AT/ M136 / RPG7

[desertfox 2]

It takes about 2 and a half seconds to reload the RPG7/M136. Meaning you can fire 3 grenades in less than 8 seconds.

Since I have never used such a thing in real life, my question is whether that is a realistic value. I regard it as way too fast.

[BVE 0]

For a robot thats realistic, but for a human soldier, thats a little fast yes!

[Shadow NX 1]

Does it really matter?

Its for gameplays sake, or would you like to wait a few days till your tank is fixed if you drive to a repair truck?

I think we shouldnt overdo this realism thingy...

[the_shadow 0]

irl M136 cant be reloaded at all so in that matter it´s totally unrealistic...

M136 (aka AT4) is a 1 shot disposable AT weapon wich fires a grenade (not a rocket, the grenade does NOT have rocket propulsion!

if you wonder how that works... well... simply by using 50% of the propellant to sent the grenade at the target and the other 50% to reduce the recoil to 0...

workd the same way in most recoilles AT guns and in the Carl Gustaf recoilles rifle

so the sound of the M136 is way of too....

should just be a loud BANG when fireing, not a swoooosh (do i need to link to a movie wich shows the M136/AT4 being fired?)

[desertfox 2]

Actually all that concerns me IS indeed the gameplay and balance.

In OFP, when you were sitting in a tank, and get hit by an RPG, you had about 5-6 seconds to look where it came from. If you were lucky, you would spot the shooter, and neutralize him before the second shot was fired. If you weren't lucky, you would be hit again. It was pretty well balanced.

As of now, you will have suffered the second hit already before you even start turning the turret. That is going to render tanks pretty much useless in MP battles.

[Second 0]

Okay i'm gona be ass-h*le again and take the realism viewpoint...

What would it take from RPG-7 to be reloaded. In my old armymanuals it says that our old RPG (somewhat similar to RPG-2) has firing-rate 3-5 shots in minute with both shooter and loader. But i'd bet that it is more complex to operate than RPG-7 and there is few things that have to checked before every shot (tube is clear etc...) So it seems that in ArmA they are pretty much too fast to reload...

Disposable at weapons are much faster to "make" shottable (i mean un-packed) as there is no need to check the weapon AFTER it's been shot. No need to set rocket to weapon. And there can be many disposable at weapons already un-packed, so they are just needed to pick-up, aimed and shot. Then you could fire again in 2 1/2 seconds, but if they are needed to un-pack, then it would be something like 5-7 seconds (if target is visible all the time), but well i've never handled M136.

[kronzky 5]

From what I remember reading at some point was that the reloadable RPG is supposed to simulate a throw-away weapon (with similar "reloading times"), they just didn't want to go through the bother of having to display several rocket launchers on your back, along with the required animations.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

As discussed in the "Anit [sic] tank weapons" thread on this

forum; the reload times are way too fast (by a factor of

about 5) to make them "realistic". Whether superfast

reloading like this is good for "gameplay" is an entire other

debate.

It certainly looks ridiculous when the little guy kneels down

and pops off three rounds in about 7 seconds! Yes, in OFP

you had a realistic time to locate the AT threat and engage

it, now if you're hit by an RPG you can generally expect the

next two to arrive on target within the next 4 seconds or

so!

In OFP I always understood the "reloadable 66mm LAW" to

represent several rounds being carried by the soldier (ie.

several rockets packed in their launchers - back in my own

army days carrying two apiece was not unusual).

In reality carrying several "disposable" RPGs would be unheard

of. The real life RPG-7 is easily reloaded (in about 15 seconds

or so).

Slightly OT but it seems that the AI ATk soldiers in ArmA will

now also fire at infantry targets of opportunity if no vehicle

targets are present. I've just seen a troublesome "sniper"

get taken down like this by the AI - KABOOM! very impressive

(and "realistic").  

[TrunkzJr 0]

I think for balance it should probably be about 6 seconds or something.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

M136 (aka AT4) is a 1 shot disposable AT weapon wich fires a grenade (not a rocket, the grenade does NOT have rocket propulsion!

if you wonder how that works... well... simply by using 50% of the propellant to sent the grenade at the target and the other 50% to reduce the recoil to 0...

That always annoyed me about the "Carl Gustaf" in OFP too,

the way it was modelled as a big smoky rocket launcher that

could be "guided" (and, yes, I do know that the FFV651

round for it is "rocket assisted").

In the end I made my own, implementing it as a big rifle, with

cool bouncing tracer effect too - shame the AI guys had no

idea what to do with it, but for "player only" it was

great!

I notice that the RPG-7 in ArmA has a "double-bang" sort of

sound which makes it a bit more like the real one! We still

need it to have a proper tracer and backblast modelled

though (and decent sights for it) - I'm sure that'll all

be "modded" in sooner or later though.

[frederf 0]

It's rather interesting they needed your squad to have 6 or so M136s in the campaign (2 shooters, 3 AT4s a piece) for "gameplay reasons."

If you need to kill six tanks than a 12 man lt. infantry squad, then the campaign mission is poorly designed. I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of single player missions and MP coops that toss dozens of tanks at you as some sort of compensation for easy-to-kill-AI-infantry. AT4s are not "tank hunting" weapons, a typical US army squad (of 9 men) has 2-4 AT4s (one per shooter) during an operation for self defense primarily.

And yes, the first time I fired an AT4 in game I was like... wtf? Whoosh? It should go POP! .... bang with little to no smoke trail.

Getting hit with an RPG7 is rediculous as they are so rapid fire that one is being shot while the smoke still hasn't cleared from the last.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

I'm sick and tired of single player missions and MP coops that toss dozens of tanks at you

One of my pet hates too.

[MisterXY 0]

Does it really matter?

Its for gameplays sake, or would you like to wait a few days till your tank is fixed  if you drive to a repair truck?

I think we shouldnt overdo this realism thingy...

Yes, you're right about the tank thingy, but realistic reload time values for all kinds of weapons aren't too much, don't you think?

[strango 5]

That is going to render tanks pretty much useless in MP battles.

Gosh, you might actually have to employ realistic tank tactics by having infantry support the tank in urban and low visbility areas. Also using tanks as stand-off weapons in open ground.

[desertfox 2]

Quote[/b] ]Gosh, you might actually have to employ realistic tank tactics by having infantry support the tank in urban and low visbility areas. Also using tanks as stand-off weapons in open ground.

Actually I'm looking forwards to do so. This is a war sim. Not a shoot 'em up.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Quote[/b] ] Gosh, you might actually have to employ realistic tank tactics by having infantry support the tank in urban and low visbility areas.  Also using tanks as stand-off weapons in open ground.

Right with you on that, but the super-quick RPG reload will

still be a frustration. I set up a group of RPG gunners in

the mission editor hoping they'd fire a volley - it looked like

a Katyusha! 

[Jezza_NL 0]

It's rather interesting they needed your squad to have 6 or so M136s in the campaign (2 shooters, 3 AT4s a piece) for "gameplay reasons."

If you  need to kill six tanks than a 12 man lt. infantry squad, then the campaign mission is poorly designed. I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of single player missions and MP coops that toss dozens of tanks at you as some sort of compensation for easy-to-kill-AI-infantry. AT4s are not "tank hunting" weapons, a typical US army squad (of 9 men) has 2-4 AT4s (one per shooter) during an operation for self defense primarily.

And yes, the first time I fired an AT4 in game I was like... wtf? Whoosh? It should go POP! .... bang with little to no smoke trail.

Getting hit with an RPG7 is rediculous as they are so rapid fire that one is being shot while the smoke still hasn't cleared from the last.

I could not agree more. I hate the mission in the campaign where they send you out to kill 4 armoured units with an AT4 launcher with three rounds and a satchel charge. It could just not be more unrealistic. The AT4 is used primarily as a self-defense weapon. Generally, shoulder-carried AT weapons are not 'tank-hunting' weapons at all! They only serve as a defensive tool for infantry, but not something you would happily go hunting with!

In real life aircraft, tanks, or heavy vehicle based-AT weapons such as TOW's on vehicles would be used for tank hunting.

I think this demonstrates the poor quality of the campaign. I'm happy with the game, but i stopped playing the campaign as the missions are horribly unrealistic.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Quote[/b] ]

The AT4 is used primarily as a self-defense weapon. Generally, shoulder-carried AT weapons are not 'tank-hunting' weapons at all! They only serve as a defensive tool for infantry, but not something you would happily go hunting with!

I never even touched any of the BIS missions, the titles

alone were enough to dissuade me...      I never

ended the OFP CWC campaign either for the same reasons -

sending six men with satchel charges to counter General

Guba's "clear and present danger" nuclear threat was just

far too silly!

This may be verging off topic now but does anyone have

data on how badly an AT4 in reality would hurt a T72?

[zyklone 1]

Here's a nice video showing Carl Gustav reloading.

ArmA soldiers should remember to wear the uniform though.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Once saw a squaddie get his combat trousers ripped off by

the backblast from one of them

[desertfox 2]

Once saw a squaddie get his combat trousers ripped off by

the backblast from one of them

PMSL !!

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]

Col. Faulkner wrote:

This may be verging off topic now but does anyone have

data on how badly an AT4 in reality would hurt a T72?

From FAS.org:

Quote[/b] ]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/at4.htm

"...The M136 AT4 is a recoilless rifle used primarily by Infantry Forces for engagement and defeat of light armor. The recoilless rifle design permits accurate delivery of an 84mm High Explosive Anti-Armor warhead, with negligible recoil..."

Penetration: 400 mm of rolled homogenous armor

Quote[/b] ]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t72tank.htm

"...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. [...]The turret has conventional cast armor with a maximum thickness of 280-mm, the nose is about 80-mm thick and the glacis is 200-mm thick laminate armor..."

Protection

Armor, Turret Front (mm) 520/950 against HEAT

Applique Armor (mm) Side of hull over track skirt, turret top

Explosive Reactive Armor (mm) Kontakt or Kontakt-5 ERA

The answer is "HELL NO".... at least, not from the front.

[Novusordo 0]

how come these things haven't been modded in yet such as fire and throw away and proper fire animation/backblast, ect?

are we waiting on a tool set or something?

[Col. Faulkner 0]

how come these things haven't been modded in yet such as fire and throw away and proper fire animation/backblast, ect?

are we waiting on a tool set or something?

Some of the Op. Flashpoint addons managed it after a fashion

(backblasts causing injuries, and launchers discarded after

use). I have little doubt that they will also find their way into

ArmA eventually.

[Novusordo 0]

so are we waiting on a toolset to be able to do it?