Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yashamalu

Wrong blast effects for all RPGs.

Recommended Posts

(1)I fired a PCML hitting an IFV 4ms away, the guy who did not even have body armor and standing right next to the hit area survived.

(2)I fired a RPG hitting the ground right in front of me and I survived as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure whether it's intended or a bug, cause that happens all the time. The only way to kill someone with RPGs is to hit the area around him within 1ms, that includes Titan. In Wasteland, people who died from my RPGs are normally killed by the car explosion, not the RPG itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RPGs do not have blast damage. In fact, the explosions seen ingame are much too large. You can watch video from syria of RPGs hitting tanks and it's just a bright flash and a puff of smoke, no dust, no shrapnel.

There is a reason why BI supplied a HE round with the alamut, because the AT round is not good for antipersonell work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as I always like to state when contributing to stuff of this nature – I don’t know all of the circumstances so therefore I can’t be 100% certain but what I can say is this….

Depending on the warhead being fired, the result you are getting is actually somewhat plausible given the assumption that the rocket being fired is an Anti-tank Armor penetrating rocket and not a fragmentation, HE, or thermobaric rocket.

The reason is because Armor penetrating rockets don’t fragment that much, instead they use a shaped charge to fire a small jet of molten metal (usually copper) through the armor which hopefully creates spalling inside the tank and severely maims or kills the crew, but they normally die from stuff like the ammo or fuel being hit, suffocation from fire and such...(Wish I could find that video from Syria right now.)

However, you are correct in thinking that realistically no one is going to take a rocket detonating against a hard target from 1 meter away and still have a great day. It might not kill them but they’ll probably be wishing they were never born. (The pressure wave is something they'd have to worry about.) The ones that get away without a scratch are extremely lucky….

So depending on how much luck exist in the game, a little tweaking might be needed but it is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RPGs do not have blast damage. In fact, the explosions seen ingame are much too large. You can watch video from syria of RPGs hitting tanks and it's just a bright flash and a puff of smoke, no dust, no shrapnel.

There is a reason why BI supplied a HE round with the alamut, because the AT round is not good for antipersonell work.

ArmA's 1m kill radius is a very poor simulation of a HEAT round, however.

An RPG going off next to you would still be deafening and stunning. You have a very good chance of surviving unscathed IRL, but it's all down the to dumb luck of where those (relatively few) pieces of frag end up flying to. A PG-7 warhead can kill from you as far as 150m away. I wish that could happen in ArmA.

Furthermore, a warhead like the Titan's is going to start packing some punch, as far as blast goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of stun is bad, I agree. Blast should affect people more, but outright killing them is a bad solution I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need ACE's shrapnel simulation. Then people won't be hanging around in the open when their firemissions come in, and danger close will mean something. Hitting a tank point-blank would also mean a risk of fragging yourself.

And before anyone complains about scripted solutions, ACE frag is the epitome of fun AND realism, and has been extensively tested for years and years by online communities. Including ShackTac, which runs the very biggest ArmA games. It has been stress-tested the way few pieces of software ever are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since none of those launchers are really existing in real world, it would be wise to compare their in-game performance to find inconsistancies. If you hit a building with one of those, chances are, the building will be destoryed, and this result indicates blast effect of the missiles/rockets. Also even AT/AP warheads explodes--they explode inside the vehicle however, and it's just impossible that unarmored people can walk away alive, even a small fragment can kill him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since none of those launchers are really existing in real world, it would be wise to compare their in-game performance to find inconsistancies. If you hit a building with one of those, chances are, the building will be destoryed, and this result indicates blast effect of the missiles/rockets. Also even AT/AP warheads explodes--they explode inside the vehicle however, and it's just impossible that unarmored people can walk away alive, even a small fragment can kill him.

All launchers exist irl. RPG-42 is simply a modernized RPG-32, the Titan is the israeli Mini-spike ATGM and the PCML is the Bofors NLAW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also even AT/AP warheads explodes--they explode inside the vehicle however,

To what are you referring?

No anti-tank weapon explodes inside a vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good excerpt from a book

http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/iraq_and_the_RPG-7.htm

"The bursting radius of the antitank round is about 4 meters or 13 feet. Although it has a specifically shaped charge warhead, the concussion, blast effect, and shrapnel are very effective against infantry."

So yeah, like any "bomb", it has a rather nasty, effective "blast" range. And blast, with frag or not, can kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79586&page=1

"...Kornet defeats explosive armor by using dual warheads of shaped charges. The first destroys the tank's protective layer of explosives, allowing the second warhead to burn through the metal beneath, with catastrophic results."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7

"PG-7VR [c.1988] Dual 64mm/105mm HEAT warhead for defeating modern armored vehicles equipped with reactive armor blocks. The first warhead (64mm HEAT) detonates the reactive armor block prematurely and the second warhead (105mm HEAT) passes through the gap to hit the exposed armor underneath."

Also, anti-tank rpgs in the old days mainly works by pen the armor and explode inside to kill crew or detonate ammunition.

Anyway the explosion should at least cause server damage to people within the vicinity.

Edited by Yashamalu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79586&page=1

"...Kornet defeats explosive armor by using dual warheads of shaped charges. The first destroys the tank's protective layer of explosives, allowing the second warhead to burn through the metal beneath, with catastrophic results."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7

"PG-7VR [c.1988] Dual 64mm/105mm HEAT warhead for defeating modern armored vehicles equipped with reactive armor blocks. The first warhead (64mm HEAT) detonates the reactive armor block prematurely and the second warhead (105mm HEAT) passes through the gap to hit the exposed armor underneath."

Also, anti-tank rpgs in the old days mainly works by pen the armor and explode inside to kill crew or detonate ammunition.

Anyway the explosion should at least cause server damage to people within the vicinity.

HEAT rounds defeat armor by using a molten stream of metal (an effect called superplasticity) to cut through the armor. There is relatively very little explosive material involved other than the propellant. Whatever explosive material there is in a HEAT round is used up almost immediately after firing to form the stream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79586&page=1

"...Kornet defeats explosive armor by using dual warheads of shaped charges. The first destroys the tank's protective layer of explosives, allowing the second warhead to burn through the metal beneath, with catastrophic results."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7

"PG-7VR [c.1988] Dual 64mm/105mm HEAT warhead for defeating modern armored vehicles equipped with reactive armor blocks. The first warhead (64mm HEAT) detonates the reactive armor block prematurely and the second warhead (105mm HEAT) passes through the gap to hit the exposed armor underneath."

Also, anti-tank rpgs in the old days mainly works by pen the armor and explode inside to kill crew or detonate ammunition.

Anyway the explosion should at least cause server damage to people within the vicinity.

Well first let me say that the Kornet (laser guided) is not a shoulder launched weapon, it needs to be mounted on a tripod or vehicle to be fired accurately. It’s also laser guided so it has more in common with a Tow (wire guided missile).

As far as the RPG-7... I believe you’re referring to a specific type of rocket used called the PG-7VR. This particular rocket and the Kornet missile contain TWO explosive charges, the first one is used to blow up and clear a space in the reactive armor ONLY. The second charge then impacts against the conventional hardened steel/composite armor and explodes.

Neither the RPG nor the Kornet actually punch through the tanks armor first then explode inside.

Normally when you see a tank get hit and the hatches immediately blow open it’s because the ammunition or fuel was hit and immediately ignited/exploded.

In addition, even shaped charges don’t actually cut(melt) through the armor; instead the process is entirely kinetic. This means that the metal is actually pushed out of the way at fairly super high speed, contributing to the spalling effect.

The impact and outward blast of an explosive hitting hardened armor can be quite devastating but it isn’t always enough to kill. As I said before if you’re close enough you’d have to worry about flash burns and the shock wave from the blast.

As far as shrapnel goes… the range is farther than the flash burns range but it’s hit or miss. Either you get hit and it hurts you or it misses you and you make your get away relatively unscathed. However, even if you do get hit, it doesn’t mean it will kill you. This video should help: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/omg-they-survived.htm

And for the Arma 3 weapons: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/ArmA_III

Edited by Squirrel0311

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79586&page=1

"...Kornet defeats explosive armor by using dual warheads of shaped charges. The first destroys the tank's protective layer of explosives, allowing the second warhead to burn through the metal beneath, with catastrophic results."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7

"PG-7VR [c.1988] Dual 64mm/105mm HEAT warhead for defeating modern armored vehicles equipped with reactive armor blocks. The first warhead (64mm HEAT) detonates the reactive armor block prematurely and the second warhead (105mm HEAT) passes through the gap to hit the exposed armor underneath."

Also, anti-tank rpgs in the old days mainly works by pen the armor and explode inside to kill crew or detonate ammunition.

Anyway the explosion should at least cause server damage to people within the vicinity.

You do not understand the meaning of the quoted texts. It is impossible for a hollow object coated in thin metal moving at subsonic velocities to punch through multiple inches of steel. This is the very definition of common sense.

I recommend reading the wikipedia article on Shaped Charges.

"The bursting radius of the antitank round is about 4 meters or 13 feet. Although it has a specifically shaped charge warhead, the concussion, blast effect, and shrapnel are very effective against infantry."

The RPG-7V is less lethal than every other kind of explosive above autocannon caliber. It caused as much as 50% of U.S. casualties in Iraq in some types of attacks, so it's obviously very dangerous against infantry, but that sentence is false, almost objectively so.

The casualty radius of the 40mm M203 is 15m, for comparison. Whereas people regularly survive PG-7s going off at their feet, in their face, and in one or two circumstances, even in their flesh.

Edited by maturin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To what are you referring?

No anti-tank weapon explodes inside a vehicle.

He's refering to the old HEAPI rounds. Yeah, some of them pierced and then exploded. But those probably haven't been used since WWII.

As for RPG rounds not doing any damage, BS. Its a bomb. Yes, its meant to pierce tanks, but it also has a blast radius outside the armor. Its a tin can with a bunch of explosive in it. Really, its a big HEDP grenade. If it hit at your feet, it would blow your legs off. Firecrackers take off peoples fingers, just think what a firecracker as big as a family sized juice can can do.

There is relatively very little explosive material involved other than the propellant. Whatever explosive material there is in a HEAT round is used up almost immediately after firing to form the stream.

Think about it. The explosive is just explosive. It goes inwards, forming the stream, and then at the same time it is exploding outwards, causing a blast radius. It is NOT used all up on forming the stream. As for very little explosive, WRONG. Go look at a cut-away of the RPG-7 anti-tank round. That's a LOT of HE plastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PG-7 isn't dual purpose. There is nothing in the manufacture of the warhead that is meant to produce frag and hurt people. HEDP is a statement of intent.

You're correct in calling it a big firecracker, only it's also a firecracker that directs most of its blast in one direction.

A 40mm HEDP grenade has a casualty zone that's 15m wide, for half the caliber and a fraction of the explosives. That says it all.

The result of all this is a high degree of randomness. I remember some guy on this forum telling a story about how he watched his friend completely disappear inside the cloud of smoke produced by a bursting B-10 (practically the same warhead) that landed at his feet. He emerged from the dust without a scratch. The U.S. Army Manual on the RPG-7, however, reminds us that the warhead breaks into a small number of very large pieces, which are ejected at such velocity that they are lethal 150m away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
only it's also a firecracker that directs most of its blast in one direction.

No, it uses shockwave focusing to form a jet of molten copper all in one direction. The explosion itself goes in all directions.

The result of all this is a high degree of randomness. I remember some guy on this forum telling a story about how he watched his friend completely disappear inside the cloud of smoke produced by a bursting B-10 (practically the same warhead) that landed at his feet. He emerged from the dust without a scratch. The U.S. Army Manual on the RPG-7, however, reminds us that the warhead breaks into a small number of very large pieces, which are ejected at such velocity that they are lethal 150m away.

"Some guy on a forum" is at best a case study conducted by a layman which doesn't account for factors he is not aware of. I would imagine that this specific situation is not representative of most situations where a someone has a shaped charge detonate near them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it uses shockwave focusing to form a jet of molten copper all in one direction. The explosion itself goes in all directions.

The way you pack your explosives does have an influence on how the blast works out, but I don't know much about that subject. In any case, the lethal portion of the explosion is the shrapnel, which is focused forward because that's where most of the mass of the warhead (in the form of copper liner and ogive) is.

The actual jet isn't molten, by the way. It's in a superplastic state, but way below melting temperature. It punches through armor with KE alone.

"Some guy on a forum" is at best a case study conducted by a layman which doesn't account for factors he is not aware of.

You mean a combat veteran who actually has firsthand experience of these weapons being used? It's anecdotal evidence for something that is well-known. (By BIS as well. That's why the splash damage radius is so low to begin with.)

I would imagine that this specific situation is not representative of most situations where a someone has a shaped charge detonate near them.

Me neither, which, I would point out, is exactly my point. You're picking at precisely one half of the premise of my argument while ignoring what I had to say.

But I'll reiterate. The design of most HEAT warheads causes for very poor fragmentation performance. As a result, you can stand quite close to one and survive by pure luck. In the open air, a few pounds of explosive isn't going to cause a big enough blast to kill you outright by shockwave and burns, at least not when there are multiple meters between you and the warhead. Sure, an RPG going off right by your head might give you some traumatic brain injury, but that's a chronic and not usually casualty-causing result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What annoys me more about the alamut is the incorrect launch sound. It should sound like a big gun going off, no rocket noise. The booster burns out inside the tube, it only has a flare on the back for tracking.

Also, when they say "effective" they're not talking about kills all the time, but causes enough confusion and morale effect to disable the enemies combat effectiveness. In Arma, people really are only combat ineffective if they're dead right now, but just because it is like that, I wouldn't advocate just making the HEAT warheads super deadly against infantry too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BI should do something like PR or ACE ounce the get the game fixed up a bit. Things like minor suppression or effects when shrapnel or explosives go off near you like blurred vision, excess dust and debris, and maybe the smoke should stay longer, just like in real life. Better particle effects is what Arma could use, to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×