BFC, possible glitch in NATO download 1.31 ad copy

[John Kettler]

The copy says that one of the features is "reduced blast protection" for a soldier behind an AFV with a large explosion on the other side of it. Since this is instantly counterintuitive, I suggest that the correct phrasing should read "reduced blast damage to a soldier...." This makes both logical and military sense. Mind, if the explosion's big enough and the AFV insufficiently heavy, our hero could get crushed by his would be armored protector. See, for example, the Stryker that hit a 250 lb. bomb and rolled repeatedly. Anyone standing behind that Stryker would've been lunch meat for sure.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Chops]

I don't think so John. Prior to this patch, vehicles would cook-off or be hit by rpg's, etc...and soldiers right next to the vehicles would not be scratched. So, I think they made an adjustment so that soldiers next to an exploding vehicle would in fact sustain injuries.

[John Kettler]

Chops,

I take your point, but the ad copy seems to be talking about an explosion on the far side of an AFV behind which a soldier is sheltering, not being in the wrong place at the right time when a burning vehicle's contents start to explode.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Erik Springelkamp]

I don't think so John. Prior to this patch, vehicles would cook-off or be hit by rpg's, etc...and soldiers right next to the vehicles would not be scratched. So, I think they made an adjustment so that soldiers next to an exploding vehicle would in fact sustain injuries.

Yes, can confirm that. A section was seriously hurt when the tank next to their building cooked off and exploded, destroying the building in the process.