Attacking Helicopters seems to be too weak.

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

While, I wanna to ask a question that is there any way for UBV to lock AA-Pod and enable Ah64D find it and destroy it through machinegun?

I find that the choppers in AmrA2 are very weak especially when they are facing AA-Pod or Tonguska. You know that in reality, Attacking Helicopter is the air fortress, it shouldn't loose from the competition with AA-Pod.

AA-Pod or Tonguska can always shot back before helicopter detect them, that makes me feel confused.:(

[Ulanthorn 10]

Air fortresses are pure propaganda. In fact the Attack helos in ArmA are already to strong and can take out KNOWN AA defenses and Anti-Air systems much to easy. Maybe just flying into the unknown is what you do wrong. When a ZSU-23-4 pops out 500 in your back its too late.

[Laqueesha 474]

He's right. You know how many MANPADs it takes to take down a even a transport helicopter? At least a dozen to get past the countermeasures, and even then the damage done is minimal.

[Ulanthorn 10]

Try it out...a Helo in ArmA OA will survive even beeing hit by a 120mm round or a high power AT missile. In pure Hitpoints the Helos are already air fortresses.

[maturin 12]

He's right. You know how many MANPADs it takes to take down a even a transport helicopter? At least a dozen to get past the countermeasures, and even then the damage done is minimal.

Err, really?

a Helo in ArmA OA will survive even beeing hit by a 120mm round or a high power AT missile.

In Arma2 I remember shooting them down with sabots in an Abrams, which shouldn't really happen.

[Laqueesha 474]

In Arma2 I remember shooting them down with sabots in an Abrams, which shouldn't really happen.

MBTs and RPG-7s aren't really designed to shoot down helicopters, but it is possible if they are low-flying slowly, or hovering.

[maturin 12]

MBTs and RPG-7s aren't really designed to shoot down helicopters, but it is possible if they are low-flying slowly, or hovering.

With all the fire control systems on modern tanks, they could probably hit helicopters in any number of situations. Not that they should be trying.

But a sabot would go straight through a helicopter, leaving a tiny hole. If it hit nothing important, there wouldn't be much damage to speak of. The HP and damage system in A2 resulted in a fireball, but ACE fixed that problem by essentially turning the APFSDS into a .50 tracer round with armor penetration.

And I seriously doubt that supersonic missiles purpose-built for destroying aircraft are going to take ten tries to get past simple flares on a lumbering transports helicopter.

[Ulanthorn 10]

With all the fire control systems on modern tanks, they could probably hit helicopters in any number of situations. Not that they should be trying.

But a sabot would go straight through a helicopter, leaving a tiny hole. If it hit nothing important, there wouldn't be much damage to speak of. The HP and damage system in A2 resulted in a fireball, but ACE fixed that problem by essentially turning the APFSDS into a .50 tracer round with armor penetration.

And I seriously doubt that supersonic missiles purpose-built for destroying aircraft are going to take ten tries to get past simple flares on a lumbering transports helicopter.

Helicopters are shot with HEDP or similar rounds from modern MBTs...so there is no excuse. There are also time fused HE rounds in use for this task. In the so often cited DCS: Blackshark laser guided ATGMs and HE tank rounds do the job very well quite often against hovering or slow manouvering helos.

[Laqueesha 474]

And I seriously doubt that supersonic missiles purpose-built for destroying aircraft are going to take ten tries to get past simple flares on a lumbering transports helicopter.

One would think so, right? ;)

[Moggy 0]

Helicopters are shot with HEDP or similar rounds from modern MBTs...so there is no excuse. There are also time fused HE rounds in use for this task. In the so often cited DCS: Blackshark laser guided ATGMs and HE tank rounds do the job very well quite often against hovering or slow manouvering helos.

Absolutely correct. There was a program on Nat Geo channel here called Helicopter Wars, the episode titled "Duel in the Desert" covered this very subject. It was a Royal Navy Westland Lynx against an Iraqi T-55 MBT (might of been another tank though) and it was a very close run battle.

Here's a short video of the episode:

http://natgeotv.com/uk/helicopter-wars/videos/duel-in-the-desert

[Dead3yez 0]

Not that they should be trying.

y not

[shay_gman 272]

Indeed most AH and transport choppers can take some small arms fire and even AT rounds. But most AA are very dangerous to choppers.

The idea is to use the heli correctly. Thanks to ACE we can now use LOBL LOAL fire mod and aproch the danger with care. But don't get it wrong AH are not tanks, well exept the Hind.

[whisper 0]

MBT crew are instructed on how to take on ennemy chopper with their main gun (at least, in FR Army, and I guess in many others, I don't see why we would be the only one doing so).

For once, they appear very, very clearly on IR devices and are easy to track.

Some MBT have specific anti-aircraft ammos.

All in all, choppers are all BUT Air Fortress. It's more a question of luck than anything else if a chopper is still alive after a hit from anything bare small arms fire (which for some types of chopper can go up to 12.7mm, but not much higher)

If anything hit an important part, which can be pretty much anywhere on a chopper, you can be disabled (rotor malfunction, tail rotor, pressure somewhere, filters damaged resulting in engine going broken pretty fast depending on flight conditions, electrical circuit broken resulting in ... well, I can't count, de-icing systems, etc... I won't even go into the sensors being hit and potential catastrophic result of it).

All these systems can be found all around the chopper frame, and the major protection seen is usually only around the cockpit, and main engines

On top of this, chopper fly low and slow compared to aircrafts.

So yes, any AA, MANPAD or anything designed to take down flying vehicles are real threat to choppers. Choppers sustaining easily incoming missiles/flak is legend.

When you compare this to the situation in OA, choppers are ridiculously hard to take down in game, with their all seeing eye detecting any missile launch from any angle 100% of the time and their 100% working flares (bare from few launch conditions). They get through multiple 12.7mm fire, multiple times, they sustain multiple AA missiles (which is ridiculous by itself, even aircrafts shouldn't) pretty much everytime, and on top of it all, their sensors target easily anything on the ground, even when operated by 1 player only....

Towning down all these parameters a bit (I didn't say removing flares or make them explode immediatly when hit, but towning down a bit each aspect) would do very good for the game.

You can win against AA assets in a chopper not because you sustain their fire, but because you know the threat and its location and you act accordingly. Choppers are usefull because there are FAC on the ground helping them, because they work with the ground forces, not independantly of them.

Edited October 6, 2010 by whisper

[Dead3yez 0]

MBT vs Attack Helicopter (REAL) ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJMC99Spf5I#t=08m00s

[maddogx 13]

(REAL) ;)

.... in huuuuuuuge quotation marks, perhaps. :p

[Baff1 0]

MBTs and RPG-7s aren't really designed to shoot down helicopters, but it is possible if they are low-flying slowly, or hovering.

Most MBT's have an anti aircraft gun on the top.

In the last Gulf War, during the invasion the American's didn't lose many tanks in their battles.... but they lost quite a few Apache's.

As I understand it, MANPADs don't really cut the mustard. They are used to best effect on aircraft that are landing or taking off.

The Tunguskura or whatever on the otherhand should just rip helicopters out of the sky at a great rate in my opinion.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Baff1

[vinc3nt 10]

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

Especially the choppers controled by AI. They always fly into the dangerous areas and join in the battle regardless MBT's machinegun as well as AA-Pod. Just because they don't know that they should fire at the safe distance so that caused so many casualties.

I know that in reality, attacking choppers tend to eliminate enemy MBTs 3kms afar one by one, rather than joining the close distance fight like gameplay.

So whatever how thick the armor on choppers is or what specific damage can MBT create. The behaviour of AI choppers in game should be the main reason I think.

[kklownboy 43]

Most MBT's have an anti aircraft gun on the top.

In the last Gulf War, during the invasion the American's didn't lose many tanks in their battles.... but they lost quite a few Apache's.

Uhh no, only ONE was downed. thats 1. and they never had a tank destroyed ?

http://books.google.com/books?id=ADZphHT7KKgC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=gulf+war+desert+storm++Apache+Losses&source=bl&ots=FNUX9rWbr_&sig=XQ9R270vgyp-UAYwq1FIJbaqkAI&hl=en&ei=UpWsTLiYFYGcsQPmsd2yAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=gulf%20war%20desert%20storm%20%20Apache%20Losses&f=false

[whisper 0]

Fortunately, US pilots are not ArmA2 AI ;) thus far far less casualties

[maturin 12]

MBT crew are instructed on how to take on ennemy chopper with their main gun (at least, in FR Army, and I guess in many others, I don't see why we would be the only one doing so).

For once, they appear very, very clearly on IR devices and are easy to track.

Some MBT have specific anti-aircraft ammos.

I remember an old discussion around here to the effect that tankers were trained to shoot at a chopper with the main gun as an act of last resort, but it was far preferable to hide behind something and let the dedicated AA do the job. And in the meantime the .50 caliber is effective against aircraft too.

But American tanks don't have ATGMs, which I think Russians are trained to use against helicopters.

Edit: And flares aren't always effective, are they? I'd guess that they won't work at all if you are just sidling along or hovering. Even if the missile went after the flare you would still have a lot of shrapnel chasing you from the blast nearby.

[whisper 0]

.

Edit: And flares aren't always effective, are they? I'd guess that they won't work at all if you are just sidling along or hovering. Even if the missile went after the flare you would still have a lot of shrapnel chasing you from the blast nearby.

You mean in game or IRL?

I exagerated about the ingame, flares are not 100% missile proof (config wise, they are 80%, thks Kju for the info), far from it if you shoot from behind.

But their effectiveness on low speed flying chopper, which is a bit too low, added to the fact that a chopper in game can sustain a missile and still fly (and shoot back), make the choppers too strong compated to RL, thus enabling engagement method, in MP, which would be quite dangerous if done IRL.

Like ffur pointed after his OP, the weak point of A2 choppers is not their toughness, but how AI handle them. I don't think correcting bad AI behavior with beefed up choppers is a good solution

[xman1 10]

Flying tanks? Stinger success in Afghanistan against the flying tank of them all - the Mi-24 Hind proved to be 80% affective per missile. What that means is 4 times out of 5 missiles shot, a Hind crashed.

-X

[liquidpinky 11]

Flying tanks? Stinger success in Afghanistan against the flying tank of them all - the Mi-24 Hind proved to be 80% affective per missile. What that means is 4 times out of 5 missiles shot, a Hind crashed.

-X

They never had countermeasures fitted though, these were hastily introduced after substantial Hind losses to Stingers.

[Baff1 0]

Uhh no, only ONE was downed. thats 1. and they never had a tank destroyed ?

http://books.google.com/books?id=ADZphHT7KKgC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=gulf+war+desert+storm++Apache+Losses&source=bl&ots=FNUX9rWbr_&sig=XQ9R270vgyp-UAYwq1FIJbaqkAI&hl=en&ei=UpWsTLiYFYGcsQPmsd2yAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=gulf%20war%20desert%20storm%20%20Apache%20Losses&f=false

According to wiki...

2 are shot down by enemy fire during the Invasion.

I certainly remember seeing the downed Apaches on the news after a battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War

I'm not sure any allied tanks were destroyed by enemy fire in the invasion at all.

During the occupation a lot have been.

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 PM ----------

Flying tanks? Stinger success in Afghanistan against the flying tank of them all - the Mi-24 Hind proved to be 80% affective per missile. What that means is 4 times out of 5 missiles shot, a Hind crashed.

-X

This sounds wrong to me.

1,000 stingers were sent to Afghanistan (Also British and Russian MANPADS).

Only 16 Hinds were shot down in that war.

275 Soviet aircraft were shot down in total by a variety of weapon systems.

If the Stinger had an 80% success rate the score could have been 800 from stingers alone. I think that figure is in the completely wrong ball park.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Baff1