Project Reality Forums

[R-DEV]DankE_SPB wrote:You're completely wrong on this irl its exactly the opposite.

This explains why the Ka-50 cannot jink after firing it's Vikhrs and it has to align the entire helicopter at the target it's shooting?

Yes, beam-riding is a lot better than wire guided for land/air applications. No, it isn't as good as SALH trackers in terms of shooting on the move.

I believe the TOW can also be jammed by IR countermeasures because it tracks the missile and sends guidance commands based off of a flare on the back of the missile that the vehicle sights will see.

Hunt3r wrote:This explains why the Ka-50 cannot jink after firing it's Vikhrs and it has to align the entire helicopter at the target it's shooting?

Yes, this explains the many frustrations of DCS: Black Shark Players.

its the same with the Su-25Ts vihkrs. the angle is pretty small so you have to fly towards the target until impact and thats why they arent fire and forget missiles.

I think the bradley has to deploy the tow before fiering and retracts it on the move, so it does not get jammed with mud or the like.

ok so i think it would be the best to make individual deploy times, but would this be possibles?

Cassius wrote:I think the bradley has to deploy the tow before fiering and retracts it on the move, so it does not get jammed with mud or the like.

The Bradley retracts it because otherwise the motor holding the TOW box would burn out from having to stabilize it.

This does introduce the question of why didn't they just lock the elevation of the TOW missile box when on the move and then unlock once slow enough.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sho ... php?t=9441

I guess I guessed right. The TOW isn't automatically raised or lowered, and gunner controlled. However, if you leave it up and go over bumpy terrain it'll destroy the motor and apparently the mount that holds it up will also be trashed, which means you have to manually crank it up with the help of someone on the outside.

In short, the only reason why the TOW takes time to set up is because the design is ****.

god the wire guideds are frustrating to use.

snuck up behind a warrior on dragon fly with spandrel today.

Took way too long for the turret to free up and got owned.

Seriously, it's threads like this that actually de-educate people.

If you don't know, 100%, what you are talking about, either state that in your assumption or do not post.

So much wtf in here.

If you're confused about missile guidance go on Wikipedia. But don't mess up other people's knowledge by spuriously posting.

If you're unsure ask Stoikk

40mmrain wrote:god the wire guideds are frustrating to use.

snuck up behind a warrior on dragon fly with spandrel today.

Took way too long for the turret to free up and got owned.

Spandrels take years to set up IRL.

They really need to have a speed limit instead of a distance limit for determining whether to "undeploy" the ATGMs. That way you can creep along at 5-10 mph and then you can stop and fire off a shot.

Hunt3r wrote:They really need to have a speed limit instead of a distance limit for determining whether to "undeploy" the ATGMs. That way you can creep along at 5-10 mph and then you can stop and fire off a shot.

This would be a godsend when you're tracking enemy armor only to have the perfect kill elude you because of the deployment time. On the other hand there are so many AT assets on the battlefield at any given time I can see that game play balance might be another issue to consider.

@Bringer of D:

If I remember correctly (and I've been out of the Army for almost 12 years) it takes between 10 and 15 seconds to raise the TOW launcher and lock it in the raised position. Once it is locked, its elevation raises and lowers with the main gun elevation, and windage is obviously controlled with turret rotation.

On a side note, one additional reason that the launcher is stored in the down position is that there is a shield over the two launch tubes while it is lowered. Upon raising, the shield stays in the down position, exposing both the front and the rear of the launcher box permitting both the missile and the backblast to leave the launcher box.

@devs:

Is it possible within the BF2 engine to base the cooldown of the weapon on vehicle movement rather than weapon selection? If so, it might be more friendly to Bradley crews to implement that option.

As another option, would it be possible to implement raising and lowering the TOW launcher via the W and S keys like the load ramps on the Osprey and some other models? This way, the gunner could actually control when the launcher is raised and lowered, just like in the real world. Bonus points if it could lock out vehicle movement, or vehicle movement with it in the raised position could possibly cause turret damage making the turret inoperable, necessitating a return to main for repairs.

People are mixing up peace time regulations and combat lack of regulations. If you want to move into fire position with the TOW in fire mode you can. You can also shoot more granandes with the autocannon than peace time regulations forbid you to.

With all due respect manligheten, there are a few errors in your post. For starters, there are just as many regulations governing combat as there are in peacetime, if not more. Rules of Engagement exist real world, just as they do in PR. Secondly, as mentioned in more than one place, moving a Bradley with the TOW launcher in the raised position can badly damage the mount and motor rendering it completely inoperational. Thirdly, while the Bradley does indeed fire high explosive (in addition to Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot Tracer, and Fin Stabilized Depleted Uranium) ammunition from the M242 Bushmaster chain gun, it does not fire grenades. The only actual grenades fired from a Bradley are fired from the two cluster smoke grenade launchers located on the front left and front right sections of the turret.

This discussion is not about whether or not regulations allow the Bradley to move with the TOW launcher in the raised position, but about whether the platform is physically capable of doing so. As I, and several others have stated, based on real world experience and verifiable research, the Bradley absolutely should not be moved for any major distance, over any type of rough terrain, or at anything beyond a crawl due to the very high risk of damage to the TOW launcher.

Can't there be a "deployed" mode for the Bradley similar to those for Infantry AR?

As in, it simulates having the weapon(bipod for infantry) deployed but also allow very slow movement(which would not damage the TOW).

ComradeHX wrote:Can't there be a "deployed" mode for the Bradley similar to those for Infantry AR?

As in, it simulates having the weapon(bipod for infantry) deployed but also allow very slow movement(which would not damage the TOW).

yeah i thought of this idea too, but i dont think its possible to limit the speed of the driver seat when changing weapon in gunner seat :/ sounds complicated

Steel Beasts's wiki has much more extensive information and some neat photos to go along with it: M2A2 - SBWiki

The TOW is controlled by the gunner, so raising and lowering is manually done, the TC has the ability to sever the TOW wire midflight in order to immediately change off to something else and engage a more pressing target/back into cover, and laser ranging in TOW mode will be inaccurate due to the LRF point not being mapped on the TOW reticle.

Basically the Bradley is an M242 equipped cannon first, and then a TOW vehicle second. Yes, your TOWs will kill tanks. No, you are not going to be able to get into a shooting match and expect to win. The Bradley is a TD against tanks, with a handy cannon to defeat anything else it runs into on the battlefield.

It just bugs me that in PR they nerfed the TOWs much much harder than they should've. IRL the TOW missile should be very slow, but dead accurate and anything short of a hit to the turret front and mantlet should either kill an MBT outright or hurt it bad.

PR: BF2 has serious, SERIOUS issues when it comes to AFV armor matchups that destroy the AFV vs AFV combat. AFV vs. infantry is less of a big deal, but mounted ATGMs are too hard to defeat in PR when IRL it is possible to see the smoke trail and the launch signature and begin suppression of the ATGM team to make them stop engagement and start running instead, but in PR the ATGMs fly far too quickly to do any sort of suppression unless you've already stopped and drawn your bead on the enemy ATGM team. ATGMs need to have their speeds slowed down to take as long as 15 seconds to reach the target at about 800-1000m. If IRL ATGMs reached max engagement range in sub-5 seconds, there would be no attempts at trying to engage ATGM teams once the missile has been fired and much more reliance upon armor systems to protect the vehicle. If tanks IRL couldn't take a TOW to the front turret without said turret flying into the air there would be far more dead tankers.

Basically, my suggestion is to revise the damage done to areas of IFVs and MBTs, fix the ATGM flight time, either by slowing it down immensely, or through missile acceleration and have the acceleration to IRL velocities take 1000m of flight time of the missile in game. ATGM carriers need to have it so that crawling along at very low speeds should keep the ATGMs deployed without having to wait to fire once stopped. We probably can't implement manual ATGM stowage/readying so we should implement behavior that models IRL procedures.


I'm just going to wait for PR2 for a proper implementation of AFV warfare.

Hunt3r, I was interested in why you didn't source your information, so I searched for some myself, and unsuprisingly, it proves you wrong:

M-220 Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided missile (TOW)

Maximum effective range: 2.33 miles (3.75 kilometers)
Time of flight to maximum effective range:
2A: 20 seconds
2B: 21 seconds

As seen above, time to flight to maximum range is about 20 seconds, and you are talking about 800-1000 metres, with is about one quarter of maximum range. So according to my souce, IRL the missile reaches 900 metres in about 5 seconds.
Furthermore, this calculation uses average speed in maximum range engagement, witch is fairly smaller than top speed of missile. So I would not be suprised if said 900 m flight time would be even less than 5 secs.

So, according to my info, you are wrong on your fundamental statement. Nevertheless I am interested to see your sources that will prove me wrong.

-lucky

lucky.BOY wrote:So, according to my info, you are wrong on your fundamental statement.

I think his point was that 800-1000m is the maximum range of weapons in PR(because that's the maximum view distance) so therefore the flight times should be scaled accordingly. Basically, firing from the max range should take 20s to impact, in real life that range is 3750m, in PR it's 1000m.

His thinking is that real life ATGM teams can't hit targets at their max range in 5seconds, so it's kind of unfair that tanks in PR can wander into their max range and get hit so quickly.

badmojo420 wrote:I think his point was that 800-1000m is the maximum range of weapons in PR(because that's the maximum view distance) so therefore the flight times should be scaled accordingly. Basically, firing from the max range should take 20s to impact, in real life that range is 3750m, in PR it's 1000m.

His thinking is that real life ATGM teams can't hit targets at their max range in 5seconds, so it's kind of unfair that tanks in PR can wander into their max range and get hit so quickly.

That would still influence handling of the rocket in close range in an unrealistic way. If you guys like BF3 style rockets, im not going to party with you

-lucky

I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, don't really use ATGMs enough to form an opinion. But, dismissing the suggestion simply because it's unrealistic isn't going to help PR become better. When you already have one unrealistic factor (the view distance) the whole "base it on exact reality" equilibrium goes out the door.