Small Arms in Armed Assault

[Ukraineboy 0]

Since there is a dedicated thread to Artillery, why not for Small Arms?

One of the most frustrating things in the game, is when you're behind a defilade, and trying to fire over. However you keep shooting a couple feet infront of you. That's because the Ironsights, are no different view then non ironsights. What I hope BIS considers is a Vietcong style, where you can fire from the shoulders, and still be accurate to some extent, and then bring it up to ironsights. I hope that you raise your body when you do this.

Red Orchestra also did a huge mistake and that's Hip Shooting. You can either hip shoot and not hit anything, or go full on ironsights. They don't have an option for shoulder shooting, which is what most people would do with an SMG at close range. Anyways, what they did do right is the Resting on Terrain etc. I am being hopeful in that BIS will atleast look at this option, but what I do hope is they optimize the height of various objects so they are better suitable for shooting over. Case in point, the sand bags. Sometimes you can shoot over them, sometimes you can't. Very annoying.

And finally, I come to a point where we talk about Anti-Tank. This is one of the worst aspects of OFP ever, and I do not know why they decided to give such a horrible handicap. It seems this was to make it more equal. I hope they decide to go against this and have Animations for AT where you can crawl, jog, sprint, walk and shoot from standing and crouching. Maybe define two seperate types of Handheld AT weapons? Lighter ones, and Heavy ones.

Another thing I hope is they get rid of how the Carl Gustav and AT-4 (inaccurately portrayed as a shoulder-fired weapon) works. In the game, it's some magic seaking missile which goes straight to the tank. Carl Gustav is not a SACLOS launcher either.

And finally, LAW and RPG-18 as one shot disposable launcher.

Any other thoughts and hopes with Small Arms in ArmA?

[Jester617 0]

Well the if the Opfor in ArmA are carring AK74s the RPK74 needs to be implemented. i have Read once or twice that every Soviet infantry squad carries one RPK74 and one Dragunov here is my

proof

also if this game is set in modern times

US Army Soldiers need moddable M4s and M16A4s

when i say moddable i mean

vertical foregrips

M68 aimpoints (CCO)

Eotech (HWS)

AN/PEQ-2A (that is a IR Illuminater for use with NVG)

ACOG x4

and the M249 needs the M145 (MGO)

the M9 bayonet would be sweet too

[Stendac 0]

And finally, LAW and RPG-18 as one shot disposable launcher.

If BIS decides to make this change, it will have to come with a change in the damage system for tanks. In OFP, a single rocket is useless against a MBT because of the health point system. It takes 6+ RPGs/LAWs to knock out a tank. However, if you could use your launcher to immobilize the tank by hitting the treads or kill the driver by nailing the scope then the disposable launcher system would be fine.

I dunno what the new damage system in ArmA is gonna be like. I don't remember how it worked in Elite. Does anyone know?

One more thing: Did you guys think the launchers in OFP were too accurate?

[ThePredator 0]

They have to change the damage system. It really sucked to destroy a tank with multiple rockets, erases every advantage you might have had with the first shot.

The tank shouldn't be destroyed with one shot if the rocket is not capable of, but immobilize or render inactive is enough to ruin the tankers day.

I doubt there will be user modified weapons like in AAO.

3D sights and proper ballistics would be much better, modifications to accessoires can be pre-modeled.

[GBee 0]

Well the if the Opfor in ArmA are carring AK74s the RPK74 needs to be implemented. i have Read once or twice that every Soviet infantry squad carries one RPK74 and one Dragunov here is my

proof

Ermm, the OpFor in Arma aren't Soviet? In fact you might be suprised to learn that the USSR ceased to exist 15 years ago.

Just because the OpFor are communist doesn't mean they use 100% Soviet weapons or millitary doctrine.

[Cifu 0]

Well the if the Opfor in ArmA are carring AK74s the RPK74 needs to be implemented. i have Read once or twice that every Soviet infantry squad carries one RPK74 and one Dragunov here is my

proof

also if this game is set in modern times

US Army Soldiers need moddable M4s and M16A4s

when i say moddable i mean

vertical foregrips

M68 aimpoints (CCO)

Eotech (HWS)

AN/PEQ-2A (that is a IR Illuminater for use with NVG)

ACOG x4

and the M249 needs the M145 (MGO)

the M9 bayonet would be sweet too

Well, let me suprise you: the actual squad build-up are depend many thing, first, the equipment (like the AK-74 / RPK-74 even used by that country?), second, the role of the infantry squad, etc.

In the old Warsaw pact countries, the infrantry squads are consist one machine gun (mostly PKM), one Dragunov SVD, and one RPG launcher. But many diffenrent squad type exists, like one PKM and one RPK machine guns, two or three RPG launchers, etc.

So no such things "must be"...

And the squad build-up are easly changed, if the situation are required. Like the US ARMY are use more M249 and M240 in squads in iraq, because the urban environtment, and the needed extra firepower (an 13 soldier strength Airborne squad are consist two M240B and four M249 SAW currently).

One more thing: i'm bored the current "high tech US soldiers against the low tech soviet-type OpFor" scheme. 99,9% in the modern warfare games are used this. B-O-R-I-N-G...

[Second 0]

"What I hope BIS considers is a Vietcong style, where you can fire from the shoulders, and still be accurate to some extent, and then bring it up to ironsights. I hope that you raise your body when you do this."

When you are standing in OFP isn't the weapon right there where you mean it should be: shoulder. when looking at irosights the character lower his cheek to stock.

Well generaly LAWs and RPGs do need to hit several times to armor before some efect will arise. If you are extremely lucky tank may be destoyed after one shot... in Grosny T80 (which is considered (by NATO?) to be pretty easily damaging tank because of it's automatic loader system) proved to be hardy to destroy even when some of them were shot ten times with RPG-7s to deck, sides and rear parts of chasis. I dont give a damn about is LAW/RPG disposaple launcher or not... as long as you can carry multiple of them.

What i think would be nice feature to future realistic FPSs (or sims if you like it that way) to adjust you position higher or lower. meaning that when you are forexample standing, you can raise yourself up (standing on your toes) or push down (bending you knees). This would give you and AI flexibility to benefit better from cover. As in OFP shooting from window was pretty frustrating, when target was covered by window texture, this way you could lower down so that you have clear visibility to target and at same time benefit maximum cover from wall.

using launcher from prone, crunching or standing would be nice thing (seems that we are not geting it from ArmA).

[Coffin Joe 0]

In OFP:Elite you can take out a tank with about 3 (if lucky 2) LAW/RPGs so the damage model might have been changed already.

I only found out about this lovely game when it came to consoles(pretty much a console only gamer. I use Macs ).

[t80 0]

Quote[/b] ]What i think would be nice feature to future realistic FPSs (or sims if you like it that way) to adjust you position higher or lower. meaning that when you are forexample standing, you can raise yourself up (standing on your toes) or push down (bending you knees). This would give you and AI flexibility to benefit better from cover.

that would really be improvement, click on the mouse wheel, to use, and also use this to run "crounch low"

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]In OFP:Elite you can take out a tank with about 3 (if lucky 2) LAW/RPGs so the damage model might have been changed already.

I only found out about this lovely game when it came to consoles(pretty much a console only gamer. I use Macs)

2-3 LAWs/RPGs is the norm for taking out an MBT in FP.

[max power 21]

One of the most frustrating things in the game, is when you're behind a defilade, and trying to fire over. However you keep shooting a couple feet infront of you. That's because the Ironsights, are no different view then non ironsights. What I hope BIS considers is a Vietcong style, where you can fire from the shoulders, and still be accurate to some extent, and then bring it up to ironsights. I hope that you raise your body when you do this.

This isn't true. Actually, the iron site view is exactly where the weapon model is, if I'm not mistaken. Using the standard (messed up) BIS animations, you can actually sit at the corner of a building and use the iron site to shoot around the corner because of the way the model holds the rifle. It's actually the opposite of what you're saying... the soldier's eyes teleport to the sites of the weapon.

You're shooting into the ground because the sites are slightly above the muzzle, and you have no feel for where the muzzle is like you would on a real weapon.

That's my take on it, anyways.

[Ukraineboy 0]

T80 (which is considered (by NATO?) to be pretty easily damaging tank because of it's automatic loader system)

Err what? How can a tank be more destroyable due to an autoloader? Maybe less reliable, but it doesn't make it easier to be destroyed.

Really, Anti tank should be dealt with like in WGL. In OFP, a tank is just an inconvenience. Oh, I'll get two LAWs and destroy it. But in reality, if you shoot from the front or the sides, you might demobilize it, but nto destroy it. I want to see ingenuity with tactics go over weapons. You see a tank, and you have some RPG-7s. You wont be able to destroy it from the front, so you go on a rooftop and hit it from the top, while a partner hits it from the side or whatever.

In Grozny, what the Chechens did is they used the high buildings and shot above on the thin skinned armour (all tanks have thin skinned armour on top), or they went into basements and shot from the windows because the tanks could depress the gun down enough.

Also, the T-80 was rarely used in Chechnya. Mostly T-72s and T-64s were used, and after the initial defeats, the Russian forces quickly learned their mistakes and managed to beat the Chechens...albeit, thanks to the Russian tactical doctrines, which emphasises Mass Artillery strikes to destroy defenses (which does work tactically), there was a lot of collateral damage.

[GBee 0]

albeit, thanks to the Russian tactical doctrines, which emphasises Mass Artillery strikes to destroy defenses (which does work tactically), there was a lot of collateral damage.

....

Yeah, tactical doctrine is the reason

[sanctuary 19]

Quote[/b] ]In OFP:Elite you can take out a tank with about 3 (if lucky 2) LAW/RPGs so the damage model might have been changed already.

I only found out about this lovely game when it came to consoles(pretty much a console only gamer. I use Macs)

2-3 LAWs/RPGs is the norm for taking out an MBT in FP.

Unless you use CAVS value and then need 15 LAW or 12 RPG to take out a T80

[echo1 0]

T80 (which is considered (by NATO?) to be pretty easily damaging tank because of it's automatic loader system)

Err what? How can a tank be more destroyable due to an autoloader? Maybe less reliable, but it doesn't make it easier to be destroyed.

I suppose if Autoloaders are unreliable, then your gun cant be loaded, and your tank is alot more vunerable when it isnt able to return fire to defend itself

I very much agree that the way the RPG/AT4 is handled is very poor in OFP. Leaving aside their poor choice of heavy launchers (should have been M47 and AT-7 instead of M3 and AT-4) they had the reloadable LAW, and another thing that baffled me was their usage of the Czech NH-75 RPG instead of the RPG-18, and that suffered the same problem; a reloadable weapon that shouldnt be reloadable.

Damage was crap, if you fired 2-3 LAWs, you could take out or severly damage an Abrams. This is rather unlikely, on most modern tanks, if you fired LAWs at the frontal armor, they'd probably just bounce off it (well, not literaly, but theyd have little to no effect). The LAW/AT4/RPG is only effective against lighter vehciles, unless you have good tactics, like the Checnyans or the Iraqis. Most proper armies would utilize heavy weapons (TOW/Javelin) for tanks to ensure that they completely destroy it.

If they were implementing the EoTech holosight, it would be good if they could simulate it properly.

[Sosna 0]

I think it's important that the magazines for small arms be interchangeable.

Like you should be able to use an M4 magazine in M16, and AK74 should be able to use RPK74 45 rd magazines, and so on.

JAM in ofp works nicely, but it would be nice to have such a system by default.

[franze 196]

Unless you use CAVS value and then need 15 LAW or 12 RPG to take out a T80

You aren't going to take out an MBT with CAVS LAWs or RPGs. The tank is going to take you out.

[t80 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ukraineboy

..

Group: Members

Posts: 272

Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: July 03 2006,20:11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote (Second @ July 03 2006,10:54)

T80 (which is considered (by NATO?) to be pretty easily damaging tank because of it's automatic loader system)

Err what? How can a tank be more destroyable due to an autoloader? Maybe less reliable, but it doesn't make it easier to be destroyed.

Really, Anti tank should be dealt with like in WGL. In OFP, a tank is just an inconvenience. Oh, I'll get two LAWs and destroy it. But in reality, if you shoot from the front or the sides, you might demobilize it, but nto destroy it. I want to see ingenuity with tactics go over weapons. You see a tank, and you have some RPG-7s. You wont be able to destroy it from the front, so you go on a rooftop and hit it from the top, while a partner hits it from the side or whatever.

In Grozny, what the Chechens did is they used the high buildings and shot above on the thin skinned armour (all tanks have thin skinned armour on top), or they went into basements and shot from the windows because the tanks could depress the gun down enough.

Also, the T-80 was rarely used in Chechnya. Mostly T-72s and T-64s were used, and after the initial defeats, the Russian forces quickly learned their mistakes and managed to beat the Chechens...albeit, thanks to the Russian tactical doctrines, which emphasises Mass Artillery strikes to destroy defenses (which does work tactically), there was a lot of collateral damage.

Read a book on the war in chechnya by gennandy trochev, (General) he was very happy about the performance off the T-80, compared to the T-72, it would take between 3-6 hit by RPG, but im not sure WHAT RPG it was, as it is a very big difference in armour penetration between different RPG´s..

[Ukraineboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ukraineboy

..

Group: Members

Posts: 272

Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: July 03 2006,20:11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote (Second @ July 03 2006,10:54)

T80 (which is considered (by NATO?) to be pretty easily damaging tank because of it's automatic loader system)

Err what? How can a tank be more destroyable due to an autoloader? Maybe less reliable, but it doesn't make it easier to be destroyed.

Really, Anti tank should be dealt with like in WGL. In OFP, a tank is just an inconvenience. Oh, I'll get two LAWs and destroy it. But in reality, if you shoot from the front or the sides, you might demobilize it, but nto destroy it. I want to see ingenuity with tactics go over weapons. You see a tank, and you have some RPG-7s. You wont be able to destroy it from the front, so you go on a rooftop and hit it from the top, while a partner hits it from the side or whatever.

In Grozny, what the Chechens did is they used the high buildings and shot above on the thin skinned armour (all tanks have thin skinned armour on top), or they went into basements and shot from the windows because the tanks could depress the gun down enough.

Also, the T-80 was rarely used in Chechnya. Mostly T-72s and T-64s were used, and after the initial defeats, the Russian forces quickly learned their mistakes and managed to beat the Chechens...albeit, thanks to the Russian tactical doctrines, which emphasises Mass Artillery strikes to destroy defenses (which does work tactically), there was a lot of collateral damage.

Read a book on the war in chechnya by gennandy trochev, (General) he was very happy about the performance off the T-80, compared to the T-72, it would take between 3-6 hit by RPG, but im not sure WHAT RPG it was, as it is a very big difference in armour penetration between different RPG´s..

T-80 was rarely used, due to the units there being mostly MVD units. Also, ofcourse the T-80 would do better, that's like saying an F-22 would do better than an F-16...its the Russian frontline tank, the counter to modern Western tanks, while the T-72 is a secondline tank made for mass production.

[t80 0]

Quote[/b] ]T-80 was rarely used, due to the units there being mostly MVD units. Also, ofcourse the T-80 would do better, that's like saying an F-22 would do better than an F-16...its the Russian frontline tank, the counter to modern Western tanks, while the T-72 is a secondline tank made for mass production.

yeah it would been interesting to compare M1A1 to a T-80U in battle, there was also big difference im mesurment methods, ect what count as a penetration o different stuff, Us almost everytime have more optimistic methods, where the USSR had reserve values.. but i think its aproximatly ecual in taking damage from rpg..

[Ukraineboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]T-80 was rarely used, due to the units there being mostly MVD units. Also, ofcourse the T-80 would do better, that's like saying an F-22 would do better than an F-16...its the Russian frontline tank, the counter to modern Western tanks, while the T-72 is a secondline tank made for mass production.

yeah it would been interesting to compare M1A1 to a T-80U in battle, there was also big difference im mesurment methods, ect what count as a penetration o different stuff, Us almost everytime have more optimistic methods, where the USSR had reserve values.. but i think its aproximatly ecual in taking damage from rpg..

It doesn't matter, the two will rarely go head to head and different things will show the battle. There is no such thing as a 1v1 fight. Air Superiority, radar, infantry, AT Teams etc. will make a big difference in wars.

Anyways, back on topic...

[t80 0]

yes they where built for a different time, with thick frontal armor to go head to head, oh yes small arms was the thread..

[Spetz 0]

Maybe some static AT-7s would be nice

[Jester617 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ermm, the OpFor in Arma aren't Soviet? In fact you might be suprised to learn that the USSR ceased to exist 15 years ago.

Just because the OpFor are communist doesn't mean they use 100% Soviet weapons or millitary doctrine.

OK the USSR is gone. I copy that, the reason said what said is bc i was hoping that ArmA would have a more realistic squad model as opposed to a balanced one . I want to ArmA to eliminate balance the between the 2 sides (like in flashpoint)and focus on realism. I know that the Opfor in this game is a fictional country and there can be some leeway but i figured that they would use some Soviet doctrine

Also this thread is about small arms in ArmA

[max power 21]

I think that the easiness to destroy tanks with autoloaders comes from having a large number of exposed shells in the turret. Theoretically, this leads to a vulnerability to spall hitting the shells and causing a catastrophic ammo explosion.

I also heard that, due to cramped accomodations, the majority of the injuries in the T-72 have not been due to enemy action- they have been caused by the autoloader mangling the arms of the gunners!