Jump to content

rocket launchers are way too stupid for somehow


Recommended Posts

Before discussing this crucial problem, i have to claim that this is not a topic about wrong tac or mere nonsense bull **** words about this game.

From Us and Us marine to Nato forces, i have done lots of tests about Rocket launcher -whether they are able to shot the target from a relatively normal ranges which are within 300 meters. The results really shocked me for real, however, their terrible behaviors that can not even able to shot a target loacted 200meters far for over 50%(from green to veteran), these results remind me about some soliders talked about the training concering the Rocket Launcher "Using the Rocket Launcher? I would more likely to call that pose trainging due to the Targets were really quite large that no one shall miss that even in a quite long range"

 

Such results are indeed true and when i played this game i always wondering that why they are so sucks at using Rocket Launcher whereas the Vehicle soliders could shoot almost a same position every time.

Here is my way of testing: i let the soliders(same leadership same brave same health and so on except diffierent training levels) position in 3rd floor where faces a open ground,no barrier ,no grass no cloud no rain no and so on.

They shall shoot the rocket serveal times(up to 50 times down to 25times) which can reveals the accuracies of their guns(at4 and m72law along with other types of one-shot only count their first time while other types of reload guns shall test whether how many times they can finally hit the target.

I don't want to talk about the details of the results. It is worthwhile talking about some key points, but, which are exactly related to my topic , that the soliders(green) can shoot a 100 meters' target with almost 100% percent rate to hit in first time.When the range was expanded to 200 meters, nonethless,they can not even reach 10% percent rate of hiting at their target at first time. veteran are not that so bad even they still can not be quite normal(30%)

For reload types,msaw soliders (veteran) need to fire 2-4 times to hit a target loaced in 300 meters.

All i want to say is that, there is still a thing i haven't proved is that whether the height of firing position do incredibly affect the result of hiting or not.

I am quite suffering

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2020 at 4:47 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

If they are firing a rocket from a building they are probably suppressing themselves (check the suppression meter when it fires).....So I'd imagine the inaccuracy might be down to half the squad screaming "Nooooo!  Don't do it Sarge!  I'm not wearing my Nomex undies!"  :lol:

I think you nailed it! Firing a backblast weapon from inside a room. Would render a considerable amount of ****, in the pants of the gunner (and the sorry fellas next to him) 😄. Thats why there is CS alternatives.

Edited by Armorgunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back to the WWII titles and take note of the hit probabilities of Bazookas. Its pretty bad. Panzershreks do a bit better, panzerfausts do worse. There was no great technological leap forward in aiming for LAW-type weapons. Its still looking over irons sights and roughly guesstimating the range. 

I wanted to better visualize 300m so I called up a Google Earth image of Back Bay Boston. It turns out 300 meters is roughly two city blocks. that would be an impressive shot to put a LAW on your shoulder, guess the range, and hit a target from that distance.

Back bay.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tricky topic, because I always feel I'm on the unlucky end when it comes to unguided AT weapons. I routinely get dinged at 190m in CMFB by panzerschrecks, yet people have tested this and shown it's not that common. In CMBS I frequently curse at what i feel is outstanding accuracy of RPG teams. 150-200m is the danger zone. Although ostensibly at the long end of the range, I've seen TacAI regularly achieve effective fire at these distances.

I shoot a lot at 200yds, and it's a pretty decent length.

Regarding backblast, in the Battle for Hue there were accounts of recoilless rifles collapsing floors of buildings they're firing from  when fired, the USMC learning to position them and use a lanyard. That shield on the panzerschreck isn't for looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I wanted to better visualize 300m so I called up a Google Earth image of Back Bay Boston. It turns out 300 meters is roughly two city blocks. that would be an impressive shot to put a LAW on your shoulder, guess the range, and hit a target from that distance.

I reckon that says it all TBH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.

On 12/6/2020 at 12:03 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I reckon that says it all TBH.

First problem: getting the range accurately with the Mk1 eyeball (perhaps upgraded to a MK1A1 eyeball with lenses), without accurate laser range finding capabilities included.

Second problem: actually aiming the weapon at the guesstimated range, while there are probably only indications for 100/200/300/400m.

Also, to compare the accuracy of handheld 'rocket launchers' with 'vehicle' weapons as the OP does, isn't really fair I'd say. Most vehicles have stabilized weapon platforms, langer range finders, automated / computerized targeting which allows to actually aim a weapon at 121m while adjusting for wind speed and barrel life etc.
Also, IIRC all vehicle 'rocket launchers' actually fire guided missiles so there isn't even any viable comparison possible imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Indeed.

First problem: getting the range accurately with the Mk1 eyeball (perhaps upgraded to a MK1A1 eyeball with lenses), without accurate laser range finding capabilities included.

Second problem: actually aiming the weapon at the guesstimated range, while there are probably only indications for 100/200/300/400m.

Also, to compare the accuracy of handheld 'rocket launchers' with 'vehicle' weapons as the OP does, isn't really fair I'd say. Most vehicles have stabilized weapon platforms, langer range finders, automated / computerized targeting which allows to actually aim a weapon at 121m while adjusting for wind speed and barrel life etc.
Also, IIRC all vehicle 'rocket launchers' actually fire guided missiles so there isn't even any viable comparison possible imo.

And vehicle launhers, are rarely fired from inside a building!

And as said earlier. Firing a backblast weapon, from inside a room. Would get you a tan, so colorful. That you dont need to be in the sun, for several years. And the rickcheting pressurewave, would do the rest to make your day, a really bad hairday. I think the game simulates that quite good! Well not the tan, but you know what I mean 😁

On the other hand, a "Confined  space" rocket launcher. Like the AT-4 CS. Where a cloud of saltwater, absorbs the energy of the backblast. Would be totally fine, to fire from inside a building.

Edited by Armorgunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be cool if CM could do tunnels of one type or another.....They've always been a feature of insurgent/urban warfare. 

CM:BB had the sewer movement system which the AI could often exploit in very surprising ways (especially if you were testing your own scenarios and had forgotten it was turned on).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Somebody needs to test, manually plotting a LOF or let the AI do it with a cover arc. My experience the success rate with the AI doing the calculations is better. When it fires it hits. M203 I use that weapon somewhere between 50 and 100 meters. I split that fire team off and give it a 50-meter cover arc for MOUT operations. One hundred meters for ambushes. It irks me the AI wasting ammo, but it is great in wasting grenades from the M203. The M203 it was not made when I was made lol. A great area weapon at 50 meters the shells usually explode inside the building. 

Edited by chuckdyke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...