Is this a bug or was I just really really unlucky ? ...

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I've got a friend who was involved with the Javelin program and I'm hoping to talk with him next week to try and confirm some data for minimum top attack ranges. These sorts of things aren't really publicized so I'll probably have to do one of those "hot and cold" question and answers. Like "is 500m about right?" "Cold", "Less?" "Warm"

Steve

Steve -- there's a video kicking around YouTube of a javelin used on a moving truck in Afghanistan, I think, where you can clearly hear one of the soldiers call out the range at about 300m, IIRC, and the missile clearly follows the top attack trajectory. So that should give you something to start with as far as the top attack minimum.

Someone posted the link here a few weeks ago. I'll see if I can dig it up and re-post it here.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, I remember that video. 300m sounds perfectly reasonable to me for top attack. 100m sounds too little, so I think there is something inbetween the two.

(note... I think I found something that confirms 150+ meters is the distance it takes for the missile ot reach optimal height for Top Attack Mode. I'll make sure that is the case in the game).

Steve

[Bradley Dick]

This is taken directly from the Field Manual for the Javelin missle:

FM 3-22.37 Section 1-2

Top Attack Mode: Minimum effective range= 150m

Direct Attack Mode: Minimum effective range = 65m

Top and Direct Attack Mode: Maximum Effective Engagement Range = 2500m

Flight Time: 14 seconds at 2000m

Backblast area: 25m 60 degree cone is "Danger area"

100m 60 degree cone is "Caution area"

Minium safe operating area for enclosed structures: 12ft width x 15ft length x 7ft height

[SlapHappy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

themediocrity,

The height differential was fixed in v1.03, so you'll get a chance to see if that fixes the problem or not. Our own internal testing produced similar results as yours in v1.02 and not in v1.03.

SlapHappy,

Which model of T-72? It is possible that there is something wrong with the matchup against that specific tank. We did find something like that early in testing (T-54B IIRC) where there was a data error for the top deck armor rating.

Steve

The description indicated T-72 M1V (2001). I believe it was from a Republican Guards Company.

[Battlefront.com]

Bradley Dick,

Oddly enough, I just found that myself I don't recall finding 3-22.37 online when we were doing our original research on Javelin, but then again that was probably a year ago!

SlapHappy,

We'll look into it.

Steve

[bodkin]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

themediocrity,

The height differential was fixed in v1.03, so you'll get a chance to see if that fixes the problem or not. Our own internal testing produced similar results as yours in v1.02 and not in v1.03.

SlapHappy,

Which model of T-72? It is possible that there is something wrong with the matchup against that specific tank. We did find something like that early in testing (T-54B IIRC) where there was a data error for the top deck armor rating.

Steve

The description indicated T-72 M1V (2001). I believe it was from a Republican Guards Company. </font>

[SlapHappy]

Just in the way of additional info, the TOW on the Bradley had no problems eating the tank for lunch

It was just the Javelin that was problematic.

[Battlefront.com]

We've been doing some checking. One tester set up a range with three different types of T-72s to make sure we got the right one:

TURMS-T

M1V (2001)

M1V

About 12 Javelins fired at each one with fairly consistent results. Each test on each of the three produced (roughly) 80% catastrophic kill, 10% hits but not kills, and 10% misses. That seems to be within reason. I personally saw a Javelin test at Redstone Arsenal that had the Javelin wind up striking the tracks of the target T-72 instead of the top deck. When you think about it even that is pretty amazing and, in a real battlefield situation, probably just as good as scattering it all over the field.

BTW, the TURMS-T should be highly vulnerable to a Javelin when used in Top Attack mode (200+ meters, but 500m and beyond even better) because it is more than powerful enough to plow through the deck even if it encounters ERA thanks to the Javelin's tandem warhead. What it doesn't do so well at is direct attack against frontal armor. The Javelin simply isn't designed to get through that much armor. Therefore, range is critically important to note when checking out results.

Steve

[Bradley Dick]

The Army is pretty screwy about what publications are on the restricted list. And it changes fairly often.

One particular that is aggravating me, the updated survival manual. It's on the restricted distribution list(not to be confused with classified).

Grrr.

[Stew]

Hmmmm. . . just tonight I encountered an issue where I expended six Javelins against a T-72 MV1 (2001) with no kill. The range was right around 200 meters (wish I had kept better track). The graphic representation showed the Javelin popping up for a top attack, but I'm not sure it was getting an optimal angle. On balance this seems like a RL feature of the Javelin rather than a bug, but I'd be nice to know for sure.

[bodkin]

Not sure what's going on here I have alot of trouble killing TURMS with Javelins that 'appear' to use a top down attack at ranges of around 200m.

Does this mean the game is using a top down attack animation while the missile is actually striking in flat trajectory or is there different levels of top down effectiveness? For example is a top down attack at 200m less effective than that of 1000m?

BTW I've seen the direct attack animation used against close targets but just can't work out why BFC testing is contrary to what alot of others are reporting, can I suggest BFC test in an urban environment as alot of people report this problem on the Al Hawl map.

Thanks