RE: [DS] Gently -- Capacity, Points

Ryan Gill wrote:

>>If by "exactly between" you mean "the ATGM shooter, target and ADS
form 
>>an exactly straight line", then no it doesn't. As long as the ADS
vehicle 
>>is in the middle of the target's formation - and it tends to be, since

>>that maximizes the number of units it can protect - a side-striking 
>>missile attacking from outside the same formation has a good chance of

>>using the target vehicle - or, indeed, some other vehicle(s) in the
same 
>>unit - as a mask
>>
>>FWIW, I wouldn't really want a gun-based ADS try to engage any ATGM 
>>attacking me... any near-misses on the ATGM are rather too close to me

>>for my taste :-/
>>
>>>Also, does 1.05 Meters really count that much?
>>
>>Yep. Simply put it is the difference between a laser-armed ADS having
to 
>>fire literally through friendly vehicles to nail the missile and the
same 
>>ADS being able to fire above them.
>
>Side to side deviations don't hurt, but 1 meter above is ok?

Having slept some more (than last night's 4 hours), I realize that my 
previous answer wasn't entirely complete :-(

BILL flies 1.05 meters above the straight line between launcher and
aiming 
point.

What the sales literature you referred to didn't mention is that when
you 
fire a BILL you aim at the top of the target, whereas for a side-attack 
missile you aim at the center-of-mass - the hull of a modern AFV is
usually 
less heavily armoured than the turret. This means that the aim point for
a 
BILL is ~1 meter higher up than it is for a side-attack ATGM. This puts
the 
BILL flight path closer to 2 meters above the side-attack missile's
flight 
path (unless the target is hull-down, of course).

This means that the difference you're looking at is the difference
between 
going 1 meter above the top of the target and going ~1 meter *below* the

top of the target. From a masking/unmasking point of view this is very 
different indeed from going 1-2 meters to one side.

>I think you're giving too much in one area and not in another.  I'd
have 
>to think that if you're ballistic like Javelin, then yeah, the ADS has
an 
>easy bead on you, but otherwise, I think the trajectory diff between
BILL2 
>and TOW isn't much of a difference where ADS would be concerned.

I can't refute your belief without going into classified stuff, but I
can 
say this much: you're wrong.

(Unless of course you're talking about the TOW2B, since that is an 
overflying top-attack missile just like the BILL2 and therefore has
almost 
exactly the same flight profile. Well, apart from the longer range that
is 
:-/ However, from the context I take it that you referred to the older 
side-attack TOW versions and not to the TOW2B.)

>After all, those tanks have a bit more than a meter's difference
between 
>them don't they?

There's a very significant difference between the *horisontal*
separation 
between those tanks and the *vertical* distance between them.
.
>>The two web sites you refer to are FAS, which is notoriously
unreliable 
>>(I've seen so many bad mistakes on that site that I no longer trust 
>>*anything* I read there unless I can get independent confirmation of 
>>it!), and Army Technology, which is usually OK for US and Commonwealth

>>stuff but not always completely up-to-date on systems from other 
>>countries. You shouldn't believe *everything* you read in sales 
>>brochures, you know... particularly not when you get them third hand.
>
>Granted, but barring the actual user manual or an engineer that has
worked 
>on it,
>I'm going to trust the sales literature for the sake of argument.

You're not barred from an engineer that has worked on it, you know. One
of 
them just told you not to trust third-hand sales literature...

(My first real job assignment as ballistician for the company currently 
known as Saab Bofors Dynamics was on the blast area around the BILL2 
launcher; some of my older collegues worked on the flight
characteristics 
and trajectory of the missile itself.)

>The point is that BILL 2 has a very close trajectory when compared to
the 
>typical frontal/side attack ATGMs (TOW, DRAGON, MILAN, SAGGER, etc).
The 
>ballistic arc type ATGMs like Javelin have a far and away more exposed 
>flight to the target than does something like BILL 2.

And BILL2 has a flight path which is considerably more exposed to ADS
than 
the flight path of a side-attack missile.

>Further one would have to expect that either all missiles in the day of

>2183 are top attack like BILL 2 or that the effects are too granular
for 
>concern in the game.

If you have different armour ratings on top and sides, then the
difference 
between side-attack and top-attack is definitely large enough to capture
in 
the game. So is the difference between side-attack and top-attack. The 
difference between DA (Javelin-style) and OTA (BILL-style) is however 
likely to be below the granularity of the game rules.

>I personally think it was something that may have been missed in the
early 
>part of the game design as far as GMS's are concerned. I do think the 
>technology and attack mode is significant though.

When DS was designed, BILL was the only top-attack ATGM in service - and
it 
was brand new, so the combat SciFi authors hadn't yet begun to mention
it 
<shrug>

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."