Make radars impossible...

[Lucifer]

... to be killed by a machine gun : improve realism plz ! 

[FLOOB]

Realistic magical imperviousness to kinetic energy weapons?

[SmokinLoon]

Realistic magical imperviousness to kinetic energy weapons?

I think his point is that MG fire would be too scattered/not concentrated enough to damage the tower structure to bring it down.  There is a lot of space between those cross beams, etc.  I see his point.  Coding the difference between gun projectile damage and bomb damage is another.

I almost think the tower itself should be untouchable, only the base should be able to be damaged by MG fire. 

[mthrockmor]

The shack right next to the tower is the one. Either its a bunker or .50 cals kill it everytime. The tower itself, likely only to bombs. Rockets would cause some scraping, maybe sever some iron.

[Shifty]

I almost think the tower itself should be untouchable, only the base should be able to be damaged by MG fire. 

To be honest it never occured to me to strafe the tower itself. I always shoot the little shack under the tower to destroy the radar.

[FLOOB]

To be honest it never occured to me to strafe the tower itself. I always shoot the little shack under the tower to destroy the radar.

That's what everybody does because shooting the tower doesn't work. Either the thread starter doesn't know that or he's asking for magic shacks.

[SmokinLoon]

That's what everybody does because shooting the tower doesn't work. Either the thread starter doesn't know that or he's asking for magic shacks.

No, I dont think "everybody" does it.  While in a tank I hit the tower on a consistent basis with HE from a ways out (just aim for the edge).

While in an aircraft I aim at the base as well, but when coming in at a steep enough angle a player can see the hit sprites on the tower itself.  The tower itself can register damage, I'm just in the camp that it is "too easy". 

[Lucifer]

In WWII using machine guns on a radar tower (or even its basis) was totally ineffective. Even bombs had real troubles destroying it :
To improve realism, only bombs and rockets should be able to damage/destroy it...

Same for Ords bunkers : bullets destroying a supposed bunker should be completely impossible and kill any realism here...  

That's what everybody does because shooting the tower doesn't work. Either the thread starter doesn't know that or he's asking for magic shacks.

[Chalenge]

Same for Ords bunkers : bullets destroying a supposed bunker should be completely impossible and kill any realism here...  

Incorrect. 1940 .50 caliber API ammunition was (is) very effective at destroying concrete bunkers.

[TheCrazyOrange]

It seems to me that you don't necessarily have to completely destroy the radar set itself. Smash the screen, they can't read it. Kill the operators, nobody is there to read it. Smash up tubes, it stops working. Cut wires, the signal stops transmitting, topple the tower, it stops working.

[FLOOB]

In WWII using machine guns on a radar tower (or even its basis) was totally ineffective. Even bombs had real troubles destroying it :
To improve realism, only bombs and rockets should be able to damage/destroy it...

Same for Ords bunkers : bullets destroying a supposed bunker should be completely impossible and kill any realism here...  

The nazis had trouble destroying RAF radar antennas with dive bombers. In AH we're smarter than nazis, we don't try to destroy the antenna, we aim for the little radio shack. But all this is kind of irrelevant because, the radar on fields is just symbolic, it's just a game mechanic, kind of like V bases and hangars are. In reality radar stations were not built on aerodromes.

[SmokinLoon]

Incorrect. 1940 .50 caliber API ammunition was (is) very effective at destroying concrete bunkers.

 

Could they?  Mehbee, but quite doubtful.  I'm not an engineer of any sort, but I'd put my money on the bunker being able to shrug off .50 cal fire.  Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that a P51D or even an 8 gun P47x could not bust through a typical thick reinforced concrete bunker in a pass, or two, or three, or four.  We're not talking cinder blocks, we're talking major concrete, with steel reinforcement, and probably even a coat of Thompson's Water Seal or two for good looks.   

So in a sense, yeah, you'd be better off peein' in the wind and trying to stay dry than trying to bust through a reinforced concrete bunker with a .50 cal.

[lyric1]

Could they?  Mehbee, but quite doubtful.  I'm not an engineer of any sort, but I'd put my money on the bunker being able to shrug off .50 cal fire.  Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that a P51D or even an 8 gun P47x could not bust through a typical thick reinforced concrete bunker in a pass, or two, or three, or four.  We're not talking cinder blocks, we're talking major concrete, with steel reinforcement, and probably even a coat of Thompson's Water Seal or two for good looks.   

So in a sense, yeah, you'd be better off peein' in the wind and trying to stay dry than trying to bust through a reinforced concrete bunker with a .50 cal.

So how thick are the AHII bunkers?

[guncrasher]

So how thick are the AHII bunkers?

one pixel thick.  but the hardness of it is coaded into the game. 


semp

[TheCrazyOrange]

The bunkers are just representative. But if bunkers weren't proof against machinegun fire, they're useless. Anybody could have just brought up an HMG and taken it out. As it was, WWII saw the rise of assault guns carrying cannon just to support the infantry.