Jump to content

Gun-fired missiles in 4.019


thewood

Recommended Posts

I thought I saw a post about gun-fired missiles having an issue in 4.019.  Is that the case?  I am trying to build a scenario with a T-55AM and its missiles all seem to miss short on long-range shots.  Its firing the AT-10c.  I did several searches and couldn't find the post.  Just wanted to know so I can figure out what tanks to use and if I should remove missile ammo to avoid the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't noticed the bug

But remember if the Tank firing is hit or losses its track because of terrain obstructions the missile will miss,

Also crew experience can make a big difference to the gunners accuracy.

Edited by Marko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was more recent.  Will chalk it up to crappy gunnery.  I could have swaorn I saw someone post and confirmation that missiles were plowing into the ground at 1700 meters.  I must have been hammered when I was reading the forum.

 

Thanks guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there was one indicating an issue with tank launched ATGMs in 4.019.

 

It did say they would just hit the ground at approx 1700m and to avoid building scenarios with longer range ATGM engagements. It also said it had been addressed in the "upcoming" update.

 

Of course can't find it now - I think it was posted by Dark, Retro or Grenny.

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As there are bugs that effect both the AT-11 and BRDM-2 AT (AT-3, AT-5, and AT-5), is there an estimated time when this update will address this bug.  I am attempting to build out a scenario and am trying judge whether to remove the BRDM-2 AT.  As is, its useless, but if the fix is near, I'll just finish the scenario and wait.  If its far, I'll have to find something to substitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Nike-Ajax said:

What about LAHAT in the simulation for both Leopards and M1a? - it can already be fired. Seems strange that no one in the west have bought them yet to counteract russian ditto

Semi-active laser homing, tend not to work well against targets who are often equiped with a laser warner...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Grenny

 

Valid point - except for at least one very important thing:

 

The LAHAT´s were never ever meant to stand alone.

 

The usefullness is specifically in engaging the opponent OUTSIDE their weapons effective engagement envelope, hence detection is only an interesting factor if it enables the prey to evade. And the very nature of semi-active homing counteracts the countermeasures to some degree.  Also unless you have one shot kill-and-scoot, then both kinetic, HEAT and the british plastique rounds indicates the fires position.

 

In other words then just as the Russians only placed 4 Gun-missiles in one tank, then this would only be a part of the tool box, with HEAT, Squash-head or SABOT doing the brunt of the work. Perhaps one or two rounds before switching to SABOT. It always occured to me to be a superficial and as usually condacending western attitude towards the russians to say that it was because they were too expensive that they only placed around 4 missiles in each capable tank. Rather to me it seems silly to put much more than that because the enemy will rather quickly be in engagement range. And you should displace after engaging the enemy anyway.

 

ALSO the LAHAT means that you can effectively hit a helicopter.

 

As for the laser designator then compared to the other kit on a MBT, then its a cheap, easy and COTS piece of equipment. And could EASILY be attached to the commanders sight - thus leaving the gunner free to attack the next target with HEAT, SABOT or COAX.

 

In other words then this is just another tool in the toolbox. I always consider weapons as a tool and have never ever been religious about them. They have to work, be effective and do the job.

 

The west did not buy the LAHAT because the politcians chose not to (yet) for economic reasons. In other words they wasted the money on other projects, a large proportion of which will never ever work. Not because the LAHAT did not work OR because it didnt add a usefull capability.

 

Much like NOT adding a remote controlled weapon station. OR choosing inferior lightly armed and armored wheeled apc´s instead of tracked Infantry Combat Vehicles...

 

Edited by Nike-Ajax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...