Aircraft weapons - Page 8

kevineduguay1 · #71 February 29th, 2008, 01:25 AM

Last test of the night changed gun to fire a mix of HE and Sabot. Everything else was the same. Could only run 16 passes. (started to run out of targets)

1 tank after 2 solid hits was in retreat

5 tanks were immobile (1 abandonded)

5 tanks were kills

1 Shell Splinter

1 Miss

3 Should have been kills (P-6 vs A-5, P-8 vs A-4, P-9 vs A-4) The first one listed in this group I can forgive, the other two should have been kills IMHO.

DRG · #72 February 29th, 2008, 09:23 AM

If we go back and carefully review the original, real world test. ........

Quote:

"In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totalling seven passes"

TWO T-62 target tanks
AND
7 PASSES TOTAL

Then the actual results

Quote:

The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armoured envelopes for a ratio of perforations to impacts of 0.18

So, only 10% of the rounds hit and only 18% penetrated in real life on two targets and SEVEN passes.

I have NO idea what you mean exactly in your 2nd test by "24 runs this time " 24 runs what ? 24 individual attacks ? 24 passes on 14 tanks with 4 A-10's ? IDK, you still haven't posted your test as I asked you to so we can see what you are doing. I don't want an explanation, I want to see your test.

When I run the tests as close to the real life test as I can both of the target T-62's either end up dead or severely damaged.

IDK what your tests are telling you but mine tell me everything's working just fine. Maybe too well.

Don

kevineduguay1 · #73 February 29th, 2008, 09:25 PM

Each pass is an individual attack. One A-10 vs one T-62.

DRG,
The tests had to be done this way for the GAME.

If you read that the actual test carefully you will see that after EACH ATTACK the tanks were refurbished. In other words repaired to some degree.

In the game there is no option to patch holes, repair suspentions, or for that matter fix anything that happens to get blown off of a tank.

From your post,
"In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass."

kevineduguay1 · #74 March 1st, 2008, 11:29 PM

I do not know how to post the actual tests. Tell me how and I will do it if my computer is up to it. If not you will have to wait till I get the new one up and running.(Monday maybe?)
The thing is now that I'm getting a variety of results. So far they vary from hitting almost every time with some kind of damage, to hitting maybe 60% of the time with few damage results.

kevineduguay1 · #75 March 2nd, 2008, 03:03 AM

Why do these old gun ships (units 829, 827, and 825+826) Have Fire Control ratings of 8? Why not the A-10? Also units 829 and 827 have a Fire Control rating of 20 while the A-10 has a FC rating of 15, the same as a WWII fighter plane.
Why do you people think the US Military is that stupid?

thatguy96 · #76 March 2nd, 2008, 03:27 AM

Quote:

kevineduguay1 said:
Why do these old gun ships (units 829, 827, and 825+826) Have Fire Control ratings of 8? Why not the A-10? Also units 829 and 827 have a Fire Control rating of 20 while the A-10 has a FC rating of 15, the same as a WWII fighter plane.
Why do you people think the US Military is that stupid?

While the A-10C upgrades might be different, the avionics on the O/A-10A and O/A-10B were pretty bare bones. This is a well known reality. While it could carry most of the weapons in the USAF inventory, it couldn't use many of the smart munitions without additional equipment or cooperation with other aircraft or ground forces.

Furthermore, at least the MobHack help file says that the FC rating affects hitting moving targets. Its been shown that aircraft flying in a pylon turn are able to achieve extremely high accuracy even against moving targets. Gunship type aircraft, regardless of their age seem to warrant a high FC rating if any of the many historical studies and anecdotes concerning their abilities are even remotely true.

Zipuli · #77 March 2nd, 2008, 09:38 AM

"Why do you people think the US Military is that stupid?"

A lot of the stuff of course needs to be looked from the game developer's point of view. Those numbers alone won't tell the whole truth, the result all those variables have on the game world is what counts, right? I mean that even if there is a variable called FCS, and one called LRF etc. they do not have the same effect directly in this game as they do have in real world.

As an example should the Swiss Leo 2A4 have higher FCS rating than basic one (German 2A4) as it can calculate lead not only from the turret's horizontal movement compared to hull position and range that is used by the computer, but also the gun's vertical movement when lead-button is pressed by the gunner... in this case it sounds like yes, as the vehicle can fire more accurately at enemies going up and down hills, but also a big NO, as that will also affect the vehicle's chance to hit other targets, that are not going up and down hills, right?

So no-one is thinking the US Military is stupid, it may be just, that in game terms, everything is not what it seems...

Zip

LonelyRider · #78 March 2nd, 2008, 10:23 AM

And Kev. please download and play that test scenario DRG posted and you will see that the A-10 is not useless. I had 3 tanks destroyed and 5 imobilizations in it!

its in DRG's post as an attachement incase you cant find it heres the link to it also:
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...?Number=584308

And if you want to post your own test create it whit the scenario editor then save it. Then just go to your games \Scenarios\ -folder look for the scenario there its 2 files and ZIP it and post it here on as an attachement.

DRG · #79 March 2nd, 2008, 05:21 PM

An increase in FC for later A10's **MAY**may be an option. As Tony noted, the sights have gotten better since the first ones were built but it does present some problems with the OOB as there are not an unlimited number of units slots left and I really don't know if it's justified. For a moment there I thought Kev was going to accuse us of having an anti American bias in the game which nicley balances the the accusations the game has an anti "east bloc" bias as well. It's tough to do both at once folks

However as I have demonstrated over and over and over and others have confirmed the A10 using the cannon only is NOT useless in the game if used correctly despite claims to the contrary or you do not have unrealistic expectations of the weapons capabilities. It could also be this "old computer" Kev is using is toast and giving out weird random numbers. The game lives on random number generation.

I have stated this before but it obviously needs repeating. I started looking into the A10 / Gau-8 issue long before it was brought up on this thread and the more I dug and the more I tested the more I became convinced that we do not have a serious problem with the way this gun is modeled though the whole "gatling" class of weapon could benifit..maybe... from a higher numbers of hit's due to the higher volume of fire and ......maybe..... that could be "simulated" with an increase in accuracy ( thereby increasing the chance of a hit ) However, when the real world results are compared with the tests anyone can easily set up in the game to recreate the real world tests I think the existing set up stands up quite well and so far only ONE person is disputing that and he's using an old computer that is due for replacement.

Don

kevineduguay1 · #80 March 2nd, 2008, 06:15 PM

Ok everyone, I'm happy with all the above answers. I understand the problems of space in the OOBs and I'm happy that this issue will be looked into. Thats all I ask. And yes, as soon as my new desk shows up my new computer will be up.

Now lets fix that P-51 Mustang. Should be AP-6. The only 4 gun version of this aircraft was the attack version used by the British early in WWII. AFAIK it carried 4 20mm cannon and I think it was called the A-36.