One thing that's been bothering me about CUP has been the inconsistencies on the protection of cars, helicopters, and planes, especially the windows of those vehicles. Some vehicles have way too much protection, and others have none where there should be. I decided to systematically test the protection of every vehicle in the above categories belonging to the CUP mod, with the exception of light unarmored cars and civilian cars, in order to determine what should be adjusted or fixed. I also tested vanilla vehicles to use as a reference to compare vanilla assets and CUP assets. While doing this testing I also found several key bugs and odd behaviors and I documented several of them with videos.
For the full testing data, please take a look at this spreadsheet:
It includes all of the information below, along detailed results of ballistic testing of every vehicle I tested.
Below I have listed the summaries of each test, including bug listing, notes, and links to videos of the issues I found. I have also put in my recommendations for adjustments for every vehicle based on information I could find online.
I hope this testing and data is useful, and if there are any suggestions or something I've missed I'd be glad to edit it.
Tests were done from 15-20M on Arma version 1.68.141205 with CBA, all CUP weapons, units and vehicles version 1.9, and several maps enabled (including cup terrains core/maps/cwa version 1.30). Some tests were done on Arma version 1.7.141838 but I found no differences between the 2 versions. I have not thoroughly retested for changes made in CUP version 1.9.1, but the patch notes do not mention any fixes or adjustments to the issues that I have found, so all of the data should still be relevant.
Dingo 2 (Czech Republic/Bundeswehr)
1. Front window cannot be broken when shot on the left or right side
2. Left/right side front windows and left side aft window cannot be broken when shot towards the aft facing side
3. Right side rear window is unbreakable/inpenetrable when shot directly
4. Rear side right rear window breaks when right side front window is broken
Turret cannot be disabled.
Here's a video demonstrating the issues:
Aside from the bugs that need to be fixed, I think a damage model similar to the Hunter or the Mastiff/Ridgeback should be adopted to this vehicle. Having the windows immune to penetration from .50cal while a 9mm pistol can penetrate nearly any part of the hull makes the vehicle almost useless in any given combat zone and is out of line with every other MRAP type vehicle.
1. The lower parts of the legs on the gunners are missing hitboxes.
The vehicle is specifically armored as from several sources (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7781394.stm) however the protection is a bit lacking. While details are slim, I think simply based on the thickness, bumping up the armor values to complete penetration resistance on all sides from up to 7.62x51mm, with 7.62x51mm rounds and above penetrating would be reasonable.
Mastiff/Ridgback/Wolfhound (United Kingdom) didn't test all variants, but did a quick check on a couple of them for a sanity check
1. Legs of gunner doesn't have hitbox starting from just above the knee and below
2. For the Mastiff/Ridgeback the driver and front passenger are unkillable The driver is also invisible. For the Wolfhound only the driver is invisible and unkillable.
Here's a video that demonstrates these issues:
Aside from the bugs I've mentioned, I think the damage model on these vehicles is realistic and doesn't need any changes.
HMMWV Unarmed, HMMWV M2 (US Army/USMC)
1. breaking/damaging one side glass panel will cause the other side panel on the same side to break
2. HMMWV M2 has no glass impact sound
HMMWV transport (US Army/USMC)
Side glass seems to be only a texture, shots simply pass through it and there is no glass impact noise
HMMWV Ambulence, HMMWV Mk19, HMMWV CROWS M2, HMMWV CROWS MK19, HMMWV SOV varients (doesn't have side windows and doors aren't armored), HMMWV TOW, HMMWV UAV Terminal, HMMWV M240 (US Army/USMC)
1. Breaking/damaging one side glass panel will cause the other side panel on the same side to break
HMMWV M1151 M2, HMMWV M1114 AGS, HMMWV M1114 DSHKM (US Army/USMC/Czech Republic)
glass armor texture seems to be bundled in with vehicle damage texture because i couldn't trigger window damage without damaging whole vehicle; glass also wouldn't break
Overall HMMWV Recommendations:
The behavior of the both the glass and the armor is very inconsistent on all versions and none of the HMMWV variants have any armor on the glass. Here are my recommendations for these vehicles.
HMMWV Unarmed/Ambulence/M2/Mk19/SOV/TOW/Transport/UAV Terminal:
I believe these variants are all based on the early, unarmored versions of the HMMWV, so the glass should break quickly and be penetrated by even 9mm. The doors and rear should also be unarmored and penetrated by 9mm. The civilian hatchback would be an example of a similarly armored vehicle.
HMMWV CROWS/HMMWV M240:
These models are based on newer, armored HMMWVs, so on these versions I feel the glass should provide penetration resistance everything below 7.62x51mm, and the glass should be able to break from small arms fire. Essentially the same behavior as the MRAP's glass, but with the glass being easier to break (maybe around 10-15 to break with 5.56 at close range) The armor should be able to prevent penetration to everything below.408, but the rear armor needs to be fixed to allow penetration, and not simply destroy the vehicle. I'm including the M240 variant because it has a different model and the class name references the M1114, which is an armored version of the HMMWV.
HMMWV 11151, HMMWV M1151 M2, HMMWV M1114 AGS, HMMWV M1114 DSHKM:
Similar to the CROWS/240 but the should glass be a bit tougher to break, and the armor on all sides should stop every small arms short of .50 cal. Although I haven't tested explosive damage, higher explosive damage resistance would make sense on these version.
RG-31 (applies to all other variants, did a quick test on the others and results were consistent, but RG-31 Mk5E had slightly stronger windows)
1. Small area on the bottom of side window frames allows penetration from 5.56mm and up
2. Side window panels that are closer to the front are unusually resistant to small arms shot on the side closest to the front
3. Side of turret with 2 window panels has an issue where if you shoot at one panel you'll break the panel next to it.
4. Cannot shoot through any turret windows even when they are broken, except for the front turret windows which can be shot through from some angles
5. Legs of gunner don't have hitbox starting from just above the knee and below
Here's a video that demonstrates these issues:
I think the armor is good, with the exception of the area near the windowshaving some penetration from 5.56, which I think should be fixed. The glass has some issues, but isn't too bad. The front glass being able to withstand several .50 cal hits before breaking is definitely inconsistant with the other MRAP class vehicles both in CUP and the base game. It should be able to be penetrated from .50 cal rounds. From what I can find online I don't think it is rated to stop .50 cal. The rear glass should also be able to be broken by 5.56 rounds.
GAZ Vodnik (Russian Federation)
1. The gunners cannot be hit from multiple angles
2. Only front driver/passenger can be hit. Other passengers inside the vehicle cannot be hit even when exposed from front windows
Here's a video that demonstrates these issues:
I feel that .50 cal should be able to penetrate and kill passengers because no other car or MRAP class vehicle provides that kind of protection. This doesn't seem to be a penetration issue but more likely a missing hitbox issue. The door should be able to stop below .50 cal. The glass's damage resistance is reasonable, but personally I would double the shots it takes to damage/break the glass from rifle class weapons.
BDRM2 (Russian Federation)
1. Driver is missing hitbox
To put this vehicle in line with other MRAP/armored cars I think the armor should be impenetrable to all calibers short of .408. If possible, when the front windows armor panels are up the glass should able to be destroyed with small arms.
Armored SUV (ION PMC)
1. Triggering the damage texture/breaking the glass on either the middle window or passenger window will trigger the damage texture/break the glass on both of those panels simultaneously. Both of the aft side panels and the rear panel exhibit this behavor (shooting one of those 3 panels will trigger damage/break all 3)
The armor being weaker than the glass doesn't make that much sense and is very unintuitive. There are plenty of examples of armored cars taking rifle fire such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8i5d5toEDk. I recommend giving the armor penetration immunity to all small arms up to and including 7.62x51mm. The glass should prevent penetration of all small arms below 7.62x51mm. I think the glass take around 15 shots to destroy from 5.56/7.62 and double to triple that from 9mm.
Tatra T810 (MG/Covered) (Czech Republic)
1. Legs of gunner doesn't have hitbox starting from just above the knee and below
The glass should prevent penetration from all calibers below 7.62x51mm, with 7.62x51mm and up penetrating, similar to the Tempest. Glass should break from 5.56 class weapons after around 10-15 shots. Armor should prevent penetration from rounds above 7.62x51mm.
AH1Z (US Army/USMC)
No death animations for pilots
1. Several hitbox issues on the pilots
Here's a video that demonstrates these issues:
According to at least 2 sources (http://www.skytamer.com/Bell_AH-1G.html and http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avcobra.html), the modern AH-1Z glass canopy is unarmored. The glass should be able to be penetrated by 9mm from all sides. The armored areas seem to perform realistically, although from the sides changing it so .50cal can penetrate may be more realistic.
AH-64/AH1 (US Army/USMC)
no death animations for crew
Horizontal metal support bar seperating 2 front glass panels is unarmored and can be penetrated by P07 and kill in one shot
While researching this I ran into the exact quote, "According to Boeing, every part of the helicopter can survive 12.7-mm rounds, and vital engine and rotor components can withstand 23-mm fire," on several websites, however I couldn't find that information on from the Boeing website itself, and they never mentioned the glass specifically. I also ran into this Bohemia forum thread, which seemed to have arguments and sources saying different things about the armor of the canopy. I found this technical document, http://www.ppgaerospace.com/getmedia/ee7a2a11-6fee-4d0f-ad60-d9202c2ca896/boeing_apache_AH-64_final.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf, which seems to indicate the canopy is not armored beyond impact and crash resistance.
So in light of this information it's difficult to make a 100% solid recommendation based on the facts, but based on the limited information, I think that the apache cockpit glass being given little to no resistance is appropriate. Tweaking the pilot and gunner hitboxes so that they behave more accurately, along with removing all of the glass's armor would make the most sense. The armor seems to behave appropriately, except for the small weakpoint on the bottom which the video demonstrates.
Ka-50 (Russian Federation/SLA)
Front glass (Hunter HMG): no penetration, couldn't trigger damage texture after testing 400 shots
Front glass (M4A1): didn't test
Side pilot glass (Hunter HMG): no penetration, couldn't trigger damage texture after testing over 100 shots
Side/bottom armor (Hunter HMG): no penetration
that's some strong glass
At least 3 sources I could find reference the glass being able to withstand 12.7mm rounds, so I think the glass should definitely offer protection against .50 cal fire, but not be completely invulnerable. I think the glass's bullet resistance should be similar to the Mi-48 Kajman, but slightly easier to break, with around 5-6 shots being appropriate. The armor is good and doesn't need to be changed.
Ka-52 (Russian Federation)
Side glass would break if 50 cal shots were landing on the armor near it
I wasn't able to find much concrete information on the bullet resistance of the glass, but I did find one source that listed the front windscreen as "bulletproof". Judging by the thickness and design, I think the current damage model on the windows isn't unreasonable. However, I think the armored section itself might be on the weak side, if the source I found mentioning titanium armor on the cockpit is true. Perhaps adjusting the armor value to prevent penetration from .50 cal should be considered.
Mi-24/35 (Multiple factions)
side pilot glass damage resistance is extremely inconsistent
Mi-24 Superhind Mk.III/Mk.IV
Didn't test thoroughly but results look similar to other Hinds with the only difference being all occupants lack death animations
The flat front glass section should be adjusted to prevent penetration from at least rifle sized ammunition, with .50 cal penetration resistance a consideration. The side bubble canopy from what I could find is not armored. I'm not sure if the side doors should be made resistant to 12.7mm, but the Wikipedia article does mention that the entire helicopter is resistant to 12.7mm fire. I'm basing most of these assertions off of Wikipedia, which the source for these references is a book called "Red Star Fighters & Ground Attack", but I don't have access to this book. For the time being I'm going to assume the statements on wikipedia are accurate as I wasn't able to find any conflicting information elsewhere.
AH-6J/AH-6M/MH-6J/MH-6M (US Army/USMC/Other)
couldn't break glass or kill passengers even from exposed areas, took around 9 shots to destroy with Hunter HMG.
I imagine the damage model will be fixed over time, and I hope it's changed so that it's completely unarmored.
MH-60S Seahawk (US Army/USMC)
MH-60S Knighthawk /Mh-60 /UH-60 (US Army/USMC/Royal Army Corps of Sahrani)
Notes: legs of door gunners seem to have no hitbox
MH-60/UH-60 variants recommendations:
I found several websites mentioning that the aircraft can withstand up to 23mm projectiles, such as this one (https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/uh-60.htm). This pdf (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/099859.pd) does list that modern blackhawks are armored to withstand up to .30 caliber on the crew compartment with slightly less protection on the cabin floor I'm not too sure about the glass having no armor at all. I wasn't able to find any sources indicating the whether or not the glass is armored. If for nothing else other than my own curiosity, I'd like to any other input on this. Overall though, I think the armor is reasonable and doesn't need much changing.
UH-1Y Venom (US Army/USMC) (other venoms seem to be the same from quick testing)
UH-1H/UH-1D (Multiple factions) variants
Can't hit upper quarter of head on pilot
triggering glass damage texture on front glass will trigger it on all front 4 panels simultaneously
Video demonstrating issues:
Primarily tested on UH-1H
Recommendations for UH-1 helicopters:
Aside from the minor hitbox issues, from what I understand the UH-1 has never been armored, and the only source I could find was a pdf mentioning ballistic glass testing on the UH-1 in 1977. www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA047323. Unless someone can find sources that say otherwise, I think that the damage model on these helicopters is reasonable.
AW159 (United Kingdom)
1. Vehicle model has a seam near the middle of the helicopter on both sides where shots from all calibers can penetrate with no damage reduction
Video that demonstrates issues:
The only mention of armor that I could find on this vehicle is a few articles such as this one (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=755) article stating that modular armor fittings can be added. Most of these armor panels on helicopters are usually rated for up to 7.62x51mm so the aft half of the sides of the helicopter withdtanding .50 cal is unrealistic and should allow penetration from shots above 7.62x51mm.
SA-330 Puma HC1/HC2 (UK)
1. Side door passengers can still fire from vehicles even with door closed.
Again, little info could be found, but this (http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsmod-receives-puma-mk2) article does mention that the Mk2 variants have been upgraded with ballistic protection. This does imply that the older variants, such as the HC1 are not armored. Changing the HC1 variant to have no armor and leaving the HC2 variant as is would be interesting.
Ka-60 Kasatka (tested CSAT version)
1. On the passengers facing the doors, their feet stick through the doors.
I wasn't able to find any information about this helicopter so any input would be very helpful. However, being a relatively new helicopter I imagine this helcopter at least has modular armored fittings.
Heavy Transport Helicopters
CH-53E (US Army/USMC)
I was able to find a few sources listing the vehicle as armored such as this one (http://www.airvectors.net/avskbig_1.html#m2l). However, again I wasn't able to find any information about the glass, but armored glass does seem like a rarity on helicopters from what I have been finding. I do think the armor is too tough, and should be toned down to allow penetration all sides, including the wings. The side windows and the lower front windows being completely immune to all damage is probably an oversight and should have all armor removed.
The wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW101) article on the vehicle does mention that ballistic protection was added in 2010, although the source link is broken. I'm not sure which variants were armored so it's tough to say which versions should have armor added or removed, but the current model is reasonable so I think changes aren't necessary unless strict realism is a goal.
CH-47/Chinook HC-4 (US Army/USMC/Multiple factions)
Detailed information on the armor couldn't be found, although I found several websites mentioning that the CH-47 already had armor, and has been upgradeed to a more lightweight system in 2013, such as this one (https://www.army.mil/article/112020). In light of this, I think the protection of the CH-47 is reasonable.
Mi-6T/A/etc (Multiple factions)
Only pilot and copilot have death animations
I wasn't able to find any sources if this vehicle was armored, but I imagine the age and sheer size of the helicopter would prevent it from being armored in any significant way. I would recommend completely removing all armor, with the only protection coming from the fact that the vehicle has a metal cover which would naturally provide minimal ballistic protection.
Mi-8MT/Mi-17/Mi-171Sh (Multiple factions)
1. middle passenger that's between the copilots seems to have no hitbox (gunner can be killed on version with front gunner)
I was able to find some sources (http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/mi_171sh.htm) mentioning armor on the Mi-171Sh, however everything I could find is incredibly vague. It is difficult to make any recommendations, but considering the age of the helicopter I wouldn't find it to unreasonable to remove all armor, unless until proven otherwise.
A-10C Thunderbolt II
glass damage texture seems to be tied with whole vehicle damage texture
The A-10 is famous for it's incredible durability, so the armor and glass definitely need some changes. The wikipedia article on the A-10 is well sourced has a good section on the durability, which mentions the titanium battub being resistant to 23mm cannon fire and even up to 57mm. At the very least, the pilot cockpit should not be affected at all by 12.7mm fire from all angles. There's less detail about the canopy and windscreen, but it's listed as resistant to small arms fire. The vanilla A-164 front windscreen is immune to .50cal and the bubble can be penetrated by 9mm. I think the A-10 would make sense with the front windscreen able to withstand around 8-10 .50 cal rounds before breaking, and the bubble itself should maybe be added armor, but from what I can find I don't think curved armored glass really exists.
F-35B Lightning II (US/UK)
Glass damage texture seems to be tied to whole vehicle damage texture
I was unable to find any useful information unsurprisingly, but considering that most modern fighter aircraft don't have much armor, except for ground attack aircraft such as the A-10C and Su-25/34, this isn't to unrealistic. I imagine the cockpit has some kevlar protection against small arms and more importantly shrapnel, so I think the model on this one is reasonable, although I wonder if the glass has any ballistic protection at all.
Harrier GR.0/AV-8B Harrier II (US/UK)
Primarily tested on Harrier GR.9 (AGM-65)
1. Head hitbox on pilot seems to have issues and cannot be hit
2. pilot death animation raises pilot through glass
I wasn't able to find much information, but as with most non-ground attack jets I think there generally isn't much armor. Reducing the armor so the .50 cal can penetrate the front and 5.56 can penetrate the sides would be reasonable. The glass seems to be a thin bubble canopy so it most likely isn't armored.
Su-25 (Multiple factions)
difficult to hit head of pilot from the side, possible hitbox issues
I was able to find multiple references mentioning the aircrafts high durability and titanium armored cockpit, such as this (https://sputniknews.com/science/201608281044705045-su-25-flying-tank/) and (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a24303/russia-sukhoi-su-25-a-10/). I was able to find one source mentioning an armored windscreen (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su25/). In light of this, I would recommend bumping up the cockpit protection to prevent penetration from at least .50 cal from all sides, with 20-30mm being considered. Giving the front windscreen penetration resistance to .50 cal and breaking after around 5 shots would properly represent the tough kind of armor typically found on these types of aircraft. The rest of the glass canopy should remain unarmored, since it seems like most aircraft don't have armor for all of the glass.
Su-34 (Multiple factions)
As with the Su-25, I was able to find several sources, such as these (https://sputniknews.com/military/201609151045349379-armored-su34-analysis/ https://ria.ru/infografika/20150916/1253438900.html) indicating that the aircraft is heavily armored, possibly even more so than the Su-25. The sputnik link does mention that the front window is armored. I would recommend bumping up the cockpit protection so that it is resistant to penetration from up to 30mm with higher rounds being considered. The glass itself should be armored, with penetration resistance to .50 cal being considered.
L-39ZA (Multiple factions)
difficult to kill pilot when shooting through the front glass, even with the HMG. possible pilot hitbox issues
I wasn't able to find any information about the armor of this aircraft, but judging by the age and design, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't armored at all. I think removing all armor protection would be appropriate, with even pistols being able to penetrate the thinner spots, such as the sides of the cockpit. The canopy should be kept as is.
can't kill rear passengers even when hatch is open. The plane might not actually be this well armored, but the passengers simply have no hitbox.
It looks like armor plating was added in 2014 after an incident in South Sudan. The plates are modular, but details about the protection are slim. I doubt that they would be able to withstand .50cal. I think reducing the protection so that the vehicle is immune to up to 7.62x51mm with penetration from rounds larger than that is reasonable. However I'm not sure if the reason passengers can survive .50 cal is because of the vehicle itself or what seems to be a lack of hitboxes on the passengers. It might be interesting to add an armored and unarmored variant, if possible, to represent the upgrade in 2014.
1. Seems to be no death animations for any occupants
As with the MV-22B Osprey and the CH-53 and UH-60, it looks like newer versions of the C-130 have been upgraded with modular armor plates (http://blueaero.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/C-130-armor.pdf). As with the MV-22B Osprey, having an armored and unarmored variant might be interesting, but I think the best compromise would be to bump up the armor a bit to prevent penetration from at least 5.56, to resolve the inconsistences in the protection.
1. pilot/copilot death animation pushes them through ceiling
2. gunners on AC-47D version seem to be missing hitbox
I wasn't able to find any sources to indicate if the AC-47D had any armor. The only thing relevant I could find was a book called "Un-Armed, Un-Armored, and Un-Escorted" about a C-47 pilot in WWII. Considering that one source, and most older transport aircraft in general were probably unarmored I think it would make sense that this vehicle would be unarmored. Even if there was some armor, immunity to .50 cal is completely unrealistic. I would recommend completely removing all armor values from this aircraft to allow penetration even from 9mm.
1. occupants have no death animation
2.pilot/copilot hitbox is off: couldn't hit the head or most of the arms, which made it nearly impossible to get a kill from the sides
Although I wasn't able to find any concrete sources, considering that this primarily a civilian utility aircraft the fact that there is any armor at all is very strange. I think it would be best to completely remove all armor values for this aircraft, so that even 9mm can penetrate and kill from the sides. There's also some strange behavior in general, with .50 cal taking the same amount of shots to kill as 5.56