M107 & KSVK anti-materiel

[NaishX 10]

Okay, I didn't read all the posts here. But having read the first couple of posts, I decided to do some testing in the editor.

I set up an empty UAZ on the runway and me 15 meters from it with an M107. I then shot 2 bullets between the headlights into the engine, waited 4-5 seconds and the car blew up. Thinking that maybe the short range to the target was the reason, I redid the test but at larger distances, the results are listed below:

15 meters = 2 hits

150 meters = 2 hits

450 meters = 3 hits

650 meters = 5-6 hits

I only accepted the tests where all the bullets hit the flat surface between the headlights - that is, not the sides of the vehicle, front bumper, wheels, windscreen etc. In tests where all the bullets did not hit that flat surface it could take upwards of 10 bullets from the M107 before the UAZ blew up. Common for all the tests were the fact that it could take 4 seconds and up from the car was hit, till it blew up.

I don't know what is realistic, but I thought I would share my findings anyway.

[max power 21]

Apparently Mr. G-c is our new world emperor, and the only things that matter are the things that matter to him. All hail our new global leader. All hail his irrefutable wisdom!

Let us take this opportunity to re-evaluate our systems of values to become more orthodox, lest we be called newbies. Let us give praise, for once what was hard is now easy. Let us all, regardless of skill level, showhorn in realistic penetration models into existing programs in worship, for Mr. G-c makes it easy.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Max Power

[Hell_Toupee 0]

As i said, i disagree here....

Small realism changes + 1,2 bigger changes like a penetration system with after-effects, etc. would add very very much to the game.

Just buy yourself a copy of Arma1 and try it with ACE-Mod..... believe once played and got used to it, you can't play normal Arma1 or Arma2 anymore.... Its evey single and even simple change which makes the difference in that game.

I played arma with ACE mod, it was improvement but i wouldn't say a huge one.

[Ish 11]

it would be best if cars and stuff didnt blow up.. they dont do it in real life...yeah you might have a gas tank that is low( not diesel) and full of gas pressure, then it will go boom some if you hit the tank.. but nothing else will blow.. then you would have to have ammo inside that went up, but to really blow would have to go at the same time... so explosions = hollywood. The damage models are lame when it comes to that stuff.

Gas tanks don't blow up, that's just Hollywood.. MAYBE if you're using tracer rounds, and are lucky.

[protfl 10]

ksvk or other russian analogue.

well, i dont know how its in arma, but such weapons should harm crew more than vehicle itself, except if it hits the engine.

Edited July 9, 2009 by protfl

[Ish 11]

Well it's the same deal with anti-tank weapons.. In ArmA2 you'll see tanks blow up, while in reality it just makes a hole and kills everyone inside by heat and pressure.

[aurien 10]

Did you even watch the Iraq video I linked with the explosive round?

You do realize that the video you linked was not shot in Iraq? The soldier is wearing woodland camouflage first off. Plus the fact you have no idea what type of rounds he's using or what he's shooting at. I could reupload that video and call it "Army testing computer controlled exploding bullets". Wouldn't mean it's true.

[Cpt Bollock 10]

You do realize that the video you linked was not shot in Iraq? The soldier is wearing woodland camouflage first off. Plus the fact you have no idea what type of rounds he's using or what he's shooting at. I could reupload that video and call it "Army testing computer controlled exploding bullets". Wouldn't mean it's true.

While I cannot proove the video's or wiki links are true,I bought alot more to the table than you to backup my claims.It's a well know fact that the M107 is an anti-vehicle sniper rifle and it doesnt feel like it in game....end of story really.

---------- Post added at 10:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 AM ----------

ksvk or other russian analogue.

well, i dont know how its in arma, but such weapons should harm crew more than vehicle itself, except if it hits the engine.

Your lucky if it even breaks the glass on the window..

---------- Post added at 11:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ----------

Okay, I didn't read all the posts here. But having read the first couple of posts, I decided to do some testing in the editor.

I set up an empty UAZ on the runway and me 15 meters from it with an M107. I then shot 2 bullets between the headlights into the engine, waited 4-5 seconds and the car blew up. Thinking that maybe the short range to the target was the reason, I redid the test but at larger distances, the results are listed below:

15 meters = 2 hits

150 meters = 2 hits

450 meters = 3 hits

650 meters = 5-6 hits

I only accepted the tests where all the bullets hit the flat surface between the headlights - that is, not the sides of the vehicle, front bumper, wheels, windscreen etc. In tests where all the bullets did not hit that flat surface it could take upwards of 10 bullets from the M107 before the UAZ blew up. Common for all the tests were the fact that it could take 4 seconds and up from the car was hit, till it blew up.

I don't know what is realistic, but I thought I would share my findings anyway.

Im not sure what trainer you use but I filmed me doing your test in the editor...guess what 2 mags and nothing

:) Edited July 9, 2009 by Cpt Bollock

[no use for a name 0]

I don't think it has to do with the round (in Arma2); but due to the damage modeling, since not every aspect of a vehicle is modeled accurately i.e. engine blocks, radiators, transmission, fuel tanks, etc. are not modeled. So when you shoot a .50 cal at an engine of a UAZ or a fuel tank on a T-72, it just subtracts hitpoints depending on the round.

Now that said, it would be nice if they could use the hitpoint system more effectively. Say that if the engine area of a UAZ takes a certain amount of damage (like the damage from a .50), then it will be put out of commission; but it will be able to sustain several shots from an M-4.

As for the gas tanks on a T-72, the reason they're exposed and in the rear is so that if they DO take a hit and explode, there's less of a chance for the tank to go up with it, so even if you blow them up the tank will still be combat effective...for a while anyways until it runs out of fuel

Edited July 9, 2009 by No Use For A Name

[Cpt Bollock 10]

I don't think it has to do with the round (in Arma2); but due to the damage modeling, since not every aspect of a vehicle is modeled accurately i.e. engine blocks, radiators, transmission, fuel tanks, etc. are not modeled. So when you shoot a .50 cal at an engine of a UAZ or a fuel tank on a T-72, it just subtracts hitpoints depending on the round.

Now that said, it would be nice if they could use the hitpoint system more effectively. Say that if the engine area of a UAZ takes a certain amount of damage (like the damage from a .50), then it will be put out of commission; but it will be able to sustain several shots from an M-4.

As for the gas tanks on a T-72, the reason they're exposed and in the rear is so that if they DO take a hit and explode, there's less of a chance for the tank to go up with it, so even if you blow them up the tank will still be combat effective...for a while anyways until it runs out of fuel

Yeah I agree... but even after two mags fired into the bonnet you could still drive the UAZ perfectly, although the hit points had dropped to 50%.Im not really saying the game engine should be changed or anything like that, Im just saying that thease rifles should be more effective against light armour.

Im not in the forces or anything im just a mere gamer reading info on the web about the rifles and thier effects on light armour.This thread is more about why take the M108 over a normal sniper rifle,when with a normal sniper rifle you can also carry AT/AA weapons.

[NaishX 10]

---------- Post added at 11:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ----------

Im not sure what trainer you use but I filmed me doing your test in the editor...guess what 2 mags and nothing

:)

Hi

First off, I obviously did not use any trainers for the test.

About your test, you said you did "my test", yet you switched the UAZ with a HMMWV (packed with armor). It is therefore not much of a surprise, that your hits directly at the armor have less effect, than the hits on the UAZ. While I won't take a stand as to whether the M107 does realistic damage as it is now or not, I will however prove, that these vehicles aren't "invulnerable" to M107 fire. I made the short video below using FRAPS, which sadly only allowed me 30 seconds of shooting, so I might have spent a bullet too much on the UAZ (as you can see from the video it takes a while before it blows up/catches fire). In the video I am first entering the vehicle to prove it's starting condition (full health), then I move on to the shooting. When it comes to the HMMWV, I admit it takes more than a couple bullets from the M107 to blow up - if fired directly at its armor. If however (as done in the video) fired, so that the bullet won't have to sink through the armor first, it can be done.

The game is obviously (as already stated) 100% vanilla - only patched up to version 1.02.58134.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8pWR8uJ4cw

(I don't know where the sound went, it was there before the upload - sorry)

On behalf of ArmA 2 being a "simulator" or not, I think it's - as has been mentioned before me - rather expected, that the game isn't 100% equal to real life, since the other simulators out there strifing to do so 1) take longer to develop and 2) focus on one vehicle (Falcon, Black Shark). Of course I would like to see ArmA 2 move further towards the realism barrier, but as of now I beleive there are more important things to fix. :)

[walker 0]

This is a good video of the M107 vs a vehicle and this is without the exploding rounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4Toko3JDEQ&annotation_id=annotation_187125&feature=iv...

Hi all

Anyone else notice it is a kiddy toy, that is being shot?

Kind regards walker

[Guest]

Hi all

Anyone else notice it is a kiddy toy, that is being shot?

Kind regards walker

Thats exactly what i thought, but don't be decieved by the cameras FOV.

Wait until later in the video when he picks up the camera and investigates the wreck ;)

---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------

Here you go, another video that indicates how powerful the gun is.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWH3V6NUx7c&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWH3V6NUx7c&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Cpt Bollock 10]

Hi

First off, I obviously did not use any trainers for the test.

About your test, you said you did "my test", yet you switched the UAZ with a HMMWV (packed with armor). It is therefore not much of a surprise, that your hits directly at the armor have less effect, than the hits on the UAZ. While I won't take a stand as to whether the M107 does realistic damage as it is now or not, I will however prove, that these vehicles aren't "invulnerable" to M107 fire. I made the short video below using FRAPS, which sadly only allowed me 30 seconds of shooting, so I might have spent a bullet too much on the UAZ (as you can see from the video it takes a while before it blows up/catches fire). In the video I am first entering the vehicle to prove it's starting condition (full health), then I move on to the shooting. When it comes to the HMMWV, I admit it takes more than a couple bullets from the M107 to blow up - if fired directly at its armor. If however (as done in the video) fired, so that the bullet won't have to sink through the armor first, it can be done.

The game is obviously (as already stated) 100% vanilla - only patched up to version 1.02.58134.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8pWR8uJ4cw

(I don't know where the sound went, it was there before the upload - sorry)

On behalf of ArmA 2 being a "simulator" or not, I think it's - as has been mentioned before me - rather expected, that the game isn't 100% equal to real life, since the other simulators out there strifing to do so 1) take longer to develop and 2) focus on one vehicle (Falcon, Black Shark). Of course I would like to see ArmA 2 move further towards the realism barrier, but as of now I beleive there are more important things to fix. :)

Dude a UAZ is not a light armoured vehicle..it has as much armour as my Ford Transit van...

---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

Thats exactly what i thought, but don't be decieved by the cameras FOV.

Wait until later in the video when he picks up the camera and investigates the wreck ;)

---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------

Here you go, another video that indicates how powerful the gun is.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWH3V6NUx7c&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWH3V6NUx7c&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

heh yeah if you want see some power check out google .50 cal sniper v taliban(it's too graphic to post)

[nominesine 0]

Dude a UAZ is not a light armoured vehicle..it has as much armour as my Ford Transit van...

Being a former Ford Transit -75 owner as well as an avid UAZ driver I can only say:

:bounce3:

[NaishX 10]

Dude a UAZ is not a light armoured vehicle..it has as much armour as my Ford Transit van...

I don't beleive I ever said the UAZ was a light armored vehicle? I said the HMMWV was more heavily armored compared to the UAZ. :confused:

[Cpt Bollock 10]

I don't beleive I ever said the UAZ was a light armored vehicle? I said the HMMWV was more heavily armored compared to the UAZ. :confused:

Yeah but thease rifles claim to be anti light vehicle/armour

[akd42 10]

heh yeah if you want see some power check out google .50 cal sniper v taliban(it's too graphic to post)

Those are rock chucks (marmots). You still haven't explained how 0.84 grams of explosive blows up a truck.

Yeah but thease rifles claim to be anti light vehicle/armour

Because they fire projectiles capable of piercing light armor, so are capable of doing damage to targets that regular rifle caliber weapons cannot due to inability to penetrate, but this is irrelevant in ArmA as it does not track penetration. If weapon blows up a vehicle in one shot in Arma 2, it will end up blowing up a tank with 5 (where it should be incapable of damaging anything protected by armor).

These are not wonder weapons. They are no different in principle than the anti-tank rifles used by most of the major powers at the beginning of WWII. As in WWII, their great limitations are 1.) there is a limit to the recoil a human can endure and thus an upper limit on their potential to penetrate on the terminal end, 2.) If they do manage to penetrate, little mass and energy is available on the other side of the barrier to due damage to the vehicle or crew, and 3.) they required enormous skill to place shots where they were capable of inflicting critical damage. Consequently, AT rifles were largely abandoned in favor of portable AT weapons that used chemical energy to penetrate and deliver effects to the other side of armor. The value of these large caliber rifles today is more as long range sniper weapons or tools for explosive ordinance disposal than as anti-armor weapons.

Edited July 9, 2009 by akd42

[Cpt Bollock 10]

Those are marmots silly. You still haven't explained how 0.84 grams of explosive blows up a car.

1)I never said what they was I only gave the title of the video so it could be found on google.

2)"The round combines armor-piercing, explosive, and incendiary effects and uses a highly effective pyrotechnically initiated fuze that delays detonation of the main projectile charge until after initial target penetration-moving projectile fragmentation and damage effect inside the target for maximum anti-personnel and fire start effect. While the round can be used in sniper rifles similar to the Barrett M82A1/XM107, it has the equivalent firing power of a 20 mm projectile to include such targets as helicopters, aircraft, light armour vehicles, ships and light fortifications, and can ignite JP4 and JP8 military jet fuel."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk211.htm

3)Go back under your rock:D

[akd42 10]

1)I never said what they was I only gave the title of the video so it could be found on google.

So you are saying that the effect of a varmint rifle on rock chucks is relevant to the discussion?

2)"The round combines armor-piercing, explosive, and incendiary effects and uses a highly effective pyrotechnically initiated fuze that delays detonation of the main projectile charge until after initial target penetration-moving projectile fragmentation and damage effect inside the target for maximum anti-personnel and fire start effect. While the round can be used in sniper rifles similar to the Barrett M82A1/XM107, it has the equivalent firing power of a 20 mm projectile to include such targets as helicopters, aircraft, light armour vehicles, ships and light fortifications, and can ignite JP4 and JP8 military jet fuel."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk211.htm

And still you won't explain how that 0.84 grams of explosive blows up a vehicle. This is a meaningless statement: "it has the equivalent firing power of a 20 mm projectile." "Firing power" is not a real term. 20mm API is capable of more armor penetration (and delivers over 4 grams of incendiary). 20mm HEI carries more explosive. At most you could say the Raufoss round is closer to 20mm than standard .50 cal API in its ability to deliver after effects past light armor.

Muzzle energy for 12.7x99 Raufoss: approx. 18,000 joules

Muzzle energy for 20x102: approx. 54,000 joules

Explosive charge weight for 12.7x99 Raufoss: 0.84 grams

Explosive charge weight for 20x102 M56A3/A4: 10.7 grams

3)Go back under your rock:D

Sorry if I am embarassing you despite your elite google skills.

Edited July 9, 2009 by akd42

[Cpt Bollock 10]

LoL I don't know what you want me to do mate it's there in black & white.I don't claim to of fired one...It's just info from the web about what it's used for, your question about explossives is irrelevant to the topic.

[gatordev 218]

Internet experts quoting from Global Security and Wikipedia... Award winning informational sources, no doubt.

I don't claim to be any kind of ballistics expert nor do I currently have Arma2 (waiting for the US DVD version), but I have operated w/ a M82. I've seen it fired numerous times, as well as what happens when it impacts engine blocks. Let me assure you a standard .50 cal ball round (regardless of whatever happens ingame or on Youtube) doesn't blow anything up. Sometimes it doesn't even hit a critical part of the engine on the first shot, but chances are, by the second shot (and usually the first, to be honest), the motor is inop.

I'm not posting to debate whether Arma models this correctly or not. Like I said, I'm still waiting for the game. I just thought someone here should post an actual fact (albeit anecdotal) rather than quoting wikipedia.