Originally Posted by GunnerySergeant

Maybe for the noobies that come along after these posts about the Tow Humvee get burried a few months from now we should Specify in the Rules that a HAT is defined as a TOW Humvee and or a HAT kit. As mentioned earlier it states "Players carrying the HAT should focus solely on vehicles" ; in other words, players don't carry Humvees so maybe in the rules we could just fully define the HAT to include TOW Humvees along with the already placed statement "players carrying the HAT should focus solely on vehicles."

Its also common practice for players carrying the HAT inf Kit to light up Bunkers..

Originally Posted by asch

...
Light Anti-Tank (LAT)

On to the topic of the Anti-Tank kit. I'll start off by first discussing LAT. The primary targets for this weapon consist of lightly armored vehicles like the Humvee. I don't believe there is a question of use here.

The questions begin to circulate when it comes to the LAT use against infantry. This is a large grey area and very much situational-based. The use of LAT against infantry does happen in the real world. It's how and when that is not always correctly reflected with our use in-game.

A common use for LAT is as a bunker-buster when rifle fire does not suffice. This use isn't necessarily based on the number of infantry units, rather how the infantry unit(s) are entrenched and what objects are nearby for the projectile to hit and cause collateral damage. If we can remember this, hopefully our use of LAT against infantry will better simulate the environment.

Examples of CORRECT use:

a) The enemy infantry unit(s) are defending within a bunker. The LAT is a valid weapon to fire into the bunker to cause damage to the maximum number of targets.

b) The enemy infantry unit(s) are hiding behind an option like a barrel, tree, or wall opening. The LAT is a valid weapon that is intended to destroy the object providing cover and cause collateral damage to the enemy.

c) The enemy infantry unit(s) are moving along a wall, however they are not behind any objects as cover. This particular example allows for the use of LAT or rifle fire.

Hopefully we can see the commonality of those examples. The enemy unit(s) are entrenched with solid objects nearby for the projectile to hit.

What we don't see in those examples are the LAT projectiles directly impacting the enemy unit or targeting units not entrenched near some solid object. We should not be targeting infantry units directly in the open field at close to medium range.

I mention close to medium range purposefully. Long range LAT use against stationary infantry in an open area is a different situation that many call this AT SNIPING. Let's define "long-range" as a distance that rifle fire can not easily take down a target. In this situation the player must use their best judgment. If a target is off in the distance and not reachable by normal rifle fire, then they may switch to the next best feasible weapon at their disposal. The LAT kit can be properly used here.

EDIT for clarification: Using the LAT at long range still requires some object to be targeting. Using in the open field probably isn't the proper use, however if the enemy infantry unit(s) is on a mountain side, the mountain will provide the solid backdrop.

Heavy Anti-Tank (HAT)

The primary purpose of the HAT is for use against heavily armored vehicles (e.g. tank, APC). These kits / projectiles are considerably more expensive and less available than their LAT counterpart. Players carrying the HAT should focus solely on vehicles.

I hope that this clears up the question on vehicle / weapon use for most players, especially that of the LAT and HAT.

Some may ask why this is not a hard and fast rule. One of the reasons that this is not a rule is because we want to keep a short list of clear and concise rules. What I've described here is very much situational-based and the players intentions and use is not always clear.

Should we see a player misusing a vehicle or weapon, our first step is to educate them on the reason why we feel they are using it incorrectly and what the correct use is. Should this behavior not change, an admin may take action to remove them from the server. We do want players to attempt to simulate the environment the game provides.

Originally Posted by Elwenil

Even better:

This is the Canadian ERYX missile, which is basically the same as many other similar weapon systems by different names. Note that the large black octagonal ends on the weapon are for packing and not really part of the weapon, lol. It's not a real high quality vid, but does display the weapon quite well and one shot near the end shows the brief but intense back blast.

Originally Posted by Steiner

I think that one of the issues with "squad-HAT-kit" in the game is that it has been implemented incorrectly as a one-man-weapons-system. I might be wrong here, since I am not fully up to date with all the HAT-systems out on the market. But the sheer weight etc of the missile itself would be a bit to much for one guy to run around with, together with the rest of the system. Not to mention all the other gear. I would believe that the kit has been created as it is in order to "fit" into the game and make it useable. AFAIK so are the static HAT's the most realistic ones.

This is a pretty good video covering this, and the the watchful will also notice while being leathal against tanks so would it be next to useless against infantry. Just like an earlier poster in this thread, with experience from RL HAT-useage, so can I pretty much vouch for what he says is correct. While you in game can use HAT against infantry, in RL would probably someone question why you are not carrying out your mission - which is to primary kill tanks. HAT-squads are often small, trained to operate quite freely and independant, and to either redeploy to new positions time and again as quickly as possible - or spend many hours waiting to ambush passing tanks. Personally, I would find it great if people started to use such tactics in the game. A three or four-man squad (SL, gunner, loader) in a vehicle, quickly moving around on the map and regrouping. Any CO would appriciate a small and highly mobile squad that positively can kill tanks.

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

Same goes with the TOW humvee, you need to have an engineers and a full tow humvee to make it work......2 people are great, but if you get hit....why go back all the way to main to repair it when you can have a engineer hop out and repair, while you wait for that unsuspecting apc or tank to drive by and "WHAM!!" Tango down!!

That is one of the beautiful things of PR every kit/vehicle needs another player to aid in it whether it be a spotter, a engineer a ammo bag, or a field dressing or even a tracer to let you know where to shoot etc....and tow humvees are a vital part of Qwai, and need to have all the seats filled in order to work properly and efficiently.