RE: [DS] Gently -- Capacity, Points

Ryan Gill wrote:

>>The reason the top-attack ATGMs are easier for ADS to stop than 
>>side-attack missiles are, is that they by definition have to fly above

>>their target and therefore can't use the target as a mask against the 
>>ADS. Dive-attack missiles should probably be even more vulnerable to
this 
>>than OTA-style ones like BILL, but the main difference is between 
>>side-attack missiles on one hand and all types of top-attack missiles
on 
>>the other - the top-attack ones have to give the ADS a free line of
sight 
>>when it pops up for the attack, while the side-hitting ones don't.
>
>Doesn't the masking depend on the target being exactly between the ADS
and 
>the firing platform?

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.

>>You do have one point, though appearently not the one you intended: 
>>OTA-style missiles like BILL can't easily switch between side- and 
>>top-attack modes due to the way their warhead is mounted. Dive-attack 
>>missiles like Javelin and Hellfire *can* switch between side- and 
>>top-attack modes, since their warhead is facing straight forward.
>
>??! I thought BILL 2 has three user selected modes for side attack for 
>soft targets, top attack for armored targets (magnetic sensors), and
top 
>attack with optical sensors controlling detonation. At least that's
what 
>the sales literature on the web sites says...

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.

BILL's side attack mode is for SOFT targets. Soft targets are by
definition 
not armoured - log bunkers, windows, wooden walls and similar, and 
unarmoured vehicles are "soft"; armoured vehicles are not. In order to 
attack a soft target with BILL you crash the missile straight into the 
middle of the target and let it blow up inside like a rather inefficient
HE 
round - you don't use its HEAT characteristics at all. If you try using 
this side attack mode against ARMOURED targets, the missile is smashed 
against the side of the target and causes at best some dents.

The two top-attack modes are effectively identical except for the
trigger 
conditions. I wouldn't really call the optical attack mode "soft target 
mode", BTW - the main reasons for it is to be able to find non-magnetic 
targets (like de-magnetized MBTs) and to allow fire over previously 
destroyed vehicles.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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