|
|
|
Notices |
Do you own this game? Write a review and let others know how you like it.
|
|
|
October 4th, 2008, 10:28 PM
|
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brazil/France/Somewhere over the Atlantic
Posts: 660
Thanks: 21
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djuice
Isnt there a bug with infantry flame causing 999 PEN against vehicles?
|
999 pen shows that weapon is flame (tb grenades, FT's..)
just made a WP grenade, causes BIG fires, but usually not so deadly, good for urban areas
|
October 5th, 2008, 02:39 AM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kladno, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,176
Thanks: 12
Thanked 49 Times in 44 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
That's not a bug, that's a special code for "not ordinary penetration".
__________________
This post, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship.
|
October 5th, 2008, 05:46 AM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Silvery March
Posts: 68
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
But wouldnt that make Flame weapons much more effective against armoured vehicles then say weapons that use HEAT in the game?
Since the RPO-A Shmel can take out even the best MBTs in the game with a single shot. Then you wouldn't even consider using standard AT weapons, since the Shmel can be used on a variety of targets. It also provides anti-TI screen.
|
October 5th, 2008, 09:38 AM
|
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brazil/France/Somewhere over the Atlantic
Posts: 660
Thanks: 21
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djuice
But wouldnt that make Flame weapons much more effective against armoured vehicles then say weapons that use HEAT in the game?
Since the RPO-A Shmel can take out even the best MBTs in the game with a single shot. Then you wouldn't even consider using standard AT weapons, since the Shmel can be used on a variety of targets. It also provides anti-TI screen.
|
Not really, flame weapons aren't sooo effective,or else the armies using ATGM would be saying ooga booga, ALSO, it is a waste of ammo to use a RPO-A Shmel against a HMMWV or similar vehicles
|
October 5th, 2008, 09:44 AM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Silvery March
Posts: 68
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
I was referring to WinSPMBT, firing a Shmel @ a soft skin vehicle (truck) results in a devastating amount of casulties. I've been using it more then RPG type weapons in the game, since if alot more effective.
|
October 5th, 2008, 10:54 AM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 234
Thanks: 36
Thanked 53 Times in 43 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
The ‘Russia’s Arms’ (Оружие �*оссии) directory of Russian weaponry seems to say that the RPO-A thermobaric warhead is “intended” for use against infantry in buildings, fortifications and vehicles (soft skinned or lightly armoured).
There are two other types of rounds for the Shmel. The RPO-D, which is a red phosphorous smoke round and the RPO-Z, which is an incendiary round that can be used against buildings, soft skin vehicles and terrain covered by inflammable vegetation.
‘Russia’s Arms’ also says that in terms of blast, blinding (smoke) and incendiary effect these rounds are equivalent to 122mm artillery projectiles of a similar designation.
|
October 5th, 2008, 03:28 PM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 234
Thanks: 36
Thanked 53 Times in 43 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
P.S. The RPO-M, also known as the RPO PDM-A ‘Shmel-M’, is an improved version of the RPO-A. The blast effect of the RPO-M thermobaric warhead is said to be comparable with that of a 155mm / 6" HE artillery shell.
|
October 5th, 2008, 05:50 PM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Just as a point of note:
In the older games RPO's where lethal against tanks. In one game I nailed about 30 Leopard 2's with them. They've been downgraded at some point recently. Despite encountering a great many RPO rounds with my tanks they've not been killed (Bailed and routed yes, but not dead).
Now if you want a Weapon to be scared of, have a look at the US 40mm TB grenade launcher, that offs MBT's alarmingly well. In one game recently I was using some Cougar MRV's with engineers as route proving for my main attack. They got ambushed in a city by a platoon of chieftains. So they dismounted and cleared out the tanks with those grenades.
|
October 5th, 2008, 07:48 PM
|
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brazil/France/Somewhere over the Atlantic
Posts: 660
Thanks: 21
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djuice
I was referring to WinSPMBT, firing a Shmel @ a soft skin vehicle (truck) results in a devastating amount of casulties. I've been using it more then RPG type weapons in the game, since if alot more effective.
|
Still, those are far more expensive, i use AT4/LAW/Bazooka/Panzerfaust/RPG for attacking light/unarmored vehicles
|
October 6th, 2008, 11:50 AM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 385
Thanks: 1
Thanked 76 Times in 67 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Back to the original topic, I saw today an article in a newspaper about a military fire brigade of a certain garrison here in Finland: this year they have had to extinguish several small forest fires started by the phosphorous in smoke shells.
Griefbringer
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|