Dangerous effects

[simulacra 0]

No it isn't, the manual warns about firing the AT4 in confined spaces because you might hurt yourself and others, there are other AT-weps that disperses the gases differently which could be used in MOUT.

There is an option for the AT4 called AT4 CS that can be used in MOUT though, dont know if the US has acquired it though...

[Freshman 0]

Of course the manual warns to do so but remember that manuals of microwaves even warn you about drying your pets in it

[4 IN 1 0]

in the matter of fact you wont need such high angle to kill a hind, line up with the chopper and it gives you a pretty good fire line, some 20 degrees are enought, but still, it might hurt you IRL

[dmakatra 1]

Nope, the backblast doesn't contain all that much thermal energy, when I fired live AT4's in the army you could feel the cloth on your legs ripple pretty violently and feel some mild heating in the legs when shooting, but nothing that really burns and sets things on fire.

But it speaks for itself that you shouldn't fire AT-rockets at flying targets, they're constructed for horisontal firing, for airborne targets you use stingers and other self propelling rockets, AT-weapons are more or less a projectile being shot out of a tube...

I personally prefer LAWs over Stingers when taking out choppers in OFP, which is wrong and therefor I want it changed with this feature.

And the backblast can be quite dangerous, at least on some weapons. For example, the illum-rounds for the Swedish GRG M/48 were banned because they often injured the gunner because of the high angle. From soldf.com, my translation:

...the backblast (the flame backwards) will therefore hit the ground a few metres behind the gunner and the flame then turns upwards towards the gunner.

[Freshman 0]

just found this one

Now... who wants to tell me there is no backblast

or look at this one

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83....MG]

[0311 0]

Yes there is a considerable backblast for the AT4. It can't be fired indoors or even in an urban setting easily. If I remember my training from back in SOI(USMC School of Infantry) there is a total of 60-90 meter backblast that fans out 90 degrees rearward. That comprises of a 5 meter kill zone followed by a 55+ meter casualty range.

When firing the AT4, the individual Marine looks to his immediate rear to ensure noone or nothing is within the backblast area. He then announces "Backblast area all secure", then he sounds off "Rocket" as he presses the trigger.

This is in training, but the same procedures are done in combat.

The USMC is now experimenting with an updated version of the LAW that uses some sort of liquid propellant rocket that has a tiny backblast. The intention is to find a way to fire indoors.

[frederf 0]

90 meters?!?! That's the size of a football field (or a football pitch).

[blackdog~ 0]

I must agree, 90 meters seems a *bit* far...

Casualty rate beyond 10 meters being caused by smoke inhalation?

[Second 0]

There can be everykind stuff flying in the air because of that blast. That is why peacetime backblast area can be even 90 meters. In battlefield that could be "suggested" area but not required. 90 meters can sound bit far, but forexample Apilas has 122mm rocket and that needs alot powder to takeoff, sadly i don't remeber it's backblast area correctly. Stand next to it as it's fired and you get the picture small rocks are light in hands of that power.

Here is info from INTRODUCTION TO ANTIMECHANIZED WEAPONS (USMC) about AT-4

"Backblast. The backblast danger area extends at a 90 degree angle arc from the rear of the launcher 5 meters. No large vertical objects may be 5 meters to the rear of the launcher. Extending another 55 meters behind the danger area, is the caution area. Personnel or equipment in this area could be injured or damaged by backblast or flying debris. A total area of 60 meters must be kept clear behind the launcher when firing. The AT-4 may be fired inside a building provided the structure has a volume of 50 cubic meters. All personnel must have ear protection and be forward of the rear of the launcher. The structure must have good ventilation with glass removed from windows. No objects can be within five meters of the rear of the launcher. (See Figure 1.)"

[wamingo 1]

I for one would most likely prefer not to have backblast damage in ofp for various reasons, realistic or not. And certainly not a substantial blast zone (2+ meters).

Backblast in Battlefield is a very small problem because the fear of death is next to none, seing as you spawn after a few seconds anyway and there's often a medic/medicine-cabinet close by. Also the damage done is not terribly high. It can kill but it rarely bothers anyone when it happens. Drawing comparisons with games like battlefield is just... futile...

The fear of death in ofp, in general, is much, much, much higher. On top of that, unlike battlefield and most other games, infantry is much more packed together. In formation there's just a few meters between each man. Using cover often cramps you even more. Piling up 10 man behind a single building because there's a dangerous vehicle on the other side... You can guess the rest.

I think in this case, realism has to bow for gameplay.

If we had to have backblast I would say it should be a non-lethal, non-damaging effect. For instance one that would disturb your sight/aim kind of thing.

[Second 0]

If we had to have backblast I would say it should be a non-lethal, non-damaging effect. For instance one that would disturb your sight/aim kind of thing.

Hey! That is good, never slipped in my mind

[0311 0]

Yea. Official manuals teach 5 meter lethal zone then 55 meter casualty zone. But it is accepted practically that the entire zone extends roughly 90 meters back.

I remember training in 29 Palms Calif, doing an AT4 shoot at one of the mountain ranges. In fact some of those pictures blackdog posted look alot like the Mohave Desert we trained in.

But while one of the relays were up doing their shoot I was sitting in a Humvee a good 100 meters off and to the right of the range and we could feel the shockwave that far back.

That's another thing about the AT4. It is very LOUD. The SMAW is the loudest infantry weapon out there, but I wouln't be surprised if the AT4 didn't come close or was atleast second.

[bravo 6 0]

The smoke effect is nice but from the new short demonstration video im afraid that the explosion smoke effect might become boring.. ( ?! ) because all explosions look the same am i wrong?

[Potatomasher 0]

The smoke effect is nice but from the new short demonstration video im afraid that the explosion smoke effect might become boring.. ( ?! ) because all explosions look the same am i wrong?

I'm with you. I think it should be more rewarding when you succesfully hit something with heavier equipment.

The explosion/smoke/debris could be bigger or something when hit.

Couple different hit effects could be enough.

effect 1 = missed shot

effect 2 = direct hit

effect 3 = partial hit

[bravo 6 0]

The smoke effect is nice but from the new short demonstration video im afraid that the explosion smoke effect might become boring.. ( ?! ) because all explosions look the same am i wrong?

I'm with you. I think it should be more rewarding when you succesfully hit something with heavier equipment.

The explosion/smoke/debris could be bigger or something when hit.

Couple different hit effects could be enough.

effect 1 = missed shot

effect 2 = direct hit

effect 3 = partial hit

you know what these explosions remind me?

they remind me a script people used in ofp.. when tanks explode, there was fire and if the tank still moves the fire created stoped in the air.. burning alone while the tank moved foward..

we can see it in that video..

ps- they will fix/improve it

[AussieYank 0]

As per helicopters, editing effects wouldn't work too well since the danger zone on helicotpers tend to vary. For instance, the UH-1 and the UH-60 both have different areas that are dangerous for rotor blade strikes.

Typically before you perform any training on a UH-60 you have to sit through the same boring lecture from the crew chief (static load training) where they go over how you put your seatbelt on, what to do in case of emergency, and most importantly which way to dismount.

I was out at Fort Lewis in July, and the Army had just had another accident down at one of the bases in Alabama. UH-60 caught on fire, the crew and passangers had to make an emergency dismount, and the pilot ran forward, towards the aircrafts 12 O'Clock. Poor guy got decapitated. Turns out that in a panic people tend to run in the same direction their feet land, and in his haste to get clear of the Blackhawk he forgot about the blades.

Now, as I've often said, it would be neat if these games had an "uber-advanced mode" where us .mil dorks could have our fun, but it stands to reason your average joe six-pack is going to hate that, and for good reason.

As for back-blast, I think thats more than reasonable to have in the game. Learning how to fire the AT4 its constantly emphised that you should check your backblast. The gout of flame is one thing, but you've also got to factor in the crap it picks up and throws, like the seal-housing from the back of the launcher, dirt, rocks, sticks, all that debris.

There's a great video I've got on my USB drive somewhere of Iranian infantry during the Iran/Iraq War. RPG gunner didn't look behind him, and one of his squad-mates pops up behind him to lay down more fire at the last second. Launcher fires, huge puff of smoke and flame, and the guy disappears from frame. I'm pretty sure its on military.com somewhere.

[frederf 0]

Another goofy thing I found is you can land an OFP chopper in the width of the body of the airframe. Peopel would be less cavalier about their flying if the rotors could hit mountains, trees, ect.