Page 2 of 4

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 07:21
by Rudd
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.
...
I talked to a Lynx pilot we all know and he said that a .50 will take down a heli in seconds.
that assumption lasted a long time. XD

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 07:27
by Spaz
Well I'm sure that if you shoot rounds into the door (like someone said) it should have no problem staying airborne for a long time but apparently you don't need many hits in the tail or engine for it to go down. And being hit in the cockpit can't be good. ;)

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 07:29
by Anhkhoa
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 in the door.
If a Blackhawk took infinite rounds in the same spot it wouldn't last forever. One bullet would make a hole another would use that hole to make another deeper hole....and then the guys inside would be ripped to shreds.= D

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 07:41
by Solid Knight
Anhkhoa wrote:If a Blackhawk took infinite rounds in the same spot it wouldn't last forever. One bullet would make a hole another would use that hole to make another deeper hole....and then the guys inside would be ripped to shreds.= D
Doesn't matter if it penetrates the door (it will). If nothing critical is hit there is no reason for the helicopter to crash. The answer to "how many shots does it take to kill a helicopter" is "it depends on where you hit it". Shooting up the doors will do nothing to a helicopter. Shooting up the engines will.

It's like saying "how many shots does it take to stop a car". I could pump rounds into the rear doors of the car all day long and the thing will keep going so long as the engine isn't damaged.

My post was intended to illustrate this. You could infinitely hit non-critical parts of the helicopter--albeit there is a finite amount of non-critical areas.

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 08:16
by Mora
The problem is on both sides, the choppers are to weak against .50 cal bullets. I mean sure the chopper wouldn't stand too much of them but sure 25 wouldn't kill it. And only on crucial points such as the cockpit or the tale rotar.

And the mounted .50 cal is way to accurate. It can hit anything upto max view distance, without missing.

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 11:46
by Alex6714
crazyasian11 wrote:in PR Eddie...

I am pretty sure that if a pilot flew like how pilots fly in PR, they would get shot down.
If pilots could fly realistically in PR there would be nothing wrong.


I don“t hve a problem with the .50, I think it should be the insurgents main AA weapon instead of SA-7s for added realism, and especially balance. Many other things have to be changed though but thats for another thread.

The main problem imo is not the amount of rounds it takes to kill you, but the fact that you have no idea you are getting shot until the last round. Tbh you should be able to hear a projectile hitting your helicopter like that, at least on the first few of them.

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 11:48
by Rudd
Tbh you should be able to hear a projectile hitting your helicopter like that, at least on the first few of them.
this is indeed a big problem, the sound in the choppers is very odd, once or twice I've flown around and I only realised I was under fire when a big green tracer zipped past my face

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 12:20
by Oak
Dr2B Rudd wrote:this is indeed a big problem, the sound in the choppers is very odd, once or twice I've flown around and I only realised I was under fire when a big green tracer zipped past my face
I wouldn't say it isn't realistic - considering the amount of noise you have in a real chopper and the fact that thing moves all the time, I wouldn't say it's that surprising not being able to hear small-arms hits.

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 12:25
by bkandor
Here is a bit on the apache airframe: (built to withstand 23mm rounds)

Combat helicopters face many threats in their environment, most notably from surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery. The AH-64 has been designed with survival mind. To increase resistance to ground-fire, the airframe of the Apache is made up of flat structural surfaces, reinforced by armour. From nearly every angle, the opposing projectile will face a strong, blunt surface which it must breach in order to damage the fuselage.
More critical areas of the Apache - the rotor, engines, and cockpit area - are designed to be able to withstand hits from 23mm rounds. In addition to the armoured fuselage, aircraft systems are protected by Kevlar, the light-weight material providing additional protection while keeping the weight down. The twin engines are mounted in pods along either side of the airframe. This separation reduces the chances of a single hit damaging both engines. The cheek-fairings on either side of the forward fuselage reduce cockpit exposure to ground-fire, while providing additional space for avionics equipment

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 14:13
by rampo
whaaa!? u never seen a chopper taken down by fiftys in PR??? whaaaa!? dear god thats the most common way i get shot by!

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 14:22
by Kruder
No decent pilot is shot down unless hovering/on the ground/flying towards 0.50 cal/caught in very low speed.And if you or your team are not careful enough to spot the technical 100 meters away from your LZ you deserve to die.

Finally withstanding 123mm does not mean anything,i mean how much punishment can a BH take in general?Does anyone know,what does that mean?One bullet,a few?Obviously not 50-100 rounds.


Conclusion its find as it is,just give more flares to AC or nerf the noob friendly AAs.

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 14:34
by TPM-TWISTED-
I haven't been playing PR that long, but I've played long enough to see good pilots that rarely get shot down or even hit by much more than one or two guys spraying small arms from a distance. I've also seen guys think they can play like they're in a Vietnam movie and set their chopper down in an area surrounded by bad guys, take multiple hits and think they'll be fine.

The game is fine. The play is bad (sometimes).

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 18:13
by spartan117gw
yo . pfc wong here, heli's are tough. but thier compact with sensitive and fine tune parts. a burst from a 50 will damage a helo. any more and u wont be flying. the 50 cal was designed to kill tanks in ww1. it killed aircraft and hell. anything in ww2. and we still field it today because its one bad mofo that jus dont quite. and if a 50 cal round passes within 6 inches of you itl tear ur flesh off. a direct hit = pink mist. a helo is light and sensitive to truama. itl shred a helo if it gets enough good hits.

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 22:28
by EmBra
I doubt pilots (IRL) would drop off people 100-200m from enemy lines, in PR (which is a game ;) ) people don't want to spend an hour going by foot to the flag, hence the pilots often drop them close to the front (within combat range of MGs).


When it comes to attack helicopters it's abit different, They are forced to be close to the targets (within MG/APC attackrange) because of viewdistance not allowing them to sipp around at 4km distance :(
They can withstand moderate MG fire enough though to do evasive manoeuvres and fly back to base to repair. Old rusty APCs killing them in 0.5 seconds on the other hand...

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 23:05
by Salah ad Din
spartan117gw wrote:and if a 50 cal round passes within 6 inches of you itl tear ur flesh off
Source?

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 23:10
by shifty66
spartan117gw wrote:yo . pfc wong here, heli's are tough. but thier compact with sensitive and fine tune parts. a burst from a 50 will damage a helo. any more and u wont be flying. the 50 cal was designed to kill tanks in ww1. it killed aircraft and hell. anything in ww2. and we still field it today because its one bad mofo that jus dont quite. and if a 50 cal round passes within 6 inches of you itl tear ur flesh off. a direct hit = pink mist. a helo is light and sensitive to truama. itl shred a helo if it gets enough good hits.
What corp you in mate?

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-18 23:34
by sentinel
Are you kidding me? Shooting down low flying helos is what they are designed for. Most .50 cal or 14.7mm are accurate over 1000 meters ironsights or scoped, it makes no difference. The reason why the helos get shot down is because they simply fly too low and too deep into hostile territory.

Re: .50 cal vs helo's

Posted: 2009-03-19 00:52
by amazing_retard
How come every time I visit this forum, I see more and more posts, about helo pilots wanting to be invincible. How about this, when you encounter a 50 cal, you break off and force him into a reflection shot? Use the terrain as cover, and fly low and fast. Don't attempt to simply pass a 50 cal, take evasive maneuvers. Don't fix something that simply isn't broken....