.50 cal vs helo's

Eddiereyes909 · Post by **Eddiereyes909** » 2009-03-18 01:57

It only takes 25 shots to bring down a chopper...

Edit: In PR that is.

aperson444 · Post by **aperson444** » 2009-03-18 01:58

Well, I've seen that. I believe it was Al-basrah, where a technical was on the corner, and somehow shot down the heli. I think this is realistic though. I mean, a few rounds from a 50 cal in the right place could definitely to some non-immediate (after like 20-50 rounds in the spot) damage right?

Post by **crazy11** » 2009-03-18 01:59

in PR Eddie...

I am pretty sure that if a pilot flew like how pilots fly in PR, they would get shot down.

Koroush47 · Post by **Koroush47** » 2009-03-18 02:14

'[SP-DEV wrote:creepin;966388']and then there's the question, how well is it possible to aim that **** heavy 50 cal at a rapid moving object? and then also hit? while moving?

or: how many choppers have been shot down by small arms fire up to 50 cal?

It's not.

I've been shot down flying away from muttrah city full speed over the water.

It's utter ****. Nobody can aim that well and shoot down a 650 kmh helicopter like 400 meters away! This ain't rambo.

ReadMenace · Post by **ReadMenace** » 2009-03-18 02:18

Here, here and here.

-REad

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2009-03-18 02:18

'[SP-DEV wrote:creepin;966378']I'm really curious,

have there been any cases reported where a 50 cal ,mounted on a sort of insurgent vehicle, made a helo crash?

In Vietnam? F*** yes. ZPU-2 and ZPU-4 were the Bogeyman for US helos. As for Iraq or Afghanistan I would say it is highly possible. Reports usually only state the general type of enemy fire, i.e. "small arms fire." Bear in mind that "small arms" is everything up to and including automatic grenade launchers; heavy machine-gun fire is certainly within that range.

IAJTHOMAS · Post by **IAJTHOMAS** » 2009-03-18 02:37

And there's the problem that PR can't simulate the times when one lucky bullet hits a critical part, or the other times when a chopper might get riddled with bullets but still be able to fly. You have to have some form of average damage that a chopper can take.

charliegrs · Post by **charliegrs** » 2009-03-18 02:54

considering just how large a 50 cal round is, and how much damage it can do to lightly armored targets, {especially with armor piercing and incendiary rounds} and how thin skinned choppers are {they do have to fly} id say it doesnt seem too unreasonable to think the 50 cals in PR are realistic more or less. i know in real life it really depends on where it gets hit, but i dont think that can be modelled with the bf2 engine. im actually under the impression that AK rounds should do more damage to the choppers, especially the little birds.

also keep in mind we used to arm fighter planes like the p51 mustang with browning machine guns in world war 2, and that was for the purpose of shooting down other planes. i cant imagine the skin of a ww2 plane is all that different from that of a modern chopper.

nick20404 · Post by **nick20404** » 2009-03-18 02:58

Unless you are flying like a noob or landing you have no excuse to be killed by a 50 cal in a chopper.

Btw all aircraft have light if any Armour so a 50cal would do major damage.

If you are gonna complain about unrealistic things complain about the fact you can hit a chopper with an RPG and it will keep on flying.

Post by **Rudd** » 2009-03-18 03:04

And there's the problem that PR can't simulate the times when one lucky bullet hits a critical part, or the other times when a chopper might get riddled with bullets but still be able to fly. You have to have some form of average damage that a chopper can take.

If I'm not mistaken, you can make hitting certain bits cause more damage, like a tank (front, side, rear)

Why not make the tail section, rear rotor, and engine areas cause loads of damage, but the rest not? If they fire at the main body rather than these vulnerable points they could kill the crew, so not only does it introduce skill, increase helo survivability, it also brings in a new tactical choice for the 50cal gunner.

R.J.Travis · Post by **R.J.Travis** » 2009-03-18 03:24

you could add a slow turret the way they are you can follow moving targets way to well if you made the 50cal turret heavy and slow would help alot.

Hoboknighter · Post by **Hoboknighter** » 2009-03-18 03:27

Well, the Blackhawks should be able to take mor than 25 rounds from a .50 cal considering how armored it is; The thing was built with armor in mind. AK fire shouldn't reall damage the Blackhawks anyways, except for chipping away over maybe several clips.

The little Birds and other helo's are a different story. Those things really should be downed that quickly considering how small they are.

waldo_ii · Post by **waldo_ii** » 2009-03-18 04:26

Hoboknighter wrote:Well, the Blackhawks should be able to take mor than 25 rounds from a .50 cal considering how armored it is; The thing was built with armor in mind. AK fire shouldn't reall damage the Blackhawks anyways, except for chipping away over maybe several clips.

The little Birds and other helo's are a different story. Those things really should be downed that quickly considering how small they are.

Blackhawks were not built to be armored. They were built to keep the crew and passengers safe in the event of a crash. There is a difference. It was built to absorb the impact against the terrain by transferring the force throughout the wreck. It was also designed not to twist or bend. It has a strong frame, protecting the crew and passengers.

The lightweight skin was not built to stop heavy projectiles traveling at one kilometer per second with 19,000 joules of energy. Nor was the engine. Or fuel tank.

charliegrs · Post by **charliegrs** » 2009-03-18 04:53

Hoboknighter wrote:Well, the Blackhawks should be able to take mor than 25 rounds from a .50 cal considering how armored it is; The thing was built with armor in mind. AK fire shouldn't reall damage the Blackhawks anyways, except for chipping away over maybe several clips.

The little Birds and other helo's are a different story. Those things really should be downed that quickly considering how small they are.

um how do you know how many rounds a blackhawk can withstand?

Solid Knight · Post by **Solid Knight** » 2009-03-18 05:01

charliegrs wrote:um how do you know how many rounds a blackhawk can withstand?

A BlackHawk can withstand an infinite number of hits from a .50 cal should the rounds all hit the same exact spot in the door.

Post by **Rudd** » 2009-03-18 05:08

Solid Knight wrote:A BlackHawk can withstand an infinite number of hits from a .50 cal should the rounds all hit the same exact spot.

well...what if the fuel/engine was hit?

Guys, I really do suggest if you are going to comment on how well armoured/not armoured the helos are IRL you back it up with some links or personal experience.

Solid Knight · Post by **Solid Knight** » 2009-03-18 05:19

Dr2B Rudd wrote:well...what if the fuel/engine was hit?

Guys, I really do suggest if you are going to comment on how well armoured/not armoured the helos are IRL you back it up with some links or personal experience.

I thought of that and went back and changed it. Though you don't need experience to know that if none of the rounds hit anything important that it will stay in flight.

Spaz · Post by **Spaz** » 2009-03-18 06:58

I talked to a Lynx pilot we all know and he said that a .50 will take down a heli in seconds.

.50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Re: .50 cal vs helo's