Guest Guest Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Much better Adam But, just a recall, I may be completlly wrong but if I remember right, sometimes crews decide to use HE cause AP won't do any damage, but at least the blast effect of HE could harm the enemy vehicle systems. Also, firing ATGM at a distance of 30m couldn't be dangerous in anyway? Totally uninformed questions. I may comment in any case that it seems IFVs still reluctant to fire their ATGM some times. [ October 04, 2007, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: KNac ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Krejcirik Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 CMSF desperately needs an official 'known bugs' list, updated after each release. It's counterproductive to report the same bugs again and again without knowing whether BFC noticed your post, or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 But its so much fun having the same arguements over and over again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterLorre86 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 A dedicated bug forum would be nice, I have not reported known bugs because I don’t want to clutter the forum (and start arguments) and I don’t know what a known or fixed bug is and what is not. You could at least have a sticky with a list of all known and fixed bugs. Adam1- HE being used against armor rather then AP is a feature. For said reason of potential concussion damage to vehicle components. Doesn’t seem like a good explanation to me. Maybe one or two exceptionally clever BMP commander would think to do that, but I imagine most would be thinking ARMOR, LOAD AP. I am not really convinced that in game, HE is more effective the AP. I mean, the components I see damaged like sights, tracks, wheels, radio, smoke launcher would be just as damaged by AP. A high velocity piece of mass hitting an external vehicle component is going to damage it, regardless if it is designed for HE or AP. But this debate has already run its course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Not to mention the fact that when my BMP-2 did decide to load AP against a stryker the shots penetrated through the whole vehicle, instant KO! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Detailed, verifiable information on the exact armor penetration ability of the Shipunov 2A42 30mm, and the protective quality of the Stryker's armor is a bit hard to come by, unless you have a high-level security clearance. But everything I have been able to access on the Web from the usual sites (GlobalSecurity, Wikipedia, etc.) suggests that the Stryker's armor is nowhere near strong enough to resist 30mm AP from the flank. The army's own fact file on the Stryker states that, with the additional armor, The Stryker's flank armor is proof against "up to" 14.5mm AP. It's a long jump from 14.5mm to 30mm. . . Some of what I've read suggests the Stryker Armor might be strong enough to bounce 30mm AP from the front, but personally I'm a bit skeptical of this, except at longer range. So if it's true that the AI is actually preferring 30mm HE over AP when firing on Strykers, I'm a bit perplexed. In other gun vs. armor matchups, like a frontal matchup of the 125mm gun on the T-62 vs. Abrams, I can see the argument for HE -- only the most advanced APFSDS penetrators from the 125mm have a chance in hell of doing more than scratching the paint on an Abrams, and I don't think the Syrians have any of these (Even the Russians do keep some of their most advanced toys to themselves). So HE here might make sense -- better chance of damaging sensors or breaking a track or something. But I don't think this logic holds for 30mm Autocannon vs. Stryker. Assuming the Syrians have access to at least middling quality 30mm AP ammo, it should shred a Stryker from the Side, and probably even from the front at shorter range. So I'd love to see BFC revisit this one, or at least explain to me why I'm wrong. I'm still out of the fun (current computer can't handle the game), and I expect things to be *perfect* when I do get around to purchasing a new rig, and firing up this baby. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mishga Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I noticed in 1.04 Bradley's are slow to use the TOW missiles even against tanks. They open up with 25mm and unless I can reverse them out of harm's way they are toasted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 That's funny, I have the exact opposite happen with TOW. They seem a little slower to re-engage, but will fire off the first missle a few seconds after halting. Keep in mind that the 25mm can fire on the move and the TOW needs full stop. What I think I saw a couple of times is the 25mm engaging before the halt and then the TOW firing. It makes it look like the TOW fires slower than the 25mm. A guess at best. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I'vee same issue as Mishga, actually if I don't target manually (target hard), they barelly use the TOW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I'll test some more. I have not really noticed an issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 thewood makes a VERY important point... TOWs only fire when completely stopped, plus there is a bit of prep time to get one on its way. So the commander will the gun as much as possible because it is more flexible and can usually do the trick anyway. As for the BMP-2 thing... funny enough, we were looking into that at the very tail end of v1.04 testing. We decided not to hold up v1.04 any longer. See, the problem is every time Charles gives us a new build we lose 1-2 days because we can't release something that isn't tested. So when we hit Final Candidate stage we're trying very hard to only fix things that we broke during the patch process, not introduce new wildcards into the mix. The FC process for v1.04 took more than a week as it was! BTW, as a reminder this isn't a bug per se. What is going on is the simulated vehicle commander is weighing his options in a way that appears fine but isn't. VERY easy to tweak these numbers once an issue has been identified. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: thewood makes a VERY important point... Steve I havw waited 7 years for validation from Steve. My life is complete. As soon as I figure out how to do it...I have a sig. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com: thewood makes a VERY important point... Steve I havw waited 7 years for validation from Steve. My life is complete. As soon as I figure out how to do it...I have a sig. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 jerk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Now hows this for a sig line: Sgt. Joch is a dog licking hater I dare ya 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: jerk been looking in the mirror again, I see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Ooooh, clever. come on, change your sig to a manly sig...not some Spartan crap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 [intentionally deleted] bad day at work...nothing to see here..move along... [ October 05, 2007, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Sgt.Joch ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 I didn't think it was a fight. I thought we were just making fun of each other... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 sorry, my mistake...in that case, you will love my new sig... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Still a Spartan reference, but it'll do 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 I stand by my opinion that no sane tank (or IFV) crew would prefer HE against an armored target. Even if you get their sights or whatever with a lucky shot, the target would still have their secondary sights to make your vehicle a smoking coffin for you. Using HE against armor should be only an extremely desperate last resort and only exercised when AP doesn't work - in that the crew has tried AP before switching to HE. No matter how unlikely a penetration with AP, causing considerable damage with HE is even less likely. No one in their right mind would prefer it before at least giving AP a shot - literally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 thewood, nice sig, although I would have bolded the text part so it sticks out more, i.e.: Originally posted by Battlefront.com: thewood makes a VERY important point... Steve for example... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterLorre86 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Originally posted by Exel: No matter how unlikely a penetration with AP, causing considerable damage with HE is even less likely. No one in their right mind would prefer it before at least giving AP a shot - literally. Looking at it that way is a good point, sure here on the forum, we have grogs who come in and tell us that X type of ammunition penetrates exactly Y mm of Z armour. But would a Syrian tanker in the field even have access to this information? Im sure some explanation of weapon capability is given in tanker training, but i wonder how accurate that is to warrent ruling out AP rounds from the start agianst specific types of targets. Also, target identification is an issue. How often does a Syrian (or any nationality) tanker really know exactly the model, make, upgrade of tank he is fireing at? I would say, in the heat of battle, with smoke, adrenaline, poor visibility and long ranges etc., that fact tends to be less precisely known. To me that says AP should be used in most cases. Tank to AFV, HE makes sence, but for Tank on Tank or AFV on AFV (of similar gun caliber) i would think AP would at least be the first thing tried, if not the only. Edit: Spelling 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.