maturin

I didn't aim my tone at anyone, and it wasn't disrespectful. If I'm not mistaken, in combat most choppers would "hover" at up to a few dozen kilometers per hour because it safer and easier. Enough that you would definitely consider it a moving target from an anti-tank perspective. Certainly it can be, my point is that it probably wouldn't be. Right, but everything I've been able to find talks about rather large errors that even trained soldiers will make because humans aren't perfect. That's a good point that I didn't think of, but also highly conditional. The ground is often not even visible because defilade or vegetation at 300m, but the main counter-argument is that a hovering chopper isn't concerned about infantry. That's why he hovered. But he is more likely to be concerned about being spotted from the air, meaning he will hover high enough to prevent rotor wash. That added elevation would also add much more complex ranging errors to your shot. I admit that when I said 'Annie Oakley and Jesus' I wasn't thinking of the optimal chopper-shooting situation from the infantryman's perspective. Ok, no matter what you tell me, I can't believe that you are going to expect to specifically hit the turret ring of a tank at 300m. And of course leading is taught, but with one slow, arcing shot it's probably the most difficult thing anyone does with a direct fire weapon ever. That's surprisingly accurate; I won't lie. On the range, though, don't you always have the exact distance to the target posted? Or if not, that sort of information has got to filter down by word of mouth, or guessed because of logical intervals in target placement. I took such a negative view because I was envisioning human error in ranging (both laterally and vertically), with highly-likely drifting by the target in an extremely unfamiliar scenario training-wise (ranging a silhouette of unfamiliar shape and size is a lot harder).

If a helicopter has entered a hover less than 300m from enemy infantry, something has gone horribly wrong. Because it's almost impossible to eyeball the range to a flying object when you only have one shot with a very ballistic trajectory. If you land a hit on a chopper with a LAW over 300m you are probably the love child of Annie Oakley and Jesus.

You don't remember your own posts?

Positive comments about countries are off-limits now?

Actually, no. Completely clean, which tells you how extraordinary a situation it is. Вот это да! Semi-literally, "well yes to that." Not really sure how you'd translate it. Anyways, I'm completely in stitches. Such a sarcastic, sangfroid reaction from the peanut gallery. Much love, Rossiya. Also, the video is called 'Tunguska almost kills everyone,' so everyone's probably ok. It's not like you can get away with a flesh wound after several hundred 30mm HE rounds hit your car.

The Tunguska is modeled with the degree of inaccuracy from operator error you would expect from a SACLOS system. It might be overmodeled, due to limited information on the system. Honestly, the Tunguska confuses the crap out of me and I would love a detailed explanation.

Don't forget to add a bunch of garbage dumps and construction site wastelands, with some enormous dachas built with money skimmed off the top.

Flak guns are only effective against slowly-maneuvering targets at altitude. And notice how the huge formations of B-17s and B-24s would keep flying anyways? You need to keep shooting and shooting and shooting and shooting. If you're talking about flak SPAAG targeting low-level aircraft, then modern jets will be moving so fast that you'll need to set a new fuse every split second. And after all that you'll get a handful of rounds off, instead of hundreds of 30mm shells. Some sort of high-tech autocannon round with a lot of dispersion and a proximity fuse could work, though.

Practically all units are getting new sounds.

But the A-10's inherent advantages for CAS stem directly from that design, and the tank-busting mission poses no difficulties for CAS (destroying tanks IS CAS, if the infantry is telling the pilot where to look). So pointing out the original role is irrelevant here. None of the upgrades is ultimately that important for CAS. The A-10's role is a result of its speed, armament and payload. No amount of optics or new tech is going to let an F-16 fly tight circles watching the infantry for hours. So really, they should just sell the A-10 to the army and marines.

Great, now tell me what that means. Can you name a single feature of the A-10s design that privileges 'tank busting' (that's not even a role the airforce actually has) over CAS? Especially when the gun isn't actually any good at killing modern tanks, but excels at low intensity warfare CAS? As for all the fast mover CAS platforms... Loiter time, loiter time, loiter time, loiter time. And payload.

Wikipedia is a source.... when it is sourced. It just points the way to actual information, and does a fairly good job at it.

Also, calling the Russians and Chinese barbarians isn't very nice.

Weapons that are 10 years newer are generally better. What's the problem? And a T-34 can kill an Abrams if the Abrams presents it's rear armor at point blank range. I guess the T-34 is better, then.

As has been discussed ad nauseum, no one has any idea what the hell went on during that war.

And the S-13s are glitched so they always overshoot. Just like the broken ripple quantity on the Su-25t....

Can they actually get a lock at that range? IN DCS you're lucky to pick anything up at 4km.

Oh fun, internet statistics. Feel free to provide a source for this wonderful gem. Let's review. The started using conventional weapons to slaughter any protesters, turning an Arab Spring uprising into a civil war, then deliberately broke the conflict down along ethnic and religious lines to marshall support. Then the cluster bombs, airpower, gradually escalating so as to avoid alarming the West all at once, then small test-runs of chemical weapons followed by the main attack, designed to cow the populace and hold onto Damascus. Because even if the regime gets rid of all its chemical weapons and mollifies the UN, no Syrian will believe themselves safe from a follow-up attack. Still, I'm glad you've dropped all this nonsense about WP and the virtuous SAA using T-72s out of mercy and restraint.

Again, you aren't actually applying any extant definition of chemical weapon here. You're telling me bullets don't damage your skin and kill you? WP is an incindiary weapon, period. If it's a chemical weapon, so is a molotov cocktail. Invade Finland! Everyone needs to admit that they are only calling WP a chemical weapon because the US and Israel use it, and that makes them hypocrites. I am just as opposed to WP as you are, but words have meanings. Words are important. WP is controversial because it is indiscriminate, not because it is a chemical weapon. (Although objectively speaking, WP is more discriminate than napalm and poisonous gas or biological agents, all of which cover a larger area, spread their effects uncontrollably, and will harm everything in the impact zone.) WP creates a rain of incandescent superheated flakes or particles when it is used in artillery. These can set fires and cause burns in flesh that are toxic, but if you have roof over your head, or aren't directly struck, you can just walk way from the cloud of smoke, which is neither superheated nor more toxic than normal smoke. (The weapon WAS originally designed to create large smokescreens quickly. Obviously the smoke isn't dangerous because your troops are expected to walk through it afterwards.) This makes all chemical and biological weapons (or for that matter, a cluster bomb) more indiscriminate. Use of WP in uban areas is pretty much equivalent to use of cluster bombs on a douchebaggery level. So the US, Russia, Israel and Syria are all pretty much guilty in that regard. ...and they used bombardment, because WP is just artillery with an incindiary component. I have never heard of the US burning down entire neighborhoods of Fallujah (you're welcome to provide a source). Because unless you actually burn down the whole house, WP can't drive you out of a basement or building, except by normal smoke. And there's a lot of smoke in war. Smoke grenades aren't chemical weapons, are they? WP used offensively is more of a psychological weapon, and this fits with the descriptions of its use in Fallujah that I have read. The US shot it at fighters in trenches, driving them into the open to be engaged with HE. There was no mass poisoning or incineration of hundreds of people, combatants or otherwise. I'm sure civilians got caught in WP attacks, and that was very irresponsible of the US military. Of course, more of them got caught in conventional crossfire, like always. It's hard for me to get worked up over WP, when the route of the problem is that the US invaded in the first place. Only when they run out of cluster bombs, poison gas and incindiary bombs. If you really think that Assad, who has been slaughtering civilians wholesale and demolishing neighborhoods, is somehow more restrained and moral than countries were people actually complain about human rights and sign treaties, you're delusional. Yes, there's a lot of shoddy journalism out to demonize the Syrian regime, but facts are facts. Just a quick question: the Syrian opposition is really made up entirely of foreign jihadis and Islamic terrorists? Definitely no chance that anyone in Syria is sick of a very old and very brutal dictatorship that has slaughtered its own citizens in the past and rules in the name of a single minority over the majority population?

Eh what? Even an ancient PG-7VL is going to penetrate a T-72 from the sides, rear and top. Only the ERA gives you a chance of defeating the round. The side of the hull gives you especially easy access to the crew compartment, engine and ammo storage. With an RPG-29, a T-72 is just a big pressure cooker. LOL! That short-range homemade mortar has a roundish warhead and it's painted blue. It can only be CHEMICAL WEAPONS you guyzzz!!! The state of your critical thinking has, well, gone critical. Neither white phosphorus nor napalm are considered chemical weapons by international treaties. You need to use actual sources, not partisan news from the internet that say anything to make a quick point. White Phosphorus causes such sensationalism partly because it looks bad. But that white smoke is just smoke. No more poisonous that diesel fumes, and not a killing agent. War has a lot of smoke in it. They are both just incendiary devices. Thermite grenades and API aren't chemical weapons. The only difference is in their indiscriminate nature. Very hard to use in a city without hitting noncombatants. And WP burns have particularly horrible medical consequences. The "technical" definition of inert is important why? On the most basic technical level they all kill people horribly and are all just as bad. He means that in practice, powerful countries can flout the law that they apply to others. Hypocrisy. And then as a result there are people by you, who are are so outraged over this hypocrisy that they resolve to believe with religious fervor in the complete corruption of all journalism, to give cover to murderous dictatorships so they can use the same or similar weapons in far worse ways. Just so it will be "fair."

Physics that no one bothers to simulate. Actual militaries make decisions with probability. Danger Close radius is calculated by the distance at which a friendly casualty is a chance within 100 or 1000. The accuracy of a piece of artillery is its probability-rating of CEP. And Casualty radius for grenades. And hit rates for ATGMs and on and on.

What do you mean? The fair outcome of a 20-sided die is the very foundation of the game. If it doesn't work, nothing does. You can't play dice if the dice are loaded. Absolutely every game mechanic hinges on probability. The purest probability that can be required. For our purposes, it doesn't really matter. Our probabilities aren't based in reality, they're just something we think up to allow for a variety of outcomes. As long as an infantryman has a roughly 25% chance to survive a hail of shrapnel, that's good enough for us. If something doesn't work right, and every third guy dies in a squad with great precision, no one notices and no one complains. Really, the only downside for a simple solution now is the baggage your characterization of it as a "hack" carries. We all know it would be just fine performance-wise. At least, it couldn't be any worse than the cluster bombs. It seems like most features are 'hacked' into this engine.

Far more detailed fragmentation simulations can run on servers. ACE mod in ArmA adds shrapnel to all anti-personnel weapons and it runs on server with almost 200 people. I need not point out that no one has ever praised ArmA's netcode. I really don't see how it's a hack. Why is it a hack for explosives but not a hack for bullets? It's a simplistic tweak to a simplistic system that isn't going to be replaced by anything complex or complete, for reasons already stated in the thread. If computers can roll dice well enough to support a legion of roleplaying games, I assure you, they are more than random enough for our purposes.

But there are no fragments. None. There are only targets that may or may not be assigned randomized damage. Unless you drop a bomb on some enormous tangle of vehicles that are all inhabiting the same 100 square meters, you will get like 5 checks at a time. Bombs come down every couple minutes, but a single tank can fire a shell every 5 seconds. One phenomenon isn't going to be dramatically more common than the other.

Oh come now, how do you imagine any unit in this game shoots at any other unit? An LoS check. One column of tanks firing on another column doesn't bring the server to its knees. We are not talking about "so many units," we are talking about whatever half-dozen vehicles lie within a 100m circle around the explosion. You only need to check LoS to the origin of the explosion, not model the trajectory of every fragment. Compare this to a medium-sized battle, which requires dozens of ATGM-armed units tracking each other's firelanes over multiple kilometers of terrain. You don't need a damage model for this either. You just use an LoS check to possibly cancel the radius-based splash damage that already exists. 10 years and we can still fly through trees. I think the patience argument is pretty bankrupt.