Vehicle Intercom/Intervehicle Comms

[grayace 2]

While playing OFP Im suffering a bad case of comm problem either with AI and human players,

first of all current OFP Vehicle commander order issuing system is neat and basical, but when action hits the fan, all goes into chaos..

reporting&ordering&engaging a target via commander report is totally based on verbal(chat) command as if we are in WW2... I think there should be a "radar" vision for all crew inside the vehicle LIKE the one commander has, but it should only be active while commander is seated AND show ONLY "ordered" targets/waypoints for the gunners/driver, so commander can imake a target/waypoint list while gunners are busy with engaging the targets...

and one more thing there is no inter-vehicle data sharing... Kiowa helicopters are very nice to have but totally useless (except for recon missions but this time visibility issues kill that) We need "data sharing" to share enemy positions to engage targets over BVR (beyond visual range) I hate to bring my armor into a hot zone and waiting for enemy fire... Fire First, Kill First is a fundamental in armor engagements I think...

and also LOAL (Lock on after launch) system for helicopters is a must have for effective armor VS helicopter situations...If not LOAL, then cold war era helicopters both east/west has the ability to "optically wire-guide" missiles to allow them to engage targets indirectly at a close range... (Gunner would have more fun to fly missiles (missile CAM) onto target...) same goes for all TOW and AT launchers

TOW Series (I want to point that "its able to fire 3 TOW in 90 seconds", So thats why I hate BRADLEYs (in OFP) firing TOWs as if it is firing FFARs)

and also those HEAT shells (for M1 tanks, M830A1 HEAT shell) in my opinion those shells should be equipped with proximity detectors and then it will add limited air defence to those MBTs

M830A1 HEAT

Come on we need more room to show some skill and tactics for engaging with vehicles and helicopters

[franze 196]

Definately agree on the in-vehicle communications, they are *way* too chaotic when it comes into combat. A separate internal comm channel that sounds off without interrupting or being interrupted by external radio would definately help a lot.

Data sharing, also agree, and VERY heavily. Modern communications and data sharing allow units to transmit and recieve data readily and quickly, and this is especially important for modern aircraft (eg, AH-64D NR can link up with a AH-64D and 'use' the radar system to lock on any Longbow Hellfires it may be carrying). It sucks that we can only warn a unit about incoming threats or dangers via chat when we could just transmit them the data readily.

LOAL modes, AFAIK this only applies to the HELLFIRE missile. The system works for HELLFIRES in that the default path the missile flies slightly upward, then arcs and flies downward onto it's target (IIRC arc begins at 1-2km from the target). LOAL changes this from a relatively light initial arc to a high arc all the way to the target.

Optical guiding missiles: Yes please! It sucks that so many missile systems we have will automatically guide themselves to the target when the reality is, with many optically guided missiles, you have to steer the missile with a scope and a joystick. (Good point about TOW.)

HEAT proximity detonator is the only thing I find kind of iffy because the question is how often they'll be readily availible. I think a fragmentation or a 'shotgun' round would be better in this instance.

[grayace 2]

I think It is quite obvious that both of us are Empire Interactive's Apache VS Havoc players!

yeah LOAL only works for Hellfire but still its possible to make something similar to that with a Wire/Radio controlled missile as soon as its launched if we (gunners) have the ability to take inflight controls of missiles. (but due to short range of them it would barely be LOAL)

and one more thing, if we CAN NOT get inflight controls of wire/radio guided missiles then at least it HAS TO BE like this;

IF fired weapon is not (IR/TV guided or Fire&Forget) AND using one of these (optical/wire/laser beam riding and of course semi-active radar) as guidance system THEN host/spotter vehicle has to KEEP TRACK of target TILL the weapon strikes its target. in OFP all the missiles are working like "Fire-N-Forget" style which is putting all armored units in a severe disadvantage...

If it is going to be BASICAL then at least that lock-on style firing mod should be removed COMPLETELY and replaced by LASER-beam riding guidance and should be able to acquire SPOTTERS laser designator targets IMO. (and of course vehicle laser designators shouldnt be a seperate weapon)

Currently, player can use LASER to guide nearby vehicles guided missiles in a very limited way (first, I aim somewhere near to my armor, ordering him to target LASER Target, then move the LASER mark to anywhere I want to hit...)

And what about electronic warfare? if vehicles going to have any sort of active radar then we should have some passive radar, (RWR/ESM) because it seems (according to latest vehicle addons) its getting much more complicated and lethal out on OFP battlefield...

BTW your Apache Addon seems very nice

[grayace 2]

anyways, if they only add "DATA Sharing" and "Active RADAR, Warning receiver" features, god! rest of it will be done by addon makers, and I think first of all will be JSTARS, AWACS and ultimately artillery will be able to fire smart missiles... and one other example of possibilities is of course "anti-radiation" missiles

[grayace 2]

HEAT proximity detonator is the only thing I find kind of iffy because the question is how often they'll be readily availible. I think a fragmentation or a 'shotgun' round would be better in this instance.

Im not sure either about that proximity detonator, but who knows, something for self-defence (other than 12.7 and .50) would be usefull...

or tank crews should have more options to cover them from enemy air operations... like using camouflags and when combat begins use of more intensive LASER absorbing smoke cover...(Good bye to instant&easy tank killing with AT missiles unless clipped by surprise/ambush or sync. combined attack)

and also I have deep doubts that those helicopter/aircraft radars can pick up tanks so easily (especially the ones in tight formation with background static)

Sorry, 3 post in row...

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]

I think It is quite obvious that both of us are Empire Interactive's Apache VS Havoc players!

Only occassionally. These days its more Longbow2 rather than EECH.

Quote[/b] ]

yeah LOAL only works for Hellfire but still its possible to make something similar to that with a Wire/Radio controlled missile as soon as its launched if we (gunners) have the ability to take inflight controls of missiles. (but due to short range of them it would barely be LOAL)

With optically guided weapons having such a limited range, I think most gunners would agree to just try to hit the target rather than turning the missile into a aerobatic performer.

That is, until TOW Fire and Forget.

Quote[/b] ]

IF fired weapon is not (IR/TV guided or Fire&Forget) AND using one of these (optical/wire/laser beam riding and of course semi-active radar) as guidance system THEN host/spotter vehicle has to KEEP TRACK of target TILL the weapon strikes its target. in OFP all the missiles are working like "Fire-N-Forget" style which is putting all armored units in a severe disadvantage...

I think this would be a good alternative, forcing a target to stay bracketed or the weapon will attempt to acquire your next target. This may already be possible. Would take some experimenting with missiles first.

Quote[/b] ]

If it is going to be BASICAL then at least that lock-on style firing mod should be removed COMPLETELY and replaced by LASER-beam riding guidance and should be able to acquire SPOTTERS laser designator targets IMO. (and of course vehicle laser designators shouldnt be a seperate weapon)

Just so as long as theres a alternative mode we can employ for true fire and forget weapons a la AGM-114L Longbow HELLFIRE, AGM-65 Maverick, etc. A laser should be optional equipment for *all* vehicle classes and bound to it's own keypress for use. In the case of infantry, I believe it should be a piece of equipment like binoculars.

Quote[/b] ]

And what about electronic warfare? if vehicles going to have any sort of active radar then we should have some passive radar, (RWR/ESM) because it seems (according to latest vehicle addons) its getting much more complicated and lethal out on OFP battlefield...

I think ECM would depend on how vehicle sensors are made in ArmA. If it remains the same as in OFP, then jamming might be better left to addon makers.

About RWR, a dedicated system for aircraft to know when a enemy vehicle with a radar is tracking them would be very handy indeed. These days almost all aircraft incorporate some form of RWR or ASE. We can already implement missile warnings but these aren't true RWRs either.

Quote[/b] ]

BTW your Apache Addon seems very nice

Thanks.

Quote[/b] ]

anyways, if they only add "DATA Sharing" and "Active RADAR, Warning receiver" features, god! rest of it will be done by addon makers, and I think first of all will be JSTARS, AWACS and ultimately artillery will be able to fire smart missiles... and one other example of possibilities is of course "anti-radiation" missiles

If we're very lucky, then they've already implemented these features.

Quote[/b] ]

Im not sure either about that proximity detonator, but who knows, something for self-defence (other than 12.7 and .50) would be usefull...

The short answer is a SAM system such as Avenger, SA-9 or a variety of MANPADS. ZSU is also a option for east equipment. Also, I believe tanks should employ any weapon they have availible for defense from aircraft, which is primarily a matter in addons to set all weapon ammunition as airtarget=true. If ArmA gives tanks the ability to have a separate pintle mounted weapon from the turret, that would be liable to fix things up as well.

Quote[/b] ]

and also I have deep doubts that those helicopter/aircraft radars can pick up tanks so easily (especially the ones in tight formation with background static)

This depends on the radar system. If we had variables for a radar system that actually *sweeps* an area for targets rather than instant LOS, then there might be a delay or two before a radar can detect a target. Clutter such as other vehicles, dead vehicles, buildings, and so on can also affect how a radar works. Aircraft like the Mi-28N and AH-64D also get the benefit of both visual and radar acquisition, but I think asking for a key to cycle 'visual/radar acquisition mode' might be too much.

The short answer for radar systems is if there's a direct line of sight from the radar to the object, with little ground clutter (trees, etc), then the radar is most likely to pick up the object. The only real defense from this is hiding the vehicle behind a solid structure such as good ol' terra firma or buildings. Even then, there's still visual acquisition such as FLIR.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I agree that helicopters have an advantage over amoured targets as it is now, but just giving armour better weapons and detection will just kill the whole idea about flying- it would be a pain in the ass.

If they were to import such weapons onto the tank, the helicopters radar needs to be adjusted. It should both include a normal radar, but also heat seekers. So if you the tanks have engines running, the choppers should be able to see them from kilometers away, depending on their altitude. The ait-to-ground missiles shall of course not be fire'n'forget - but the guner have to guide the missile to its target from the missile-cam. The point is, that the radar as it is now, is simply too weak. Some times you can fly directly over enemy tanks without seeing them on the radar (but you can see them out the window) - even though their engines are running.

This should also help spotting infantry in the night. They would simply light up the screen.

[grayace 2]

I agree that helicopters have an advantage over amoured targets as it is now, but just giving armour better weapons and detection will just kill the whole idea about flying- it would be a pain in the ass.

Im not asking for better weapons or detection, Im asking for balance since OFP tanks are WAAAAAYYY to much underequipped, tanks do have passive LASER detector, as well as Radar Warning Receivers (RWR) and tanks deploy thick layer of Smoke in seconds and M1A1/2 do have M830 HEAT with prox. fuses since 1994 and used to hunt down helicopters by shooting through a trajectory close enough to direct impact.

here are other facts, (taken form www.FAS.org)

-The T-72 has better armor protection than the T-62, due to the use of layered armor and other features discussed above under T-64 capabilities. The advanced passive armour package of the T-72M and T-72M1 can sustain direct hits from the 105mm gun equipped M1 Abrams at up to 2,000 meter range

-When fitted with explosive reactive armor [ERA] the T-80 is virtually immune over its frontal arc to penetration from all current NATO ATGMs which rely on a HEAT warhead to penetrate armor.

-The T-90 is equiped with the TShU-1-7 Shtora-1 optronic counter measures system which is designed to disrupt the laser target designation and rangefinders of incoming ATGM. The T-90 is also equipped with a laser warning package that warns the tank crew when it is being lased. Shtora-1 is an electro-optical jammer that jams the enemy’s semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) antitank guided missiles, laser rangefinders and target designators. Shtora-1 is actually a soft kill, or countermeasures system

Now here are some possibilities,

-In an engagement situation AI controlled tanks could form up a formation (preferably tight Diamond) to counter airborne threats, both for smoke cover and intensive AA fire,

-Tight formation will prevent choppers from conducting FFAR runs (imagine that flying direct head-on toward four MBTs, helicopter may be firing FFARs but in return it will get ACCURATE 105/120/125mm cannon fire which would penetrate through the fuselage front to backend :) and as well as high rate of 7.62mm/.50 and punch like 12.7mm at a good rate from multiple cannons, so goodbye to RAMBO pilots,

-Shilkas/Vulcan as they are over-deadly and accurate, maybe they should fire in bursts as they do in reallife, Water coolers arent enough to provide sustained fire for long periods...

-Improved(vertical) gyro-stabilizer for "firing on the move" for rough terrain

-Entrenchment allowance, if tanks are in the open they can dig holes/build up trenches to take cover behind

-Single AA (like MANPADS) may not blow any attack helicopter to hell but with a very good chance can force it down in a deadly way..

Anyways, flying is nice with helicopters especially if you have a joystick with full set of rudder/throttle, but MUST NEED more experience, skill and of course tactical approach, because CURRENT setting makes helicopters RAMBOs and reducing quality to TReNdY "CounterStrike" level (BLAST!!!)

Do you know that helicopter pilots are trained to fly no higher than a lightpost level IMO It would be more fun if we (pilots) have more room to implement tactics and show some skill and in return a hard but well earned success here is the stuff I like to implement in flying helicopter,

flying through river beds, tree formations to get around and take position for pop-up, firing laser/optical guided missiles one missile/one target, (in this case a talented/dedicated pilot/gunner should be able to;

-Fire several munitions at once with few seconds interval toward targets,

-Switch on LASER as late as possible to prevent tank crew gets alerted

-With the first impact gunner should target next armor and the missiles with seconds behind will fly towards it and so on,

implementation of the actions above will render smoke layer cover and any other jamming countermeasures INEFFECTIVE due to short time of RAID :) Hell yes, I smell victory!

Quote[/b] ]It should both include a normal radar, but also heat seekers. So if you the tanks have engines running, the choppers should be able to see them from kilometers away, depending on their altitude

I assume normal radar refers to a radar *actually* sweeps for static and moving targets, like mentioned above, if they add a real radar which can pick targets up easily than there should be *actual* RWRs which can pick up true bearing of RADAR source (radiation emitter) For example any radar user can be detected from twice or even 3/2 farther than the user himself can actually pick up... IMO, this kind of RADAR would(should) make OFP battlefield to include electronic warfare equipment and tactics (basical and advanced).

About Infrared (like FLIR), well yeah might be, but in that case it MUST include details like weather and ground temperature as well as Infravision inversion (black/white to white/black) and also Im not sure about that it could give long range detection because ground and background heat could screen vehicle engine heat (depends on running engine or idle)

[Balschoiw 0]

OFP Flashpoint CWC takes place in the 80´s.

I guess that´s enough explanation.

[grayace 2]

OFP Flashpoint CWC takes place in the 80´s.

I guess that´s enough explanation.

well all that LASER/RADAR stuff almost goes back to WW2 (experimental) but was in active use during Vietnam War era which took place prior to -cold war "crises"- (not whole cold war era of course)... -as far as I know- all model numbers in soviet arsenal is based on design/serial production date for example T-80(1984) and BTR-80(E1980ies) is developed/produced in 80ies while T-72(E1970ies) manufactured during 1970ies.

BTW, only a few of those mentioned above were introduced after Cold War or Soviet Russia. So most of the facts are available for a possible CWC scenario.

and some advanced Countermeasures were also in use early(E) 1990ies, but if it has to be SO ACCURATE* it would be nice have those vehicles be created "equipable" with advanced CMs/Weapons through scripts

*If gameplay/characteristic is not accurate enough then I dont care about if they include an "equipment" in game which was introduced few years later in actual history, thats what I could call it as "slight tolerance for accuracy in all aspects for gameplay issues..."**

**If uber-simulations like Dangerous Water, which is a sequal to 688i Hunter Killer and Sub Command, includes equipments that were not in use but actually available in prototype level, then semi-simulations like OFP should include for increased content whereever something is NECESSARY

Examples could be V-22 Osprey and Shkval rocket-torpedo (imagine a torpedo that goes faster than 200mph underwater!!!!! its an available technology BTW)

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]

I agree that helicopters have an advantage over amoured targets as it is now, but just giving armour better weapons and detection will just kill the whole idea about flying- it would be a pain in the ass.

I think this is only a percieved advantage that helicopters have over ground vehicles. If tanks had a separate commander's MG, which are typically 12.7mm guns, these would likely be enough to chew up helicopters that get within about a 1.2-1.5km range. It's as you get farther out that helicopters start getting a increased advantage over ground vehicles - the lack of SAM and AAA systems is what hurts this IMO. Again, if comms weren't so crowded in a vehicle group, a SAM vehicle might engage a aircraft quicker if the commander, driver and gunner all do their duties in a automatic way without requesting permission to fire, etc. We might be able to do a simple workaround for this now by making a vehicle single crewed, but thats out of the question for human players. Additionally, if tanks had all ammunition types set to airtarget=true, this might be less of a issue.

Quote[/b] ]

-When fitted with explosive reactive armor [ERA] the T-80 is virtually immune over its frontal arc to penetration from all current NATO ATGMs which rely on a HEAT warhead to penetrate armor.

I need to note, this is only a claim and has yet to be proved. Especially considering how much missile tech has advanced since FAS's article. Like anything else, its most likely to be a "sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't" sort of thing - and a second missile hit will blast clean through the now-destroyed reactive armor.

Quote[/b] ]

-The T-90 is equiped with the TShU-1-7 Shtora-1 optronic counter measures system which is designed to disrupt the laser target designation and rangefinders of incoming ATGM. The T-90 is also equipped with a laser warning package that warns the tank crew when it is being lased. Shtora-1 is an electro-optical jammer that jams the enemy’s semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) antitank guided missiles, laser rangefinders and target designators. Shtora-1 is actually a soft kill, or countermeasures system

I think this system is mostly smoke and mirrors - in reality, I'd give it about a 15% chance of a successful jamming. Again, this doesn't take into account missile systems such as the Longbow HELLFIRE or TV guided missiles such as the Maverick. Given that most western laser guided weapons are automated from launch all the way to the target, I really find it difficult to sustain the belief that such a system would be really effective on modern missile systems.

If you're thinking of the 80s, then I think such a system would work a lot better.

Quote[/b] ]

-In an engagement situation AI controlled tanks could form up a formation (preferably tight Diamond) to counter airborne threats, both for smoke cover and intensive AA fire,

Although I don't think it'd be the wisest thing to pack tanks so closely together, I agree with the AI tanks launching smoke and doing something other than sitting still while getting shot at.

Quote[/b] ]

-Tight formation will prevent choppers from conducting FFAR runs (imagine that flying direct head-on toward four MBTs, helicopter may be firing FFARs but in return it will get ACCURATE 105/120/125mm cannon fire which would penetrate through the fuselage front to backend and as well as high rate of 7.62mm/.50 and punch like 12.7mm at a good rate from multiple cannons, so goodbye to RAMBO pilots,

In a properly executed FFAR attack, the IP will generally be behind the target formation, and is conducted by at least two aircraft - so while you might be shooting the first one, the second one will nail you. Proven in Vietnam.

But woe be to the poor slob who tries to come at tanks right where they want them. (AI is good at this, I can shoot down Apaches with RHS T-55's main gun with ease! )

Quote[/b] ]

-Shilkas/Vulcan as they are over-deadly and accurate, maybe they should fire in bursts as they do in reallife, Water coolers arent enough to provide sustained fire for long periods...

An adjustable burst limit for all cannons and machineguns would be great here; we can tell the AI right now how to use a weapon with bursts, but for human players, we can't set a pause between bursts. We need that for all cannon weaponry!

Quote[/b] ]

-Improved(vertical) gyro-stabilizer for "firing on the move" for rough terrain

-Entrenchment allowance, if tanks are in the open they can dig holes/build up trenches to take cover behind

Gyro-stabalization should also be an option to turn off for older tank types (think WWII mods here. )

Entrenchments would also open up engineering class vehicles, so I'm all for that.

Quote[/b] ]

-Single AA (like MANPADS) may not blow any attack helicopter to hell but with a very good chance can force it down in a deadly way..

Proximity detonation is a must for MANPADS and SAM systems IMO, to get around a lot of aircraft jamming systems - so theyll pass close enough to do a little bit of shrapnel damage, and if really luck, will make a solid hit.

Quote[/b] ]

Anyways, flying is nice with helicopters especially if you have a joystick with full set of rudder/throttle, but MUST NEED more experience, skill and of course tactical approach, because CURRENT setting makes helicopters RAMBOs and reducing quality to TReNdY "CounterStrike" level (BLAST!!!

I think on order to lose the "Comanche 4" feel of helicopters, they'd have to introduce a whole line of physics (assuming they haven't) to the modeling. We'd have to have torque, retreating blade stall, blade stall, overtorque and weight considerations. That's quite a lot when you consider OFP isn't a dedicated helicopter simulation. I've tried to incorporate this a little bit into my helicopters but adjusting the baseline physics is pretty much out of my hands.

Quote[/b] ]

Do you know that helicopter pilots are trained to fly no higher than a lightpost level IMO It would be more fun if we (pilots) have more room to implement tactics and show some skill and in return a hard but well earned success here is the stuff I like to implement in flying helicopter,

If you haven't already, I recommend you try my mission "Haystack" for our WAH-64. This is a good example of how mission design can influence flying. If you pair a couple of MANPADS up with a radar system (ZSU in Haystack), they can make a pretty deadly air defense net and force you to keep your head down. Enemy helicopters with missile systems adds another factor to this.

Quote[/b] ]

flying through river beds, tree formations to get around and take position for pop-up, firing laser/optical guided missiles one missile/one target, (in this case a talented/dedicated pilot/gunner should be able to;

-Fire several munitions at once with few seconds interval toward targets,

-Switch on LASER as late as possible to prevent tank crew gets alerted

-With the first impact gunner should target next armor and the missiles with seconds behind will fly towards it and so on,

implementation of the actions above will render smoke layer cover and any other jamming countermeasures INEFFECTIVE due to short time of RAID

How about we trade this aircraft in for a AH-64D w/ Longbow and just bob up once and lock every tank up, bob down and set a PFZ, then bob back up and fire our missiles - then just wait for them to hit.

(Otherwise, ripple fire is nice and ideal for the older aircraft types. )

Quote[/b] ]

I assume normal radar refers to a radar *actually* sweeps for static and moving targets, like mentioned above, if they add a real radar which can pick targets up easily than there should be *actual* RWRs which can pick up true bearing of RADAR source (radiation emitter) For example any radar user can be detected from twice or even 3/2 farther than the user himself can actually pick up... IMO, this kind of RADAR would(should) make OFP battlefield to include electronic warfare equipment and tactics (basical and advanced).

In this case I think we should also get the ability to turn our radar off to prevent detection until ready to engage. Such as if a ZSU spots an aircraft but keeps radar off until it passes over - then bye-bye.

Quote[/b] ]

About Infrared (like FLIR), well yeah might be, but in that case it MUST include details like weather and ground temperature as well as Infravision inversion (black/white to white/black) and also Im not sure about that it could give long range detection because ground and background heat could screen vehicle engine heat (depends on running engine or idle)

While we're at it, can I have DTV and DVO? Pretty please?

Quote[/b] ]

OFP Flashpoint CWC takes place in the 80´s.

I guess that´s enough explanation.

Cobras had optic systems like FLIR availible to them, along with other units. And a lot of the tank equipment we're talking about were availible during that era. Not a good enough excuse there.

[sirex 0]

what worrys me, is that the AA community seem to throw around these ideas like "wouldnt it be good to use TV guided missles" as if its some amazing feat, and games like battlefield 2 already have them, and had since day 1.

yes, battlefield 2 sucks in many respects, but from now on, i'd expect any military game or sim to be upto that level on features.

laser designation, tv guided weapons, reactive armor, EMC, entrenchments and proximity warheads. these things i'd take for granted in any modern game.

using chat to state where units/threats are.... are you joking ? maybe for OFP1, but AA and OFP2?, that would be a sorry state of affairs. i want to pull out a spade and set up a foxhole, call in airstrikes, and such.

[GBee 0]

*Deleted post*

Move along, nothing to see here

[grayace 2]

Quote[/b] ]I need to note, this is only a claim and has yet to be proved. Especially considering how much missile tech has advanced since FAS's article. Like anything else, its most likely to be a "sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't" sort of thing - and a second missile hit will blast clean through the now-destroyed reactive armor.

I agree partially, because Im sure FAS made enough research before adding such statement, so Im quite sure that they are claiming this for even latest generation of ATGMs since they all use same penetration method

And for REA, I hardly think that single missile would take out whole layer of RHA, because Im sure that those RHAs have a seperate armor on top of them to prevent low caliber weapons taking them out. so single HEAT charge can take out 4 or 5 bricks of RHA at a time... In this case, ATGM users have to fire at LEAST two missiles (still it is pretty odd to put a bullet through such a small RHA hole..) which could give precious time to tank crew to find out the source of attack and take necessary actions..

Quote[/b] ]I think this system is mostly smoke and mirrors - in reality, I'd give it about a 15% chance of a successful jamming. Again, this doesn't take into account missile systems such as the Longbow HELLFIRE or TV guided missiles such as the Maverick. Given that most western laser guided weapons are automated from launch all the way to the target, I really find it difficult to sustain the belief that such a system would be really effective on modern missile systems.

If you're thinking of the 80s, then I think such a system would work a lot better.

well, all I can say that its not too hard to trick passive guided munitions, a thick smoke layer can blind any kind of IR/TV/LASER guidance munition, but like you said success rate depends on tech. level of the weapon being employed and weather conditions.

Quote[/b] ]In a properly executed FFAR attack, the IP will generally be behind the target formation, and is conducted by at least two aircraft - so while you might be shooting the first one, the second one will nail you. Proven in Vietnam.

But woe be to the poor slob who tries to come at tanks right where they want them. (AI is good at this, I can shoot down Apaches with RHS T-55's main gun with ease! )

Well you are overestimating the FFARs power and helicopters agility, once you set your helicopter to a head-on run you wont have any chance to steer your helicopter FAST ENOUGH to avoid ground fire, and also it doesnt matter where your (I)ngress (P)oint is since there are 8 [(gunner+commander)x4] crew are searching for targets on entire 360 degree, and also helicopters would *flare* in their passive IR scopes again I would refer this kind of approach to RAMBO of combat/army aviation

And also such "Deuce" kind attack formation may only be used in aircraft for SEAD runs to draw off SAM fire and let the second craft to strike the target, well as I mentioned above, and like you said helicopters do advantage over long range, but running onto a entire platoon of armor is no more than a suicide.

Quote[/b] ]Although I don't think it'd be the wisest thing to pack tanks so closely together, I agree with the AI tanks launching smoke and doing something other than sitting still while getting shot at.

IMO getting close refers to a formation "relatively" closer than previous formation, to put cannons close enough to increase accuracy/intensity of fire for air defence to whoever tries to overfly.. But still, like you said, it is not one of "the greatest idea" to put all tanks at risk at once, but still that kind of formation represents fortress/iron curtain ideology which could throw off pilots think they could make it alive B-17 FF are such an actual example

Quote[/b] ]Gyro-stabalization should also be an option to turn off for older tank types (think WWII mods here. )

Entrenchments would also open up engineering class vehicles, so I'm all for that.

yeah WW2 is right, agreed. About entrenchments, many tanks (especially MBTs) do have Self-Entrenching Blade* but sperate* engineer vehicles would be very nice to have and to tow damaged vehicles or for bridge laying/mine plowing..

*But still Im not sure that kind of blade is externally equipped (most possibly) optionally, in that case such tank would be *flagged* as engineer tank so my point is there could be slight difference of understanding of *engineer tank* between us, but yeah still it would be great to have something special for tanks

Quote[/b] ]I think on order to lose the "Comanche 4" feel of helicopters, they'd have to introduce a whole line of physics (assuming they haven't) to the modeling. We'd have to have torque, retreating blade stall, blade stall, overtorque and weight considerations. That's quite a lot when you consider OFP isn't a dedicated helicopter simulation. I've tried to incorporate this a little bit into my helicopters but adjusting the baseline physics is pretty much out of my hands.

Well Im sure you tried to fly with a joystick (especially one with throttle and rudder) which is FAR different than flying with mouse+keyboard. And in such flying Im glad to see that OFP has been implemented with *relatively* immense detail and realism.

blade stall issues are *little* advanced for any OFP player even for some sim fans but overtorque effect could be nice to see..

Quote[/b] ]flying through river beds, tree formations to get around and take position for pop-up, firing laser/optical guided missiles one missile/one target, (in this case a talented/dedicated pilot/gunner should be able to;

-Fire several munitions at once with few seconds interval toward targets,

-Switch on LASER as late as possible to prevent tank crew gets alerted

-With the first impact gunner should target next armor and the missiles with seconds behind will fly towards it and so on,

implementation of the actions above will render smoke layer cover and any other jamming countermeasures INEFFECTIVE due to short time of RAID

Quote[/b] ]How about we trade this aircraft in for a AH-64D w/ Longbow and just bob up once and lock every tank up, bob down and set a PFZ, then bob back up and fire our missiles - then just wait for them to hit.

I assume you refer to semi-active RADAR guidance (AGM-114K) which would also alert tank crews. Here its taken from FAS again:

The first three generations of HELLFIRE missiles use a laser seeker. The fourth generation, Longbow HELLFIRE, uses a radar frequency seeker.

However it is not easy to evade those S/A RADAR guided munitions... but in return apaches active RADAR would draw unwanted attention from nearby shilkas&SAMs and deadly aircraft threats much more than any LASER beam can...

BTW I really wonder if MBTs can be mounted with ECM Jammers! goodbye AGM-114K,

And also needless to say that "lasing tanks is another way to alert them" So, we return where we started, pilot/gunner have to keep track of target to guide missile to targets and he has to do this in a way which would allow him to strike many targets in a very short time without causing "in-transit" missiles take too much time to prolong the strike... which needs a tactic similar to one I stated above.. And again this would be easy to implement and valuable to see in the game

Quote[/b] ]In this case I think we should also get the ability to turn our radar off to prevent detection until ready to engage. Such as if a ZSU spots an aircraft but keeps radar off until it passes over - then bye-bye.

Agreed, we should be able to *sniff* and then switch to EMCON after second RADAR sweep to gain as much as info in a short time.. which is another EW tactic. RADAR is a serious matter! :P

About DTV/LLTV/DVO and a full set of DVD player, YES pls!!! I want to see it!! for the ones who needs explanation here it is,

# Day TV. Views images during day and low light levels, black and white.

# TADS FLIR. Views thermal images, real world and magnified, during day, night and adverse weather.

# DVO. Views real world, full color, and magnified images during daylight and dusk conditions.

Quote[/b] ]If you haven't already, I recommend you try my mission "Haystack" for our WAH-64. This is a good example of how mission design can influence flying. If you pair a couple of MANPADS up with a radar system (ZSU in Haystack), they can make a pretty deadly air defense net and force you to keep your head down. Enemy helicopters with missile systems adds another factor to this.

Well, I will try your mission ASAP but once I have tried to place a AA network around the map and my alt was no more than NOE, still those over-deadly-over sensitive ZSU-23/4 shilkas rip my helicopter through DENSE FOREST over KMs!!! only solid defence is to fly within street blocks and which is waaaay too limited in OFP maps...

[grayace 2]

what worrys me, is that the AA community seem to throw around these ideas like "wouldnt it be good to use TV guided missles" as if its some amazing feat, and games like battlefield 2 already have them, and had since day 1.

yes, battlefield 2 sucks in many respects, but from now on, i'd expect any military game or sim to be upto that level on features.

laser designation, tv guided weapons, reactive armor, EMC, entrenchments and proximity warheads. these things i'd take for granted in any modern game.

Exactly! otherwise its such an offense to those vehicles name and to all its background;

HAS ANYONE SEEN A M-4 RIFLE WITH M-203 IN A GAME AND ITS NOT CAPABLE OF AUTO-FIRE, OR LAUNCH M-203 GRENADES AND AS WELL AS LOADED SINGLE BULLET AT A TIME??? Yeah think so then it would be a shame to see an Apache without FLIR, or a tank without smoke cover..

Quote[/b] ]

using chat to state where units/threats are.... are you joking ? maybe for OFP1, but AA and OFP2?, that would be a sorry state of affairs. i want to pull out a spade and set up a foxhole, call in airstrikes, and such.

yeah think so, and in OFP1 it has sacrified *all* and very possible tactics we can get... However, we all are looking forward...

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]

And for REA, I hardly think that single missile would take out whole layer of RHA, because Im sure that those RHAs have a seperate armor on top of them to prevent low caliber weapons taking them out. so single HEAT charge can take out 4 or 5 bricks of RHA at a time... In this case, ATGM users have to fire at LEAST two missiles (still it is pretty odd to put a bullet through such a small RHA hole..) which could give precious time to tank crew to find out the source of attack and take necessary actions..

This brings up a point when I was discussing reactive armor and effectiveness vs ATGMs at one time. The key problem with reactive armor is you can't place it on every part of the tank. There's always going to be some exposed portion - a hatch, the engine exaust, or other vulnerabilities. Since many modern ATGMs attempt to attack the top of the tank, there is a relatively large chance of the weapon instead hitting one of these vulnerable points. In addition, lets keep in mind what happens to ERA when it is hit, especially by a 100lb, dual-charge missile. It's the earlier generation missiles such as BGM-71D, AGM-114A, etc. that don't have any way to counter reactive armor.

(This gives me a lot of ideas on how to incorporate reactive armor in OFP.)

Quote[/b] ]

well, all I can say that its not too hard to trick passive guided munitions, a thick smoke layer can blind any kind of IR/TV/LASER guidance munition, but like you said success rate depends on tech. level of the weapon being employed and weather conditions.

AFAIK, HELLFIRE is a active guided weapon - the earlier models, before AGM-114K, didn't incorporate a autopilot or the ability to reacquire a target. Unless the field is completely obscured, a small array of smoke near the target won't be as effective in modern warfare compared to what it might've been 10 years ago. This of course doesn't mean it will *always* hit, but like all countermeasures, there is only a chance of success.

Quote[/b] ]

Well you are overestimating the FFARs power and helicopters agility, once you set your helicopter to a head-on run you wont have any chance to steer your helicopter FAST ENOUGH to avoid ground fire, and also it doesnt matter where your (I)ngress (P)oint is since there are 8 [(gunner+commander)x4] crew are searching for targets on entire 360 degree, and also helicopters would *flare* in their passive IR scopes again I would refer this kind of approach to RAMBO of combat/army aviation

Consider this:

The default HE warhead is the M151, rated at 10 pounds. On most attack helicopters, they're usually carried in pods of 7 to 19 rockets, usually two of them for a 14 to 38 total of rockets. Then consider that there is another warhead that can be used on these rockets, the M229 17 pound warhead. Finally, consider that you can launch the rockets in ripple fire modes or in high quantities - it probably won't kill you, but it could definately give a tank crew a shock.

Additionally, attacking a target moving at high speed and outside of your detection radius (If the aircraft flies high enough and dives down - not recommended if AAA is around) is rather difficult. This brings me to another item I'd probably like to have introduced, and that's for mission controllers to specify where, what, and how much of a ammunition type you can have (for vehicles.)

Quote[/b] ]

IMO getting close refers to a formation "relatively" closer than previous formation, to put cannons close enough to increase accuracy/intensity of fire for air defence to whoever tries to overfly.. But still, like you said, it is not one of "the greatest idea" to put all tanks at risk at once, but still that kind of formation represents fortress/iron curtain ideology which could throw off pilots think they could make it alive B-17 FF are such an actual example

The combat box for B-17s wasn't as effective as General LeMay would have you think.

Packing tanks closely together, provided the current 'explosion' damage from other tanks still exsists, is currently just a crazy idea because of the chances of causing a chain reaction. If that's changed/reduced in ArmA, I'd be really glad.

Quote[/b] ]

blade stall issues are *little* advanced for any OFP player even for some sim fans but overtorque effect could be nice to see..

Blade stall would be one of the key things to prevent 'rambo' tactics. Instantly pull full power and then push forward, only to hear "Rotor RPM low" - that'd keep you from pushing the helicopter around too much.

Quote[/b] ]

I assume you refer to semi-active RADAR guidance (AGM-114K) which would also alert tank crews. Here its taken from FAS again:

The first three generations of HELLFIRE missiles use a laser seeker. The fourth generation, Longbow HELLFIRE, uses a radar frequency seeker.

However it is not easy to evade those S/A RADAR guided munitions... but in return apaches active RADAR would draw unwanted attention from nearby shilkas&SAMs and deadly aircraft threats much more than any LASER beam can...

AGM-114K is HELLFIRE II, and it's the third generation HELLFIRE. AGM-114L is Longbow.

Additionally, the Longbow needs only a solid radar signature to either update its trajectory or home in on the assigned target. Therefore (if we had advanced radar operation) the firing aircraft would need only to sweep the target for a short duration at the terminal phase of the missile's flight to acquire the target. This is a LOAL capability, whereas LOBL requires the target to be illuminated before firing.

Quote[/b] ]

BTW I really wonder if MBTs can be mounted with ECM Jammers! goodbye AGM-114K

The problem with ECM Jammers is then you have a new reference point for a missile system to lock on with.

(Not sure if it's possible to jam the Longbow radar, my guess would be yes but I've yet to hear of it.)

Quote[/b] ]

And also needless to say that "lasing tanks is another way to alert them" So, we return where we started, pilot/gunner have to keep track of target to guide missile to targets and he has to do this in a way which would allow him to strike many targets in a very short time without causing "in-transit" missiles take too much time to prolong the strike... which needs a tactic similar to one I stated above.. And again this would be easy to implement and valuable to see in the game

One more point about tanks and this advanced equipment: Like the Longbow Radar is to the Apache, these systems would be for a MBT. That means maybe 1 in 4 tanks might have these systems, but the vast majority won't be equipped with them. Or a better comparison, how many M1A2s are there compared to M1A1s.

Plus, and this is a very big factor, if the tanks are busy with a helicopter lasing them, and trying to avoid it, there could be other tanks coming right at them while they're distracted. It's a world of possibilities out there.

Quote[/b] ]

Well, I will try your mission ASAP but once I have tried to place a AA network around the map and my alt was no more than NOE, still those over-deadly-over sensitive ZSU-23/4 shilkas rip my helicopter through DENSE FOREST over KMs!!! only solid defence is to fly within street blocks and which is waaaay too limited in OFP maps...

In the case of Haystack, the trick is to use the mountains overlooking the target area for cover. Our new OH-58 however implements a new system to effectively mask it for a period of time, at the expense of being able to track targets at the same time. Visual guidance for human players also remains availible despite this. But its a start in the OFP 'cold war' between vehicles.

@sirex

These 'features' you talk of in games like BF2 are by no means comparable to the same features in *much* older games like Longbow2. Sure, I'd take the FLIR from BF2 in ArmA, but it won't ever compare with the way FLIR worked in LB2.

[sirex 0]

maybe. but what im trying to say is, is shouldnt be a case of "wouldnt it be nice" but more a case of "why not?"

all these features are just the baseline for a modern game, for a new game to be a good suprise it would need all of this, and a hell of a lot more.

[grayace 2]

Quote[/b] ]This brings up a point when I was discussing reactive armor and effectiveness vs ATGMs at one time. The key problem with reactive armor is you can't place it on every part of the tank. There's always going to be some exposed portion - a hatch, the engine exaust, or other vulnerabilities. Since many modern ATGMs attempt to attack the top of the tank, there is a relatively large chance of the weapon instead hitting one of these vulnerable points. In addition, lets keep in mind what happens to ERA when it is hit, especially by a 100lb, dual-charge missile. It's the earlier generation missiles such as BGM-71D, AGM-114A, etc. that don't have any way to counter reactive armor.

(This gives me a lot of ideas on how to incorporate reactive armor in OFP.)

Yes, I agree that there will be always holes in RHA armor... and I also agree that "top of tank" are relatively important in a hilly terrain because if enemy tank is rolling down/upward on the hill ahead, you (another tank/ATGM user) can see the tank's top of it's turret with a good angle (let say 20 degree up to 35) where you can place a deadly blow..

Quote[/b] ]Consider this:

The default HE warhead is the M151, rated at 10 pounds. On most attack helicopters, they're usually carried in pods of 7 to 19 rockets, usually two of them for a 14 to 38 total of rockets. Then consider that there is another warhead that can be used on these rockets, the M229 17 pound warhead. Finally, consider that you can launch the rockets in ripple fire modes or in high quantities - it probably won't kill you, but it could definately give a tank crew a shock.

Additionally, attacking a target moving at high speed and outside of your detection radius (If the aircraft flies high enough and dives down - not recommended if AAA is around) is rather difficult. This brings me to another item I'd probably like to have introduced, and that's for mission controllers to specify where, what, and how much of a ammunition type you can have (for vehicles.)

Agreed partially, attacking in packs with large amount of FFARs would give some shock -but- you need to stay away from target because no helicopter can with stand (neither dare to) fire from several tanks... so here it is,

as you stay far from target your FFARs will scatter and will hit with a very reduced effect (FFARs are over-accurate in OFP) and flying high can only be think of in OFP, I learned nap on earth flying in Gunship2000 when I was a kid since then I never attempted*...

*For those who are wondering why here is the clue, getting high will give you better screen of enemy vehicles (vice versa) and in return they will throw everything they got to you (like full series of SA) and ultimately some aircraft on Combat Air Patrol will send in some buddies like R-27/AMRAAM since you are in the OPEN

Quote[/b] ]The combat box for B-17s wasn't as effective as General LeMay would have you think.

Packing tanks closely together, provided the current 'explosion' damage from other tanks still exsists, is currently just a crazy idea because of the chances of causing a chain reaction. If that's changed/reduced in ArmA, I'd be really glad.

Still many of those B-17s made home back... in many pieces.. ouch (most of the damage was caused of ground fire however those deadly Luftwaffe fighters wasnt able to stop them which was *the* idea)

explosion damage is a total disaster in OFP.. it is totally over powered, but I assume it will be corrected so it wont be a issue (not big enough) when in tight formation.. BTW -tight- means -not scattered around- for me.. and yeah, I would be glad either!

Quote[/b] ]Blade stall would be one of the key things to prevent 'rambo' tactics. Instantly pull full power and then push forward, only to hear "Rotor RPM low" - that'd keep you from pushing the helicopter around too much

Could be.. but I think players could get confused of it easily because they cant figure it out unless they know about effects of air density (temperature/altitude) as well as physics of gases.. IMO overtorque is a more obvious consequence for casual pilots

Quote[/b] ]AGM-114K is HELLFIRE II, and it's the third generation HELLFIRE. AGM-114L is Longbow.

Additionally, the Longbow needs only a solid radar signature to either update its trajectory or home in on the assigned target. Therefore (if we had advanced radar operation) the firing aircraft would need only to sweep the target for a short duration at the terminal phase of the missile's flight to acquire the target. This is a LOAL capability, whereas LOBL requires the target to be illuminated before firing.

My bad... Im always getting confused with L and K suffixes.. L reminds me LASER instead its RADAR... I need to play EEAH ASAP

You're right, I didnt take in account that you can still operate RADAR for a short time to guide missiles on final approach.. I was thinking of RADAR contact has to be made before firing of L series..

Quote[/b] ]The problem with ECM Jammers is then you have a new reference point for a missile system to lock on with.

(Not sure if it's possible to jam the Longbow radar, my guess would be yes but I've yet to hear of it.)

Thats correct, I mean missiles/RADARs will a have new larger target which can be picked up over miles, but still it will distrupt the distance measurement which will cause to failure of calculation of correct impact point... and BTW, ECM Jamming on newer/other RADARs is only a issue of software update if the ECM spectrum is wide enough..

Quote[/b] ]One more point about tanks and this advanced equipment: Like the Longbow Radar is to the Apache, these systems would be for a MBT. That means maybe 1 in 4 tanks might have these systems, but the vast majority won't be equipped with them. Or a better comparison, how many M1A2s are there compared to M1A1s.

Plus, and this is a very big factor, if the tanks are busy with a helicopter lasing them, and trying to avoid it, there could be other tanks coming right at them while they're distracted. It's a world of possibilities out there.

Well I think it can be equipped but problem is it wont have a wide screen due to altitude and surroundings, may be a ground RADAR system similar to Giraffe can be added for C2(Command/Control) needs..

Yeah, such tactic can be used for distraction/diversion.. sounds dirty!

Quote[/b] ]@sirex

These 'features' you talk of in games like BF2 are by no means comparable to the same features in *much* older games like Longbow2. Sure, I'd take the FLIR from BF2 in ArmA, but it won't ever compare with the way FLIR worked in LB2.

Sure its incomparable to LB2 but its a real nice step for games like BF2 (do you imagine the way where they(*players*) come up from counterstrike to BF2...)

IMO, in this case a more advanced simulation of equipments than in BF2 is a MUST for new OFP..

[Jinef 2]

Hmmmm...

Do you want players to specialise and have roles in the game or do you want players to be able to access every aspect of the game.

For example:

Medic training in Americas Army is a great idea. You sit in a virtual classroom and learn about being a medic. Unfortunately in the game all you had to do to treat wounded was press the action key and hold it down ....

I would have liked to have seen a medic menu appear. You have to diagnose the injury, and do appropriate life-saving actions.

For a leg injury you could:

Dress the wound to stop bleeding.

Ask for medevac.

Give morphine.

Insert fluid IV.

For a head injury:

Dress the wound to stop bleeding.

Ask for medevac.

Do Not give morphine.

Do Not insert fluid IV.

Helicopter Pilots need to learn tactics, avionics and flying skills.

Tank crews need to learn about movement, cover and being in the advantageous position.

Infantry leaders need to learn about general tactics, human factors and being in the advantageous position.

Snipers - Windage, Range blah blah

Radio Man - Terrain/Signal Strength/Weather/Frequency

___

Unfortunately modern war is incredibly complex. We have not seen a real war using today's modern equipment and training on both sides.

OFP2 is probably going to be more of the same - First world power's military vs Small country's poor military.

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]

Agreed partially, attacking in packs with large amount of FFARs would give some shock -but- you need to stay away from target because no helicopter can with stand (neither dare to) fire from several tanks... so here it is,

Except what I'm speaking of, the tanks can't fire beyond their gun elevation. If the helicopter dives down to fire rockets at a high rate of speed, sort of like the way a dive bomb run works, it makes up for the lack of accuracy on the rocket and opens up a attack point on the tank itself. Again, this is risky of course, but if no standoff weapons are on hand, its better than nothing at all.

Quote[/b] ]

Still many of those B-17s made home back... in many pieces.. ouch (most of the damage was caused of ground fire however those deadly Luftwaffe fighters wasnt able to stop them which was *the* idea)

The first few bombing strikes done by the 8th Air Force in Europe during WW2, they had no escorts. The losses were so heavy that they temporarly halted the campaign until they got escorts.

Quote[/b] ]

Could be.. but I think players could get confused of it easily because they cant figure it out unless they know about effects of air density (temperature/altitude) as well as physics of gases.. IMO overtorque is a more obvious consequence for casual pilots

The thing about overtorque is that it can only cause damage if used for a extended period of time - wheras blade stall encourages a lighter touch on the aircraft as opposed to jerking it around. On this note, full aerobatic handling would be *the* way to go.

Quote[/b] ]

Sure its incomparable to LB2 but its a real nice step for games like BF2 (do you imagine the way where they(*players*) come up from counterstrike to BF2...)

IMO, in this case a more advanced simulation of equipments than in BF2 is a MUST for new OFP..

As I said, BF2-style FLIR would be better than nothing, but it doesn't make up for a fully functional suite of DVO, DTV and FLIR.

@Jinef

I'm all for that but I think it's already possible with some clever mission design. Would make a great way to add a little bit more character interaction.

[shadow 6]

Reallistic FLIR, DVO and DTV would be nice, but I dont think its reallistic to expect BIS to put that much effort into a single weapons-system when there are so many different vehicles to create.

For those who have'nt seen the FLIR in LB2 here are two pics: FLIR with AIM-92 selected and master arm on & FLIR with AIM-92 and radar on (notice the symbol overlay when radar has swept the area). Both are in White-hot, but the polarity can be switched to Black-hot.

If it will be possible for the community to create a FLIR-vision I'll happily force Franze to do that to his Apache, but I doubt I'll have to force him if it will be doable  

[snoops_213 75]

Shorta-1 only works properly ,from what i can find, if the missile is heading directly for the tank tank. Therefore if you were the lase the area around the tank and a second or so before impact, lase the tank, shorta-1 becomes useless does it not? And if ECM was added to tanks would ATGMs not be upgraded to the capability the AIM-54 pheonix has, where if ECM is deteced then a simple flick of switch and the Jammer A/C gets a hot reception? FFAR runs may not destroy a tank but a couple of hits and computers/optics tend to get pissed and go pop, and if shorta-1 "box" takes a hit then no more defence against ATGMs? However this is all speculation as these systems have never been tested against each other, and until then we can only assume. And well assumption is the mother of all fuckups! Sorry well off topic. Might want to discuss this in someone elses forums.

Back on topic. All I hope is that I can learn where the enemy are without having myself or the rest of the squad shotup cause I can't issue an order until they shut up! Will be intresting to see how they handle this if at all. And since this is a modern day conflict with US forces then how much of C4 will introduced if at all? Or how about IVIS, or shorta-1 or the rest of the modern marvals in use these days by either side? We have to wait and see i guess Gotta love waiting

[Jinef 2]

Quote[/b] ]If the helicopter dives down to fire rockets at a high rate of speed, sort of like the way a dive bomb run works, it makes up for the lack of accuracy on the rocket and opens up a attack point on the tank itself. Again, this is risky of course, but if no standoff weapons are on hand, its better than nothing at all.

Umm..... OK. You can do that and I will sit at base waiting for my standoff missiles to arrive. It's better than risking my life, the life of my CP/G and a $50,000,000 airframe.

In OFP we get the illusion that forces are so small, isolated and we can only see 1km.

A helicopter attacking a platoon of stationary tanks will almost always be surrounded by enemy weapon systems on 3 sides. Terrain cover is as neccessary for survival as oxygen for combat pilots. You stick yourself in the air and you will open yourself up to mobile SAM systems like SA-15/19, mobile AA guns, MANPADS, heavy machine gun fire, radar tracking for enemy combat air patrol and small arms fire.

I didn't really read the whole argument so I may be saying irrelevant stuff but basically a rocket attack against armoured formations from high altitude is the equivalent of playing russian roulette with a semi automatic handgun :P

Rockets are shit against tanks anyway, don't have much velocity or penetration requiring a lot of hits. Good against trucks/buildings/emplacements and infantry though. The main reason they are shit against tanks though is you actually have to get close to the tanks in order to fire them .....

Quote[/b] ]Reallistic FLIR, DVO and DTV would be nice, but I dont think its reallistic to expect BIS to put that much effort into a single weapons-system when there are so many different vehicles to create.

Sad truth. Would it be hard though to implement everything needed for the OFP community to make it themselves?

Including the dreaded ....

*drumroll*

*drumroll*

*drumroll*

*drumroll*

*** Documentation! ***

[franze 196]

Jinef, rocket attacks as I described is strictly Vietnam-era stuff. Don't forget that our modern day rocket systems have some pretty nice features, such as firing salvos and guided rocket systems are starting to show some promise (APKWS II).

Average cost for a AH-64D + Longbow radar is 22 mil.

Granted, rockets are more for area saturation and ground support, but having 19-38 20 pound rockets land on your doorstep isn't exactly a nice experience either. Especially if you consider in the cases of ERA, Shtora, Arena, etc. a rocket attack can do wonders to damage these systems - thus paving the way for another attack by guided weapons.

Lastly, this assumes SAMs and other air defenses have already been taken out. Most of the time, that's usually the case. Despite what they may say about the AH-64 being a strike aircraft, it's primary purpose is still to support friendly ground forces - that means any operations it will be performing will be in order to secure a position for the ground forces. In other words, theres the final bit of just calling a artillery strike on these tanks rather than going after them yourself.

[Jinef 2]

Did you include the costs of avionics, fuel, weapons and pilot training?

It's like the hidden sales tax of weapon sales, you buy a AH-64, you get a AH64 ... you need to buy a weapons bundle package, a avionics suite and train some pilots through the company to get a few years warranty

Vietnam Era - right on stud!

Yeah, back then as long as you did your stuff fast and with suprise you could get away with it from whatever angle. SAM systems were not really a problem for helicopters, as helicopters never really operated near the high level targets protected by those things.

So I will be quiet, and leave you studmuffins to it.