PDA

View Full Version : Why isnt the chinook armed?


FuzzySquirrel
2010-02-26, 22:30
Like the title says.

Imo, Either Arm all the Transports or dont arm any...

Drunkenup
2010-02-26, 22:38
It does seem that most of the transport choppers are armed in PR. Except a few, but I don't believe the UH-1N has onboard weapons in the Transport role.

But yeah, a Ramp mounted M240 would prove useful on the Chinook.

FuzzySquirrel
2010-02-26, 22:48
Armed Trans

Chinese Z-10
Mec Mi17
US UH60

Unarmed

GB MH101 Merlin
US/CAD/GB Ch47D chinook
GB Lynx
USMC UH1N Huey

Quiet the opposite Drunk, Most are unarmed, All of which are Blufor.
Also a M240 on the Rear Ramp isnt plausable since it closes, but adding doors with 240s or the Rare M134s would be nice

shribey22
2010-02-26, 22:54
I remember reading somewhere that it is because the devs want to discourage the use of transport choppers as attack platforms

Drunkenup
2010-02-26, 23:03
Armed Trans

Chinese Z-10
Mec Mi17
US UH60

Unarmed

GB MH101 Merlin
US/CAD/GB Ch47D chinook
GB Lynx
USMC UH1N Huey

Quiet the opposite Drunk, Most are unarmed, All of which are Blufor.
Also a M240 on the Rear Ramp isnt plausable since it closes, but adding doors with 240s or the Rare M134s would be nice

True, but wouldn't you think that shooting off whatever is chasing you from behind would be more useful than shooting off the side?

But the ones that happen to be armed are those from vBF2 and come with those weapons.

But in some aspects I do support your argument, Transport helicopters should have some way of defending themselves one way or another.

CodeRedFox
2010-02-26, 23:34
I remember reading somewhere that it is because the devs want to discourage the use of transport choppers as attack platforms


Bingo ;-)

When the opportunity is there it will be done.

dtacs
2010-02-27, 01:37
They are so impractical anyway (.50's on the MEC/Chinese chopper are useless) that it wouldn't encourage attack platforms. The BH isn't used as one atm is it?

FuzzySquirrel
2010-02-27, 01:44
CodeRedFox;1280113']Bingo ;-)

When the opportunity is there it will be done.

You do realize just because you take the primary weapons off a helicopter people will still use it for a HAT/SAW/AA/Anything platform...Right..?

Rhino
2010-02-27, 01:46
They are so impractical anyway (.50's on the MEC/Chinese chopper are useless) that it wouldn't encourage attack platforms. The BH isn't used as one atm is it?

You would be amazed how many times I've seen people trying to use the Chinese/MEC helicopters as gunships with just the 50cals.... And yes this is in PR.

You do realize just because you take the primary weapons off a helicopter people will still use it for a HAT/SAW/AA/Anything platform...Right..?

Not if we stop them from shooting from inside the choppers.



Also guys the main reason why we dont currently have door guns on choppers is because we aint made any door gun stands etc + we want a good GPMG/M240 model too before we do.

For the Lynx etc we do already have GPMG door gun mounts ready, we just need a decent GPMG to put on them.

Proceed
2010-02-27, 02:20
Don't know whether it changed much, the 50 cal on its back, i mean its almost the same thing like the MEC chopper, and maybe someone is trying to gunship but actually that is asset waste ...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4UgPpUjA1Ug&hl=de_DE&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4UgPpUjA1Ug&hl=de_DE&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Rissien
2010-02-27, 02:20
Just in transport role got people firing off the weapons just because they can already, cant remember a round where I havnt told them to stop shooting them. I have seen the occasional case where one would circle around infantry *reminded me greatly of the AC-130 in Modern Warfare 2* firing with the .50. I myself actually did this once on Beriut in a cow quite effectively. Once armor came around i pulled out though.

Also seen plenty of times where the cows on Yamalia with .50 cals being used in attempts to fire on Chinooks, was fun once when we had two Chinooks flying circles around a chopper trying to shoot us down, we actually managed to make him crash as he tried following us.

Rudd
2010-02-27, 02:57
Also seen plenty of times where the cows on Yamalia with .50 cals being used in attempts to fire on Chinooks, was fun once when we had two Chinooks flying circles around a chopper trying to shoot us down, we actually managed to make him crash as he tried following us.

I've seen some effective chinook hunters as well

one day I'm sure the weapons will get added.

Shooter90
2010-02-27, 05:01
Rudd;1280229']I've seen some effective chinook hunters as well

one day I'm sure the weapons will get added.

In my opinion, I think this version in PRSP is just a proof of concept model before adding in more weapons. However primarily a Chinook is used as a aerial transport vehicle and not a weapons platform. Since the Battlefield engine is only supporting a max of 8 people in the vehicle, it's unlikely they might release a second version with machine gun mounts since they primarily designed them for only troop transport.

Looks like you might need some teamwork from your infantry and other assets to protect the choppers.

hartbilt
2010-02-27, 05:39
Who's your Daddy??

It's not really a good offensive weapon, but great defense. Keeps the enemies heads down while performing insert/extract.



Use the edit button instead of double posting.

FuzzySquirrel
2010-02-27, 05:55
FuzzySquirrel, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

When I click your attachments...

hartbilt
2010-02-27, 07:54
yeah, same to me, I'm not sure why

Snazz
2010-02-27, 08:18
Keeps the enemies heads down while performing insert/extract.
Provided the enemy is exposed, lightly-armed and within the firing angle.

Otherwise your door gun isn't going to make any difference in PR whatsoever.

Qaiex
2010-02-27, 08:22
I'm actually glad they didn't add door guns to most transport helicopters.
You hardly ever need them ingame to shoot at enemies anyway.

And as a pilot I can tell you that the most annoying god damn thing in the world is piloting the flying cow or the blackhawk and having the noob-bastards spamming the doorguns at nothing, for no apparent reason.
It's enough that I have seriously considered crashing the helicopter to get rid of them.

StuTika
2010-03-07, 23:30
Rhino;1280190']You would be amazed how many times I've seen people trying to use the Chinese/MEC helicopters as gunships with just the 50cals.... And yes this is in PR.

Not if we stop them from shooting from inside the choppers.



Aww come on Rhino, you take all the fun out of it! Shooting from inside choppers is not all that effective and a bit of fun when you do it!

Same goes for door guns. However, I don't think using them to give troops you've just inserted some fire support is entirely unrealistic.

Stu.

Ford_Jam
2010-03-08, 06:12
Once I saw a guy suggest we smash a bunch of infantry attacking us on Kashan with the BH's guns.
The whole team thought it was a brilliant idea.
Every MEC soldier turned their weapons to the sky and shot it down :\

Rudd
2010-03-08, 08:20
Seriously guys, if choppers should not have weapons in order to encourage them to transport etc etc then APCs shouldn't have a weapon on top either, whole armoured collumns of the equivalent of the BRDM support.

hell, medics shouldn't have guns they are meant to be healing

HATs shouldn't have rifles cuz they are meant to be tank hunting

Officers shouldn't have guns, cuz they are meant to be leading - Increases teamwork if he has to surround himself with guys with guns to survive

I think you get the point.

Let the players do well or make mistakes, just give them the realistic options in any given situation.

I've used a MEC chopper as a gunship before, we hunted a lonewolf logitruck and destroyed it, are you saying that I should have gotten a BRDM from 1k away to come back to our main just to kill this thing when it was safe and effective for my crew to do it?

CodeRedFox
2010-03-08, 08:24
Wait a minute I think Rudd's on to something...

Rissien
2010-03-08, 09:33
Guns on choppers are useful at times, its just when they arnt needed players act like retards and fire them off just because they can.

anglomanii
2010-03-08, 10:29
some of you may think i am completely crazy (those of you that have the misfortune of knowing me hold this to be a fact) but i definitely encourage the use of door gunners or inf on board firing from transports if they can. some of you say it doesn't work some of you claim it's irresponsible and wasteful and most of you claim it gives our position away. well here's a little shock, super pigs make more noise then your bloody boom stick and most of the time your going straight up the date of the evil old one eye, so in my most humble opinion, if i am going to hell in a hand basket i want every gun on that flying pig putting as much fire out as possible. more rounds going out means less coming back and i have on occasion been able to put my saw to a bloody good deal of work sitting in the hot seat in a Huey on old jaba, to any one who says you cant do any good as a gunner or it's ineffective, i just don't think you've put the practice time in and you haven't been working closely enough with a good pilot.

there's my two cents.
anglo

wookimonsta
2010-03-08, 10:33
in all of my playing PR, i have seen one instance where the door guns on a transport chopper were used to some effect.
this was on kashan some inf had gotten into the old main US flag and we had 2 blackhawks circling and taking them out.

every other time, if the heli stays long enough to do any damage it will die

sylent/shooter
2010-03-08, 11:44
did he speak english? Honestly I have NO idea what he's talking about... Anyways.. I fully support the door guns. The BH has to be my favourite, pop over a ridge and immediately blow the crap out of anything thats coming to you. :)

John-117
2010-03-08, 11:54
maybe for the Chinook you could have:
1xPilot
6 man squad
maybe 1x gunner
The gunner could be located at the back on the ramp. So when the squad has been dropped and the chinook is going away it can give them cover. This way it cant be used as an attack platform bacause you can only see at the back Maybe give it an M249 so it would be anti infantry?

mangeface
2010-03-08, 14:41
some of you may think i am completely crazy (those of you that have the misfortune of knowing me hold this to be a fact) but i definitely encourage the use of door gunners or inf on board firing from transports if they can. some of you say it doesn't work some of you claim it's irresponsible and wasteful and most of you claim it gives our position away. well here's a little shock, super pigs make more noise then your bloody boom stick and most of the time your going straight up the date of the evil old one eye, so in my most humble opinion, if i am going to hell in a hand basket i want every gun on that flying pig putting as much fire out as possible. more rounds going out means less coming back and i have on occasion been able to put my saw to a bloody good deal of work sitting in the hot seat in a Huey on old jaba, to any one who says you cant do any good as a gunner or it's ineffective, i just don't think you've put the practice time in and you haven't been working closely enough with a good pilot.

there's my two cents.
anglo

+1 on that. I love door gunning. I just wish the aircraft could hold 9, so the helos could always have door gunners and be able to carry a full squad. OH, and the Hueys have door guns. Even the rocket Hueys.

mangeface
2010-03-08, 14:45
Rudd;1288823']I've used a MEC chopper as a gunship before, we hunted a lonewolf logitruck and destroyed it, are you saying that I should have gotten a BRDM from 1k away to come back to our main just to kill this thing when it was safe and effective for my crew to do it?

I used a trans Huey on Jabal Al Burj as a gunship before. Had 2 guys with AR kits in the F7 and F8 positions, and one guy with a HAT. We killed about 5 or 6 guys and the HAT gunner nailed a BTR before we got shot down.

paracowboy
2010-03-08, 15:16
Just yesterday I was with one of the better "door gun" pilots I have ever seen. On Ramiel I "crewed" for him and with the ability to hop guns and let him know "left pedal turn" when I needed it we managed to take out 3 hideouts, 2 techs and probably 10 guys.

It takes a very good pilot to use the platforms effectively and a great way to tell if someone is a noob or not is to see how long they will try and hover. All of the choppers, especially the big ones become RPG magnets if you are still for longer than a few seconds. Back when we had hueys on Archer I would use the M203 and actually got pretty good at leading targets with it. I actually had a pilot get shot out of the seat while he was trying to hover over the castle for the "prefect shot". I am screaming "MOVE" and he is just hanging out and all of a sudden we totally lose power.

Anywho I love the idea of needing more than one person (the pilot) to make some of these aircraft viable in combat. If the blackhawk has an experienced pilot like Elvish and a good crew with coms they are much harder to take down.

[uBp]Irish
2010-03-08, 20:46
I usually fly Transport Helicopters and have partaken many times as a CAS platform when the availability of heavier CAS roles are unavailable.

Also, this is not something far off the truth:

Feature - Rescue Under Fire: Air Force Reserve rescue crew recognized for battlefield heroics (http://www.920rqw.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123180820)

"We were able to engage the bad guys on the first pass, all fire was on target. That's all we heard from the CCT, 'All fire was on target. Continue to engage.'"

The crew flew a weapons employment pattern six times, maneuvering their aircraft into a position to protect the special forces team while neutralizing multiple enemy fires and forcing the retreat of some 30 insurgents.

"So we effectively suppressed the bad guys," Captain McDonald humbly concluded.

The captain's modest summary does not adequately reflect the crew's contribution to the operation. In the course of providing fire support for the Army team on the ground, the rescue crew had effectively gunned-down eight Taliban fighters, including three high-value targets, and crippled the enemy resistance by removing the Taliban Uruzgan Province command structure.

-------

In all honesty I see no problem with this issue. If people are doing their job transporting people, but find that they could also help the team by providing an attack platform than by all means go ahead.

Remember - they're still fat, they're still weak, and the gun ain't that powerful in a short period of time.

Drunkenup
2010-03-08, 21:06
maybe for the Chinook you could have:
1xPilot
6 man squad
maybe 1x gunner
The gunner could be located at the back on the ramp. So when the squad has been dropped and the chinook is going away it can give them cover. This way it cant be used as an attack platform bacause you can only see at the back Maybe give it an M249 so it would be anti infantry?

As much as this would take infantry off the ground (no more than 2-3 people) it does follow Rudd's logic making it plausible. Me support. But the Ramp gun should be a FN MAG as they are mounted in real life, M249's and 5.56 are too ineffective. This goes for other choppers as well (only if real life dictates), M240s, M2s and M134's on Transport and Attack Hueys respectively, FN MAGs on Chinooks, 240s on Blackhawks, etc.

SGT_Griggs
2010-03-25, 17:02
Gimpy on the back of a chinook ftw! I definately agree that giving the chinook a rear door gunner would be beneficial as a) it can support the troops its just deposited, b) it can still carry a whole squad. But personally i don't think that giving the chinook door guns would be great as obviously it would sort of become a platform of death covered on all sides... and therefore very abusable...

Tim270
2010-03-25, 17:16
i don't think that giving the chinook door guns would be great as obviously it would sort of become a platform of death covered on all sides... and therefore very abusable...

You could use that argument for all the choppers in PR, but its simply not the case. The BH has by far the most powerful mini-guns and yet it is very rare that it will actually be used for fire support as all pilots know just how vulnerable they are when hovering and circling around a target.

Door guns are very useful for simply putting down suppressive fire when touching down to drop troops.

Hunt3r
2010-03-26, 00:10
It's a bit like operating AC-130s in broad daylight. You know it'll get shot down, but until it does get shot down, it's nice to have.

Rissien
2010-03-26, 02:52
Had a cow trying to gun down our Chinooks yesterday, we had two Chinooks just circling around him untill he decided to just ram one of us instead. <.<

MadMax678
2010-04-16, 00:55
The only decent Infil/Exfil Transport Heli would have to be the Black Hawk.

it has both speed and defence, and can be used as a weapons platform with the two Gatling rape cannons on each side...


But yeah, a M249 or .50 would be lovely on the Chinook, i hate getting owned by a Taliban with a RPG behind us when i land...

onikenshin
2010-05-31, 02:16
dusnt the chinook have a port were you can attach a 30 or a grenade launcher on the side? i think its on the right.

Trooper909
2010-05-31, 05:23
Rudd;1288823']Seriously guys, if choppers should not have weapons in order to encourage them to transport etc etc then APCs shouldn't have a weapon on top either, whole armoured collumns of the equivalent of the BRDM support.

hell, medics shouldn't have guns they are meant to be healing

HATs shouldn't have rifles cuz they are meant to be tank hunting

Officers shouldn't have guns, cuz they are meant to be leading - Increases teamwork if he has to surround himself with guys with guns to survive

I think you get the point.

Let the players do well or make mistakes, just give them the realistic options in any given situation.

I've used a MEC chopper as a gunship before, we hunted a lonewolf logitruck and destroyed it, are you saying that I should have gotten a BRDM from 1k away to come back to our main just to kill this thing when it was safe and effective for my crew to do it?


QFT here.

Forced teamwork is as silly as this actuly sounds and what is going on to much as of late.
would elaberate but has been said by alot of old PR vets when .8 came out vets who are no longer with us because of such sillyness.

lucky.BOY
2010-05-31, 18:12
Firstly - the door guns are IRL used as defensive guns, because thea are so inacurate that you can just suppres the threat until you extract the squad and get out. Actually they are facing sides or back, not front like in attack choppers, obviusly. Once again, thier primary objective is to suppres, not to kill.
On that chinook idea, sounds good to me, but it definately must be a HMG. But do you expect the gunner to be something like gunner in apache, i mean member of sq, with a pilot kit, or it will be same as in BH?
On the topic of attacking trans choppers, if you have an opurtunity to kill something, why dont you kill it? But using a trans chopper mainly as an attack platform makes it shot down. Its still too weak and fat, as said above.

Hitman.2.5
2010-05-31, 20:44
H[=Rissien;1288860']Guns on choppers are useful at times, its just when they arnt needed players act like retards and fire them off just because they can.

then make the gunner positions need a pilot kit ?!?!?!?

this would only allow 5 troops in the back :(, or remove one of the guns if possible. that seems to me like the only way to stop them from firing the guns, also firing the guns wont give you away as the chopper is louder.

Ogopogo
2010-06-06, 00:38
I think that having a pilot kit to operate the guns is a good idea. Consider that in real life these guns are normally operated a designated gunner (with special training, sometimes they are also flight engineer). Perhaps if someone without a pilot's kit got on the gun, it would decrease accuracy as they lack the training to fire the guns from a fast moving target. I feel that the suppressing force of these guns (in hot areas) are never used, as there is no gunner as they come into the landing zone.
I remember once that a squad I was in got pickup from a chopper. Unknown to us there were enemies in the area. The gunner on the mini-gun (it was a blackhawk) suppressed the infantry after the pilot circled once. The pilot landed so the gunner could still fire. We managed to get to chopper and get out without a single casualty.

Drunkenup
2010-06-06, 00:51
The only decent Infil/Exfil Transport Heli would have to be the Black Hawk.

it has both speed and defence, and can be used as a weapons platform with the two Gatling rape cannons on each side...


But yeah, a M249 or .50 would be lovely on the Chinook, i hate getting owned by a Taliban with a RPG behind us when i land...

I disagree wholeheartedly, The Blackhawk in game is a smoking piece of crap. Its coded badly with handling characteristics that are bipolar, miniguns are far ineffective and mostly give your position away, it is one of the slower helos, etc.

IMO, the best would have to be either the Huey or Chinook. Both fast, maneuverable, the latter being far resistant to small arms, the Huey being a relatively smaller helo, making it a small target.

Rudd
2010-06-06, 02:19
H[=Rissien;1288860']Guns on choppers are useful at times, its just when they arnt needed players act like retards and fire them off just because they can.

seriously, I'm getting tired of this attitude

every time that I've fired a mounted weapon on a helo in defence of the aircraft with a legitimate target, I've received a nasty message from the pilot.

Come on guys, dickheads are dickheads, if its not with a mounted weapon its going to be with something else, so can we just get past that and try to stay realistic, otherwise we might as well take the 50cals off humvees.

goguapsy
2010-06-06, 02:48
Rudd;1359994']Come on guys, dickheads are dickheads, if its not with a mounted weapon its going to be with something else, so can we just get past that and try to stay realistic, otherwise we might as well take the 50cals off humvees.

But the weapon doesn't sound as fast as BH's minigun...

And the whole "Steel Rain" idea is non-existent in a HMMVV's .50cal...



(Well TBH I believe everyone argues with you Rudd because of your reputation. A little "slip", even if it isn't wrong, is enough to be a reason to put a known person down. Most people think that gives them rep- power, because you've made a "mistake" -- I hope you understand what I mean, this is something I've observed IRL).

FuzzySquirrel
2010-06-09, 20:56
Rudd does have a point. It always seems to be the whole "How People Play over Realism" Its more realistic to have armed helicopters. If someone wants to use it for C.A.S its their problem, but it makes absolutely no sense to have unarmed helicopters if their armed in real life though.. If you guys are waiting on a M240 or other gun to arm it then I don't mind, but if your removing realistic aspects because some moron doesn't use something the way YOU guys want then I'd be disappointed.

Lange
2010-06-10, 20:27
I also agree with the idea of having a pilot kit to use some types of door guns or all door guns as it would give a few more roles to trans squads, where a "copilot" could be useful.

blackhatch46
2010-06-29, 23:08
Rudd does have a point. It always seems to be the whole "How People Play over Realism" Its more realistic to have armed helicopters. If someone want's to use it for C.A.S its their problem, but it makes absolutely no sense to have unarmed helicopters if their armed in real life thought.. If you guys are waiting on a M240 or other gun to arm it then I don't mind, but if your removing realistic aspects because some moron doesn't use something the way YOU guys want then I'd be disappointed.

i completely agree, the focus of the game should be realism over all. having a helo with no dfensive guns is as stupid as having a pilot without at least a pistol...oh wait thats in game too! IF it were realistic all helos would have guns and the pilots would have a pistol, AND a rifle as they do IRL. Then again the huey would be the slowest helo not one of the fastest, a little bird wouldnt be on a USMC map, the helo sounds would be changed, etc, etc you get my drift. I am indeed tired of the game being changed to someones personal preference over realism, especially when said person probably doesnt even have the knowledge to put the game in a realistic environment in the first place yet continues to change the game without the advice of military members. IMO nothing should be in game unless it is verified by a military member, instead of Wikipedia as some things seem to be.

-|Tactic|-Japsen
2010-07-01, 13:04
I totally agree, if you want to make a realism mod than please make it as realistic as possible.
No Doorguns? Who would send a chopper without doorguns?!?

dtacs
2010-07-01, 13:41
I think that having a pilot kit to operate the guns is a good idea.
It is, however if both positions (left and right) were pilot required then there would only be space for 5 infantry rather than a whole squad, which would defeat the purpose of having such a big chopper like the Chinook

If it was a requirement for the rear ramp gun, then it would be feesable.

Sgt.BountyOrig
2010-07-01, 14:20
...There are eight Seats

dtacs
2010-07-01, 14:22
...There are eight Seats
One pilot, two gunners, five infantry.

1 + 2 + 5 = 8

TmanEd
2010-07-01, 19:01
i completely agree, the focus of the game should be realism over all. having a helo with no dfensive guns is as stupid as having a pilot without at least a pistol...oh wait thats in game too! IF it were realistic all helos would have guns and the pilots would have a pistol, AND a rifle as they do IRL. Then again the huey would be the slowest helo not one of the fastest, a little bird wouldnt be on a USMC map, the helo sounds would be changed, etc, etc you get my drift. I am indeed tired of the game being changed to someones personal preference over realism, especially when said person probably doesnt even have the knowledge to put the game in a realistic environment in the first place yet continues to change the game without the advice of military members. IMO nothing should be in game unless it is verified by a military member, instead of Wikipedia as some things seem to be.

They took out the pilot's guns because people were doing parachute drops for them, instead of only using them in case of an emergency. The devs didn't want the whole 'spec ops' thing going on. Also, you do know that they have military advisers, right? I think they might know a bit more than you.

Alex6714
2010-07-01, 19:21
Also, you do know that they have military advisers, right? I think they might know a bit more than you.

Thats a non argument imo. They have plenty of military advisers. There are also plenty of equally informed or serving guys not on the team. The military advisers don´t have the final say on any decision, they just advise. You can see kiowa pilots clearly armed with M4s and Apache pilots armed with SA80s but they will never be in PR as such, just because someone doesn´t want them to, not because its not realistic.

Rudd
2010-07-01, 19:35
They took out the pilot's guns because people were doing parachute drops for them, instead of only using them in case of an emergency. The devs didn't want the whole 'spec ops' thing going on. Also, you do know that they have military advisers, right? I think they might know a bit more than you.

Removing the parachute would have been a better idea imo, there are 2 maps with jets, there are many many more with helicopters.

Dev1200
2010-07-01, 19:40
Thats a non argument imo. They have plenty of military advisers. There are also plenty of equally informed or serving guys not on the team. The military advisers don´t have the final say on any decision, they just advise. You can see kiowa pilots clearly armed with M4s and Apache pilots armed with SA80s but they will never be in PR as such, just because someone doesn´t want them to, not because its not realistic.

You have to fairly adjust realism and gameplay. If PR was entirely realistic, every player would have to do basic training, depending on which faction he is deploying for, he has to do paperwork, do written exams, and be deployed to whichever area he is sent to by an officer.


However, that all sounds terribly boring. But realistic. Dx PR Is roughly 70% realism and 30% gameplay. Small changes are added for gameplay sake, such as pilots not having weapons because a common tactic was to unrealistically jump out of choppers and parachute down, killing anyone nearby with the pistols, and then stealing their weapons. IIRC helicopters aren't used as parachute platforms.



It's not because "someone doesn't want them to", like you say. If someone says I don't like M4 carbines, they're not going to change it so that they just use an m16.

Alex6714
2010-07-01, 19:49
You have to fairly adjust realism and gameplay. If PR was entirely realistic, every player would have to do basic training, depending on which faction he is deploying for, he has to do paperwork, do written exams, and be deployed to whichever area he is sent to by an officer.


However, that all sounds terribly boring. But realistic. Dx PR Is roughly 70% realism and 30% gameplay. Small changes are added for gameplay sake, such as pilots not having weapons because a common tactic was to unrealistically jump out of choppers and parachute down, killing anyone nearby with the pistols, and then stealing their weapons. IIRC helicopters aren't used as parachute platforms.



It's not because "someone doesn't want them to", like you say. If someone says I don't like M4 carbines, they're not going to change it so that they just use an m16.

Of course, I understand that, don´t agree always but its something that has to be done sometimes.

I was simply pointing out that the common argument of "well there are military advisers I think they know more than you and everything is perfectly correct" is false and silly. Of course it makes some things as realistic as possible but its not an argument because in the end what goes into the game its whats considered best by a few people not only the military advisers.

stealth420
2010-07-01, 20:36
The devs have been saying the same thing for over a year.


" We dont have a good Platform model "

Even though they have released tons of new vehicles no one has made time to design one of the most simple models in this Engine.

Not to be a jackass but come on i could design a platform with my eyes closed.

Rudd
2010-07-01, 20:42
Not to be a jackass but come on i could design a platform with my eyes closed.

then do it...

if the work is done it'll most probably get added

Arnoldio
2010-07-01, 22:35
You have to fairly adjust realism and gameplay. If PR was entirely realistic, every player would have to do basic training, depending on which faction he is deploying for, he has to do paperwork, do written exams, and be deployed to whichever area he is sent to by an officer.


Dont forget that he wouldnt be able just to switch factions somehow because US Army is the bestest and Insurgents suck because they dont have scopes and yes, you would have only 1 live.

blackhatch46
2010-07-01, 22:38
They took out the pilot's guns because people were doing parachute drops for them, instead of only using them in case of an emergency. The devs didn't want the whole 'spec ops' thing going on. Also, you do know that they have military advisers, right? I think they might know a bit more than you.

Listen you ignorant sheep, why do you think i would say all of this unless im in the military? The Marines in fact and i work on Marine helos, and have been for 7 years. Thanks for giving me your input from your mom's basement. To get back on topic, you cant control everything, people are going to do shit wrong sometimes (ramming with vehicles for instance). I think its stupid and a pilot should have a pistol. If you can survive a helo crash and kill enemies by yourself with only a pistol and two magazines, then you deserve those kills and that gameplay. also no one parachute out of a helo when they are pilot. you go down with it.

User has received an infraction for rudeness to other forum members

drs79
2010-07-02, 02:08
Because they are so fast, and if you give correct coordinate, let the pilot know if there are any threats in the AO, and have a competent pilot, he will be able to get you to your destination, extract you, or drop you crates without having to worry about having a door gunner.

Another reason is below:



"A Chinook is an unusually strong westerly or southwesterly wind that sweeps over the Rocky Mountain States of Wyoming, Colorado and Montana and onto the plains. These warm, dry winds are also very common in regions of western Canada, particularly in the extreme southwestern corner of the province of Alberta. To a lesser extent, these winds have been observed flowing across the Pacific Ocean states of Washington, Oregon, and California. The Chinook is named after the Chinook Indians who lived along the Columbia River, and who were the first people to tell stories of "The Great South Wind", or, in their language, the "Snow Eater".

Chinooks are normally formed when very moist air moves in from the Pacific Ocean and condenses, depositing heavy rain on the western, or leeside slope of the Rockies. This air, already warm,
continues heating, rushes over the mountains and surges down the eastern slopes, gaining velocity and eventually turning into strong winds. These warm winds usually maintain a speed of between 40-60 miles per hour, sweeping down mountain valleys and onto the plains, creating drastic and almost instantaneous temperature changes. Chinook winds have been known to melt a foot of snow or more in a single day. Temperature variations can be extreme, as much as 20-25 degrees Celsius (or 36-40 Fahrenheit) in an hour. These winds last from a few hours to a few days, and in rare cases several weeks."

Trooper909
2010-07-02, 04:17
I dont think taking away door guns because noobs shoot them for no reason or the incorrect uses of them is the way to go tbh

If we go in that direction you may aswell take away all lethal weapons and replace them with paintball guns as noobs may well TK with lethal weapons.

BigNate
2010-07-02, 08:01
This thread is a little hot for my taste, but I'll risk the enemy fire anyways, because I wanted to draw attention to this:

Rudd;1379884']Removing the parachute would have been a better idea imo, there are 2 maps with jets, there are many many more with helicopters.

Sounds like a great idea to me. I hate jet maps and so have little experience on them, but I see many a chopper pilot and not once yet have I seen a pilot bail. 95% of the time they're not even high enough to deploy a parachute.

The devs would have a better idea whether it's more feasible to make a separate jet kit and heli kit (one with chute, one with PDW) or to simply expect jet pilots to bite the bullet and go chute-less for compromise's sake, but I think either scenario would be an improvement gameplay-wise over the current defenseless pilot scenario.

A side effect of this change would be elimination of the paradrop-on-non-para-maps tactic. I read about it in a thread last month, where a heli would drop "pilots" and a crate, and they would find the crate and re-kit on the ground, behind enemy lines. Seems to me that preventing this tactic would be a positive change, though I'll admit not having seen it used in-game.

Sgt.Heine
2010-07-06, 10:30
maybe put it on the other birds but not the UH-1N because the USMC dont use them any more.they use Sea Kings.

Drunkenup
2010-07-06, 14:19
maybe put it on the other birds but not the UH-1N because the USMC dont use them any more.they use Sea Kings.

Marines still use the Twin Huey ans will continue to until the uh-1y replaces it within the next decade. The corps doesn't use the Sea King either, the USN did, but they are retired. You must be thinking of the phrog or Super Stallon

lilmanual
2010-07-15, 03:40
man theres still gonna be a douche ramming a whole squad with a transport heli lol

Q2M100
2010-07-17, 20:37
Answer: So that n00bs don't tell the pilot to set them up for a shot.

hiberNative
2010-07-17, 20:49
saying an armed chinook would make it stray from the transport role is like saying an armed medic will alienate him from healing and reviving teammates.

Psyrus
2010-07-17, 21:19
saying an armed chinook would make it stray from the transport role is like saying an armed medic will alienate him from healing and reviving teammates.But it's true... I too often have seen a blackhawk trying to circle around ramiel with the door guns blazing, more likely to kill a friendly than do any actual damage to the insurgents. These 'gunships' all end up in the same way... a flaming wreckage on the ground. If there were no door guns, there would be no temptation to use that retarded tactic, and we wouldn't lose another chopper for 10 minutes.

Dev1200
2010-07-17, 21:44
They're afraid the chinook will be used as an attack platform. I only see this being done very rarely.. =\

scope
2010-07-17, 22:12
They're afraid the chinook will be used as an attack platform. I only see this being done very rarely.. =\

It will be rare because you will have to wait for it to respawn after every attack run.

Dev1200
2010-07-17, 22:23
And since it's mostly the team's only transport ^^


Also, It works very well. Yesterday the russian trans choppers on Yamalia (Mi-17 IIRC?) were spraying down suppressive .50 fire while infantry was sweeping everything up. It's very COD4 style, but it works unless there's apc's in the area ;D

=Toasted=
2010-07-22, 02:29
I've never really seen door guns actually kill anything while flying anyway.
But, there was one time where I saw a blackhawk go down, and my squad was jokingly going to take the pilot hostage. As we approached the wreck, the pilot jumped on the minigun and ripped my squad apart. It was really unexpected.

Another time, on Ramiel, I was in a car transporting people, when I saw red tracers impacting all around me. Turns out I was bieng chased, and fired at by a Blackhawk. I zigzagged through the city, trying to lose it, all the while under fire. These instances where I witnessed trans heli is actually shooting stuff were too awesomely frightening to describe.

I can see why the door guns are not added, But I still wish the chinook had some form of armament.

Drunkenup
2010-07-22, 03:06
I've never really seen door guns actually kill anything while flying anyway.
But, there was one time where I saw a blackhawk go down, and my squad was jokingly going to take the pilot hostage. As we approached the wreck, the pilot jumped on the minigun and ripped my squad apart. It was really to unexpected and awesomely frightening to describe.

Another time, on Ramiel, I was in a car transporting people, when I saw red tracers impacting all around me. Turns out I was bieng chased, and fired at by a Blackhawk. I zigzagged through the city, trying to lose it, all the while under fire. These instances where I witnessed trans heli is actually shooting stuff were too awesomely frightening to describe.

I can see why the door guns are not added, But I still wish the chinook had them.

If a gun does get added, it would probably be mounted on the ramp and being a M240. We could help abuse by making it a "dedicated" kit, it requiring a pilot kit. I mean, a squad can fit in the Chinook, having the full 6 squad members, the pilot and the gunner. Not really loosing anything, except a slot for the lonely squad-less noob who just tags along a helo ride to kingdom-come.

ebevan91
2010-07-22, 05:30
Should put some Mk 19's on them or whatever current mounted GL system there is.

PLODDITHANLEY
2010-07-22, 08:44
Would it be possible and if so beneficial to add a lock weapons button for the pilots?

If the pilot doesn't want the miniguns fired he locks them, when approaching a hot zone he unlocks them?

dtacs
2010-07-22, 09:11
Would it be possible and if so beneficial to add a lock weapons button for the pilots?

If the pilot doesn't want the miniguns fired he locks them, when approaching a hot zone he unlocks them?
Re-suggestion, denied due to lack of realism.

Kill001
2010-07-22, 10:57
arm the chinook for some epic Mi-8 VS Chinook jousting :D






lol, in all serious respects; I would advise arming COWs IF the other side has an armed COW as well; just to keep things balanced because I tend to enjoy destroying/scaring/shooting unsuspecting chinooks on Yamalia and Silent Eagle because they are unarmed, and based on gut feeling, I feel that the chinooks are somewhat sitting ducks and are underpowered

Drunkenup
2010-07-22, 16:32
Should put some Mk 19's on them or whatever current mounted GL system there is.

The CH-47 doesn't have to provisions, nor does it mount grenade launchers. Excluding the canceled ACH-47A.

Drunkenup
2010-07-22, 16:35
arm the chinook for some epic Mi-8 VS Chinook jousting :D






lol, in all serious respects; I would advise arming COWs IF the other side has an armed COW as well; just to keep things balanced because I tend to enjoy destroying/scaring/shooting unsuspecting chinooks on Yamalia and Silent Eagle because they are unarmed, and based on gut feeling, I feel that the chinooks are somewhat sitting ducks and are underpowered

Well, they are faster, and have more crates. The Mi-8 is equipped with two sidemounted .50 Caliber Kords. I think a ramp mounted 7.62 M240 would equal it out.

doop-de-doo
2010-07-22, 17:57
Aren't the door gunners supposed to be part of the heli crew? Maybe in a similar way that the .50 cal is on a tank? That does throw up having the gunner positions becoming restricted in the same way that tank positions are.

Kill001
2010-07-23, 09:20
Well, they are faster, and have more crates. The Mi-8 is equipped with two sidemounted .50 Caliber Kords. I think a ramp mounted 7.62 M240 would equal it out.

yeah, maybe a 7.62 but afaik ramp mounted weapons are impossible atm

mebbe replace the kord with a weaker gun? (altho I'd be against this because SURPRISE BUTTSECKS-ing chinooks are fun :D)

Drunkenup
2010-07-23, 15:09
yeah, maybe a 7.62 but afaik ramp mounted weapons are impossible atm

mebbe replace the kord with a weaker gun? (altho I'd be against this because SURPRISE BUTTSECKS-ing chinooks are fun :D)

I'm guessing you mean about how the ramp closes, we could always remove the ability for it to do that with a few changes to code.

Hawkeye92
2010-07-23, 17:29
I firmly believe that adding M240's as door guns to the Chinook would not cause much of a gameplay disruption. Fifty Cals, yes, they are often used inappropriately but I think the relative strength of M240s in comparison wouldn't produce the same results. I'd say people are less prone to use the M240s in the attack role simply because they're a weaker offensive weapon.

They are so impractical anyway (.50's on the MEC/Chinese chopper are useless) that it wouldn't encourage attack platforms. The BH isn't used as one atm is it?

I see the Blackhawk used pretty often as a minigun platform on Ramiel.

True, but wouldn't you think that shooting off whatever is chasing you from behind would be more useful than shooting off the side?

Nope, not really. To be honest, when flying helicopters its pretty rare to have a threat from behind. A threat that can be dealt with by a machine gun that is. The only plausible threat may be an enemy Eurocopter or Littlebird etc but that is rare. Most of the time that engagement is going to come down to maneuvering rather than firepower. Side guns are useful in spotting threats. The gunners see the enemy on either side and report to the pilot. They're also useful in landings for clearing threats on the ground.

Rudd
2010-07-23, 17:37
yeah, maybe a 7.62 but afaik ramp mounted weapons are impossible atm

it would require teh ramp to be down all the time, thats all I think, I wonder if the ctrl crouch gunner command can be used to close the ramp....

Looy
2010-07-25, 13:01
Rudd;1396557']it would require teh ramp to be down all the time, thats all I think, I wonder if the ctrl crouch gunner command can be used to close the ramp....

I thought the ramp already was down all the time.

dtacs
2010-07-25, 13:57
I thought the ramp already was down all the time.
Once the Chinook goes up above a certain height (400m?) the door closes.

I think its standard practice for choppers in Afghanistan and Iraq to have their doors down all the time for the gunners though.

lucky.BOY
2010-07-28, 06:57
Actually I was a door gunner last night on ramiel. We left the other gun free so we still ferry 6 ppl. we went down 2 times, once due to pilots mistake in landing, but we made it safely on foot to the main from the norther part of city. I was a rifleman though... Secondly i was suppresing a techie close to extraction zone and pilot stopped for a while (yes, he shouldnt do this), and a bombcar blew us from below. We have lost 2 choppers and we died once at whole round. My ingame experience.
1 thing i noticed is that the minigun seems to overheat very quickly, but that is maybe only because im too inacurate with it :).
I support that idea with two pilot kits, one jet and one heli.
So the only thing that dont allow gun on chinook is missing platform? You know, heh?
1 more idea: What about taking 1 door gun away from BH and empowering the other and making it pilot kit only?
Is this even used IRL?

Urbanxfx
2010-07-28, 09:36
Chinook should have a gun on both sides and at the back like in Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead.

Drunkenup
2010-07-28, 17:58
Actually I was a door gunner last night on ramiel. We left the other gun free so we still ferry 6 ppl. we went down 2 times, once due to pilots mistake in landing, but we made it safely on foot to the main from the norther part of city. I was a rifleman though... Secondly i was suppresing a techie close to extraction zone and pilot stopped for a while (yes, he shouldnt do this), and a bombcar blew us from below. We have lost 2 choppers and we died once at whole round. My ingame experience.
1 thing i noticed is that the minigun seems to overheat very quickly, but that is maybe only because im too inacurate with it :).
I support that idea with two pilot kits, one jet and one heli.
So the only thing that dont allow gun on chinook is missing platform? You know, heh?
1 more idea: What about taking 1 door gun away from BH and empowering the other and making it pilot kit only?
Is this even used IRL?

I mean, I've never seen a Blackhawk with one of its doorgun's removed, could be a possibility, but I for one, have always praised for symmetry, If one sides got it, the other should. I'd rather see the guns removed altogether on the Blackhawk.

-CAL ACO-
2011-04-19, 22:43
Armed Trans

Chinese Z-10
Mec Mi17
US UH60

Unarmed

GB MH101 Merlin
US/CAD/GB Ch47D chinook
GB Lynx
USMC UH1N Huey

Quiet the opposite Drunk, Most are unarmed, All of which are Blufor.
Also a M240 on the Rear Ramp isnt plausable since it closes, but adding doors with 240s or the Rare M134s would be nice

that's if it was floor mounted, if it was roof mounted it would be perfectly usable, or if it was floor mounted just behind the door hinges. a C6 GPMG would be fine,

but on the other hand, why isn't there a CH-146 Griffon Helicopter on the Canadian maps with door mounted M134's?
*off topic-we need more Canadians maps! anyone agree?- off topic*

Haji with a Handgun
2011-04-20, 07:22
N-N-N-N-N-NECRO

On topic, Chinooks definitely need a door/ramp gun and the M240 sounds about right for the job.

-CAL ACO-
2011-04-25, 16:31
N-N-N-N-N-NECRO

On topic, Chinooks definitely need a door/ramp gun and the M240 sounds about right for the job.

actually i've seen a few pics where chinooks have guns right on the end of the ramp and are flying ram open, i don't even see why the ramp closes on chinooks in PR, i mean doors don't close during flight on hueys or blackhawks.
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/news/Afghanistan/B-7th_101_b.jpg

Hauteclocque
2011-04-25, 16:40
I've seen a few pics showing Russians with Eo-Tech on their AKs, can I haz in PR ?

Stop with your questions "OMG why this thing isn't in PR, it's Canuck stuff, it must be in, we are so 1337".

If something isn't in the mod, it's either because the addition of this thing isn't relevant or the model hasn't been done yet. Simple.

3D artists work on what they want, and on what they are asked to do (with the freedom of refusing if they don't want).

Psyko
2011-04-25, 17:53
Hauteclocque;1583055']I've seen a few pics showing Russians with Eo-Tech on their AKs, can I haz in PR ?

Stop with your questions "OMG why this thing isn't in PR, it's Canuck stuff, it must be in, we are so 1337".

If something isn't in the mod, it's either because the addition of this thing isn't relevant or the model hasn't been done yet. Simple.

3D artists work on what they want, and on what they are asked to do (with the freedom of refusing if they don't want).

you make it sound like the planning system is pefect. which i and you know it isnt. dont you think its good that people are reminding developers not to forget certain components? i do. its annoying sometimes, but other times its vital. and eotec on anything is epic.

Rudd
2011-04-25, 18:04
you make it sound like the planning system is pefect

I thought he described the opposite tbh...what he described is how any non-profit mod with unpaid staff works.

-CAL ACO-
2011-04-25, 18:52
Hauteclocque;1583055']I've seen a few pics showing Russians with Eo-Tech on their AKs, can I haz in PR ?

Stop with your questions "OMG why this thing isn't in PR, it's Canuck stuff, it must be in, we are so 1337".

If something isn't in the mod, it's either because the addition of this thing isn't relevant or the model hasn't been done yet. Simple.

3D artists work on what they want, and on what they are asked to do (with the freedom of refusing if they don't want).

yes i realize that all this stuff happens in your free time because you aren't getting paid to do project reality,
i was more aiming my previous post towards people who were saying that i wasn't possible because of the closing door on the back.

Ninjam3rc
2011-04-26, 02:04
If there's mounts for the Lynx and, one would assume, the Huey would putting a .50 on there suffice? I don't know about the British but I've never seen a USMC Huey armed with anything less than an M2 or the GAU-21. I know for a fact our armory for the helo's had nothing but .50s for the things, though that would have been in support of Ch-53s, 46s, and UH-1s.

Though I suppose that would mean a modeler would need to slap a aerial sight on the current m2.

Xavo|xXx
2011-04-26, 02:31
They keep the doors open so the crew members can look for missile launches and AA guns and stuff like that. They also sit on the sides so they can see where the rotors are in relation to obstacles and relay all of this to the pilots.

Karatepelle
2011-04-26, 12:18
I'm actually glad they didn't add door guns to most transport helicopters.
You hardly ever need them ingame to shoot at enemies anyway.

And as a pilot I can tell you that the most annoying god damn thing in the world is piloting the flying cow or the blackhawk and having the noob-bastards spamming the doorguns at nothing, for no apparent reason.
It's enough that I have seriously considered crashing the helicopter to get rid of them.

This indeed.

Psyko
2011-04-26, 12:25
it occurs to me that at this stage in the mod's development the population increase means more roles fulfilled. Most HMGs tow and AA implacements are being manned on the 128 server because the man power is there.

Same deal here, yes, if the chinook had a rear door gunner for the first while a lot of people would man it because its cool. but every one of those people who would try it would get bored with it after a bit and go back to doing other stuff. the same thing happened with mortars, loads of people wanted to use mortars first, and after a few weeks only a few organised individuals would bother setting up a squad for mortars because it was cool for a while but now its normalized.

The Devs choose having an opening door on the rear over having a gun becasue firstly, you dont want crew exposed like you have on the M1-17, but think about it, when was the last time you saw anyone get shot out of a chopper in PR apart from side door gunners in the HUEYs?

the ramp at the back doesnt even make sense, you cant use it for the kind of drops its used for in the first place. that ramp is so soldiers get in and out quickly in single file and in an organized fashion. in BF2 you go up to the door and all of that is done for you anyway.

The front doors should be manned with something, and the rear door should be manned with a machine gun. why, because its safe. not that its unessesary. even though im fully aware how fast it is to touch down collect guys and get out of there. but i've noticed that you get more small arms fire on insurgency maps than you get on AAS maps, excluding rounds being fired from armour.

and i have to say it or people might think i didnt know it. but yes i know that the rear door gunner cant flip up and down because the position for the user is fixed and cant move so if the door went up and down it would glitch through the man. and if you pulled the gun backa couple of feet the door would close in the gunner's face making it totally redundant. so i say leave the door open, let the guy fire at targets, let them have fun for the 40 seconds that they are in the chopper and stop being such sour-pusses about it.

Rudd
2011-04-26, 12:29
The problem is gunmounts psycho, they need to be modelled/appropriate weaponary needs to be made for the choppers. E.g. the lynx would need the GPMG (which we've all wanted for a long time for various applications)

once thats done then the door stuff etc is easy to do. This is exactly the kind of task that a community modeller could do tbh, R-DEVs/CONs are very busy with other tasks.

cptste el_74
2011-04-26, 15:31
[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rudd;1583467']Tthe GPMG (which we've all wanted for a long time for various applications)

Since PR came out actually... what is that now, 4 years?

On this topic, I'd just like to say I agree with one of the previous posts. It should be all of them, or none of them.

Ninjam3rc
2011-04-26, 18:47
So are there mounts made or no?

Smiddey723
2011-04-26, 18:58
[QUOTE='[R-DEV]Rudd;1583467']The GPMG (which we've all wanted for a long time for various applications)

Since PR came out actually... what is that now, 4 years?

On this topic, I'd just like to say I agree with one of the previous posts. It should be all of them, or none of them.

the lynx has been in since 0.87 so no about 2 years

and dont have that attitude towards DEVs you have no idea how much work they are putting into the mod

illidur
2011-04-26, 19:53
gpmg like an FN MAG with m192 tripod? is that what the chinook would use?

Ninjam3rc
2011-04-27, 01:39
gpmg like an FN MAG with m192 tripod? is that what the chinook would use?

Not really a tripod but yeah. The doors up front would be armed as well.

Back Ramp
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LmHhFRXI7U0/SzpRVsT1o7I/AAAAAAAAEkQ/8a-3yOrjpIc/s400/chinook+crew_patika.jpg

Psyko
2011-04-27, 01:50
Rudd;1583467']The problem is gunmounts psycho, they need to be modelled/appropriate weaponary needs to be made for the choppers. E.g. the lynx would need the GPMG (which we've all wanted for a long time for various applications)

once thats done then the door stuff etc is easy to do. This is exactly the kind of task that a community modeller could do tbh, R-DEVs/CONs are very busy with other tasks.

ahh i shee. Well i didnt say that the DEVs should or have to do it. its just its kinda enoying to hear about all the restrictions in place like whats used in reality in contrast to what will be used in the near future when we still use the bloody fictional MEC army for most levels in PR. you know...




the lynx has been in since 0.87 so no about 2 years

and dont have that attitude towards DEVs you have no idea how much work they are putting into the mod

Actually i have intimate knowledge of the work done. The way it works is the only way it can work. One dev does something and if another dev doesnt know how to better, or refine the thing made they wont touch it. but if something is done arseways the only people who can correctly explain the mistake are community members who dont possess the relative skills to fix it for themselves.

for the record, my feedback is my petty attempt at being productive, and its all i can do right now.

cptste el_74
2011-04-27, 10:21
[QUOTE=cptste el_74;1583515]

the lynx has been in since 0.87 so no about 2 years

and dont have that attitude towards DEVs you have no idea how much work they are putting into the mod

What attitude? The Land-Rover has had a gpmg on it for ages as well.

All I'm saying is, as the Dev's know themselves, is that there hasn't been a proper GPMG in PR sinced it was released.

And what are you anyway? The Dev's spokesperson?

I do know what they're doing... I've probably been playing the game longer than you so jog on mate.

lukeyu2005
2011-04-27, 10:57
Is there really a point since when was the last time someone got a kill with the chopper door gunner it's so hard without useable iron sights that when you do it's really something to brag about. And then you realise it's a team kill.
Really i reckon in PR there is no need

lucky.BOY
2011-04-27, 11:20
Door gunner's purpose is to supress, not to kill. It is like that in RL, and it is like that in PR..

-lucky

Psyko
2011-04-27, 17:59
Door gunner's purpose is to supress, not to kill. It is like that in RL, and it is like that in PR..

-lucky

SOURSE SOURSE!?!?!?! its not cool to just say stuff like that without trying to prove it.

You dont put a gun on ANYTHING without wanting something dead. If i put an M249 on a jam-doughnut it would still be considered a lethal weapon with the purpose of cutting pastry chefs in half. :D

Hotrod525
2011-04-27, 21:43
get a gun or having more flares, what realy matter ... ?

RealKail
2011-05-02, 19:51
I don't see why we wouldn't go ahead and strap some weapons to this and other transport choppers that are typically armed in real life.

"Oh but then people will start using them as assault gunships and wah wah wah". The military may not use these helos in direct attack capacity like some folks do in this game, but they're still sometimes deployed for support detail. For instance, look at the movie Black Hawk Down, where they had the Black Hawks over-head to support the infantry with the M134s. It rarely happens, but it does happen.

What's the worst that could possibly happen? They'll start mowing down the enemies, which is pretty hard to do with the limited coverage area on the door-mounted M134s. Then add to that the chopper is moving a decent amount with no optics system for the gun, you're going off tracers.

"That's not what the asset is supposed to be used for!" Yeah, true, in the real world anybody pulling this type of stunt would get their asses chewed by the brass, but this is a game and nobody's dropping millions of dollars on these things. Plus, they respawn after 20 minutes. They aren't too hard to take down if you know what you're doing.

cheesus182
2011-05-21, 21:17
Why shouldn?t it be armed?
The little 50.cal on the side isnt going to make a great impact...

Trooper909
2011-09-19, 03:26
Why shouldn?t it be armed?
The little 50.cal on the side isnt going to make a great impact...

2 side mounted M134 miniguns and a M240B in the rear to be exact.The PRAA2 ones have them but PRBF2 players are far to retarded for ze door gunzz :p

Von_Gnome
2011-09-19, 11:24
Well, why haven't we (read devs) removed the door guns from the other choppers then?

Bob of Mage
2011-09-19, 12:13
Well, why haven't we (read devs) removed the door guns from the other choppers then?

The reason the DEVs gave earlier was that the was a lack of models of gun mounts and guns (the main model was GPMGs like the M240 which they now have). It has nothing to with not wanting door guns, or so they say. However the issue's gotten worse as some helicopters have been in PR for a long time but not one of the PR made one's has a door gun.

USMCMIDN
2011-09-19, 12:40
What if the 2 guns could only be manned by one person instead of 2 gunners?

For example like in a tank or an apc switching between HEAT and AP I use my number pad.

If I am in the BH, HUEY, or W.e, and want to switch from the right gun to the left gun I simply use my number pad to switch guns.

This way we can have 6 ppl in transport roles, 1 person gunning and 1 flying making a total of 8.

PLODDITHANLEY
2011-09-19, 12:57
But the 'warm up' time would be a pain

Bob of Mage
2011-09-19, 19:47
This way we can have 6 ppl in transport roles, 1 person gunning and 1 flying making a total of 8.

Noting what has been done with the Merkava (the MG gunner doesn't need a Crewman kit unlike any other MBT), I don't think they will ever make the door gunner need a kit.

USMCMIDN
2011-09-20, 05:49
Noting what has been done with the Merkava (the MG gunner doesn't need a Crewman kit unlike any other MBT), I don't think they will ever make the door gunner need a kit.

I meant free up a slot in the helo by having the right and left guns crewed by one guy and being able to switch using the key pad like switching between weapons as a gunner for the AAV or something.

Blazing
2011-09-20, 06:42
Aww come on Rhino, you take all the fun out of it! Shooting from inside choppers is not all that effective and a bit of fun when you do it!

Same goes for door guns. However, I don't think using them to give troops you've just inserted some fire support is entirely unrealistic.

Stu.
lol mean like this?

http://youtu.be/dxCyCq74nyk
http://youtu.be/QTCIdbwNOIc
http://youtu.be/yBEtjRi_p9U

SmoothIsFast6
2011-09-20, 10:21
why can't we shoot no matter what we're doing? i know i can ;)

40mmrain
2011-10-04, 03:39
1) I believe trans helis are used for trans as intended most of the time in PR. The community is ready to have the chinook armed without risk of gunship asset wasting
2) attacking enemies with a trans heli isnt an unrealistic situation, and it fits in pr just fine.

I support adding weapons to the chinook.

rushn
2011-10-04, 03:55
well not just chinook other helis need them too

silderoy
2011-10-10, 23:56
Well in reality hueys do have door guns, like the blackhawk have.
PS, why is there just 6 places in the back area of choppers? In reality the some choppers in the chinook class can carry up to 50 warriors, but in the game, 12 or at least 10 seats should be available in all heavy trans choppers (chinook, blackhawk, mi-17), and 6 in light trans choppers (Huey, linx)

Rhino
2011-10-11, 00:02
PS, why is there just 6 places in the back area of choppers? In reality the some choppers in the chinook class can carry up to 50 warriors, but in the game, 12 or at least 10 seats should be available in all heavy trans choppers (chinook, blackhawk, mi-17), and 6 in light trans choppers (Huey, linx)

Because the BF2 engine can not support over 8 seats in a single vehicle....

tlindy
2011-10-11, 03:45
In theatre if our aircraft dont have two guns (on Blackhawks) they wont leave the traffic pattern. I had several aircraft that had broken locking pins and we had to constantly switch mounts for missions (until we could get the facilities to fabricate some new ones, and can cause some real problems when you have 8-10 ship missions and only 7 aircraft with FMC mounts) On chinooks they wont fly without weapons as well, and all had a 240 on the ramp, it isnt there to make the aircraft into a attack model but to defend itself. Now this is only US Army aircraft I have no idea how other branches of service or other nations Armies regulate this.

And as well they should take the minis off the 60's and put 240s on them, IRL the only Army units to use mini guns are the 160th SOAR and they dont support regular Army units (like the ones in PR) so make it a little more realistic.

mattnett1
2011-10-11, 22:41
Edit... read the post wrong...

I think they should add an automatic grenade launcher, i know that a good amount of chinnoks in reality have them. but still this would be a OK idea

badmojo420
2011-10-11, 23:37
I think a big problem with adding door guns to the helicopters is the lack of fear helicopter pilots in PR have towards small arms fire. Meaning, a black hawk can circle a cache with 10+ guys firing their AK's at the black hawk, and the helicopter doesn't have to run away or even avoid the fire. Weather or not this was intended by the DEVs, the players have learned where the system is weak and they constantly exploit it. Adding more helicopters with weapons will result in more transportation helicopters taking an offensive role.

And then there's the problem with 2 stinger missiles hitting a black hawk and it just fly's away.

So maybe we should focus on giving the transport helicopters realistic stats before we mount weapons on them?

Eddie Baker
2011-10-12, 01:08
And as well they should take the minis off the 60's and put 240s on them, IRL the only Army units to use mini guns are the 160th SOAR and they dont support regular Army units (like the ones in PR) so make it a little more realistic.

We know, and we are in the process of doing that.

I think they should add an automatic grenade launcher, i know that a good amount of chinnoks in reality have them. but still this would be a OK idea

Source? To my knowledge there hasn't been an AGL mounted on a Chinook since the ACH-47As in Vietnam (of which there were only 4-6), and those were M75s in nose turrets. The US does not use a door or ramp mount for the Mk-19 for any of its helicopters. I have only heard of Colombia trying it on their Bell 212s. Lower muzzle velocity (compared to medium or heavy machine-guns and cannons) combined with rotor down-wash is not conducive to accuracy.

doop-de-doo
2011-10-12, 04:50
-delete please-

tlindy
2011-10-12, 10:52
Eddie Baker;1680010']We know, and we are in the process of doing that.



Source? To my knowledge there hasn't been an AGL mounted on a Chinook since the ACH-47As in Vietnam (of which there were only 4-6), and those were M75s in nose turrets. The US does not use a door or ramp mount for the Mk-19 for any of its helicopters. I have only heard of Colombia trying it on their Bell 212s. Lower muzzle velocity (compared to medium or heavy machine-guns and cannons) combined with rotor down-wash is not conducive to accuracy.

I have never seen a Mk19 mounted on a US Aircraft (other than the above mentioned 47 and some UH1s with the same mount, both Vietnam era aircraft) and I have been in Army Aviation for 18 years now

niho
2011-10-12, 13:20
I have never seen a Mk19 mounted on a US Aircraft (other than the above mentioned 47 and some UH1s with the same mount, both Vietnam era aircraft) and I have been in Army Aviation for 18 years now

Would be far to strong anyway, so no need for discussion.

mattnett1
2011-10-12, 20:15
Well, I think this should NOT be armed. That would make it overpowered. I know that in real life they do use Mini-Guns. But sometimes no.

Archosaurus
2011-10-13, 15:21
Well, I think this should NOT be armed. That would make it overpowered. I know that in real life they do use Mini-Guns. But sometimes no.

I know this guy is banned but what the hell are you on?

I have never seen/heard of a Chinook being used with M134s, let alone MK19s.

Stealthgato
2011-10-15, 02:22
I have never seen/heard of a Chinook being used with M134s

Probably spec ops, but still:

http://operatorchan.org/v/arch/src/v47816_US%20Gatling%20M134%20(GAU-2B-A)%207.62mm%20General%20Electric.jpg

http://www.dillonaero.com/uimages/chinook/chinook_3.png

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/model_comparison/E_Model_2.jpg

Eddie Baker
2011-10-15, 15:09
I have never seen/heard of a Chinook being used with M134s.

Probably spec ops, but still:

http://operatorchan.org/v/arch/src/v...20Electric.jpg

That's a British RAF gunner. M134 is standard on their Chinooks.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n209/florymodels/Chinook/DSCN1967.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n209/florymodels/Chinook/DSCN1968.jpg

Interestingly, they use an M60D as a ramp gun instead of an FN MAG GPMG variant; not sure why. Can any RAF guys shed light on that?

In the US Army they're only on 160th SOAR's MH-47s (like the one in Stealthgato's lower pic), and I haven't heard of any exceptions. Of course, their MH-47s additionally mount M240s in both rear windows and on the ramp. All of the "Big Army" Chinooks I have seen photos of just mount three M240Ds or Hs (front, side-doors/windows and ramp).

Archosaurus
2011-10-15, 15:54
Eddie Baker;1682229']That's a British RAF gunner. M134 is standard on their Chinooks.


Pictures-

Interestingly, they use an M60D as a ramp gun instead of an FN MAG GPMG variant; not sure why. Can any RAF guys shed light on that?

In the US Army they're only on 160th SOAR's MH-47s (like the one in Stealthgato's lower pic), and I haven't heard of any exceptions. Of course, their MH-47s additionally mount M240s in both rear windows and on the ramp. All of the "Big Army" Chinooks I have seen photos of just mount three M240Ds or Hs (front, side-doors/windows and ramp).

I have never seen US chinooks with M134s but at least now I've seen UK units.

Eddie Baker
2011-10-15, 16:30
I have never seen US chinooks with M134s but at least now I've seen UK units.

Uh, yes, you have. As I said, Stealthgato's last pic is of a US MH-47 Chinook.

Archosaurus
2011-10-15, 16:35
Eddie Baker;1682285']Uh, yes, you have. As I said, Stealthgato's last pic is of a US MH-47 Chinook.

Oh. alright.

Must of missed that one...

tankninja1
2011-10-15, 16:42
There definatly be a M240 in the back ramp every Chinook combat flying ive ever seen has that gun on the back