Jump to content

ChrisWerb

Members
  • Content Count

    660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ChrisWerb

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 07/06/1965

Personal Information

  • Location
    Orkney, Scotland, UK.
  • Interests
    Military, aviation, history, scuba, kayaking.
  • Occupation
    Web designer.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. OK, when I get a moment I'll re-do the test with 100 fully bombed-up, "blind" Armatas at various angles and ranges and use the AI gunner for Javelin, Spike LR, Spike MR, AT-14 and TOW 2A and B RF Aero. That will make for an interesting comparison of contemporary systems.
  2. I didn't know there was such a thing as blind status. I'll re do the test over the weekend. I can't see it would have made much of a difference in outcome to the test though given the impact point of the missiles and the design of the Armata. The disparity definitely occurred in games with fully bombed up vehicles with operational Afganit too.
  3. Hi. I have been having a lot of fun creating and playing scenarios/missions trying to come with mixes of weapons and tactics that work against the Armata, and I've discovered a huge disparity in lethality between the Spike LR and the Javelin vs the Armata. Scenario 1. I manually aimed and fired one Spike at each of 50 Armatas, immobilised by damaging both tracks, without Afghanit and with ammo removed. There were 50 hits. All 50 took out the radio and one took out a vehicle's FCS. Scenario 2. Because I find using the Javelin so tedious (and it does represent RL very well), I let a Javelin crew fire 58 missiles (I lost count and had to go back and count them from the report) at the same array of Armatas. Some of the vehicles took more than one hit, but that didn't make much difference to the subsequent evaluation. There were 58 hits of which 24 were immediate kills (probably all ammunition explosions, although I had removed all ammunition, the ready carousel still counts as full in the damage model). Of the remaining hits all took out the FCS. Interestingly, every hit damaged a vehicle's radio except one that damaged the turret - the only non fatal hit to do the latter. Some observations. I never had the "Spike gunner target fixation problem" in this testing - this seems only to happen (sadly, almost inevitably) when obscurants or the vehicle moving in and out of cover or concealment is involved. I could have varied the point of impact of the Spike using Fire and Update. I mostly don't shoot missiles myself in scenarios though, so I accepted the default aim point and fired manually simply so I could count off one missile per target (I'd forgotten how much more onerous doing the same thing with Javelin at that stage would be). Javelin doesn't have fire and update. Whether the Javelin killed was highly dependent on the angle of presentation of the target vehicle. With Spike, some of the hits were clearly around the gun mantlet and I would have expected gun damage, given the angle of impact and the non trivial penetration of warhead. I'd have also expected fragmentation damage to the RWS (that may have happened but was outside the scope of the report) Though not covered by this test, I also find that Javelins are highly effective against Armatas with their APS fitted. In reality the vehicle has what I believe is a high angle smoke launching system linked to the AESA radar to hopefully blind the missile well before impact, hopefully causing it to miss. Perhaps the simulation (which already pops smoke when the vehicle is lased) could add some smoke popping off high up and well away from the vehicle toward the missile to simulate this? (there is also a claim that the RWS can shoot down incoming missiles, but I think that sounds a bit far fetched). What I would like to see, and what might fix the problem is randomisation of the exact impact point on the vehicle. At the moment the missiles seem to be trying to hit a point inside the vehicle with the actual impact point dependent on the angle of the vehicle to the missile launcher. I am guessing the exact point chosen by the developers for the "interior aim point" used by the simulation differs between the two missiles with the HEAT jet from the Spike never transecting the ammo carousel regardless of azimuth of the vehicle relative to the launcher at impact. All the usual disclaimers apply about this not being an implied criticism of ESim Games, nor of any of the developers thereof. Spike vs 50 Armatas.sce_8_11-08-19_13_35_20.htm Javelin 50 Armatas.sce_8_11-08-19_14_06_58.htm Spike vs 50 Armatas_8368_110819HP-Z4401335.aar Javelin_50_Armatas_8368_110819HP-Z4401406.aar
  4. I ended up with crazy high hit percentages like that in Instant Action with the M1A2 in 4.0 as enemy vehicles (sometimes over 100 of them) piled up behind the trees. One of the less mentioned improvements in 4.1 is the Instant Action scenarios are now MUCH more challenging.
  5. Sorry, Dejawolf. I know Ssnake is (justifiably) reticent about discussing his business model, but I always assumed that, besides community sourced material like tutorials and skins, everything in SB was made by paid staff and therefore bore a significant cost to ESim Games. Do I understand from the above that Al Delaney's accessibility of vehicle implementation work made it possible for unpaid community members to get involved in implementing new, non-crewable vehicles, or doing the non programming work in creating crewable ones? If so, I'd love to have a go at that.
  6. And that's where I'd much rather your effort went, even if it meant an end to new vehicles or changes to the damage model for the forseeable future. What we've got is entirely workable - it just throws up an occasional anomaly which we can easily chalk up to "unlikely stuff happens in war". When I request something on the Wish List thread these days, it's either something I think won't take a staggering amount of effort (for example, a guided round for the Armata) or it's something that might take significant resources, but will have a huge benefit to realism right across the game (subtley more realistic infantry behaviour). I often just post stuff out of curiosity about how things work, particularly when I see apparent anomalies and things I don't properly understand, and, because of my poor communication skills, it's sometimes taken to be a request for a huge amount of time and effort to be spent on something with negligible training benefit and thus unlikely to generate a financial return, which I really don't want.
  7. PS: This is what I would expect from propellant in cased ammo being ignited.
  8. Hi Ssnake - I thought that with combustible cases or bagged charges etc. (if not in water jackets etc.) touching off one would set off the others so fast that there would be an explosion, rather than a Roman candle, it's just that the explosion would be a "low order" explosion, perhaps blowing the turret off, rather than a "high order" explosion, through sympathetic detonation rather than ignition. which, particularly when the vehicle is carrying a high proportion of HE and HEAT rounds, will tend to totally blow the vehicle apart, as seen in some knocked out MBTs in Ukraine. This may be an incorrect interpretation on my part. I marvel at the work that has gone into SB every day and, as you know, I am a huge and consistent proponent of SB elsewhere.
  9. An ear piercing they can brag about in the bar.
  10. Sorry Volcano, the fault is mine as usual. There was nothing wrong with your original explanation either - I just didn't click that carousel stowage was "ready" rather than "stored". I completely understand that with c. 250 vehicles in SB, they are not all going to be kept updated to the same standard of damage modelling. I am still learning about the way damage is modelled in the game and about the vehicles themselves, both as modelled here and as they exist in RL. Your explanations made me work to understand how to kill the Armata and I discovered it had significant vulnerabilities and was eminently defeatable, particularly with solid combined arms tactics as others have pointed out. I did not know, for example that Roman candles were the result of hydraulic fluid. I thought they were the result of a penetration into a cased round setting off propellant (which is silly as they sometimes happen with vehicles using caseless or stub only case ammo), so Hedgehog's explanation makes a lot of sense. I read somewhere a long time ago that hydraulic vs electric turret drive made a significant difference to crew survival in Israeli M48/60 vs Centurion which is why they and I would be amazed if Armata used hydraulic. I think later M60s went to electric traverse, retaining hydraulic elevation and the M1 was electric from the start. The fact that vehicles with no ammunition in them blow up is of no consequence in target vehicles from a training perspective as you want to train users to aim to penetrate the carousel anyway - trainees will never know for sure that an enemy vehicle is out of main gun ammo after all. It really doesn't bother me from a vehicles on my side in gaming perspective either, particularly as the effort by yourselves to make ammo explosion probability truly realistic would be non-trivial to say the least.
  11. 3UBK21 Sprinter and 9M119M1 Invar-M missiles and NII Stali Upper Hemisphere Protection Complex for T-14 Armata.
  12. The ability for infantry or engineers to lay AT mines and set up claymores in game. Infantry that duck when shot at, displace when out of sight and pop up somewhere else and generally make realistic use of cover and concealment. The option of more clutter (when smaller map areas selected) for infantry to hide behind in or under.
  13. Well, I've obviously been hiding under a rock for the last decade (sadly, not far from the truth!). I wasn't aware there was so much out there.
  14. OK, I did some more testing. Five three tank platoons of Russian tanks from the T-62 to the Armata. All ammo removed (even MG and smoke discharger grenades). Shooter is a Leo2A6 with DM53. Shot placement to the lower hull aligned with the centre of the turret to hit the carousel (except for the T62 when I aimed into the front hull from the side due to its different ammo storage arrangements). I did this test three times and got interesting results each time. I'm posting the AAR from the last one. All tanks either blew up, roman candled or burned (of which in earlier tests some subsequently exploded), (though sometimes this took more than one shot) except one Armata which would not ignite regardless of where in the carousel area I hit it. This time I'm including the scenario so you can repeat the test if you wish to. Disclaimer: This post is not intended as a criticism of or harrassment of the SB team or any member thereof, or in any way a statement of disastisfaction with SB. Exploding_ammoless_vehicles_4832_110219HP-Z4401308.aar Exploding ammoless vehicles.sce_4_11-02-19_13_08_17.htm Exploding ammoless vehicles.sce
×
×
  • Create New...