Solution to the HAT-problem (guided AA-weapon)

[McBumLuv]

Well, since we're straying off topic, why doesn't each chopper have it's own respective Rocket count and specifications?

Though, otherwise, on topic, will the HAT get their distance limits applied ever? That might help as well, though they'd still be within range of view distance of a helicopter on some maps (Karbala and Muttrah, I'm looking at you )

[Redamare]

Alls fair in fake online war i think If they can hit you its cuz ur not going fast enough

[Eddie Baker]

You are wrong, it will solve the very problem this thread is highlighting.

Regarding the unrealistic thing you refer to.
During the ready time they do not have to expose themselves. As it is in PR today, they can lay flat on the ground behind a ridge while the weapon is being ready to fire. Then they just stand up quick, bring up the scope and fire and you got your kill in just a few seconds

I understand that English is not your first language, but please read again:

Eddie Baker;970571']Yes, they already have to expose themselves to keep the sight on the target, but they also have a delay time to ready the weapon, during which they can also be spotted and dealt with.

I never said you wouldn't have to look for them while they were readying the weapon. Situational awareness is your friend, both on this forum, and in the game. You should be looking for threats behind corners and ridges.

With regards to back-blast and elevation of the launcher, with a SACLOS missile, you don't have to point the crosshair directly to the elevation of your target (though it is preferable). You can launch off of center and steer the missile into the target if you're fast enough/the target is far enough away.

As to the realism of gunners engaging helicopters with anti-armor weapons

4-11. HELICOPTER ENGAGEMENT
Enemy armor is the primary threat to friendly ground forces employed in forward areas. The primary mission of the ITAS is the destruction of these tanks at the greatest possible range. However, ITAS gunners can also successfully engage attacking enemy helicopters, which are a significant threat to ground forces. Engaging helicopters with the ITAS should be considered primarily as a means of self-defense. ITAS crews should not consider helicopters as a routine target of opportunity, but should leave them to conventional ADA assets when possible. Launch warning receiver technology available worldwide makes engagement of rotary-wing aircraft potentially a dangerous action.
a.
ITAS positions are selected to cover armor avenues of approach, but these long-range fields of fire also facilitate the engagement of aircraft. The section leader’s, squad leader’s, and crew’s observation from these positions can provide the early warning required to successfully engage aircraft.
b.
The engagement of attacking helicopters should be done by ITAS sections, not individual weapon systems. ITAS sections should automatically engage helicopters that are attacking their positions. If one squad in a section is being attacked by a helicopter, the other squad should engage the helicopter while the first squad seeks cover. ITAS crews and sections should be trained to automatically respond to helicopter attacks in this manner.

c. Beyond 1,700 meters, the 25-mm uses too much ammunition for each kill. Thus, the crew uses the TOW weapon system against stationary, slow moving (up to 50 MPH) aerial targets between 1,700 and 2,000 meters. Nevertheless, the gunner should use the TOW against helicopters only when necessary.

Hovering Helicopter
4-97. To ensure an effective engagement, select the direct attack mode only.
Frontal Target
4-98. Adjust the track gates so that they surround only the nose of the fuselage (Figure 4-27). Any appendages (such as armaments, wings, rotor, and so forth) should be ignored.

4-99. Adjust the track gates to surround the passenger/engine compartment or main body (for those helicopters without a passenger compartment) (Figure 4-98]. Any appendages—such as the cockpit, tail boom, rotor, and so forth—are ignored.

[CAS_117]

FAS: Hydra-70

M229 HE

The M229 HE Warhead is an elongated version of the M151 Warhead and is commonly referred to as the "17 Pounder" warhead. The M229 HE warhead is currently in the inventory. It was designed and developed to increase the lethality and destructiveness of the 10 pound high explosive warhead. The total weight of the loaded, unfuzed warhead is 16.1 pounds (7.3 kg) [other sources report an unfuzed weight of 16.4 pounds] of which 4.8 pounds (2.18 kg) is composite B-4 HE. Upon detonation, the warhead fragments into thousands of small, high velocity, fragments. Temperature limits for storage and firing the M229 are -65 F to +150 F.

M107 projectile

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M107_(projectile)

* Weight as fired: 43.88 kg
* Explosive content:
o Composition B: 6.985 kg plus 0.136 kg TNT supplemental charge.
o TNT: 6.62 kg plus 0.136 kg TNT supplemental charge.
* Length (excluding fuze): 605.3 mm
* Body diameter: 154.89 mm
* Driving band diameter: 157.98 mm
* Fuzes (with supplmental charge):
o PD M51A5, M728 family, M557, M572, M739, M564, M577, M582, M732
* Fuzes (without supplemental charge):
o M728
* Manufacturer: American Ordnance LLC

My Point: The hydras should have approximately (60 - 90% of) the same effect on armor and infantry as the 155mm shell; since they have a shorter range, more weight can be used for the warhead. A 155mm shell is mostly the casing and propellant. I think that there is an unspoken understatement of the effects of hydras and HE in general, probably because of Hollywood (and westwood, if you're a CNC fan).

I saw a tape of an apache attack what looked like a castle on some mountain in Afghanistan with hydras, and from the effect it was probably the heavier M229; the building collapsed with maybe 2 hits. Just a comparison the Hellfire (HEAT) has a 8 - 10 Kg shaped charge. That has a pretty big blast/fragmentation distance for an armor piercing warhead.

This is an article about the effects of blast fragmentation warheads (artillery) against tanks:

Who says dumb artillery rounds cant kill armor? - Free Online Library

The resulting effects on the trucks and personnel were close to model predictions. However, the effects on the armored vehicles and tanks were significantly higher than model predictions.

The model predicted 30 percent damage to armored vehicles and tanks; however, 67 percent damage was achieved. Fragmentation from the HE rounds penetrated the armored vehicles, destroying critical components and injuring the manikin manikin /man·i·kin/ (man´i-kin) a model to illustrate anatomy or on which to practice surgical or other manipulations. manikin
(man´ikin),
n crews. (See an example of such damage in Figure 1.) In addition, the HE fragmentation damaged tracks, road wheels, and tank main gun sights and set one vehicle on fire.

iirc the tanks in question were older Patton tanks. They probably didn't have ceramic or reactive armor, but for top/rear armor its hardly an issue. That isn't even mentioning the tracks, air intakes, or optical/IR sensors.

My Conclusion: The hydras in PR are fairly accurate, but if anything WEAKER than what they should be, especially the fragmentation distance (I think that it should be closer to 30 - 40m. And that is a conservative estimate: the debris still probably wouldn't have stopped by then. I mean its something like 3000 psi in the center, you can double check that). But since we haven't really represented realistic AA weapons, view distance, or range, their effectiveness is more than it would be otherwise. They also do not have drag or realistic acceleration, (I've done most of this for my private version), so adjusting for ballistic drop is unnecessary. Of course average engagement range is <500m at longest so you can assume that 80% are going to be direct hits.

My point is that if hydras are seen as too powerful, there is quite a bit else wrong with the systems/circumstances in place.

[Jaymz]

Good post. Do you know much about S-8 loadouts, CAS? Doesn't seem like they design them to be as multi-purpose as Hydras (or as effective in that case). I'm curious as to whether or not they load different types into the same pod or not.

My point is that if hydras are seen as too powerful, there is quite a bit else wrong with the systems/circumstances in place.

Like you said, the circumstances are that engagement ranges are squashed to the point where the effectiveness of hydras is multiplied.

My doubts about Hydra effectiveness have been quelled both in here by CAS/Sparatan and on the dev forums by Eddie Baker. Hydras, most likely S-8s as well, will remain the same.

[McBumLuv]

My doubts about Hydra effectiveness have been quelled both in here by CAS/Sparatan and on the dev forums by Eddie Baker. Hydras, most likely S-8s as well, will remain the same.

Not that I'm disputing that, but will the ammo count be changed for a more reflective attribute? I never really doubted the Hydra's damage to be unrealistic, though there probably is some difference in fragmentation damage/spread between each helicopter, right?

[CAS_117]

Good post. Do you know much about S-8 loadouts, CAS? Doesn't seem like they design them to be as multi-purpose as Hydras (or as effective in that case). I'm curious as to whether or not they load different types into the same pod or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-8_rocket

Sry for quoting wikipedia again. The S-8 series looks like it only has maybe 0.6 - 1.6 kg of explosive. I can't see them being more effective than they are now. Maybe the Tandem version would damage tanks more but well, the cannons better anyways.

My point is that if hydras are seen as too powerful, there is quite a bit else wrong with the systems/circumstances in place.
Like you said, the circumstances are that engagement ranges are squashed to the point where the effectiveness of hydras is multiplied.

Of course on the flip side, aircraft can't use their standoff capability either.

[awqs]

hmm so this is why i die and not get a warning

[awqs]

Alls fair in fake online war i think If they can hit you its cuz ur not going fast enough

ya but its kind of hard to land at 700km an hour and have a squad jump out and survive.

[Alex6714]

Alls fair in fake online war i think If they can hit you its cuz ur not going fast enough

You wouldn´t say that if helicopters were firing 2000lb jdam rockets would you.

[EmBra]

I understand that English is not your first language, but please read again:

I never said you wouldn't have to look for them while they were readying the weapon. Situational awareness is your friend, both on this forum, and in the game. You should be looking for threats behind corners and ridges.

Then I'm not sure what your point is. Could you please elaborate?

Like you said, you always have to look for threats, with or without my suggested changes to the HAT weapon.
Are you referring to the HAT-soldier or his intended target?
What is it that will not change? And what is it that will be less realistic?

Yes, they already have to expose themselves to keep the sight on the target, but they also have a delay time to ready the weapon, during which they can also be spotted and dealt with. So, basically, it will be even less realistic and won't change anything.

[Eddie Baker]

Then I'm not sure what your point is. Could you please elaborate?

Like you said, you always have to look for threats, with or without my suggested changes to the HAT weapon.
Are you referring to the HAT-soldier or his intended target?
What is it that will not change? And what is it that will be less realistic?

Once again . . .

What will not change is the fact that you will still have to kill him before he kills you. All HAT gunners have to ready their weapon, during which time they can be spotted and killed. The SACLOS HAT gunner (realistically only the Eryx; Predator SRAW should have gone bye-bye from this game ages ago) has to keep an open line of sight to you until the missile impacts- once again, he can be spotted and killed during this time. Depending on how close he is to you, you and/or your gunner(s) have time to deal with him or get the Hell out of the way. If that isn't enough time for you, and/or if both you and your gunner(s) let him get that close, as far as I'm concerned, he earned you.

What will be less realistic is the fact that you will be incorporating a lock-on-before launch requirement to a weapon that does not have one in real life (Eryx). And if your idea is implemented, then what? When your helicopter gets wasted by the HAT again, will you complain that flares don't work against the lock-on-before-launch missile that doesn't have an IIR seeker in real life?

Now, if you had suggested a missile launch warning receiver that worked on HAT missiles or a laser warning receiver that could detect, prior to launch, the laser range finder of the launcher (for those that have them), that would be okay, since those are realistic. The lock-on-before launch fire and forget is only realistic for very few weapons; one of which is incorrectly implemented in game (where it shouldn't be anyway), and the rest (all three of them) are not in the game at all.

The point of all this that you seem to be missing is that this HAT "problem," as you call it, is a simple and cold, hard fact of reality. A weapon does not have to say "____-to-air" or "anti-aircraft" anywhere in its name for it to put your helicopter on the ground, and you in the ground. RPGs have shot down god knows how many helicopters since the Vietnam War, and those initials don't stand for "Rockets, Planes and Gyrocopters." The crews of these weapons are aware of their capabilities and limitations and train to use them the their fullest extent.

[Jedimushroom]

I have never had or seen the problem discussed in this thread, it is near impossible in my experience to shoot down a chopper with a HAT because you need to move the sights so fast to keep up with it that the brackets fly off to the sides of the screen and you can't hit jack.

[DankE_SPB]

with a HAT because you need to move the sights so fast to keep up with it that the brackets fly off to the sides of the screen and you can't hit jack.

shoot first, then follow the heli with sight

[PR.IT Stek_WAR]

HAT usually supplied to the armies do not travel distances exceeding 400 m, while in PR even arrive at 800-900 m!

perhaps, beyond this distance, the missile will destroy


simple and real

[DankE_SPB]

HAT usually supplied to the armies do not travel distances exceeding 400 m, while in PR even arrive at 800-900 m!

perhaps, beyond this distance, the missile will destroy

any sources or at least models of HATs?

[Eddie Baker]

HAT usually supplied to the armies do not travel distances exceeding 400 ml

Which armies would those be?

Weapon (Users): Effective Range
Eryx (Canada, France, As-Yet Unnamed Middle-East State): 600m
Javelin (US/UK/Australia): 2500m
Kornet (Russia/Syria): 5000m
BILL 2 (Sweden): 2200m
Milan 2 (Germany, Italy and too many others to name): 2000m

These two are not even considered medium anti-armor weapons.

Weapon (Users): Effective Range
MBT LAW (UK/Sweden/Finland): 600m
Predator SRAW (US): 600m

For the light anti-armor weapons and longer-range rocket launchers I could see a self-destructing round after a certain distance, and it has been suggested before, but the ATGMs in the HAT kits definitely go past 400m.

[EmBra]

First off, I apologise for splitting up your quote like this in my reply. I normally don't like it when people do it so I shouldn't do it either but I feel it's needed here because of the amount of text

Eddie Baker;971885']Once again . . .

What will not change is the fact that you will still have to kill him before he kills you. All HAT gunners have to ready his weapon, during which time he can be spotted and killed. The SACLOS HAT gunner (realistically only the Eryx; Predator SRAW should have gone bye-bye from this game ages ago) has to keep an open line of sight to you until the missile impacts- once again, he can be spotted and killed during this time. Depending on how close he is to you, you and/or your gunner(s) have time to deal with him or get the Hell out of the way. If that isn't enough time for you, and/or if both you and your gunner(s) let him get that close, as far as I'm concerned, he earned you.

I agree with you 100% on this when it comes to ground vehicles. On the ground you have a chance of detecting the HAT-soldier because there is only a limited area from where he can shoot you.

In a helicopter, in the air, the area from where a HAT-soldier can shoot at you is enormous and it is not possible to detect the missile, aim at and kill the HAT-soldier before the missile hit you, even at max range, because there is no warning to let you know the missile is coming and the flight time is only 1-2 seconds. There is also alot of ground underneath you so spotting the HAT-soldier before he shoot is not easy and have more to do with luck then anything else.

Eddie Baker;971885']
What will be less realistic is the fact that you will be incorporating a lock-on-before launch requirement to a weapon that does not have one in real life (Eryx). And if your idea is implemented, then what? When your helicopter gets wasted by the HAT again, will you complain that flares don't work against the lock-on-before-launch missile that doesn't have an IIR seeker in real life?

Now, if you had suggested a missile launch warning receiver that worked on HAT missiles or a laser warning receiver that could detect, prior to launch, the laser range finder of the launcher (for those that have them), that would be okay, since those are realistic. The lock-on-before launch fire and forget is only realistic for very few weapons; one of which is incorrectly implemented in game (where it shouldn't be anyway), and the rest (all three of them) are not.

Ofcourse you shouldn't be able to lock onto an aircraft with the HAT weapons, thats the whole point. In vanilla BF2 there are missiles that only lock onto ground vehicles (the bomber plane have these). It was that kind of "missiles-system" I was thinking about. I didn't make myself clear on that part so I apologize for that.

Now, Your suggestion with a warning sound when someone aim at you with a HAT-weapon is better then my suggestion. Can this be implemented then Im 100% behind this idea.

Thinking about it, isn't this how the warning sound for MBTs and APCs function in vanilla BF2? If it is, this could perhaps be possible to code for helicopters as well?

The thing I see before me though is that people will just aim next to the helicopter and only move the aim onto the helicopter when the missile is half way, to avoid the pilot from receiving the warning until it is to late.
If this can be avoided then sure, this is a great, and probably the best idea.

The point of all this that you seem to be missing is that this HAT "problem," as you call it, is a simple and cold, hard fact of reality. A weapon does not have to say "____-to-air" or "anti-aircraft" anywhere in its name for it to put your helicopter on the ground, and you in the ground. RPGs have shot down god knows how many helicopters since the Vietnam War, and those initials don't stand for "Rockets, Planes and Gyrocopters." The crews of these weapons are aware of their capabilities and limitations and train to use them the their fullest extent.

I realise this, but like I have said before in this thread, limitations in the game prevents helicopters, mostly attack helicopters, to function in a realistic way and they have no way of detecting and defend itself from HAT when they are being used as a AA weapon.

Limited viewdistance coupled with the long range and "guiding ability" of the HAT weapons makes the HAT weapons in PR the mother of all AA.

I can't believe this is what the HAT weapons was intended to be when implemented into PR, no matter if it is realistic or not to kill low flying choppers with HAT in real life.
In PR all helicopters are low flying helicopters, because they simply have no choice but to fly low if they want to see the ground and be useful for the team.

It's because of this limitation I suggested a sort of middle ground between realism and gameplay regarding HAT vs. helicopters.
I'm not saying my suggestion is the best, I even think your suggestion with a warningsound is better if it can be done in a good way.
Something has to be done though.

[Eddie Baker]

Of course you shouldn't be able to lock onto an aircraft with the HAT weapons, thats the whole point. In vanilla BF2 there are missiles that only lock onto ground vehicles (the bomber plane have these). It was that kind of "missiles-system" I was thinking about. I didn't make myself clear on that part so I apologize for that.

My apologies to you; I misunderstood and should have read more carefully.

Still, the lock on of slow-moving helicopters with certain heavy anti-armor weapons is possible. It may or may not make it into the game if/when the Javelin or a similar system is implemented. Conversely, there are also man-portable anti-aircraft missiles that can be used to engage softer ground vehicle targets that may end up in game.

I will bring up the general launch warning in the DEV forums and see if it can be added. A warning system based on line of sight to the target was possible in the BF1942 engine is possible, and was used in Desert Combat or one of its sub-mods on aircraft as a warning for being in the "sights" of another aircraft; if I remember correctly, it basically was coded as a constantly fired weapon whose only effect was the target hearing an irritating noise. If the BF2 engine has this capability it could certainly work for a laser ranging/designation warning receiver.

[Hotrod525]

Eddie Baker;972220']My apologies to you; I misunderstood and should have read more carefully.

Still, the lock on of slow-moving helicopters with certain heavy anti-armor weapons is possible. It may or may not make it into the game if/when the Javelin or a similar system is implemented. Conversely, there are also man-portable anti-aircraft missiles that can be used to engage softer ground vehicle targets that may end up in game.

I will bring up the general launch warning in the DEV forums and see if it can be added. A warning system based on line of sight to the target was possible in the BF1942 engine is possible, and was used in Desert Combat or one of its sub-mods on aircraft as a warning for being in the "sights" of another aircraft; if I remember correctly, it basically was coded as a constantly fired weapon whose only effect was the target hearing an irritating noise. If the BF2 engine has this capability it could certainly work for a laser ranging/designation warning receiver.

Well, folowing the BASIC principe of heatseaker missile, they can be used on any type of target whos making a heat signature. I dont known if a Stinger would destroy a tank, but i'm pretty convinced than he can lock on it.