Carter Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 I've been playing TacOps for a few months now and I love it! I love the detail, complexity, and realism! Its given me a better understanding of what mechanized warfare is like. Most weapons appear to be modeled in the game very accurately. That said, I was curious about the 7.62 mm penetration in the game. The penetration of 7.62 mm rounds in the game is very high (about 25 mm close-in). In the user manual the 7.62 is described as using future "high-tech" ammo. However the current M993 AP round is listed at penetrating only 12 mm. That's half of the penetration in the game. Apache's are supposed to be basically invulnerable to 7.62 mm. The game models them with 15 mm of armor protection. But with 7.62 mm penetrating up to 25 mm (10 mm more than Apache armor in the game), Apaches are very vulnerable to units with these medium machineguns. That seems unrealistic to me. Is the M993's penetration higher close-in? Is the game modeling the 7.62 mm SLAP ammo that didn't live up to expectations in the field? Will there be a change in future versions of TacOps? ------------------ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted December 9, 2000 Share Posted December 9, 2000 The current values for 7.62 machine guns in TacOps are below. Range - Penetration 0m - 25mm 375m - 15mm 625m - 8mm 875m - 8mm 1250m - 6mm 2000m - 4mm U.S. Army public source materials for the 7.62mm M993 AP round state 15mm penetration at 300 meters and 7mm pentration at 500 meters vs HA. I think the TacOps values are close enough with some padding added for burst firing. Some parts of the Apache helo may be invulnerable to 7.62mm fire but not everything. it is my understanding that the armor on the Apache is meant just to generally enhance crew survivability and not to allow it to engage in prolonged toe to toe slugfests with infantry crew served weapons >Apaches are very vulnerable to units with >these medium machineguns. I don't have a problem with that . ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted December 9, 2000 Share Posted December 9, 2000 Try firing a few 5.56mm rounds into the engine intakes.. that should be interesting.. NTM ------------------ The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted December 11, 2000 Share Posted December 11, 2000 I have seen an M-60 E3 take down a Hind so the penetration figures seem accurate. I have used an M-14 (7.62mm) on a BTR and BMP in both instances it worked fine. Major H, Do your figures for the 12.7mm factor in a tumble after 1000 meters? *) ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted December 12, 2000 Author Share Posted December 12, 2000 First I'd like to thank the Major for his quick reply. His logic on 7.62 mm penetration sounds good to me and his source materials appear to be better than mine. I'd also like to say that I have a profound sense of awe and respect for minmax. I can't imagine what it would be like to go up against a BMP or BTR with an M-14. I don't envy him. However, I feel compelled to argue my point about Apache further. The U.S. has the M993 which was only recently developed and tested in 1996-97. It has considerable penetration, but would OPFOR machineguns have the same penetration? Their 7.62 mm machinegun rounds are different from NATO 7.62 mm rounds. Do they have a similar bullet to the M993 deployed (as shown in the game)? Also, just to show you how much of an armchair general I am , I have a quote from Tom Clancy's _Armored Cav_ : "...the Army Aviation Center at St. Louis, Missouri, has mandated that all new helicopter designs meet certain standards of maneuverability, ballistic tolerance against enemy gunfire, and load-carrying. For example, the AH-64 is invulnerable to 7.62mm projectiles, tolerant against 12.7mm/.50-caliber projectiles, and survivable (able to get home if hit in the power plant/drivetrain/flight-control systems) against 23mm high-explosive projectiles." The book is older (1994), and I know its not the best source in the world, but everything I've seen backs up the statement that the Apache is able to take some hits from 12.7mm and 23mm rounds. Specifically, the engines are protected against 23mm rounds. Their inlets are covered, obviously to prevent ingestion of small arms fire. Even if one engine did take serious damage, the second engine is on the other side of the helicopter and should be enough to get home. I've read that Apache's that have been shot down in combat are thought to have been brought down with SAM's. Respectfully, Carter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted December 12, 2000 Share Posted December 12, 2000 I really don't see an issue. In practical terms, in TacOps, if an Apache stays at least 400 or 500 meters away from 7.62 machine guns (i.e. most infantry units) then it doesn't have a problem. If it gets closer than that then it has a problem. I don't see that as being unrealistic. In the real world (contrary to what most games portray,) Infantry are not mere speed bumps that can be ignored by helos and armored vehicles . ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted December 13, 2000 Author Share Posted December 13, 2000 I have two more supporting arguments. First, I don't know what kind of Hind minmax saw getting shot down. Newer versions of the Hind have much more protection than the older ones. I quote from _Soviet Air Power_ by Anthony Robinson: "According to reports from Afganistan the Hind-D and E attack helicopters are virtually impervious to small arms fire." I'm sure many also recall when our Special Forces were ambushed in Somalia. Two of our Blackhawks were shot down. The Blackhawks appear to have less ballistic protection than Apaches, but the Somalians still found it necessary to use RPGs against the helicopters. In both cases an RPG to the tail of the Blackhawk brought the aircraft down. The Somalians had no shortage of machineguns, but creative use of surface-to-surface RPGs gave them teeth. Its got to be a lot easier hitting a helicopter with a machinegun than an RPG, so why even bother with the RPG unless the machinegun was less than effective? I'm not saying that all helicopters are invulnerable to infantry. Most are vulnerable. But newer gunships are very tough. And if I were an infantryman going up against one, I'd want a SAM! Maybe in the future we could have customizeable units in TacOps to suit individual tastes? I'd even pay for an expansion pack with new scenarios. Carter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 Compromise. At some point in the development of TacOpsCav v4, I'll ask the Army development supprt group to take a look at the Apache portrayal. >Maybe in the future we could have >customizeable units in TacOps to suit >individual tastes? That is one of my worst nightmares - from a false bug report point of view . >I'd even pay for an expansion pack with >new scenarios. Lack of new scenarios and lack of a scenario editior are major weaknesses that are long overdue for correction. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com [This message has been edited by MajorH (edited 12-13-2000).] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 Carter, The use of the M-14 was not by choice. We were out of LAWs and AT-4s and just about out of ideas. The M-16s were useless so I took a chance and came up lucky. The troop door on the BMP is very thin and on the BTRs armor was thin all around. I punched holes in one side while an M-60E3 hammered the other. I think the Hind was a D model but we only gave the wreckage a cursory once over. The gunner peppered the Front and worked his fire along the side up to the intakes. My guess is the rounds FODed (Foreign Object Damage) the turbines. Rounds also penetrated the doors on the troop compartment. The fall from 25 meters should not have killed all the troops on board so again my guess is the rounds penetrated and killed them. In terms of attack ship in-vulnerability I have seen rocks with ropes take down gunships. Neccesity is the mother of innvention. ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavguy Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 Re: Apache Penetration. I am an active duty Armor/Cavalry officer and a former Aviation Brigade HHC XO. Trust me - the apache is not "invulnerable" against anything - remember that Clancy wears *extremely* rose colored glasses regarding US equipment. (read "The Bear and the Dragon" for the worst example, RSR is probably his last reasonably accurate book) The critical components can deflect or absorb 7.62mm fire. However, the easiest way to kill any helo is to simply shoot the tail rotor or the engine intakes. Many an aviator I work with agreed with these solutions. An apache will never go toe to to with any machine gun. The armor simply provides enough crew protection and survivability to get the hell out of dodge once shot at without sustaining (hopefully) critical damage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted December 14, 2000 Author Share Posted December 14, 2000 I appreciate everyone's responses. I will agree that if an Apache or Hind ingests bullets into both engines, the helicopter will go down. I also agree that even an Apache probably wouldn't want to go toe-to-toe with a machinegun. Whatever protection the gunship has, I imagine they wouldn't want to take any chances. Thirdly, I agree that even a rock and a rope could be effective given the correct circumstances. Sounds like a real David and Goliath scenario. I'd like to thank the Major for his time, input, and patience. I'm still curious about what the Army development support group will say, but I won't argue my point any further. I'd also like to thank minmax for sharing some of his combat experience. I feel like I'm corresponding with a modern day Audie Murphy. Have you considered writing a book about your experiences? I'd love to hear more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted December 15, 2000 Share Posted December 15, 2000 Carter, Thanks but I'm only another Marine grunt that did a crappy job as best they could. There were others who did more and sacrficed more than me. As far as a book well, the operations I was involved in have to be declassified first. Besides I think a 2nd. Lt. I served with has already published under a psuedonym. Moskito Indians get the credit for the rocks and ropes idea. The would sucker the Sandinista helo into a ravine and the loft their special surface to air system. I think the Mujahdeen did the same thing in Afghanistan. ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiny Mouse Posted December 15, 2000 Share Posted December 15, 2000 The Moskito indians who I worked with in 1994 didn't have anything more powerful than a couple of .22 rimfires in the whole village. They used them to hunt tepescuentes (a sort of woodchuck). Those rifles looked totally worn out. That they would come up with a rope and rock trick doesn't surprise me. I found them to be a very hard working, practical, and down to earth bunch. Necessity being the mother, etc... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted December 15, 2000 Share Posted December 15, 2000 Where were you in Honduras? Who did you serve with? I understood that most operational groups in the area folded up shop when the Sandinistas lost the elections. I served with JTF 4 and 5 most of the time near Santa Marita and Tiger Island. We provided the Moskito new weapons and training which proved a real boon. They showed us the best places to scout and set up ambushes. I loved working with the Moskito. I spent time with the Moskito when they were being hunted by the Sandinistas. They had refused to live on the reservations set aside for them near the coast. Most had whole villages wiped out so there was quite a blood grudge against the Sandinista military. ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG [This message has been edited by minmax (edited 12-15-2000).] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.