Rmh Rg
 

Is it just my bad luck or does this weapon always kills every vehicle (MBTs mainly) it hits? It is a portable weapon (grenade launcher?) with a damage of 35 yet it seems to not have a problem destroying any tank at any armor as long as it hits.
I am not saying it is not accurate, I am just asking, is it normal?

I have only faced the modern Russian ones, which is carried by various inf squads, I don't know about other countries and dates that might have it.

Re: Rmh Rg
 

The only info I can find about it is here
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl45-e.htm
where it says it is good for bunkers and light armoured vehicles.

Re: Rmh Rg
 

Well, from the link you provided :

"The tandem warhead consists of a small-caliber leading HEAT warhead and a follow-through thermobaric/FAE (Fuel-Air Explosive) warhead, which explodes inside the target to achieve maximum damage effect."

And looking at the OOB (#11, Weapon #32) we see it's stats are :
WC = 8 (Infantry Flame)
Acc = 20
Warhead = 3
HE Pen = 15
HE Kill = 50
AP Pen = 222
HEAT Pen = 35
Range = 8

So yeah, given these stats while it may not have all that great a HEAT Pen value its FAE effects make it pretty deadly.

I've personally long questioned the values given the Russian FAE weapons.
Look at the SMAW-NE (OOB #13, Weapon #162)
WC = 18 (Napalm)
Acc = 20
Warhead = 3
HE Pen = 2
HE Kill = 27
AP Pen = 222
HEAT Pen = 27
Range = 10

Why such a great difference between them?

Re: Rmh Rg
 

But for RPG FAW to destroy the inside of the MBT, doesn't it first have to...penetrate it? We are not talking about a bomb or a huge rocket here. The grenade itself is what, a couple of kilos? And it sure doesn't look like able to penetrate well armored targets.

Yes, the Russian OOB has more similar weapons (infantry portable) that have similar effects, I just mentioned this.

I don't doubt they can destroy a MBT IF they can get inside it, but can they really hit a modern MBT at front and always penetrate and destroy them? Because this seems to be the case.

(in other words I get the feeling this is a bug or sideffect)

Re: Rmh Rg
 

How about this.... two different people created them and nobodys B*tched about it until now.

Sound reasonable ??

There are , as of today. 36,129 units in the game . I have more than enough to do every release with the reported errors , corrections and suggestions without looking for things to "fix" that nobody's complaining about ( though I always seem to end up doing that anyway )

It's on the list. I'll do some digging and see if any adjustments are warranted



Don

Re: Rmh Rg
 

Actually it wasn't a "b*tch".
I assumed there was some reason for the difference I wasn't aware of *grin*.
But...
If it's a "simple" case of two people not operating to the same standards that certainly explain it.

Re: Rmh Rg
 

Thank you.

Re: Rmh Rg
 

We had already started to review the way flame weapons were set up in the game and have already corrected the inconsistancies in weapons class and when I check the current WIP OOB set I see that the SMAW-NE now has the following stats

WC = 8 (Infantry Flame)
Acc = 25
Warhead = 3
HE Pen = 10
HE Kill = 50
AP Pen = 222
HEAT Pen = 30
Range = 10

However, I will do some further digging into this and test them against tanks. It may be that they are all over rated or that the code needs a tweek

Don

Re: Rmh Rg
 

I'm wondering.
Normally anti-armor weapons are not WC = 8 or 18.
Is it possible the code is doing something wierd when it sees AP Pen = 222 and is suppose to use the HEAT Pen rating vs armor?
Or possibly when a weapon is WC = 8 or 18 is the HE Kill rating being used vs armor is some way it "shouldn't be"?

Also, for a normal SMAW the HEAT Pen = 60.
Is there some code reason it's halved for the SMAW-NE version?

Re: Rmh Rg
 

Well, I'll tell everyone who's interested in this to start digging up info for us to review. We are both up to our ears ATM so any helpful, useful assitance digging up relevant information would go a long way to getting this resolved one way or the other. Actual real life test reports on their effectiveness on armour would be a nice start. I can say that there *appears* to be a difference in the way the game handles the same weapon when it's classed WC-8 than when it's classed WC-18 besides the obvious difference you will see forthe in game graphics but if someone with a bit more free time than us wants to do some comparision tests the info that's produced may be helpful

Don

Re: Rmh Rg
 

1/ It's a flame weapon so the 999 pen kicks in sometimes which means all that liquid fire found it's way into places that make life unpleasant for anyone inside a bunker or a tank. That's the most likely " something weird" you see. Go do some tests against tanks with normal flamethrowers and tell me what happens.

I won't say there isn't something going on with the code that make things not work right BUT if the weapon is given HE pen and HEAT pen and the AP pen is 222 then the HE pen is used when HE is fired and the HEAT pen is used when AP or HEAT is fired just like every other weapon. We have yet to determine *IF* there is any difference in the code for WC-8 vs WC-18 besides in game graphics but the *one* ( 1 ) test I ran quick this morning *seems* to indicate there is but one test means squat.

2/ NO IDEA why. Right now I'd say it's an error but I'm sorry to say I don't keep a detailed record of how all the 15,000+ weapons in the game got to be the way they did. I know everyone thinks I should but I don't. If you have stats on what the HEAT pen of these weapons is supposed to be please pass them on.,

Don

Re: Rmh Rg
 

OK, here's what I found on the Mk 153 SMAW.
The Mk 6 Mod 0 High Explosive Anti Armor (HEAA) warhead penetrates 580-600mm of standard armor.

Re: Rmh Rg
 

Well, that explains the 60 value that's in the standard SMAW. The next question is does the SMAW-NE have the same capability to penetrate the same amount of standard armour ? Is it a full power duel HEAT / incendiary round or is the penetrative power less to accommodate the added incendiary part of the charge that doesn't exist in the standard round ??


Don

Re: Rmh Rg
 

Question on tests what armour value should we be going against to give you usefull info?
As a baseline tested normal flamethrower Pen 18 Heat 15 vs 26 steel no HEAT mod
Pretty much what expected as thats a Patton.
Attacked using W key so flame only no assault checking it hit, engineers set to 70 exp morale base line stationary fire.
Sample 40 hits.
20 survived =50%
of those
10 undamaged
8 1 damage
2 3 damage
So 25% just suppressed.

Re: Rmh Rg
 

Actually the NE round has little to no penetration ability.
It's strictly an FAE, used to clear bunkers/buildings.
They usually use an HE or AP round to blow a hole in a wall then fire an NE round thru it.
But there's no reason at all they wouldn't carry standard AP rounds.
Unfortunately there's no way to represent all three types of ammo on one weapon. So what I did was the standard SMAW has HE & AP, the NE has NE & AP.

Re: Rmh Rg
 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nd/smaw-ne.htm


True enough it seems

Quote...." Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure."



Don

Re: Rmh Rg
 

All this leads me to wonder if FAE ammo in general is "properly" rated in game.

Without going into a lot of details (in this post) in general FAE's are not all that effective in open areas, i.e. outdoors. This is one reason no one has bothered to make FAE artillery rounds for instance.
FAEs are VERY effective in enclosed spaces, why they're used as bunker busters.
Since there's no way I'm aware of for WinSPMBT to determine if a given target is a building vice in the open its probable that in-game FAE effects for enclosed targets are being applied to targets in the open. Making FAEs a lot more lethal then they should be vs most targets.

So the question is...do FAEs get under-rated vs the (limited number) of target types they're very effective against? Or over-rated vs the (much larger number) target types they're of more limited effect on?

If desired we can discuss the precise characteristics of FAE...but I'm not sure anyone is THAT interested in Physics 101.

Re: Rmh Rg
 

This is exactly what we are dealing with now and I'm testing not only revised OOB data but revised code as well. Trust me, when we are done these won't be wonder weapons any more but they won't be geldings either. We're trying to strike a realistic balance based better info than we have available before.

Don

Re: Rmh Rg
 

Ahhh...
I wasn't going to even suggest code changes.
I was trying to figure out the best balance between "realism" and "game effects" given the current code.
Bless you Don.

Re: Rmh Rg
 

You probably know already but had a quick look on web
RMG multipurpose penetration 120-140mm seems the thought earing towards lower.
RPO A Blast described as comparable to 122mm arty for effect vs structures by Janes among others
RPO M Approximatly 50% more effective

If you want any further tests specify weapon & armour values vs as set up so can change quickly.

Re: Rmh Rg
 

May I suggest a test?

1) Use a regular flamethrower (or flame tank) with NO special HEAT or AP capability.

2) Find an FAE weapon that is rated with a HEAT (222) rating and as close as possible to the same HE Kill rating as the flamethrower/tank used in step #1.

Have each #1 and #2 fire on 50-100 tanks and see if there is a significant difference it the results.