Hydras are to weak!!!!

[Sundowner.pl]

I guess being from the Military I have never seen Hydra's fired at tanks, only soft Armour vehicles and or infantry.

You had anti-armor assets, like Hellfires and TOW. Non of which is really accessible to us, unless SOP will be to fly alongside the Ka-50s.

 

So basically the Hydra is a blast fragmentation head that showers the Tank with shrapnel like normal "bullets".

Let's back up a bit. "HYDRA" is a family of weapons, which main component is the Mk.66 rocket motor. Now what a "HYDRA" will do depends on warhead that was screwed on top of that rocket.

 

The M151 Warhead is High Explosive - Fragmentation.

The Mk.5 is High Explosive Anti Tank.

 

Then comes the fuses options for the M151, and a proximity fuse, detonating few yards from the tank, would make the warhead useless against hard target, but we don't really have any choice in fuses, and the M151 is preseted with point detonating one. Which means, that a 10 pound warhead is smacking the hull of a tank, and detonating on it's surface. This on a tank we have, won't penetrate the armor, but the shockwave and vibration do damage. The shockwave propagating in homogeneous steel armor of T-55 or T-72 tank will make it fracture on the inside and spit out fragments of steel, with potential of wounding the crew (although the T-72 later got protective screens, don't know which variant is in the game). Now the vibrations will mess with sights, and some other equipment on all tanks. This warhead will not destroy a tank, but continuous pounding will disable it.

 

Now the HEAT warhead of Mk.5 is pretty weak, but enough for its copper jet to penetrate the engine cover setting the vehicle on fire.

 

PS. I think it's a good practice to give examples, here are some numbers to think about: the Mk.5 HEAT FFAR could penetrate ~5 inches of steel. The DU round of GAU-8 Avenger cannon on A-10, can penetrate ~2 inches... and in DCS we still fire it at tanks setting them on fire ?

Edited May 9, 2013 by Sundowner.pl

[[Knight]]

PS. I think it's a good practice to give examples, here are some numbers to think about: the Mk.5 HEAT FFAR could penetrate ~5 inches of steel. The DU round of GAU-8 Avenger cannon on A-10, can penetrate ~2 inches... and in DCS we still fire it at tanks setting them on fire ?

 

 

Somethings not right, regardless. Like i said earlier its a sim so all these variables should be taken into account I'm just disappointed that I can shoot that many hydras at a tank and nothing happens.... especially comparing the size of the explosion witch in facts engulfs the tank. I know these are not anti-tank rockets they should still do damage from the top. I almost feel that the M134's do more damage than the hydras. I also agree the blast radius are to week as mentioned above. I'm not saying the Huey can go up against an armor division but heaving 1 tank followed by soft targets shouldn't be a problem. You find me some hard evidence that a Huey has never engaged on a tank and ill stop whining about it and admit defeat.

Edited May 9, 2013 by [Knight]

[msalama]

some hard evidence that a Huey has never engaged on a tank

 

Let me get this straight. You presented a claim based on a hunch and now think it's our job to refute it with evidence, when the burden of proof is actually on _YOU_ since you're the one who's complaining... WTF?

 

Try this in a court of law sometime boyo, see how far you get :lol:

[Sundowner.pl]

...I'm just disappointed that I can shoot that many hydras at a tank and nothing happens...

Which warhead did you used ? Because don't expect destroying a tank with M151 HE warhead - ever. At best you could disable it - it would sit still not moving or shooting. Forget about seeing it erupt in gazer of secondaries, that's what AP warheads like Mk.5 (or M247 that is not simulated) are for.

[shagrat]

Let's back up a bit. "HYDRA" is a family of weapons, which main component is the Mk.66 rocket motor. Now what a "HYDRA" will do depends on warhead that was screwed on top of that rocket.

 

The M151 Warhead is High Explosive - Fragmentation.

The Mk.5 is High Explosive Anti Tank.

That was exactly why I pointed out, that IF he used M151 Warheads it won't do much against a modern Tank. He said he loaded 38 Hydras, which in DCS Huey is only possible with the 19 Rocket pods. These can load M151 HE only, in DCS at the moment.

 

So in fact he fired 114 Hydra with M151 HE Heads at a Tank.

 

Since in DCS the damage model of a Tank is not reflecting damaged mirrors or visors, nor damaged exterior guns or broken tracks, you can't do much damage to the Tank.

Even in real life it would not be possible to kill it. You may incapacitate or disable it for the fight more or less...

 

What is the point here is, you don't go fighting actual Tanks in a Huey, like in an Apache or BO-105 or any other Antitank- or Attack-Helicopter.

The whole concept of the Hydras on the Huey is focussed on suppression of light armed enemy forces during insertion and extraction.

 

It simply is no Tankkiller.:D

[[Knight]]

I know for a fact that If you throw 114 hydras at a T-55 or T-72 it would disable the tank and (or) kill all the crew. I never said it was anyone's job to do anything but if the damage modeling was done right the first time we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm just letting the Devs know that things are broken/bugged so they can fix them. In all reality if a tank loses its crew its INOP/DEAD on the battle field. I was using the HE warheads, but get this I can kill a Bradly that has reactive armor. And msalama you couldn't troll me if you wanted to so stop while your ahead. I've learned allot in my years as a Marine. I'm just giving back to the community and taking action. If a Dev came in here and said the hydras are fine and everything is working as intended I would stop and find another bug to report. Its our job to point things out and I've found this to be a bug for me. I can accept the fact the rounds are not supposed to kill a tank but I can't accept the fact that it cant damage one.

Edited May 11, 2013 by [Knight]

[Skeeter]

Explosion over pressure could kill the crew.

[ScottishMartialArts]

I know for a fact that If you throw 114 hydras at a T-55 or T-72 it would disable the tank and (or) kill all the crew. I never said it was anyone's job to do anything but if the damage modeling was done right the first time we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm just letting the Devs know that things are broken/bugged so they can fix them. In all reality if a tank loses its crew its INOP/DEAD on the battle field. I was using the HE warheads, but get this I can kill a Bradly that has radio active armor. And msalama you couldn't troll me if you wanted to so stop while your ahead. I've learned allot in my years as a Marine. I'm just giving back to the community and taking action. If a Dev came in here and said the hydras are fine and everything is working as intended I would stop and find another bug to report. Its our job to point things out and I've found this to be a bug for me. I can accept the fact the rounds are not supposed to kill a tank but I can't accept the fact that it cant damage one.

 

You're certainly correct that, just because a given munition doesn't cause a tank to burst into a fiery explosion, it doesn't mean said munition can't damage a tank, injure or kill its crew, or drastically reduce its combat effectiveness. So, for example, the Hydra probably won't kill a T-72 outright, it might destroy its optics, or damage the turret traverse or stabilization mechanisms, or something of that nature. In such a case, the tank isn't going to be very effective any more.

 

My understanding, however, is that ground unit damage modeling in DCS isn't that sophisticated: it's a hit points + directional armor rating system, afaik. Such a system is much more binary in nature: either a munition pierces the armor or it does not. Again, in real life, that 70mm HE rocket may not penetrate the armor, but it could blow a tread off, or start an engine fire, effectively disabling the tank, but that's not what DCS can currently model.

 

Would it be nice if the damage modeling was more sophisticated for ground units? Sure. But in most cases I'd rather have larger battalion size battles, than have company sized battles where sometime, on occasion, a FFAR, which is not anti-tank ordinance, manages to get a mobility kill on a T-72, as is possible, but rare, in real life.

[shagrat]

Explosion over pressure could kill the crew.

A modern MBT (consider even a T-72 as modern) is designed to operate as a closed compartment and is protected against air from the outside entering the compartment even under combat conditions (NBC weapons secured).

The blast will expand away from the Hull, leaving only the kinetic impact as a effect on the armor. Plus the shrapnel, scratching paint of and damaging parts on the surface, like visors, AA-Guns and if you are lucky the tracks...

Inside the Tank it will be deafening noise, and maybe a bit shaky and the crew will need to recover from the shock and with the visors cracked or burnt it will be hard to fight, but you need a truckload full of luck to do major damage to a Tank with M151.

 

As it is no guided or precision weapon it is even hard to score a bigger number of direct hits. So if 30-40% of a 38 rocket salvo hit the Tank, which would be a very good result it is some 12-14 impacts like from 25mm HE gun from a M2A2 Bradley! Would you expect a 10 or 20 round burst from a Bradley to kill or incapacitate a T-72 MBT or even a T-55? I would say you had an angel sitting on your shoulder pouring a life's worth of luck at you. :thumbup:

 

Any kind of AntiTank weapon, shaped charges,high speed penetrator (APFSDS) or the like have a devastating effect on the crew inside, if they manage to get through the armor. Totally different story!

 

I agree the damage model has room for improvement , especially with CA in mind, but before modelling the rare chance of HE rockets killing a Tank, I would prefer to model the effect of blast and shrapnel on ground troops! :D

Edited May 10, 2013 by shagrat
typos due to "intelligent" auto corrections

[nibula]

No problem killing t55 with hydras go for the engines.

Atleast in DCS. Dont know anything about real world.

[ralfidude]

a Bradly that has radio active armor.

 

0_o ?

 

 

Bradley has spaced laminate armor: 30 mm AP and RPG all around protection explosive reactive armor.

 

M2 has: Spaced laminate armor. RPG and 30 mm APDS all around protection (with armor upgrades). Hull base is Aluminum 7017 Explosive Reactive Armor.

 

M3 has: Steel, 5083 and 7039 aluminum

[[Knight]]

0_o ?

 

 

Bradley has spaced laminate armor: 30 mm AP and RPG all around protection explosive reactive armor.

 

M2 has: Spaced laminate armor. RPG and 30 mm APDS all around protection (with armor upgrades). Hull base is Aluminum 7017 Explosive Reactive Armor.

 

M3 has: Steel, 5083 and 7039 aluminum

 

Sorry, my bad that's what I meant. But still killed it from the front with about 5 pairs of HE rockets. Sounds like the armor on the Bradly should withstand the HE warhead from the hydras also, but I'm not a modern day armor nut, so I don't know much about them. I do know the weak spots of tanks though, like the top, sides, rear, and where the turret lays on the body and only connected with gears to rotate the turret, not saying its impossible but luck needs to be on your side to hit that spot. Now for DCS, I don't know if the armor values are correct or even implemented, but they should be in-place instead of a hit point system, we are playing a sim not a RPG.

Edited May 11, 2013 by [Knight]

[maturin]

Bradley has crumply old aluminum armor. Enough HE impacts should start beating it up pretty bad, while even the weak HEAT version would go right through. THe ERA coverage on the upgraded versions is pretty bad and not designed against air attack.

[Sundowner.pl]

The Mk.5 HEAT warhead had performance only slightly better then the PG-7 rocket propelled grenade, anything that can protect from the old RPG-7 (which Bradley ERA do) can also protect from the Mk.5 warhead. M247 on the other hand is a different matter, the first hit would be deflected, but the double action of its warhead can potentially strip Bradley from it's ERA panels on the attacked side. It won't work on the Russian "Kontakt-5" ERA the same way - that one will shrug off any FFAR warhead with exception of M261 - as this one can strip a T-90 of it's ERA by simple volume of penetrating jets - 9 munitions per rocket. Won't do jack all against the tank itself though, need a follow-up with at least the M247 and at the right spot. Plus we can't use the M261 on UH-1H - that warhead has programmable fuse, and this require different type of launcher (either M260 or M261) and on-board computer.

 

So Mk.5 or M247 straight into engine cover should be pretty much only viable option for us - helicopter guerrilla fighters :megalol:

 

Although, probably the easiest way to take out a tank with the Huey would be...

 

[shagrat]

:megalol:Although, probably the easiest way to take out a tank with the Huey would be...

 

 

+1 :megalol:

 

I need this implemented, can you surf on the blast wave?

[[Knight]]

 

Although, probably the easiest way to take out a tank with the Huey would be...

 

 

I WANT!!!!

[Lucas_From_Hell]

A Huey with Mk.82s and 84s? Now THAT should be fun to fly with the added weight. And a way to introduce HGIP - Hopefully Guessed Impact Point :D

[maturin]

ERA is highly unlikely to save you against a wave of FFARs, though. The most likely angle of attack means the spotty coverage won't be in the right place to stop the hits, and multiple hits are likely.

 

That M261 rocket is beautiful insanity, though. Wonder why I haven't heard of it.

[Sundowner.pl]

Don't know, together with the Mk.66 rocket motor, that warhead was the HYDRA 70 project. Never intended as anti-tank though - mostly anti-personnel, and lightly armored targets. The lethal area is bigger than that of the 17-pound M229, so you won't see it in COIN operations either. Plus it is used primarily by Apache.

[TonyZ]

Ok-Let's be realistic here...If rockets could take out a tank then why spend all that time and money developing TOW and

Hellfire and Maverick missile to kill tanks.Wouldn't they just load a sh*tload of rockets which are much cheaper and go tank blasting.

Forget about killing tanks with rockets...It's a pipe dream. Now with that said, I do think the rockets in DCS are pitifully weak and can't even kill troops when they blow up 5 feet away from them.This I think is a more serious issue which needs to be address as the primary target for rockets is after all soft targets like troops, trucks, boats, and structures.They need to be made much more effective against these types of targets.

[71st_Mastiff]

Ok-Let's be realistic here...If rockets could take out a tank then why spend all that time and money developing TOW and

Hellfire and Maverick missile to kill tanks.Wouldn't they just load a sh*tload of rockets which are much cheaper and go tank blasting.

Forget about killing tanks with rockets...It's a pipe dream. Now with that said, I do think the rockets in DCS are pitifully weak and can't even kill troops when they blow up 5 feet away from them.This I think is a more serious issue which needs to be address as the primary target for rockets is after all soft targets like troops, trucks, boats, and structures.They need to be made much more effective against these types of targets.

 

I concur.

[Sundowner.pl]

Ok-Let's be realistic here...If rockets could take out a tank then why spend all that time and money developing TOW and

Hellfire and Maverick missile to kill tanks.Wouldn't they just load a sh*tload of rockets which are much cheaper and go tank blasting.

FFARs have short range, are inaccurate and have weak warhead, to penetrate front or side armor, you need at least 5" of diameter to fit shape charge big enough.

 

Forget about killing tanks with rockets...It's a pipe dream.

We should be able to kill tanks, but with some cunning - having the right warheads (M247, although Mk5 somewhat would do), and having right tanks damage modeling - allowing to put a warhead on the engine cover. Right now it registers such hit, as an rear armor hit, and removes hitpoints, so with enough rockets, we can kill a tank, but it's ridiculous.

 

Now with that said, I do think the rockets in DCS are pitifully weak and can't even kill troops when they blow up 5 feet away from them.This I think is a more serious issue which needs to be address as the primary target for rockets is after all soft targets like troops, trucks, boats, and structures.They need to be made much more effective against these types of targets.

Not only that, take the White Phosphorus warhead rocket, and shoot at anything, and be amazed as the rocket flies through, until it hits ground - then and only then its set off... producing a signaling smoke flare :doh:

 

The whole rocket system I'm guessing is taken straight from Lock On, and is actually laughable now when we have to use it as primary armament.

[AirwolfPL]

PS. I think it's a good practice to give examples, here are some numbers to think about: the Mk.5 HEAT FFAR could penetrate ~5 inches of steel. The DU round of GAU-8 Avenger cannon on A-10, can penetrate ~2 inches... and in DCS we still fire it at tanks setting them on fire ?

 

It's hard to compare GAU-8 to FFAR. Two different animals. Even if GAU-8 AP round won't penetrate as thick armor as your beloved Mk.5 does - remember that in case of GAU-8 the amount of rounds that hit the target counts (remember it fires 30 rounds per second!), so the A-10 can get effective mobility kill even on heavier tanks if only it hits the engine bay area, tracks, sensor suite etc.

DCS dammage model on AI controlled vehicles isn't sophisticated. It's poor. I would argue it's worse than OFP's dammage model. Don't overestimate it. ED just had to model these mobility kills somehow in the sim so it's will be "playable". It seems it's not the case with FFARs though. And I find the hydras more than sufficient to kill BMPs, BTRs, BRDMs, MT-LBs and various lighter targets with a single hit. I don't think they are too weak.

 

Simple as that.

Edited June 6, 2013 by AirwolfPL

[Sundowner.pl]

The Mk.5 is not beloved by me... I actually despise its existence in this game - this was the warhead that was only in storage in Europe and continental US during Vietnam conflict, and after that, only in US Navy, because US Army and Air Force got ride of it as it was ineffective against any of the newer Soviet tanks. The US Army introduced the M247 warhead pretty quickly, and this warhead should be in the sim - it's still in storage (not in use, as guided and cluster munitions are more effective anti-armor weapons).

 

PS. I have a nice book with drawings of shot patterns overlay on tanks for the GAU-8... it's not that many hits really.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Sundowner.pl

[AirwolfPL]

Obviously it was an irony ;) You just talk about Mk.5s alot here and there.

 

Mk.5's existence in this sim is just only another indication that maybe it's not so perfect as it seems and there's plenty to improve upon. I guess even more such problems will arise with the new modules in the future.

 

But if you ask me - I wouldn't start with such a details when there are huuuuuuuuge problems like no support for modern multicore processors which causes the sim to have really poor performance.