How to destroy a moving tank column?

[Jona33]

You are correct, but I just wanted to stress that it's important to understand that they're aren't quite JDAMs.

 

Ok thanks for that. Easiest way I could think of explaining it. (Even if it is wrong. :D)

[Underleft]

This has nothing to do with tactics but I always aim for the 3rd vehicle in the column. I was an Infantry Scout in a Light Armored Reconnaissance company (LAV's) and our order of march was always 2,3,1,4. Vehicle 1 was the LT (Platoon Commander). So I always hit the 3rd vehicle in the column just in case it's the Platoon Commander. Obviously it doesn't matter, I just do it for fun.

 

I'd imagine it would be situational. If they are squeezing through narrow streets or passages, Id say hit the lead vehicle to try and stop them. Even if they have to back up, that will take more time. If they are traveling on open hardball, I'd still say hit the lead to force them to go around off road. If they are traveling off road on an open field I'd probably hit the middle vehicle to try and split them and make them think of how to reorganize.

 

However, these are just my opinions. I wasn't a pilot and I wasn't a vehicle crewman. I honestly don't know what the SOP for vehicles under aircraft fire is as my SOP memory capacity was filled with MOUT crap. Although one of our platoons was strafed by a cobra and the SOP seemed to be keeping the LT (our XO at the time) from knocking out the pilot. I wasn't present for that incident and none of the vehicles were damaged, but it was well know in our FOB even by the higher brass, so I'm inclined to believe it.

[OutOnTheOP]

So I'm still a bit confused... if you slave SPI to a moving target, will CCRP attempt to "lead" the target? For CBU103/105? What about CBU87/97?

 

I always assumed they didn't, so I my technique was:

 

1) lock moving target in TGP. Make SPI

 

2) set CCRP. Note time-of-bomb-fall in left side of hud.

 

3) Divide time in time-of bomb-hall in half. Estimate an intercept point that many seconds ahead of moving target (this point will need to be updated through the attack to ensure it remains the correct lead distance ahead). Shift the SPI onto that lead point. For CBU97, add 5-10 seconds of lead to account for time under parachute.

 

4) Set shallow dive; aim to release bomb at half the altitude you started at (IE, spot target and begin attack at 10K AGL and 40 seconds time-of-bomb-fall; release in a dive at 5K AGL, which means leading the target by 20 seconds). The dive is (in my eyes) somewhat important, as it reduces the time-of-fall, thereby reducing the distance the target moves while you're in a dive.

 

5) Profit!

 

I've gotten reasonably good results with this technique; it's a little harder with CBU97/105 than with CBU87/103, due to the extra (and somewhat unpredictable) delay imparted by the parachute deployment on the 97/105. I really should do some testing by dropping CBU97/105 with different Height Of Function settings and time exactly how long it take the parachutes to descend. I'll get to it eventually.

Edited February 1, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[Waxi]

I realized that the miss of my CBU-97s was probably not due to insufficient or wrong lead aim but due to the strong wind in the Devil's Cross campaign missions.

 

I created a training mission with no wind and could always hit at least half of the vehicles in the column.

 

After I added wind (5 m/s, 90 at sea level; 5m/s, 90 at 2,000ft; 10 m/s, 135 at 8,000ft as in the second stage of the Devil's Cross campaign missions) I could hardly hit stationary targets with the CBU-97s in CCRP, even when using the WIND settings in the CDU.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Waxi

[BlueRidgeDx]

Waxi,

 

Just be careful with the wind...the mission editor displays wind direction TO, while the CDU displays wind FROM. If you enter the same values into the CDU that you entered into the ME, everything will be off by 180 degrees.

 

In real world flying, all winds are described as FROM.

[Ghanja]

I remember this thread where the issue of a wind table was discussed and how it affected bomb delivery. In there he just entered the wind direction that was given in the editor or better - in the briefing. So would that mean that these infos are wrong and that I would have to substract 180° from that value (direction briefing = 90° -> direction entered in the CDU = 270°)?

[BlueRidgeDx]

I'd have to run the sim to see if the briefing matches the editor or not. But yes, the editor is backwards...if you set wind to 090 degrees in the editor, you're telling the simulator to make the wind blow toward 090. However, in aviation, the wind would be interpreted as "from 270".

 

You should enter 270 in the CDU.

[Ghanja]

I checked it before I left for work and it seems that the editor and also the briefing give you the "direction to". I checked the manual and it just refers to "current wind direction in degrees (magnetic)".

[Buzpilot]

Waxi,

 

Just be careful with the wind...the mission editor displays wind direction TO, while the CDU displays wind FROM. If you enter the same values into the CDU that you entered into the ME, everything will be off by 180 degrees.

 

In real world flying, all winds are described as FROM.

 

 

So why is it still backwards if this is a known issue?:megalol:

[Ghanja]

I guess an easy way of finding out would be:

- create mission with a certain windspeed and a certain direction (at ground level)

- load the mission and check the wind in the CDU

- find out if it is the same like in the briefing or if it "180° off"

[BlueRidgeDx]

So why is it still backwards if this is a known issue?:megalol:

 

I believe it's an intentional design decision. For casual users, describing wind direction "from" is counterintuitive. Most people would assume that wind direction is similar to a heading - as in the direction it's going, not the direction it's coming from.

[aaron886]

Now THAT would be twisted logic. :lol:

[bluepilot76]

. Most people would assume that wind direction is similar to a heading .

 

Jesus, why make the most complex flight simulator of all time and then change basic aviation conventions to make it intuitive to "most people"?

 

hmmm, the wind arrows in the ME are right though aren't they?

Edited February 2, 2012 by bluepilot76

[BlueRidgeDx]

hmmm, the wind arrows in the ME are right though aren't they?

 

Sorry guys, it's late, and I must not be making much sense.

 

Yes, the arrows are "correct", which is the crux of the issue. The arrows point in the direction the wind is blowing to. You're literally setting the "heading" of the wind.

 

In the real world, the arrow would be facing the direction the wind is blowing from, which "some people" might find counterintuitive, since arrows generally denote the direction something is moving, not vice versa.

 

I don't personally agree with it. It's obviously backwards to anyone who watches the weather channel, or knows anything about aviation, but it is what it is.

[WildBillKelsoe]

I'm just lost for words......truely. I'm assuming this is humour is it?

 

The CBU 97 and 87 are two different beasts when fitted with the WCMD (Wind corrected munitions dispenser), become the 105 and 103 vairants, respectively.

 

Really? because you seem intelligent to understand what I said, we buy them stock 87/97, then upgrade them with newBrunsWick (wick has been one of those overused words in english you know?? :/ like wicker park, wickhams striae, and of course WickMid (WCMD) to become 103/105..

 

And wick also exists in lanterns, you know?? and in my zippo too..

 

Hell, the specialist movie: ray q-wick (stallone)

Edited February 2, 2012 by WildBillKelsoe

[bluepilot76]

Holy mackeral now I am cunfusled! maybe I am misunderstanding the topic as it relates to using the CDU to drop bombs as Im not that level of CDU user, however in relation to aviation weather forecasts I think I should say....

 

I am sure that a wind arrow should point in the direction the wind is blowing TOWARD.

 

What can confuse people though is the aviation weather man, when providing the wind as text will specify where the wind is blowing FROM.

 

so, he/she says (writes) wind 270/20. Thats 20 knots from the west

However if he/she was to draw that on a chart it would show an arrow pointing to the right (east) with tail feathers to notify the strength of the wind.

 

I have attached a couple of images. Unfortunately I never use a aviation weather map with arrows on so i have attached a sample off the UK Met office aviation section.

 

The other chart shows the wind as text blocks, this is the chart all UK PPLs use in flight planning and most certainly refers to the direction the wind is blowing FROM. Unfortunately today of all days the normal prevailing wind over the UK from the southwest is largely absent. Normally all those blocks would have things like 235/35 in them so it would be fairly obvious..

 

Maybe I am just confused by the issue in relation to the bombs and CDU and will step away from the topic for now.

 

I think I am going to avoid those parachute bomblets on anything moving from now on. Far too likely to go wrong. Too much estimation involved!

Edited February 2, 2012 by bluepilot76

[BlueRidgeDx]

Take a closer look, those wind barbs (that's what they're called) are pointed into the wind.

 

Looky here: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/synoptic/sfc_plot_symbols.htm

 

Scroll down to the "Wind Speed & Direction" section.

[bluepilot76]

Hmm I think I might have confused things by saying "arrows" what I meant were arrows in the sense of a "bow and arrow", the feathers are at the tail end; to me the barbs denoting the wind strength are like the feathers on a tail end of the arrow....not the point bit on a text arrow (-->)...

 

That picture I put up is the Jetstream, that sucker is flowing West to East

which is the way the (bow and) arrows are pointing.

 

Same on the key that you put up to my eye... except some of them have a little circle onthe end, but the tail feathers are still at the up wind end of the arrow aren't they..

 

Right better do some work...

[Tailgate]

 

This is not a fault of the sim, this is a fault of mission design. The default behavior of ground units is to "disperse under fire", it only takes a second to change it in the mission editor to ignore enemy fire and not disperse. Many mission makers do in fact disable dispersal under fire... I do believe it to be more realistic when it is off myself.

 

I'm probably blind, but I could not find any options to disable "disperse under fire". I found Disperse Under Fire in the Advanced Waypoint actions, but no opitions to ignore or turn it off. Where can I find this?

 

Thanks!

[Jona33]

I'm probably blind, but I could not find any options to disable "disperse under fire". I found Disperse Under Fire in the Advanced Waypoint actions, but no opitions to ignore or turn it off. Where can I find this?

 

Thanks!

 

Untick the "enable" box.

[BlueRidgeDx]

Bluepilot,

 

Sorry I wasn't making sense last night...I think you understand how it works, but they way you describe it isn't correct. In the link I posted, take a look at the symbol again The circle represents the station. The stem of the symbol pivots around the circle to indicate the direction from which the wind is blowing. The end with the barbs is upwind.

 

Like in your example, the jetstream is blowing west to east (left to right). The symbols are facing left, into the wind.

 

See why ED made it the way they did? It confuses people. :)

[Tailgate]

Untick the "enable" box.

 

Where do I find this check box? "Disperse under fire" is not set anywhere that I can find in Waypoint or Advanced waypoint options.

[159th_Viper]

Where do I find this check box? "Disperse under fire" is not set anywhere that I can find in Waypoint or Advanced waypoint options.

 

1 - Click Advanced (Waypoint Actions)

 

2 - Click 'Edit' tab

 

3 - Under 'Type' tab, select 'Set Option'

 

4 - Under 'Action' tab, select 'Dispersal under fire'

 

5 - Click the 'Enable' box to remove the tick.

 

Edited February 2, 2012 by 159th_Viper

[Tailgate]

Ah, Ok, gotcha, You need to set it first to disable.

[Speed]

Not really, they're 100% inertial with nothing else, so they're guiding to a POINT, not necessarily to coordinates.

 

Ok, for the WCMD vs. JDAM discussion...

I would be interested in clarification.

 

My understanding (very well could be wrong):

It is my understanding that both the JDAM and the WCMD are really INS guided, and the only real difference between a JDAM and a WCMD is that a JDAM has a GPS receiver on board the bomb that updates the INS in case the on-board INS drifts. I guess this should improve the accuracy of the JDAM, as JDAMs have what- like a 5-10m CEP, and can be in flight for well over a minute. I imagine it could be possible that the INS aboard the JDAM could drift by several meters if it wasn't updated by GPS.

 

The WCMD doesn't have the GPS receiver, so if its INS drifts post release, then it has no way of knowing. However, it's a CBU, so a dozen meters of drift really ain't gonna make much of a difference. I imagine that CBUs might also generally be used from a bit lower altitudes than JDAMs, so there might be less time to drift as well.

 

Might the JDAM have a "GPS disabled" mode so that, if the constellation of GPS satellites was jammed or destroyed, it could still be used? It would be dependent on the aircraft's INS to be accurate and tell it where it is in 3D space and where it's supposed to hit; and an aircraft's INS can be independent of GPS, with drift being corrected by matching to known landmarks. The accuracy would be lower because it would have no GPS to correct any post-release drift (or any inaccuracy in the launching aircraft's INS), but it would probably still be a hell of a lot more accurate than a dumb bomb.

 

Anyway, can anyone comment on how this thinking compares to reality?