Attack Helicopters too underpowered

[lukeyu2005]

Flying high maybe good for some instances like anti chopper. But the whole bobbing up and down thing is supposed to be done at a distance what are the chances of being hit by an HAT if you are like 1000 meters away. Bobbing up and down is by far the best tank killing tactic assuming you keep your distance. Think of them as portable artillery. You don't use a mortar on a target close up. So you shouldn't hover around a unsafe area. Flying super high will just get you shot down. Because to get away you need to fly all the way across the sky. While in bobbing up and down a quick tap on S is all you need.

Gunships are like snipers.
Great at stealth
Great at distance
**** up close and personal.
If you actually try some of these real life tactics and use them correctly at the correct time, they are pretty damn effective and you will live a hell of a lot longer.

[Celestial1]

Scharf knows what hes talking about:

This video shows me a lot of helicopter kills. It certainly doesn't show the amount of time it took for him to go find those helicopters. More often than not it can take upwards of 5 minutes for two helicopters to find each other, it usually being luck of the draw to who spots who first, or who gets a solid hit with their missiles. And then it can take the same amount of time to find the other, at which point the helicopters have 5-10 minutes of actual, dedicated CAS if they were lucky enough to keep a helicopter during the "Hunt". Then as soon as one of the enemy attack helicopters respawn, they go back into hunting mode. And then it comes down to how well the inf SLs calling in the attacks report enemy AA as well, lest the only remaining helicopter gets shot down leaving both sides without any CAS.

What he means is taking down the enemy air followed by actual CAS. But flying low on a game which is as random as this is suicide.

No, it's not.

Look at Kashan for example, tanks flanking is incredibly common so flying low and hovering behind a hill waiting for something is an idiotic idea.

Well, there's your problem.

While Duke may have said it is realistic, its a silly tactic in PR. Popping out to scan is what gets you shot down by a HAT.

No, it's not. Hovering is what gets you shot down by a HAT. Regardless of altitude. Bobbing should expose you a lot less than an attack dive from 1000 alt.

AA is such a joke in PR that its best allocation is as Anti Infantry (talking about the Patriot here), its honestly more of a novelty especially on Kashan when its being soloed to arbitrary spots on the map.

And again, no, it's not, when it's actually used in a useful manner.
When's the last time you heard someone report AA in the target's area and the pilot go "alright, awesome!" (in a non-sarcastic manner)? AA is the only thing that keeps helicopters out of the area; there is no target besides anti-air that makes a pilot make a second thought in PR.

Fighting against an enemy attack helicopter head on is a flawed concept. Always flying high is a flawed concept. Flying low has the potential to be both more realistic and more effective in both keeping the helicopter alive and engaging ground targets more effectively. You're better protected from AA, you're better protected from enemy AT, and if done correctly, and no more vulnerable against enemy armor.

When's the last time you saw a Kiowa/Littlebird fly above the clouds? They can kill enemy attack helicopters too; but they're much better suited to ground attack, so they generally fly low to avoid running into the enemy attack helicopter. Attack helicopters are better suited to ground attack as well, but since they have AA missiles pilots feel the need to fight enemy attack helicopters head on. Ground-to-Air AA is more effective than it has been in a long time, too.

AA is much better suited for dealing with the enemy attack helicopters. The lock tone itself gets pilots blood pumping and their craft retreating. Even a handheld AA device can take out the helicopter on it's lonesome now if it gets a solid hit. It's also harder for the enemy helicopter to spot on it's way in (it's much more difficult to find a guy with a tube than an enemy helicopter) and, if it's portable, can hide once the helicopter crew is aware of it's presence.




If you fly primarily for ground attack, have supporting AA devices, and cooperative inf SLs, you'll be so much more effective in the CAS role for your team, and you'll lure the enemy helicopters to come down from the clouds, and you can lead them right into friendly AA, making the fight a lot more in your favor. Or they can stay up in the clouds all game, while you get work done on the enemy team.

Flying high has it's place. "Always" is not that place, for sure.

I've been on both the giving and receiving end of a low flying pilot on several occasions. As both regular infantry and anti-air rifleman, I have been much more frustrated by bobbing helicopters than any high-flier, because they're much more difficult to fight; anti-air doesn't have time to lock, AT doesn't have time to reach them, and they can fire off a snapshot hellfire that will probably do a ton more damage than my missile hitting a hill.

[Alex6714]

I think it depends one the map and the team to be honest, but flying low most of the time is asking for it. If everyone did it might be fine, but I can garrantee as soon as a good enemy team gets wind of your presence you will have the enemy heli come out of nowhere from above and there is nothing you can do due to the physics. At the moment the guy at the highest altitude has the advantage, because if you pitch up from a lower alt to engage, you will not be able to hold it and do a random spin. Also, your gunner can?t see anything.

If I could use my range advantage then flying low would be much more viable, but when a tank or anything has a better range, it doesn?t work nearly as well.

Also, attacking from high gives more flare time (flares don?t hit the ground as soon and provide more cover), higher escape speed, more visibility of ground threats in cover and more reaction time to fired AA missiles.

One of the things that makes flying high a better option is the acceleration in pitch, when you pitch down and dive, you accelerate very fast to a very high speed which is not really realistic, I am fixing this with new helicopter physics a bit so if used, you would no longer be able to run away so fast, and higher up would be more vulnerable when spotted.

Until flying gives the range advantage its deserved, it can?t be the preferred tactic except in few situations.

This is different on maps without enemy attack helicopters of course, on kokan with the kiowa or muttrah with the cobra flying low can be great, trees and buildings break lock and line of sight, identifying targets is easier, and no worry of something coming from the heavens at mach 3 to wipe you out.

Id love to be able to use realistic tactics more, and I have a few ideas, but the main problem is the view distance which really can?t be solved easily.

[PatrickLA_CA]

Here is my opinion on attack helicopters and CAS in general:
I too think that they are a little bit underpowered but lets leave that asside;
First a question:
Do you squad leaders know why the officer kit is and why it has a GLTD in it?
If squad leaders stick to their favourite officer kit and laze targets that threaten them, the Pilot will be very glad to help them.
The LAZES are there to point out the target, not always to shoot an LT on it, that is why you can laze for cannon,missiles,rockets,bombs, and the pilots shouldnt stay up in the sky and SEARCH for their targets, they should rely on the infantry and their spotter. After the spotter (or squad in danger) lazes everrything they see (incl. inf,armor,fortifications) the pilot asks or checks the screen to see did they requested cannon or LGM, flyes relatively or very high and dives on the target on maps with bad natural cover (like kashan) on maps like muttrah you can go behind mountains or buildings.
IRL a tank is no match to an apache but in PR, its sometimes more powerful than it, which is also up to the pilot but also up to the game !
If you rely on spotters and infantry, then you shouldnt be staying up in the skies unless you want to bring down the enemy CAS!

[Zoddom]

hmm... i dont agree to flying low on muttrah:
muttrah is a bad example for flying low, cause if you are hovering and bobbing up behind buildings, you are not high enough to look behind, between or even on top of other buildings. flying behind the mountains is imo the best way on muttrah. you are at a good altitue and have a nice field of view, you can observe the streets in north city and watch the rooftops of the buildings around the flag. when flying low your field of view is not big enough to let you enough time to react on anything.
edit: you dont have to fly that low to identify your target.
what i said before, that flying high makes identifying targets very hard, wasnt meant that you have to identify youre target friendly or enemy. you dont need to identify it by visual, therefore youve got a map and if youre lucky a mumble sql radio or a commander, but only to identify IF its a target or not, whats very hard when flying very high, cause you cant see if its just a dead one or even only a bush.


but i fully agree to celestial and masaq, although it might be veery unlikely to see each AAA leaving your main :/!

@scharf:
i see you dont get the point.
yeah perhaps youre right, i wont live longer than 10 minutes, BUT IN THESE 10 MINUTES i can do much more for the team than you could.

[Jaymz]

Thats why this tactic works IRL. If you could somehow implement it in PR it would make low flying a viable method to engage targets.

You're blending an offshoot of one technique back into the original here.

At the end of what I quoted, it talks about how an observer can lase targets (much like in PR) except a lased target irl can be engaged while the helo is in hiding because the missile will automatically traverse terrain and obstacles to get there. This might be possible to do in PR, would need investigation.

What I quoted was specifically regarding "bob-up, pop-sideways" which works very well with click-to-target missiles in-game.

[Zoddom]

You're blending an offshoot of one technique back into the original here.

At the end of what I quoted, it talks about how an observer can lase targets (much like in PR) except a lased target irl can be engaged while the helo is in hiding because the missile will automatically traverse terrain and obstacles to get there. This might be possible to do in PR, would need investigation.

What I quoted was specifically regarding "bob-up, pop-sideways" which works very well with click-to-target missiles in-game.

hm :/ doesnt there have to be a visual lock on the lase at the moment you fire the missile? i mean, hellfires are climbing after launch but they are no cruise-missiles

[Celestial1]

I think it depends one the map and the team to be honest, but flying low most of the time is asking for it. If everyone did it might be fine, but I can garrantee as soon as a good enemy team gets wind of your presence you will have the enemy heli come out of nowhere from above and there is nothing you can do due to the physics. At the moment the guy at the highest altitude has the advantage, because if you pitch up from a lower alt to engage, you will not be able to hold it and do a random spin. Also, your gunner can?t see anything.

And there's ways to counter this and actually put yourself in the advantage.
First off, your team should get an AAV running, and inf squads should really consider picking up Anti-Air weaponry if they will be in an area that the enemy helicopter could dive to.
Secondly, when being engaged from above a big flaw in their attack pattern is that they dive so steeply that it becomes far too difficult to track targets underneath you, meaning they have three options: they can continue to try to track you, putting them more and more in risk of cutting it close and putting themselves below you as they disengage; they can try to continue on their path and turn when they reach a more level point; or they can slow down, turn, and dive again in an attempt to be again on your six.

For both situations 1 and 2, you can turn around and gain altitude very quickly, leaving yourself at a slightly higher altitude, giving you the advantage of having better mobility and them being directly in your firing area, while not being so high that they can pull the same trick on you. For situation 3, if you can spot it beforehand, you can continue to pull underneath them until they put themselves into situation 1 or 2.

That combined with any friendly AA that can engage the enemy helicopter when they first dive in, or if the enemy helicopter is far enough away from your own, and you'll be putting yourself in an extremely advantageous position.

Also, attacking from high gives more flare time (flares don?t hit the ground as soon and provide more cover), higher escape speed, more visibility of ground threats in cover and more reaction time to fired AA missiles.

Besides a higher escape speed, these are all situational in their impact. If the low flying helicopter has some speed (as it should if flying low) and a little bit of altitude, their flares hold most of the same effectiveness (flare barrages tend to lose their effectiveness once they disperse far enough) for their initial deployment. They can also, depending of the angle of the helicopters to one another, provide a higher spread for the first few seconds of deployment, leading to the AA missile being moved further from the helicopter.
Reaction time to AA missiles is based on their location relative to the helicopter; this argument only flies when the AA is within 300m of both helicopters. The low flying helicopter also gets the benefit of terrain cover from any AA locking on in the first place, as well as incoming AA smacking right into terrain when the helicopter moves back behind cover.

One of the things that makes flying high a better option is the acceleration in pitch, when you pitch down and dive, you accelerate very fast to a very high speed which is not really realistic, I am fixing this with new helicopter physics a bit so if used, you would no longer be able to run away so fast, and higher up would be more vulnerable when spotted.

Certainly can't disagree. It's the one advantage that doesn't have a strong counter, but in the end it only affects the fight if the low flying helicopter either doesn't see them and continues on, or attempts to flee directly into the path of the attacking helicopter's firing area.

Until flying gives the range advantage its deserved, it can?t be the preferred tactic except in few situations.

I respectfully disagree. While the range advantage would certainly help, but I believe that this use of attack helicopters is already quite viable and in many cases significantly more effective than traditional use.




There's merits to both tactics, imo, and besides the waiting game there's not anything inheritly "wrong" about flying high. I just feel that, while more difficult to be successful while flying low, it is a lot more effective in fufilling the Attack Helicopter's role on the battlefield.

[Alex6714]

hm :/ doesnt there have to be a visual lock on the lase at the moment you fire the missile? i mean, hellfires are climbing after launch but they are no cruise-missiles

I think it depends on the guidance method, hellfires can be laser or radar guided at least iirc, and not always is los necessary.

This can be done in game, and wouldn?t be too unreliable due to the low amount of lases, but isn?t really ideal. Think of the old jet bombs, just drop and it finds a target, be that target the lase you want or not.

[scharf]

@scharf:
i see you dont get the point.
yeah perhaps youre right, i wont live longer than 10 minutes, BUT IN THESE 10 MINUTES i can do much more for the team than you could.

Ye except you wouldnt :/

And i could do alot more for the team in the time your standing on the pad waiting for your heli after getting smashed

[Psyrus]

Ye except you wouldnt :/

And i could do alot more for the team in the time your standing on the pad waiting for your heli after getting smashed

As someone who has been on the spotting and receiving end of Fall.au's fire [scharf?], I'll have to disagree with you as well Zoddom

[Solid Knight]

A long time ago I posed a question: do you want to model the role of an asset or do you want to model its functions? The BF2 often makes you choose between the two.

[scharf]

@scharf:
i see you dont get the point.
yeah perhaps youre right, i wont live longer than 10 minutes, BUT IN THESE 10 MINUTES i can do much more for the team than you could.

My proper reply... I dont see why you wouldnt want to go to 1500 and do a few maps of the lap before engaging ground targets. i find it fairly selfish that you wouldnt try to help the team by shooting down the enemys CAS. For example on Iron Eagle if you dont go to 1500 hunting the havocs your team is screwed because of the complete lack of AA.

sorry but any good heli crewr will hunt down the enemy CAS First for 20 minutes of peace

and i dont rate a heli by its kills but by its deaths or there lack of, when i fly my motto is to be there for a Long time not a good time

[EmBra]

I have no evidence of this but I feel like the a-choppahs can take less damage then transport helis.

I almost always fail to shoot down a flying huey, they often need 2 stinger missiles to down with AA, but a flying a-choppah is much easier and only needs 1 stinger missile to kill.

One time I even got a direct hit on a blackhawk, going in for a landing, with a stinger missile and it could continue to drop of it's passengers and move back to main for repairs without breaking a sweat. Had it been an Apache or Havoc it would have died instantly.

Is it realistic that a-choppahs can take less incoming fire than a transport helicopter?

[scharf]

i geuss whatever is shooting at them deals the same damage but blackhawks have more HP and can take more

[Hunt3r]

IRL the Apaches take more damage than transport helos and still make it back home.

[lukeyu2005]

Transport helicopters aren't packed full of explosives and ammunitions waiting to go off the moment they get hit gunships are. So that could explain it.
And if you look at an Apache every part is vital for the helicopter's ability to fly look at the Mi-8 if you shoot a big hole in the side it should still be structurally fine as long as the engines are still working. So it makes sense that gunships are weaker than transports.

[BrownBadger]

My proper reply... I dont see why you wouldnt want to go to 1500 and do a few maps of the lap before engaging ground targets. i find it fairly selfish that you wouldnt try to help the team by shooting down the enemys CAS. For example on Iron Eagle if you dont go to 1500 hunting the havocs your team is screwed because of the complete lack of AA.

sorry but any good heli crewr will hunt down the enemy CAS First for 20 minutes of peace

and i dont rate a heli by its kills but by its deaths or there lack of, when i fly my motto is to be there for a Long time not a good time

You're at 1500 looking for us. We're killing your tanks, who's being selfish?

[Hunt3r]

You're at 1500 looking for us. We're killing your tanks, who's being selfish?

Nevermind that you don't need to confess, we gon' find you, and shoot you down with 120mm sabot.

[BrownBadger]

Nevermind that you don't need to confess, we gon' find you, and shoot you down with 120mm sabot.

I never said I was a preacher of low flying, only against refusing CAS in the clouds.