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

[McBumLuv]

Well, since we're straying off topic, why doesn't each chopper have it's own respective Rocket count and specifications?

Though, otherwise, on topic, will the HAT get their distance limits applied ever? That might help as well, though they'd still be within range of view distance of a helicopter on some maps (Karbala and Muttrah, I'm looking at you )

[Redamare]

Alls fair in fake online war i think If they can hit you its cuz ur not going fast enough

[[R-DEV]Eddie Baker]

Originally Posted by EmBra

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

I understand that English is not your first language, but please read again:

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Eddie Baker

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.

I never said you wouldn't have to look for them while they were readying the weapon. Situational awareness is your friend, both on this forum, and in the game. You should be looking for threats behind corners and ridges.

With regards to back-blast and elevation of the launcher, with a SACLOS missile, you don't have to point the crosshair directly to the elevation of your target (though it is preferable). You can launch off of center and steer the missile into the target if you're fast enough/the target is far enough away.

As to the realism of gunners engaging helicopters with anti-armor weapons

Originally Posted by FM 3-22.32 "M41 Improved Target Acquisition System (for TOW ATGM)," JULY 2005, HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

4-11. HELICOPTER ENGAGEMENT
Enemy armor is the primary threat to friendly ground forces employed in forward areas. The primary mission of the ITAS is the destruction of these tanks at the greatest possible range. However, ITAS gunners can also successfully engage attacking enemy helicopters, which are a significant threat to ground forces. Engaging helicopters with the ITAS should be considered primarily as a means of self-defense. ITAS crews should not consider helicopters as a routine target of opportunity, but should leave them to conventional ADA assets when possible. Launch warning receiver technology available worldwide makes engagement of rotary-wing aircraft potentially a dangerous action.
a.
ITAS positions are selected to cover armor avenues of approach, but these long-range fields of fire also facilitate the engagement of aircraft. The section leader’s, squad leader’s, and crew’s observation from these positions can provide the early warning required to successfully engage aircraft.
b.
The engagement of attacking helicopters should be done by ITAS sections, not individual weapon systems. ITAS sections should automatically engage helicopters that are attacking their positions. If one squad in a section is being attacked by a helicopter, the other squad should engage the helicopter while the first squad seeks cover. ITAS crews and sections should be trained to automatically respond to helicopter attacks in this manner.

Originally Posted by FIELD MANUAL 3-22.1" BRADLEY GUNNERY," NOVEMBER 2003, HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

c. Beyond 1,700 meters, the 25-mm uses too much ammunition for each kill. Thus, the crew uses the TOW weapon system against stationary, slow moving (up to 50 MPH) aerial targets between 1,700 and 2,000 meters. Nevertheless, the gunner should use the TOW against helicopters only when necessary.

Originally Posted by FM 3-22.37 "JAVELIN—CLOSE COMBAT MISSILE SYSTEM, MEDIUM," March 2008, HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Hovering Helicopter
4-97. To ensure an effective engagement, select the direct attack mode only.
Frontal Target
4-98. Adjust the track gates so that they surround only the nose of the fuselage (Figure 4-27). Any appendages (such as armaments, wings, rotor, and so forth) should be ignored.

4-99. Adjust the track gates to surround the passenger/engine compartment or main body (for those helicopters without a passenger compartment) (Figure 4-98]. Any appendages—such as the cockpit, tail boom, rotor, and so forth—are ignored.

[CAS_117]

FAS: Hydra-70

M229 HE

The M229 HE Warhead is an elongated version of the M151 Warhead and is commonly referred to as the "17 Pounder" warhead. The M229 HE warhead is currently in the inventory. It was designed and developed to increase the lethality and destructiveness of the 10 pound high explosive warhead. The total weight of the loaded, unfuzed warhead is 16.1 pounds (7.3 kg) [other sources report an unfuzed weight of 16.4 pounds] of which 4.8 pounds (2.18 kg) is composite B-4 HE. Upon detonation, the warhead fragments into thousands of small, high velocity, fragments. Temperature limits for storage and firing the M229 are -65 F to +150 F.

M107 projectile

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M107_(projectile)

* Weight as fired: 43.88 kg
* Explosive content:
o Composition B: 6.985 kg plus 0.136 kg TNT supplemental charge.
o TNT: 6.62 kg plus 0.136 kg TNT supplemental charge.
* Length (excluding fuze): 605.3 mm
* Body diameter: 154.89 mm
* Driving band diameter: 157.98 mm
* Fuzes (with supplmental charge):
o PD M51A5, M728 family, M557, M572, M739, M564, M577, M582, M732
* Fuzes (without supplemental charge):
o M728
* Manufacturer: American Ordnance LLC

My Point: The hydras should have approximately (60 - 90% of) the same effect on armor and infantry as the 155mm shell; since they have a shorter range, more weight can be used for the warhead. A 155mm shell is mostly the casing and propellant. I think that there is an unspoken understatement of the effects of hydras and HE in general, probably because of Hollywood (and westwood, if you're a CNC fan).

I saw a tape of an apache attack what looked like a castle on some mountain in Afghanistan with hydras, and from the effect it was probably the heavier M229; the building collapsed with maybe 2 hits. Just a comparison the Hellfire (HEAT) has a 8 - 10 Kg shaped charge. That has a pretty big blast/fragmentation distance for an armor piercing warhead.

This is an article about the effects of blast fragmentation warheads (artillery) against tanks:

Who says dumb artillery rounds cant kill armor? - Free Online Library

The resulting effects on the trucks and personnel were close to model predictions. However, the effects on the armored vehicles and tanks were significantly higher than model predictions.

The model predicted 30 percent damage to armored vehicles and tanks; however, 67 percent damage was achieved. Fragmentation from the HE rounds penetrated the armored vehicles, destroying critical components and injuring the manikin manikin /man·i·kin/ (man´i-kin) a model to illustrate anatomy or on which to practice surgical or other manipulations. manikin
(man´ikin),
n crews. (See an example of such damage in Figure 1.) In addition, the HE fragmentation damaged tracks, road wheels, and tank main gun sights and set one vehicle on fire.

iirc the tanks in question were older Patton tanks. They probably didn't have ceramic or reactive armor, but for top/rear armor its hardly an issue. That isn't even mentioning the tracks, air intakes, or optical/IR sensors.

My Conclusion: The hydras in PR are fairly accurate, but if anything WEAKER than what they should be, especially the fragmentation distance (I think that it should be closer to 30 - 40m. And that is a conservative estimate: the debris still probably wouldn't have stopped by then. I mean its something like 3000 psi in the center, you can double check that). But since we haven't really represented realistic AA weapons, view distance, or range, their effectiveness is more than it would be otherwise. They also do not have drag or realistic acceleration, (I've done most of this for my private version), so adjusting for ballistic drop is unnecessary. Of course average engagement range is <500m at longest so you can assume that 80% are going to be direct hits.

My point is that if hydras are seen as too powerful, there is quite a bit else wrong with the systems/circumstances in place.

[[R-DEV]Jaymz]

Good post. Do you know much about S-8 loadouts, CAS? Doesn't seem like they design them to be as multi-purpose as Hydras (or as effective in that case). I'm curious as to whether or not they load different types into the same pod or not.

Originally Posted by CAS_117

My point is that if hydras are seen as too powerful, there is quite a bit else wrong with the systems/circumstances in place.

Like you said, the circumstances are that engagement ranges are squashed to the point where the effectiveness of hydras is multiplied.

My doubts about Hydra effectiveness have been quelled both in here by CAS/Sparatan and on the dev forums by Eddie Baker. Hydras, most likely S-8s as well, will remain the same.

[McBumLuv]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz

My doubts about Hydra effectiveness have been quelled both in here by CAS/Sparatan and on the dev forums by Eddie Baker. Hydras, most likely S-8s as well, will remain the same.

Not that I'm disputing that, but will the ammo count be changed for a more reflective attribute? I never really doubted the Hydra's damage to be unrealistic, though there probably is some difference in fragmentation damage/spread between each helicopter, right?

[CAS_117]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz

Good post. Do you know much about S-8 loadouts, CAS? Doesn't seem like they design them to be as multi-purpose as Hydras (or as effective in that case). I'm curious as to whether or not they load different types into the same pod or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-8_rocket

Sry for quoting wikipedia again. The S-8 series looks like it only has maybe 0.6 - 1.6 kg of explosive. I can't see them being more effective than they are now. Maybe the Tandem version would damage tanks more but well, the cannons better anyways.

My point is that if hydras are seen as too powerful, there is quite a bit else wrong with the systems/circumstances in place.
Like you said, the circumstances are that engagement ranges are squashed to the point where the effectiveness of hydras is multiplied.

Of course on the flip side, aircraft can't use their standoff capability either.

[awqs]

hmm so this is why i die and not get a warning

[awqs]

Originally Posted by Redamare

Alls fair in fake online war i think If they can hit you its cuz ur not going fast enough

ya but its kind of hard to land at 700km an hour and have a squad jump out and survive.

[Alex6714]

Originally Posted by Redamare

Alls fair in fake online war i think If they can hit you its cuz ur not going fast enough

You wouldn´t say that if helicopters were firing 2000lb jdam rockets would you.