why don't infantry shoot at helicopters?

[Luciano 0]

There's no point argueing with you guys, its like talking to a brick wall.

The reason choppers aren't shut down each day is because they fly high enough and they aren't an important target. They rather plant IED's on convoys.

Your making too much assumptions, just admit it the AI can't shot air units with small arms because the AI coding is pretty primitive. You can say whatever, but thats the truth. They can't make the AI smart enough to decide when to shoot and what actions to take. The AI are very dumb even when shooting tanks, no wonder they don't shoot air units with small arms. They would just empty the whole clip onto air units than.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]There's no point argueing with you guys, its like talking to a brick wall.

Try arguing with fact and data instead of anecdote and speculation. The plural of anecdote is not data.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]We lost 4900 Hueys during Vietnam. Our loss ratio to small arms fire has dropped by more than a factor of a hundred thnnks to the Blackhawk's survivability improvements.

I doubt that the survivability improvements are the major reason for less helicopters downed due to small arms fire. It probably has 99% to do with the nature of both combatants, their operating procedures, and training than anything nuts-n-bolts about the aircraft.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]We lost 4900 Hueys during Vietnam.  Our loss ratio to small arms fire has dropped by more than a factor of a hundred thnnks to the Blackhawk's survivability improvements.

I doubt that the survivability improvements are the major reason for less helicopters downed due to small arms fire. It probably has 99% to do with the nature of both combatants, their operating procedures, and training than anything nuts-n-bolts about the aircraft.

So you think ballistic armor, ballistic glass, redundant systems all are trivial in the grand scheme of things when comparing a totally unarmored second generation transport like a UH-1 with a third generation transport like the UH-60 Blackhawk which was designed with the ability to absorb small arms fire as a primary requirment?

[dreday 1]

Quote[/b] ]We lost 4900 Hueys during Vietnam. Our loss ratio to small arms fire has dropped by more than a factor of a hundred thnnks to the Blackhawk's survivability improvements.

I doubt that the survivability improvements are the major reason for less helicopters downed due to small arms fire. It probably has 99% to do with the nature of both combatants, their operating procedures, and training than anything nuts-n-bolts about the aircraft.

Exactly! Not to mention, that the intensity of combat in Iraq is much much lower (thank God! that it ever was in Vietnam...

Peace,

DreDay

[dreday 1]

Quote[/b] ]We lost 4900 Hueys during Vietnam. Our loss ratio to small arms fire has dropped by more than a factor of a hundred thnnks to the Blackhawk's survivability improvements.

I doubt that the survivability improvements are the major reason for less helicopters downed due to small arms fire. It probably has 99% to do with the nature of both combatants, their operating procedures, and training than anything nuts-n-bolts about the aircraft.

So you think ballistic armor, ballistic glass, redundant systems all are trivial in the grand scheme of things when comparing a totally unarmored second generation transport like a UH-1 with a third generation transport like the UH-60 Blackhawk which was designed with the ability to absorb small arms fire as a primary requirment?

I don't think that he is saying that. However I do believe that you greatly overestimate the survivability of the UH-60. It's primary requirement is not to absorb small arms fire, but rather to lift-off, to fly fast and far, and to carry a good amount of soldiers and supplies; which pretty much precludes it from absorbing large amounts of small arms fire.

Don't get me wrong, the UH-60 is the best air-assault helicopter in the world today; however I don't believe that it would last significantly longer than a UH-1 (or Mi-8) in a hot LZ.

In the past I have had a chance to talk with several Blackhawk pilots; and while they loved their birds they were also very realistic (at the time I thought pessimistic) about their chances of surviving enemy fire.

Peace,

DreDay

[kocrachon 2]

Quote[/b] ]Is there any army in the world that doesn't tell their troops not to fire against moving air targets with anything except MGs or AA weapons?

Yes, the U.S. Army for one. Every soldier is not only taught to fire at both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, but is taught how to do so effectively, and tested on their ability to do so.

Quote[/b] ]Thats very irrelevant. Do you know how many sorties helicopters fly? Let alone how many take small arms fire and actually go down? I can tell you now it is less than 1%. I flew in Blackhawks all the time that took small arm fire, worst we would see is maybe a little bit of smoke.

Really? what unit were you assigned to? Certainly you were taught at Ft. Rucker about how the majority of helicopter losses in Korea and Vietnam were due to small arms? Certainly you were made aware at The Aviation Center of how effective massed small arms fire can be, especially against rotary wing aircraft? Certainly during JRTC or NTC rotations your unit participated in exercises that exposed your aircraft to notional small arms fire, no?

Quote[/b] ]And as for the, how many armys are told not to shoot at helicopters. The U.S. Military. Unless it is all you got, and you are about to be engaged, you don't waste ammo shooting at a helicopter. In fact you are suppose to go for cover, not sit their and shoot at it while it prepares to strafe you.

Again, I wonder what FM's your unit was using to train with, since all the FM's in my library give highly detailed instructions on how to engage attacking rotary and fixed wing aircraft.

I don't know what you are smoking. I was 11B part of a Mechanized Infantry unit. I was trained at Fort Benning Georgia. And would you please let me know which Infantry FM tells you to engage all enemy helicopters you get a visual on. Yes they tell you how to engage, but they dont say "If you are dug in, and have concealment, reveal your position by all of a sudden standing up and opening fire on an enemy helicopter that has no clue about your presence.

Please tell me which Field Manuals tell you about engaging enemy helicopters while your at it. Because on me right now I have the official paper ones handed to me by the Instructor. I have the entire FM 3-21 series, the Entire FM 3-22 series, FM 21 individual soldier series.

Its like your one of those people who think airplanes are dangerous because so many people die on them, yet the percentage of planes that crash compared to the amount of cars that crash and the people who die is greatly different, its just plane crashes are publicized and there for a tragedy.

And yes, in VIETNAM that many helicopters went down. Over the course of how many years? and look how many years this war has gone on, and how many have been shot down this time?

Plus READ the news, have you read how many US helicopters have been shot down by shoulder mounted missiles that have been given to the insurgents by Iran or some other country? Often times its claimed as small arms fire but if you read actual military news from www.military.com you will see that the Insurgents will have a video of it on the net of them using a stinger to take them down.

And you can't always go with the news, read This. Two groups are trying to say they shot it down. We don't even know whats really making these helicopters go down. Because the minute one does the Insurgents all say they did. but then when we inspect the crash we will see its mechanical failure. Or, in the case of this instance, like I stated earlier, its MISSILES taking down our helicopters now, not small arms fire.

So see, when you CITE a source, I will believe your statistics, but like MY sources show, its not small arms fire taking down helicopters like you claim.

Plus if you remember the start of the war, almost all the blackhawks and so forth that went down, were shot down because they hovered and got hit by an RPG.

As for the survivability of the blackhawk. When taken fire unless it takes multiple shots to the engine on top, a hard hit to the rotor, or killing the pilot itself, that blackhawk will sustain tons of shots. Most of its belly is heavy metals to help protect the cargo inside. If you look at blackhawks in Iraq you will see tons of dents on the bottom of the helicopters from 7.62 rounds. They aren't fragile little birds, they have tons more armor than the UH-1 does. Thats why they take the chance by inserting infantry in the middle of towns, and don't just drop them off int he outskirts. If it couldn't sustain from some hits they wouldn't take the chance of going into towns, and wouldn't be used as a med evac helicopter in the middle of Iraq.

Some of you should join the military and experience it yourself. Watch a blackhawk in action, ride in one in the middle of Baghdad, and you will piss your pants at the amount rounds you will see buzz by your bird and how many rounds you will hear hit the helicopter itself. Its made of metal, not cardboard and paper clips.

[ijozic 9]

High density of small arms fire,  while far from ideal, can still be extremely effective against even the latest breed of attack helicopters. This was vividly demonstrated by the the failed attack of the 11th Aviation Helicopter Regiment against the suspected positions of the Medina Division around Karbala, Iraq in the March of 2003.  

And you think it was the small arms fire which caused so much damage that 30 *armored* attack helicopters had to retreat? Yeah, sure.

[apex_predator 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please tell me which Field Manuals tell you about engaging enemy helicopters while your at it. Because on me right now I have the official paper ones handed to me by the Instructor. I have the entire FM 3-21 series, the Entire FM 3-22 series, FM 21 individual soldier series.

Sorry, from your original post I inferred that you were saying that you flew Blackhawks.

Certainly, take a look at any of the FM55 series. Or the Ranger Training Handbook (section 6-22 react to air attack), or the SMCT. Or really any other training manual that addresses individual actions on reacting to air attack. Only if the aircraft does not notice the unit are you supposed to take cover. As soon as the enemy aircraft fixes your position the job of the individual soldier is to saturate the airspace above one's position with small arms fire, forcing the enemy aircraft to fly through a wall of lead.

You seem to be sufferring under the delusion that I am talking about the current conflict, I am not. I am merely addressing the fact that you asserted that U.S. Army soldiers are taught NOT to engage aircraft with small arms. Now, things may have changed at Ft. Benning since I went through there, but I am certain that soldiers are still taught how and when to engage rotary and fixed wing aircraft with small arms fire, and how to do so effectively.

Quote[/b] ]Some of you should join the military and experience it yourself.

I thank you and commend you on your service.

My record:

2nd Infantry Div, Camp Casy Korea - 1994-95

4th Battalion 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division 1995-1998

Aco 1-303rd Armor, 1-61 Infantry Brigade 1998-1999

Dco 782nd, 82nd Airborne Division, 1999-2001

Medically retired 2001.

[kocrachon 2]

When I went we were taught engaging aircraft, but only when the enemy engages you, alot of these people are saying that you should engage an enemy aircraft the minute you see it. Also we were only taught to engage rotary aircraft. Never fixed wing (mainly because a fixed wing will never get close enough for small arms fire).

But yes I must of misread what you said. Yes we will engage, but like I stated on page 4 or so, we only engage when the helicopter is an immediate danger to us. Never engage unless you have to and you have no anti air assets.

[celery 8]

For crying out loud guys, in a combat situation you don't tell your sergeant that the target has ballistic protection and small arms is ineffective against rotary wing aircraft, you do as he says. Besides, you can definitely bring down a transport chopper with assault rifles in the game. AI doesn't think, they just can't pull the trigger because a piece of code in their rifle says that you can't fire at aircraft class vehicles.

The limitation is defended by saying that it will be the complete opposite if it's "fixed", that they will only engage aircraft and waste all ammo. If it gets fixed, they will do it when the situation calls or when their CO orders them to fire upon a target. Don't think in black and white.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Don't think in black and white.

While we may not think in black and white the AI does and that´s why implementing such is more than just a line in the config if it´s supposed to work in a realistic and enjoyable scale.

[kocrachon 2]

For crying out loud guys, in a combat situation you don't tell your sergeant that the target has ballistic protection and small arms is ineffective against rotary wing aircraft, you do as he says. Besides, you can definitely bring down a transport chopper with assault rifles in the game. AI doesn't think, they just can't pull the trigger because a piece of code in their rifle says that you can't fire at aircraft class vehicles.

The limitation is defended by saying that it will be the complete opposite if it's "fixed", that they will only engage aircraft and waste all ammo. If it gets fixed, they will do it when the situation calls or when their CO orders them to fire upon a target. Don't think in black and white.

Actually a soldier can tell a superior no if the command is considered, simply to put it, idiotic and crazy. And if a command says "Charge that T-72 with nothing but your pistols, come on, Tom Hanks did it!" well, I am going to say "Screw you" and hop into my little trench I just dug.

[Second 0]

If it gets fixed, they will do it when the situation calls or when their CO orders them to fire upon a target. Don't think in black and white.

Most likely not. Only thing that can limit their desire to shoot choppers would be that they have "cease fire"-order or they have more important target which they can shoot at. I doupt that BIS will or can add better target selecting system to ArmA.

It would be possible to implent by scripts or even FSM-code maybe. No big deal i'd guess. Using speed, distance, direction to determe is aircraft dangerous or "juicy" target. Then script would be forcing them to aim and shoot the chopper.

[dreday 1]

... alot of these people are saying that you should engage an enemy aircraft the minute you see it.

I want to know who "these" people are, and where "they" were saying that.

Peace,

DreDay

[dreday 1]

High density of small arms fire, while far from ideal, can still be extremely effective against even the latest breed of attack helicopters. This was vividly demonstrated by the the failed attack of the 11th Aviation Helicopter Regiment against the suspected positions of the Medina Division around Karbala, Iraq in the March of 2003.

And you think it was the small arms fire which caused so much damage that 30 *armored* attack helicopters had to retreat? Yeah, sure.

No, it was more than just small arms fire. Iraqis are also believed to have used some light AAA and truck-mounted machine-guns. However it is believed that the small arms fire and RPGs were responsible for much of the damage. More importantly, the high volume of small arms fire (which could not be immediately located and taken out unlike the AAA and gun trucks) had prevented the regiment from fighting in formation. Essentially, the AH-64s were forced fight their battles individually and not as a coherent fighting force due to the magnitude and multiple directions of the incomming small arms fire.

Peace,

DreDay

[vilas 477]

in config there are parametrs that show if crew is vulnerable or not

thats why there is different behaviour of AI against choppers Mi17 vs. Ka50

also AI recognizes (as software) if there is a proxy of pilot in FireGeometry LOD of model

if you will do addon without proxy in fire geometry, only destruction of vehicle causes death of crew

[wamingo 1]

Actually a soldier can tell a superior no if the command is considered, simply to put it, idiotic and crazy. And if a command says "Charge that T-72 with nothing but your pistols, come on, Tom Hanks did it!" well, I am going to say "Screw you" and hop into my little trench I just dug.

1. You can't dig trenches in ArmA.

3. Helicopters are not tanks.

3. Players can fire on helicopters, but only MG and AA AI can. Inconsistency. Fix.

next.

The AI should be aware of armor values. Nothing else makes sense.

No one is asking for Spot=Shoot as is perhaps the case with tanks/AA shooting at helicopters. But more like, 1 out of ~x spots + threat indication + range under ~x meters = leader says shoot + individuals lay random fire on target until out of ~y meter range. As they do with infantry though at a higher chance rate.

There's nothing to dislike about this kind of possibility and it adds to unpredictability of the AI and finally it makes helicopters more fun to fly by making it less overpowered and more of a challenge.

[apex_predator 0]

Sorry for being so combative yesterday. Between quitting smoking and having more than half a load on I really shouldn't have been interacting with decent people

Think I'll go back the scripting forum where I don't feel compelled to get into phallus measuring contests.

Again, I sincerely appreciate your service Havoc. Sorry for busting your chops.

Airborne

All The Way

Let's Go

Follow Me

[whisper 0]

For crying out loud guys, in a combat situation you don't tell your sergeant that the target has ballistic protection and small arms is ineffective against rotary wing aircraft, you do as he says. Besides, you can definitely bring down a transport chopper with assault rifles in the game. AI doesn't think, they just can't pull the trigger because a piece of code in their rifle says that you can't fire at aircraft class vehicles.

The limitation is defended by saying that it will be the complete opposite if it's "fixed", that they will only engage aircraft and waste all ammo. If it gets fixed, they will do it when the situation calls or when their CO orders them to fire upon a target. Don't think in black and white.

Current AI IS black and white, Celery.

What is asked here is not a little task.

Is it THAT important that other issues should be dropped over this one?

I think not.

TT to open with suggestion, but not high importance.

[Serclaes 0]

The problem lays a bit deeper here. Before giving the order to fire, the responsible takes another factor into account: ammo.

If the squad is low on ammo, they won't for sure attack a moving target, be it infantry, jeep or helicopter if they can avoid it. Simply because they would waste more ammo than it is worth. (Yay! You got that chopper, but what to do with the 20 enemy soldiers closing in on your position?).

[=JoKeR= 0]

Deja vu

BAS addons on MP missions,a crappy load of enemies scattered around the island,MGers,UAZs and BRDMs with MG and T55.

Add a single Black Hawk and try to make your way through them.

Impossible everyone was shoting at you with deadly precision,there was no way to fly through them.You always had to leave the chopper alone miles away from the battlefield and kill them all,then you were able to fly the chopper through the map with no worries...

You guys want this mess again?

[Whargod 0]

As I recall, my buddy who was infantry for a number of years told me that the sqads were trained to deal with incoming helo's by yelling "aircraft action!", firing randomly in the air at it and running for cover.

I don't know if all armies handle it that way, but he said it was best to just grab cover and try to hide, firing in the air at it randomly I think was to keep the chopper moving so it hopefully wouldn't get a fix on them as they tried to escape.

[NoRailgunner 0]

@Ender

In games/movies they might waste ammo on fast flying helicopters but in RL? They will be caught from pilot easily - thermal sights and some day/night filters give a precise target....

Your buddy had an training with some fun or punk'd you <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">...by yelling "aircraft action!", firing randomly in the air at it and running for cover.

[nichevo 2]

that they can fire at airunits so i can recreate some mad militia guys fireing at us choppers with all that they got

Yeah! That's the main reason we'd want AI to shoot helos with small arms fire, right? Cinematic effect!

There's the side issue of it seeming a bit weird when large groups of assault-rifle AI refuse to shoot a chopper when it's low, slow and very close. But we all know that's a limitation of ArmA AI. They don't know what is "low" or "slow", and I'm not even too sure they know "very close".

One could teach the AI about "low", "slow" and "very close", but that sounds like quite a big overhaul. A lot of work.

Realistically about all can be done is change the different weapons' affinity for shooting helos.

And perhaps force AI to fire their weapons when explicitly ordered to do so. Hell -- the AI will shoot their own squad leader if he orders them to do it.

(For this last point, I'm not being entirely serious.) I'd like to see a new behaviour type. Along with "Safe", "Aware", "Combat" etc there should be added one called "Rambo", where the AI will shoot any enemy unit irregardless of reasons why not (weapon is ineffective, friendly units are in the way etc). Just imagine, "ALL, ENGAGE AT WILL. ALL, RAMBO!"