dar tower strength

[gblade30]

just wish that dar towers were a bit tougher like a vh for eg. just seems like the effort taken to kill one far outweighs the disadvantage of not having dar
or alter the downtimes... what do you guys think ?

[skorpx1]

Radar tower's are weak in game and real life, they aren't strong enough to take a whole lot. If a block of C4 were placed in the right spot at the base of a radar tower, it'd fall right down. What you are suggesting is that a radar tower should be strong enough to withstand up to 4k of high explosive bombs. That is downright outrageous.


But as an alternative to this, why don't we just get another radar tower and double the range? If one radar tower goes down, dar range is cut in half and then if taken down completely, poof - No radar.

[SmokinLoon]

I want to know how a 3 second burst from a P51 can bring down a tower?  Or blow up a ammo bunker made of 4ft thick concrete?  I can see barracks, and maybe even the fuel tanks, but not a huge tower made of angle iron and a reinforced concrete bunker.  

I think there needs to be adjustments all across the board when it comes to OBJ hardness in the MA.  Obviously, if HTC changes the OBJ hardness settings I'm sure they'd take a look at a lot of things because they have their tank HE shells scaled to the point of 2, 3, or 4 hits to destroy a building/OBJ that takes 312 lbs of damage.  

I wont be once to call that the sky is falling, but ENY and OBJ values of the aircraft and gv's need a major tweek, as well as the hardness settings of all the OBJ as well.  Tell me why the Me410 gets a 15 ENY and the Mossi Mk 6 gets 30???

[gblade30]

i agree with dar towers being weak... but if that be the case the downtime should be a lot less. do you not think ???

[gblade30]

I want to know how a 3 second burst from a P51 can bring down a tower?  Or blow up a ammo bunker made of 4ft thick concrete?  I can see barracks, and maybe even the fuel tanks, but not a huge tower made of angle iron and a reinforced concrete bunker.  

I think there needs to be adjustments all across the board when it comes to OBJ hardness in the MA.  Obviously, if HTC changes the OBJ hardness settings I'm sure they'd take a look at a lot of things because they have their tank HE shells scaled to the point of 2, 3, or 4 hits to destroy a building/OBJ that takes 312 lbs of damage.  

I wont be once to call that the sky is falling, but ENY and OBJ values of the aircraft and gv's need a major tweek, as well as the hardness settings of all the OBJ as well.  Tell me why the Me410 gets a 15 ENY and the Mossi Mk 6 gets 30???

+1 for that

[RTHolmes]

chain home radar antennae were made of narrow angle iron and steel cable, actually pretty hard to destroy from the air unless you can place a bomb right at the base and lift the footing. those that were hit were usually back up within a day. decent cable cutters or a hacksaw would bring em down much easier.

[Rino]

     One thing that is seemingly being ignored is that while towers are structurally weak, they are also pretty resistant to blast damage
due to the open framework design.  Alot more vulnerable would be the vacuum tubes in the transmitter/receiver instead.

[Tank-Ace]

I think what we really need to do is make it so damage done by a bullet is not the same as damage from a rocket or bomb, or even a large-caliber cannon.

[SmokinLoon]

I think what we really need to do is make it so damage done by a bullet is not the same as damage from a rocket or bomb, or even a large-caliber cannon.

It isn't.  In terms if destroying OBJ's, the HE rounds from aircraft cannon offer 2 distinct advantages over the the FMJ fired from an MG.  First, cannons offer about 4 X's the amount of damage per round and secondly if you miss with cannon fire you may still damage the OBJ thanks to splash damage.  Sure, rates of fire and ammo load mean something but in terms of how they are dealt per round there is a difference.  Also, ordnance offers even more damage and an even bigger area of effect for splash damage. 

I do not know how HTC has things coded, but it appears that vs OBJ they use a "lb" value for each round, rocket, or bomb.  Take that vs the "hardness" of the OBJ and you can determine how many rounds it takes to destroy that OBJ. 

I think it would be a whole lot easier for HTC to simply change the hardness settings for the different OBJ's and be done with it.  I mean seriously, an ammo bunker made of reinforce concrete gets the SAME setting as barracks made of canvass and plywood???       

[Lusche]

Object's hardness values aren't set to reflect any sort of "realistic" attributes based on construction, materials and so in. Hardness and downtimes are mostly set with gameplay considerations in mind.

[tuton25]

I agree with what he is saying when straffing the DAR
Here is and exeriment you can try at home:
Step 1:
Build a tower out of thin steel cables in the shape of a radar tower
Step 2:
shoot with #7 birdshot from a 12 gauge shotgun
Step 3:
Light M80 underneath the tower
Results:
The shotgun does little damage because it passes through the open spaces of the tower where as the M80 destroys the tower because of the shockwave

My opinion is that bullets should do little damage the radar becuase most, in real life, pass through without hitting anything
if you don't belive me try it at home

[Melvin]

#7 birdshot huh? Should it be high brass or low brass?

What kind of choke will the shotgun have?

How far from the tower shall I stand?

This experiment is full of holes.

 

Towers and ord bunkers should be stronger in my opinion.

[Tank-Ace]

It isn't.  In terms if destroying OBJ's, the HE rounds from aircraft cannon offer 2 distinct advantages over the the FMJ fired from an MG.  First, cannons offer about 4 X's the amount of damage per round and secondly if you miss with cannon fire you may still damage the OBJ thanks to splash damage.  Sure, rates of fire and ammo load mean something but in terms of how they are dealt per round there is a difference.  Also, ordnance offers even more damage and an even bigger area of effect for splash damage. 

I do not know how HTC has things coded, but it appears that vs OBJ they use a "lb" value for each round, rocket, or bomb.  Take that vs the "hardness" of the OBJ and you can determine how many rounds it takes to destroy that OBJ. 

I think it would be a whole lot easier for HTC to simply change the hardness settings for the different OBJ's and be done with it.  I mean seriously, an ammo bunker made of reinforce concrete gets the SAME setting as barracks made of canvass and plywood???       

I'm aware of all this, but you miss my point.

.50 cal is not even the same type of damage as a cannon shell in real life. You would have to shoot clean through a beam with an MG to break it, but with a cannon, a few rounds, or with a 30mm, even 1 or 2, might suffice, due to the explosion.

Where a .50 will punch through some concrete, and make a hole, a cannon shell is going to blow a fair sized chunk out of the wall.


Its more than just ammount of damage done, and blast radius, and simply adjusting the hardness will affect cannons which could do some real damage.

Take the BK 5, for example. It fires an HE round, and so doesn't penetrate a whole lot of armor. If you bump up the hardness, theres a chance it might start bouncing rounds off the dar tower, or bunker.

Or the Mk 108. It fires a shell large enough to do some not inconsiderable damage to a concrete wall. But it penetrates very little armor due to being both an HE round, and having a low velocity. Bumping up the hardness would unrealisitically and unintentionally nerf the 30mm as well.

The reason is that concrete is not the same as a steel bar, which is not the same as armor plate, which is not the same as a wooden flight deck.

[SmokinLoon]

I'm aware of all this, but you miss my point.

.50 cal is not even the same type of damage as a cannon shell in real life. You would have to shoot clean through a beam with an MG to break it, but with a cannon, a few rounds, or with a 30mm, even 1 or 2, might suffice, due to the explosion.

Where a .50 will punch through some concrete, and make a hole, a cannon shell is going to blow a fair sized chunk out of the wall.


Its more than just ammount of damage done, and blast radius, and simply adjusting the hardness will affect cannons which could do some real damage.

Take the BK 5, for example. It fires an HE round, and so doesn't penetrate a whole lot of armor. If you bump up the hardness, theres a chance it might start bouncing rounds off the dar tower, or bunker.

Or the Mk 108. It fires a shell large enough to do some not inconsiderable damage to a concrete wall. But it penetrates very little armor due to being both an HE round, and having a low velocity. Bumping up the hardness would unrealisitically and unintentionally nerf the 30mm as well.

The reason is that concrete is not the same as a steel bar, which is not the same as armor plate, which is not the same as a wooden flight deck.

Explosion?  Remember,  not all HE cannon rounds actually had explosives in them.  Some simply were serrated and thinly skinned and were meant to shred apart upon contact with any medium thicker than air.   

[gyrene81]

Explosion?  Remember,  not all HE cannon rounds actually had explosives in them.  Some simply were serrated and thinly skinned and were meant to shred apart upon contact with any medium thicker than air.  

how would anything be High Explosive without any explosive material to make it High Explosive???

<cough>fragmentation<cough>

*sorry, i just had to*