Shoot from little bird?

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

Well... although this might be the most rare thing ever to happen, Ive heard from an Iranian soldier that fought in the Iraq - Iran war at the time of the recapture of the Faw peninsula, that the Iran Army utilized Uh-1 as a platform to launch RPGs at Iraqi tanks.

I first wasnt too sure to believe him as his general information was low, he didnt even know the difference between the AK47, AKM and AK74 and didnt even know which caliber his G3 chambered.

But after I made sure he didnt meant the Wireguided missiles of the Cobra (Iran purchased 202 AH-1J), I came to the conclusion that the Iranian Army in fact used RPG7 from the Inside of UH1 helicopters in fast and low level attacks. I doubt the great success though.

Of course a chopper is a good platform for many types of weaponary (I personally can picture mortars being used from choppers too in rare occasionas), but at least use of small caliber arms from inside a chopper should be allowed.

This reminds me of the firing holes of the BMD and BMP1/2. The infantry in the back has the chance to fire their small arms. Of course they wont be able to hit shit at full speed on bad ground with almost no visibility + smoke of the BMDs/BMPs engine but.. they have the feature. And so should we have the chance to use our mainarms from helos.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Quote[/b] ]but you actually never saw them shooting from the chopper

Didn't that guy 'snipe' the engine of the car from a heli in the very first scene (using a Barrett I assume) ?

In the movie he used a supressed m4.  

It was a CAR-15, since the M4 didn't enter service until 1994, but that's just completely OT.

This should only be implimented if AI can use it (which currently seems impossible since AI in cargo can't even see anything happening outside the vehicle if they're not grouped to a crew member, though this might be editable in the vehicle's config), if it's done realsitically (only at slow speeds since anything going too fast will make aiming just plain impossible), and if it properly supports all necessary infantry functions, no half-assed workarounds (ex: fired EH's still working on the units inside the vehicles is a MUST, use of optics/iron sights, all reload options in the action menu, etc...). Otherwise it will be useless and a complete waste of time and effort and just another obstacle in the way of scripters, mods, and addon makers...

If it does not meet all those conditions I don't want it anywhere in ArmA. Unfortunately I can practically guarantee you that not all of these conditions can be completely fulfilled (referring mostly to the third), and that many problems/bugs/design faults are bound to surface should such a feature be implimented. I know it may seem cool to the majority of people, but they don't know the frustration of having to work around engine bugs and limitations introduced by new features (just look at the multiple turrets; yes we have them but think of all the unexpected limitations and annoyences it introduces, fortunately the potential of that feature outweighs those problems, which is more than I can say for using infantry weapons from vehicle positions). Maybe BIS will have the time to properly plan something like this out and introduce it (nearly) flawlessly in Game 2.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]

Puma you should not really believe everything written in books

That book is rather typical american propaganda than anything else. Although there are many accurate books out there, Black Hawk Down isnt one of them.

@ Plaintiff

It still makes no sense to have a suppressed M4 for that occasion mate ....

I was being sarcastic... but maybe not blowing out someone's eardrums would be a good reason as you're shooting shoulder to shoulder with others. There's a lot of reasons to use a suppressor other than 1337, low-drag, hax0r, sniper, stealth akshun!!11!1!!

edit: I misread SOBR's post and I have retracted the statement I made here.

Quote[/b] ]

but so did Joint operations a year later by the same people. Although shooting M4's was generally making noise. 4 Saw users on the side of a little bird could own a map. you could also fire rpg's and hunt tanks which was fun. or even fire a stinger!

Stinger and RPG were not very realistic being fired from a littlebird but a ton of fun.

No doubt there has be precidence in other games. To clarify my other sarcastic point above, I was saying that I don't think there is anything simple about it in this engine. I think that saying, "all you need to do is let units walk around in helicopters", is like saying, "removing the brain tumor is easy. All you need to do is open the head and cut it out!"

[DaveG 0]

I'm sure they would come across some issues if they decided to implement this. However, I know a little about programming myself and if they've already got units walking around and shooting it is not a big step for them to shoot from a helicopter.  Of course every enginge/program is different but they've already implemented some far more challenging features.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

I'm sure they would come across some issues if they decided to implement this. However, I know a little about programming myself and if they've already got units walking around and shooting it is not a big step for them to shoot from a helicopter. Of course every enginge/program is different but they've already implemented some far more challenging features.

Actually dropping satchel charges or grenades from the Lb was probably the most fun.

Nothing like flying over a tank lobbing a satchel at it then flying up 100 FT and hitting the trigger.

In joint ops you could steal tanks this way as smart player just ran from the tank if they heard a chopper buzzing them.

[stakex 0]

oh yeah..

Please do add more to your posts except a random comment and a smiley.

As for the original question:

Many features that we see today in ArmA were denied a few times in interviews, but yet we see them in the game functioning (for the most part) as they should. I believe that adding a feature such as this at this point of the games life is going to be wishful thinking.

But who knows, BIS has surprised us more than once, and who knows, maybe we'll see something like this in an expansion pack, if there will be one.  

I agree with this statement for one reason... its highly unlikely something like this will work its way into ArmA simply becuase at some point in time most of BIS dev team will likely (hopefully) switch over to Game2. So why spend time on adding these features to ArmA, when Game2 will be out in a year or two and have them? Seems kinda redundant... thats why I personally believe things such as Dynamic destruction and walking on moving vehicles were left out as well, when we all know the engine is capable to have them.

[LeftSkidLow 1]

Sounds like a good idea, but how long before some noob starts shooting up your tail rotor gearbox.

[Stendac 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 10 2007,22:44)]Puma you should not really believe everything written in books  

That book is rather typical american propaganda than anything else. Although there are many accurate books out there, Black Hawk Down isnt one of them.

@ Plaintiff

It still makes no sense to have a suppressed M4 for that occasion mate ....

Ouch. That's a heavy accusation against Mark Bowden there. Can you be more specific?

I did a little search and found some websites that criticize Mark Bowden for being too pro-military and making unfair statements in other writings, but so far I haven't found anything about Black Hawk Down specifically.

I read the book myself years ago and I liked it a lot. Bowden interviewed some Somalis about their experiences and you can begin to understand why many of them began to resent the presence of the Americans. This perspective wasn't really there in the movie.

Sure, Bowden has his own opinion about mission and the eventual troop pullout, but does he actually lie in his book?

[kilo1-1 1]

The weapon that was used to shoot the engine was a suppressed Colt M733 Commando with an Aimpoint sight. Snipers were on all the Black Hawks in the movie and in the actual event. Durant's Super 6-4 had two Delta snipers with a M14 and a M733. Other Black Hawks had Delta snipers with M727s with Aimpoint sights (M727 was the prototype of the M4).

[-Puma- 2]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 10 2007,22:44)]Puma you should not really believe everything written in books

That book is rather typical american propaganda than anything else. Although there are many accurate books out there, Black Hawk Down isnt one of them.

@ Plaintiff

It still makes no sense to have a suppressed M4 for that occasion mate ....

Delta Force Black hawk down impliment this feature.

but so did Joint operations a year later by the same people. Although shooting M4's was generally making noise. 4 Saw users on the side of a little bird could own a map. you could also fire rpg's and hunt tanks which was fun. or even fire a stinger!

Stinger and RPG were not very realistic being fired from a littlebird but a ton of fun.

Being able to shoot a m4/saw should be added asap. Although adding rpg's being able to fire would be fun for hold mode. Most armour ignores Lb's and Bh's as Ffar are hard to hit with. adding fireing abilities or even dropping stachel charges would be fun.

Delat force Joint Op's let you drop satchel charges and mines from a LB.

and have u read the book??? It's nothig like the movie, and Infact the author critizies american officer, and even the president + the defence minister in his book. At the end there's a list who took part

of making the book, and some explanation how it was made, and seeing there we're loads of soldiers from mogadishu mission, who actually contacted the author to advice him in making the book, so

I would say that the facts are pretty solid, not to mention it's far away from american propaganda. The book actually tells the story allso from the somalian's eyes.

granted that the author wanted to write a book in a way that underlines the fiercenes of the combat, rather than descibing 2 pages, how an M4 is made.

[neildood 0]

One problem i see is that a guy next to you might be shooting of his M249 surpressing the enemy only to find that when you disembark the LB you appear in front of his gun fire

[urbanwarrior 0]

also you could be shooting away whilst flying only to find when you jump off the helicopter you need to reload, not very fortunate considering anyone on the opposing squad has probably turned around to try and kill everyone on the helo while there all in the one place

[SHWiiNG 0]

just a reply to the post 2 above,  surely if you just run off the edge of the helicopter, you will land on the position where you leapt off, or would we still have the get on and get off anims and pocedure?

[Universel 0]

Maybe you could make a turret which looks like a soldier holding his gun, with proper animation.

When player boards the chopper he becomes invisible and this turret appears.

Only problem is that you ll have to make a turret for every different gun.

Even harder if player has his own camo face.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Maybe you could make a turret which looks like a soldier holding his gun, with proper animation.

When player boards the chopper he becomes invisible and this turret appears.

Only problem is that you ll have to make a turret for every different gun.

Even harder if player has his own camo face.

I think there was a BAS Littlebird which had one of the crew (maybe even the pilot?) being able to fire an MP5 out of the chopper... Though personally I don't think that a submachinegun would be the best choice for such an undertaking...

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

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 10 2007,22:44)]Puma you should not really believe everything written in books

That book is rather typical american propaganda than anything else. Although there are many accurate books out there, Black Hawk Down isnt one of them.

@ Plaintiff

It still makes no sense to have a suppressed M4 for that occasion mate ....

Ouch. That's a heavy accusation against Mark Bowden there. Can you be more specific?

I did a little search and found some websites that criticize Mark Bowden for being too pro-military and making unfair statements in other writings, but so far I haven't found anything about Black Hawk Down specifically.

I read the book myself years ago and I liked it a lot. Bowden interviewed some Somalis about their experiences and you can begin to understand why many of them began to resent the presence of the Americans. This perspective wasn't really there in the movie.

Sure, Bowden has his own opinion about mission and the eventual troop pullout, but does he actually lie in his book?

Of course I have read the book, I would not comment on anything I dont know for sure.

Sure the mission was a mess-up and naturraly the author has to critize someone, namely the HQ and the officers and planers.

This still doenst mean that the book advertises the US forces as the bad guys. They are described pittyfull and readers (like you) believe everything he writes because you say: "oh see... he talked bad about the US officers, so he must be a neutral guy only displaying the truth".

What I mean is when you read the book, you get to love the Rangers and 1st SFOD-D and are turned more pro-american than you were before. Isnt that propaganda enough ?

[Macktheknife9 0]

For those of you wondering about the viability of providing sniper fire from a helicopter, I encourage you to learn more about the HITRON (Helicopter Inderdiction Tactical Squadron) of the USCG.

http://www.uscg.mil/lantarea/HITRON/index.htm

They stop drug-running go-fast boats via MH-68 Sting Ray helicopter. The helicopter, if the go-fast does not heed warning shots, paces the boat while an Aviation Gunner armed with a .50 cal rifle fires at the engines to disable it. Compared to traditional methods they are extremely successful in stopping go-fasts

[Stendac 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 11 2007,18:44)]Of course I have read the book, I would not comment on anything I dont know for sure.

Sure the mission was a mess-up and naturraly the author has to critize someone, namely the HQ and the officers and planers.

This still doenst mean that the book advertises the US forces as the bad guys. They are described pittyfull and readers (like you) believe everything he writes because you say: "oh see... he talked bad about the US officers, so he must be a neutral guy only displaying the truth".

What I mean is when you read the book, you get to love the Rangers and 1st SFOD-D and are turned more pro-american than you were before. Isnt that propaganda enough ?

I think I had a greater respect for the fighting ability of the American soldiers after reading the book.  I didn't necessarily feel more pro-American.

Why?  I think the book was able to grimly describe how our supposedly goodwill mission to Somalia degenerated into violence.  In this sense, it isn't really gung-ho pro-US Militarism.  One Somali man described how the helicopters buzzing by close overhead would frighten people.  Another man talked about an incident when a US helicopter fired some rockets into the building he was in.  Some men he knew were killed.  The soldiers themselves describe firing grenades into windows indiscriminately because a fighter might suddenly poke his head out from any one of them and light up the convoy.  I think one soldier even said that he's sure that he accidentally shot a child in the chaos.  How pro-America is that?

At any rate, it never really stuck me as US propaganda.  I think one of the important lessons that a reader could take away from the book is this: The military is a broadsword.  As powerful as it is, it's not necessarily good at winning hearts and minds or for bringing order to a country.  Sometimes, its presence only results in more violence.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

This thread, like so many others, is going off-topic. This is supposed to be about using infantry weapons from vehicle positions...

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

@ Stendac - KyleSarnic is right but let me explain it in another way.

Whatever the author might have written, the fact is that over 1000 people have been killed in that action.

No matter whether good or bad guys .... over 1000 people died on this 2 days only.

After reading the book, you dont care about this fact, you see the story from the view of a soldier and surely war is aweful. I cant picture one single soldier being happy in such a battle. But what the author does is to pull away the reader from the fact what happened there. People were torn apart by Miniguns and rockets and the only thing you guys say is that the author described the situation well.

To understand it better count to one thousand my friend... and then think that every single small number you count contains as many aspects (love, children, dreams, right to live, etc.) as your own life.

[max power 21]

Because it has biases or omissions does not make it propaganda. It doesn't even make it inaccurate, just not exhaustive.

[urbanwarrior 0]

so ANYWAY, does any good scripter or anyone who knows how the game engine works(limitations) know if its even possible to allow us to shoot from a moving vehicle in general, the back off a ural or a helo

[Maddmatt 1]

so ANYWAY, does any good scripter or anyone who knows how the game engine works(limitations) know if its even possible to allow us to shoot from a moving vehicle in general, the back off a ural or a helo

Crappy workarounds were possible in OFP, so should be in ArmA too.

As for a proper working solution through modding, I don't think so.

Also it's about time you change your sig, 1.05 has been out for ages

[ArmaVidz 0]

Jesus, 3 pages of "No it probably won't be done" or "What if some noob shoots up my tail rotor?" I can blow a little bird out of the sky with an M1A1 because I'm firing at a mountaintop as well...leave it up to the community to police its members and ensure the "noobs" are taken care of.

The thread was started to explore the possibility not give a voicing board to every nay-sayer who has DSL! Even if it's impossible due to engine limitations unless you know that because you are a scripter, how would you know?

I would assume there is a "lock" per se put on the soldier once he boards a vehicle, if someone could figure out how to remove that lock, it could probably happen.

[urbanwarrior 0]

just for you Madmatt! look down, better?