Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them
Machor

Norway ditching Javelin...

Recommended Posts

... in response to Russian APS. Must say I'm surprised - and equally intrigued by its replacement:

"Should Russia's new Armata T-14 tanks worry Nato?"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40083641

"A Russian innovation in armoured warfare has pushed Norway to replace many of its current anti-tank systems.
Active protection systems (APS) are being built into Russia's new Armata T-14 tank, posing a problem for a whole generation of anti-armour weapons, not least the US-supplied Javelin guided missile, used by the Norwegian Army.
The warning comes from Brig Ben Barry of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. He says this is a problem that most Nato countries have barely begun to grapple with.
APS threatens to make existing anti-tank weapons far less effective, and there is little real discussion of this among many Western militaries, he says.
Some countries are conducting research and trials to equip their own tanks with APS. "But they seem to miss the uncomfortable implications for their own anti-armour capabilities," he says.
Norway is one of the first Nato countries to grasp this nettle. Its latest defence procurement plan envisages spending 200-350m kroner (£18.5-32.5m; $24-42m) on replacing its Javelin missiles, "to maintain the capacity to fight against heavy armoured vehicles".
"There is a need for [an] anti-tank missile," it says, "that can penetrate APS systems"."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I miss something? I do not think that I read the Armata would have an APS system capable of defeating top attack missiles. I guess we really do not know anything about the APS system being developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IanL said:

Did I miss something? I do not think that I read the Armata would have an APS system capable of defeating top attack missiles. I guess we really do not know anything about the APS system being developed.

My thought as well. The graphic seems to imply a high attack profile rather than a true top attack; which isn't what the Javelin does at longer ranges. Regardless, a bit of RnD based around a potential adversary isn't exactly a bad thing either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An active protection system does not have to be kinetic by definition.....Could there be something else going on?  Focussed EMP type stuff?  The Russians have a good track record in this field I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that a modification to Javelin software to make it using higher trajectory, with terminal dive angle close to vertical, would extend it's effectiveness against most APS systems.  Of course that wouldn't work in case of low clouds base.

What could be next step ? Adding a precursor missile fired forward at the last moment ? Smart APS radar could recognise and ignore that. But it could work for some time.

Best solution against any APS would be a heavy, pure kinetic weapon, like LOSAT -  there is simply no defense against this thing. But such missile has to be big and heavy... not man portable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the 'tank-destroyer' concept has also returned to the table as a possible solution.....I seem to recall a 140mm (or larger) weapon was under consideration for something that looked not unlike a high-tech Jagdpanzer IV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I believe the 'tank-destroyer' concept has also returned to the table as a possible solution.....I seem to recall a 140mm (or larger) weapon was under consideration for something that looked not unlike a high-tech Jagdpanzer IV.

Which option would probably be much more costly than the two I mention above.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know but tank destroyers are cool.  B)

And suggesting that any ordnance to be delivered by F-35 could ever be considered 'cheap' is probably just a wee bit optimistic all things considered (Can it actually even drop ordnance yet.....Intentionally I mean).  :P

If you want to get really high-tech (& expensive) about it, this is the option you want:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

And suggesting that any ordnance to be delivered by F-35 could ever be considered 'cheap' is probably just a wee bit optimistic all things considered (Can it actually even drop ordnance yet.....Intentionally I mean).  :P

In the case of an already operational fast mover or helo, basically all you would have to do is modify existing hard points to accept the weapon and perhaps change some software. Compared to creating and producing a whole new armored vehicle, I'd expect that to be relatively cheap. (Since we are talking modern weapons here, the term 'cheap' is very relative. For the cost of each one, you could probably put up a dormitory for the homeless. But alas, that would no doubt not make as popular a game.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IanL said:

Did I miss something? I do not think that I read the Armata would have an APS system capable of defeating top attack missiles. I guess we really do not know anything about the APS system being developed.

Afghanit has 180 degree coverage. However, it uses soft-kill --probably IR-blocking smoke-- against diving munitions (Javelin uses IR tracking).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty clumsy article. Norway is not replacing the Jav (ie the insinuation being that it is discarding Javelin) it's simply looking at future upgrades that will stay ahead of the accelerating R&D curve of APS. 

Personally, Im curious how hard would it be to adjust/supplement even current  APS to counter top attack munitions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting how the BBC has now 'discovered' APS while we've been wargaming with it for a year. ^_^ From what I (imagine I) understand, the US is hesitating on their own APS because they want to work out the bugs and work around the limitations before fielding anything. High angle of attack defense (terminally guided mortars) is a particularly thorny problem.

Tell me if I'm mistaken. It seems like APS radar would need to be continually on to provide coverage, making it into a virtual radio beacon to track the movement of enemy armor - A potential issue when facing a techologically savvy opponent. I wonder how susceptible to ECM interference, jamming or false signals it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Tell me if I'm mistaken. It seems like APS radar would need to be continually on to provide coverage, making it into a virtual radio beacon to track the movement of enemy armor - A potential issue when facing a techologically savvy opponent. I wonder how susceptible to ECM interference, jamming or false signals it is.

I believe JK has provided some figures for that somewhere in the forum.....Apparently the signal is not detectable at significant range (IIRC), I don't remember the specifics I'm afraid.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of issues for sure. The other one that gets very little discussion is its effect on friendly units. Crap, I remember when I first learned to be really careful when infantry are working in close proximity to tanks. It was in Dueling Shashkas. A squad was a head of on of the T84s when a missile came flying in and the APS did its job resulting in a sizable explosion right over the lead squad. Ouch it has to change the protocol for close working between tanks and infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently not in RL.....I was watching those 'Ukraine Combat Videos', with guys ambling past tanks festooned with reactive armour, thinking just one 30mm cannon shell and you lot are Nationalist Paté!  :rolleyes:

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafael developed an new Spike LR II with a high impact angle and a Artificial Intelligence for target tracking to Counter APS / Countermeasures:

http://defense-update.com/20170529_spike_lr_2.html

""To handle such a wide range of targets RAFAEL offers the missile with a choice of two warheads – an anti-tank missile optimized with an enhanced tandem warhead that increases armor penetration by 30 percent over the previous generation. Another advantage of the new missile is its ability to strike at higher impact angles – Spike LR II will be able to hit targets at up to 70 degrees, delivering more lethal top attack profile. According to RAFAEL, the SPIKE LR II is the only missiles known to have an inherent Counter-APS (CAPS) capability.""

""Those software-based AI functions enable the seeker to maintain target lock even in situations that auto trackers generally fail – target disappearing behind obstacles, or against a low-contrast background, where third generation (fire and forget) missiles would fail, and fourth generation missiles would need operator assistance. The new Spike LR II can overcome such challenges and track its target automatically. Moreover, as a software defined feature those seeker functions can be changed and upgraded, enabling designers to implement innovative techniques against new enemy counter-countermeasures.""

 

Edited by Redken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Apparently not in RL.....I was watching those 'Ukraine Combat Videos', with guys ambling past tanks festooned with reactive armour, thinking just one 30mm cannon shell and you lot are Nationalist Paté!  :rolleyes:

Yeah that stuff too. At least the ERA charges go off right next to the tank. Those APS systems throw an explosive out from the tank and then they go off in the air - not to mention the possibility of setting of whatever it is trying to wreck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy,

What I said was that if you want not to be easily detected at a distance you wanted to be on the water absorption spike at ~60 GHz, as seen in Figure 1 at the link. This doesn't work as well when you're in places like the Sahara! By contrast, the WASP program's seeker was at 94 GHz, which is in the attenuation trough. This was important, for the seeker had to look ahead and down to a fair distance--regardless of weather.

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~anita/new/papers/militaryHandbook/rf_absor.pdf

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×