Helicopter Armor

mdterp1987 · Post by **mdterp1987** » 2006-05-18 04:45

After at least 15+ hours of gameplay one thing has irked me a little about the minimod. The black hawks and mec equivalent helicopters need to be unaffected by small arms fire to their undersides. Not only is this realistic, but it would also lessen the devastating impact that one SAW or RPK can have on a chopper. Too often are the choppers scared away by one man when instead they should at least be given a chance to turn and let the miniguns fire at the threat before smoking.
The reason its realistic (though this would have to be double-checked) is that at least the black hawks are lined with kevlar on the bottom to prevent damage. I recently read this in the book Black Hawk Down and would assume a modern mec army would do the same to their choppers. This would still leave the sides, front, back, top, and tail rotor vulnerable to small arms.

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-05-18 05:07

agree with both statements.

shouldn't it take two AT rounds to knock out a Seahawk since it takes two AA missles?

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-05-18 08:08

If 2 AA missiles takes it out, why should it need 2 AT missiles to bring it down?

Balance of the game?? well considering that the AT guys don't have that many targets they can kill, i don't see why they should not be allowed to nail a BH or a gunship with a single direct hit with his AT missiles. If they flew low enough and slow enough for the AT guys to hit with their missiles then that's really the pilot's fault or his poor luck.

Also note that BF2 engine knows no such thing as specific component part of the models as far as i know of, which means there's only up down front back and sides to the model, you can be taking different damage from different sides but you cannot have the model lose parts or anything, nor does it make a difference wether you shoot the chopper on it's side door or at it's tail rotor from the side, they are both considered a single side by the game unless i am wrong.

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-05-18 09:16

what i mean is, wouldnt AA missles designed to take out an air target be more effective then and AT rocket?

dunkellic · Post by **dunkellic** » 2006-05-18 12:53

nah, aa missiles are more maneuverable and faster, also other seeking technology but you can imagine that a warhead from an at missile has to be able to strike through the armor and is thus much bigger whereas aircrafts aren´t really that much armored

hachichin · Post by **hachichin** » 2006-05-18 18:57

Yes, the helis, atleast the Blackhawk and MEC-equivalent, needs to be more resistant to small arms fire.

I like AT's being able to take a chopper down with one hit. It's realistic AFAIK and it's good for the gameplay.

Why can't the AA-missiles lock on Little birds though? Their heat-signature should be enough?

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-05-18 19:42

Hate to even mention it, but we've learned one craptastic RPG-7 round can take down a Chinook... if it hits. They have to fire a few hundred before they get lucky. On the other hand, a SAM hits a helicopter 95% of the time unless it drops countermeasures.

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-05-18 19:55

oh ok, i feel like i kinda had my head up my rear duh! haha, you are right.

maybe the problem is (i think we are trying ot fix this) is the fact that the AT rounds are guided, and there are like 10 of them on say Muttrah City not a realistic idea. i mean, i had ease taking down choppers with unguided missles in POE, so now its like shooting fish in a barrel with the SRAWs and like.