Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Heatseeker

Vehicle vulnerability.

Recommended Posts

Most of them can be disabled by a single RPG hit, not only disabled but they blow up killing everything in a 15M radius. Old problem.. i know.

I made a thread couple of months ago about splashdamage too:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....wamingo It turned to rubbish quickly unfortunately.

Anyhow, it's quite silly that the most dangerous thing in the game to be near is a shilka or vulcan... The only real danger being near these vehicles should be getting your eardrums wrecked if it began firing.

Blowing up these assorted vulnerable vehicles will destroy the nearby vehicles and that's simply not proper. No way any amount of shrapnel from vehicles will tear through steel etc.

If BIS isn't changing the armor system altogether then downsizing the explosive damage values would be better than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that Armor blowing up and killing everyone in radius all the time is not a good thing at all, if used properly, they will be nasty.  BIS finally allowed for proper barrel depression, in defilade I've found strykers and tanks to be fantastic anchor points to hold ground.  In many a Berserk map, I've found a spot to go 'hull down' in and cover my squads movement.  All the enemy sees is a small blob of the M2 or GL poking over the ridge... before they die.  And that can be camoed with proper terrain/foliage behind me.  

Tanks are also a huge boon in hull down. VERY narrow profile to hit, and lobbing over doesn't work all that well either as the hull is sloped with the hill.

Again, agreeing with work needing to be done, but at the same time, there is a lot of play in these vehicles if used as is now possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to remember that an RPG to a tanks tracks or on the crew sights will disable it or make it very hard to move away under fire. The Stryker and BMP-2 damage taken from an RPG is stupid as irl they won't explode from 1 RPG hit (afaik).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, ive heard from stryker crews that their vihicles have survived multipule RPG hits and still are rolling and shooting away. I saw one stryker being brought back for repair, it got hit by 15 RPG rounds, AND THEY DROVE IT OFF THE TRAIN AND INTO THE REPAIR STATION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya, ive heard from stryker crews that their vihicles have survived multipule RPG hits and still are rolling and shooting away. I saw one stryker being brought back for repair, it got hit by 15 RPG rounds, AND THEY DROVE IT OFF THE TRAIN AND INTO THE REPAIR STATION.

spread your bullshit somewhere else boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya, ive heard from stryker crews that their vihicles have survived multipule RPG hits and still are rolling and shooting away. I saw one stryker being brought back for repair, it got hit by 15 RPG rounds, AND THEY DROVE IT OFF THE TRAIN AND INTO THE REPAIR STATION.

LOL and then Ronald Regan turned to you dressed in a superman suit and invited you to ride on his winged mustang, and then you woke up!

If that is even remotely true, what the vehicle was being hit with was not antiarmour munitions.

Quote[/b] ]

You have to remember that an RPG to a tanks tracks or on the crew sights will disable it or make it very hard to move away under fire. The Stryker and BMP-2 damage taken from an RPG is stupid as irl they won't explode from 1 RPG hit (afaik).

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

LOL and then Ronald Regan turned to you dressed in a superman suit and invited you to ride on his winged mustang, and then you woke up!

If that is even remotely true, what the vehicle was being hit with was not antiarmour munitions.

1 guy wrote a book about his experiences as a soldier in stryker brigade in iraq, called my war. In the book he told that they got hit

with IED's and rpg's all the time, and only damage that they got was a busted tyre. Alltough 1 IED managed to to destroy a stryker, because the ammunition expoloded on its roof(yeah they all we're wondering who the hell designed the strykers and put all of its ammo on the roof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that author is Colby Buzzell, I'm just reading his book My War. He also owns a blog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

LOL and then Ronald Regan turned to you dressed in a superman suit and invited you to ride on his winged mustang, and then you woke up!

If that is even remotely true, what the vehicle was being hit with was not antiarmour munitions.

1 guy wrote a book about his experiences as a soldier in stryker brigade in iraq, called my war. In the book he told that they got hit

with IED's and rpg's all the time, and only damage that they got was a busted tyre. Alltough 1 IED managed to to destroy a stryker, because the ammunition expoloded on its roof(yeah they all we're wondering who the hell designed the strykers and put all of its ammo on the roof

There is RPG and RPG, m8.

These rounds weren't probably the best ones for taking out armor.

Resisting RPG, why not. 15, otoh....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SOBR[1st-I-R] @ June 04 2007,23:38)]
Ya, ive heard from stryker crews that their vihicles have survived multipule RPG hits and still are rolling and shooting away. I saw one stryker being brought back for repair, it got hit by 15 RPG rounds, AND THEY DROVE IT OFF THE TRAIN AND INTO THE REPAIR STATION.

"Bird cage". Is it also called slat armor? But ArmA's stykers don't have them. Armor like that is good against HEAT.

Vehicle vulnerabilty:

With luck (unluck for others) BMP or anyother vehicle can blow up from first hit if something exploding is hit. Stryker would have better survival ratio as it doesn't inhold that impressive amounts of ammo as BMP. So i quess that it could be shot full of holes with no dramatic effect (if it's empty of personel)... Just as many trucks from WW2: they could be full of holes from aircraft cannons and MGs but still doing their job.

But ArmA has to balance with AI, to me ArmA's vehiclearmor and AT-laucher damage is proper (not including vehicle's tendensy to blow up so constantly and easily).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Also, just because the guy wrote a book doesn't mean he's telling the truth. Even if he is telling the truth, it doesn't mean he correctly identified what was shooting at him. Even if he did correctly identify what was shooting at him, it doesn't mean that he know what kind of ammunition was being used on his stryker. Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]They wasted all their ammos to those things and when they felt safe (and light) again they ran agains couple of stryker squads and that was end of story, no RPGs for vehicles and no ammos for infantry

this is serious

if Sickboy is there he will probably say that i should write this in ARMA  disapointing tread but...

as i said few times  , in my country ARMA has written on box "most realistic battlefield symulating system"

if on its box it was written "just another FPS" i would have no claims ,

but if someone advertise his product as m.r.b.s.s. it all should function normally

so about vehicle vunerability - YES IT IS WRONG

on this forum i read topic of one guy who told that he destroyd tank by firing at mounted machinegun on turret

if fact probably in ARMA just like in OFP there is no good destruction structure, so destruction of one thing on vehicle cannot cause destruction of whole vehicle

in real life;

if you shoot to doors i won't cause cars start burning

in you blow even strong grenade on turret of tank, yes mounted MG can be out of action, but crew won't be hurt

i haven't been testing all shootings tests, because of lack of time, but if i get some free time i will start to test and probably list of claims will be long biggrin_o.gif

OFP was revolution 7 years ago, it was super, it is still good game, but for ARMA after so many years i had big expectations which are not fulfilled

instead of good realistic simulator (as advertised) i get OFP with beautyfull island and models and some eye candys

more time should be spent on realism, less on graphic look

but we cannot turn it back

we can in future make addons, but probably some things are engine-limited and probably it is impossible to do for example

tank addon in which you destroy mounted machinegun by RPG without any harm to rest of the tank

or you can shoot even 100 bullets through car's doors without any harm to mobility of car (dors in real car even if shot many times do not decide about engine work, dumpers, fuel burn and etc.)

also firing from MG to APC is long thema

!!!

in OFP and probably in this game we don't have most important thing

- resistance of materials to be shot through

what i mean (if my english is not good)

if i shoot many many many times from submachinegun to BMP using 9 mm para or makarov bullets, it will do nothing to BMP

if i shoot from armor piercing 0.50 single bullet it can kill man inside BMP and other heavy wounded (if pass through and sits on the line of bullet flight )

heavy APC or light tank is 100 % bullet proof against machineguns

no matter if you will shot 1000 7.62 bullets, crew or tank armor is not penetrated

just because of this reasons vests are not bulletproof in arma

this is for me error in engine if there is no difference between penetration values of bullets

in real life some milimeters steel sheet is protecting against one bullet, but other bullet can go through it

in game :/

in game there is a "hit" value so probably this parameter decides about destorying things

so maybe (hipoteticaly) if you will shoot 1000 bullets from MP5 you can destroy BMP or M113 (i haven't tested it yet, but i will)

it such things is true, than all is ***

edit: in many games i saw better man destruction behaviour

and in game T72 there was super destruction structure,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tell me, Vilas, which public game is a more realistic battlefield simulating system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in which you destroy mounted machinegun by RPG without any harm to rest of the tank

Hehe, makes me think of the good old  game "Mafia;The City of Lost Heaven" ..where you could fire full rounds with your Tommy Gun and destroy haedlights and bumpers, without actually destroying the car..  That was something those days.. and it was not advertised as the most realistic mob sim wink_o.gif

sorry, slightly OT, but agree fully with the above claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Also, just because the guy wrote a book doesn't mean he's telling the truth. Even if he is telling the truth, it doesn't mean he correctly identified what was shooting at him. Even if he did correctly identify what was shooting at him, it doesn't mean that he know what kind of ammunition was being used on his stryker. Etc.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is for me error in engine if there is no difference between penetration values of bullets

in real life some milimeters steel sheet is protecting against one bullet, but other bullet can go through it

in game :/

in game there is a "hit" value so probably this parameter decides about destorying things

so maybe (hipoteticaly) if you will shoot 1000 bullets from MP5 you can destroy BMP or M113 (i haven't tested it yet, but i will)

it such things is true, than all is ***

There is a simplified penetration model in Arma. Any unit in Arma has damage ("health") from 0 to 1

Then there is an overall "armor" value which is similar to overall strength of structure, the higher the value the less overall damage from any hit or blast

Then there are addtional armor values for head, body, hands ... these define "penetration". If you increase these values, it will get less damage from direct hit until 0 damage = no penetration (AI will stop firing according "light" weapons)

As Arma does not calculate angle of impact (which is very important for realistic penetration). Any hit will either harm the target or not at all.

Regarding body armor, in RL you are happy to survive a hit even when you are unable to continue fighting. In Game there is no difference for the player, out is out. So I don't know if the additonal CPU load is it worth to add angle of impact calculations (luckily I never been on a real battlefield).

By the way, Medics are also unrealstic.

For vehicles it might be interesting to have angle of impact simulated, together with a more detailed modeling of critical areas: ammo, fuel, wheels, ...

QuietMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tell me, Vilas, which public game is a more realistic battlefield simulating system?

Possibly one other, but that also isn't the point. Playing devils advocate for a moment, if a product, whatever it may be, advertises itself as being ultra-realistic (you can insert your own word of choice here instead of ultra if you wish), then it should do that. If a car company advertised theirs as the most reliable car out there, and then was found to be prone to breakdowns etc, them turning around and saying "Well, what other car out there is better?" isn't much of a defence in the eyes of those who just bought their POS. biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

circa 400 rounds 5.56 mm (2 belts from M249) in the corpus of M113 and M113 explode

2 shots from M24 in hand of man holding pistol, man is dead, also like 1 shot in kneel

simulator, yeah...

i prefer COD2, MOHAA as simulators than , SOF2 was much better

firing from BMP to AH1 rocket (AH1 in front of me) no effect

UAZ, SKODA in fire after some shots in (i don't know if good in english) door jamb

yeah

comparing to car like MEMNOCH, well you are buying small city car for 2 seats

on box you have "fuel saving" but after some miles /kilometers you see that smoke a lot, of course less than tank or truck wink_o.gif

the most funny is destructed model of car, with air in rusty tyres

in OFP it was better, because car was falling down for some centimeters

i hope BIS will do soemthing to this, just for example, class car, after destrutction this set position x,y,z 0,0,-0.2

and than i will say it is okay

if whole car is on fire, how can there be air in tires ? how tire can be rusty ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tell me, Vilas, which public game is a more realistic battlefield simulating system?

Possibly one other, but that also isn't the point. Playing devils advocate for a moment, if a product, whatever it may be, advertises itself as being ultra-realistic (you can insert your own word of choice here instead of ultra if you wish), then it should do that. If a car company advertised theirs as the most reliable car out there, and then was found to be prone to breakdowns etc, them turning around and saying "Well, what other car out there is better?" isn't much of a defence in the eyes of those who just bought their POS. biggrin_o.gif

It's advertised as being more realistic than others, AFAIK. Which is rather true. Well, which is true on the whole.

Some others may be more precise in department X, Y or Z, but lack completely in other areas.

IF the thing that make you say "it's just another FPS" is that the tires don't go flat when vehicle is destroyed, then... well, that leaves me speechless....

If it's flying vehicles, I already stated my version, it's that I've never seen 1 flying ground vehicle bare on 2 occasions, 1 with 1.01 version months ago, another in 1 berzerk played like 2 months ago. And that is all. Barely noticable, and completely negligible.

Then what? There are issues? Granted, sure, 100% agree. But we're stuck with it, because it's the only one in the market, and that's exactly why it does what is advertised : it does the whole battlefield where every other only depicts 1 aspect. We're stuck with it because none other do it all like ArmA does. So better get used to it for a while wink_o.gif (maybe CM will come out with something, but atm, no choice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading about the Stryker and the slat armour. They said that once the armour was fitted it negated one of the points of the Stryker and that was it was easily air transportable!  wink_o.gif

EDIT: In the future, if laser/partical weapons ever take off, I expect a similar technique would be to throw up clouds of obscuring particles like sand or something else to disperse the beam. I can picture two armies, rolling around in their man made sandstorms!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really though at the moment we should all decide whether it's "simulation" and "realism" we want mainly, or if we want it to be more fun based,(with the balancing of Blufor and Opfor it can never be properly realistic) but the two things could go hand in hand, the fact that an armoured vehicle blows up everytime an AT rocket hits it is very silly and not realistic, yet it would be more realistic and fun if this was not the case and better targeting was needed, ie shall i hit the tracks and disable it or go for instant kill, i say this could be more fun as it will be infinately more rewarding when you do get a kill and it explodes (ie that was a really lucky shot saved my life there, or thats exactly what i intended how great am I)

At the moment it is very boring after a while as there is no variation, fire RPG- explodes, fire RPG- explodes.

Quote[/b] ]It's advertised as being more realistic than others

OT i know but on my box it says The ULTIMATE combat simulation

and also says blended with a unique touch of TOTAL realism return in this game

Now make of that what you will but the emphasis is definately on the the ULTIMATE and total realism aspects, so i don't know, i own it now too late. (Would have bought it anyway though on the strengh of Flashpoint, people who didn't play OFP, EEEK)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×