents continued to spend munitions on it highlights a problem with their training; not their equipment. With a few thousand dollars of kit they knocked out several million dollars of kit.

If they had instead pushed forward and secured the area, they could have then captured (assuming knowledge and equipment to repair and operate) or scuttled the tank. We would then be hearing a much different story about what happened to that tank crew.

Instead, they shot it until they were bored and out of ammunition, and then fled. Allowing the vehicle to be recovered by responding friendly forces, repaired, and returned to service.

I bring up Mission Kills because, in real life, the grand majority of vehicle losses - going back to the introduction of the tank - are to Mission Kills. Not hard kills. Be it from the vehicle being tracked, the gun damaged, a fire that caused the crew to abandon the vehicle (but was not "lethal" to the vehicle), engine damage or failure, this is your actual loss.

As it turns out, it is incredibly difficult to destroy a giant piece of metal to the point that you can't just weld it back together and shove it back into service. Which has been why crew survivability has been the focus, less so than the platforms survivability.

Everyone likes to pull out that video of the Javelin blowing a T-something to pieces; but always forget that the video was discredited because the vehicle was packed with explosives to make the impact more impressive.



This is what real ATGM penetrations look like, and it is only impressive because an ammunition cook-off started. Which is not guaranteed in any circumstance. Turrets flying off Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War? That was also because of ammunition cookoffs (dozens of rounds going off at once; the combination of cheap ammunition and poor stowage practices in this case) and not because our guns were Super Awesome.

You will note in a case like that all you need to get that tank serviceable again is a sheet of metal to weld over the hole, some new electronics, and a hose to spray out whats left of the crew.

That all said I always thought Planetside 2 vehicles would benefit from a World of Tanks/Planes / Warthunder approach to damage to simulate "mission kills". It would allow vehicles to be much more durable, in many regards, and allow for the "hard kill" we have now to be a much loftier goal to achieve - while still allowing infantry to effectively counter armor and air. Without sacrificing engaging mechanics for both sides.

Nanites.

But seriously, I would support a more "Fallout 3 / New Vegas"-esque damage model for infantry if the game could support tracking that many hitboxes. However, it is unrealistic technologically and unfortunately - the majority of players would find it un-fun.

If I could get gameplay like Planetside 2 in feel and scale, but with a World of Tanks/Planes and Fallout 3 damage model for infantry and vehicles - I would be having quite a good time. As much as I enjoy the ARMA franchise, most of the time I want something more arcade-y, but still something that embraces certain realities of combat.

I was intentionally ignoring "bolt on" armors, as they are the current solution to the problem we are discussing, and as I mentioned multiple times, don't come without a cost to the vehicle.

However, even with bolt on armor packages, the tanks are still vulnerable to infantry portable weapons and can be knocked out of combat. Calling back on what I said previously about the Challenger 2; this is a deficiency that is overcome with training and positioning.

Putting an Anti-Tank squad in an open field, from any era, directly across from any tank (even a WW1 tank), will result in a messy red paste. This I am not disagreeing on.

When I say "lethal" I mean they can effectively, both in cost of life and equipment, remove the vehicle from participating in the battle. Essentially, render it combat ineffective - which is the goal of infantry portable anti tank weapons. To remove the vehicle from the fight.

Which goes back to my point that Real Life has something Video Games don't; money. Those tanks didn't go into battle with poor equipment because the crews wanted to - I can guarantee that.

However, if we are talking Chechnya then it is important to note that the armored force deployed was brigade strength. This would be 3-5 tank battalions, and Russian battalions tend to have 40 Main Battle Tanks. So we are looking 33 - 54% of the fighting force eliminated by an inferior fighting force.

And while the Russians went in poorly equipped and poorly funded, the Chechnyans weren't exactly rolling in caviar either.

65 Tanks lost irreparably is atrocious; that is a Battalion and a Half.

Sure, 65 tanks doesn't sound like alot - Russia owns thousands. But you can't compare it to what the nation as a whole owns (they can't all be in one place), you have to compare it to what is committed. If Russia HAD sent 3000 tanks, at their loss rate they would have been down 990 to 1620 vehicles.

I am actually a pretty big fanboy of Israeli armor developments; especially the Merkava, as Israel has done an amazing job adapting and evolving their vehicles quickly to respond to changes in their threat scape -

But the numbers don't match up; (per google) we are looking at 52 Main Battle Tanks knocked out, with 5 irreparable, 2 of them being Merkava IV's. 22 tanks were penetrated (meaning to the crew space), 5 of which were Merkava IVs. According to Israel, 45 of these were to ATGMs.

I struggled to find Israels troop commitment to the conflict, but it looks as though the armor commitment was also a bridge (the 401st). This consists of 3 Armored Battalions, for a total of about 150 MBTs [I couldn't find if Israel was running 4 Tank or 5 Tank platoons in 2006, so I went high].

This means we saw a 34% loss rate; almost as bad as the Russians. Specifically 30% were to ATGMs.

Something is always sacrificed for more speed; unless Russia invented a great and fuel efficient engine. Which, I already addressed; they didn't. Armor protection (not counting ERA), as I mentioned before, has been guessed by analysts. Obviously nobody but the Russian Military, their Engineers, and the Intelligence groups of the entire world (thats a joke, but probably true) know the real thickness. We will just have to wait for the CIA to get bored and for a new Janes to come out.

However, when I was saying "next generation" I was referring to the "Future Combat Vehicle" program specifically (in my mind, no reason for you to know that); which is focusing on light weight, high speed, and automation over heavy firepower or heavy armor.

You are technically believing correct, but the real question is how sensitive the fuse on the HEAT shell is versus the breaking point of the weld. The velocity doesn't come into account beyond how much force the shell is hitting the slat with, compared to the pressure the fuse ignites at, compared to the force at which the slat breaks.

My real point is that you can't fault something for being defeated by something that specifically is meant to cause it to fail, and if the same thing that set off the AT grenade set off a HEAT shell from any sized gun, they would fail equally.

And spaced armor (which slat armor is just the economy version of) was originally introduced to defeat tank shells; by the Germans in WW2 no less. The Allied Forces in WW2 had a pesky habit of beating PzkIV armor with HEAT shells from low velocity guns. So the Germans welded a sheet of (the armor equivalent of aluminum foil) metal a few feet out, and HEAT shells were a non issue. The infamous H versions.

We differ here again as well, but thats just because I love theory crafting how it WOULD work with our understanding of the world, given it works in game. I rather find how Canon and Reality can meet, than change Canon to suit my Reality.

Actually, IFVs and APCs differ in how they are built, designed, and implemented on a battlefield. An IFV brings a relatively small force to the field, giving up carry space for armor and firepower, but is expected to support them. An APC is expected to get a large force to the field, and then go get more - or to act as a ferry for fast response elements.

The Namer prototype you linked is actually representative of a trend in APC design, and that is to merge IFVs and APCs. The struggle is making a weapon system that is as effective as an IFVs, without giving up carry space for the turret. This means developing an IFV-strength weapon system that has minimal to 0 hull penetration. Which is not easy.

The 30mm Autocannon and ATGM example on the Namer, a setup designed by our friends in Germany, is one of the most popular to date and it still suffers from various critical issues. For example, the ATGMs need to be reloaded by the crew - and carrying reloads means giving up seats. The autocannon also needs to be crew reloaded, and carries a small amount of ammunition, giving it limited staying power. The entire weapon system is also exposed to danger, meaning it is far more likely to be knocked out intentionally or accidentally by the incoming fire your armor is meant to protect you against.

There is also the problem that these designs tend to give up alot of mobility and efficiency. A Bradly (IFV), for example, will not keep up with a Stryker (APC) going down the highway - and needs to stop for gas twice as often.

Eventually we will see technology catch up to this desire (which stems from not wanting to pay for two different kinds of vehicles) - but at the moment IFVs and APCs are separate vehicles.

One could argue our Sunderer represents where this technology is trying to go; a heavily armored transport that can carry a large amount of troops, using a simple-to-maintain wheel drivetrain (instead of tracks), while deploying effective firepower in support of the troops.

It is basically the future-baby of Stryker, Namer, and Bradly.

Yes, yes, you both have giant e-peens from knowing lots of things about real world armored vehicles. Congrats, or something. However, just in case you hadn't noticed, this is not the real world, its a video game - and realism takes a back seat to fun, engaging gameplay and, what is technically possible within the code.

Honestly you both wrote so much, I'm sure no-one really read it and I don't even remember what side of the argument you came in on.