Carry 1 AT round vs 3 SMAW rounds

[ricoadf 0]

Why i did haul all the stuff while riflemen had only rifle? Because i along few others formed AT-fist of unit, riflemen were free to engage enemy riflemen when we were to given responsibility to take out armored vehicles. Typical example: Armored vehicles moving along open areas while riflemen tried to use forests (comming in from flanks), both needed to be repelled. So there is need for defender to be in two places. Equality is not tactics. Also in ArmA. I dont' know how many times i've used seperated AT-units to overwatch area which armored vehicles would use.

I'm not interested in ACE. I'm interested of how Vanilla ArmA2 works.

Agreed, while everyone having AT is a given, you will still have people engaging infantry while others shoot at the tanks. Also remember that it comes down to coordination, which most mods have fine. Either we get the script from A1 over that discards the AT4 or just dont take more than one, no biggie.

And I agree, I aint getting ACE so thats no argument at all :S

[CarlGustaffa 4]

AGAIN: I have hauled 9-12 kilograms worth of AT-equipment when i'm expected to keep up with riflesquads on offense as part of rifleplatoon, main job is to hunt down armored vehicles in killzone of platoon (mostly heavy tanks there).

Considering the M136 weights at 6.8kg (15lbs), two would weight 13.6kg. Above your claims... You'd engage MBTs with M136? Even M72s?

If I in a mission want you to engage something heavy, I'd give the tools to do so. If the tools is somehow missing, I'd say the best idea is to disengage and fail the part you cannot complete.

[galzohar 31]

Reagrding AT capabilities:

LAW penetrates up to 300mm. While not enough to beat MBTs from the front or even from the sides, it should be good enough to destroy MBTs when hitting from above or from behind or if they hit precisely between the hull to the turret. Not a definite tank destroyer like, say, a javelin or heavy AT missiles, but far from useless. AT-4's 400mm penetration is similar (but more likely to penetrate from the side). Also all those weapons can easily damage a track and immobilize the MBT - replacing a broken piece in the track takes ~30min using all 4 crew members.

In Israel, carrying 3 LAWs for a designated AT guy is pretty standard (only 2.7kg after all), 1 per squad (2 per platoon, with 3rd squad having an RPG 2-man team with 5 rockets, 2 for the RPG-guy and 3 carried by the assistant). In war situation they tell you each infantryman will have 1 LAW on top of that. ATGMs are only used by supporting companies (we don't have javelins, though). 6.7KG for the AT-4 makes it a bit more "pricey" to carry multiple ones, but not impossible if it's needed.

Regarding kit restrictions:

I think the current equipping system has a lot of improvements to make. Some items are too restricted, and some you can carry too much without penalty. Slots shouldn't be the main limiting factor in loadouts, weight should, with slots only being a secondary factor to prevent light-but-unreasonable loadouts. For example 50 m-16 mags only weight 25kg which is manageable, but you won't have where to hold them without a rucksack, and in a rucksack they won't be very accessible. Stuff like sniper rifle + assault rifle shouldn't be out of question, though, at the expense of weight of course. I hadn't noticed it yet (which means that if it exists it's not significant enough), there isn't any maneuverability difference when carrying different amounts of gear. Proper movement ability differences for different loadouts will naturally force realistic distribution of different gear based on the mission needs - if you need a lot of AT then everyone would take heavy AT loadouts, but in a more realistic scenarios some would be better off with no AT equipment (or at most 1 AT-4) so they can actually run towards the objective while the clumsier AT people take care of armored threats.

Class/kit systems such as insurgency for source and project reality for BF2 are quite terrible and restrictive, as you can't use your own brain to match your equipment to the mission while taking into account all the factors. If everyone end up with the same loadout it doesn't mean a class/kit system is needed - it means the mission needs a better design and/or certain items need to be more realistically prone to weight and/or space limitations.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i think that this is a long lasting problem; we should have the weapons as they really

are in the real life or as closer as they could be made. The M136 AT4 is (like the LAW-66 or

72, or 88) a single shot AT weapon, it/they should be a single shot weapon that should remain

in your equipment/inventory until that you press some key to drop it, or just drop it by default

players and AI. You also should be able of carry a M136 AT4 even if you have a M249 or

a M240B on the hands, is not that hard, at least with the M249... with the MG3 was a

true pain. As we don't have a weight system that acts as a brake for the suckers that

want to carry more ammo than a minigun... they should at least, make the single shot

weapons be single shot and don't add their stupid and pointless "solutions" that bring

more problems than which they solve. Make the 250 rounds boxes of the M249's take 3

slots will be a better idea; but they should extend the inventory slots to at least 18 slots

and review the number of slots that each item takes, i could carry 22 mags with 20 bullets

each one at least during 32Km at 34ºC with my helmet, my vest, my AR, my bayonet, my

combat knife, my x2 canteens of 1L, my boots, my lantern and my reserve BDU and more

things like rations, a small oven, pills for various things and more things without complain.

But, i'll drop the backpack as they trained me to do when i enter in a combat situation;

that's what this goes about. They should review the way that they've made the weapons

and the inventory slots, their number and the number of slots that each thing take, i don't

know why they don't want to do it well for once at all; they should. Let's C ya

[galzohar 31]

If they want anywhere near realistic gear selection system, weight HAS to be introduced. IRL an m249 gunner simply runs slower than the M16 rifleman, unless the M16 rifleman takes a bunch of extra stuff too (like AT equipment). M203 launcher + 20 grenades + regular rifleman loadout still weights less than a standard SAW loadout, yet is not possible here, not to mention the SAW loadout here is quite heavier than the real life SAW loadout. IRL just because you can carry more doesn't mean you will because of weight, here you will take as much as inventory space allows as weight is not a factor. A weight system is a necessity for realism.

[thyco 0]

If they want anywhere near realistic gear selection system, weight HAS to be introduced. IRL an m249 gunner simply runs slower than the M16 rifleman, unless the M16 rifleman takes a bunch of extra stuff too (like AT equipment). M203 launcher + 20 grenades + regular rifleman loadout still weights less than a standard SAW loadout, yet is not possible here, not to mention the SAW loadout here is quite heavier than the real life SAW loadout. IRL just because you can carry more doesn't mean you will because of weight, here you will take as much as inventory space allows as weight is not a factor. A weight system is a necessity for realism.

im very suprized actually that BIS didnt bring the weight system from VBS2 over to Arma2, which allowed for you to carry a maxium load of 45kg however if you maxed out your load to 45kg you would be effected by the exausting effects much quicker, to the point that even walking would cause it to happen.

[Second 0]

Considering the M136 weights at 6.8kg (15lbs), two would weight 13.6kg. Above your claims... You'd engage MBTs with M136? Even M72s?

If I in a mission want you to engage something heavy, I'd give the tools to do so. If the tools is somehow missing, I'd say the best idea is to disengage and fail the part you cannot complete.

This last time.

13.6 kg? That was very typical load along with Apilas and M72, 4 M72s weights about same. Or what LMG gunner or his loader carried. Or what radio-operator with older radio will carry. It isn't nothing special. Many other guys has to coupe with it. We don't have M136 yet, and hopefully selections will choose newest M72, instead of M136. Smaller, lighter. So yes weight and size still are factors. 2 M136 would probably take as much from soldier than 3-4 new M72s.

They didn't exactly tell us to stick our thumb into our ass and start crying if heavier AT-weapons such as Apilas aren't around. Like said: There is even change to cut it's track and render it immobile with M72. destruction isn't out of question either. MBT doesn't automatically mean newest and most modern beasts. Besides taking out IFV probably will require more than just one hit. There is quite much of evidence from this.

If there isn't M72s around we would start to chop our explosive material from AT-mines, attach fuses to them and try that way. :) (yeah this starts to sound bit extreme and discomforting).

Switching M136 to SMAW really isn't answer as i probably don't have that luxury all the time. Yet to me regular way of doing things is to issue at least two light launchers per one guy. Has been from days of OFP and i really don't see nothing logical against it.

[galzohar 31]

Remember that MBT from the front is a very different beast than an MBT from the top/back. Even the newest MBTs don't have much armor at those areas. Sides are also much weaker than front, but may be strong enough for modern MBTs vs old/weak rockets. Hitting an MBT between its hull to its turret is likely to be deadly no matter which side you were shooting from.

[Juice 10]

I think the AT4 being a disposable weapon and the SMAW not being disposable can both be shown the same way. The M136 rockets are placeholders for the extra tubes, while the SMAW rockets are just themselves. All it doesn't model are the used tubes left on the ground, (or not left). That said, I wouldn't assume that just one AT4 should take the same amount of "inventory room" that 3 SMAW rockets take up. Don't SMAW rockets come in tubes anyways?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@galzohar:

I'm not sure if it would be enough to destroy it, even from behind, but I'll settle for a mobility kill.

I also agree for the AT specialist being able to operate with 3 LAWs, even 2 M136 if the situation demands it. The problem in Arma1 was that everyone was an AT specialist, combined with whatever else they wanted to be. The AT specialist had no mission. Now with SMAW, all that changes. The non AT specialists get to carry a single M136 at the expense of normal ammunition, but they don't replace the AT specialist as they do today.

I'd like to add an encumbrance factor, pluss slot shape to your suggestions. Throw in special carrying bags/rucksacks for certain types of ammo (Stinger, Javelin, SMAW i.e.) and I think I would be very happy.

However, we have what we have, and some sort of restrictions seems to me to be the only way to cope with the stupid gameplay we currently see (for the most time) on (usually) public servers.

I also agree that mission design (game mode design) is heavily to blame for what it has evolved into. But designers choices has often been the result of lacking engine AI capabilities, especially for large coops. For AI to behave, you need heavy scripting that degrades servers capabilities. You can replace a squad with a tank and get away with far less. I'm soooo hoping that Arma2 will help eliminate this replacement need.

@wipman, galzohar, and thyco:

I agree that we should have properly modelled single shot launchers supported by the engine. But this is what we got and I'm happy with it.

Without complaining? I know I would -- I know I did :D

I agree they should review it. But since they don't, I did it for them :) So, here are my highly personal suggestions if BIS ever decides to offer us a better inventory/backpack system:

* We need that visible radio backpack desperately.

* Specialist backpacks for carrying specialist ammunitions, such as:

- Missile backpacks, with 2 slots specifically for missiles (Stinger ammoman has this i.e.). Launcher carrier can not carry a backpack at all, but can carry a missile in regular inventory.

- Rocket backpacks, with 3 slots specifically for rockets (RPG7 and possibly SMAW ammobearer). Launcher carrier can not carry a backpack at all, but can carry a rocket or two in regular inventory.

- Machinegunner (7.62 based) backpack, with 4-6 slots specifically for machinegun boxes. Machinegunner can not carry a backpack at all.

- Engineers backpack designed for mines and other explosives. Not much room for anything else.

- Medic backpack. Mostly reserved for 'item' type slots. Modders can make the proper equipment.

- Rifleman backpack. Can not hold anything of the above, but can hold say, 16 regular ammo slots instead of say, 6 for those above.

* Sprint and obstacle clearing severely hindered/slowed down with a backpack, especially when full. Makes it more useful to take it off. I have not yet seen anyone using ACE that actually takes off his backpack, even though the reward for doing it is significant.

* Remove roll ability when you have a backpack and even a launcher. Simulates encumbrance/discomfort. Being nothing more than a rifleman now has becomes an advandage.

* Sizes in terms of slots:

- M136 - 6 slots, won't fint into a backpack and rockets won't fit anywhere either.

- M72/LAW - 3 slots, if ever included.

- SMAW - 4 slots, but will fit into a rocket backpack.

- Stinger/Javelin - 6 slots, but will fit into a missile backpack.

* Rucksack slot shapes:

- Rifleman - 4x4 slots (ammo only).

- Missile- 2x6 slots (2 missiles only), pluss 4 slots (ammo).

- Rocket - 3x5 slots (3 rockets only), pluss 2 slots (ammo).

- Engineer - 2x4 slots (2 mines/explosives only), pluss 8 slots (ammo).

- Medic - 2x4 slots (resevered for future medical 'items' that can be utilized by modders), pluss 8 slots (ammo).

- Radio - 2x6 slots (radios are quite spacey), pluss 4 slots (ammo).

* Weight as in VBS2, although I never tried it for rather obvious reasons. Gradual decrease in stamina until a certain comfort point, where it decreases grossly. Like the 45kg. Even if you could carry loads of ammo, you wouldn't (hopefully, ACE system which did look good wasn't as successful as I hoped).

* I have no problem with the medic having less slots on his body, considering the removed space would normally be occupied with special medic pouches.

Machinegun and saw eliminating the launcher carrying capabilities works for me. It makes their roles better defined. The saw gunner should be able to carry a backpack though. Not so sure about the M240. Iirc, we had some issues with the MG3 and backpacks, maybe even the spare pipe(s) caused problems.

@Second:

Sorry, I was just teasing a bit with your reasoning. Less than 15kg isn't really that much. I know what you ment :)

Keep in mind though that normal doctrine is to spread available LAWs among as much units as possible. What if the one AT specialist carrying the 3 LAWs are out? Having it spread out means better defense capabilities.

I agree that you wouldn't be totally helpless with AT4 or even LAW. But reducing the amount you can carry forces you to play more realistically. You have to actually engage the threat to get into a good position, instead of just firing from insane distances until you manage to hit it. In Arma1 the problem was no ballistics on M136 whatsoever (realistic effective range is 300m for the M136 and 200m for the M72), and they worked too good against quite modern tanks. That also applies to the PG-7V (in effect only a grenade with a rocket). It could take out MBTs from insane distances with just a couple of shots. And people used it this way. Why? Because they didn't know or understand the operational limits of the PG-7VR (much more powerful, but effective distance is very low, I think about 75m). Maybe also the fact that the RPG-7 came up preloaded with PG-7V rockets

I sure wouldn't mind the idea of dissecting explosives to make IEDs... Script ideas coming... :) I also don't like the Satchel fits all solution. It sucks to be honest. As engineer I've handled my share of explosives, and it all was a bit more nuianced than that. But I guess the whole damage system would need to be upgraded for this to come true.

When did war become luxury? One of the problems with public games is no ammo conservation needed at all. Too much insanity going on with ammo crates being magically refilled at no cost, at least for my personal taste. Even if OFP had it doesn't make it realistic? I have problems with more than one (especially M136), given that in real life you would give that extra weight to somebody else in your squad if you even was lucky enough to have more than one. And that we need that possibility to avoid spamming/exploiting.

@galzohar:

I agree on the armor protection being better in front. And that's my point. If you only get one M136, you have to get into a good position instead of wasting one shot for aiming, then two for the kill, at any angle.

@Juice:

Sort of. The rocket in inventory taking up 6 slots indicates the launcher itself. It's just depicted that way due to limitations in the engine. I agree that the inventory used by this "rocket" creates imbalance in that he looses so much slots. But this imbalance is to me much more managable than the way this 'single shot launcher' was previously used. The new way is not perfect, but it's the least evil of two evils.

I agree that the SMAW rockets take up too little room. But I wouldn't have them go above 3 slots without a proper backpack system. If it took 4 slots now, the AT specialist wouldn't have much of an egde over the M136 carrying guys, and both the AT specialist and ammobearer would have too little regular ammunition to spare. With specially crafted rucksacks, I wouldn't mind them taking up more slots. The SMAW rockets comes in enclosed tubes, yes.

[galzohar 31]

An improved slot + backpack system would definitely be a nice thing to have, but it doesn't replace a weight system at all. The reason everyone become an AT specialist is because they can with no real cost.

Ammo conservation is not an issue simply because you generally die way before that becomes a consideration. And TBH, that's quite realistic unless you suppress a lot.

Speaking of backpacks:

-MG users should be able to carry a backpack, but will usually prefer to carry extra ammo in it considering the fact they simply need it, and won't ever want to fill their backpack up because the weight would be ridicules. I just don't see how you can put more than ~400 7.62 rounds in a vest without falling forward... M249 ammo is more manageable, so you don't really need more ammo in backpack, but you also probably won't put anything in it even if you can because of weight. But if you really want some extra stuff you can, just don't complain about how fast you get tired and how slow you move.

-Medics can't be realistically implemented (hence the stupid current medic system), before you have medic items you'll need a proper medical system, which will probably never exist since it's not really possible to make.

-Grenadiers need a lot more m203 grenade space.

-Overall shouldn't be so many magazine pouches. Beyond 8 mags or so should go in backpack and take longer to retrieve like all backpack items.

Back to AT stuff...

PG-7V is actually HEAT warhead that penetrates up to 500mm, so is really better than AT4 or LAW.

Any hit that penetrates an MBT is not a sure destruction regardless of direction of impact, sure. But any hit that penetrates has a reasonable chance of destruction or at least serious damage no matter where it penetrated from, and just about any AT rocket will pretty much always penetrate from the back/top, and often (depending on rocket and MBT models) penetrate from the side. Plus they should add the "between the hull and the turret" hits.

Also, AT mines (and other things that blow up the tracks):

Generally takes the entire 4-man crew 30 min to fix...

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I've played with ACE alot, and the weight system alone just doesn't cut it. When did you see someone actually take off their backpack before fighting? I've only seen it once on a public server, because I did it myself :) Filled backback with as much ammo I could get, and setup a good supression position. Took off my backpack so that in the event of getting tired I would recover quickly. Unfortunately the server ran a cleanup command, so all dropped ammo was removed :) Simply put, you don't fight with a backpack, but in ACE you do. I liked its intensions, but I don't think it really played out too well.

Agreed on the M203. I forgot, pluss I'm not sure how to handle them. Maybe just a regular rifleman backpack would suffice.

Agree on the number of slots, but reducing it would be too costly for the other stuff. I wouldn't want an AT specialist being able to carry more rifle ammo than a rifleman either.

PG-7V Single-stage HEAT 2.6 kg (5.7 lb) 85 mm (3.35 in) > 330 mm RHA

PG-7VR Tandem HEAT 4.5 kg (9.9 lb) 105 mm (4.1 in) 600-700 mm RHA

My source: Wikipedia.

Note also the designations used in ACE. A PG-7V carrier is called a rocket grenadier iirc, while a PG-7VR carrier is called an AT gunner. I don't recall their config values, as I'm usually into western stuff anyways. But had a look into the Arma2 configs (can't find the link atm), and I'm looking forward to have a blast against unsuspecting infantry groups with the SMAW HEDP ammo ;) The RPG-7 now has even more rockets to use.

If individual part repairs was possible, I'm sure we'd find a way to let the crew repair their own tracks, at least for human players.

[SD_BOB 10]

Related to the above post, i think the reason people dont take off their bergens in ACE is simply because if you do you end up with it all over the floor and have to pack it all back in again. I would have loved to have been able to take of my bergen before attacking, but the way ACE set up the system it wasn't an option.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I agree the first ACE backpack implementation was better than the current from a players point of view. But it caused too much lag unfortunately. I find it only takes a few seconds to pack everything back in, meaning it is not a problem. Especially with the fast animations. Even lack of animation for gearing up now.

If ACE removed certain kinds of movement like I suggested further up, then people would have little choice but to take it off. Like no going prone (check the above link), and certainly no rolling, very time consuming to climb an obstacle etc.

A big problem adding to this, is peoples lazyness. In the mission I play (Domination), you are able to teleport to within 50-200m of the combat zone (not center). Insane :eek: For this game mode the weight is of little problems, as you really don't get all that tired. And yet people complain when they have problems moving with a ton of equipment in their sack. I'm sure the weight system alone does a lot more justice when playing hard core missions, where mavouver and speed would have more meaning.

[galzohar 31]

Weight system helps a lot more if it's done realistically. Do it wrong and of course it's not going to be right. Making people pack everything up will make them either not drop the backpack or not bring one in the firstplace. Weight should be the primary reason for taking/not taking items, space should be a secondary concern. Everyone should carry a backpack, because you don't have anything else on your back anyway, but the weight cost for the gear you put in the backpack and for the empty backpack should be there and fully functional. Taking stuff out of the backpack should be far from instant. It takes time to get stuff out of it.

http://www.x20.org/nightvision/pvs7.htm

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl02-e.htm

Yeah I read the wrong line it's the PG-7VL that has 500mm penetration. Still even 200mm penetration is more than enough to penetrate the back/top of a tank.

When I was talking about track damage taking a long time to fix I didn't mean you'd actually implement fixing it, but rather to avoid any BF2 kids wanting engineers to come and magically fix the tanks for it, tank crew can do it), similar to how medics come and "fix" wounded people :( IRL you don't even need engineers (in fact engineers would be useless, should be mechanics or whatever term you use for guys that fix army vehicles), the crew itself can do it.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

No, not weight alone. That would allow unrealistic rocket/missile carrying. ACE helps by using space. Personally I think also shape should be considered, even if extremely simplified. You just can't carry 2 stingers or 3 PG-7VRs in a regular backpack. They're way too long, hence shape. Their weight is not much of an issue.

The link you provided says 260mm armor penetration. This is also a 'theoretical' value. Keep in mind that only a single M1 Abrams was mobility killed by rocket launcher fire in the Iraq War (could be pure propaganda, I don't know). Tank crew reported being shot at only to see the projectile 'skipping off' due to the angle. Unless the tank moves into mout area, it is extremely hard if not impossible to be able to get into such a position that you can fire on the top of the turret.

The link you gave have some dubious 'effective range' tables. Compare that with the 'hit probability' table (moving target though) I gave above.

Given this, I say that the PG-7V should be almost ineffective against the Abrams, no matter where you hit. 4-6 shots to the turret, then ok. If you're going to fire at MBTs, use the PG-7VR which is far better, or better yet have someone use the new AT launcher. Leave the PG-7V for cars, trucks, and lightly armored vehicles.

I will read everything in the link provided soon.

[galzohar 31]

In a regular backpack no, but in a pack specifically made for carrying RPG rockets you should be able to carry 3. I didn't say the weight should be the only thing, just that it should be the primary thing. Taking a rocket pack should be a non-issue, but taking it as a machinegunner should make you so heavy you'll want to cry. Space should still be a limitation to avoid absurd loadouts that are impossible to carry even though they're not all that heavy, but the main reason to not take items into combat should be weight.

[Second 0]

I think all armies likes to issue pieces of cord and/or string to their soldiers. One can hang himself with them... Or attach items to their carrying systems with them.

I've carried 100 liters in and on my 60 liter backpack + over 2 meters long skis: Lots of stuff hanging outside backpack.

Typical example is Shovel, crowbars, saws etc attached to backpack.

[galzohar 31]

I think we should have working standard stuff before even thinking about improvised stuff ;) plus if we have all standard stuff that should be more than enough for awesome gameplay.

[Second 0]

I think we should have working standard stuff before even thinking about improvised stuff ;) plus if we have all standard stuff that should be more than enough for awesome gameplay.

I don't see reason to go into special backpacks, like for rockets or missiles.

-Getting bit too complicated: which backpack can carry what items?

-Creating artificial limits: AT-guy carries just AT-weapons and not ammo for machine gun. Or machine gunner can't carry AT-weapons even when he has loaded his final belt into his MG.

[galzohar 31]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=129452

http://www.surplusandadventure.com/images/product/main/ammo_box_30.jpg

As you can see, there are very specific RPG-packs. There are similar packs for other equipment. It's very simple which bags can carry what - if it's a specialized backpack, it can only carry what it's intended for, unless it also has additional pouches for general use. General purpose rucksacks should be able to carry all items that aren't too big to fit in it.

To be honest, if you're carrying a rocket pack on your back you're not going to find room to place a 200X7.62 round box. This is far from an artificial limitation. Not to mention, with a proper weight system, you're not really going to ever care about that limitation, because your RPG and RPG rockets are already going to be heavy enough that you really won't want the weight of that 7.62 ammo box.

I hope that's a good enough example of where I'm trying to get with my suggestion of a proper carrying system.

Edited June 9, 2009 by galzohar

[frederf 0]

A lot of this comes down to the fact that the ArmA1 (and unless it's much different, ArmA2) inventory system is rather lacking. Months ago I photoshopped this:

Main features

• Each item has a mass value
  
• Each item has a bulk value (not shown)
  
• Magazines loaded are in the weapon's inventory space
  
• Dedicated backpack slot with list-view
  
• Unified sidearm/main/binocular pounces

Notes and Corrections

1. Back Special slot is redundant.
   
2. If no backpack is equipped, a default backpack placeholder is in effect with 0 bulk capacity. Crew server weapon pieces, or anything else that would strap to the outside of a backpack would have a 0-bulk value. Thus you could carry a mortar baseplate with or without a backpack on.
   
3. Head slot could be added for helmet mounted devices
   

In real life pouches are not a "one size fits all" where having the proper webgear is an art and a science not to be taken lightly. However I ascribe to the hassle free universal approach until/if modular webgear/pouches is included.

I'm not sure how to handle a grenadier's grenade load of about 40 M203 rounds. There's too many to have 1 pouch slot each and "packs" of rounds is a rather inelegant solution.

[galzohar 31]

While it's true that it's not a "one size fits all", it's also true that you will be issued a vest that matches your weapon(s). So it's safe to assume a SAW gunner will have SAW ammo box pouches, and a sniper that also carries his M16 or M4 will either have a dedicated mixed sniper/m16 vest (50-100 sniper rounds don't take *that* much space, and can actually be just placed in regular magazine pouches instead of regular mags). Special custom weapon setups would have appropriate custom vests, but again you can only put so many pouches on a vest, so the current system is in the right direction in that aspect (but still needs improvements, specifically for M203).

Speaking of M203, it does NOT go in the backpack, that would make M203 useless (both IRL and in game). M203 users generally use M203 vests that have big M203 pouches on the sides for easy access of ~20 M203 nades.

M9 mags are also pretty pointless in backpack. At least one should have room in the vest (not sure how standard SF vests are designed for holding the mags). Maybe should be a tradeoff between frags and M9 mags, after all the pouch system is supposed to simulate how much room a vest generally has to place pouches on when it's made. Also M9 mags are quite a lot smaller than M16 mags.

Overall the vest has too many pouches imo, should be less pouches but have m203 nades take a lot less "pouch space". That is, make each pouch actually 4 pouches but an M16 mag takes up 4 pouches. That way you can also work around with other small items like M9 mags (take 2 pouches for example). Those numbers can be tweaked to create something that works realistically well.

I think standard gear like compass/gps/whatever, assuming it's as small as the game makes it seem, should just be a default. Binocs are generally hung around the neck, and NV in the backpack until night time when the binocs go in the back and the NV goes in the front (or attaches to helmet if appropriate).

Just about any vest has a small back pouch (more than enough for NV and a bit of spare ammo etc), but you can't really place anything that actually has a size into it if you're going to carry a backpack over it. So having a "default backpack" is good. I dunno if giving the empty big backpack 0 bulk is good, though, even empty it's a pretty big and annoying thing to carry, and it does have some minimal weight.

One last very important thing - you should NOT be able to carry anything *OVER* the backpack. Something like a crew served weapon or RPG backpack or whatever should come instead of the backpack, not in addition, or else your soldier would probably fall backwards.

[Second 0]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=129452

http://www.surplusandadventure.com/images/product/main/ammo_box_30.jpg

As you can see, there are very specific RPG-packs. There are similar packs for other equipment. It's very simple which bags can carry what - if it's a specialized backpack, it can only carry what it's intended for, unless it also has additional pouches for general use. General purpose rucksacks should be able to carry all items that aren't too big to fit in it.

Like i said 60 liters backpack carrying 100 liters + 2 meter long skis. I can use cord to attach mag punches to my carrying system. If i get some sort of bag it's even better. Heck i need just long piece of string to haul all kinds of stuff along. Like Javelin missile tied into full rucksack. Or Shovels etc attached to backpack. I really don't need official carrying systems to carry something special.

So i really don't see reason for specialized backpacks.

To be honest, if you're carrying a rocket pack on your back you're not going to find room to place a 200X7.62 round box. This is far from an artificial limitation. Not to mention, with a proper weight system, you're not really going to ever care about that limitation, because your RPG and RPG rockets are already going to be heavy enough that you really won't want the weight of that 7.62 ammo box.

I hope that's a good enough example of where I'm trying to get with my suggestion of a proper carrying system.

You should read more with thought. Seems like you miss half of my points. If i have last 100 rounds left for MG, i'm not necessarily dying from load of few additional rockets in my backpack, which weights bit more than full belts for my MG. So yes. It's artificial limit.

Simple.

[galzohar 31]

I suppose you could go more generalized, but at least make it so it takes longer to grab stuff from your back the more stuff you have there. Doesn't make sense to have 20 items in your backpack and use them as quickly as you can use something that's in your vest's pouch.

Like I said before, weight should be the primary thing to stop you from carrying excessive gear anyway.