Aircraft weapons

[DRG]

First off "kevineduguay1" I have NO idea how you could get the results you got. No idea at all.

Every time I run a test like that ( and I don't even bother trying to inflate the experience and moral modifiers ) I get dead and immobilized tanks. I do not see ANY way your game could generate 48 attacks and have "no tanks were damaged or destroyed". I consider that impossible and I'm running my tests using the same OOB's and game EXE you are using ( that assumes you ARE using V3.5 )

I'm asking you to post that test scenario so we can all replay it. There is NO way to judge what you have done without seeing it. In fact I would like as many people as possible run your test and report the results on the forum

There is something seriously "OFF" with your game to generate those results. I would suggest you delete your Game Preferences.ini found in the Game data folder. I can only assume it has been corrupted in some way because when I run test just like that tanks get damaged AND die

I have attached a simple test. 14 T-62's and 14 A-10s. The A-10's are only set up with guns and the T-62's don't have AAMG's to interfere with the test and slow it down.

The first time I ran it.. and just to remind everyone these are the stock V3.5 OOB's and game EXE, I got 3 kills and 1 immobilizations as well as 5 other tanks with varying degrees of damage.

The second time I ran it I got three kills and four tanks with varying degrees of damage

If you have been running tests like this and getting zero kills and damage I can see why you would think something was wrong with the game but when I run it this is NOT the case . It would be MOST helpful to see this test you set up that gave you "48 attacks no tanks were damaged or destroyed. I have never, EVER in all the tests or games I've played with A10's seen anything like that

Don

[kevineduguay1]

No DRG, it seems my first test was messed up. For some reason when the tanks had no MA or mobility they just weren't
important enough to hit

2nd test with a Main Gun but no ammo and a 2 speed factor added to the T-62s things changed quite a bit.

I did 24 runs this time with many more hits. Results were as follows,

Misses----------1

Immobile--------1

Kills-----------6

Hits No Effect--12 These were Pen-0 vs Arm-4 or in some cases only a 1 armor factor above the Pen factor.

Oddballs--------4 Hits that should be kills. They read out as high as Pen-10 vs Arm-4 with no effect on the vehicle besides suppression (buttoned).

All shots were from the rear. Test set up was same as above.

[kevineduguay1]

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]

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

"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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.