Jump to content

ChrisWerb

Members
  • Posts

    764
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChrisWerb

  1. I find, with advancing enemy formations, the best approach with a 155 battery is to use one or two tubes set to fire three rounds a minute to create a 400 metre "wall" of DPICM in front of the enemy formation that causes them to pile up against it for ten minutes. Then I create a 400 x 400 metre mission behind a wall to initiate after one to two minutes, depending on enemy formation size and speed, with the remaining tubes, but only have them fire two or at most three rounds a piece because anything that can will try to get out of the box rapidly, so more than that is a waste. The piled up vehicles also make great targets for other systems. Rinse and repeat further along the enemy advance route (if established with reasonable confidence). I do find "Little and often" works well for DPICM. I find the M107 155mm HE and generic tube HE to be highly ineffective against personnel. I know it's an old 1950s projectile with relatively limited fragmentation effects, but it's possible to try to take out a single, very well located, enemy infantryman with a huge concentration of these projectiles targeted into a 50 metre box centred on them with no ill effects. When you go over the AAR in "real world, events" mode, you see 155 bursts practically on top of them or within three or four metres - I would have thought blast alone would have disabled them in such circumstances. I admit I don't understand the intricacies of SB's damage model and I'm not going to go away and test it - it's just the impression I get. I know the British Army has gotten rid of its surface launched scatterable mines. I'm assuming our AT-2 MLRS rockets were either discarded through policy change or when time-expired and we didn't purchase more, but if anyone knows for sure I'd like to know. Likewise does Germany still have the MLRS AT-2 or other scatterable mines in service? I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the SB development team for the many hours of enjoyment this sad loner had over the holiday period. It's so easy to get completely absorbed in SB and it continues to amaze and delight me on an almost daily basis over three years on.
  2. Hi. I've been playing with the Spike MR vs the T-14 and have come up with some workarounds to the way the missile from some angles fails to cause significant damage, or at best a firepower kill. The first two only work if you are controlling the missile in first person mode (F7 + F2). Basically there are two scenarios here - either the vehicle is static or moving. 1. Static vehicle. With a static Armata it is very easy to override the automatic image seeker of the missile whilst the missile is some distance away from the vehicle. If you aim for the crew module in front of the turret, you will almost inevitably kill the vehicle. I find this method very reliable against static Armatas. 2. Moving vehicle. This is less reliable but still well worth trying. I find that overriding the missile controls vs a moving vehicle almost always results in a miss. Instead, wait until the missile is a fraction of a second from hitting and tap the up key. This often moves the HEAT jet into alignment with the ammo carousel inflicting a catastrophic kill. It is only really worth doing from side or rear due to the fact that frontal hits with automatic homing are already likely to cause firepower kills. 3. Moving or Static, multiple launchers If you are relying on a number of ATGW launchers in your game so that you can't control first person, just substitute Javelins for Spike MRs. These have the added benefit of not suffering from the "target fixation" bug and have the same range as Spike MR.
  3. The places where I'd want to be engaging T-15s in game are those that simulate NW Europe, the Baltic Republics and Finland. You are mostly looking at much shorter engagement ranges there, which the new "bumpy" terrain in SB make even shorter (the most significant upgrade to the game in recent years IMHO). From experience in game, trading shots with a T-15 at 3+km is not going to be profitable in most circumstances given its highly effective ATGM armament. What is sometimes going to make vehicle IDing problematic is not so much distance and the acuity of current imaging systems, but partial obscuration of the vehicle, either intentional or otherwise.
  4. Accepting that that which is not dead doth eternal sleeping lie, and that with strange aeons, even death may die, we already have a demountable weapon in SB in the MG3 on the Pinzgauer which is available to either the squad on the ground or pintle mounted on the vehicle, but not both simultaneously. Very nice addition to SB BTW!
  5. I'd argue that the T-15 is a highly distinctive looking vehicle and that most times you open fire at way less than 3km with an MBT main gun. It is also entering service long after many western vehicles upgraded from 1st Gen or they entered service after later TI generations became standard. I do take your point about IDing vehicles though I think you can at least tell if something is "tank derived" reasonably reliably if in the open at a fair distance from most angles.
  6. What on earth is going on at 36:52? Please look at the crest of the ridge.
  7. Another tiny change that would make a big difference. Have commanders choose kinetic rather than chemical energy main gun rounds when targeting HAPCs/HIFVs like the BMP-Armata T-15. Effectively classify them as tanks rather than PCs. At the moment they switch from fin to HEAT which is next to useless against the T-15 with centre mass aim.
  8. That's a huge part of the fun of SB and I'm glad you enjoy that as much as I do What you are doing seems similar to what the SADF did with Ratel's back in the 80s. https://samilhistory.com/2016/03/01/sadf-ratel-ifv-taking-out-a-soviet-t-54-tank-in-close-combat/ Re GibsonMs excellent advice re flanking. If possible, I go a step further and let the enemy pass me then hit them from behind from reverse slope positions that enable pop up tactics and an escape route. I try to position to hit them from at least two locations 45 degrees off their rear so that even if they turn to engage, the other position has a perfect flank shot. If available, I put down a little DPICM across their front as that stops them and causes them to back up and mill around. Just remember to bug out before the enemy artillery arrives I'm starting to regard Javelin (and Spike against vehicles other than Armata) as a bit of a "cheat" because you can easily drop infantry off from a vehicle in dead ground so they can crawl forward and take shots from 2.5 km out with near impunity. The system is so effective in SB (and to a slightly lesser extent apparently in real life) that you have to come up with reasons not to use it.
  9. Hi. I can't find the 2S6 skin anywhere in the Desert or Woodland folders. I'd really like to work on that one as my first attempt. Many thanks. Chris.
  10. Hi, this is great and I'm probably just being thick as usual, but I can't see anything obviously new in the release notes. At the front it says existing stuff highlighted in yellow, but when I read it I see lots of stuff I was already aware of unhighlighted. How can I deduce what is new?
  11. Something we are lacking is western IFVs and APcs with ATGW mounted on them. American and Soviet/Russian vehicles tend to have this. I know a demountable MILAN launcher on the Marder has been asked for a lot and I would love to see that, but I would also like to see RWS that can handle them given the option of Javelin and/or Spike launchers and, for the RWS to be enabled to fit the CV90 series vehicles and perhaps the Ulhan/Pizarro. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would love to see the Puma modelled as a playable vehicle, but I understand that may not be the highest priority at the moment. As a PS, I don't think Javelin is currently an option for the MB3000 or Vector and I would really like to see it added. It would also be great to see the option of current upgraded launcher for TOW and JAVELIN that feature position generation capabilities akin to JIM-LR, much better night vision. In the case of the JAVELIN, range seems to be dependent on the launcher/CLU optics. British trials of vehicle launched Javelin have allegedly attained ranges well in excess of 2.5km and a test at Eglin AFB reached 4.75 Km. According to Fox News(!) the new lightweight CLU destined for LRIP in 2021 will give infantry Javelins a range of 4.5km. It will also have the target locating and network capabilities of the latest, in service, tow ground and vehicle launchers.
  12. JIM-LR fits into the category of "infuriatingly realistic" which you will often encounter in SB
  13. I actually love the DF30 for all its faults and the JIM-LR so much that I wrote the SB manual for it - the DF90 much less so. They're vehicles that were appropriate for the real world scenarios for which they were purchased at the time and would be near ideal for the kind of situations currently faced by French forces in Mali, for example. As I understand it, both will be replaced by French "Jaguar" 6x6 recce vehicles that will feature a 40mm CTA cannon and two launchers for the MMP dual mode networked ATGM. With Spike you need to be aware that there is a known bug that results in the gunner not being able to break lock on the target they just killed. I have only experienced this when using the missile in "first person" mode - AI gunners don't seem to suffer from the problem. Also, Gibson has pointed out that modern, image seeking ATGW are quite sparse in some ToEs/ORBATs - part of the reason for this is that they are staggeringly expensive. Javelins are currently running at $174,000 per missile according to Wiki. You can make an argument that they're highly effective and that what they kill (outside of counterinsurgency scenarios) is vastly more expensive than the missile, but it is going to put a crimp on how many of the missiles you will ever be able to deploy. In conventional warfare, they will also be subject to the usual attrition that affects all munitions stocks and in reality they would certainly prove less reliable than in SB, and somewhat less infallibly accurate, particularly against vehicles with appropriate countermeasures. Due to their much greater user input requirement and other limitations, you will probably find earlier SACLOS missiles like MILAN and BILL a lot more fun to play. I also find it's a great learning experience to see how well I can do against a larger, technologically advanced force with a much smaller one with less highly spec'd equipment. Last night I played a scenario with 13 Armatas, 13 BMP-Armatas, 3 Bumerangs and various other supporting types coming up a German valley where I had a total of four Le02A6 and four Javelin teams (substituted for Spike MR as the latter has an issue with the Armata that I have already covered ad nauseum) mounted on two unarmed Boxers, plus one Fuchs (40mm AGL) recce, two supply trucks and a battery of six off map 155mm tubes. I restricted the missile teams to one return to their vehicle for a reload, but in the end did not need it. Ditto the two MAN KAT series supply trucks for the Leos which ultimately did not need to replenish. I managed to destroy the entire attacking force of 38 vehicles and all surviving infantry and only lost one Leopard (to a stupid mistake on my part!) and two missile teams that again suffered from my inattentiveness at a crucial moment. It took me a long time to get to the point where I could do this. I learned a lot from listening to and watching other more experienced players and made many, many mistakes along the way, which SB punished mercilessly. I'm not a professional, but I can see the huge training value in this simulation and I would imagine SB-based training is a significant "force multiplier" for real world units.
  14. Some "In an ideal world" wishes: 1. I understand the reason why infantry can only use their 40mm UGLs by direct player control, but I'd like to see an "Enable autonomous use of GLs" option. Furthermore I'd like: 2. The ability to dictate the scale of issue of GLs per infantry section/squad selectable from 0-3. 3. The ability to choose whether squad GLs are single or six shot or better still the number of each. 4. Ammo selection for GLs to include HEDP 5. Rifle grenades - somewhat more powerful but less accurate and shorter ranged than 40mm, but with more effect - selectable in ratio of HE-FRAG, HEAT and smoke. Numbers to be selectable per rifleman equipped with rifle or carbine capable of launching rifle grenades and not already equipped with a UGL. 6. Ability to have more than one type of AT weapon per section/squad (four if counting 40mm HEDP, HEAT rifle grenade, LAW and MAW).
  15. Beautiful, if slightly anachronistic in some cases Your Apache looks like a Japanese example.
  16. Most sources I've seen say they were delivered 1976-78.
  17. Hi Dejawolf. Can I please request a new skin for the temperate climate, green scheme for the 2S6 SPAAG/SAM system? There are so many really beautiful vehicles in the Soviet/Russian lineup now that the 2S6 is looking a little bit "cartoony" by comparison. Many thanks. Late edit: Apologies Dejawolf. I just saw the tutorial. I won't waste your time and will have a go at this myself following the excellent tutorial over Christmas. Thanks again!
  18. I'm not sure what the OP's level of interest in the area SB covers is, but SB has been my best value for money leisure purchase of all time. Besides the Harpoon/CMANO/CMO series, there is nothing out there with the level of depth and endless capacity to reconfigure and get new play value out of all the time. I'd also characterise some of the recent improvements as "fantastic" rather than "nice"
  19. The two of you have done an amazing job. The other day I was watching a Youtube video of real life Japanese MBTs on exercise and found myself repeatedly trying to move the view around to get better angles. That's largely down to your work!
  20. Me, obsessive? Guilty as charged! 😛 Seriously though, a lot of these discussions boil down to someone claiming something and posting a few screen captures. The devs then ask for more substantial proof and all they get back is a lot of undeserved antagonistic text thrown at them. I don't get antagonistic and I provide the data requested, even if it takes me A LOT of time to put it together. The 25 shot x2 test involved running two scenarios 50 times and collating the data. I also really appreciate the work Volcano and the team put into SB and I have constantly sung its (and by implication, their) praises elsewhere. It isn't perfect though and it's important to get the T-14 and it's vulnerabilities vs "Western" ATGW right as it's the threat MBT of the future for many professional SB users. Most of those clients have literally spent a fortune on either Javelin or Spike variants and those systems are the cornerstone of their anti tank defence - Belgium, for example, has literally bet the farm on Spike MR, but will get MMP in vehicle mounted form in the not too distant future. Snake has hit it on the head that there is nothing "wrong" with the damage model nor with how Volcano applied it. It's that the missiles are way too consistently accurate. I'd challenge you to go back and take a look at the well over 100 shot Javelin AAR I posted and you will see that every missile hits the exact same spot on the tank - literally, the group would fit within the size of a DL envelope or at most an A5 sheet of paper, regardless of azimuth of launcher to tank. The point hit cannot be the centre of the image of the tank as perceived by the missile seeker for every shot either - just pan around a T-14 in game and you'll see what I mean. The Spike as modelled does not have the insane, tack-driving accuracy of the Javelin, but is still way too consistent. I appreciate the devs have to work with what they've got and don't literally model image seeking logic which would be hideously and pointlessly processor intensive. Therefore, I'm guessing that impact location randomisation would be relatively easy to implement and would work just fine. In reality you have a whole lot of variables acting on even a guided weapon. Yes, a 15 degree variation in dive angle can make a huge difference, for the same point of impact, but in reality those points of impact would vary, sometimes substantially, which would make a lot of difference to the likelihood of hitting something critical, and particularly the ammunition carousel. The optical centre of the vehicle would vary given different angles of presentation. The Spike is a relatively slow missile. After it enters a dive, the vehicle moving forwards or backwards (T-14s are fast!) is going to somewhat affect the angle of impact. I suspect the same is true for Javelin. As to the "a kill on the gun is a mission kill" argument - well, yes and no. The tank invariably keeps rolling on to its objective, soaking up more missiles because no one can tell its main gun isn't firing (trust me, when you have a company of T-14s closing on you, you're not trying to work out if one has stopped firing its main gun at you!). The very effective 12.7mm armed RWS then comes into play and can be a lot more than a nuisance, particularly if you're relying on unguided shoulder launched AT weapons to stop the Armata. Also, there is something a bit uncanny about these missiles hitting 100% of the time - Raytheon only claim a >93%reliability rate for Javelin and >94% hit rate for a first time gunner hit* (presumably on a target range vs a static, well defined target in ideal conditions) - cumulatively that's c. 87% chance of a hit, on a range. I don't know if any of you hunt, but there is a world of difference between being able to swat horseflies and bluebottles at 50 metres with a scoped .22 rifle and taking that rig into the field after rabbits. I know the game doesn't model system reliability, but with wire and laser guided ATGW in SB, you have a realistic element of AI gunners missing or hitting in different places on the target vehicle. If you shoot those missiles yourself (which is highly enjoyable and realistic) you miss sometimes and don't hit dead centre with every shot. For that reason, perhaps randomisation could include a percentage of outright misses, particularly against moving vehicles? I know I've said it before, but I think we are doing the T-14 a disservice by not modelling the upward firing rapid blooming smoke launchers triggered by onboard sensors. The system is specifically designed to counter the likes of Spike and Javelin. I think we may be lulling ourselves into a false sense of security without it. Anyway, @TheWood, I realise I'm probably not on your Christmas card list anymore, but I hope you realise that we all ultimately want the same thing here. Obsessively yours. Chris. * https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/mfc/pc/javelin/mfc-javelin-pc.pdf
  21. Javelin vs Spike MR 25 hits Detailed report..xlsxJavelin vs Spike MR 25 hits Detailed report..xlsxJavelin vs Spike MR 25 hits Detailed report..xlsxJavelin vs Spike MR 25 hits Detailed report..xlsxHere (attached) is the detailed 25 round F8 view test you (Volcano) rightly claimed would be a lot more illuminating. Detailed methodology is in a paragraph at the start of the report. For those who don't want to read the report, both systems were amazingly consistent. Spike MR did not achieve a kill, but took out the main gun with almost every round and the radio with every round, but did little else. The Javelin killed with 23 out of 25 shots and one of the other two hits took out the main gun. I didn't note the details down, but three of the kills were not catastrophic ammo explosions. The reason I did not post the raw data is it would mean posting 50 AARs and reports and I'm sure no one would want to wade through that!
  22. Hi Volcano Yes, I twigged the vagueness of the HTML report issue going over the reports vs AARs this morning For the purpose of investigating this issue, the combination of AAR and HTML is indeed flawed vs screen capturing the damage from F8 view in game, but it is good enough to reveal a 63% vs <1% kill rate disparity. I really appreciate your time and explanations and I hope you accept that my tone is never adversarial and often praises your work, which I often think is little short of uncanny in depicting reality. I also understand that you are being consistent in applying the damage models in SB and that these vary in accuracy from vehicle to vehicle due to the age of the vehicle and the user benefit anticipated from putting work into updating that model. I do think, however, having now tested both Javelin and Spike MR with the same paramaters that there really is something subtle going on that you may not have noticed. I think the way you have modelled the Javelin is different from the Spike MR in one crucial detail which makes the Javelin absolutely devastating vs the Armata, with lots of one shot ammo explosion kills (63% of hits resulted in kills - see attached spreadsheet and raw data) whereas the Spike MR tends to inflict gun, fire control damage about half the time and radio damage almost always, and kills <1% of the time. I honestly doubt this disparity exists in real life. I think you and others will see the following difference borne out simply by reviewing the visual world AARs that I posted below and previously for the Spike MR. The difference is as follows: The Javelin in game always hits the same point on the vehicle, regardless of azimuth of approach. That very often results in an angle that passes through the ammo carousel or other ammo storage. The Spike MR in game (and I mean in game as I know in RL the missile in fire and forget mode assesses the visual centre of the target and aims for that) seems to be programmed to aim for a specific point inside the vehicle which appears to be unchanging. Due to geometry, this results in a variety of hit locations on the vehicle, almost none of which transect ammo storage. My assessment of how this could be fixed would be simply to move the point inside the tank that SB is using to align the missile impact lower in the tank as this will result in a greater variety of impact points that are more likely to transect the stored ammunition. Alternatively give it the same impact point as Javelin (with the caveat about the possibility of a steeper impact angle for the former). I hope this helps. I also hope you know I wouldn't bother if I wasn't a huge fan of SB and didn't want it, its user base and ESim Games to thrive. Javelin_vs_100_Armatas_4328_111519HP-Z4401205.aar Javelin vs 100 Armatas.sce_4_11-15-19_12_05_32.htm Javelin vs 100 Armatas.xlsx
  23. I've done a bit more testing. I had a lot of failures in my methodology and had to keep refining it. I'm not claiming it's perfect and I'm including all the files so you can see what I did. I placed the 100 fully operational and bombed-up, but blind Armatas in groups of 5 around the edge of the map. I then set up 10 missile teams with Spike MR toward the middle of the map with their defend priority arcs angled outward radially toward the vehicles. I watched one of the teams engage 12 times using unlimited ammo and an AI gunner to ensure I had at least 100 launches without having to count each one for every launcher. Every round hit and at least inflicted damage - but usually not very much and they only achieved one kill. Although there was some target fixation, if you review the AAR, you'll see that tanks were engaged from a usefully varied selection of azimuths. In the end I'd fired about 120 times, so, for the purposes of making a spreadsheet, I deleted the last shots to take the total back to 100 (the killed vehicle was in the first 100) and then sorted by target vehicle and time. I used shading to make it easier to follow which missiles hit which vehicle. OK, first to acknowledge that, in real life, the Spike MR is offered with and without fire and update guidance and in use this is optional even if the missile is so equipped. With the LR all missiles are equipped, but use is still optional. In game all missiles are fire and update (and dual IIR/CCD mode which only the very latest Spikes are - which offers great flexibility in game as you can choose whether to use the missile as single mode day or IIR or dual mode). As Volcano pointed out, if shooting the missile in game, first person, you can easily use the arrow keys to nudge the aim point to hit somewhere more likely to set off the ammunition of kill the crew etc. However, in game I rarely use them first person, particularly as I can have a few ATGW teams on the go at the same time and may well be commanding a completely different unit. Secondly, I can't believe that any ATGW achieves the kind of utterly repeatable extreme precision modelled in SB in real life in combat conditions. Yes, I have seen the video where one is piloted down the hatch of a static tank in fire and update mode, but, particularly in fire and forget mode, there has to be some variation in point of impact even if missiles are fired from exactly the same angle against the same target. Giving the missile a CEP of even 0.75 metres in game would help cause a variation in damage inflicted and more kills through hits to the ammunition carousel. Lastly, and Volcano has addressed this, I think it's unrealistic that hits to the main armament breech area (of which the system, as modelled, achieves a lot as you will see from the AAR) do not take out the gun in a lot of instances. If you're going to use a damage model that relies on critical areas, surely those areas have to be vulnerable? What we currently have in Spike MR vs the Armata is a weapon that is extremely, and I believe, unrealistically ineffective. I'll run the same test with Javelin tomorrow. Spike MR vs 100 Armatas.sce_15_11-14-19_21_22_28.htm Spike_MR_vs_100_Armatas_15424_111419HP-Z4402122.aar Spike MR vs 100 Armatas.xlsx
×
×
  • Create New...