Penetration system

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

So I was wondering, is there going to be detailed penetration system in this game?

For example, and as most of us gun nuts know, whilst the M16 benefitted from a much more managable recoil than the AK47 due to the lighter 5.56mm round, the AK47's heavier 7.62x39 round was able to punch through thicker obstacles and as such finding cover sufficient to stop the bullets from an AK47 was a bigger challenge.

Hopefully differences such as these will be represented ingame as it's one of the big ones that set AK47 & M16 apart from each other.

 

[Beskar Mando]

I believe it is, you'd have to ask one of AMG's programmers for specifics.

 

[Skyrilla]

Yes. Same as before.

You would learn a lot by watching some of the uploaded gameplay on YT you know. Just search for Rising Storm 2 and check upload date...

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Yes. Same as before.

You would learn a lot by watching some of the uploaded gameplay on YT you know. Just search for Rising Storm 2 and check upload date...

Nowhere could I find anything about penetration systems...

​​​You're welcome to link me.

 

[Lemonater47]

That's because there isn't anything about penatration not even for RO2.

But in RO2 every gun had its own penatration stats essentially how much it to go through and another star of how many things it could go through. Which included people. Most guns could only penatrate 2 objects and stop on the 3rd. Armoir piercing tank shells just kept going regardless through most things.

But in terms of real world penatration the M16 wasn't actually too far behind the the ak47. The M16 had a much higher muzzle velocity, the round was thinner with a better ballistic coeffecient. Which made it much better at penatrating things than you would think. In terms of how far it could penatrate theough objects. It could still shoot through cinderblocks and get through inches of wood.
Hiwever light foliage affected it's trajectoy. Now I'm not talking about a single leaf that is a myth but say engaging a target at range through a bush can knock the bullet off target just enough to miss the target. Whereas the heavier AK round wouldn't have this issue.


In terms of global penetration I don't think this game really takes in the hardness of objects. Now I haven't actually looked but it seems to just be a sort of value assigned based on the material used. But say take a bunch of phone books and a pane of glass against 7.62x51. Line up 10 phonebooks and the round will get through about 6 of them. Get 5 of the phone books against the lane of glass and stick the 6th on the other side of the glass. The round will go through the first 5, go through the glass and get stuck in the 6th somewhere possibly making it out.
Then stick the 6 books on one side of the glass and shoot the glass. The bullet won't even get through 2 phone books. Goes through the glass through The first phone book and gets stuck on the 2nd. Doesn't even really start to penatrate the 2nd. Let alone the other 4 untouched phonebooks. The hardness of the glass really does do something to the bullet. It shatters the round as it goes through. The Bullet is still more or less in one piece. But it's been cracked and slowed down quite a bit. So when it hits something else it breaks up. That sort of thing I don't think is moddelled in RO2.

Also glass won't protect you from bullets. If anything it makes bullets even more lethal. Not just the glass flying at you but the bullet that just went through has essentially turned into a 7.62x51 hollow point round.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Oh I am well aware of the difference between the two rounds, ballistics is one of my key interests, I was just curious of how far this was taken in Rising Storm 2

As for the difference between the 7.62x39 and 5.56 NATO vs obstacles, I think this old classic says it all really:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

 

[Jagdwyre]

But in terms of real world penatration the M16 wasn't actually too far behind the the ak47. The M16 had a much higher muzzle velocity, the round was thinner with a better ballistic coeffecient. Which made it much better at penatrating things than you would think. In terms of how far it could penatrate theough objects. It could still shoot through cinderblocks and get through inches of wood.
Hiwever light foliage affected it's trajectoy. Now I'm not talking about a single leaf that is a myth but say engaging a target at range through a bush can knock the bullet off target just enough to miss the target. Whereas the heavier AK round wouldn't have this issue

"Penetration" seems to be a loaded word in the world of ballistics. A lighter but faster 5.56 round will fare better going through certain things(like a steel plate) compared to a 7.62x39 round. However in terms of barrier penetration(things like trees, windows, walls, etc. Stuff people use as cover) 7.62x39 typically fares better than 5.56 rounds. 5.56 rounds tend to start fragmenting and don't have as much momentum as a larger round does, even if it's going faster. Of course this doesn't mean 5.56 can't penetration anything, as you pointed out it certainly can, but so can most rounds, so it's mostly relative imo.

This is also specifically talking about things like the M193 round(presumably the round that should be modeled for the M16 in RS) or the later M855. The newer copper M855A1 round actually has better penetration performance compared to past military 5.56 rounds.

As for the difference between the 7.62x39 and 5.56 NATO vs obstacles, I think this old classic says it all really:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

Despite the penetration test that documentary is notoriously bad.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Despite the penetration test that documentary is notoriously bad.

Can't remember the entirety of it, but what part of it was so bad? ​​​​​

 

[Jagdwyre]

Can't remember the entirety of it, but what part of it was so bad? ​​​​​

It's bad at least in AK circles.

Accuracy test was a joke, indoor range(no wind) and only 200 yards? The only excuse for not hitting every shot with the AK is the shooter's proficiency with it, not the gun itself. Yet of course the AK shooter goes on to whine about the sights being bad and also doesn't actually know how those sights are supposed to be used and zeroed(you want your target above the front sight post, not directly over it).

The "this gun was designed only for full auto cuz fire selector" has been a topic that has been repeatedly debated. Most AK shooters will realize that semi is on the bottom because when you swipe down that safely lever you're going to end up on semi a lot easier than on full(because it will fly right past the full auto position). As such setting it to full has to be a deliberate decision by the shooter, the weapon will not "default" to full auto if you're in a panic and swipe down on your safely lever. Soviet doctrine did want the gun used in full auto, using short bursts to advance on an enemy position, but apparently the US has historically dismissed any merit the weapon has outside that singular role. Though that seems to be changing in recent years thankfully.

An AK wiLL have more recoil, but does not have significantly more recoil to an M16, especially if we're talking a milled receiver AK. This is even more true if you're talking about ARs with shorter gas tubes, like an M4.

At least those are the ones off the top of my head.

And for the record this doesn't mean I hate the AR-15/M16, because I don't.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Don't disagree with any of that really, infact in general I shoot just as accurately with v notch sights as with peep sights, (talking strictly bolt actions here) and don't really prefer one over the other. However the AK's sights are quite crude with a short sighting base, which doesn't really help with accuracy. The barrel harmonics of the AK aren't super either, so there's no doubt that the M16 is the more accurate rifle, the AK just isn't the inaccurate scatter gun it's often portrayed as in popular culture - you should definitely be able to consistently hit a man sized target at 200m with one (unless it's one of those shed made ones ofcourse)

 

[Flashburn]

AK sights are weird. I have a hard time shooting all that great with them. I got a saiga in .223 and am hard pressed to shoot better than 3 inch groups at 50 yards. However in this case the rifle is a 2.5 moa gun. And cheery pick ammo from a cold barrel its close to 1 Moa. Now I say all that just to point out that a saiga is derived off an ak100 series rifle made a civie friendly looking (I fixed that one muhahah). But while an AK will never be AR accurate it can more than its given credit. I can say mine in .223 is pretty surprising and ended up throwing a 1-4x power scope on it after giving a red dot a go and was quite surprised at some of the accuracy I was getting. So the internet that claims AK's all suck in accuracy I no longer buy into. To put this into perspective a military M16 or M4 is accepted to service if it fires 4 MOA or less. Which aint great, but the design is able to do way better than that. You see that in all the mid and high end civil AR type rifles and of course most M16/4's shoot better than that. Although not so much with the newer M855a1 round. But that is a different issue and more related to the choices made in construction of the round.

And caliber plays its part. .223/5.56 is simply a more accurate round than either 7.62 x 39 and to a lesser extent 5.45 x 39. And frankly 5 moa is good enough to hit torso's from 0 to 300 meters. But that does not mean the guy using the thing can and its not helped by those wacko AK sights. I am sure there are people that can use them well. But I sure can not. Glad I got stuck with M16's and M4's back in the Army days. Those i could shoot expert with or without optics. I never would be able to do that with an iron sighted AK. Well maybe an old Valmet or Galil. Those clones fixed the sight radius issues.

Of course older AKM's in 7.62 are a bit different animal.

 

[Jagdwyre]

There are instructors out there getting new shooters to make hits with AK's out to 400 meters, consistently, and with iron sights. 7.62x39 can reach out and touch someone further than many people seem to give it credit for, the difference is you better know how to compensate for that drop at longer ranges. I don't think anyone will ever say the sights on an AK are better than ones found on an AR or M14, but they are absolutely usable at range, they do generally require more practice though.

I think people who have shot enough have probably come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter which rifle you choose, AK or AR, it's personal preference and it just matters how proficient you are with it. There are people out there doing amazing things with both rifles.

On a side note, I really wish Valmets were still being imported. Fins know how to make a great AK.