Anti-tank rockets useless

[marcos]

Had a practice at unguided tank destruction. Killed 4 T-80Us with 500 GAU-8 rounds but then went for a tank with MK5 AT rockets. Fired 28 with similar accuracy on 4 passes. Didn't do jack. The rockets also seemed to land slightly off the dot slightly.

[Razor5-1]

They are area weapons really. They would not be used against armour, more for soft skinned vehicles. They are not very accurate. Accuracy can be increased by a diving attack or by releasing closer to the target.

[marcos]

Funnily enough I tried the same thing with the MK151 anti-personal frag rockets and killed a tank in a single burst of 7 rockets.

 

Seems that the non-AT rockets are more effective. The damage seems to be based on explosive weight not armour penetration.

 

(Just realised this should be in the A-10C section but nevermind.)

[Razor5-1]

As far as I know armour penetration is not modeled. Like you say it's done by hit points, so no getting lucky with a single shot into the engine.

[marcos]

As far as I know armour penetration is not modeled. Like you say it's done by hit points, so no getting lucky with a single shot into the engine.

More than that, I think the non-AP rocket is doing more damage per hit because it has more explosive. There seems to be no consideration of the shaped charge.

[Ironhand]

More than that, I think the non-AP rocket is doing more damage per hit because it has more explosive. There seems to be no consideration of the shaped charge.

I don't know for certain but I believe that's true. Their munition effectiveness has historically been mostly based on explosive equivalent, so I guess that's not all that surprising.

 

 

Rich

[Wolfie]

As far as I know armour penetration is not modeled. Like you say it's done by hit points, so no getting lucky with a single shot into the engine.

 

WTF!? ED needs to start moving a lot more assets into fixing its "world". Even the ARMA ACE2 mod models that stuff pretty well. And their just a modding group. Future fighters are no good if they can't accurately effect the world they are fighting in. This is why we are still a low end niche.

[Lane]

WTF!? ED needs to start moving a lot more assets into fixing its "world". Even the ARMA ACE2 mod models that stuff pretty well. And their just a modding group. Future fighters are no good if they can't accurately effect the world they are fighting in. This is why we are still a low end niche.

 

 

This is a simulator..... not something who are called " simulator",

 

If something in the mathematic is bugged, they will solve it.... dont worry..but its not as easy of increase the damage of a skill like in wow..

 

DCS world is complexe ... and if you change something, you will need to be sure it dont break another thing then..

 

The simulator is a niche cause it is complicate, it is hard to learn, and he need a real investment of the peoples who play it, this is absolutely the reverse of all want any gamers today, they want be good fast, they want understand how it work fast... They dont want to have to read the manual, and even less to study pdf, procedure etc for hours, days..

 

But i think the community around DCS, simulators, want it, they want to play, have fun, but first they want to learn...

Edited August 24, 2012 by Lane

[SmokeyTheLung]

I don't know for certain but I believe that's true. Their munition effectiveness has historically been mostly based on explosive equivalent, so I guess that's not all that surprising.

 

 

Rich

 

Afaik a shaped charge warhead would be far more effective (by weight/warhead size) than a conventional high explosive warhead when it comes to armor penitration.

A shaped charge basically concentrates the explosive energy to a single point, and can cut through an amazing amount of armor

[Ironhand]

Afaik a shaped charge warhead would be far more effective (by weight/warhead size) than a conventional high explosive warhead when it comes to armor penitration.

A shaped charge basically concentrates the explosive energy to a single point, and can cut through an amazing amount of armor

All that is quite true. I'm saying that, historically, they (DCS/ED) have mostly based the results on the TNT equivalent yield, from what I've seen, when it comes to A2G munitions.

 

 

Rich

[SmokeyTheLung]

I completely misunderstood your post:doh:

 

From messing around in the shelltable.lua it would seem that armor penitration is indeed a variable (for kinetic shells anyway). Not sure if it's tweakable for the mk 5, or if I have the smarts to figure it out, but I'll take a look when I get home. Hopfully it'll turn out to be a decimal in the wrong spot or something similar

Edited August 24, 2012 by SmokeyTheLung

[maturin]

Shaped charged rockets had no splash damage against armor in LOMAC, so maybe the HE rocket near misses gradually damage the tank until it blows up.

 

Realistically, you should need a very high caliber explosive to damage a tank without a proper AT warhead.

[WildBillKelsoe]

Had a practice at unguided tank destruction. Killed 4 T-80Us with 500 GAU-8 rounds but then went for a tank with MK5 AT rockets. Fired 28 with similar accuracy on 4 passes. Didn't do jack. The rockets also seemed to land slightly off the dot slightly.

 

you sure you were trimmed and steady?? 28 rockets on a single tank is way too much.. unless damage has been reduced between 1.1.1.1 and world 1.2.0.

 

which I don't know since I only have 1.1.1.1 and didn't bother with new patch...

[marcos]

I've found the best policy with Hydras is an internet style spam attack. Fast forward to T-80U no.6 in the attached.

Hydra.trk

[badger66]

Realistically, you should need a very high caliber explosive to damage a tank without a proper AT warhead.

 

Blow the tracks off , and its basically useless . A tank is basically an infantry support vehicle , if it cant move , its useless .

[marcos]

you sure you were trimmed and steady?? 28 rockets on a single tank is way too much.. unless damage has been reduced between 1.1.1.1 and world 1.2.0.

 

which I don't know since I only have 1.1.1.1 and didn't bother with new patch...

It took only 6-7 with the MK151s. Killed 3 tanks with 20 rockets.

 

The best method seems to be to spam ripple pairs rather than ripple singles because it increases the chance of a hit.

[Wolfie]

This is a simulator..... not something who are called " simulator",

 

If something in the mathematic is bugged, they will solve it.... dont worry..but its not as easy of increase the damage of a skill like in wow..

 

DCS world is complexe ... and if you change something, you will need to be sure it dont break another thing then..

 

The simulator is a niche cause it is complicate, it is hard to learn, and he need a real investment of the peoples who play it, this is absolutely the reverse of all want any gamers today, they want be good fast, they want understand how it work fast... They dont want to have to read the manual, and even less to study pdf, procedure etc for hours, days..

 

But i think the community around DCS, simulators, want it, they want to play, have fun, but first they want to learn...

 

NO, what you have without any kind of effected world is simply MSFS. And we know how that went... I know of many FPS and Arma types who like what they see in DCS, but they do NOT like that that the world beneath the sky is just a seemingly untouchable illusion, which is also my biggest complaint.

 

ED needs to start to fixing its world before it makes any more aircraft. Otherwise, whats the point of learning to fly it?

[Irregular programming]

NO, what you have without any kind of effected world is simply MSFS. And we know how that went... I know of many FPS and Arma types who like what they see in DCS, but they do NOT like that that the world beneath the sky is just a seemingly untouchable illusion, which is also my biggest complaint.

 

ED needs to start to fixing its world before it makes any more aircraft. Otherwise, whats the point of learning to fly it?

 

It's a flight simulator.

 

Frankly if tanks require an arbitrary amount of penetrative power to kill is so far down the list of things that could be better in this game. This will never be Arma or any other first person shooter, nor will Arma ever be DCS.

[maturin]

Blow the tracks off , and its basically useless . A tank is basically an infantry support vehicle , if it cant move , its useless .

Does DCS even model that? The only option seems to be fiery explosion or untouched tank.

 

Frankly if tanks require an arbitrary amount of penetrative power to kill is so far down the list of things that could be better in this game. This will never be Arma or any other first person shooter, nor will Arma ever be DCS.

Heck, no. From a ground attack perspective (aka, the entirety of A10C and Su-25T), realistic attacks on armor is vital. The simulator should punish having the wrong weapons, especially now that Combined Arms is out.

 

One of my favorite things about DCS is how detailed the ground units are. Speaking as a diehard ArmA player (I WTFed at the suggestion to makes DCS more like ArmA, by the way), the armor and penetration system in DCS is more realistic than its vanilla ArmA counterpart.

 

RHA estimates, go!

[andqui]

Yes, it's a flight simulator, but if that's all I was looking for I would stick with FS9/FSX. The point of the DCS world is to use simulated high-fidelity aircraft in simulated combat. Things like realistically modelling armor penetration, are fundamental, vital, and very basic to the engine. I don't know if it's true or not, but having AP weapons be less effective against armor than HE ones is simply shocking. Some things do need a redesign- moving towards a probabilistic damage model for ground targets, rather than straight hit points, should be very high on the list, since both of the modules revolve around blowing up said ground targets.

[WildBillKelsoe]

It's a flight simulator.

 

Frankly if tanks require an arbitrary amount of penetrative power to kill is so far down the list of things that could be better in this game. This will never be Arma or any other first person shooter, nor will Arma ever be DCS.

 

It took only 6-7 with the MK151s. Killed 3 tanks with 20 rockets.

 

The best method seems to be to spam ripple pairs rather than ripple singles because it increases the chance of a hit.

 

my guess is that you should revise your rocket loadout. MK5 comes in high explosive too. just read the weapon tool tip mouse-over before saving loadout. (LAU-688/131- MK5 Armor Piercing).

 

I'm just amazed that no one cares to admit that killing tanks by guns is the only realistic way to fly and fight in this sim. I mean, A-10 is a frame around a big gun. a tank whacking GAU-8/A... start using it people!!! I don't see PAC-1 for rockets, do you?? why start fighting over things that are clearly viable to the restless mind????

Edited August 24, 2012 by WildBillKelsoe
MERGED

[Wolfie]

I'm just amazed that no one cares to admit that killing tanks by guns is the only realistic way to fly and fight in this sim. I mean, A-10 is a frame around a big gun. a tank whacking GAU-8/A... start using it people!!!

 

Actually, 30mm is only for use against lightly armored APC's and older tanks like the T-55. Against a T-72, T-80, M1, etc, its not going to be that effective. Maybe if you dived 90 degrees and hit the top armor from one or two 100 meters. Other than that your just going to damage tracks, periscopes, etc. This is where mavericks and large rockets with dual shaped charge warheads come in. Kinetic is the best form of penetration against heavy armor, but the 30mm of the even the A-10 can't achieve it against modern tanks. That's why the modern armies built them that heavy.

This is why I say that the damage ( and apparently no armor ) system in this game is flawed. You guys need to study some of the damage / armor systems in Arma's ACE2 mod. They did a pretty good job, RHA and all.

 

DCS has done a great job on the planes, now they need to take a look at everything else.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Wolfie

[maturin]

I'm just amazed that no one cares to admit that killing tanks by guns is the only realistic way to fly and fight in this sim. I mean, A-10 is a frame around a big gun. a tank whacking GAU-8/A... start using it people!!! I don't see PAC-1 for rockets, do you?? why start fighting over things that are clearly viable to the restless mind????

Because, err, the A-10 is only a single plane, and this is the DCS world forum.

 

Russian aircraft and choppers carry huge amounts of dumb rockets, and they almost all have shaped charge variants that are very common. The SU-25T is still rare, and the former variant will go after armored vehicles (not necessarily MBTs) with FFARs a whole lot.

 

Secondly, it's not terribly realistic to be killing MBTs with the GAU-8 either, since A-10s have to stick with Mavericks in an AO with any AAA to speak of. Without a vulnerable high angle attack run, you can't take reliably take out a modern tank.

Did you report the issue to ED? I'd start there.

[Eddie]

Secondly, it's not terribly realistic to be killing MBTs with the GAU-8 either, since A-10s have to stick with Mavericks in an AO with any AAA to speak of.

 

Hmm, perhaps you should tell any A-10 pilots you see at your next air show about this, I'm sure it'd give them a giggle.

 

The GAU-8 is second only to Maverick in its stand-off capability especially at low level, and in many cases is the primary weapon, even (especially) in high threat environments.

 

I don't know where people on these forums get the idea that the A-10 is not capable of operating in high threat environments. And AAA is not exactly a high threat to anything compared to the other things you're likely to face.