BIS: It's already time to FIX the M136!!!

[kklownboy 43]

Like the subject says and anyone who have played ArmA2 even for a bit can realise that the M136 in ArmA2 is way UNDERpowered!

Gezzz, in ArmA2 even the RPG-18 is more effective against armour than the M136 -> For example the RPG-18 is able to destroy a BMP-3 with a single hit while the M136 can hardly "scratch a BMP-3 paint" with a single shot!

I not sure what game your are playing, but i just got out of the editor, using 1.05, and 1.05beta, And the M136 does the same amount of damage(a lil more actually) as the RPG18.

...

Your wrong. M136 is fine if anything the RPG18 is to strong... BMP3 was made noneffective for AI on any Rear, Side shot. And frontal shots ,70% of the time destroyed the main gun, and any shot after BMP3 was toast. On the T90s they where the same on damage with the M136 having a bit more "color" on simular hits.:rolleyes2: Edited February 8, 2010 by kklownboy

[Binkowski 26]

Haters gonna hate.

[kklownboy 43]

Haters gonna hate.

One speaking about them selves... The M136 is no different than the RPG18 and both "kill" a BMP3. Just the truth.

[Binkowski 26]

Well yeah, I did a test. Had it ready to post. M136 is actually more effective than the RPG18. Takes two hits from both to completely "kill" a BMP3, to disable. It takes one from an M136. One shot from an RPG18 will not disable a BMP3 unless you hit it in the right area (track, or turret). Btw, wasn't talking about you. ;).

[suhsjake 1]

I would like to explain to the BIS community that small AT disposable missiles are not supposed to kill a tank or APC. The M136 is meant to take out light vehicles and light APCs. You people are actually using the wrong techniques on how to use the M136 and RPG-18. You are supposed to be aiming for the tracks and engine block to achieve a "mobility kill" or try to get a 90 degree square on shot and hope for the best. I have played ArmA long enough to realize that most ArmA players use the M136 and RPG-18 wrong.

I would also like to point out that it is not the job of the infantry (unless you are on a Javelin Team) to take on Armor. The infantry does not like taking on armor, we would rather call for fires, CAS, or armor support to knock out tanks.

Edited February 9, 2010 by suhsjake

[Guest]

I would like to explain to the BIS community that small AT disposable missiles are not supposed to kill a tank or APC. The M136 is meant to take out light vehicles and light APCs. You people are actually using the wrong techniques on how to use the M136 and RPG-18. You are supposed to be aiming for the tracks and engine block to achieve a "mobility kill" or try to get a 90 degree square on shot and hope for the best. I have played ArmA long enough to realize that most ArmA players use the M136 and RPG-18 wrong.

I would also like to point out that it is not the job of the infantry (unless you are on a Javelin Team) to take on Armor. The infantry does not like taking on armor, we would rather call for fires, CAS, or armor support to knock out tanks.

Quote From Truth.

[-Total- 0]

Very much the truth.

[Beagle 684]

Oh by the way, I just remember a snippet from the "ZDV 3/11 Gefechtsdienst aller Truppen" regarding the Panzerfaust....simply dont attack a Tank alone...per tank there should be at least two shooters firing from two different angles...if you are alone...you simply dont attack a MBT.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Beagle

[TangoRomeo 10]

I would like to explain to the BIS community that small AT disposable missiles are not supposed to kill a tank or APC.

When writing "killing a tank" you are probably referring to a catastrophic kill - if so, wouldn´t this primarily depend on hit location, given the round succeeds to penetrate?

See : The Chechnya Experience

....simply dont attack a Tank alone...

.

[76 0]

no. Ace also does not anything right, it just overcomplicates things that are automized sinde the 80s to make the game harder, not more realistic.

Atgm autotracking for example...ace2 just made them saclos like in the 70s.

+1

well let's turn that question around, with the talented programmers who made the game available, is it so hard to just alter a couple of launchers?

I will admit that i really have no idea what amount of work it requires, but you make it seem as if it's somehow easy and a quick task for a modder, but hard and time consuming for bi programmer. Besides, it's a balance request, nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head and they're probably just glad people bring up things they can fix in upcoming patches. The fact that we buy the game and reccommend it to others is their reward.

+1

[NoRailgunner 0]

Another annoying fact is that AI still use AT weapons against one single unit... I mean its funny for the first two or three times but after this is simply annoying and ammo wasting.

The AI bug switching from rifle-to-launcher-and-back is still there.

Possible solution or idea:

- let the AI shoot only on infantry if they have fragmentation ammo loaded eg OG-7

- implement/add AI knowledge for Mobility kill, Firepower kill, Mission kill and Catastrophic kill.

Perhaps more ideas to find a solution will be better instead of bickering?

[suhsjake 1]

When writing "killing a tank" you are probably referring to a catastrophic kill - if so, wouldn´t this primarily depend on hit location, given the round succeeds to penetrate?

See : The Chechnya Experience

Very true mate. A catastrophic kill is very unlikely though unless you are at that 90 degree angle and I wouldn't personally try to achieve a kill that way. That is why we are trained to aim for the tracks or the engine compartment (that is why you see a RPG cage on the M1A2 Tusk Rear).

Its also kind of funny though how people think becuase Wikipedia says the AT4 can penetrate 400mm of RHA, but the way the companies test it, is by shooting at a steel block "representing" a vehicle, with the launcher perpendicular and at the proper range.

The battlefield is not a laboratory and said conditions above do not exist. After shooting an AT4 while in training, its kind of disheartening to see it ricochet off a T-55 into the woods.

[HyperU2 11]

Another annoying fact is that AI still use AT weapons against one single unit... I mean its funny for the first two or three times but after this is simply annoying and ammo wasting.

The AI bug switching from rifle-to-launcher-and-back is still there.

Possible solution or idea:

- let the AI shoot only on infantry if they have fragmentation ammo loaded eg OG-7

- implement/add AI knowledge for Mobility kill, Firepower kill, Mission kill and Catastrophic kill.

Perhaps more ideas to find a solution will be better instead of bickering?

I tend to hate that but I had an AI with a SMAW save my ass against a sniper a few days ago while the rest of my squad just wasted bullets. It was very appropriate usage.

[ricnunes 0]

Well yeah, I did a test. Had it ready to post. M136 is actually more effective than the RPG18. Takes two hits from both to completely "kill" a BMP3, to disable. It takes one from an M136. One shot from an RPG18 will not disable a BMP3 unless you hit it in the right area (track, or turret). Btw, wasn't talking about you. ;).

Nope, you'll totally and completly wrong, I'm affraid! I don't know what install of ArmA2 you have or if you have the same game as I do or even if or what addons you're using but in my case I had several situations where I fired against an enemy BMP-3 with a M136 and the BMP-3 continued fully functional while in similar situations with the RPG-18 the BMP-3 was destroyed!

And more even, I did the following test in the editor with ArmA2 patched to 1.05 and absolutelly NO ADDONS whatsoever! The test in the editor included me as a soldier (first armed with a M136 and then with a RPG-18) 70 meters behind a BMP-3 and the results were:

- First test: Using the M136, I fired against the BMP-3 and there was no critical damage to the BMP-3 and the final result was the BMP-3 turning it's turret towards me and killing me.

- Second test: Using the RGP-18, I fired from the exact position as in the first test and once the RPG-18 hit the BMP-3, the BMP-3 crew bailed out and a second latter the BMP-3 EXPLODED!!

This test was confirmed and repeated THREE TIMES in the ROW with ALWAYS the exact same results!

Please make sure when testing that you DO NOT USE any mods or addons!

So with these tests of mine I stand with what I said in my first post!

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------

Its also kind of funny though how people think becuase Wikipedia says the AT4 can penetrate 400mm of RHA, but the way the companies test it, is by shooting at a steel block "representing" a vehicle, with the launcher perpendicular and at the proper range.

You completly and totally missed my point:

The penetration values were used as REFERENCE VALUES only to show that IN REAL LIFE the M136 as BIGGER penetrating capability (and more powerfull) than the RPG-18.

BESIDES, I'm not even saying that the M136 should or not destroy a BMP-3 for example. What I'm saying is that the RPG-18 MUST NOT be more powerfull than a M136 (in fact the RPG-18 must be CONSIDERABLY LESS powerfull than the M136) but in ArmA2 the RGP-18 is in fact MUCH more powerfull than a M136!

[Guest]

Tests complete.

All tests carried out against empty vehicles so damage can be analyzed. Catastrophic means the ultimate damage, whilst minor means the least. No mods used.

[color="Red"][b][font="Arial Black"]M136[/font][/b][/color]
[b]BMP-3[/b] - Shoot the rear - Catastrophic Kill
[b]T-72[/b] - Shoot the rear - Minimal Damage, Speed Reduced
[b]T-72[/b] - Shoot the tracks - Major Maneuverability Impact
[b]T-72[/b] - Shoot the front - Minor Turret and Speed Damage

[color="Blue"][b][font="Arial Black"]RPG-7[/font][/b][/color]
[b]BMP-3[/b] - Shoot the rear - Catastrophic Kill
[b]T-72[/b] - Shoot the rear - Minimal Damage, Speed reduced
[b]T-72[/b] - Shoot the tracks - Catastrophic Maneuverability Impact
[b]T-72[/b] - Shoot the front - Minor Turret Damage

Please take note how neither the RPG-7 or the M136 are classed under "AT Specialist".

Edited February 9, 2010 by Guest
Spelling.

[suhsjake 1]

By chance, what was the range used to test?

[kklownboy 43]

less than 100m

[Guest]

I tested at all different ranges, the closest I got was about 100m, the furthest was about 3 quarters of the utes runway. Both weapons have very similar results.

[slatts 1978]

remember,its not the size of the launcher its what it fires :P

kinda like the male reproductive organs,its not how big but what it fires :D

but in this case i agree the AT-4 should be more powerfull

[Beagle 684]

I tested at all different ranges, the closest I got was about 100m, the furthest was about 3 quarters of the utes runway. Both weapons have very similar results.

range does not matter with chemical energy warheads...and ArmA II game engine reflects this somewhat.

[Guest]

range does not matter with chemical energy warheads...and ArmA II game engine reflects this somewhat.

Yep I was 99% sure of that too, but as I couldn't be bothered to look it up and confirm, i didn't say anything xD

[ricnunes 0]

Ok, I did some more tests against both AI controlled BMP-3 and empty BMP-3 firing both the M136 and the RPG-18 at a range of 80 meters and all firing was made from behind the BMP-3.

In the first "round of tests":

1- First by shooting the RGP-18 directly against the rear part of the BMP-3 and the result was that the BMP-3 exploded. Several tries were made and all confirmed this!

2- Then by shooting the M136 directly against the rear part of the BMP-3 and the result was that the BMP-3 also exploded but it took considerably longer to explode. Several tries were made and all confirmed this!

The next round of test was made in the same firing position but instead of shooting the missile directly into the rear part of the BMP-3, the shots were aimed to the rear part of the BMP-3 turret, and the results were:

3- When shooting the RGP-18 against the rear part of the BMP-3 TURRET the result was that the BMP-3 exploded. Several tries were made and all confirmed this!

4- When shooting the M136 against the rear part of the BMP-3 TURRET the result was that the BMP-3 DID NOT explode. While there was visible turret damage the crewed BMP-3 was able to turn it's turret against the player and shot back, which confirms that the BMP-3 continues to be operational in this case. Several tries were made and all confirmed this!

This I think, clearly confirms that the RPG-18 is in fact more powerfull than the M136 in ArmA2.

But please notice that even if the RPG-18 has the SAME destructive level as the M136 in ArmA2 (which it doesn't - look at my tests) this would NOT BE REALISTIC! The M136 is much more more powerfull than the RPG-18.

BTW, The real life western counterpart (in terms of performance) of the RPG-18 isn't the M136 but is instead the M72 LAW (which is also and obviously less powerfull than the M136)! I hope that this clears this issue a bit more...

[Guest]

Hmm, I did all my tests with the RPG-7. It falls under the exact same category as an M136 and also the RPG-18.

I think what you are seeing here is balance. It wouldn't be right if the US had a smaw, Javelin and an M136, and the Russians are just left with some lousy RPG's. Maybe BIS will patch it, but it seems pretty normal to me.

The SMAW is able to fire multiple rounds, does twice the damage as an M136, and the russians have some RPG's. Seems fair to me, in terms of balance.

(So you are correct, its unrealistic, but it is very balanced)

[max power 21]

Testing these things on troop carriers in this game is a little tricky. Back in ArmA 1, I think BIS decided to make APCs more survivable. Both of those rockets have enough penetrating power to get through the armour of those vehicles 12 times over IRL. Although penetrations don't = an exploding APC, I don't think that there ought to be much difference in effectiveness at that degree of overkill.

[Guest]

Yup, exactly. I mean, an rpg goes through the side, rips the vehicle open, and shreds up everybody who was inside it.

That seems pretty terminal to me!