Vehicle vulnerability.

[vilas 477]

"najbardziej realistyczna symulacja pola walki zaprojektowana przez twórców OFP, stworzona na nowym silniku, w grze powraca niezwykle interesujące i realistyczne otoczenie."

"totalny militarny realizm oparty na technologi VBS używanej do szkolenia żołnierzy"

translating to english text from box:

most realistic simulator of battlefield , designed by OFP creators

it has new engine, interesting and realistic environment remains

total military realism, basing on VBS technology used to train soldiers

do i have to add that in the game manual in the book there is view of menu

in this menu there is option HDR menu

so what now ?

more from manual book

"ARMA symuluje wiele rodzajów wyposażenia, piechoty, wojsk zmechanizowanych"

ARMA simulates many types of equipement , infantry, simulates mechanized equipement

[frederf 0]

The Stryker slat armor is designed to defuse incoming RPG warheads or failing that detonate the warhead a safer distance away from the hull and is moderately successful at doing so. Slat armor is removable in only a few minutes/hours, thus air transportability is the same with and without.

Quite a few RPGs, especially those fired at HMMWVs, have had their fuses completely disabled such that they are "a big bullet" which allows them to punch through armor of the HMMWV easily, being dangerous, but never being fused to explode. It is possible that some RPGs hitting Strykers have been of this type although it would not surprise me if live RPGs hit a Stryker numbering to 12 in a day without ill effects on the vehicle.

A Stryker was attacked with a 500 lb bomb IED, flipped several times and everyone inside was fine and it continued to drive but poorly.

A Stryker can drive on only 4 of its 8 tires, the others being completely destroyed. In ArmA if you kill 1 tire the Stryker is practically immobile!!! WRONG! Also the Stryker has a central tire inflation system that is able to maintain mobility even if some tires have taken bullets. The fact that you get stuck from only a few rounds in a single tire in an ArmA Styker is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

A statistical based hit system for RPGs against M1A1s, Strykers, and even 5 tons would be very welcome. RPGs are always 100% effective in game (and laser-accurate) taking out light armor in one hit (killing everyone in and around it) and heavy armor in a few hits. This is simply inconsistent with reality.

[Billy-no-mates 0]

Quote[/b] ]so what now ?

Well for me it's a burger and a beer then out for a run later

[-Puma- 2]

Quote[/b] ]so what now ?

Well for me it's a burger and a beer then out for a run later

beers and arma for me

[Heatseeker 0]

"najbardziej realistyczna symulacja pola walki zaprojektowana przez twórców OFP, stworzona na nowym silniku, w grze powraca niezwykle interesujące i realistyczne otoczenie."

"totalny militarny realizm oparty na technologi VBS używanej do szkolenia żołnierzy"

translating to english text from box:

most realistic simulator of battlefield , designed by OFP creators

it has new engine, interesting and realistic environment remains

total military realism, basing on VBS technology used to train soldiers

do i have to add that in the game manual in the book there is view of menu

in this menu there is option HDR on/off

so what now ?

Please dont go off topic here too, we all know that the perfect damage model is yet to be made and i doubt it will make its first appearance in a large scale war game such as this one.

I believe that within the games limitations and possibilities something a little more realistic (and fun) could be done by balancing weapon and armor values a little better .

[Billy-no-mates 0]

Quote[/b] ] I believe that within the games limitations and possibilities something a little more realistic (and fun) could be done by balancing weapon and armor values a little better .

But as i tried to say dosen't balancing the vehicles completely take away the realism aspect?, what bits are we calling realistic?

[vilas 477]

i don't go offtpoic

topic is about wrong and not realistic behavior of vehicles, caused by fact that this engine do not have pass through material parameters working

you proposal - balancing with armor and hit ?

than man should have much more armor for chest selection , or maybe IF (without tools we don't know it) for vest selection ? and much more powerful hands, not to die after second shot in hand

as i see in 1.07 ammo is much much stronger than in 1.05

in 1.05 12,7 mm bullet had hit 13, now 26

US 25 mm bullet is 50% more powerfull (124) than BMP 30 mm bullet (79)

i wonder if in real life BMP2 cannon is so bad comparing to 25 mm Harrier cannon ?

[dm 9]

translating to english text from box:

most realistic simulator of battlefield , designed by OFP creators

it has new engine, interesting and realistic environment remains

total military realism, basing on VBS technology used to train soldiers

do i have to add that in the game manual in the book there is view of menu

in this menu there is option HDR menu

so what now ?

more from manual book

ARMA simulates many types of equipement , infantry, simulates mechanized equipement

If you got sucked in by the marketing speak, then thats your own fault for letting your expectations be raised so high.

Bitching about it in every thread you can find isnt going to help

Yeah, the damage model needs some serious work before it could be called "realistic" but at least what we've got works for the most part (even if it isnt quite right)

[Heatseeker 0]

Quote[/b] ] I believe that within the games limitations and possibilities something a little more realistic (and fun) could be done by balancing weapon and armor values a little better .

But as i tried to say dosen't balancing the vehicles completely take away the realism aspect?, what bits are we calling realistic?

I didnt mean balancing the vehicles. I meant having a better "balance" betwean vehicle armor and weapon power, considering other factors too.

An APC should take damage from 1 single RPG hit but should take atleast two hits to be fully disabled. What i dislike currently is the instant kill with every single shot. There is no: "We're hit, everyone bail out!" .

I miss having that... it would enhance gameplay imo.

Distance should be considered too, i know that weapons have limited effective range but its not apparent in game.

Rockets could loose speed over distance and should loose armor penetration capacity decreasing the damage the longer they travel?

ex:

1 RPG hit from 100M disables the stryker (without blowing it up though).

1 RPG hit from 300M+ causes damage but the vehicle remains operational.

A new damage model wont happen, no point discussing it here.

Real life armor effects and other things that cant be simulated ingame are somehow irrelevant too.

But within Arma's limitations something better could be made.

[max power 21]

Did you research this? I'm not sure about the BMP-2, but the BMP-1 had quite an exploding problem. Regardless of those things actually exploding, a penetrating hit would do bad things to it, and having the vehicle explode is ArmA's way of telling you that it's dead. Most likely after a HEAT hit it would be on fire anyways.

But whats the point of having an armed APC when its the biggest treath to his own squad? Might as well take a truck/walk on foot then.

The point is to be invulnerable to most arms on the battlefield, not to be invulnerable to everything.

However, they provide more danger then safety to their own squad because they blow up so easily, taking their own squad with them.

Ive nothing against the stryker being destroyed so easily, but it shouldnt blow up every time.

I agree. The Stryker in particular is designed not to blow up (inside). All its fuel and ammo is designed to blow outwards.

Quote[/b] ]

PUMA said:

im sorry mister plaintiff, but how can u be sure about these things, are u somekind of professor of war or something?

That's Professor Plaintiff1, thank you. What exactly are you asking about? I've read a lot about it over the course of many years because military technology tickles me. I'm an armchair expert- the worst kind of forum user. However, I've read a lot about heat weapons vs armour, and the relative scales of armour vs. anti-armour weapons. I've read a bit about the stryker and especially the complaints about it compared to the tracked vehicles in the same weight scale. I've also recently read and reread some tradoc information on the RPG-7. Nothing that I've ever come across would allow me to believe that story about the 15 HEAT hits on the stryker. If the Stryker was indeed hit by several rockets from and RPG-7, it only survived because there was something wrong with the rocket launcher, the rockets, or the firers. It did not survive by virtue of the vehicle's armour. The reason for the slat armour was that they found that the Stryker was quite vulnerable to rpg attack.

[max power 21]

The slat armour is designed to disable some rpg-7 warheads by squeezing the metal skin against the electric detonator and causing a short. This would cause the warhead not to detonate, therefore saying that a stryker 'can withstand 15 rpg shots' based on that is misleading. I get the impression through reading that that slat armour is better than nothing but it doesn't make the stryker's invincible as the author who claims that his vehicle was hit with 15 rockets would claim.

Are you mixing it with electrical ERA (or what is the accurate term, i don't know is it in use yet anywhere)?

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slat-stryker.htm

(there's picture of it in link)

"The interim slat armor solution forms a metal frame barrier 50 cm ahead of the APC. The cage detonate anti-tank shaped charge warheads such as RPG away from the vehicle and prevent its hot chemical reaction from boring through and causing burns, shock and shrapnel wounds."

That should work verywell against RPG-7s. Better penetrating HEAT-warheads, well they could penetrate armor, but they lose big amount of their enegry on the way to armor as distance is far from optimal.

No, I'm not confusing it. All of this is explained in the rpg-7 tradoc. They have charts and such of RHA penetration over stand-off distance. They recommend that for an m113, the minimum stand-off distance from an rpg screen should be 12 feet!

[dreday 1]

Rockets could loose speed over distance and should loose armor penetration capacity decreasing the damage the longer they travel?

Not quite... Almost all RPGs have HEAT warheads. They do not rely on velocity to penetrate the armour; so they don't really loose any penetration potential over distance.

Peace,

DreDay

[max power 21]

Rockets could loose speed over distance and should loose armor penetration capacity decreasing the damage the longer they travel?

Not quite... Almost all RPGs have HEAT warheads. They do not rely on velocity to penetrate the armour; so they don't really loose any penetration potential over distance.

Peace,

DreDay

In fact, in that tradoc, the rpg7 seems to gain penetrating power at some ranges and then loses it again. I'd imagine that the reasons for that are complicated and have something to do with the ideal conditions for the heat warhead to work and build cohesive shockwaves to shape the copper. Who knows. By and large, HEAT warheads rely on chemical power, not kinetic energy to penetrate armour. No velocity is needed at all.

[Rogueci5 0]

Just my 2 cents worth.

I have seen a GPMG 60 cut through a Double brick wall in 15 seconds rapid fire.

And watched a A1L1 SLR put a whole through an APC when its fired at the right angle.

Now I dont know about you, but a 7.62 mm Rimless Nato Round wizzing about inside an APC is enough to disable it, cos I am out of there :P

[Second 0]

No, I'm not confusing it. All of this is explained in the rpg-7 tradoc. They have charts and such of RHA penetration over stand-off distance. They recommend that for an m113, the minimum stand-off distance from an rpg screen should be 12 feet!

I don't know why they recommend it to that external net, but i'd quess that it's safety distance as if warhead touches net, it's flightpath is changed because of contact to net and there's enough good change that it misses it's target. If HEAT-warhead don't go dud and it hits APC, then net has failed (it had only 50% change, or in reality even less, to cause warhead to go dud). So i'd speculate that net's distance of vehicle is back-up.

Styker's slat armor works different as warhead explodes on contact to armor. Reason why HEAT or shaped charge isn't used in various mines (This includes magnetic AT-mies) as they don't touch armor of vehicle when blowing-up and shaped charge isn't good in that condition. EFP typed HEAT (i think they are classified as HEAT) is used for that as it carries it's effect better in longer distances, as penetrator is flying metal not "plasma"-jet as in warhead of RPG-7.

Shaped charge loses lots of it's power in 50 cm distance, distance can easily be longer then 50 cm if RPG is shot at others than 90 degree angles and i don't know is Styker's slat armor also able to direct warhead's jet downwards. I don't know will RPG-7's warhead's jet still go thru armor after traveling that distance, but effect of penetration inside vehicle is very limited.

[max power 21]

No, I'm not confusing it. All of this is explained in the rpg-7 tradoc. They have charts and such of RHA penetration over stand-off distance. They recommend that for an m113, the minimum stand-off distance from an rpg screen should be 12 feet!

I don't know why they recommend it to that external net, but i'd quess that it's safety distance as if warhead touches net, it's flightpath is changed because of contact to net and there's enough good change that it misses it's target. If HEAT-warhead don't go dud and it hits APC, then net has failed (it had only 50% change, or in reality even less, to cause warhead to go dud). So i'd speculate that net's distance of vehicle is back-up.

If the net of which you speak is the rpg screen that appears in the tradoc...

The net is to pinch the missile's nosecone to the warhead to dud the warhead. It says so explicitly in the countermeasures section. It has nothing to do with trajectory change. If the missile is a dud it won't penetrate the apc. If it could, they wouldn't need to load the pg with explosives.

[Second 0]

In fact, in that tradoc, the rpg7 seems to gain penetrating power at some ranges and then loses it again. I'd imagine that the reasons for that are complicated and have something to do with the ideal conditions for the heat warhead to work and build cohesive shockwaves to shape the copper. Who knows. By and large, HEAT warheads rely on chemical power, not kinetic energy to penetrate armour. No velocity is needed at all.

To my understanding HEAT needs spinning movement to work well. Forexample: Riffled barrel of MBT suits better but HEAT-rounds, but is bad for SABOT. SABOT works better in smoothbore, but HEAT doesn't. So i'd guess that RPG's spining movement has something to do with it... does it spin more or less than at shorter distances, i don't know (i don't know the laws of nature very well)?

[max power 21]

In fact, in that tradoc, the rpg7 seems to gain penetrating power at some ranges and then loses it again. I'd imagine that the reasons for that are complicated and have something to do with the ideal conditions for the heat warhead to work and build cohesive shockwaves to shape the copper. Who knows. By and large, HEAT warheads rely on chemical power, not kinetic energy to penetrate armour. No velocity is needed at all.

To my understanding HEAT needs spinning movement to work well. Forexample: Riffled barrel of MBT suits better but HEAT-rounds, but is bad for SABOT. SABOT works better in smoothbore, but HEAT doesn't. So i'd guess that RPG's spining movement has something to do with it... does it spin more or less than at shorter distances, i don't know (i don't know the laws of nature very well)?

I've never heard about spinning benefitting it. Everything happens so fast, I'd imagine that any spin on the projectile wouldn't really matter much. Spinning is good for full-calibre shells in general, but not for sabotted, fin stabilized ones. Some shells use the rotation as a means to arm the warhead...

I don't think that the spin has anything to do with the rpg effectiveness itself. The rpg has fins that initiate a spin and it wouldn't stop spinning in mid air or anything.

[Second 0]

Sorry, i remembered wrong: if HEAT-warhead spins it's effectivity degreases. There's way to modify warhead so that spining's bad effect is reduced, maybe even complitely neutralized.

I can't figure out anyother thing that spinning which could effect on warhead's penetration positively.

[Scrub 0]

Spinning should do no more than keep the shell oriented thru centripidal forces (used to be centrifugal, till the physicists changed it) Excessive spin would do no more than spread loose forces.

[Billy-no-mates 0]

So were all agreed refering to the OP that the vehicle dammage system on APC's and all vehicles needs to be changed and RPG dammage either reduced or implementation of a different system to vehicle reaches damage =1 = explosion.

Picket boards out then

[Second 0]

Spinning should do no more than keep the shell oriented thru centripidal forces (used to be centrifugal, till the physicists changed it) Excessive spin would do no more than spread loose forces.

That's corrent. "Plasma"'jet is somewhat loose material, it spreads somewhat (and loses somepart of it's effectivity) because of spinning.

I'm not sure has this issues been solved in RPGs so that only stabilizer fins and maybe rod also spins and warhead don't spin. And is it 100% reliable that warhead won't spin at higher speeds, atleast much? Relatively new weapon- and ammunation-type (only about 20-30 years old at that time) that has been produced to masses, so there might have been some issues, that were either too costly to fix or they aren't considered to be too bad.

When speed of projectile gets lower, doesn't spinning-speed also get slower (I'm complete n00b in this)

[Scrub 0]

The speed of rotation (from a rifled barrel, not fins) would decline slowly, since it's wind resistance of a rotating cylinder. With a finned projectile, the fins keep it spinning and you would be correct.

[.COMmunist 0]

I am also very much annoyed by AI habit of getting out of the tank when the tank gets damaged. Especially when the main gun gets damaged. How realistic is the fact that it is a good idea to get out of the tank in the middle of the firefight. Most likely they would try to escape from the battlefield in the tank! Interesting thing here is that this behaviour is already imprinted in AI in Arma. Try this out for an experiment. Plave T-72 or D-30 on the map and make yourself a gunner. Place M1A as an enemy tank infront of you. Make sure that M1A has no ammo (slide the Ammunition bar all the way to 0). Preview it and you will see an interesting thing. The AI in the M1A will not be able to fight back, so they would try to escape in the tank. They are not jumping out, but they are actually trying to get out of there driving away! Why can't that script be also used when the main gun gets damaged? Let the AI treat a loss of main gun as a loss of ammunition! Than they will not try to jump out, but actually will run (drive! ) for their lives. Is it really that impossible to implement?

[max power 21]

Spinning should do no more than keep the shell oriented thru centripidal forces (used to be centrifugal, till the physicists changed it) Excessive spin would do no more than spread loose forces.

I think that it's gyroscopic inertia rather than centripetal force that stabilizes spinning bodies.