Gently, I would revise my previous posts:
I would like to see the following in the DS2 design system:
1) Tactical Points system.
TAC = Movement Points * Protection Points * Offense Points + Carring
Capacity Protection Points are a combination of Armor Points * the average of
Signature and (ECM + PDS)[round up].
Armor points are equal to points from all sides. Armor rating and cost are
1:4, 2:6, 3:8, 4:10, 5:12. The points are totaled for all 6 sides of the
vehicle (Front, Left, Back, Right, Top, Bottom), then divided by 6 (round up).
Reactive and ablative armor adds 2 to the point value per side it is on.
Signature has the following point costs: 1:12, 2:10, 3:8, 4:6, 5:4 ECM has the
following point costs: Basic:6, Enh:8, Sup:10 PDS has the following point
costs: Basic:6, Enh:8, Sup:10 Offensive Points are equal to the FCS value *
range band points * weapon strength points * Chit Validity points. Artillery
is handled differently. AP weapons are handled differently. FCS value is
Basic:6, Enh:8, Sup:10 Range Band: Determine the range band by subtracting
Medium Range from Long
Range. This should also match Medium Range - Close Range. For 1 range
band weapons (i.e. GMS) Divide the maximum range by 3 to get the range band.
Range band points are: (upto) 4":4, 6":6, 8":8, 10":10, 12":12. Subtract the
Range Band from the Close range; if the result is more than 1/2 the
range band length, add 2 to the Range Band Points; if more than zero but less
than
1/2, add 1 to the Range Band Points. Artillery has a range band points
of 20. Weapon Strength: points by size, 1:4, 2:6, 3:8, 4:10, 5:12. Artillery
has a strength rating of Light:12, Medium:18, Heavy:24 [accounts for 3
vehicles caught in blast radius due to unit coheriency].
Chit Validity: points by validity Allx2:12, All:10, Red+Yellow:8,
All/2:8,
Red:6, Yellow or Green:4. Add anti-infantry rating (by chit validity) to
the Chit validity points. Movement points [change to DS2]: Divide maximum
movement inches by 2 (for aerospace use 20 points). Then add by movement type:
High Mobility Wheeled & GEV:1 Tracked, Walker:2 Grav:3, VTOL:3, Aerospace:4,
Amphibious:1. Carring Capacity: As listed in DS2.
2) Tuffleyverse-specific capacity limitations. If playing in the
Tuffleyverse, some constraints should be placed on the capacity of a vehicle
and the ammount of equipment, passengers, & cargo it can carry (i.e. no
MDC/5s on a skateboard). I would suggest a higher limit than is
currently used and do away with the maximum number of weapons rules.
3) Tuffleyverse-specific campaign points system. This would reflect
resourse usage or economic issues within the tuffleyverse. This would be
especially good for campaigns.
One problem with points systems is that the tactical utility of systems depend
a lot on what the opponent brings. For example ablative armour is a waste of
points unless your opponent has lasers.
Correct. All that you can hope for is a base, comparison value. Circumstances
(i.e. scenarios) will always adjust the value of units. Striving for a point
system that will handle all situations is like looking
for the lost arc -- you will only find it if you are Indiana Jones, and
then you will loose it to bureaucrats.
I imagine between frequent opponents and in set scenarios, both the points
system and the capacity system will mysteriously mutate or disappear
completely.
However, I would hate to see it just disappear (like in stargrunt). One of the
reasons it is taking me so long to get a game of stargrunt going is attempting
to balance the sides (not exact balance, but balanced to where each side has
fun). As I am one of about 2 GZG players (and the other one has disappeared)
in my area, I need to ensure the scenario will work before
presenting it to non-GZG players. If I run a scenario, and the players
feel
it is out of balance, they will assume that it is the _game_, not me,
that is off. I would hate for this to happen.
Hello
A few remarks (though Oerjan can probably make better comments):
Bell, Brian K (Contractor) schrieb:
> I would like to see the following in the DS2 design
Do you indeed mean:
MP*PP*OP + CC
(Multiplying the first three and THEN adding the capacity) OR
MP*PP* ( OP + CC )
(Adding Offense and capacity FIRST and then multiplying)
?
Not sure which makes more sense, probably the second one, as the capacity's
value will increase with mobility and survival.
> Protection Points are a combination of Armor Points *
> Armor points are equal to points from all sides. Armor
> divided by 6 (round up). Reactive and ablative armor adds 2 to the
For tactical effectiveness points, the front armour should be weighted more
heavily, as usually it's the front that gets the enemy's attention.
Something like
60% * Front + 40% * (Average of other 5 faces)
> Range Band: Determine the range band by subtracting
I must say, I don't understand the procedure, and hence, the reasons for it.
Note that a weapon that has twice the range of another can reach four(!) times
the area, and thus hit 4 times as many targets, hence its value should be 4
times the base value. This has to be modified by
line-of-sight and rate-of-fire considerations, but doubling the range
should still more than double the value.
> 2) Tuffleyverse-specific capacity limitations.
I would consider these as standard for any "realistic" world. Optionally to be
dropped with agreement of both players.
> I would suggest a higher limit than is currently
Yes. Certainly to the latter point.
Greetings
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
Bell, Brian K (Contractor) schrieb:
> -----Original Message-----
But the value of ammo, passengers and cargo is higher if they survive and move
faster to where they are needed. Hence they should be multiplied too. But
capacity should have lower points than weaponry, yes.
> For tactical effectiveness points, the front armour
Yes, but any system tactical effectiveness is based on assumptions about the
battlefield. For a discussion, it's better to state assupmtions openly rather
than to work off unstated ones.
> Note that a weapon that has twice the range of another
One per bound, yes. But over many bounds, it still can reach 4 times as many
targets.
> If it is set too high, you will tip the balance toward the shorter
And if you set the value of long range too low, long-range weapons will
be too cheap.
> without having to use numbers large enough that the final costs would
Use of low integer numbers would certainly be a virtue.
Greetings
[quoted original message omitted]
Brian Bell wrote:
> I would like to see the following in the DS2 design system:
As a basic structure for a points-only system, this is almost exactly
what I want as well. I don't really agree with the various actual numbers
though
- the value of a particular die size is only very rarely directly
proportional to the die size itself :-(
> 1) Tactical Points system.
The cargo you carry on the battlefield - be it infantry, artillery ammo
or
something else - is almost always a "weapon" of some sort. The formula
should therefore be
TAC = Movement Points * Protection Points * (Offense Points + Carrying
Capacity)
This also avoids the somewhat embarrassing situation where a very fast,
heavily armoured but completely unarmed infantry carrier is worth less (namely
zero points) than a slow, unarmoured lorry with a LMG bolted onto
the roof - neither can kill the other, but the fast heavy vehicle is far
more likely to deliver its passengers intact and in time at their intended
destination :-/
> Protection Points are a combination of Armor Points * the average of
ECM and PDS multiply with one another rather than add, so this formula becomes
Protection points = Armour * (Signature + ECM * PDS)
This means that you get a non-zero value for "no PDS", since "no ECM, no
PDS" still gives you a D4 against GMSs.
> Armor points are equal to points from all sides. Armor rating and cost
KH is right about weighting the frontal armour more than the others (or at
least the strongest armour, since that's the side you'll attempt to point
towards the enemy as often as possible), but I'm not sure of exactly what the
weights should be.
Brian's reply about GMSs and IAVRs being roof-hitting is very true for
real-world weapons, but DS2 currently specifies that GMSs and IAVRs both
hit the side armour facing the firer - the only roof-hitting weapons
in DS2 at the moment are artillery and aerospace- or VTOL-mounted
weapons
:-/ For DS3, I'd prefer to let GMSs and IAVRs choose if they want to hit
the top of the vehicle or the side nearest to the firer... at least in some
settings <g>
Armour/5 isn't worth five times as much as Armour/1, though. For the DS2
chit-pull damage resolution, the relative armour factors are roughly:
5 + Armour rating (+1 more if ablative or reactive)
> Signature has the following point costs: 1:12, 2:10, 3:8, 4:6, 5:4
Better: 1:12, 2:11, 3:10, 4:9, 5:8 (ie., 13 - Signature)
> ECM has the following point costs: Basic:6, Enh:8, Sup:10
A PDS die is worth more than an ECM die of the same size, since it adds an
extra defensive die instead of shifting an already-existing one upwards.
(Also note that these values aren't exactly "points costs", since they
multiply both with one another and with several other factors in the points
system.)
These values:
ECM: None: 1, Basic:1.1, Enhanced: 1.2, Superior: 1.3 PDS: None: 1, Basic:1.2,
Enhanced: 1.35, Superior: 1.5
...give the correct relations between the various (ECM * PDS) combinations,
but they're *not* properly scaled in comparison to the Signature values above.
> Offensive Points are equal to the FCS value * range band points *
If it only were this simple... The FCS value is exactly multiplicative with
the rest, but I'm not at all convinced that the range and chit values can be
treated in this way.
> Artillery is handled differently. AP weapons are handled differently.
Both of these can be handled by straight costs, since these weapons all have
fixed ranges and no FCSs.
> FCS value is Basic:6, Enh:8, Sup:10
Agreed. This the one system for which the die size actually *is* at least
roughly proportional to its value <g>
> Range Band: Determine the range band by subtracting Medium Range from
Subtract the
> Range Band from the Close range; if the result is more than 1/2 the
Like KH I don't understand the reason behind this algorithm, although I did
manage to parse it. One problem with it is that HVC/5, HKP/3-5 and
MDC/3-5
(with ranges varying from 40" to 60") all get a range band value of 14,
while HELs and GMS/H are undefined (should they be 20 and 16
respectively, or should they be 14 as well?). None of the DS2 weapons fall in
the "Close
Range minus Range Band is more than 0 but less than Range Band/2" group,
BTW - the result of this subtraction is either 0, 1*Range Band, or more
than 1*Range Band for all the DS2 weapons.
KH's comments about 2x the range covering 4x the area giving the weapon 4x the
value would be roughly correct on a featureless plain (even though his
"4x the targets" is not) - based on Full Thrust experience I'd call it
closer to 3.3x the value for twice the range (due to being able to shoot
more often), but the value of range definitely an exponential function rather
than a linear one. However, DS2 is usually *not* played on a
featureless plain which tones the value of long-ranged weapons down
considerably; it may well be that the value of range really is proportional to
range itself.
> Weapon Strength:
See comments avove.
Two further questions here:
- "All/2" is weaker than "Red" unless the target's armour rating is
lower than the number of chits drawn
- How do you account for the way chit validities vary from range band to
range band?
> Artillery has a range band points of 20.
Hm? Vehicles may be up to 3" away from the nearest other vehicle in its
unit, so if the unit is as spread-out as possible a single artillery
template cannot cover more than 2 of its vehicles. (In addition getting
multiple shots is usually only worth the square root of the number of
shots, but I'm not entirely certain that this applies to artillery - it
could be that this is only true for direct-fire shoot-outs.)
> Movement points [change to DS2]: Divide maximum movement inches by 2
I'd group Tracked and GEV together, with HMW trailing behind and LMW being
worth even less. Walker mobility is actually more worth than Grav given the
current DS2 terrain effects; a Walker with BMF X has a longer average move
through mixed terrain than a Grav vehicle with the same BMF.
Hm. I'm not entirely convinced that a BMF 15 Grav tank is really worth more
than twice as much as a BMF 10 LMW with the same armament and defences
though :-/
Brian B2 pointed out that vehicles that are physically large and/or
heavy should get a (very) small points rebate, since their size can restrict
them from using certain bridges, and also makes them more difficult to carry
inside other vehicles.
> 2) Tuffleyverse-specific capacity limitations.
Eg., use the current DS2 *capacity requirements* (not points costs!) for
non-armour systems, but charge 1 per level of armour per side and
increase the total capacity of the vehicle to 10*Size. The points cost of the
vehicle is determined as above :-/
All in all I agree with the basic concept. The relative weights of
Signature vs ECM/PDS and how to value weapons need to be worked on more
though :-/
***
Haven't had time to look at Adrian's long post yet. Will try to do that
tomorrow :-/
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
The
> formula
Almost exactly the kind of system I think works best.
For DS3, I'd prefer to let GMSs and IAVRs choose if they want to
> hit
Maybe the type of attack should also modify the ability of ADS/PDs to
defend, since a higher-flying Top Attack GMS/IAVR should present a
slightly juicier target to those systems....
3B^2
> 3B^2 wrote:
> For DS3, I'd prefer to let GMSs and IAVRs choose if they want to hit
That's what I'm thinking as well, yes. Haven't translated it into actual
game mechanics yet though :-/
Later,
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 6:41 AM +0200 4/10/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Except at least one of the top attacks does so by flying directly
over the target when coming from the front/side/rear of the target.
RBS Bill does this iirc.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> At 6:41 AM +0200 4/10/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Maybe the type of attack should also modify the ability of ADS/PDs
Nonetheless, at the end of its flight it still has to raise its altitude
high enough to come down on the top of its target. Given the level of
technological advance we're assuming for game PSB, even that fraction of a
second at an altitude even a meter or two higher than normal should make it
easier for a PDS/ADS to recognize and kill such a missile than to hit a
side-attack missile that stays low all the way to target.
3B^2
> At 10:33 AM -0700 4/10/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Umm, nope. There isn't a pitch up per say, rather it flys directly over the
target (just above line of sight) and has the shaped charge jet angled to the
side of the missile (down on the target's roof.) There isn't much of an arc in
this missiles flight path.
see http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bofors/
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/rbs56-bill.htm
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> Umm, nope. There isn't a pitch up per say, rather it flys directly
Still, in order to be ABOVE the top of the target, it has to fly at a higher
altitude than a missile aiming into the SIDE of the target (Whether it "pops"
up over the target or simply flies straight at a high enough
altitude). Given future tech, a side-attack missile could conceivably
take
Nap-of-the-Earth to extremes, flying no more than a foot or two above
the
ground. A straigh-flying top attacker would still have to be at least
as high off the ground as the top of it's target, plus a tidge. even this
slight difference in flight altitudes could tip the balance for ADS/PDS.
In
fact, a straight-flying top-attacker would be at a higher/easier to hit
altitude LONGER than a last minute pop-up missile, and thus conceivably
be EASIER to hit.
Of course, ultimately I'll yield to OO's opinion on this subject, since he
actually works on the SOB's
3B^2
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> For DS3, I'd prefer to let GMSs and IAVRs choose if they want to hit
> defend, since a higher-flying Top Attack GMS/IAVR should present a
BILL? Yes, that's one of our products. Most other current top-attack
ATGMs use this kind of flight path as well, though the newer types like
Javelin
and some older air-launched types like Hellfire use dive attacks
instead.
The reason the top-attack ATGMs are easier for ADS to stop than
side-attack
missiles are, is that they by definition have to fly above their target and
therefore can't use the target as a mask against the ADS. Dive-attack
missiles should probably be even more vulnerable to this than OTA-style
ones like BILL, but the main difference is between side-attack missiles
on
one hand and all types of top-attack missiles on the other - the
top-attack
ones have to give the ADS a free line of sight when it pops up for the
attack, while the side-hitting ones don't.
You do have one point, though appearently not the one you intended:
OTA-style missiles like BILL can't easily switch between side- and
top-attack modes due to the way their warhead is mounted. Dive-attack
missiles like Javelin and Hellfire *can* switch between side- and
top-attack modes, since their warhead is facing straight forward.
Regards,
> At 1:08 AM +0200 4/11/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Doesn't the masking depend on the target being exactly between the ADS and the
firing platform? Also, does 1.05 Meters really count that much?
> You do have one point, though appearently not the one you intended:
??! I thought BILL 2 has three user selected modes for side attack for soft
targets, top attack for armored targets (magnetic sensors), and top attack
with optical sensors controlling detonation. At least that's what the sales
literature on the web sites says...
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> The reason the top-attack ATGMs are easier for ADS to stop than
> their target and therefore can't use the target as a mask against the
If by "exactly between" you mean "the ATGM shooter, target and ADS form an
exactly straight line", then no it doesn't. As long as the ADS vehicle is
in the middle of the target's formation - and it tends to be, since that
maximizes the number of units it can protect - a side-striking missile
attacking from outside the same formation has a good chance of using the
target vehicle - or, indeed, some other vehicle(s) in the same unit - as
a mask
FWIW, I wouldn't really want a gun-based ADS try to engage any ATGM
attacking me... any near-misses on the ATGM are rather too close to me
for
my taste :-/
> Also, does 1.05 Meters really count that much?
Yep. Simply put it is the difference between a laser-armed ADS having to
fire literally through friendly vehicles to nail the missile and the same ADS
being able to fire above them.
> You do have one point, though appearently not the one you intended:
The two web sites you refer to are FAS, which is notoriously unreliable (I've
seen so many bad mistakes on that site that I no longer trust *anything* I
read there unless I can get independent confirmation of
it!),
and Army Technology, which is usually OK for US and Commonwealth stuff but
not always completely up-to-date on systems from other countries. You
shouldn't believe *everything* you read in sales brochures, you know...
particularly not when you get them third hand.
BILL's side attack mode is for SOFT targets. Soft targets are by definition
not armoured - log bunkers, windows, wooden walls and similar, and
unarmoured vehicles are "soft"; armoured vehicles are not. In order to attack
a soft target with BILL you crash the missile straight into the middle of the
target and let it blow up inside like a rather inefficient HE
round - you don't use its HEAT characteristics at all. If you try using
this side attack mode against ARMOURED targets, the missile is smashed against
the side of the target and causes at best some dents.
The two top-attack modes are effectively identical except for the
trigger conditions. I wouldn't really call the optical attack mode "soft
target
mode", BTW - the main reasons for it is to be able to find non-magnetic
targets (like de-magnetized MBTs) and to allow fire over previously
destroyed vehicles.
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> If by "exactly between" you mean "the ATGM shooter, target and ADS
> that maximizes the number of units it can protect - a side-striking
> using the target vehicle - or, indeed, some other vehicle(s) in the
> for my taste :-/
Having slept some more (than last night's 4 hours), I realize that my
previous answer wasn't entirely complete :-(
BILL flies 1.05 meters above the straight line between launcher and aiming
point.
What the sales literature you referred to didn't mention is that when you
fire a BILL you aim at the top of the target, whereas for a side-attack
missile you aim at the center-of-mass - the hull of a modern AFV is
usually less heavily armoured than the turret. This means that the aim point
for a
BILL is ~1 meter higher up than it is for a side-attack ATGM. This puts
the
BILL flight path closer to 2 meters above the side-attack missile's
flight
path (unless the target is hull-down, of course).
This means that the difference you're looking at is the difference between
going 1 meter above the top of the target and going ~1 meter *below* the
top of the target. From a masking/unmasking point of view this is very
different indeed from going 1-2 meters to one side.
> I think you're giving too much in one area and not in another. I'd
I can't refute your belief without going into classified stuff, but I can say
this much: you're wrong.
(Unless of course you're talking about the TOW2B, since that is an
overflying top-attack missile just like the BILL2 and therefore has
almost exactly the same flight profile. Well, apart from the longer range that
is
:-/ However, from the context I take it that you referred to the older
side-attack TOW versions and not to the TOW2B.)
> After all, those tanks have a bit more than a meter's difference
There's a very significant difference between the *horisontal* separation
between those tanks and the *vertical* distance between them.
.
> The two web sites you refer to are FAS, which is notoriously
> stuff but not always completely up-to-date on systems from other
You're not barred from an engineer that has worked on it, you know. One of
them just told you not to trust third-hand sales literature...
(My first real job assignment as ballistician for the company currently known
as Saab Bofors Dynamics was on the blast area around the BILL2 launcher; some
of my older collegues worked on the flight characteristics and trajectory of
the missile itself.)
> The point is that BILL 2 has a very close trajectory when compared to
The
> ballistic arc type ATGMs like Javelin have a far and away more exposed
And BILL2 has a flight path which is considerably more exposed to ADS than
the flight path of a side-attack missile.
> Further one would have to expect that either all missiles in the day of
> 2183 are top attack like BILL 2 or that the effects are too granular
If you have different armour ratings on top and sides, then the difference
between side-attack and top-attack is definitely large enough to capture
in
the game. So is the difference between side-attack and top-attack. The
difference between DA (Javelin-style) and OTA (BILL-style) is however
likely to be below the granularity of the game rules.
> I personally think it was something that may have been missed in the
When DS was designed, BILL was the only top-attack ATGM in service - and
it was brand new, so the combat SciFi authors hadn't yet begun to mention it
<shrug>
Regards,
Laserlight asked:
> Oerjan said:
Not off-hand, no. Given FAS's track record in other areas however, I'd
check the official web sites of the relevant armies and countries for the
number of soldiers and the population size. The ratio itself is easy to
calculate, after all :-/
> >You shouldn't believe *everything* you read in sales brochures, you
Of course, what you don't tell the customer is that it was you yourself who
personally wrote the offending brochure... <g>
Signing out for a couple of days,
> At 11:20 PM +0200 4/11/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
So its not a mode that one switches between in the system causing the missile
to fly at this path or this path, it has to do with employment of the aiming
device.
> I think you're giving too much in one area and not in another. I'd
*shrug* Ok. So I take it that Bill flies above the trees or even higher? All
this really is is way off the scope of what I was trying to get at. For game
purposes there isn't any difference made between the attack profiles of any
missiles. The game currently assumes that all missiles have the same exposure
to the ADS and all missiles attack the same armor as every other missile.
When you compare low (saggar), medium (BILL2 and TOW2) and high altitude
(Hellfire) they all have a different profile or path that they follow to the
target correct?
My original point was that in the context of missiles fired from a ground
platform there were situations where attacking the top armor is valid when
compared to the catch all that is currently the armor attacked is the one
facing the launcher (barring an air launched GMS).
> There's a very significant difference between the *horisontal*
I can only assume then that the missile is then flying several meters above
the ground such that there isn't any possibility of the (currently non
existent) ADS not seeing it. The closest thing we have to ADS in modern times
is CIWS, Goal Keeper (a bit large for a vehicle mount) and the Russian 30mm
thingy.
> You're not barred from an engineer that has worked on it, you know.
Neat! :-)
[snip]
> If you have different armour ratings on top and sides, then the
What of then the difference between Javelin and air launched like Hellfire
which is ballistic in it's path or TOW when launched from the air? Also, can't
one assume that by 2183, ATGM's are at least imitating the attack profile of
the better ASMs that hug the surface and then finally execute a pop up and
dive attack on their targets with very little time for engagement by the
target? After all if the ADS systems are in fact able to target them during a
high profile flight, the designers would be fixing that in subsequent missiles
designs.
> At 11:25 PM +0200 4/11/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
If Bofors works any thing like Lockheed Martin then it wasn't ever one person.
It was likely a committee of about 100 people who put data into the pot.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> What the sales literature you referred to didn't
Side note: Javelin (from my brief experience with a simulator exactally once)
doesn't work that way. You aim for the center of the tank and push a button on
the sight unit to select top-attack or direct attack.
That selects how it works. I may be mistaken, but IIRC it flies up above the
aim point and then drops down. Don't know precisely how the ballistics work
out.
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> >I think you're giving too much in one area and not in another. I'd
-->8--
> >Granted, but barring the actual user manual or an engineer that has
One of
> them just told you not to trust third-hand sales literature...
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> *shrug* Ok. So I take it that Bill flies above the trees or even
I think the original point was that the game SHOULD differentiate between the
two, and probably WILL in it's next incarnation.
3B^2
> At 6:36 AM -0700 4/12/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
The problem is that there are (According to Oerjan) three profiles. Low and
straight, High and straight (just how much higher he can't say) and huge assed
arcs. If you add additional profiles as based on launched from Aircraft
(higher starting point in some cases) you get additional effects when it comes
to ADS.
> 3B^2
> At 6:00 PM +1000 4/12/02, Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
Ahcha. Javelin certainly does do a number on that T-72 hull.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> The problem is that there are (According to Oerjan) three profiles.
All of which could be simulated. How MUCH you'd want to differentiate is a
matter of taste, but even merely giving one ADS modifier for
ground-launched
side-attack and another for both all air-launched attacks and top
attacks would be a valid option.
3B^2
> Alan Brain wrote:
> >>I think you're giving too much in one area and not in another. I'd
And this emoticon means...? <g>
> Non-combat experiments are to be taken with a grain of salt, but at
Unfortunately the difference from the ADS's point of view is exactly what
we're discussing here :-/
Oh, BTW - there are quite a few suspicions that the demonstration shown
on StrategyPage had been rigged... a fair amount of extra explosives dumped
into the turret of the T-72 :-/ The explosion was rather more impressive
than it should've been...
***
> John Atkinson wrote:
> What the sales literature you referred to didn't mention is that when
Correct. Javelin and BILL represent two different top-attack concepts
(Dive Attack vs Overflying Top Attack), which is why Ryan is contrasting the
two against one another.
I don't know where you're supposed to aim when firing TOW2B; I've never
fired that one either in a simulator or for real :-( (I have fired two
"shots" with a Javelin simulator though, and several with BILL2 simulators
:-) ).
> I may be mistaken, but IIRC it flies up above the aim point and then
Again correct. The Javelin rises *very* high above the aim point, then
dives steeply down onto the target from high above - IIRC the final
approach angle is around 70 degrees from the horisontal, thus the term "Dive
Attack". The HEAT warhead of a Javelin missile faces straight
forward, just like they do in the older side-attack missiles types
(TOW-"anything earlier than 2B", all Russian ATGM, MILAN, Dragon etc.)
BILL2 and TOW2B are both Overflying Top Attack missiles, which means that they
follow an essentially horisontal trajectory which passes ~1 meter above the
intended target. Their warheads are facing downwards, perpendicular to the
trajectory. (The original BILL warhead was also turned downwards, but not
perpendicular to the trajectory.) This gives them a trajectory which is much
lower than the Javelin one, but which at the same
time is considerably *higher* than the older side-attack ATGMs.
However, the controversy in this thread is not whether the Javelin flies
high or how you aim it; it is whether the BILL2 etc. fly high enough to group
it with the Javelin for ADS purposes (my position) or if it flies so
low that the ADS should treat it like a side-attack missile (Ryan's
position).
***
> Ryan M. Gill wrote:
> What the sales literature you referred to didn't mention is that when
Yes and no. It is both a switch in the system *and* how you use the aiming
device.
In the direct-attack "unarmoured target" mode (ie., when you want the
missile to crash straight into the target and use the impact sensor to trigger
the warheads) it flies directly along the line of sight, so in this mode you
aim directly at the spot you want it to hit. (Even FAS got this
part right. I'm impressed :-7 ) However, since this target mode is
useless against armoured targets I don't consider it particularly relevant for
the current discussion.
In the two Overflying Top Attack modes (basic and "soft target") the missile
flies 1.05 meters above the direct line of sight, and since you want it to fly
about 1 meter above the roof of the target to get the maximum effect out of
the warheads you have to put the aiming point at the top of the target.
> I think you're giving too much in one area and not in another. I'd
That is not implied by anything I have written. It is also quite incorrect,
unless the trees in question are less than some 3-4 meters tall.
> All this really is is way off the scope of what I was trying to get
The current DS*2* doesn't make any difference between the attack profiles of
missiles. That's correct.
However, whether you're aware of it or not what you are arguing against in
this sub-thread is Brian B2's and my views of how the rules should be
*changed* in DS*3* in order to reflect more realistic underlying assumptions.
Specifically, we're talking about changing the GMS and IAVR rules to allow
DS3 to emulate the different attack profiles of real-world ATGMs, and
consequently also implicitly change DS2's assumption "there are no
top-attack missiles" to a DS3 "there are top-attack missiles".
(The reason for this change to GMSs and IAVRs is that while the DS2 armour
distribution gives rather small differences between top and side armour (at
most a 1-level difference) which makes the choice of which side to
attack fairly unimportant, the less restricted armour distributions suggested
for DS3 make the choice of which armour to attack quite important indeed.)
This means that while your above observation about the current DS*2* rules and
their implicit assumptions is entirely correct, it is unfortunately not very
relevant for the current discussion...
Let's review what this sub-thread is about:
Brian's and my view is that GMSs and IAVRs should be changed to allow them to
choose (immediately prior to launch) whether they want to attack the side of
the target facing the shooter or they want to attack the target's
top armour. Brian then commented that GMSs/IAVRs choosing the top-attack
option would be slightly easier for ADS to intercept, to which comment I
agreed. Note the "slightly", BTW.
You objected to the "slightly easier for ADS to intercept" bit by referring to
the RBS 56 BILL, implying but not explicitly stating that you think that
the BILL should be no easier for ADS to engage than side-attack
missiles. (It may be that this was not what you *intended* to say, but the way
you
phrased it made it very difficult to interpret in any other way.)
The subsequent thread has all been about whether ADS should engage
BILL-style OTA missiles as if they were side-attack missiles (Sagger,
older
TOW versions) or as dive-attack missiles (Javelin, Hellfire), with you
arguing the "as side-attack" point of view and me arguing the "as dive
attack" one - both of us basing our arguments on more-or-less accurate
real-world data rather than on the DS2 or DS3 game mechanics and their
respective underlying assumptions.
> When you compare low (saggar), medium (BILL2 and TOW2) and high
If by "TOW2" you mean TOW2B, then you are correct. TOW2 and TOW2A are both
side-attack missiles like the Sagger.
However, these trajectories can be divided into two main groups:
"So low that the ADS usually cannot get a clear shot", which includes all
side-attack missiles, and
"High enough that the ADS usually gets a clear shot", which includes
*all*
top-attack missiles regardless of their exact flight profile.
> My original point was that in the context of missiles fired from a
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
If you're trying to say that "the current (DS2) model (ie.,
ground-launched
missiles always attack the armour facing the launcher) is valid for some
top-attack missiles", the yes - but *only* because DS2 doesn't really
allow much of a difference between front, side, top and rear armour (at most 1
armour point of difference). In other words, the DS2 way of modelling ATGMs is
valid only because the DS2 way of modelling *armour* is rather
unrealistic - the features which makes top-attack missiles so attractive
in the real world simply don't exist in DS2.
If (which I hope) DS3 allows larger differences between the armour ratings
of different sides of vehicles, then the difference between side- and
top-attack becomes a lot more important... just like it is in the real
world.
If you're trying to say something else, I can't figure out what it is
:-/
I've already said this at least once, but it bears repeating: the important
difference between the three trajectories is *not* how easy the incoming
missiles are to detect - it is avoiding blue-on-blue incidents with the
ADS raking friendly vehicles instead of protecting them against missiles.
> There's a very significant difference between the *horisontal*
I wouldn't call it completely *impossible* for the top-attack missile to
avoid detection, but as long as there's a LOS between the ADS and the target
the ADS should have a high probability of detecting a missile attacking the
target.
"Several meters above ground" is quite correct - AFVs are typically 2.2
-
2.8 meters tall over the turret roof, so if the OTA ATGM is to fly 1 meter
above the target's turret roof it'll be some 3-4 meters above ground
during the final part of its trajectory.
> The closest thing we have to ADS in modern times is CIWS, Goal Keeper
The closest thing to ADS we have *in service right now* is CIWS and its
equivalents. They're rather too big to work as ground-vehicle-mounted
ADSs, and as I noted in a previous post the very fact that they use cannon to
destroy the incoming threat makes them rather dangerous to the units they
"protect".
The closest thing *currently under development* is the vehicle-mounted
version of the THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser), which is developed by TRW.
Originally intended to stop everything from RPG rounds to enemy aircraft (at
least according to the early announcements from TRW), they've
now narrowed the range of targets down to "short-range rockets [ie.
Katyushas] and
artillery, UAVs, cruise missiles, pop-up helicopters". Unconfirmed
rumour
has it that one of the reasons they dropped the anti-RPG capability was
that no-one wanted a huge laser fire at ground-level targets right next
to them <g>
> If you have different armour ratings on top and sides, then the
Argh. This should have read "...then the difference between attacking the side
armour and attacking the top armour is definitely large enough to
capture in the game. So is the difference between side-attack and
top-attack from the ADS perspective. The difference between DA and OTA
is however likely to be below the granularity of the game." Sorry about that!
> What of then the difference between Javelin and air launched like
Hellfire, whether fired from the ground or from high altitudes, is a
dive-attack missile just like the Javelin and should be treated
identically for ADS purposes. (In other ways, eg. range and warhead size, the
two are obviously quite different.)
Air-launched TOWs have lower trajectories than Javelins but higher
trajectories than ground-launched BILLs. If the difference between the
BILL trajectory and the Javelin one is not important enough to make the game
use different rules for each of them, why would a trajectory which falls
*between* these two warrant special treatment?
> Also, can't one assume that by 2183, ATGM's are at least imitating the
attack
> profile of the better ASMs that hug the surface and then finally
We can assume that ATGMs in 2183 are ground-skimming and pop up if they
want to make top attacks, certainly.
However, "very little time" is rather more dubious. Today's Russian AFV point
defence systems need around 30 milliseconds to detect an incoming ATGM or RPG
round against a very cluttered background, lock on to it, fire at it and
destroy it... and they do this using fragmenting explosive
charges in mountings fixed on the main turret, and vac-tube electronics.
Granted, Russian vac-tube electronics are faster than any Western
vac-tube
electronics, but our integrated circuits are faster still... and I would
expect electronics in 2183 to be even faster.
Most of these 30 ms are used to turn an anti-missile charge to face the
threat (which means turning the vehicle's turret), plus the time it takes
for said charge and/or its fragments to move from the vehicle to the
missile (which is intercepted some 15-25 meters from the vehicle). A
laser might take longer to aim (but with a good projector design able to
rotate independently of the main turret it may well be faster), but the flight
time of a laser beam is *much* shorter than that of a fragmenting charge.
Finally, keep in mind that DS2's (and DS3's, unless we change the game
mechanics completely) ADS and PDS are far less effective against DS2 GMSs than
today's AFV point defences are against today's ATGMs. The game mechanics
already assume that the GMSs have improved their performance
more than the anti-missile defences have :-/
Regards,
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> >-->8--
Snippage. As in scissors >8
> >Non-combat experiments are to be taken with a grain of salt, but at
> Oh, BTW - there are quite a few suspicions that the demonstration
The T-72 was "fully tactical". That means with a 100% fuel and 100% ammo
load IIRC. Wouldn't surprise me if all shells were HEAT or HE rather than
APFSDS-T.
Given the trajectory of the slug, it would hit all the ammo storage at the
base of the turret. But most is propellant, causing a fast fire (flames 30
metres high out of every orifice) rather than an explosion.
So I'd say that they didn't exactly cheat... just used the most favourable
possible ammo load, one unlikely to occur in combat.
> Again correct. The Javelin rises *very* high above the aim point,
You should see the movie on the strategy page, not just the stills. After
initial projection from the tube (at about a 30 degree up angle), it tilts
upwards at what looks like 45' or more. Very High indeed, more like a Mortar
round than anything else. STRYX or Merlin anyone?
> However, the controversy in this thread is not whether the Javelin
Without knowing *why* they should be treated differently ( detection?
background?) I can't help. All I can do is give raw data and let you guys
figure it out.
At a range of 100m a Bill-2 looks more like a TOW-1 than anything else,
it may well be lost in the background of trees, houses, hills etc. At a range
of 10m the two are distinct, the TOW is still in background, the
Bill-2 not.
At a range of 1m the Bill-2 looks more like a Javelin, it's at a high
angle. But as it's going off at the time this may not matter.
> Alan Brain wrote:
> -->8--
OK <g>
> Oh, BTW - there are quite a few suspicions that the demonstration
If the amount of HE and propellant was equal to the full ammo load, they
appearently "forgot" to put said HE and propellant in their normal ammo
casings.
The only way to get an explosion as massive as in that video is if all the
propellant and HE stored in the target (approx. 90 kg of HE and 300 kg of
propellant for a combat-loaded T-72) is ignited simultaneously... and
the only way to ignite all explosives inside a tank simultaneously with a HEAT
jet is to put all those explosives in one big exposed pile.
If the "combat load" had consisted of real, complete rounds the jet
would've hit and ignited at best 1-2 rounds, which then would ignite
some
more rounds etc. causing a considerably more drawn-out and far less
intensive chain reaction than the one shown in the video - and throwing
some half of the on-board ammo out of the tank unexploded. Together with
the turret, of course - the T-72 is K-killed either way, but I seriously
doubt that you'll get that impressive an explosion in real combat :-/
> Again correct. The Javelin rises *very* high above the aim point,
If you're talking about
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/JavelinLiveFireVsT72.mpg ,
I've
had it downloaded on my work computer since last summer :-/ I've also
seen some of Raytheon's other Javelin promotion videos (not sure if they're
available on-line though; I saw them IRL at the EuroSatory 2000 defence
industry expo), and played with one of their Javelin simulators :-/ So
yes, I have a fairly good idea of the Javelin's trajectory.
> However, the controversy in this thread is not whether the Javelin
I've discussed the "why" both in the post you're replying to here and in
earlier posts :-/
> At a range of 100m a Bill-2 looks more like a TOW-1 than anything
The difference between the BILL2 and TOW1 trajectories close to the intended
target (which is where the ADS is most likely to attempt to shoot
it down) is 2-3 meters of altitude. Similar, though of course not
identical, to the difference in height between a hull-down tank and a
fully
exposed one: at 1-10 meters you'll (hopefully!) be able to hit the tank
no matter whether or not it is hull down, but the longer the range the harder
the hull-down tank is to hit compared to the fully exposed one :-/
> it may well be lost in the background of trees, houses, hills etc.
Unless the background is moving towards the ADS at roughly the same speed as
the missile, losing the missile in the background clutter is... let's
call it "not all that likely" :-/
Regards,
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> >it may well be lost in the background of trees, houses, hills etc.
let's
> call it "not all that likely" :-/
Diplomatic way of putting it: But given a high ECM environment, you may not
get any range info, nor even a good doppler. Then again, given the short
distances involved, it wouldn't