a10 thunderbolt tank killer

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-23 08:49

I would like this plane to be added to some big desert maps. For bombing tanks. Here is a cool picture of it

Maj.b00bz · Post by **Maj.b00bz** » 2005-11-23 09:03

You can have that when I get some decent mobile or MANPAD AA defense. Right now the AA effectiveness is almost nothing compared to RL. Planes rule, even in this mod. Not to mention vanilla BF2.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-23 09:13

The aa in this mod is killer. Like 4 hits your dead. Also again im postive this plane will make it into this mod. How cant it??

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2005-11-23 10:12

Heydude235 wrote:The aa in this mod is killer. Like 4 hits your dead. Also again im postive this plane will make it into this mod. How cant it??

Assuming it hits, which is still questionable. Flying a helo, I still suffer more from machineguns than AA missiles. And flying a plane, I dont suffer at all (and I'm an awfull pilot with like 10 minutes of flying time out of the 80+ hours played BF2).

Doedel · Post by **Doedel** » 2005-11-23 10:30

Remember, Stingers and SA-7's are meant really for low-flying slow-moving aircraft and helicopters, and have relatively short range. Although I do agree, you can't shoot a ****ing thing down with the AA in BF2, but I do have to say, you shouldn't. However I will also say that BECAUSE you shouldn't be able to shoot a MiG-29 at full speed with a Stinger, THEY SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED MORE LONG-RANGE ANTI-JET MISSILES LIKE RAPIERS/PATRIOTS ETC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I honestly don't see a problem with keeping Stingers the way they are (except, of course, making them man portable), except maybe make them a bit more effective vs. choppers. But please for the love of God include some heavier, more capable AA, especially on carriers and main bases. IMO every main base on large maps with jets should have some sort of heavy-duty SAM site.

EDIT: I would effin' love to see the A-10. That thing was an utter, utter beast in DC and I would love to go around chewing up things with 30mm DU miniguns.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-23 12:26

For real i love that plane. It owned tanks also i was in this server today in pr mod. I was in this plane with 2 seats i was in the 2nd one. You can like lockon stuff and tanks on the ground. I would have to say it was so fun. Just like in tho videos i see with the screen with the crosshair in the middle.

Maj.b00bz · Post by **Maj.b00bz** » 2005-11-23 13:21

Doedel wrote:Remember, Stingers and SA-7's are meant really for low-flying slow-moving aircraft and helicopters, and have relatively short range.

But that's exactly what you have in this mod. Without starting up an old discussion about whether planes should be in this mod or not, I would rather at this point be able to shoot them down. Or at least fear flying low. We all know the jets in this game fly at unrealistically slow speeds and low altitudes. Since there seems to be no real plan to remove them. Give the ground troops a chance to fend them off somehow. I really don't want to see a plane that is even tougher to shoot down being added before we have a realistic (sort of) capability to shoot down what we are up against now.

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-23 14:24

Strela's are your friend! Those things are great in reality and very effective against choppers and slow low flyers (like the A-10, although they take quite a beating being flying tanks and all). Another plus is flares won't work against them haha! They're radar guided, so no more of that 99% effective flare counter-meassure ****. Maybe add chaff CM's too? But give the pilots no indication of what has a lock on them so they'll either have to be lucky or have actually seen what/who is aiming at them, other wise they're up **** creek without a paddle.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-11-23 17:01

OK guys use the search feature this is like the 4th A-10/SU-37 thread so lets not keep making these

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-23 17:46

Do any Middle Eastern militaries use the Shilka? If so, add that for AA defense, but program it so the guns can't go below a certain angle. I don't want them used against tanks and ****.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-11-23 17:52

i believe they do, and also they can/have been used against infantry, if you read Generation Kill it talks about a moment when the Iraqi's tried to use it against Marine Infantry

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-23 17:56

I thought they were using a ZPU4 in that scene, not a ZSU

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2005-11-23 17:56

Why not? ZSU-23's have a very high elevation and a negative depression. The Russians used them to clear out sniper, MG, AT nests in highrises or in basements in Grozny. Quad .50 cal AA guns were used quite a lot against North Korean waves during Korea too. Then they'll have the same problem they had in DC where you couldn't hit low flying aircraft while you got strafed.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-11-23 17:56

eahter way its fairly common for an AA piece like a shilka to be pointed down and fired at infantry

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-23 18:05

Yeah, but they would completely obliterate infantry and rule the battlefield in Project Reality

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2005-11-23 18:11

Considering how crappy their armor is and the fact that shells of any caliber can't tear through solid walls, makes they very vulnerable to enemy fire.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-23 18:14

well, I'm basing my experiences off Operation Flashpoint. The Shilka in that game was a real killer

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-11-23 18:30

as it could be in DC, however it didnt dominate (in most maps) it did however on some occasions

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-11-23 20:14

Cerberus wrote:Do any Middle Eastern militaries use the Shilka? If so, add that for AA defense, but program it so the guns can't go below a certain angle. I don't want them used against tanks and ****.

Yes, quite a few of them (Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and even Israel) use the ZSU-23-4. Limiting the depression like that would not be realistic, and the round used is quite capable of taking on armor. It is a larger cartridge (23 x 152mm) than used in Former Soviet 23mm aircraft cannons (23 x 115mm).

And as Tacamo said, the armor is poor, even compared to most APCs.

Doedel · Post by **Doedel** » 2005-11-24 12:29

Yeah, like the other guy said... Anti-aircraft are miserably proficient at pouring unimaginable amounts of death upon infantry but their armour is piss weak, and would/should be taken out by little more than an RPG, or even a grenade. I know the Shilka is based on the T-55 which is roughly half a century old. Also, versions of the Tanguska are truck-mounted with NO armour. The American Vulcan-mount-on-an-M113-APC is open-topped meaning that gunner can be sniped or taken out with a grenade. And towable anti-aircraft guns are no different than standing there, as the crew can be sniped and hit by any small arms fire coming their way. I think as long as you make anti-aircraft guns realistically weak and susceptible to destruction as they should you won't see much domination by them, as a single rocket or a sniper will take one out.

a10 thunderbolt tank killer

Do you think it's a good idea to add the a-10 in pr

a10 thunderbolt tank killer