Increase tank vs. jet survivability

Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.
2481
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-05-12 16:46

Post by 2481 »

Gentlemen,

I usually do not participate in an academic debate such as this, but there is so much incorrect information about real-life systems and how they work that I feel compelled to straighten out few of them:
Kruder wrote:I think u got it wrong way,there is no locking system against ground vehicles in present warfare,if its not emitting radar waves(except SAM vehicles in PR)
Wrong. For example Longbow's MW radar system can detect even stationary vehicle up to 6km away (depending on surrounding/masking terrain of course), and a moving target up to 8km away. It can actually even "categorize" the target type roughly (wheeled, tracked etc.) based on its computer's "image libary". It can, after detection hand over the information to the HF MMW missile.

The Longbow fire control radar also incorporates an integrated radar frequency interferometer for passive location and identification of radar-emitting threats. ( - ArmyTechnology.com)

The main passive detection device for non-radar emitting targets is still the FLIR/TADS pod on the nose of Apache - which relies on targets IR signature (heat). Autotracking/lock-on is achieved through image-processing (contrast). Ranging is done with laser/radar.

http://www.jolly-rogers.com/airpower/ah-64d/64d-av.htm

---
Outlawz wrote:Is A10s cannon penetrating the T90 even realistic? Someone said, it isn't and the bullets don't penetrate the hull.

Also, the A10 should have a top speed of 800-900, not 1300
And another issue would be, when you go on higher attitudes, the jet speed increases :?

GAU-8's true armor penetration potential is probably classified. Majority of the open sources state it's potential AP capability at about 70mm RHA at 500 meters. Intrestingly, the GAU-8's round is based on Oerlikon's 30x173mm rounds - which is stated to have AP penetration of 63mm at 1km with L14A3 tungsten APDS! So actual AP pentration with depleted uranium penetrators is up to anyone's educated quess...

In any case - it will most likely not penetrate front armor of an modern tank, but a volume of hits would certainly cause damage to its optical/sensory systems.
Things get nasty once you hit the MBT's rear or top-armor. These areas are lightly armored, thus penetration is very probable. Reactive armor (explosives) can increase the chance of survival, but high volume of fire - and hits - would "blow off" reactive tiles essentially "peeling" off the reactive armor, leaving the (main) armor exposed for the consecutive hits (either due good, long burst - or second pass of the aircraft).

As for the speed part: I've taken SuperCobra (in game with Emnyron :grin: ) up to 1400km/h in a steep dive - that's supersonic, Mach 1.14!!! - IRL the chopper would've disintegrated long before that - So you can kiss those numbers goodbye, they do not present the actual velocity in game!

As for the missiles:

The Hellfire missiles comes in two different versions:

- The laser guided, which will seek to a target illuminated by a coded laser. If the target is "lased" by the chopper itself, the weapons officer view the target through TADS - placing his crosshairs on it and tracking the target untill the impact. Auto-tracking/lock-on is normally used.

- Millimeter-wave guided version, which receives it's target data from the Longbow radar. Guidance to selected target is highly automated.

Track-via-missile systems (like in PR) are not AFAIK generally used for helicopters. Although several proposals for fiber-optic missile system do exist. (AGM-65K/D series "Maverick" has TV/IIR seeker head, but is essentially a fire-and-forget missile, thus it does not count.)

Even the TOW uses SACLOS - so from operators perspective, all he has to do is to "hold" the crosshair on the target center to attain a hit - in theory at least :) .

And finally:

Yes - modern MBT's main cannon, with it's highly sophisticated fire-control system and TIS is very capable of hitting a slow, low-flying helicopter at ranges up to 2km. There's even rounds developed to do exactly that with proximity fuses (or take Israeli LAHAT-round). Even then, helicopter still holds tremendous advantage against MBT, if deployed correctly.


I trust you find this in order,

MOB-24

P.S. sorry about the massive posting, but I had to get this off my chest :)
Last edited by 2481 on 2007-09-12 21:39, edited 1 time in total.
77SiCaRiO77
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 4982
Joined: 2006-05-17 17:44

Post by 77SiCaRiO77 »

also, the AT-11 in the t90s can defead a low flying UFO at 5000 m :)
Teek
Posts: 3162
Joined: 2006-12-23 02:45

Post by Teek »

This thread was supposed to be about jet VS tanks, not heli vs Tanks which is a even match with competent people.
Image
Kruder
Posts: 803
Joined: 2007-04-05 10:26

Post by Kruder »

@2481 an informative post,however i based my assumptions on a-10 cockpit videos i watched(the one with 2 a-10s strafe an english column and kill 1 wound 1 british soldier)
I'll post the link if i have time...
El_Vikingo
Posts: 4877
Joined: 2006-11-27 01:50

Post by El_Vikingo »

Kruder wrote:@2481 an informative post,however i based my assumptions on a-10 cockpit videos i watched(the one with 2 a-10s strafe an english column and kill 1 wound 1 british soldier)
I'll post the link if i have time...
So this thread is based on youtube, worldguns and wikipedia?
Image

If you are reading this dont stop, cause if you do, I'll kick you in the balls.
WNxLT7
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-03-27 13:59

Post by WNxLT7 »

Heh!
Something needs to be done about chopper vs Tank survivability.
At no recorded point in military history has an MBT successfully engaged an attack helicopter, yet this bizzle is happening all the time, in game.
I can only speculate that the ability to shoot down choppers with an 120mm gun comes from the fact that the gunner's turret is controlled by the mouse.
What would make tanking an UBER and slightly more realistic experience, in my eyes, would be controlling that turret via the directional arrows or W,A,S,D keys. Then, it'd require skill to do, as apposed to being 'the juggernaut, *****'. Its kinna like wearing a giant mech-combat suit. Its just not different from firing a rifle in game, which im sure IRL the two are very different.

...mongol...
best idea evar!
Sabre_tooth_tigger
Posts: 1922
Joined: 2007-06-01 20:14

Post by Sabre_tooth_tigger »

Wouldnt be a bad idea to test out tbh

If you edit controls.con in your my documents/bf2 dir then you can probably allready see how this would be.

Ive hooked up a ps2 pad and done something similar in the past, ps2 pad is much harder to use then a mouse :)
Farks
Posts: 2069
Joined: 2007-01-20 00:08

Post by Farks »

Quick question I dont wanna start a new thread about:

Will the AA- vehichles have seperated gunner and driver- positions in 0.7?
jerkzilla
Posts: 1615
Joined: 2007-03-07 12:04

Post by jerkzilla »

Oh, I've just thought a problem with mongol's idea.
All real modern MBTs have gun stabilizers which undoubtedly make a huge difference while moving.That, to everyone's knowledge, isn't in game and the movement keys obviously aren't as sensitive as the mouse (hence the "shooting down choppers" problem) but the tank is a completely mobile unit.
It's going to be hugely difficult to control the gun while on the move.
On one hand, only the players that can actually use this setup will bother trying, which is good, but it may also promote lone wolfs.
EDIT: I just remembered that in another thread, a DEV, who's name I sadly can't remember, said something about trying to lower the turret's rotation speed or something along those lines.
This signature is here due to lack of imagination.
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 Suggestions”