If I've read some of what Oerjan and others have said on this, RE DS2
mechanics, the PDS systems don't stop IAVRs? This does seem strange if true.
Do point defence charges stop them?
I ask because it seems to me likely that PDS systems and PDCs can (and do)
have some effectiveness against personal AT weapons. Now, RRs may be hard to
stop today because the PDS on a vehicle is not up to the task, but I have
heard of Phalanx systems deflecting 16 inch shells weighing 2000 pounds. If
this is true, why couldn't they drive off a smaller CG RR round? And if we
eventually get GACs (small MDCs for the DS2ers), why wouldn't we be capable of
engaging IAVRs, GMS, SMAW, LAW, etc.?
It seems to me in order to engage such a projectile, you need: 1) a sensor
system that can track small projectiles
2) an AI/expert system that can recognize a threat
3) a fire control system that can lock onto such projectiles fast 4) a rapid
fire gun with accurate targetting and a high slew rate in all axes of control
We've beaten all of these in Naval applications (Phalanx, Goalkeeper,
etc).
Does it seem unlikely these will shrink to be aboard tanks and other AFVs?
They'll get lighter, smaller, cheaper, faster, and more effective. I can't see
PDS being unable, by 2183, to engage IAVRs and other similar weapons. This is
doubly true if some recent US experiments with laser
line-of-site
horizon-to-horizon area defense systems show satisfactory results and
prove this can be workable. It may well be by 2183 that anything in the air
can be
engaged by such a high-powered, very accurate laser driven by powerful
target acquisition and tracking systems mounted on a fast slewing
multi-axis
gun mount.
Just a thought. Haven't had a chance to play DS2 yet, but I know I'd want
IAVRs and RRs to be engageable by PDS (which, no doubt, since DS2 is a points
game, means PDS would have to be upcosted).
Mr.Barclay,
To answer your question(s):
In DS II, there are both PDS's and PDC's. (The PDC's are referred to as
APFC's or Anti-Personnel Fragmentation Charges, because they serve not
only to protect from incoming IAVR's, but also to discourage enemy infantry
from
getting too close - they serve as sort of a shell of Claymores around
the tank [and no, I don't mean the kind made so feared in the hands of your
countrymen.])
In the DSII rules, PDS' will stop GMS', but NOT IAVR's. Don't ask me why.
APFC's will not stop IAVR's, but they do reduce their damage capability.
the heavier GMS' are not affected by APFC's, for that you have to equip the
tank with a more expensive Reactive Armor. Since you've never played DSII, and
I've never played SGII, I am afraid I can't translate the GMS' and IAVR's to
SGII terms for you, sorry.
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Thomas.Barclay" <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca>
If I've read some of what Oerjan and others have said on this, RE DS2
mechanics, the PDS systems don't stop IAVRs? This does seem strange if true.
Do point defence charges stop them?
Just a thought. Haven't had a chance to play DS2 yet, but I know I'd want
IAVRs and RRs to be engageable by PDS (which, no doubt, since DS2 is a points
game, means PDS would have to be upcosted).
> Thomas.Barclay wrote:
> If I've read some of what Oerjan and others have said on this, RE DS2
According to the rules, no. The IAVR mechanism is very simple: if
there's a target within 4", you draw 2 chits (no to-hit roll, no
ECM/PDS roll). Yellow chits are valid against APFC, Red against
reactive armour, and Red+Yellow against everything else.
Today's PDS systems are basically "guided APFCs", so a simple (and reasonably
accurate, at least for today's systems) fix to DSII is to make *any*
generation of PDS drop the IAVR chit validity to Yellow (just like APFC)
> It seems to me in order to engage such a projectile, you need:
Not a problem. One of the main problems today is to *stop* them from tracking
rifle bullets, and bullets are a lot smaller than HEAT rounds
:-/
> 2) an AI/expert system that can recognize a threat
Not a serious problem. If it is big enough (ie, "not a rifle bullet")
and headed towards the tank at >50m/s, it's a threat (adjust the exact
meaning of "towards" and the velocity threshold to suit your current
situation :-/ )
> 3) a fire control system that can lock onto such projectiles fast
Already exists
> 4) a rapid fire gun with accurate targetting and a high slew rate in
Or a large set of small fragmenting charges, which is what today's Russian
systems use. Somewhat lower endurance, but better effective
slew rate :-/
> We've beaten all of these in Naval applications (Phalanx, Goalkeeper,
You're way behind. The Russians have beaten all of these in AFV applications.
> Does it seem unlikely these will shrink to be aboard tanks and other
Particularly not since the Russians used their PDS systems with great effect
against the various buzzbombs and ATGMs used by the Afganis (according to
their reports, in DSII terms about 80% of incoming IAVRs
and GMSs were shot down) in 1989 - that's eleven years ago now...
Regards,
Hmmmm.... hey, that's a good idea. Mind if I use it?
----Original Message Follows----
> Oerjan wrote:
That's according to Russian reports, right? Is there independent
corroboration?
I believe that the reason that PDFCs attack IVAR's and PDS attack GMS is
two-fold.
1) Different sensors/fire control systems. PDFC's probably detect
high-speed
movement toward the vechicle (bullets, grenades, IVARs). PDS is probably
activated by radar, lasers, and other active ranging/designating
sources. 2) Area of coverage. PDFC's primarily protect the front, back, and
sides of the vehicle. PDS primarily look for targets that are more elevated
(trying for the top armor).
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
Brian Bilderback wrote [about letting PDS "count as" APFC against IAVRS]
> Hmmmm.... hey, that's a good idea. Mind if I use it?
No problem - that's why I posted it <g>
> Laserlight wrote:
> Oerjan wrote:
Does the German army count? <g> They've tested at least one of these
systems (IIRC the ARENA, but don't quote me on that - 'twas some time
since I read that Soldat und Technik, and my German isn't the best), and it
seems to have lived up to the claimed specs. The Germans found that it was
possible to defeat the "PDS" system by firing a pair of
ATGMs with a split-second delay (again IIRC less than 0.2 seconds), but
they also noted that this isn't easily accomplished in the field with
their current equipment :-/
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> Ignoring the Slammers, one could suggest that perhaps the rocket (or
Can't do that from a carried weapon unless the projectile is guided
somehow, unfortunately - you either get piss-poor accuracy or an
injured gunner if you try :-(
Later,
You'd think that a PDS that far in the future would be capable of enough
"Smarts" to detect both kinds of threats, from IAVR's AND from GMS'. Thus,
PDS' should be able, in game terms, to defend against IAVR's as well as
against GMS'. As for APFC's defending against IAVR's, I suppose the only reson
they don't might have to do with the charges not being quite as forceful as
the reactive armor charges, and thus not being able to damage the larger GMS
warheads, but even this arguement has it's weaknesses.
Your post brings up another interesting point, however. If future tanks are
still weaker on top than on the front (as is assumed in the game), why
aren't the GMS' in the game all top-targeting, thus having their damage
resolved against top/side level armor class, regardless of the direction
from which they come?
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: PDS vs. IAVR/LAW/SMAW/etc.
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:45:12 -0500
I believe that the reason that PDFCs attack IVAR's and PDS attack GMS is
two-fold.
1) Different sensors/fire control systems. PDFC's probably detect
high-speed
movement toward the vechicle (bullets, grenades, IVARs). PDS is probably
activated by radar, lasers, and other active ranging/designating
sources. 2) Area of coverage. PDFC's primarily protect the front, back, and
sides of the vehicle. PDS primarily look for targets that are more elevated
(trying for the top armor).
That STILL leaves the problem, of course, of how to allow for ADS fire vs
IAVR's.... unless you just do the same thing, but that's kinda pushing it.
Seems more likely that and ADS should just plain shoot the sucker down.
Along the same lines, what about the rule that ADS accuracy is diminished the
more GMS' it has to take out in one attack? Does this includes attacks on the
ADS vehicle itself? If this is the case, an ADS vehicle would be
less capable of defending ITSELF than is a regular vehicle that is
PDS-equipped. Doesn't seem to quite make sense. However, if that IS the
rule, is presents a beautiful way of taking out an ADS. Launch a whole
flock of GMS' at once - in active mode, the ADS would have only it's own
fire to protect it, since it's Stealth ability and ECM are nil while it's
active. It c an only take out so many, and the rest would have an easy time
hitting it. And GMS' are pretty cheap. You could equip one specialized
platoon, maybe fast, small GEV's or VTOL's (Which could then stand off),
specifically as ADS hunter-killers. Mind you, this does, IMHO, border
on cheese (Heck, it's practically swimming in Gouda), but does seem to be well
within the rules.
One interesting note on this tactic, I may have mentioned this before, but I
have a friend who was a LAV-25's gunner in a Mech Recon platoon. We
once discussed Soviet ZSU's, and he informed me that they were target #1 for
his unit. In any combat situation, his platoon would have deployed and
expended every ATM they had in their arsenal to take the beast out.
As for the dilemma the Germans had of the difficulty of timing two shots so
well, why not mount a light vehicle with a dual launcher system whose trigger
circuitry was designed to fire with the delay already programmed in?
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: PDS vs. IAVR/LAW/SMAW/etc.
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:10:10 +0100
Brian Bilderback wrote [about letting PDS "count as" APFC against IAVRS]
> Hmmmm.... hey, that's a good idea. Mind if I use it?
No problem - that's why I posted it <g>
> Laserlight wrote:
> Oerjan wrote:
Does the German army count? <g> They've tested at least one of these
systems (IIRC the ARENA, but don't quote me on that - 'twas some time
since I read that Soldat und Technik, and my German isn't the best), and it
seems to have lived up to the claimed specs. The Germans found that it was
possible to defeat the "PDS" system by firing a pair of
ATGMs with a split-second delay (again IIRC less than 0.2 seconds), but
they also noted that this isn't easily accomplished in the field with
their current equipment :-/
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> Ignoring the Slammers, one could suggest that perhaps the rocket (or
Can't do that from a carried weapon unless the projectile is guided
somehow, unfortunately - you either get piss-poor accuracy or an
injured gunner if you try :-(
Later,
> Brian B wrote:
Yes.
> If this is the case, an ADS vehicle would be less capable of defending
You could equip one specialized platoon, maybe fast, small GEV's or VTOL's
(Which could then stand off), specifically as ADS hunter-killers. Mind
you, this does, IMHO, border on cheese (Heck, it's practically swimming in
Gouda), but does seem to be well within the rules.
This tactic is practised in modern naval warfare and is called "flooding". It
overloads the target with too many missiles to shoot down all at once. See
also the recent FT thread on MT Missiles and Banzai Jammers for an analogous
approach.
While multiple GMS can take down a ADS vehicle, I prefer toss DFO or GMS so
that the "tossing" vehicle doesn't go near the ADS/s and doesn't suffer
from
morale problems. With my rules extensions on HEL equipped ADS/ZAD, and
the consequent increase of range to 60 inches, the DSII table top is a scary
place for Aerospace and VTOL vehicles.
Brian Bilderback
> As for APFC's defending against IAVR's, I suppose the only
The larger GMSs are able to carry warheads with better stand-off -
self-forging long-rods and similar, which detonate outside the APFC's
range. Unfortunately those warheads need to be quite big in order to have any
real penetrative power, so the smaller weapons need to come
close to the target - a meter or so at most, preferrably direct
contact.
'Course, this only describes the developments up 'til about 2050, not to 2183
<g>
> Your post brings up another interesting point, however. If future
However, today's vehicles are also considerably weaker on the top than on the
*sides*, and that is no longer true in DSII.
Regards,
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> That STILL leaves the problem, of course, of how to allow for ADS fire
Only if the ADS vehicle itself was the target, or it had a clear line of sight
to the round. IAVR rounds don't go very high, and I suspect that any troops
"protected" by an ADS system which tries to take out
low-flying short-range rockets will have rather strong opinions...
provided they survive the ADS fire, of course :-/
> Along the same lines, what about the rule that ADS accuracy is
Yep.
> If this is the case, an ADS vehicle would be less capable of defending
Hm. I can't find any rules forbidding you from equipping the ADS
vehicle with a PDS for close-in self-defence... it can't use ECM while
the ADS is in Active mode, but it seems to be able to use PDS.
> Doesn't seem to quite make sense.
No? Put it like this: Lighting up a powerful active targetting system is a
*very* good way of attracting lots of enemy fire... it's true today, and I
don't see it becoming less true in the future...
> fire to protect it, since it's Stealth ability and ECM are nil while
[snip]
> We once discussed Soviet ZSU's, and he informed me that they were
Exactly. According to what you write above his platoon is "practically
swimming in Gouda". If today's forces plan to use the very tactic you consider
so "cheesy" (ie, using light units with massive ATGM firepower specifically to
kill ADS vehicles), why on earth should the rules prevent it?
> As for the dilemma the Germans had of the difficulty of timing two
"...but they also noted that this isn't easily accomplished in the field with
their CURRENT equipment :-/" (emphasis added). Germany CURRENTLY has no
such vehicles, but they're working on it.
Unfortunately the "PDS" designers are just as aware of this possibility as
everyone else. The next generation of Active Protection Systems (or Defensive
Aid Suits, or whatever name you prefer for them) are unlikely to have this
problem.
Regards,
I'm sorry, let me clarify. The only thing I really find wrong with the rule is
that while a big, powerful ADS system can only defend against a limited number
of missiles, even when they're coming RIGHT AT IT, little PDS can, according
to the rules, stop an unlimited number of incoming attacks. YOur arguements
are all valid, but hsouldn't the PDS suffer similar limitations?
True.... which is why this is only an issue when the GMS comes in from the
FRONT of the tank - in which case, a top-down attack would still render
it more effective.... just a thought.
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: PDS vs. IAVR/LAW/SMAW/etc.
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:46:36 +0100
However, today's vehicles are also considerably weaker on the top than on the
*sides*, and that is no longer true in DSII.
Regards,
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> I'm sorry, let me clarify. The only thing I really find wrong with the
PDS systems open fire at extremely short ranges - the ones existing
today destroy the incoming missiles 1-3 meters from the tank. Future
missiles with better stand-off abilities will push that outwards a bit,
but I don't think it'll be very extreme. If it is more than 10-20
meters, the potential for collateral damage to friendly units starts getting
uncomfortably big.
At what point in the missile's trajectory does the ADS vehicle learn that the
target is going for it, rather than eg. for the escorting IFV some two hundred
meters away? Against an advanced missile capable of radical evasive maneuvers,
probably not very far from the intended target.
If the ADS vehicle can be absolutely positive that it, and not some other
vehicle nearby, is indeed the target it can hold its fire and effectively
operate as a PDS. Unfortunately, in order to be absolutely positive of this it
still has to track each incoming missile at quite a long range (its
*engagement* range in DSII is 1200 meters, so it's *tracking* range needs to
be considerably longer), determine which target it is going for, and engage it
in time to protect the target. Even though it *could* fire at a range of 10
meters to protect itself... does it dare to wait that long, in case the
incoming missile suddenly changes its mind and goes for that IFV instead? Or
does it shoot the missile down three hundred meters away, just to be on the
safe side?
It is this requirement to track and and evaluate the probable target of each
missile in the salvo at long range, rather than the extremely
short range of the PDS, which causes the ADS degradation - not the
number of missiles as such. And, as Brian points out - the degradation
only applies against the missiles fired from one enemy unit; the ADS
re-sets before the next enemy unit gets to fire. If each unit only
fires one missile each, the ADS gets its best die against each one of them.
Later,
Gee, thanks, go and leave me without any more "yeah but"s left.... Ok, I'm
satisfied now.
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
PDS systems open fire at extremely short ranges - the ones existing
today destroy the incoming missiles 1-3 meters from the tank. Future
missiles with better stand-off abilities will push that outwards a bit,
but I don't think it'll be very extreme. If it is more than 10-20
meters, the potential for collateral damage to friendly units starts getting
uncomfortably big.
At what point in the missile's trajectory does the ADS vehicle learn that the
target is going for it, rather than eg. for the escorting IFV some two hundred
meters away? Against an advanced missile capable of radical evasive maneuvers,
probably not very far from the intended target.
If the ADS vehicle can be absolutely positive that it, and not some other
vehicle nearby, is indeed the target it can hold its fire and effectively
operate as a PDS. Unfortunately, in order to be absolutely positive of this it
still has to track each incoming missile at quite a long range (its
*engagement* range in DSII is 1200 meters, so it's *tracking* range needs to
be considerably longer), determine which target it is going for, and engage it
in time to protect the target. Even though it *could* fire at a range of 10
meters to protect itself... does it dare to wait that long, in case the
incoming missile suddenly changes its mind and goes for that IFV instead? Or
does it shoot the missile down three hundred meters away, just to be on the
safe side?
It is this requirement to track and and evaluate the probable target of each
missile in the salvo at long range, rather than the extremely
short range of the PDS, which causes the ADS degradation - not the
number of missiles as such. And, as Brian points out - the degradation
only applies against the missiles fired from one enemy unit; the ADS
re-sets before the next enemy unit gets to fire. If each unit only
fires one missile each, the ADS gets its best die against each one of them.
Later,
> Brian B. wrote:
If you want to fire GMS indirectly, so they hit the topsides of armoured
vehicles, I've got the rules on my site.
> We've beaten all of these in Naval applications (Phalanx, Goalkeeper,
And that's why there are no aircraft used in combat roles in the Slammers'
universe - their tanks can engage orbiting spacecraft (I'm sure they
mention in one story using the tanks to take out satellites), and their air
defense systems can deal with anything else that is practical to make
airborne.
Ignoring the Slammers, one could suggest that perhaps the rocket (or whatever)
propulsion systems of these weapons are so zoomie that the projectile travels
too fast to be engaged. Like trying to use a PDS of
today to engage a hyperkinetic penetrator anti-armour round of today...
However, I agree with Tom here - I don't see why a PDS shouldn't be able
to
engage an IAVR if it can engage a GMS/P...