Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

APCs ≠ Tanks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • APCs ≠ Tanks

    Here goes, this will sound like a rant but it is made to be a reminder.
    APC: Armored Personell Carrier
    On many maps such as Ejod Desert, quinling, Kashan, and Fool's Road; people will make a 2 man locked squad and grab an APC. With it, they will go camp outside some flag trying to shoot infantry. Now, how many times have you been in an infantry squad going to a flag in a light jeep only to be LATed to hell? APCs do not get destroyed by one LAT and can take out anti-tank units more effectively than infantry. Also, how many times have you been infantry and stranded at the main or firebase with no transport?

    I recently did a MECH INF squad on Ejod and we did so well. We were able to hold West City through the combined effort of infantry spotting and heavy APC firepower. It works really well with a BMP 3 in the bunker complex as well. Those of you who played in the TTP vs TG round 2 scrim will also know the effectiveness of infantry and APCs working together.

    So, my point is this: if you are going to grab an APC please do your best to coordinate with infantry squads. A 6 man squad with an APC in it works fine too (though it requires more comms discipline).

  • #2
    Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

    Yesh. Yesh, yesh yesh.

    I think I've seen APCs for PCing... once. And that aint right.

    ~Sirsolo
    |TG-Irr|Sirsolo since 18OCT08.

    Carpe Diem

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

      Mech infantry works great from my experience. A lot of people shy away from it though because they feel the comms get a bit out of hand. But if you operate with the understanding the vehicle crew has priority in terms of communication then you can do things quite successfully.

      Heck what's the biggest complaint of infantry...? "Where's the armor support!?"

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

        The armor support went on vacation tonight on Kashan....I think they were in tahiti
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

          Attempting co-ordination with another squad for a MechInf concept is one of the most frustrating things in the game. The tactical value of teamkills by running over, friendly fire, and other unforeseen events mean OpFor has just a big a bonus with a MechInf squad as BlueFor does. Running it like a tank may not have been its intended purpose, but it is a lot less taxing on the squad running the APC and can work just as well. An APC is not a tank, but it cannot reliably (yes you do get the odd occurrence where it is the best thing since sliced bread, but that is the odd man out in my experience) successfully live up to its intended job. The best way I have seen them used is as an inbetween, not close enough to accidentally wipe a squad, but far enough away that the squad is still benefited by having the APC around. Besides, running an APC into an urban center is suicide, with or without a squad.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

            Originally posted by mat552 View Post
            Attempting co-ordination with another squad for a MechInf concept is one of the most frustrating things in the game. The tactical value of teamkills by running over, friendly fire, and other unforeseen events mean OpFor has just a big a bonus with a MechInf squad as BlueFor does. Running it like a tank may not have been its intended purpose, but it is a lot less taxing on the squad running the APC and can work just as well. An APC is not a tank, but it cannot reliably (yes you do get the odd occurrence where it is the best thing since sliced bread, but that is the odd man out in my experience) successfully live up to its intended job. The best way I have seen them used is as an inbetween, not close enough to accidentally wipe a squad, but far enough away that the squad is still benefited by having the APC around. Besides, running an APC into an urban center is suicide, with or without a squad.
            1st off, I've never seen coordination between the two squads that much of a pain. Most of the time, alot of talking isn't necessary. In urban centers, the infantry should advance while the APC covers and advances now and again. I agree that an "inbetween" can be useful and is pretty much needed on larger maps such as quinling and kashan. Also, I can't help but disagree with your last comment. Yes, there are HATs and LATs. But that's like saying sending infantry into an urban enviroment is suicide cause there are scoped rifleman waiting.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

              How about a basic TGU class?

              Im kinda good at, I guess I could help
              doYouEvenLuftwaffe

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

                If there was a TGU class on mech inf I would definetly sign up, I have tried this before with a friend and as long as you are on teamspeak or something with them comms isnt a major problem.
                |TG-69th|chrisweb89


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

                  Too much chatter, without discipline.
                  |TG-12th| Namebot

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

                    My best experience with mech inf. was running the apc and then 4 infantry units. Your SL, a medic, two engineers. It was on EJOD.

                    Instead of the basic camp the hills strat we rolled into west city, deposited our troops, then fell back to safe teritory where we could see our guys and they could spot the dangers for us. Occasionaly they would spot a tasty treat and we would intercept the enemy, destroy them before they threatened the infantry, and go to our fall back position.

                    I know this is blasphmeny in PR but whne it came time to retreat we scooped up our infantry guys, took an rpg in the front for good measure, and drove off to defend another objective.

                    I think cross-squad interaction becomes that squish fest that was talked about earlier because that really becomes a balancing act that requires practice. If every guy knows the drill and we can say 99% of the time they know to (for example) approach from the right, wait for the signal to enter or jump out, and all the other placment issues then it works very well. Otherwise its just a bit too much for strangers to jump into.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

                      Seconding Cougar here. The 10th runs a mech-inf squad pretty well. It can work, it just takes some coordination on teamspeak. We run a 6-man squad and a separate APC squad with great effect. APCs are for safe transport of infantry, safe egress for infantry from a tight spot, and overwatch/firepower for infantry.

                      "You milsim guys are ruining the game."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

                        It is truly a beautiful thing when a good armor squad with and engineer team up with a full infantry squad with an APC on Kashan - mechanized warfare in PR at its best I think. I hope we can do something to that effect in the upcoming scrim.

                        It would be even better to have the infantry full squad riding in a coordinated APC squad with tank support. Throw in a few planes and AA and you have the total coordinated battlefield. May seem all too obvious, but I don't see it happening that often.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

                          Mech Inf doesn't work so well on Kashan, the APC's cant get in the bunkers without the possibility of getting destroyed.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

                            Eavy, thats what the TOW Bradley's are for. No more 4x4ing in the desert, now you can go tracking!
                            Randy = Ace ! - Warlab
                            Level II Volunteer FireFighter
                            Level I HazMat Technician
                            NYS EMT-B
                            Town of Mamaroneck Fire Dept.

                            sigpic




                            Bring On Project Reality 1.0!!!
                            RSS Feeds:Bamboo | | 9/11 - Never Forget |
                            Apophis - "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population.
                            Tactical Gamer is not mainstream.
                            We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: APCs ≠ Tanks

                              1 word TANKS nothin like a tank parked up on the hills that gets eyes on the apc then BOOM! apc is gone along with the 6 Inc that were in it

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X