Why isnt the chinook armed?

[PLODDITHANLEY]

But the 'warm up' time would be a pain

[Bob of Mage]

This way we can have 6 ppl in transport roles, 1 person gunning and 1 flying making a total of 8.

Noting what has been done with the Merkava (the MG gunner doesn't need a Crewman kit unlike any other MBT), I don't think they will ever make the door gunner need a kit.

[USMCMIDN]

Noting what has been done with the Merkava (the MG gunner doesn't need a Crewman kit unlike any other MBT), I don't think they will ever make the door gunner need a kit.

I meant free up a slot in the helo by having the right and left guns crewed by one guy and being able to switch using the key pad like switching between weapons as a gunner for the AAV or something.

[Blazing]

Aww come on Rhino, you take all the fun out of it! Shooting from inside choppers is not all that effective and a bit of fun when you do it!

Same goes for door guns. However, I don't think using them to give troops you've just inserted some fire support is entirely unrealistic.

Stu.

lol mean like this?

http://youtu.be/dxCyCq74nyk
http://youtu.be/QTCIdbwNOIc
http://youtu.be/yBEtjRi_p9U

[SmoothIsFast6]

why can't we shoot no matter what we're doing? i know i can

[40mmrain]

1) I believe trans helis are used for trans as intended most of the time in PR. The community is ready to have the chinook armed without risk of gunship asset wasting
2) attacking enemies with a trans heli isnt an unrealistic situation, and it fits in pr just fine.

I support adding weapons to the chinook.

[rushn]

well not just chinook other helis need them too

[silderoy]

Well in reality hueys do have door guns, like the blackhawk have.
PS, why is there just 6 places in the back area of choppers? In reality the some choppers in the chinook class can carry up to 50 warriors, but in the game, 12 or at least 10 seats should be available in all heavy trans choppers (chinook, blackhawk, mi-17), and 6 in light trans choppers (Huey, linx)

[Rhino]

PS, why is there just 6 places in the back area of choppers? In reality the some choppers in the chinook class can carry up to 50 warriors, but in the game, 12 or at least 10 seats should be available in all heavy trans choppers (chinook, blackhawk, mi-17), and 6 in light trans choppers (Huey, linx)

Because the BF2 engine can not support over 8 seats in a single vehicle....

[tlindy]

In theatre if our aircraft dont have two guns (on Blackhawks) they wont leave the traffic pattern. I had several aircraft that had broken locking pins and we had to constantly switch mounts for missions (until we could get the facilities to fabricate some new ones, and can cause some real problems when you have 8-10 ship missions and only 7 aircraft with FMC mounts) On chinooks they wont fly without weapons as well, and all had a 240 on the ramp, it isnt there to make the aircraft into a attack model but to defend itself. Now this is only US Army aircraft I have no idea how other branches of service or other nations Armies regulate this.

And as well they should take the minis off the 60's and put 240s on them, IRL the only Army units to use mini guns are the 160th SOAR and they dont support regular Army units (like the ones in PR) so make it a little more realistic.

[mattnett1]

Edit... read the post wrong...

I think they should add an automatic grenade launcher, i know that a good amount of chinnoks in reality have them. but still this would be a OK idea

[badmojo420]

I think a big problem with adding door guns to the helicopters is the lack of fear helicopter pilots in PR have towards small arms fire. Meaning, a black hawk can circle a cache with 10+ guys firing their AK's at the black hawk, and the helicopter doesn't have to run away or even avoid the fire. Weather or not this was intended by the DEVs, the players have learned where the system is weak and they constantly exploit it. Adding more helicopters with weapons will result in more transportation helicopters taking an offensive role.

And then there's the problem with 2 stinger missiles hitting a black hawk and it just fly's away.

So maybe we should focus on giving the transport helicopters realistic stats before we mount weapons on them?

[Eddie Baker]

And as well they should take the minis off the 60's and put 240s on them, IRL the only Army units to use mini guns are the 160th SOAR and they dont support regular Army units (like the ones in PR) so make it a little more realistic.

We know, and we are in the process of doing that.

I think they should add an automatic grenade launcher, i know that a good amount of chinnoks in reality have them. but still this would be a OK idea

Source? To my knowledge there hasn't been an AGL mounted on a Chinook since the ACH-47As in Vietnam (of which there were only 4-6), and those were M75s in nose turrets. The US does not use a door or ramp mount for the Mk-19 for any of its helicopters. I have only heard of Colombia trying it on their Bell 212s. Lower muzzle velocity (compared to medium or heavy machine-guns and cannons) combined with rotor down-wash is not conducive to accuracy.

[doop-de-doo]

-delete please-

[tlindy]

We know, and we are in the process of doing that.



Source? To my knowledge there hasn't been an AGL mounted on a Chinook since the ACH-47As in Vietnam (of which there were only 4-6), and those were M75s in nose turrets. The US does not use a door or ramp mount for the Mk-19 for any of its helicopters. I have only heard of Colombia trying it on their Bell 212s. Lower muzzle velocity (compared to medium or heavy machine-guns and cannons) combined with rotor down-wash is not conducive to accuracy.

I have never seen a Mk19 mounted on a US Aircraft (other than the above mentioned 47 and some UH1s with the same mount, both Vietnam era aircraft) and I have been in Army Aviation for 18 years now

[niho]

I have never seen a Mk19 mounted on a US Aircraft (other than the above mentioned 47 and some UH1s with the same mount, both Vietnam era aircraft) and I have been in Army Aviation for 18 years now

Would be far to strong anyway, so no need for discussion.

[mattnett1]

Well, I think this should NOT be armed. That would make it overpowered. I know that in real life they do use Mini-Guns. But sometimes no.

[Archosaurus]

Well, I think this should NOT be armed. That would make it overpowered. I know that in real life they do use Mini-Guns. But sometimes no.

I know this guy is banned but what the hell are you on?

I have never seen/heard of a Chinook being used with M134s, let alone MK19s.

[Stealthgato]

I have never seen/heard of a Chinook being used with M134s

Probably spec ops, but still:

http://operatorchan.org/v/arch/src/v478 ... ectric.jpg

[Eddie Baker]

I have never seen/heard of a Chinook being used with M134s.

Probably spec ops, but still:

http://operatorchan.org/v/arch/src/v...20Electric.jpg

That's a British RAF gunner. M134 is standard on their Chinooks.





Interestingly, they use an M60D as a ramp gun instead of an FN MAG GPMG variant; not sure why. Can any RAF guys shed light on that?

In the US Army they're only on 160th SOAR's MH-47s (like the one in Stealthgato's lower pic), and I haven't heard of any exceptions. Of course, their MH-47s additionally mount M240s in both rear windows and on the ramp. All of the "Big Army" Chinooks I have seen photos of just mount three M240Ds or Hs (front, side-doors/windows and ramp).