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

[Sparatan117]

Originally Posted by StuTika

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 cock pit or the tail rotor then yes I could agree.

[Scot]

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

[EmBra]

Originally Posted by cyberzomby

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

[Sparatan117]

Originally Posted by [SP-DEV]Scot

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

Actually the sides of the blackhawk and apache are kevlar

Originally Posted by 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).

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

[cyberzomby]

Stutika I dont mean to come acros as an ass 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.

[[R-DEV]Jaymz]

Originally Posted by Alex6714

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.

[Sparatan117]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz

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.

[[R-DEV]Jaymz]

Originally Posted by Sparatan117

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).

[Sparatan117]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz

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.

[[R-DEV]Jaymz]

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).