Assault (CAN) 1 Posted January 17, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Jan. 17 2002,01:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hehehe I had a feeling I'd caught you out with that one Would be interesting to see if that is the case though? <span id='postcolor'> Yeah, I havent changed my realism settings since I installed Red Hammer. I have been meaning to though. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dangus 0 Posted January 17, 2002 What is really retarded is that the LAW and the RPG have optical scopes on them. This is unrealistic and changes one of the fundemental drawbacks of these weapons. They are not designed to be anti-tank sniper weapons. As for the Carl Gustav, I remember reading something from Janes a while back that said the US was testing shoulder launched weapons and were a bit shocked at how nasty even the outdated Carl Gustav can be. In some circumstances they said it can destroy an M1A1 in a single hit. For that matter, hits to the side should cause mobility kills more often, and hits to the top should do a LOT more damage since the top armor on an Abrams is not all that great, especially with the weak commanders turret to blast through. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christophercles 0 Posted January 17, 2002 It isnt really an optic scope, it just zooms in a little like it does when you look into the sights on any gun, but yes its unrealistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dangus 0 Posted January 17, 2002 It zooms a heck of a lot more than the M-16 does. The zoom of the M-16 could be explained by eye focus, but on the LAW, it's almost as good as the binoculars! I was using a LAW to call tank fire down on positions that the tankers could not see very well because they were so far away and behind so much cover. I have also used the LAW to function as a spotter for my team's sniper, a combination that worked so well that the enemy team could not get within 500 yards of our base with any sort of safety. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Booky 0 Posted January 17, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Scooby @ Jan. 16 2002,22:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem is that Carl Gustav is not quided in real life and AT-4 in reality is fitted on tripod and it it too heavy to carry for one man. It does not lock on either. Gunner has to lead on target when using AT-4.<span id='postcolor'> Do different country's have different designations for the AT-4? I ask because when I was in the USMC I fired a few "AT-4" off and was just remembering it. It looked like the ones in OFP and I am pretty sure it is the same one. I fired it alone from the kneeling position and it was not too heavy for me to carry. Just as with most rocket launchers, you need to make sure you have a clear backblast area. I don't think the AT-4 was guided either because I seen many miss the target and it fly's fairly streight with a small spiril in flight path. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Scooby Posted January 17, 2002 Russians have their own AT-4 weapon. It is similiar to TOW which you've got in US army. edit: here is picture of it: http://www.wonderland.org.nz/fagotm.jpg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
