Rocket/missile flight characteristics?

[MikeyD]

A question. CMx1 already models wind velocity and direction, which seems to have some barely discernable impact on the game (besides dissipating smoke faster). With the fielding of RPGs, LAWs, and ATGMs in CM:SF can I assume the effect of crosswinds on finned rounds is going to be modeled? I read/heard somewhere that it was inadvisable to fire a TOW round through more than a 7 mph crosswind - or through rain - or over a body of water, and we already know how inaccurate RPGs become if they're fighting the wind.

And talking about the TOW, will the overflight TOW2B round be modelled in the game? Made for roof attack against advanced armor but it sounds practically useless for any other purpose.

[aka_tom_w]

Isn't that the trade mark of the Javelin?

Straight level flight then at the last minute it figures out how to climb, then curve over top of the target and come straight down on it? NOW that would be COOL to see in the game!.

TOW 2B ANTI-TANK MISSILE

TOW 2B, operates in a "flyover shoot down" top attack mode, unlike other versions which are direct attack. It features a dual-mode target sensor designed by Thales (formerly Thomson-Thorn) Missile Electronics, which includes laser profilometer and magnetic sensor, and new warhead section, produced by Aerojet. It resembles the TOW 2A but without the extendible probe, and is armed with two explosively formed tantalum penetrator (EFP) warheads. The EFP warheads detonate simultaneously, one pointing downwards, the other slightly offset to give an increased hit probability. The warhead material is designed to generate pyrophoric effects within the damaged target.

web page

[MikeyD]

And since TOW is auto-steered using an IR flare in the tail, perhaps by 2007 Syria will have some of those Russian designed sparkler-type coutermeasures that are intended to confuse missile guidance! That's the reason why TOW shouldn't be fired over water. The tracker sees the reflected IR flair in the water and tries to correct the flight path, which makes the missile pitch up. If BFC wants to go for the details, they could have a VERY complex battlefield sim on their hands.

I believe Israel had produced a TOW replacement with a guidance system that was immune to countermeasures. I haven't heard about it in years, though.

[Kurtz]

I don't think the jammers are effective against anything else (if they are feective at all!) than early TOWs (from the 70s). Modern missiles are much more resistant to countermeasures.

Crosswind can be a problem, but 7 mph is just 3 m/s, hardly any wind at all. Firing a TOW in a storm might cause some problems....

I don't know the details for the TOW, but I'm trained as an ATGM team leader on the Swedish BILL and don't remember anything abut not firing over water.

The only thing we should worry about was firing near power lines , both along (interference) and perpendicular (risk of shorting the guidance wires).

[Battlefront.com]

If we find some data that shows how a missile is affected by something like wind/weather we will simulate it. So far we haven't run into anything, though I am sure for extreme weather conditions a lot of things wouldn't work as advertised.

Yes, from what we can tell the TOW 2 is not affected by decoys like the TOW 1 could be. Remember though, these affected the gunner more than the missile system itself, so a good gunner in good conditions would probably not have been bothered by these things in the first place. However, the TOW 2 has counter-counter measure stuff built into it.

Nothing bothers the Javelin once it is in flight and only a few things theoretically can bother the gunner/system prior to launch. We have it on good authority that those counter measures don't have much of a chance of working.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and the flightpath of the Javelin is probably accurate enough to make Raytheon/Lockheed Martin's engineers wonder if there is a leak of classified data

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, and the flightpath of the Javelin is probably accurate enough to make Raytheon/Lockheed Martin's engineers wonder if there is a leak of classified data

Steve

Thanks Steve...

The use of the word "IS" (as in NOT saying "is going to be" or" we are trynig", or "we plan to" blah blah) is in and of itself VERY good NEWS.

Woo HOO!

"flightpath of the Javelin is probably accurate enough Raytheon/Lockheed Martin's engineers wonder if there is a leak of classified data"

That sounds great!

-tom w

[Michael Emrys]

The skinny on not flying the TOW over water used to be that it would short out the command guidance wires. Duh! Seems like I read several years ago that that had been fixed on the later models, but I haven't been following modern stuff much lately.

Michael

[flamingknives]

Will there be electrical power lines to not fly wire guided missiles over?

[Dillweed]

Wow, I must admit I knew nothing of the jav but its really sounding like a hell of a weapon system.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the Javelin is in and that means most of the other missile systems are mostly done due to lots of overlap in the coding.

One of the things that we must all be careful of is outdated info. What was true for a weapons system, vehicle, piece of equipment, munition, etc. last year might not be true for it this year or next. Kinda like people saying that the Shermans couldn't kill a Tiger and they would brew up if someone looked at them funny. That was true for the earlier versions, but certainly not for later ones. That sort of thing

No, we are not simulating electrical power lines. Would like to, but that is a programming nightmare that Charles decided could wait for another (scary) day

Yes, the Javelin is nothing short of very, very nasty. Takes all the fun out of being a tanker.

Steve

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

And since TOW is auto-steered using an IR flare in the tail, perhaps by 2007 Syria will have some of those Russian designed sparkler-type coutermeasures that are intended to confuse missile guidance! That's the reason why TOW shouldn't be fired over water. The tracker sees the reflected IR flair in the water and tries to correct the flight path, which makes the missile pitch up. If BFC wants to go for the details, they could have a VERY complex battlefield sim on their hands.

yes, especially if they will be simulating the clever syrians flooding all their deserts with water.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That's the reason why TOW shouldn't be fired over water. The tracker sees the reflected IR flair in the water and tries to correct the flight path, which makes the missile pitch up. If BFC wants to go for the details, they could have a VERY complex battlefield sim on their hands.

yes, especially if they will be simulating the clever syrians flooding all their deserts with water. </font>

[M Hofbauer]

but what about the cheese and the tulips?

dont worry, though: the whole reason why the LAV series is so oddly built is because it is designed to be amphibious...

oh, no, wait....they somehow dropped that in the Stryker process...

oh well nevermind...lets get back to the tulips...Ive heard there are good prices on (tulip) onions and cheese ... but not in syria...

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, the Javelin is nothing short of very, very nasty. Takes all the fun out of being a tanker.

What about the AT-14 Kornet? On paper, it should be equal or better than the Javelin. Will it also be "very,very nasty"?

[Colin]

Just a question regarding the TOW.

Isn't it Tube launched, Optically sighted, Wire guided?

How can you jam or confuse a missile that isn't aiming itself and it connected physically to the launcher?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Colin:

How can you jam or confuse a missile that isn't aiming itself and it connected physically to the launcher?

Because the launcher has a sensor that tracks a flare in the tail of the missile and automatically sends course corrections down the wires. If, instead of sensing the flare, it got confused with another image, it would send invalid corrections that would take it off target.

Michael

[Kong]

Dillweed, it now only sounds cool, it looks pretty devastating as well...

Javelin demonstration against a T-72??

I feel confident in saying... "ain't no one walking away from a top down Javelin strike". I suppose a strike against a 'live' target would be more devastating since the tank would be carrying fuel and ammunition.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Kong:

I suppose a strike against a 'live' target would be more devastating since the tank would be carrying fuel and ammunition.

And what do you think that T-72 was filled with to make it explode like that? Cotton-wool? You think that any ATGM, short of a tactical nuke, would totally eradicate an empty tank hull?

[hellfish]

Originally posted by JC_Hare:

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

Yes, the Javelin is nothing short of very, very nasty. Takes all the fun out of being a tanker.

What about the AT-14 Kornet? On paper, it should be equal or better than the Javelin. Will it also be "very,very nasty"? </font>

[MikeyD]

"Yes, from what we can tell the TOW 2 is not affected by decoys like the TOW 1 could be."

Yeh, my old subscription to Mönch publications "Military Technonogy" magazine lapsed just as Gulf War I ended. So my knowledge of modern stuff is roughly equivalent to one of those old geezers who thinks cars still have carburators!

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

There are some differences. The AT-14 is more like a crew served heavy ATGM in the TOW/Hellfire/HOT class than a medium man-portable weapon like the Javelin...

The Kornet has a seperate tripod/launcher in addition to the actual missile. They aren't very big, however, and can be transported by two men (for one missile with launcher unit)...

That's another big difference with the AT-14 and the Javelin - the AT-14 gunner has to keep his eyes on the target for the entire duration of the missile flight. The Javelin gunner can shoot, detatch the CLU and run the feck away. The AT-14 guy has to stay there and hope nobody saw him. This might not be a big deal if the AT-14 has a low launch signature.

I meant in terms of range and payload.

I agree the AT-14 is less mobile than the Javelin, but in CM1 terms, it is probably as big and as mobile as a 81mm mortar team.

The time from firing to impact (assuming the target is at 2 km or less ) should be less than 10 seconds, not enough time for the target to acquire and suppress it. Tankers on the board have stated that the chances of spotting a firing ATGM team on the battlefield is almost nil.

In CM:SF, the AT-14 should be as effective as a Javelin.

[Battlefront.com]

Sergei is correct, that T-72 was fully outfitted with fuel and live ammo. Charles and I saw a test shot just after that one (I think it was the one that immediately followed it) and it only had simulated ammo. It did have fuel and was running. I know that because we sat in it just before they blew it up. And if you think I didn't ask if I could drive it around a bit first you don't have your thinking cap on

The shot actually missed the top of the tank and hit the suspension on the left side. Apparently the accuracy was reduced because there was an area of hardpacked, very warm, dirt directly around the vehicle. Still, the geeks with the glasses spent a week or so examining all the details and declared it a complete kill. Not only did it destroy the tank's mobility, but it did penetrate the side armor and apparently did some nasty things to the inside of the crew compartment. I don't remember if the simulated ammo was OK or not (the simulated rounds are tubes of metal stowed in the ammo slots. They look for damage after the hit).

The T-72 in question was outfitted with Kontakt reactive armor, same as the one in the video.

Fytinghellfish explained some of the practical differences between the two missile systems. However, the AT-14 is a very nasty missile, even though I'd say it isn't as nasty as the Javelin.

Steve

[hellfish]

Originally posted by JC_Hare:

I meant in terms of range and payload.

I agree the AT-14 is less mobile than the Javelin, but in CM1 terms, it is probably as big and as mobile as a 81mm mortar team.

The time from firing to impact (assuming the target is at 2 km or less ) should be less than 10 seconds, not enough time for the target to acquire and suppress it. Tankers on the board have stated that the chances of spotting a firing ATGM team on the battlefield is almost nil.

In CM:SF, the AT-14 should be as effective as a Javelin.

Actually in terms of range, the AT-14 is better, with a 5000m max range. Javelin is about 2500m.

I think the armor penetration of the AT-14 (1200mm RHA) is actually better than the Javelin (600+mm RHA), but what makes the Javelin effective is that it's got an option as a top attack weapon, so it doesn't need to penetrate too much. The AT-14 is direct attack.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

However, the AT-14 is a very nasty missile, even though I'd say it isn't as nasty as the Javelin.

Steve

I protest on behalf of Syrian players, it's blatant discrimination in favour of U.S. weapons.