M113

[Shaftoe]

So, there were some talks about M113 and devs seemingly promised to add it to the game when they were asked about it during that "Ask Us Almost Anything" event...
I wonder if this highly requested and long waited feature is planned for Summer 2018, Autumn, Winter or for some unknown good day of 2019?

[Trevor Reznik]

Slow moving ground target vs RPG7s

I'd love to know how they are going to balance that thing.

[Beans]

Who will win?

One M113 with a max of 38mm of armor?

Or one rpg boi with 400-500mm of penetration?

[static]

The M113 is made from, and armored with, ALUMINUM. At that time it provided protection from 7.62, that's it. Anything heavier would poke right through. There's a reason many soldiers took to riding on the roof of M113s instead of inside it.

Even the heavily armed & upgraded ACAV variant used by ARVN (and, later, the US) was vulnerable to RPGs, mines, booby traps and DSHKs. Hell, the early gun shields fabricated to protect the mounted MGs on top of ACAV units weren't even effective against AK fire! Later on, the US took to the ACAV idea and started mass producing gun shields and rear MG mounts.

I fear the devs will approach the M113 the same way they went about modeing SA-2 SAM missiles into the game, with seemingly little regard for historical accuracy whatsoever. It's especially weird since the rest of the game is generally quite accurate to the history of the war.

To model the '113 properly would probably lead to massive frustration among those who use it. It was vulnerable, plain and simple.

[hobbicon]

Just don't drive right to the frontline, stay behind expose as little as possible and get into a good position.

[AKM]

Originally posted by Beans:

Who will win?

One M113 with a max of 38mm of armor?

Or one rpg boi with 400-500mm of penetration?

M113, because it have M2 50cal (+2xM60s if it's ACAV) with more than twice effective range of rpg boi, which is already inaccurate at 200m ranges and don't even have PGO-7V optical sight.

Jokes aside, on linear open maps like Cu Chi M113 will be fine, even DShK between D and E points will be bigger trouble for it than RPG. Just stay away behind cover with hull down and provide suppressive fire easily penetrating everything with 50cal across the map.

[Beans]

Originally posted by AKM:

Originally posted by Beans:

Who will win?

One M113 with a max of 38mm of armor?

Or one rpg boi with 400-500mm of penetration?

M113, because it have M2 50cal (+2xM60s if it's ACAV) with more than twice effective range of rpg boi, which is already inaccurate at 200m ranges and don't even have PGO-7V optical sight.

Jokes aside, on linear open maps like Cu Chi M113 will be fine, even DShK between D and E points will be bigger trouble for it than RPG. Just stay away behind cover with hull down and provide suppressive fire easily penetrating everything with 50cal across the map.

If the M113 is like 150m+ from the enemy or any rpg then the thing is gonna have a huge advantage. On more big open maps the M113 has the potential to be a pretty good asset for suppressive fire.

[Trevor Reznik]

Originally posted by Beans:

Who will win?

One M113 with a max of 38mm of armor?

Or one rpg boi with 400-500mm of penetration?

Aren't there like 2-3 soldiers on the RPG class.

As I was saying... though to balance this.

[Big Duke]

im a bad player. please wrap me in armor.

[Aurora borealis]

For the sake of balance they should make it a 2 hit deal with RPG', like, first hit disables the Vehicle (smoke and fire effects) and the second hit will destroy it giving passengers a chance to get out and remaining Gunners a chance to lay down fire.

[Trevor Reznik]

This is what I'm trying to say, in order to make something fun, perhaps we should balance it. Instead of going for straight up realism for the sake of realism.

If people just want realism, better not to add the M113.

[Big Duke]

Originally posted by Aurora borealis:

For the sake of balance they should make it a 2 hit deal with RPG', like, first hit disables the Vehicle (smoke and fire effects) and the second hit will destroy it giving passengers a chance to get out and remaining Gunners a chance to lay down fire.

lol wut?

[static]

Originally posted by Aurora borealis:

For the sake of balance they should make it a 2 hit deal with RPG', like, first hit disables the Vehicle (smoke and fire effects) and the second hit will destroy it giving passengers a chance to get out and remaining Gunners a chance to lay down fire.

It should be location based, as with helicopters. Destroying a Vietnam era M113 with one RPG or AT mine should be a fairly trivial task, IF you can hit it in the right place.

[Big Duke]

laughable to even suggest an M113 can resist an RPG shot. you do know theyre made out of aluminum? they're made to resist small arms fire and shrapnel. A dushka will destroy one easily as well. Troops were so fearful of being caught inside one if it was hit or rolled over a mine they rode on top- they would rather be exposed to fire than ride in one.

the idea of this vehicle is to deliver troops CLOSE to the action, so they can dismount and engage.

to me, this already would happen prior to engagement. like Cu Chi - any mech troops wouldve disembarked before assaulting A. Not trying to drive right up to the front door - which is why you have destroyed vehicles all over the place. Amubushed and destroyed, village and police station overrun. now retake it.

the game doesnt need ground vehicles at all. the devs will cave to public demand and i hope it doesnt turn out like sht.

[Aurora borealis]

My main worry is they'll be used in the throw-away nature they were in RO2 (like one person just using an APC to rush a position and bailing).

Giving them some longevity and resistance could help them get used in ways that'd be actually helpful to the team. For me, Gameplay > Realism in this instance.

[static]

Give them a long, long respawn timer. Make them deathtraps at anything closer than long range. Gotta force people to use them as proper battle taxis.