UKF Release: Jackal MWMIK

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Are you chaps working on a Mastif ? (search shows it listed in the UKF addon thread but it will take ages for to search the 32 pages. Your work is just too damn popular. And good.)

You probably should have posted this question in out general discussion thread rather than this one, since it's more relevant there. To answer your question though, Jtec's currently working on a Mastiff (it's coming along quite nicely too).

We appreciate any interest in other projects and don't mind answering the same question a couple of times (as long as it's not about release dates). However this thread is a lot more useful to us if it's only to hear feedback and give responses regarding the Jackal addon; rather than talk about our other work or have other discussions about British kit. It's just to make it easier to keep track of what we need to do. Hope you lot can appreciate this.

So everybody, please feel free to ask us some questions about other addons in t'other thread or in our own forums.

[Mr_Tea 0]

Great work, nice to see UKF stuff in ArmA.

[sk3pt 0]

Great addon ! Had a lot of fun with this one already.

Seems to be some severe view limitations in some positions though...

[AKM 0]

After giving it a good battle test, aside from the bugs already mentioned, may I suggest that the armor levels be increased a bit?

One RPG makes the whole thing blow up.  Also one satchel charge makes the crew bail out....but after a few seconds the entire vehicle explodes and usually kills the crew.  By increasing the armor level a bit it hopefully will cause the crew to bail out without the vehicle exploding after one RPG hit or one satchel charge.

Also if there is a way to make it detonate mines, that would be great, but I understand if that's a game engine limitation.

Oh, one more thing.   I would recommend a different sound on the GMG (automatic grenade launcher) as it sounds like something metalic clanking and not a 40mm DP grenade.  I know its not a Mk19, but I've fired the Mk-19 in real life which uses the same ammunition.  It sounds much different with a nice thump thump thump kinda sound.  The current sound on this I think kinda takes away some of the ambience during a battle. I know a youtube video may have had that sound, but such audio is often very bad depending on the mics in the camera, the position of the microphones, and how the video was recorded (from TV? DVD?) and the file compression used.  All of these factors can badly mangle a sound usually by removing alot of the bass frequencies.  

But it's up to you UKF guys as to whether or not you like the sound.

At any rate, those are my suggestions for improving this wonderful addon.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

From my (admittedly brief) research, in which I was unable to find an armour pattern description for the MWMIK, it would appear that the vehicle's emphasis is on underside blast protection and not ballistic protection: There are several articles expressing concerns about how exposed the crew are to fire (though these complaints are also valid with the Landrover WMIK, and nobody bitches about that, probably because with a Landie you're not under the misimpression that you're driving a BTR-esque machine).

Because BIS screwed the pooch and decided to implement a hitpoints-based armour system, the MWMIK's protection cannot be adequately modelled. I have not found an armour pattern for the MWMIK, as stated, but I doubt that the vehicle incorporates sufficient armour as fitted in the UKF model to survive a PG-7 or PG-7L hit, let alone a -7V or -7VR. I doubt that the vehicle is protected against 12.7, let alone 14.5, HMG fire. At a weight of 6.6 tons and given its armaments, crew load, and dimensions, I suspect it is proof against most small arms fire but no more than that.

[miles teg 1]

I understand...although surprisingly, many light armor vehicles survive RPG hits (although often with casualties). As I'm sure you know, the HEAT rounds basically shoot a small funnel of high explosives and molten metal through the armor. If you're not in the way of the explosive funnel and are wearing adequate body armor and helmet, such hits are survivable. Catestrophic explosions generally occure when the RPG comes into contact with stored munitions. Generally speaking, most RPG hits on light armor vehicles disable the vehicle and injure/kill crew. For that reason I thought it would be more realistic to see the crew bail out after one hit rather then the vehicle exploding immediately after they bail out.

However my main concern is from the perspective of a mission maker. I like to script IED's using satchel charges in Iraq and Afghanistan missions. In the case of this addon however, the satchel charge usually destroys the vehicle in the same manner as one RPG hit (crew bail, then vehicle explodes soon afterwards killing crew).

As the jackal is designed to protect against IED's and land mines, higher armor values would be, I think, a bit more realistic for missions where other vehicles could pick up survivors. (That reminds me, I didn't test whether or not the Jackal could carry extra passengers).

At any rate, I just think that all things considered, it would make for more realistic missions if one RPG or satchel charge just disabled the vehicle and caused the crew to bail out.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[AKM 0]

I agree. The Jackal carries four, by the way; crew of three and one sitting on the seat the topgunner would presumably use when it's time for "topcover down."

Now, because BIS borked the coding for armour protection, there's not much UKF can do. If they increase it to the point where a simulated IED causes the crew to bail, they also make it so that the vehicle is far more durable than the real life equivalent when faced with ballistic threats in ArmA like the DShK. The coding is also borked in that wheeled vehicles (to my knowledge) can't trigger antitank landmines, typically with a fuze point of 150-200kg.

My recommendation would be counter to yours; to leave it as is, but that's simply because if the vehicle can absorb more than 50 rounds of 12.7x108mm (DShK fire), it's less realistic than the vehicle not surviving an RPG hit* or a IED blast.**

* - Or fuel, particularly petrol. Some studies have been done indicating that diesel fuel is safer than petrol, this comes as no surprise to anybody who's worked with both. The MWMIK is carrying jerrycans that are presumably laden with fuel, rather than water.

** - AQT and the fighters in Iraq have demonstrated a marked tendency to adapt IEDs to use more explosives and simply "brute force" the finessed mine protection/underside blast protection schemes in use with a large number of our vehicles today. The CF in Kandahar province (AFGH) has had incidents in which AQT decide to use upwards of 500kg of explosive to knock out RG-31 Nyalas. Given this, one could surmise that your insurgents in your missions are also using more powerful IEDs. It's one scenario workaround to a engine limitation that comes to mind.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Thanks for making Jackals!! Had some great time playing with UKF Addons in OFP.  

Miles those are more off-road patrol vehicles which are able provide highly effective fire-support. The main defenses of the Jackal are its agility and mobility.

I dont think that the crew could survive RPG/IED attacks without beeing (heavily) injured.

[MehMan 0]

Thanks for making Jackals!! Had some great time playing with UKF Addons in OFP.  

Miles those are more off-road patrol vehicles which are able provide highly effective fire-support. The main defenses of the Jackal are its agility and mobility.

I dont think that the crew could survive RPG/IED attacks without beeing (heavily) injured.

They're built anti mine and IED. And in the latest Ross Kemp show he's on patrol with the jackals and one of the crew mentions that they drove over a mine and the three onboard survived without any major injuries. So I think they can hold up even though the appearance doesn't make look so.

[miles teg 1]

AKM, according to the video, the jerry cans are a mixture of water and fuel.  However, yeah fuel, if it doesn't explode, definitely can catch fire.   Point taken regarding the DShK.  I rarely put enemy DShK in missions because, as you said, they chew up humvees and usually from great distances.   However they don't do much to BIS armored light armored vehicles.  I don't remember any BIS M113's ever being destroyed by DShK's in ArmA.  As you said, that's not realistic but we have these stupid game limitations.

So it's up to UKF.  Both current and increased armor settings have their drawbacks.  

It's interesting that I haven't heard too much about the Taliban using the DShK's much.   Have you heard of any instances where they destroyed NATO light armor in Afghanistan with 12.7mm MG's?  That would be interesting but also a worrisome development.   But if not, and if the DShK is rarely encountered, then it might be better to increase armor levels a bit.  

Anyways, you make good points.  Really it's just up to UKF and the types of missions that the UKF mission makers want to make.  If they're just going to do raiding missions then its not a big deal until they get close and start getting RPG hits in which case they'll suffer heavy casualties.  (On ACE its crazy how far away they shoot RPG's accurately).

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg

[da12thMonkey 1943]

As the jackal is designed to protect against IED's and land mines, higher armor values would be, I think, a bit more realistic for missions where other vehicles could pick up survivors. (That reminds me, I didn't test whether or not the Jackal could carry extra passengers).  

As AKM pointed out, in order for it to survive without exploding, it requires a very high armour value. I seem to remember our first few betas being a bit tougher and not exploding following RPG hits, but by the same measure you could unload around 400 rounds of .50 cal into the vehicles before they would blow up. I remember thinking that was a bit much back then.

Jackal wasn't really 'designed' with true mine and IED protection like say an MRAP. It simply contains some design features which mean is offers a higher degree of survivability to the crew than say a Land Rover. Any IED protection offered by the vehicle is likely down to deflection of explosive force, rather than preventing penetration of shaped charges.

Obviously there will be certain mines that the Jackal will take in its stride, but there will always be the threat of IEDs big enough to destroy vehicles of any type (even MBTs). I'm aware of there already being at least four fatalities from an IED attacks on Jackals in its short service. It is by no means a solution to the IED threat, so I don't think it's too unreasonable to be able to destroy it with satchel charges in ArmA.

I believe it's also important in a game scenario that people playing as OPFOR are capable of destroying the vehicle and registering the kill without expending too much ammo. The fact that the crew can in some cases survive such attacks doesn't make it feel too weak to people crewing it. The excellent visibility from the vehicle should be the key factor in surviving an ambush in ArmA; from spotting the enemy quickly and engaging them, rather than the vehicle's ability to take the first RPG hit and plow though the contact before locating the enemy.

I agree. The Jackal carries four, by the way; crew of three and one sitting on the seat the topgunner would presumably use when it's time for "topcover down."

Correct.

Quote[/b] ]

Or fuel, particularly petrol. Some studies have been done indicating that diesel fuel is safer than petrol, this comes as no surprise to anybody who's worked with both. The MWMIK is carrying jerrycans that are presumably laden with fuel, rather than water.

Almost all British military vehicles, including Jackal run on diesel (there are literally only a handful that are petrol powered now). The high ignition temperature of diesel was a factor in the 'dieselisation' of British vehicles from the 1980s onward.

IIRC the jerry cans are stored such that there are cans carrying water down one side and diesel down the other.

[AKM 0]

Miles Teg:

I've run a couple of hit and run operations with the MWMIK now and the key thing is to start channelling 8th Army's 11th Hussars Regiment*: Drive in blatting everything, wheel away about 500m away from the enemy, and dart off into the distance cackling with glee while the sole enemy survivor stands there looking around completely bewildered wondering what the Hell just happened.

* - Bonus points if you fully understand the reference. Bonus points to be awarded in the form of a virtual chocolate chip cookie.

HMGs were originally devised as an anti-armour weapon. They perform acceptably in that role but they've been around for so long now that practically every combat vehicle of note has at least partial protection from 12.7mm fire. The big one is getting shot at by KPVs, the Russian KPV and KPV-T are quite effective weapons in 14.5mm. Had the BRG-15 been developed it would be The Stick to measure everything else against. Most combat NATO vehicles have 100% protection against 12.7x108mm and at least partial protection against 14.5mm.

AQT has used DShK and NSV in antiaircraft applications. The 2,430m shot taken by a Canadian sniper was made to kill the gunner of a HMG. I am sure that they've been lit off against our troops and they've probably done some damage, but to my knowledge no Canadian vehicle has been knocked out by HMG fire. Machinegunnery is not "point and click" simple if you want to get good results, especially against people trained to the standards that Canadian and British soldiers are. HMGs are widely distributed amongst the qalas (walled compounds), as are ZU-23-2s and similar antiaircraft weapons. I met a CF recce trooper from the Lord Strathconas who was kind enough to explain to me the lineage of an AGS-17 that they had captured in Afghanistan, and the four years it took to get it from their headquarters ("Mascot Gun") to the Military Museum in Alberta. While not an HMG, the AGS-17 is a good example of the kind of thing that farmers often have sitting in their back rooms just for shits and giggles.

Da12thMonkey:

Quote[/b] ]

Jackal wasn't really 'designed' with true mine and IED protection like say an MRAP. It simply contains some design features which mean is offers a higher degree of survivability to the crew than say a Land Rover. Any IED protection offered by the vehicle is likely down to deflection of explosive force, rather than preventing penetration of shaped charges.

Obviously there will be certain mines that the Jackal will take in its stride, but there will always be the threat of IEDs big enough to destroy vehicles of any type (even MBTs). I'm aware of there already being at least four fatalities from an IED attacks on Jackals in its short service. It is by no means a solution to the IED threat, so I don't think it's too unreasonable to be able to destroy it with satchel charges in ArmA.

I believe it's also important in a game scenario that people playing as OPFOR are capable of destroying the vehicle and registering the kill without expending too much ammo. The fact that the crew can in some cases survive such attacks doesn't make it feel too weak to people crewing it. The excellent visibility from the vehicle should be the key factor in surviving an ambush in ArmA; from spotting the enemy quickly and engaging them, rather than the vehicle's ability to take the first RPG hit and plow though the contact before locating the enemy.

Certainly. Regarding antitank mine and underside blast protection, I would expect that the shaping and underside plating fitted is sufficient to deal with the most common AT mines and probably rigged 82mm mortar bombs as well, a common IED size. EDIT: I should point out that most AT mines until fairly recently (mid 1960s, I think) operated on blast/fragmentation principles, not shaped charge penetration of the underside protection. I recall there being at least two ATMs that use CE principles to destroy the target.

My understanding of the MWMIK's purpose is to be a WMIK with better mobility, that's it. If I had an armour pattern for the vehicle I could explain in some detail what kind of threats the vehicle can deal with.

The vehicle is clearly designed to provide some underside protection as has always been mentioned, but protection from ballistic threats is clearly second priority: crew is fully exposed, vehicle hull shields occupants from underside blasts but larger ones will cause overpressures and spalling regardless of this shaping, or if a blast happens adjacent - not underneath - to the vehicle. This would account for the number of fatalities mentioned, caused by IED.

Quote[/b] ]Almost all British military vehicles, including Jackal run on diesel (there are literally only a handful that are petrol powered now). The high ignition temperature of diesel was a factor in the 'dieselisation' of British vehicles from the 1980s onward.

IIRC the jerry cans are stored such that there are cans carrying water down one side and diesel down the other.

I recall a study done where diesel was stated to provide a measure of protection against CE penetration. There are merits to this, and the fact that it is less volatile than petrol certainly helps things. I am surprised that the BA doesn't mark jerrycans with a white stripe for example (DAK did this during WWII) to indicate "Water Only" and instead relies on left/right racking. Good detail though, I will have to remember that.

[Kerry 0]

beautifull machine!

have fun with these in the Desrt Wasteland, with Taliban.

Thanks man

[Messiah 2]

Wow, a lot to take in in one day. Lets try and get some answers (although a huge thanks to AKM who seems to understand the mentality between both of the use of the vehicle and why certain decisions have been made).

@Sounds - The sound is accurate from the firing point perspective, I've researched many videos and taken everything I can on the subject, and the metalic clunk is all your hear as the gunner. We all know by now that the arma sound system is shoddy at best, and we can't simulate the different sounds you hear from different locations. I'll experiment with adding a slightly muted bang sound over the clunk, but I've worked on the view that its the player who's manning the weapon who is the priority, not the one being blown up.

@Armour - Believe it or not, we don't just pick armour values out of thin air, there's been a great deal of experimentation with the jackals (The first build was this time last year if that gives any indication) and the values we've come up with are as close as we can get with the absurd hit point armour. An RPG can do several things to a Jackal, it can glance off, it can destroy it, it can be a dud, it can hit an area that doesn't affect the crew or mechanics, it can kill the crew out right and leave the vehicle functioning.

In short, unless BIS do something about the very poor armour simulation, you're stuck with what you've got. In testing, an RPG strike gives you a posibility of bailing out, which adds that random factor. The higher armour value against 50cal rounds is somewhat compensated by the fact that an open cab means that the crew are likely to be dead far before the magic hitpoint number is reached. The fact that you're simulating an IED with a satchel charge, which can take out a T72 in game makes me wonder what sort of armour values you want for a light vehicle such as the jackal? Use a different mution to simulate the IED, problem solved. I hardly see it being a problem with the Jackals if they can't survive a munition that can destroy an MBT.

Using some solid figures to explain the situation. A jackal has 600 hit points, and RPG can do either 500 or 600 depending on the warhead loaded, if its already sustained damage from both wear and tear bumping into stuff, or incoming fire, then of course its going to have less chance to survive. A satchel charge does 1200 hit points of damage. If you wanted the jackal to survive both an rpg hit and a satchel hit with a crew bail out, the jackal hitpoints would have to be 1300. Thats more than an abrams. See the problem?

These are not MRAP vehicles, they are not designed to take a full barage of RPG strikes. The missions we had in mind are exactly those they undertake out in ghaners. Watch the video posted before, Jackals are out and about in the wilderness, away from marked roads that can be easily IED'd, and picking and choosing their targets. If you do the same, you've be amazed how durable they are.

if ACE wishes to make super accurate RPG gunners, so be it, thats their perogative. Watch any video of the british fighting in ghaners, and just watch the number of times the RPG's miss by a country mile.

@Jerry cans - I was somewhat lazy and only modeled fuel cans, but as far as I recall the actual shape and paterning on the jerry cans for water and diesel are different.

I think da12th has explained our standpoint better than I could, but I know its always nice to hear how decisions came about. Please also bear in mind that every aspect of the vehicle has also been under the eyes of our advisors, one of whom have been playing around with these vehicles in the real world. If he's satisfied everything is how it should be, I trust he knows what he's talking about and leave it as is. Nothing is release that the advisors disagree with, as there'd be little point in having advisors then.

[Pathy 0]

UKF Jackals are already coded in a way to make them specifically anti mine proof....

....they don't set mines off when they drive over them

Edit: On a related note, poor armour simulation is one of the things holding up the Chally - making it able to take the 70 or 80 odd RPGs it is reported combat proven to be able to take means that ingame, it will also be able to take 30 odd sabot rounds, as penetration isn't modelled. It's a bitch that BIS don't seem to care about penetration on vehicles for ArmA2 either (from what i've heard) so we're left with trying to come to an acceptable balance (which I think I have). The Challys armour will be an even more interesting discussion I predict, and i'm fully expecting tons of disagreement. Thats for another topic, very very soon.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I am surprised that the BA doesn't mark jerrycans with a white stripe for example (DAK did this during WWII) to indicate "Water Only" and instead relies on left/right racking. Good detail though, I will have to remember that.

Water jerry cans are black and made of plastic (and have 'WATER' embossed on them), fuel ones are green and I think are still made of metal.

I imagine the the left/right thing merely helps to locate them more intuitively (i.e if it's dark).

I think we've only stuck water jerry cans on the Jackal: they're a minor detail so I didn't bother making a fuss over it to Messiah, (I'm sure he'll think that's a first, considering some of the shit I've nagged him about in the past) but it has the benefit of only loading one texture panel for their proxies.

[miles teg 1]

Thank you Messiah for explaining the decision making process.    I guess the reason why I was perplexed was because I made a IED ambush mission with the ACE mod where I used their Strykers.  The crew jumped out after the satchel charges went off and the vehicles did not blow up.  I guess their is a setting in the config to disable them from exploding?  Or maybe it depends on what BIS class of vehicles they are dependent on (I'm assuming the BIS strykers)?   I don't know but I'm guessing that is the reason.  

I know you guys are not building strykers ( a totally different beast) but I'm just explaining that it is possible.  But anyways... no big deal.

If there is a way to keep them from exploding, that would be nice.   But if the real life Jackal operators are happy with it, then I guess that's good enough for me.  I like using the satchels because I have the Taliban guys actually dropping them in the cutscene video I made in the mission.  

But I suppose I can leave that part out and just camcreate a smaller shell or a few handgrenades via a trigger.

Regarding the sound, if every video has the same sound on the GMG, then maybe that thing has some sort of silencer on it??? I'm familiar with the Mk19 but not the GMG. I know the Mk19 sounds very different on different videos. But if the GMG sounds the same on all the videos...well then I guess that's how it sounds especially if your advisors also agree it is realistic sounding. That is very interesting.

Oh...and yeah I need to beg ACE to reduce their insane RPG firing distances and accuracy. That would make missions in ACE with the Jackal MUCH more enjoyable.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[AKM 0]

Both the HK GMG and American Mk.19 have muzzle brakes installed by default. This helps attenuate some of the recoil forces at the cost of making the weapon louder and increasing muzzle blast. The plus is that with a muzzle brake you can directionalize the muzzle blast.

Major difference between firing, say, a SA Vz.58P (just to use an example I'm familiar with) and a GMG is that when you're blatting with an assault rifle you've generally got it shouldered. When you're on the GMG, you've got the weapon about an arm's length away from you and you're observing fall of shot, while firing from well behind the receiver. By comparison, when I've got the Vz. shouldered the receiver cover is a few centimeters away from my cheekbone. In addition, I've not fired the 58P from a vehicle, and I don't think we static-mount the GMG anywheres, all of ours seem to be fitted to vehicles. I could easily be wrong here, the media don't exactly go around photographing our defensive emplacements and fuck knows I'd be pissed off if they did. The point from that is: the engine noise and other ambient sounds (get two MWMIKs bouncing cross country while return fire snaps past you and the other MWMIK is lighting off its .50 calibre, sounds fucking nice) may very well be masking the 'thump-boom' of the GMG firing. The odd noise behind the mechanism 'clanking' is probably notable to the firer just because it isn't thump-boom in nature and thus sounds unusual, thus he notices it more.

Again another explanation for why things may be the way they are. I would still recommend adjusting the dB value, as it would appear that doing so changes the distance at which the report can be heard, and if you're getting lit up by a GMG from the better part of a klick or more out you may hear a soft thudding a few seconds after the gunner fires at you, but you'd hardly hear the action.

[Messiah 2]

Sound db has been adjusted now, and will be fixed once the Chally 2's are released (we'll update ukf_shared). Other 'problems' will be fixed in the next version which will be a little further away (possible with some extras too, not sure)

[Onebitlink 0]

Reference Jerry cans, Da12th is correct - water down oneside diesel down the other - this is to prevent  people drinking diesel at night*.

* A joke of course before some smart arse tells us all the Water ones are plastic and the fuel ones are metal (looks at Da12th).

[Onebitlink 0]

Oh and the GMG - yes, that is what they sounds like except of course the bassy "thump" that you feel in your ear that comes with weapons fire that games can't really simulate.

[AKM 0]

I for one volunteer to sit on someone's monitor slapping them in the side of the head every time they take a shot at something. Especially if that someone is the guy who decided the hitpoints based armour system was acceptable for a game whose emphasis is on realism.

[Onebitlink 0]

I for one volunteer to sit on someone's monitor slapping them in the side of the head every time they take a shot at something. Especially if that someone is the guy who decided the hitpoints based armour system was acceptable for a game whose emphasis is on realism.

Yeah I'd probably volunteer for that too.

[cjph 0]

Thanks for this vehicle - I set up the three desert variants in a squad (with me commanding from the rear of one) to clear Opterex's Afghan village of a number of randomly placed Taliban squads (without ACE) - I have to say this is an awesome piece of work and patrolling around I was dumbstruck at how well they fitted in and looked the dogs in column formation entering the village with the dust being kicked up . . .

I noticed a couple of very minor things for feedback - I tried switching vehicles and could not always enter a different vehicle, for example to take over for an injured soldier, apparently if there was any damage to the vehicle. The other was that on one vehicle (can't remember which one) when looking forward from the main gun position the front gunner appears to be sitting in the lap of the driver ! I got out and checked and they were definately in the right seats, side by side.

Keep em coming !

cjph

[Messiah 2]

gunner in the lap of the driver isn't a bug, its a limitation. To traverse your first person view point with the front gun, you need to be attached to the traverse mechanism, and this ends up placing you in the drivers lap. Nothing to be done about that.

On the normal lods the front gunner isn't attached and the gun traverses free of the gunner, on the 'internal' views, he's attached to let you follow where the gun is pointing.

cheers for the feedback and kind words, always appreciated.

[Pathy 0]

Yeah, the traverse is an 'either - or' problem; You either do it one way and gimp the commander (on GPMG), or you do it another way and have to put up with the commander swinging out into the driver. Pretty annoying at times, but unfortunately something we cannot 'fix' without going to the other option, wherein the gun rotates, the commander stays put, but as a result, you can't really see where you're aiming it. We (obviously) felt the method we went with was best.

Blame BIS