Khrizantema

[cool breeze]

If you get them in a really perfect maximum hull down position, it acts almost like it can fight through the mast.  enemies can barely see it even at modest range, and when they do see it and return fire, they aim at the center of what is visible, which is the mast!  Your launchers will probably be holed, but the thing is likely to survive.

Edited July 14, 2016 by cool breeze

[BTR]

I swiftly lost the match without my 9P157 firing once more, so I'll have to wait for another game. 

[A Canadian Cat]

6 hours ago, Sublime said:

I dont see how BFCs gonna make em be able to engage 2x targets at once like they can IRL but thatd be a boon for it as well.

Given how much APS is available in this fictitious theatre I would rather it fire both at the same target.  During testing the salvo fire at M1s managed to occasionally get the second one through cleanly and even when the APS caught the second missile it was usually very close to the tank and caused all kinds of damage to important systems.

But you are anti APS guy so I guess in your games 2x targets would be better

 

6 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I once watched a stationary Abrams firing at a slowly moving T-72B3 at sub 800 meters range.  It put two rounds over, one into a tree, and then the T-72B3 engaged and firepower killed the tank on the move.  This is not a common outcome in game or in reality, and the words I used when it occurred greatly concerned the household dachshund.

Good example of a damn frustrating event that does not mean the game is broken.

 

6 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

However outcomes like that will occur in life and game, and it sounds like in terms of missiles leaving platforms that the vehicle works as intended most of the time which leaves me to think you just had a bad set of dice rolls, or ran afoul of some firing through trees rules.  That this game side stuff occurred replicated some real life variables or something. 

I have the impression that ATGMs are streaky - meaning if the first couple of shots go wild it feels like that keeps happening.  I have no real idea if that is real or my perception.  I guess the other thing it could be is the lay of the land.  By that I mean if the LOF is tight with trees and ground close to the flight path that will probably mean the next shot will likely be perilously close to the edge as well.

Like others have said I have had some very good experiences with Khrizantema-S and some really bad ones too.  In First clash there are some really good spots to set these guys up and they do a pretty good job.  My QB experience with them says they are better when you can set the up at long range.

[General Melchid]

I haven't played with enough variety of ATGM to fully figure things, but my 1st hit accuracy seems better if target is 1km+ away.

[dan/california]

There is a lot of foliage around that LOF.  That never makes missiles happy.

[Kinophile]

I have yet t o properly vollley fire ATGMs,  very rare that I can even set it up. 

[cool breeze]

I think one thing with them that is kinda of counter intuitive is the best spots for them have the least cover.  Something like short grass is fine, but the ideal spots are so hull down that you don't want any foliage blocking the view, so a wheat field is no good because to see over the wheat you've got to expose hull above the dirt.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I've found the best ATGM vehicle field of fire looks a lot like a bowling alley.  If it's too wide, the launcher will get spotted and murdered easily.  If it's too rough, the missiles take out their age old hatred of the color green on trees.  

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I've found the best ATGM vehicle field of fire looks a lot like a bowling alley.  If it's too wide, the launcher will get spotted and murdered easily.  If it's too rough, the missiles take out their age old hatred of the color green on trees.  

So,  ideally streets or roads.... 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

9 hours ago, kinophile said:

So,  ideally streets or roads.... 

I was thinking of a wider bowling alley.  Basically it's sort of a sliding scale, and you're trying to find that optimal point of being able to cover enough battlespace to be useful, while not being left out where the tanks can eat you. I've just seems some employment of ATGM vehicles that feels like someone set the vehicle down out in the open yelling 'I choose you saggerchu!" and expected it to start munching AFVs.

The ATGM of all major weapons systems really needs to be "placed" and given a cohesive plan for how it's going to shoot things (or like a target arch, and spending 5 minutes getting the vehicle exactly right).  Even then if APS is about you might as well just skip it half the time (which is why I do not play with APS, the US hasn't fielded it yet, and the Russians haven't managed to get it widely fielded either. and ATGMs still have a major part in the battlefield foodchain).  

[c3k]

There is a LOT of historical gunnery data for tank main guns. We can (and have) examine all sorts of engagements by all sorts of guns at all sorts of distances and other geometries. This gives a very solid baseline of what gunnery performance is acceptable and which is not. The debates center on extrapolated performance, not historical norms. (For the most part.)

WRT modern ATGM systems, such as dual mode radar/laser riding, salvo firing batteries, with interlinked battle management systems cueing off one another's targets, well, it's all guesswork. That's part of the problem.

Unknowns:

- How actual battlefield performance will measure up to trials. (It's usually at least one order of magnitude worse...with historical weapon systems.)

- How will countermeasures affect the ATGM search/detect/guidance systems?

- How will clutter (foliage) affect the system?

- How well will defensive countermeasures defeat the system's guidance?

- How well will terminal defensive systems (APS, ERA, passive armor) work against the systems?

- How well will tactics be modified to thwart the system?

 

Those are just some topics off the top of my head. Yeah, it'd be nice to have real-world data on it...but we don't.

[BTR]

On 14.07.2016 at 9:04 AM, Vanir Ausf B said:

I just tested 40 Khirz missile shots against T-90AMs at 2000 meters. 37 hit.

If the flight path even touches upon tree canopies, bushes or any other type of foliage accuracy will be severely degraded. From what I can see of the OPs pics that may have happened.

My own experience in PBEMs is that they are worth every penny, especially if you take advantage of their unique ability to target through multi-spectral smoke.

Something could be done about reload time if an authoritative source can be cited.

Shame there is no spoiler function (that I am aware of) 

Test 1:

2km, perfect conditions, all regular, 16 missile load.

1 hit
1 miss
1 miss
1 hit
1 miss
2 hit < volley fire on abrams!
1 hit
1 hit

> refuses to fire on light vehicles by its own

1 hit
1 hit
1 hit
1 miss
1 miss
1 miss
1 hit

average 2 missiles per minute
1 volley fire

62.5% hit ratio
 

Just one test though, I'll do more over the weekend. 

Edited July 16, 2016 by BTR

[BTR]

Test 2
2km, perfect conditions, all regular, 16 missile load.

1 hit
1 hit
1 miss
1 hit
1 hit
1 hit < no volley fire vs M1A2
1 hit < second hit on M1A2
1 hit

> refuses to fire on light vehicles by its own

1 hit
1 miss
1 hit
1 hit
1 hit
1 miss
1 miss

average 1 missile per minute
0 volley fires

75% hit ratio

Test 3
2km, perfect conditions, all regular, 16 missile load.

1 miss
1 hit
1 hit
1 hit
2 hit < volley fire on M1A2
1 hit

> refuses to fire on light vehicles by its own

1 miss
1 hit
1 hit
1 hit
1 miss
1 hit
1 hit 
1 hit
1 miss

average 1.5 missile per minute
1 volley fire

75% hit ratio

Observations:

• M1A2 needs two hits of supersonic, tandem, 152mm caliber, 1000+mm CE RHA missiles to go boom from the side. 
• I can confirm that 9P157 refuses to engage light vehicles on its own (hmmwv in this case). 
• Volley fire does indeed occur when 9P157 engages heavy armor, but for some reason it doesn't happen always.
• Still haven't got over 80% accuracy in comfortable baby conditions. 

[Kinophile]

Comfortable baby conditions aside ( ),  75 % effectiveness is about right for almost all RUS systems, I find. US is more like 90%. 

So, are you more convinced of the usefulness of the Khriz? It's best used in pairs,, apparently, in line with suggested practice. 

 

[BTR]

Not convinced at all on the part where automatically guided missile is less reliable than something that requires operator input over wire, but who am I to judge? For 360+ points for one I'd rather take one more B3 then two 9P157 at this point. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Khriz vs. Abrams (side on) at 2000m

100 missiles fired. Hit rate: 93%

Volley fire rate: 100%

Kill rate vs. Abrams on first strike (side on): over 90% (I stopped counting after the first test).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nf3av4qvvdgae2e/Khnriz vs Abrams 001.bts?dl=0

 

[Thewood1]

Do ATGM missile ever miss long?  I don't ever remember see it in CM games.