why don't infantry shoot at helicopters?

[wamingo 1]

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.

No, the probability of it happening in the real world is what is irrelevant. ArmA is not about probability, arma is a simulation of a possibility.

If I tell my AI to target a helicopter and FIRE I expect them to bloody fire.

It seems the problem You have is not with small arms shooting at air vehicles, but with airvehicles being too weak in the first place. You may be right there, but this is rather different matter.

[Second 0]

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.

Our army teaches about the same. It's more about suppressing the pilot/gunner than damaging the aircraft. And if aircraft is shot at then usually less than 10 rounds is spent for each rifle, even MGs (not AAMGs) won't be shooting more. How many times is individual squad/platoon expected to meet hostile chopper inside about 200 meters range in modern battlefield with modern and well equiped armies (probability would be something like 0.0001%)

AI shooting aircraft with rifles... Hell no. They would try to hit every chopper inside 400 or so meters (giving away their positions mostly). If chopper presents great danger to themselves or to some other then why not, but in ArmA there's no suppression by default and AI can't make judgementions of that kind very well. And giving player as squadleader ability to orders his men to fire chopper, while other squads can't... To me it's like against OFP/ArmA-rules, but it would come handy sometimes... I don't have opinion in this subject.

[kocrachon 2]

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.

Our army teaches about the same. It's more about suppressing the pilot/gunner than damaging the aircraft. And if aircraft is shot at then usually less than 10 rounds is spent for each rifle, even MGs (not AAMGs) won't be shooting more. How many times is individual squad/platoon expected to meet hostile chopper inside about 200 meters range in modern battlefield with modern and well equiped armies (probability would be something like 0.0001%)

AI shooting aircraft with rifles... Hell no. They would try to hit every chopper inside 400 or so meters (giving away their positions mostly). If chopper presents great danger to themselves or to some other then why not, but in ArmA there's no suppression by default and AI can't make judgementions of that kind very well.

Exactly, key military rule of engagement for most Military units in the world. Do not fire unless fired upon. And that goes double for when you are an infantry unit watching enemy vehicles or aircraft go by. Unless they are going at you, your best bet is to take cover and wait for them to pass.

[dreday 1]

Luciano:

Quote[/b] ]The reason why is because the AI is very simple.  

Your expecting the simple AI to do complex things.  There needs to be lots of changes to the AI before they shoot down choppers with small arms.  

I suppose you must be a real nerd do change these values !

...

I think that these values effect how likely a helicopter is to attack those soldiers, not the other way around.

In any case, I think that what Luciano had meant to say was that the decission on whether or not to engage a helicopter should incorporate a lot of the complex variables in a real life, which is something that the current state of ArmA AI does not simulate very well. I think that we can all agree on that.

Peace,

DreDay

[celery 8]

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.

Our army teaches about the same. It's more about suppressing the pilot/gunner than damaging the aircraft. And if aircraft is shot at then usually less than 10 rounds is spent for each rifle, even MGs (not AAMGs) won't be shooting more. How many times is individual squad/platoon expected to meet hostile chopper inside about 200 meters range in modern battlefield with modern and well equiped armies (probability would be something like 0.0001%)

AI shooting aircraft with rifles... Hell no. They would try to hit every chopper inside 400 or so meters (giving away their positions mostly). If chopper presents great danger to themselves or to some other then why not, but in ArmA there's no suppression by default and AI can't make judgementions of that kind very well.

Exactly, key military rule of engagement for most Military units in the world. Do not fire unless fired upon. And that goes double for when you are an infantry unit watching enemy vehicles or aircraft go by. Unless they are going at you, your best bet is to take cover and wait for them to pass.

A real situation is not as simple as that silly doctrine suggests. If that chopper knows where you are and is coming for you, an abstract advice like "take cover and hold fire" is next to useless, at the most you will give your life away without a fight. I can hover one meter above the ground with a Littlebird right in front of an enemy squad and pick one soldier after another with the minigun and they would do absolutely nothing. You only need to tell me that you would do the same and I will believe you, you are the military professionals afterall.

Like wamingo said differently, a simulation is not about how often a certain situation occurs, but what occurs in that situation.

[frederf 0]

AI firing on helicopters should depend on the context of the situation: their strength, their ammo level, the desperation of the situation, the nature of the air target, etc.

The AI are not this smart and likely never will be. To prevent them from engaging when it's not a smart idea BIS decided to have them engage ever.

And another thing... could you imagine if they did? Let's examine the problems with every man with a 9mm firing at every passing helicopter:

1. Insane AI accuracy

2. Lack of military training for pilots

3. Unrealistically short engagement ranges

4. Unable to command AI to freely fire on ground targets without attacking air

5. AI lacks ammo conservation concepts

6. AI lacks stealth decision making

7. Helicopter damage model is simplistic

[kocrachon 2]

And Like I said in a previous post, unless they are lining up to attack you, you don't engage on them. Where as in this game they would engage on you before you even know they exist.

[ShrubMiK 0]

Alternatively, Celery, here's another analysis of what might happen in such a situation: ground troops lacking suitable weapons to take on the helicopter with reasonable chance of success and expecting to be picked off one by one would panic, drop their weapons, and run away.

Lack of a morale model in the game is just as significant, if not more so, than most of the complaints people come up with. Funnily enough I bet if they implemented something like this the forums would be full of people complaining that "it's stupid how my squad members ran away in that situation, logically they would have stayed to fight and face certian death...just because I wanted them to!"

Or rather than run away they might well take whatever cover they could find and hope to get away with it.

Or they might go all rambo and take on the minigun armed chopper with a toothpick and a spare pair of bootlaces.

Anyway, you know what, I really don't see this as a particularly gamebreaking thing. Yes it would be nice to be able to tell my squad to fire at the chopper, but more often than not it would be a stupid or at least pointless thing to do so...meh.

[wamingo 1]

I don't think anyone's claiming it's gamebreaking. Rather, simply it would be better if the game allowed AI to shoot at helicopters. It would bring them more up to par with players. Agreed?

The people being argued against here are people making reasons for why it shouldn't be implemented. Like, air vehicles are too weak, doesn't happen much in the real world, ai gunners are rubbish at long range, blah blah. Just because the debate is a bit heated doesn't mean we feel the subject is gamebreaking. ok?

[apex_predator 0]

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.

[simba 0]

@ Dreday

I made some testing, you seem to be right mate.

(previous post edited accordingly)

[ebud 18]

In OFP, I swear the only way to get riflemen to target choppers was to make the choppers armor pretty low. Changing the rifleman's unit values or changing the rifle/ammo values wasn't the issue. My memory may be tricking me, but I could swear that was how it was doable.

[simba 0]

^ I'm no config expert

but after Dreday comment,

I searched in the entire weapon,ammo and soldiers cfgvehicles

and found nothing that could set the type of ennemy to engage, you may be right then.

[ebud 18]

Oops, maybe I was thinking about armored vehicles and about back when I was trying to get ai to fire rifles at PBRs.

In the old commented config I saw in the ammo sections

airLock=true;

Looks like thats how and why the machine gunners attacked choppers.

Edit: I'm assuming thats why units with JAM RPG AA fired on aircraft as well. That was always so much fun making a helo insertion and seeing HD AA rpgs fly past

[simba 0]

^ thanks Ebud

this is the right parameter !

if you want all soldiers to attack air targets :

go to your addons folder, unpbo "weapon.pbo" , unrap the config , and add the value "airlock = true ;" in the cfgammo.

yeah those AA rpgs where very atmospheric

[Törni 0]

Have not tested with the new patch, but the infantry is not equal. With Blufor almost nobody fires at choppers while nearly everybody in the Opfor does.

This as it was with 1.05.

EDIT

Quote[/b] ]The reason why is because the AI is very simple.  

Your expecting the simple AI to do complex things.

It sure does a nice job with armor, wheeling around and exposing sides and back to the enemy AT weapons.  

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can easily shoot a littlebird down with a PKM, RPk, or even an AK. If your lucky, you can even shoot an Apache down that way.

In the real world, littlebirds are small and highly maneuverable, very hard to hit. Rarely does one get shot down.

Quote[/b] ]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?

Comparing the armor on the systems of a Blackhawk and comparing the armor on a Vietnam vintage Huey is like comparing a the armor on a T-34 with a T-72.

The Blackhawk is loaded with all kinds of ballistic protection that was designed in from the get-go as a response to the shortcomings of the UH-1 vis a vi small arms fire. It is specifically designed to be highly immune to the effects of small arms fire.

[Balschoiw 0]

Hehe I don´t even want to think about the numerous threads that would arise from AI picking choppers from the sky with their handguns.

I can hear:

1. Damn this sucks ! How am I supposed to get to my mission area ! I always get shot down by a single guy with an AK

2. What the f**** BIS ! My squadmembers open fire on every air vehicle they see and give away our positions !

3. Fix that !

4. Now we need devices to be able to spot infantry in HUD BIS !

5. The AI is going mad ! I can hear them shooting from miles away as they are trying to bring down the Harrier with AK´s

Seriously, not everything that may sound like a good idea for the "players" works with AI and that´s the real issue I see here.

It´s natural that a daring machinegunner will go for some helo-hunting if the combat situation fits, though it´s very dangerous for him and the team he´s with. Imagine a wild horde of AK dudes that go rampant on every air vehicle they see. This is nothing that I would call real. For now it´s cool for me. Equip some Strelas, set skill of guy low and you have a chance to see a flyby, or have machingunner in your teams. For the rest there are the big guns.

[apex_predator 0]

Quote[/b] ]Comparing the armor on the systems of a Blackhawk and comparing the armor on a Vietnam vintage Huey is like comparing a the armor on a T-34 with a T-72.

Oh, I'm sorry did I compare the two? I don't believe I did. My post was solely aimed at the poster who claimed to be a Blackhawk pilot and further claimed that the U.S. Army instructs soldiers not to engage attacking aircraft with small arms.

[Commando84 0]

i think it should be random, i remember ofp had jam project and it that addon pack was a.i soldiers fireing at choppers, but the risc is of course they can run out of ammo..

but i would not like my a,i soldiers to fire at every airctraft or chopper. But i would like to give some a.i soldiers the ability in init line or something when im in the mission editor to set some soldiers that they can fire at airunits so i can recreate some mad militia guys fireing at us choppers with all that they got

[Luciano 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can easily shoot a littlebird down with a PKM, RPk, or even an AK. If your lucky, you can even shoot an Apache down that way.

In the real world, littlebirds are small and highly maneuverable, very hard to hit. Rarely does one get shot down.

Quote[/b] ]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?

Comparing the armor on the systems of a Blackhawk and comparing the armor on a Vietnam vintage Huey is like comparing a the armor on a T-34 with a T-72.

The Blackhawk is loaded with all kinds of ballistic protection that was designed in from the get-go as a response to the shortcomings of the UH-1 vis a vi small arms fire. It is specifically designed to be highly immune to the effects of small arms fire.

What the hell are you tallking about, a few weeks back one was shut down, and a few months back another one was shut down. Pilots and everybody on board died.

Both with small arms fire. 2 lost in a few months isn't rare at all considering mostly contractors use them. Military uses blackhawks mostly...

[Daniel 0]

Quote[/b] ]Comparing the armor on the systems of a Blackhawk and comparing the armor on a Vietnam vintage Huey is like comparing a the armor on a T-34 with a T-72.  

Oh, I'm sorry did I compare the two? I don't believe I did. My post was solely aimed at the poster who claimed to be a Blackhawk pilot and further claimed that the U.S. Army instructs soldiers not to engage attacking aircraft with small arms.

Surely you wouldn't open fire with small arms. You'd get into cover, defalde, hard cover, whatever, and wait for friendly Air or AA assets to deal with the threat. Combined Arms, is what it's all about, using different assets to fill the gaps in your defences. No point pitting infantry against a system designed to easily destroy infantry.

[Daniel 0]

Quote[/b] ]What the hell are you tallking about, a few weeks back one was shut down, and a few months back another one was shut down. Pilots and everybody on board died.

And how exactly does that prove the Blackhawk's armour hasn't improved since Vietnam? As has already been mentioned, choppers are flying tonnes of sorties every day.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]What the hell are you tallking about, a few weeks back one was shut down, and a few months back another one was shut down.  Pilots and everybody on board died.

Both with small arms fire.  2 lost in a few months isn't rare at all considering mostly contractors use them.  Military uses blackhawks mostly...

What the hell are you yaking about?  You cite two examples with zero context and expect us to be impressed when it is apparent you are incapable of correctly assessing your own data?

Yep, out of tens of thousands of sorties flown during that timeframe, we lost two...........two........two.   Granted, that might be a bit worse that the traffic accident fatality rate in the Washington DC metro area for the same timeframe but not by a whole lot.

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.

You know it helps you post if you know what your are talking about before you hit the 'add reply' button.  

There are plenty of websites that expalin the improvements in survivability of the Blackhawk versues the Huey and Google is your friend.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/h-60.htm

Quote[/b] ]The UH-60 was made to fly soldiers into combat. BLACK HAWK has built-in tolerance to small arms fire and most medium-caliber high-explosive projectiles. The aircraft's critical components and systems are armored or redundant to enable it to withstand multiple small arms hits, and its airframe is designed to progressively crush on impact to protect the crew and passengers in a crash. Specifically designed airframe and landing gear features provide a high degree of battlefield survivability.

[dreday 1]

Daniel @ June 14 2007,01:42)]

Quote[/b] ]Comparing the armor on the systems of a Blackhawk and comparing the armor on a Vietnam vintage Huey is like comparing a the armor on a T-34 with a T-72.

Oh, I'm sorry did I compare the two? I don't believe I did. My post was solely aimed at the poster who claimed to be a Blackhawk pilot and further claimed that the U.S. Army instructs soldiers not to engage attacking aircraft with small arms.

Surely you wouldn't open fire with small arms. You'd get into cover, defalde, hard cover, whatever, and wait for friendly Air or AA assets to deal with the threat. Combined Arms, is what it's all about, using different assets to fill the gaps in your defences. No point pitting infantry against a system designed to easily destroy infantry.

In a perfect world you could very well wait for the AA and Air support; but if neither one is available than the infantry would have to engage the helicopters with what they have and that includes the small arms.

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.

Peace,

DreDay