Invader ZIM

LOL, nice shooting bartleby!! :thumbup:

Info on all the different TOW's here: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/ They have a wireless 4.5km version too!!

LOL, I do have to admit we did take this thread from a tank battle to a sea battle and back again. My apolgies for that guys. I rather enjoy discussion about all things military though, and it was fun to see what our sim is doing with some of the weapons systems. Thanks for that info OutOnTheOP, I never considered the TOW to be suseptible to an IR jammer because of it's wire guidance, learned something new there :) Now I wonder if we can model that in game lol.

GGTharos is right, we're sort of pitting two rather capable Air defence ships against each other. There's still something going on with the AI in our sim though.

Here's a video on the T-80, firing the ATGM from it's muzzle. You can skip to 2:22 in to see the demonstration, you can see how long it takes to hit a target that is relatively close to the tank, and the rather interesting signature of the missile. It flies high at first, then dives down into the laser beam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA8uXzxLqx0 At those ranges seen in the video, I would think your better off firing a Sabot round, it takes so long to get to that relatively close target. To me it seems to defeat the purpose of having a tank at all, why not just use the AT-11 on lighter and faster or more mobile vehicles instead of on a heavy tank? 1.The ATGM flies much slower than a penetrator round, and the T-80's optical system is suseptible to lighting conditions and is dependent of having clear visibilty of the enemy tank, as well as having to stay still while having to keep a narrow laser beam on a possible maneuvring enemy tank at 5km with it's visual sights alone. 2. The enemy tank popping smoke and maneuvering will not allow the T-80 to get an accurate shot off with it's laser guided AT-11, at any range. 3. Active countermeasures on U.S. Tanks and Bradley's as demonstrated in the EARLY 1990's proved capable of destroying the delicate laser and optical systems of enemy vehicles out to 8km. 4. There are few battlefields where you can use the full 5km range to any advantage, at least against an enemy tank. 5. Systems like Shtora are IR dazzlers, and won't work against an M1's SABOT round, nor against a wire guided missile like the TOW-2 6. The M1 can target and fire accurately through a smoke obscured environment or in bad weather conditions that reduce visibility in the visible light spectrum by using it's thermal gunsight and systems. 7. Here's a video of T-90 crews firing while on the move at targets that are 1500 meters away. What is very telling is how many shots they needed to hit that target. Factor in the autoloader's average time of 8 seconds and assuming they fired immediately when the round was ready says that it took at least 24 seconds to hit one inert and non dangerous enemy tank at 1500m... With the upgraded sights of a T-90. That's an excruciationly long time in the heat of battle against real forces that want to destroy you.

Thanks for helping to confirm that JCamel, I appreciate it! As far as the warhead of the Standard, you are right, but the point is that the missile can really mess up delicate radars and other systems topside, the real effect is that the enemy ship is overwhelmed with small missiles striking it's topside and it's defensive systems trying to figure out which targets to engage while the more capable ASM's come in. Personally, I would use aircraft launching the stealthy AGM-129A against ship targtes.

lol, actually I didn't. I just put both ships in the mission and didn't change any settings for both versions 1111 and 1.20. Let me check again and see if that makes a difference. Also, for reference, here's some data on the Standard missiles the Aegis ships use, the paper states that the Standard is also a surface to surface missile, so in a way at closer ranges at least, the Aegis ships have a supersonic anti ship missile capability coupled with the subsonic variety. Based on what is known of the SM-2, the range is over 200 nautical miles for the missile, my estimate is that is for air interception, ground to ground might be less. http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Standard-Missile.html Edit: in the mission editor I am not finding any way to set either ship to Alert Red and Fire like I can with ground units.

Okay, just had to try this out in 1.1.1.1. and 1.20 World. Regardless of the outcomes at this time, there is definately something amiss with the AI in 1.20. In 1.1.1.1. the track is for one CG 60 against one Veliky. In the track quite a fight ensues between both ships. There's interception of ASM's and there's saturation missile attacks attempted. In 1.20 World, only the CG 60 Fired, and it only fired a single Harpoon. The Veliky never tried to intercept the missiles until the SA-10's got at it. Then the CG 60 would fire another missile.... and repeat for all 4 Harpoons that were aimed toward the Veliky. The Veliky never attempted to fire on the Normandy. In both tracks the ships are just within visual range and in all instances are set to "Excellent" skill. For reference here's the tracks. CG vs. GBC is 1.1.1.1. CG vs. GBG is 1.20 World version. CG vs. GBC.trk CG vs GBG.trk

I did a mission I created in A-10C 1.1.1.1. that had the CG-60 up against 5 of the small attack craft with Moskits. The result was interesting, in 1.1.1.1. The CG-60 simultaneously fired it's Standard missiles at the enemy ships. This I think is correct because it is mentioned the SM-2's do have surface to surface capibility. The CG-60 also launched all 8 of it's harpoons, as well as a few tomahawk ASM's at these ships. The Phalanx system, when I had the CG-60 move to cross the path of the missile worked as advertised, shooting down the large asm's as they came down the same flight patch toward the Normandy, but not before some were intercepted by the SM-2's. Other missions had 1 or 2 missiles get through sometimes. In DCS World, the CG-60 is behaving much more lethargic. Not firing any tomahawks, and the Phalanx sometimes not engaging as it should, sometimes waiting until the supersonic missiles are under 1 mile in range before even slewing to the target to fire, instead of detecting the threat and already slewing in position to fire earlier. Remember that tactics play a big part. I think the U.S. navy tactic is to have HARM equipped F-18's poke out the sensors on enemy ships, greatly reducing their ability to fight after the initial attack. Also, I think the Navy also used Air Launched decoys that would prompt enemy ships to turn on their systems, thereby opening them up for a saturation HARM/decoy missile attack. Couple this with a coordinated timed attack to allow the Harpoons to arrive at about the same time and then you can see how even a slow ASM like the Harpoon or Tomahawk can still penetrate defenses. I'm a bit busy today, but I'll see if I can set up the .trk files with version 1.1.1.1. and compare with World 1.20 this weekend. P.S. if you want a laugh, in Combined Arms, take the M113 air defence vehicle with the 20mm cannon and jump in the drivers seat. Then proceed to fire it's primarily HE 20mm ammo into the front of an M1A2, you will destroy the M1A2.

Okay, now I see what you mean, so more like what this guy is doing?

Thanks for that video Opus, it's neat to see how the mechanical autoloader works. I found a video of an average serviceman loading his M1A2. I'm counting about 4 to 6 seconds to have the gun loaded with him though. I think the advantage is that the man can already grab a round off the shelf and have it ready after the gunner fires the shot. here's the videos: Even the guy in the second video is already tired and he loads faster than the autoloader in the T-80 video. Another advantage of having a human being working with the ammo.

I know what you mean Krebs, I actually tend to use the quck mission generator alot myself. There's other ways to balance when mission building though. You can either up the skill level of your individual units forces and lower the skill of the enemy, or vica versa. Think that T-80 is not good enough?, put him from good to excellent, put your forces down to good, problem solved lol. DCS Does already offer a lot of flexibility in the AI. The point is that you enjoy the sim how you think the battle will go down. :smilewink: But since we get to drive the vehicles now, it would be nice to see more tweaking for realistic weapons systems.

Well said whitehot, and point taken. My example was by design to show how unfeasable it was to have an engagement at 5,000m, even under the most ideal conditions. And at closer ranges both the T-80 and M1 will probably be using their depleted uranium rounds, which I found are made entirely differently in the West as opposed to the East. That's another terribly long debate though :lol: The T-90 is coming in the next patch, and is a very welcome addition, but I want to learn how these systems really work, and how they will work in DCS World and go from there. As it is right now, I think the M1A2 needs a tweak to better reflect it's situational awareness and detection capabilities. And for example the T-80 could be upgraded to the T-80UM in DCS to give it some capability against the M1 at night or other obscuring conditions. Having the T-80 engage the M1 in DCS World isn't wrong, but it should be labelled correctly to better reflect it's ability to do so under some of our simulated conditions. And I think that attention should be given to the M1A2's capabilities and modelled in this sim. None of the systems have to be perfect! But every system no matter who or where it was made has a tactical weakness, find it and use it!! That's the fun of playing DCS CA, even in beta form, it's like I have my whole army on my desktop! I couldn't dream of this kind of fun with the little plastic army men I used to play with as a kid. :thumbup: Apocalypse31, thanks for that info. In my mind taking the aiming system off of the target to reload each round loses critial time to guage range and compensate for target movement, to me that's another detriment to having an autoloader. You can't replace a thinking human being with a machine yet., just my opinion.

One more question about the real M1A2 and T-80U. After the T-80U fires, does it's turret automatically slew off target and move into a position to allow the autoloader to ready another round? And when the M1A2 fires, does it's gun have to move off target? Or is there an 18 year old running on pure adrenalin loading the next round? Something to consider, and look into.

We all have to remember this is a Beta, and especially now with everyone looking closer at the ground combat instead of being 10,000 feet up we're all bound to run into some things that need adjusting, and that's what this beta period is for. Thank you Dmut for looking into the targeting issues, it is greatly appreciated. Looking into this further, let's compare the real world M1A2 with the T-80U with public info that's available to us. Since in DCS A-10C the M1's are actually labelled as "M1A2" and do have the CITV of that variant. Thermal sights: This is an area where I do have extensive first hand experience, on both American and Russian systems. In the first place, you have to realise there's a difference between a thermal imager and an image intensifier. The thermal system "sees" heat, while an image intensifier simply amplifies available light. Have you noticed how much quicker and easier it is to target things in this sim from the FLIR on the A-10 versus using an image intensifier? And when you compare the two, a thermal imager gives a vast improvement in rapid target detection and range at night vs an image intensifier, thermal can even help see through battlefield smoke and light rain, fog and other obsurants, like your main gun firing, where an image intensifier cannot. Unfortunately, this part of the comparison is unfair as The T-80U has NO thermal imaging system to target with. You would have to go to the T-80U(M) or the command version the T-80UK to find a unit that has the Agava thermal sight, and the Agava has a stated range of 2,600 meters. Even the upgraded Agava-2 thermal sight has the same quoted range from the manufacturer, but in all fairness it does have slightly better resolution. See the link to what the Agava-2 looks like here: http://warfare.ru/?catid=314&linkid=2363 What the T-80U does have is image intensifiers for it's gunnery sight, which simply can't compare to a thermal sight in speed of acquisition and ease of targeting. Plus the performance varies for an image intensifier, your engagement range is greatly reduced if it's overcast and there's no moon out, versus a full moon and clear skies for example. The thermal unit would have no such problems picking out a warm T-80 on an overcast moonless night at 4km or more. Depending on the thermal sight itself, you might not know it's a T-80, but you'll know something is out there with the thermal. By comparison the oldest version of the M1 came with a 1st generation thermal sight for targeting in the early 1980's. And the M1A2 has the following firepower enhancement package. For Reference: om/projects/abrams/ The above link shows the Firepower Enhancement Package for the M1A2 which started in 2001. What this means is that the M1A2 has a 2nd generation thermal viewer, (2nd generation means in this case that the thermal imager has a staring focal planar array that is cryogenically cooled, this greatly increases the systems sensitivity to temperature differences because the array always stares at the target gathering photons. And the use of an array means that it's resolution is greatly increased allowing discrimination of targets at much further ranges than a mechanically scanned thermal unit such as the Agava and early M1.) Plus ADDITIONAL thermal viewers for the commander. The company that makes this sight for the M1 is DRS, link to thermal sight for M1 is here: http://www.drs.com/Products/RSTA/GENIITIS.aspx So you have at least two people in the M1A2 who are using 2nd gen thermal sights looking to destroy enemy tanks. Couple that with the info in the FEP package, and what that says to me is that the M1A2 has better situational awareness on the battlefield from threats and targets, day or night. We haven't even gotten into the details about the M1A2's datalink system, the Force 21 which if there was any other unit that detected enemy tanks, they would show up on the M1A2's datalink, allowing the M1's to maneuver out of the line of sight of the enemy units and take advantage of being able to see and fire on the enemy first. "The FEP also includes an eyesafe laser range finder, north-finding module and precision lightweight global positioning receiver which provide targeting solutions for the new far target locate (FTL) function. FTL gives accurate targeting data to a range of 8,000m with a CEP (circular error of probability) of less than 35m." Now what I'm curious about, is why does the M1A2 need accurate 35m circular area of probability for a tank round to hit targets out to 8,000 meters??? For reference on the various T-80 versions please take a look at the rather long list available here: http://t-80tank.blogspot.com/ Also for reference is the Russian company that makes the tank night sights for it's military, Novosibirsk, their site can be found here at the following for the T-90S and T-80U: http://www.npzoptics.com/catalog/armoured_technics/t-90s/ http://www.npzoptics.com/catalog/armoured_technics/t-80u/ AT-11B vs. M829A3 Now let's look at the T-80U's AT-11 vs. the M1A2's round for long range, the M829A3. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that the T-80U will be using the latest ATGM it can, the 9M119M Refleks. Here's a link showing the manufacturer's data on the Refleks. http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/refleks.html Just take note also that penetration is claimed at 90 degrees. The penetration value goes down the further away from 90 you go. The Refleks has a stated range of 5,000 meters. Which is very impressive for a tank round, but let's look at the data a little closer. The info above states that the Refleks round takes 14.2 seconds to ride the laser fired from the T-80 to it's target. Nothing wrong with that, until you consider how hard it would be for the T-80 to maneuver while keeping a precise beam on a maneuvering enemy tank at 5km, without a thermal sight, and reduced capability at night with an image intensifier. And the T-80U has no way of accurately targeting an M1 at that range if the M1's see the T-80 fire and decide to pop smoke and maneuver for cover. The M1's also have image intensifiers and would actually be able to see the infrared beam fired from the enemy tanks at night also. In some cases the T-80U does have a true advantage in range with the AT-11B, but lets look at the M829A3 round. http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html The M829A3 is specifically meant to work against the latest ERA armor and still penetrate a tank, and when you look at it's muzzle velocity you can see something very telling.... It's fast. 1,555 meters per second given public data. Which means that you can have a T-80U fire at the M1 at 5km first with his AT-11B, but he's going to kick up a little dust and smoke from firing, and the M1 actually has time to either pop smoke and evade the missile... Or it can fire back. Given the short flight time of the M829A3, something like 3 to 4 seconds to reach 5km you might get two or even three shots off at the most likely stationary T-80 at 5km, and if any of them hit, even if not killing the T-80 would certainly knock the aim of the laser or damage other components. The below link is in Russian, but what's it's saying is that Kontakt-5 has proven to be ineffective versus western Depleted Uranium Sabots similar to the M829A3,since the Western rounds' relatively slower speed (compared to soviet rounds that K5 development is allegedly based on) will not trigger the K5. http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2002-07-19/6_progress.html And if M1A2's are worried about ATGM's there's countermeasures for it, which have actually been fielded within the last 20 years to defeat ATGM's. There's the ERA armor upgrade which puts Reactive armor over the M1, and there's the AN/VLQ-6 which was used on M1's back in 1990. Info on AL/VLQ-6:http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3794.html AN/VLQ-7 is an active damaging system that blinds enemy sensors and was used on Bradley's in 1990. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA323948 "During the Gulf War, the American forces used two kinds of laser blinding weapons, namely the AN/VLQ-7 Stingray combat defense system and AN/PLQ-5 laser countermeasures system (LCMS). The AN/VLQ-7 Stingray combat defense system, developed by Martin Marietta, Inc., was mounted in Bradley fighting vehicles. This system can capture targets using the "cat's- eye effect", and, with a C02 laser with an average power lkW, and a Nd:YAG laser and Nd:YAG frequency multiplication laser with lOOmJ output energy, can destroy military photoelectric equipment 8km away as well as damage human eyes over even greater distances. Thisnsystem, equipped with a wide-view search and acquisition setup, can perform positioning over several tanks simultaneously, and transmit laser beams to blind the photoelectric sensors in these tanks to make them lose mobility, and finally destroy them by firing anti-tank missiles." Given all this info, with all due respect, I'm beginning to think that the T-80U would not fare very well against M1A2's and should attempt to get in closer and ambush using real world data presented above. At range they would be plinked multiple times by the M1A2's before their ATGM's reached the M1A2's at extended ranges, or jammed by the multiple systems listed above, or defeated by smoke and maneuvering. We're not even considering the depleted uranium uprated armor protection the M1A2 has, that would be another book in an of itself lol. Up close the T-80 depleted uranium rounds might have a chance against the M1A2. All bets are off if we get an M1A2 TUSK Ver.2 with 2nd gen reactive armor over it though lol.

LOL SiThSpAwN, don't worry, I didn't see nothing. :lol: I think during the first gulf war the M1's were using the M829A1 "Silver Bullet" round. The M829A3 is current as of 2004 I think, but there is an M829A4 round being procured. The A3 is specifically made to defeat Kontact-5 reactive armor and has some impressive attributes by reading what info I could in the Tank forums recently. I appreciate the discussion guys, always willing to learn what I can about some of these ground systems and keep up to date. Edit: Okay, found a link the types of ammo used by the M1, it's an impressive range, including airburst anti-helo rounds! I can see where in CA that M1's with that MPAT round would make things interesting for the Ka-50 pilots. http://www.atk.com/capabilities_defense/cs_ms_w_tgs_120ammo.asp

Actually, yes I have. That's where I came to the conclusion that the units staying still regardless of what side there on get the advantage. Takes only a few minutes to set up in the editor and try it out for yourself. I learned something new with this and now can plan better on how to move my forces in CA to minimize losses. P.S. thanks for that info Viper, so far seems to work out that the units are even, it does depend on the terrain and situation which makes this all hard to quntify sometimes.

Thanks for the info Viper, was just curious about the outcomes and didn't think it much of an issue. I'll try and set up the U.S. units from now on to adjust for this factor. Setting up ambushes is the way to go for ground units when the opportunity presents itself.

okay, so perhaps DCS is taking this accuracy into account then?

Well, actually I'm not sure how it's supposed to perform. It seems that as long as any unit is moving, be it the T-80 or M1 even if set on condition Red that if the moving unit runs into the other it is at a disadvantage. But would that always be the case? As in this instance all units are on wide open ground that is relatively flat. The M1's are firing on the move at stationary T-80's, while the T-80's have units moving toward them at full speed in all instances. I would figure it would be easier in this instance to be in the tank that is moving to fire on a stationary target. Is it your submission that the T-80 is better/should outperform the M1A2? If so, why?

Looks very nice, always great to have more variety in this sim. Does this mean that an M1A2 TUSK Ver.2 is in our future sometime? :smilewink:

Hey guys, I was curious about how the AI was behaving with the tanks, so I made up a very simple mission that had 12 M1A2's vs. 12 T-80U tanks on rather flat ground about 3 miles apart. I set it up so that the M1's were set on Excellent skill in all these tests and the T-80's on excellent, watched the battle, and the M1's lost. Repeated the mission, this time with Excellent M1's and T-80's on High, M1's lost. Again with T-80's on Good, in the end M1's lost, but 6 T-80's survived. And finally with T-80's on Average, same result, M1's lose and 6 T-80's survived. Attached are my trk files for the battles, you can fast forward to where I'm watching in external view, the battle happens when the T-80's are about 1.9 miles away. All battles involved AP rounds and no T-80's fired missiles. I don't know if this is as intended or not, so didn't know where to post this. If anyone can replicate or perhaps find a way to change the outcome let me know. The only way the M1's have a chance is if they are not moving and the T-80's come to them or blunder into them. It would seem the AI gets a bonus for being still. M1 moves.trk M1Excellent T80High.trk M1Excellent vs T80 Good.trk M1Excellent vs T80 Avg.trk

Only 5 minutes long.... And in that time far more imaginative and creative with better special effects than all of the crap I'm forced to watch on U.S. Television.. Thank You For that!! There is hope out there. :thumbup:

Yea, I'd like this for the A-10 It looks exactly like the ANVIS NVG views I'm used to.

PM Sent Diveplane, but I get no confirmation in my box that it actually got sent out. Don't know what the problem is, and don't want to miss out on a chance to try this out.