Ka-50 cannon

[peterj 0]

The Ka-50 cannon is able to move,

Elevation: -45° to +10°

Traverse: ±15°

So that might be something to consider.

You can also lock a target with the Squall and the cannon will be pointed at it, using elevation, traverse and the autopilot.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

Thats unfortunately not the only wrong thing about the KA-50 cannon ... the armour penetration values are also wrong, just as the different cycle rate of the gun is wrong.

More about that here:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=56229

[peterj 0]

I got a PM about sources, so i can say here also that the numbers are from fas.org and just to get an indea. It actually deflects more to the right than to the left. The guys at lockon.ru has the right numbers.

SOBR, if i get your post right it's the number of rounds it takes to damage/destroy the target?

So the cannon is allot more effective in low, yea there's something off.

HE rounds, designed to destroy aircrafts and softer targets, explodes on impact. Might not be effective at all against heavy armour. Should take less rounds to destroy a softer target.

AP = armour piercing

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

SOBR, if i get your post right it's the number of rounds it takes to damage/destroy the target?

Thats correct yes.

All armour values/penetration values are highly messed up and I think that it is very unrealistic.

Immagine you are in a coop and are designated to takeout god knows what ... and you simply cant because every value is wrong.

Im still hoping that BIS payes some attention to this!

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

HE rounds, designed to destroy aircrafts and softer targets, explodes on impact. Might not be effective at all against heavy armour.

Yes correct aswell, now a HUMVEE is a soft target with almost no armour and now what is this:

20mm of KA-50 HE HIGH: Damaged: 75x - 230x not sufficent !!

230x HE shots fired from the KA50 cannon did not destroy it but 135x 12.7mm (BMG) did .... whereas it should be maybe only 10-30x (BMG) and a few 20mm

[max power 21]

If you can't complete a mission objective due to the attributes of a unit, sounds like it's a problem with mission design and playtesting. For the sake of argument, the values are wrong compared to what, exactly? Were Van Gogh's colours and painting technique all wrong?

[muska54 0]

how do u guys move the shivkal camera view without the whole chopper moving? i am using a mouse only .

is it possible to have a binding for moving only the zoomed in view ?

[ThePredator 0]

Well, I was working on a fix for that KA-50 issue, but my skills are insufficient.

If the cannon can be defined as a turret only the turret should move, not the helicopter.

Another solution would be an automated gun tracking. You lock on the target and the cannon just follows as far as it can.

You won't be able to move the turret manually, though.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

For the sake of argument, the values are wrong compared to what, exactly?

They are wrong compared to real penetration and armoury values mate.

Quote[/b] ]how do u guys move the shivkal camera view without the whole chopper moving?

I neither know an option to do that and thus cant use the KA50 really

[max power 21]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Jan. 29 2007,22:48)]

For the sake of argument, the values are wrong compared to what, exactly?

They are wrong compared to real penetration and armoury values mate.

For the sake of argument:

But ArmA doesn't employ real armour penetration. It doesn't even encorperate real projectiles or real materials! Moreover, it doesn't even pretend to simulate real armour penetration. It's engineered in such a way that you can have a good time playing it.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

BIS claims that ArmA is the ultimative combat simulator.... doesnt this say enough ?

What I mean is, we all were (more or less) happy with the armour and penetration values in OFP. Not many people argued about that, it was a good compromise between gameplay fun and realism.

And the same stage would be enough and welcomed for ArmA but the fact is that everything is simply messed .... I dont want it to be 100% as realistic as in real life but there should be some good bit of realism, otherwise ArmA will disappoint people and im sure it has done already. (talking about this aspect only)

It cant be that a HUMVEE survives 135 shots of a 20mm gun, can it ? Now immagine your the pilot and have to go back to the airfield and reload because you have taken out a Humvee and thur ran out of ammo.

[max power 21]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Jan. 29 2007,23:51)]BIS claims that ArmA is the ultimative combat simulator.... doesnt this say enough ?

What I mean is, we all were (more or less) happy with the armour and penetration values in OFP. Not many people argued about that, it was a good compromise between gameplay fun and realism.

And the same stage would be enough and welcomed for ArmA but the fact is that everything is simply messed .... I dont want it to be 100% as realistic as in real life but there should be some good bit of realism, otherwise ArmA will disappoint people and im sure it has done already. (talking about this aspect only)

It cant be that a HUMVEE survives 135 shots of a 20mm gun, can it ? Now immagine your the pilot and have to go back to the airfield and reload because you have taken out a Humvee and thur ran out of ammo.

Well, in the case of the humvee, I'm sure the crew would be pretty torn up by spall if you were using solid projectiles, but I think it would be possible to shoot a humvee or any vehicle for that matter, more times than that and have it still function... if it didn't catch on fire... which it most certainly would. You would have to do damage to a part of the machine that has some function in order to decrease the effectiveness of the machine in that fuctions - which is quite a lot how people work, actually. So, if you wanted the humvee to stop driving, you would hit a part of the machine that makes that action possible, including the engine, drive train, wheels or driver.

My point is that I don't know if they are 'wrong'. Wrong implies that the way you are describing is the 'right' way to do it. I think it may 'suck' in that it also sucks that you can turn a humvee into a smouldering sieve full of greasy red jello with the 14.5 mm cannon on the brdm. Then again, it would also suck to have a humvee that was completely useless (coming from playing ctf in the demo). You have to instead decrease the hitpoints to zero so it will explode, killing the occupants. Tweaking the arbitrary hitpoints number doesn't make it more right, especially when coming from a simulator standpoint.

I reject the argument that the advertizing claims that it is the ultimate combat simulator therefore it should mirror reality in all aspects. The definition of combat simulator isn't clear (I think it's purposefully vague) and it is only an advertisement blurb. I'm sure we could put our heads together and think of all kinds of ads that don't display the technical realities of the products that they refer to... far from the least of those being food products. Furthermore, I believe ultimate to be a comparison to similar products, not an absolute statement. In that light, it is certainly the ultimate combat simulator in terms of retail game products, because BF2 certainly isn't!

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

To me it looks like that your point is only the way I expressed myself ?

In a earlier post you say that ArmA does not support real projectiles or real armour values and now you say "you have to hit an essential part of the vehicle to stop it, ie. engine"

And I think you are not aware of the power of a 20mm gun mate, early WW II tanks were equipped with 20 or 30 mm guns.

These guns are giant guns, they would even pierce through tank armour if you hit the right place. These are cannons, no guns and thus the discussion wheter a humvee would suvive 135 hits because it didnt hit any essential part is needless.

And most of the vehicles kills go to the account of the crew injured or dead which will happen when a bullet leaves the inside armour of the humvee, IFV, Tank or whatnot because the armour will splinter and kill the crew and systems.

And I still have to persist that these values are wrong and dont only suck. Sorry mate, these values are ridiculous !

[max power 21]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Jan. 30 2007,06:33)]To me it looks like that your point is only the way I expressed myself ?

In a earlier post you say that ArmA does not support real projectiles or real armour values and now you say "you have to hit an essential part of the vehicle to stop it, ie. engine"

And I think you are not aware of the power of a 20mm gun mate, early WW II tanks were equipped with 20 or 30 mm guns.

These guns are giant guns, they would even pierce through tank armour if you hit the right place. These are cannons, no guns and thus the discussion wheter a humvee would suvive 135 hits because it didnt hit any essential part is needless.

And most of the vehicles kills go to the account of the crew injured or dead which will happen when a bullet leaves the inside armour of the humvee, IFV, Tank or whatnot because the armour will splinter and kill the crew and systems.

And I still have to persist that these values are wrong and dont only suck. Sorry mate, these values are ridiculous !

What you are saying and what I am saying are quite different, albeit there are some similarities. Not everything I was saying was designed to be in direct conflict with what you were saying. I was designing a cogent argument to reduce the amount of back tracking we would need to do.

I'm well aware of 20mm cannons, and I can even name a few off of the top of my head... I can even name quite a few from world war II off of the top of my head. In fact, I could name a quite a few shells from each, especially the german shells, and I could even name the belt loadings for some missions off the top of my head if you gave me a few minutes. I could even give you some rates of fire and comparitive muzzle velocities, and some doctrine that ties into their design and manufacture as well as some approximate dates of first deployments and the aircraft models they first appeared on. In FACT, I'm a huge geek in this regard, and I am quite sure that I am not mistaken when it comes to my idea about small cannons, especially those on aircraft.

I would be quite surprised if any of those cannons, especially the m197 cannon mounted on the cobra, could pierce a tank's armour. If you rattled off at the crew compartment of a humvee from an oblique profile and you did not hit any vital parts with solid projectiles, I'm quite sure that if the resultant fire wasn't a problem, that you could then drive it away. Moreover, whether something pierces something or not is not a good argument towards whether it could be totally destroyed by it in a given number of shots. A solid 20mm shell makes a ~20mm hole. Rounds of these types were used as armour piercing weapons in world war 2, and were usually mixed in with a belt of HE rounds. Damaged caused by these rounds could usually be traced as a ray from where it entered the aircraft to where it stopped or exited the aircraft. I have no doubt that openning up on a humvee with an autocannon would mess it up pretty good. A 100 round burst as those pilots are trained to shoot in would surely stop a humvee in real life...

But the problem in this argument, AGAIN, is that you're using reality to say that the values in ArmA are wrong. They are wrong if they are trying to be realistic. Clearly, the devs at BIS are not stupid, so I think they are designed with some other purpose in mind. This is a big IF, and this is what I'm contesting. I don't think that these constitute a game bug that must be fixed (as you submitted in to the buglist). I think maybe you should try making a mod that changes the config values to something you like better. I hope that this last paragraph makes my argument clearer.

[general 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Jan. 29 2007,22:48)]

For the sake of argument, the values are wrong compared to what, exactly?

They are wrong compared to real penetration and armoury values mate.  

For the sake of argument:

But ArmA doesn't employ real armour penetration.  It doesn't even encorperate real projectiles or real materials!  Moreover, it doesn't even pretend to simulate real armour penetration.  It's engineered in such a way that you can have a good time playing it.

Well they said that the 505 verision will have. What you are playing on now is not the finished product. It's got lots fo bugs (most can be fixed) and is right now just a graphical upgrade of the Elite engine. I can only hope that all those things they promised for the 505 verision will be there.

or ellse..

[max power 21]

For the sake of argument:

But ArmA doesn't employ real armour penetration. It doesn't even encorperate real projectiles or real materials! Moreover, it doesn't even pretend to simulate real armour penetration. It's engineered in such a way that you can have a good time playing it.

Well they said that the 505 verision will have. What you are playing on now is not the finished product. It's got lots fo bugs (most can be fixed) and is right now just a graphical upgrade of the Elite engine. I can only hope that all those things they promised for the 505 verision will be there.

or ellse..

No,they said that it would be improved. They didn't say it would be ultra realistic. I would read that to mean that it will be more complicated, for what it's worth. They didn't promise anything about it being closer to reality.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

I hope that this last paragraph makes my argument clearer.

It did mate. But still ... well, let me explain it this way:

It is selfexplaining that when a bullet pierces some vehicles, it can go through parts of the chassis that do not affect the function of the vehicle. Im aware of that.

But in-game just as in real life, a .50 sniper or an BMG gunner or the gunner in any kind of attack chopper would aim at the right spot, which is not hard to hit !

Either you hit the motor, the fueltank or the crew ... immagine a burst of 10 BMGs shot at the humvee on an 90° angle.. all would pierce and dead sure hit something that is essential.

You may think that I am expecting BIS to implement total and 100% real-life values into ArmA, which every cm² of a tanks chassis to have other armour values for example but this isnt true. But right now, there are many things that are wrong and yes I am comparing them to real life armour values, to what else shall I compare them then ?

I only wish that the ridiculous values will be fixed and that ArmA can be like OFP concerning armour values.

Even russian 7,62x39 AP bullets fired from the AK47 or AKM would most probably pierce a humvee when shot at not further than 100 meters away (sustained fire). And in ArmA you need 135x hits of a 20mm AP gun ?

Its as simple as that ... im not saying anything else.

You know for sure the clip of the Cobra/Apache in Iraq where 2-3 men are taken out by the gun at night..... and 2 vehicles have also been hit which caught fire immediatly.

A friend of my served at the Bundeswehr as a gunner of an Marder IFV, equipped with a 20mm gun. He said that they were thought never to confront an enemy MBT, which is understandable but they were thought that only a few rounds from their 20mm would disable a BMP, which in my opinion is absouluty correct.

[max power 21]

I can't agree with you more. The BMP-1 is designed to be proof against 12.7mm AP on a 60 frontal arc. The BMP-1 is also unfortunately designed in such a way that any penetrating hit is liable to result in a mobility, crew, or firepower kill (according to the folks at FAS). The 20mm cannon on the marder would make mincemeat out of it, especially considering its rate of fire. Most APC's can't withstand .50 calibre machinegun fire!

I think the uparmoured humvee is designed to be proof against 7.62x39 rounds... the original ones were apparently shot up pretty good by akms.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I was calling into question what's wrong and what's right vs. what's realistic and what's not realistic. There's lots of stuff that is unrealistic about ArmA, but I think those were decisions made on a gameplay basis... like the following:

Quote[/b] ]

ArmA.si: Will damage model be improved, because now we see BMPs getting trashed by machinegunners due to hitpoint system? How hard would be for your team to implement a more realistic system in cases when player gets injured (bleeding, fading out)?

Maruk: Such changes are not currently planned and could not be only difficult to make but may also have serious impact on game play. There´s a large potential for community modifications in many areas and let´s see how far some of the community makers can go with the technology provided in ArmA.

[Maximus_G 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Jan. 30 2007,23:46)]

Even russian 7,62x39 AP bullets fired from the AK47 or AKM would most probably pierce a humvee when shot at not further than 100 meters away (sustained fire). And in ArmA you need 135x hits of a 20mm AP gun ?

Its as simple as that ... im not saying anything else.

2A42, the cannon used in Ka-50 and BMP-2, is 30 mm, not 20.

And here's an illustration on the subject.

[Second 0]

but that doesn't matter, it will pierce humvee like like a knife an old lady... so to speak.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

Thanks for the nice illustation and the correction Maximus.

In fact, these values need to be changed... if BIS fails to release an improvement in the next patch, then I will go in for direct contact with them.

[peterj 0]

Here's some numbers,

According to internet sources(http://cybernet.boom.ru/avia/ppnk.html - russian site) the 2A42 cannon can deflect from -2°30'(left) to +9°(right) in azimuth and +3°30'(up) to -37°(down) in elevation.

Is this likely to be looked at?

A more accurate representation would be if it worked like the Cobra (including the gunners zoomed in view) but with a more restricted cannon. You should also be able to lock up targets in any weapons mode. And instead of a wingman aiming for you Shkval would do it.

[max power 21]

Here's some numbers,

According to internet sources(http://cybernet.boom.ru/avia/ppnk.html - russian site) the 2A42 cannon can deflect from -2°30'(left) to +9°(right) in azimuth and +3°30'(up) to -37°(down) in elevation.

Is this likely to be looked at?

A more accurate representation would be if it worked like the Cobra (including the gunners zoomed in view) but with a more restricted cannon. You should also be able to lock up targets in any weapons mode. And instead of a wingman aiming for you Shkval would do it.

Except that the ka50 doesn't have a gunner and therefore there's nothing to 'lock' onto. The locking system in arma is an abstraction of a lot of different systems, not the least of which is the gunner's attention. Is the ka50's weapon not manually controlled irl? If there is no gunner and the weapon doesn't aim autonomously, then it shouldn't lock.

[Phantom Mark 0]

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in this little argument surely its about making something which is believable ?

For example whether realistic or not Hidden & Dangerous 2 does a fantastic job of penetration physics with pretty much all the weopons - for me at least it feels like it could be right, for example take a Bren gun and stand a guy the other side of a log cabin and its actually possible to shoot the guy through one side of the building, and out the other side, depending on how many layers of wood depends on how much damage if any is sustained by your lucky test dummy

It absolutely annoys the hell out of me that I can stand point blank range next to something with a kick ass weopon shoot at someone or something and get zero response from the thing im shooting at.......

[Second 0]

Except that the ka50 doesn't have a gunner and therefore there's nothing to 'lock' onto. The locking system in arma is an abstraction of a lot of different systems, not the least of which is the gunner's attention. Is the ka50's weapon not manually controlled irl? If there is no gunner and the weapon doesn't aim autonomously, then it shouldn't lock.

Well it wouldn't be miracle if that IRL cannon locks itself to target (via laser tracking, radar, CCD... ). Never heard of Spike ATGM forexample? Well it isn't weapon like Ka-50 cannon but a missile, but target tracking could be same kind, sensors get the location of target and computer adjusts cannon correctly to target. The thing is: Can ArmA present this? I don't remeber a single weapon (not ammos like missiles) in 1.02 version that can track down the target... Somehow i feel that i isn't possible. was in OFP a single weapon that could automaticaly track target? I can't remeber a single one.