Project Reality Forums

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote: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.

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.
My idea is that the time you spend today to bring up your scope and guide the missile to the target will instead be spent on acquiring a lock on the target.
It will have to take a little longer to acquire the lock then to guide the missile like today, because once you got a lock you will have an almost 100% hit chance.

Of course my 10 second locking time would have to be tested and perhaps make it shorter or longer depending on what the results are but the general idea is neither nerfing or boosting the HAT weapons. Only making them Anti Tank weapons (as it should be) and not a manually guided AA weapons.
Unrealistic or not, it's a game and the way these weapons are being used today (in PR) is not very realistic.

My changes may not make the HAT weapons more realistic but atleast it won't make it more unrealistic either + it will force the HAT weapons to be used as it should be and that is to kill enemy ground vehicles.

sakils2 wrote:Well it would IRL, but it wouldn't bla bla bla on a guy who has a HAT.

Well there is difference between a game and real life, in game we dont have thermal sight, we dont have fully stabilized gun, we dont have computerised radar, fly by wire and all the thing. And BTW if you shoot an hellfire and there is something in its way, im quite sure the missile wont magicly pass trought. ??:

Hotrod525 wrote:Real Apache are not limited by BF2 engine, and no, real apache cannot attack hided behind a mountain, they can put the radar over the cover, scan, aquire target, pop up shoot, hide and boom.

Except they can attack on the move, their missile will hit the target, and they can do it from out of the targets range in most cases.

Wich is entirely possible whit ground laser designation.

Except in real life most of the time the aircraft will be designating for itself with a laser, not a slow sticky box.

And BTW if you shoot an hellfire and there is something in its way, im quite sure the missile wont magicly pass trought.

WTF? Never happened to me.

Well there is difference between a game and real life, in game we dont have thermal sight,

I saw a PR vid where the helis had thermal sight (APC's were glowing ).

we dont have fully stabilized gun

Again, I saw a vid where cobra had stabilization. It's up to DEV's.

Sorry about the ways of flying discussion and stuff was not my intention, I used it as an argument of why I dont think it should be changed just because some hovering pilots get shot down (not saying you hover btw)

Well if real-life TOW gunners get trained on firing at low flying helo's than it should be possible to take them out with them right? so why change it than.

cyberzomby wrote:Sorry about the ways of flying discussion and stuff was not my intention, I used it as an argument of why I dont think it should be changed just because some hovering pilots get shot down (not saying you hover btw)

Well if real-life TOW gunners get trained on firing at low flying helo's than it should be possible to take them out with them right? so why change it than.

I completely agree that you should be able to do it, in fact nothing is that wrong with taking helis or tanks etc out now with all sorts of stuff, but the problem with HATs atm (and many other things) is that they have the same engagement distance as everything, which is unrealistic and doesn´t allow for anything like realistic tactics.

I still don't know how you DEVs allowed the laser concept to go through when you can't even get it to work as it should and it isn't even realistic. There are much better ideas that were canned because they were just inches away from perfection, but the SIMRAD is miles from perfection and it was released anyway.

Why?

Back on topic, if the silly idea of having infantry lase targets with sticky boxes is removed and all vehicles have laser signatures, there will be no need for attack helicopters to hover at such close range, and HAT will become less of a threat.

Also, give the HAT realistic range limits.

How 'bout this? We just give all HAT (and LAT, while we're at it) realistic flight distances. That would take out quite a bit of it. I don't mind H-AT being able to target helicopters, though it is ridiculous from a mile away.

Then again, isn't the Eryx much slower IRL than ingame atm? And how about the SRAW?

EDIT: Clark beat me to the first one

What if we did it like this? (watch from 2:15 to whenever you want)
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sg3UXzseLTI&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sg3UXzseLTI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Wouldn't that be more realistic?

I shot down the Chinese light attack heli (WZ-11?) on Qwai the other day using a TOW humvee.

Embra: whilst the range on the HATs at the moment is a tad unrealistic, I have no problem with HAT weapons being used against choppers. You think that if a guy with a HAT saw an enemy chopper hovering he wouldn't shoot it? AT weapons can be effectively used for a great many things other than destroying armoured vehicles. Clearing buildings etc.

With all that said, I do think the HAT range should be reduced.

Stu.

StuTika wrote:whilst the range on the HATs at the moment is a tad unrealistic, I have no problem with HAT weapons being used against choppers. You think that if a guy with a HAT saw an enemy chopper hovering he wouldn't shoot it?
Stu.

Theoretically the missile should pass through the fuselage like a bullet since the inside of a lot of those birds are hollow inside. If you got a good hit on the Engine or the **** pit or the tail rotor then yes I could agree.

Surely the metal of the chopper would be enough to explode the missile?

cyberzomby wrote:Well if real-life TOW gunners get trained on firing at low flying helo's than it should be possible to take them out with them right? so why change it than.

Like Alex6714, I agree with you, IF the helicopter pilots in PR had the option to fly high.

To take an example, lets take the map Muttra and the Cobra helicopter (can take other maps aswell but muttra is the most distinct one in regards to HAT used as AA).

The viewdistance is appr. 500 meters. this means that if you are 500 meters up in the air you can just barely see the ground underneath you if you were looking straight down.

Since you can't aim 90 degrees down you have to fly lower then that to actually be able to see and aim at targets on the ground. This put you in a convenient engagement hight of the HAT weapons.

The problem lies in that you are forced to fly "low" to be able to do anything (because of viewdistance). If a transport heli is hovering above a rooftop then of course, by all means you should be able to blow him up with a TOW or a HAT or by throwing the kitchen sink at him because he shouldn't be hovering there, he have a choice to land on the road behind the building instead.

The attack helicopter can't realistically do this because it is not transporting people, it is there to give fire support and kill enemies, it can't do this hiding behind a building. It needs to be in the air.

This is a dilemma. IRL you can shoot down low flying helicopters with the guided HAT weapon, but how many times have that actually happened? How many Cobra and Apache helicopters have the coalition lost in Iraq due to HAT weapons?
I haven't looked into this but I seriously doubt it is many, if any at all (someone who know this could perhaps give us a number).

IRL the pilots don't have to fly at 300-400m hight, because they can see much further then that and they can engage enemies several kilometres away.
IRL they are not forced to fly within combat distance of HAT weapons.

In PR the pilots are forced to do this and that creates this problem and rather unrealistic use of the HAT weapons.


*Edit* StuTika, consider this an answer to your post as well

[quote=""'[SP-DEV"]Scot;970690']Surely the metal of the chopper would be enough to explode the missile?[/quote]

Actually the sides of the blackhawk and apache are kevlar

[quote="EmBra""]
This is a dilemma. IRL you can shoot down low flying helicopters with the guided HAT weapon, but how many times have that actually happened? How many Cobra and Apache helicopters have the coalition lost in Iraq due to HAT weapons?
I haven't looked into this but I seriously doubt it is many, if any at all (someone who know this could perhaps give us a number).
[/quote]

We lost about 6 Apache's in OP Iraqi Freedom due to Wire guided RPG's, but the Apache's were just leaving the FOB. We've only lost like 1 to the field, and there are sensors all around the Helicopter to let them know that a guided missile is launched releasing Chaff and flair and when the pilot receives this message he pulls collective to max and ascends somewhere around 15ft/s
EDIT: 30ft/s pulled out a manual

Stutika I dont mean to come acros as an *** but it has been established that it also concerns moving choppers.

And Embra: yes you have limitations in this engine thats for sure. Im kinda neutral on the standpoint now. Not sure what side to pick or what side Im for.

Alex6714 wrote: Pilots hydras = win, can take out armoured targets (waiting for another a nerf once I have said this) and have a high rate of fire.

Give me a shout on xfire regarding this. It's not that they should be nerfed for the sake of nerfing them. It's that we really need to sort out and standardize what type of warhead they're supposed to be using and set the damage to be somewhat realistic. Right now they have the best of both worlds, they own the shit out of all armoured targets but also have the huge explosion radius of a HE warhead that turns entire infantry squads into swiss cheese.

I seriously doubt that a 70mm rocket is going to have both the ability to penetrate MBT armour and disperse AP fragments in a 20m radius simultaneously.



Regarding the main topic : I agree, it's very silly how H-AT weapons can do this. IRL, aiming that high and shooting would result in a lot of trouble due to the weapons back-blast.

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz;970701']I seriously doubt that a 70mm rocket is going to have both the ability to penetrate MBT armour and disperse AP fragments in a 20m radius simultaneously.

you'd be surprised.

Sparatan117 wrote:you'd be surprised.

I'm sorry, I appear to have missed the part where you posted the technical specifications of each Hydra (or equivalent) warhead type that shows armour penetration and fragmentation radius values.

Let me help you out,

S-8 UNGUIDED AIRCRAFT ROCKETS

Note that ones "intended to engage manpower" don't even have armour penetration values given (because they're most likely useless in that role).

According to FAS, penetration values for Hydra warheads are classified. However, it is highly unlikely they have warheads capable of the absolute rape they currently dish out in PR. Especially when you consider it's actually a smaller projectile in comparison to the S-8 (which is 80mm).

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz;970716']I'm sorry, I appear to have missed the part where you posted the technical specifications of each Hydra (or equivalent) warhead type that shows armour penetration and fragmentation radius values.

Let me help you out,

S-8 UNGUIDED AIRCRAFT ROCKETS

Note that ones "intended to engage manpower" don't even have armour penetration values given (because they're most likely useless in that role).

According to FAS, penetration values for Hydra warheads are classified. However, it is highly unlikely they have warheads capable of the absolute rape they currently dish out in PR. Especially when you consider it's actually a smaller projectile in comparison to the S-8 (which is 80mm).

Oh, well I haven't been "raped" by a hydra yet, but if their anything like our Apache 75mm rockets then yeah they do. They have copper loaded tips for armor penetration, a HE round for explosive punch and embedded in the Explosive powder is a weak metal core, at least thats what I understood it when a Armorment guy explained it to me.

Not sure I understand fully. Is that for the same type or for different warheads? Or are they loaded into the Apache using an ammo alteration method?

I guess the best way to explain this is to show you the values in-game. Right now, in-game it's like this.....

vs Infantry

1 Hydra has an explosion radius of 20m. All infantry within 8m of a hydra explosion are toast. Between 8-15m they'll take significant damage. Minor damage received between 15-20m.

When you consider it shoots at 300rpm, that's why I'm using the term "rape"

vs APC

Approx 5 Hydras will take out an APC

vs MBT

Approx 10 Hydras to the rear or top (weakest) armour of a Tank will destroy it
Approx 30 Hydras to the side armour of a Tank will destroy it
Approx 60 Hydras to the front (strongest) armour of a Tank will destroy it

When you consider that the majority of the time, they hit the top (weak) armour @ 300rpm this makes them extremely effective against tanks.


@ Sparatan : As a person with real life experience here. What adjustments would you make to the Hydra* rockets in-game?

* this encompasses it's equivalent, the S-8 (used on the Havoc and the Z-10).