Re: [DS3] Dirtside Accelerator for Infantry

[Forwarded by Roger for Oerjan again]

John K Lerchey wrote:

>So, the only real problem I have with this paragraph is that in DSII
terms
>there is NO modifier for non-evading targets movement in the fire
system.
>
>Thus, rather than dropper per range band, etc., I would suggest that if
>you wanted to allow for HEAT rounds for HVCs, give them whatever
>chit/chit validity is appropriate and reduce the firer accuracy by 1
die
type.

The original question was why HVCs don't fire HEAT rounds with *the
same*
chit validities as GMSs, IAVRs and SLAMs (after all it is the same type
of
warhead in all of these) - and none of these other weapon types have
their
chit validities tied to the range band.

IOW, if you like CS Renegade want to use a single HEAT warhead category
to
represent GMSs, IAVRs, SLAMs *and* HVCs, then you have to put the
long-range
hit difficulties in the to-hit roll rather than in the chit validity.
(It
also saves you from explaining to all and sundry why the effect of HVC
HEAT
warheads degrades with increasing range when the effect of SLAM HEAT
warheads doesn't :-/ ) If OTOH you're OK with two having *different*
HEAT
categories, then your solution works (except that you will have to
explain
to everyone why HVC HEATs degrade with range while SLAM ones don't :-/
).

************************************************************************
****
************
Ryan Gill wrote:

>>Neither was I. It is the UNguided HEAT rounds which have problems
>>hitting moving targets at long range, not the (guided or self-guiding)
>>missiles.
>
>Given that guided rounds are becoming more common, what would be
>wrong with a bit of terminal guidance in the round, even if only
>small fins that deploy and adjust to a moving target?
[...]
>FCS could include some terminal guidance in the round and still not
>cross the line with GMS weapons.

Not for HEAT rounds, it can't - nor for anything else which needs to get
within a few meters of the target or even strike it directly before
exploding; if you want this kind of long-range precision from rounds
this
slow and heavy you need fins and terminal guidance circuits about the
same
size as those on a "real" ATGM (or GMS, if you prefer the DS2 term). The
only thing a gun-launched guided round can really skimp on compared to a
"real" ATGM is the rocket engine to propel it, but that's only important
for
launching the round; it'll still behave like an ATGM during the terminal
phase.

If your round *doesn't* need to get close to its target, like eg.
"MAK-style" artillery submunitions which fire from 100+ meters up in the
air
or flechette/shrapnel anti-personnel rounds with large lethal radii,
then
you don't need as elaborate guidance equipment - but then you're also
not
talking about big HEAT warheads.

(To use real-world examples, this is the main difference between STRIX
(target-seeking 120mm anti-tank mortar round with a HEAT warhead) and
SADARM/BONUS (two rivalling but *very* similar "MAK-style" 155mm
artillery
rounds, each carrying 2 EFP-armed target-seeking submunitions): the
STRIX
needs to physically strike its target before detonating and therefore
devotes a huge part of its mass and volume to trajectory-correcting
rocket
engines, whereas the BONUS and SADARM submunitions merely wobble around
during their 200m+ descent and detonate as soon as they happen to be
pointing towards a target that matches their pre-programmed criteria.
Each
SADARM/BONUS carrier grenade contains two separate submunitions, yet is
smaller than a single STRIX since it doesn't need all that bulky
manoeuvring
equipment.)

>Further you have a greater variety of rounds that are fired with a gun
than
>with the typical GMS system. They're already looking at this for simple
>tube artillery. Not hard to expect this for the larger direct fire guns
of the
>future.

The "simple tube artillery" rounds they're doing this on all have
payloads
which don't need to get very close to moving targets; most of them are
intended to reduce artillery dispersion against *static* targets  -
that's
how they get away with using simpler guidance gear.

If OTOH you want your round to get close enough to hit hit a moving
target
with a big HEAT warhead (as opposed to spraying tiny DP-ICMs over the
entire
neighbourhood in the hope that at least one of them will hit something),
then you will need something very similar to an engine-less (or even
weak-engined) ATGM.

>Over very long distances time of flight of a Sabot round will still
>be rather long enough for non-evasive maneuvers to take a target out
>of the hit probability area. a 2.5 second flight time is the thing
>here. A vehicle can move a long distance in 2.5 seconds.

Certainly, and that is a major part of the reason why DS2's HVCs, HKPs
and
MDCs all have a lower hit probability at Long range than they do at
Medium
(the other part being that the longer the range, the harder it is to
detect
the target without having minor obstacles getting in the way). However,
there's also a very big difference between the 2.5 second flight time of
a
modern KE round to long range and the 5+ seconds it takes a HE(-AT, -SH,
etc.) round to reach the same range - particularly since the HE(...)
rounds'
steeper trajectories make them more sensitive to a given target
deviation
than the KE rounds (with flatter trajectories) are.

>There should be a movement vs static position modifier I think, at
least for
>the long range shots.

Kinda-sorta. With target detection and identification also being baked
into
the DS2 to-hit roll (it has to be, since otherwise there's no way in
hell to
make the DS2 hit probabilities even remotely believable when compared to
today's performance), the higher probability for hitting static target
once
they've been detected could be cancelled by the greater difficulty of
detecting them in the first place (unless they reveal themselves by
firing
etc., of course).

>Over on Tank.net, ray II has related how he engaged a static T-72 at
>beyond the FCS's indicated range in his M1 Abrams by using the Backup
>sight to estimate the range.

Yep. IIRC the 5500+-meter kill of a static T-55 by a UK tank during ODS
was
done by a very similar technique - but note that the targets in both
cases
were static, not moving. 'Course, with only a few scattered examples to
go
on and no records about how many similar long-range shots that *missed*
it
is hard to say anything much about it - after all, even a D4 FCS die (D4
*after* shifts for range, that is) can score occasional hits against D12
Signature + D12 Secondary dice if it gets lucky enough :-/

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
 What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry