Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ChrisWerb

Possible bug - vast disparity in lethality Spike vs Javelin vs Armata

Recommended Posts

On 11/16/2019 at 1:13 AM, thewood said:

Yes...the original report seemed heading in a very obsessive direction and ended up there.  Your patience as devs is commendable.

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

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by ChrisWerb

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...