Correct Finnish 2S5 Accuracy

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3381
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Correct Finnish 2S5 Accuracy

Postby chykka » Wed 7 Dec 2016 07:21

I always felt the 2s5 always were mostly hindered by their Aim time more than anything else. Dispersion, Rof, and Range all attribute too effectiveness but Aim time contributes the most too it's survival, responsiveness, and effectiveness without the range.
Image

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Correct Finnish 2S5 Accuracy

Postby hansbroger » Wed 7 Dec 2016 07:42

chykka wrote:I always felt the 2s5 always were mostly hindered by their Aim time more than anything else. Dispersion, Rof, and Range all attribute too effectiveness but Aim time contributes the most too it's survival, responsiveness, and effectiveness without the range.


Yeah I figured it should at least be distinguished by range and accuracy (considering it has both on spades IRL) the aim time is justifiably not 10s of course
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

jhfts
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue 21 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: Correct Finnish 2S5 Accuracy

Postby jhfts » Sat 10 Dec 2016 02:17

hansbroger wrote:
chykka wrote:I always felt the 2s5 always were mostly hindered by their Aim time more than anything else. Dispersion, Rof, and Range all attribute too effectiveness but Aim time contributes the most too it's survival, responsiveness, and effectiveness without the range.


Yeah I figured it should at least be distinguished by range and accuracy (considering it has both on spades IRL) the aim time is justifiably not 10s of course


Even at 30 s, I would still have use for it - especially if it retained reasonably good availability - so long as it had some vestige of accuracy. Having 3 - 4 guns firing at <4550 m dispersion could produce some interesting gameplay.

As it is right now though... just a wasted model in my opinion.

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: Correct Finnish 2S5 Accuracy

Postby codextero » Sat 10 Dec 2016 03:08

I'm under the impression that "accuracy" for artillery is not dependent on mechanical accuracy of the tube, but rather how good the fire control is with fast and accurate gun laying.

In which case M777 would still have an accuracy edge since it's ballistic computer is better than the 2S5's.

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Correct Finnish 2S5 Accuracy

Postby hansbroger » Sat 10 Dec 2016 03:19

Yeah a 7 HE long range gun system with <4550m dispersion isn't all that controversial unless it has 10s aimtime.

The short, generally non-RAP boosted ranges assigned to RedFor SPH and the lack of tactical rocket and missiles systems like 2K6/9K52/OTR-21 makes the performance of the SPG systems all the more important. M-46 and 2A36 were the sniper rifles of the artillery, part of an independent artillery capability designed to deliver accurate fires on a fleeting targets such as enemy artillery, CRBN assets, Air Defenses and C².

The centralized fire control of Soviet artillery and the lack of individually proliferated GPS positioning etc to guns gets a lot of undeserved flak and really is far less of an impediment to aimtime as it is in game (actually more to accuracy IRL.) Centralized battery control, artillery reconnaissance and likewise were actually quite good (See PRP-4 among other component pieces).

I say:
3640m at 30s (if it's forced to use the long aimtime then it should reap every benefit of the systems nearly M777esque accuracy)
4550m at 15s-20s (Probably the best approximation IMO).
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

jhfts
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue 21 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: Correct Finnish 2S5 Accuracy

Postby jhfts » Sat 10 Dec 2016 03:30

codextero wrote:I'm under the impression that "accuracy" for artillery is not dependent on mechanical accuracy of the tube, but rather how good the fire control is with fast and accurate gun laying.

In which case M777 would still have an accuracy edge since it's ballistic computer is better than the 2S5's.


Yes... except for the fact that most gunlaying and fire direction, to the best of my knowledge, is done at the battery level or higher, so on-gun fire-control would be of limited relevance.

In any event, accuracy stats, as they currently are, seem to be mostly arbitrary. The base-level M109, for instance, has terrible accuracy (9,100 m), without any real justification as to why.

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Correct Finnish 2S5 Accuracy

Postby hansbroger » Sat 10 Dec 2016 06:12

jhfts wrote:
codextero wrote:I'm under the impression that "accuracy" for artillery is not dependent on mechanical accuracy of the tube, but rather how good the fire control is with fast and accurate gun laying.

In which case M777 would still have an accuracy edge since it's ballistic computer is better than the 2S5's.


Yes... except for the fact that most gunlaying and fire direction, to the best of my knowledge, is done at the battery level or higher, so on-gun fire-control would be of limited relevance.

In any event, accuracy stats, as they currently are, seem to be mostly arbitrary. The base-level M109, for instance, has terrible accuracy (9,100 m), without any real justification as to why.


Base level accuracy of pretty much every gun system in game is actually good, the M185 used on the 6370m dispersion M109A2 actually has a vertical dispersion of something like .30% when it is not using RAP ammo, then of course it is limited to a Sovietesque 18km firing range so instead it RAP's out to 21000m and eats the penalty for its .74% vertical dispersion with RAP ammunition? (you have to wonder because it still has better dispersion than a 2S3M using non-RAP).

Most gun laying and fire direction was done at the battery, battalion and division level with dedicated vehicles like the MT-LBu based 1V12/1V13/1V14 (Battery) 1V15/1V16 battalion or 9V514 “Beta-3” divisional computer vehicle.

When you get to 1987 with the fleetwide 2S3M1 that should be in game you have actual digital data links to firing vehicles. So what does this centralized battery fire control actually mean? If anything fast but imprecise rather than the outright propogandistic BS that is Slow AND Imprecise

Fire control calculation is computerized or even digital but centralized rather than decentralized, battery positioning and command is as well. There's practically almost no difference when it comes down to actual time servicing requests.

Maybe... MAYBE a 5s penalty when it comes to fire command processing. Probably not. USSR had very defined and non-convoluted fire control procedures for ordering artillery fires with a trend towards putting firing direction under the direct control and discretion of a forward officer, very little passing of fires requests through the chain of command for authorization, the buck either passed or it didn't. Actual request to target servicing time by a pre 1991 NATO artillery battery is probably not all that much faster than a pre 1991 Soviet artillery battery. Things get dicey when you're poaching regimental or divisional assets for army level operational fires but that's out of scope. Communications are excellent, this isn't WW2.

Front line ranging and artillery reconnaissance assets are very good to excellent with wide proliferation of battlefield surveillance radar, thermal optics, sophisticated laser ranging/reconnaissance equipment in dedicated artillery reconnaissance vehicles like the PRP series not to mention a widely proliferated and comprehensive suite of counter battery flash/acoustic/radar based identification/ranging systems.

The penalties deriving from the entralization of navigation equipment in battery control vehicle can probably be considered as less precise awareness of individual gun positioning which will affect dispersion down range, again this is easily minimalized/prevented by firing from organized/choreographed dispositions so while survivability through dispersion of guns is less (an not modeled in wargame) it's possible to avoid most of the effects of unknown firing positions through rehearsed positioning.

Ultimately in its simplified form what you have is a front line combined arms commander/battery commander locates a target and decides the engagement type (harrassment, destruction etc..). A PRP or similar vehicle with excellent locational awareness and sensor capability identifies and gains accurate location data that is sent to battery or battalion fire control which selects the battery(ies) required to service it and relays firing data determined by onboard fire computer to the guns which then plug the information in and send the fire mission down range.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: Correct Finnish 2S5 Accuracy

Postby codextero » Sat 10 Dec 2016 06:58

For the M109 at least, the Paladin has a good reason to aim significantly faster than the previous versions. It was equipped with a wireless data bus, which meant a battery of guns stopping to fire did not need to pull cables between the vehicles for secure communication. While the SOP is for each vehicle to receive fire control data from the battery director, the on-board computer was able to do local fire control. The earlier INS system was supplemented by GPS in the 1990s.

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Correct Finnish 2S5 Accuracy

Postby hansbroger » Sat 10 Dec 2016 07:12

codextero wrote:For the M109 at least, the Paladin has a good reason to aim significantly faster than the previous versions. It was equipped with a wireless data bus, which meant a battery of guns stopping to fire did not need to pull cables between the vehicles for secure communication. While the SOP is for each vehicle to receive fire control data from the battery director, the on-board computer was able to do local fire control. The earlier INS system was supplemented by GPS in the 1990s.



Oh the top tier of SPH's has every right to be faster than the rest, it just seems like everything else, red and blue is held back a bit too much. It should be 20s vs 10s and the gps type stuff really only conferring accuracy rather than aimtime
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: Correct Finnish 2S5 Accuracy

Postby codextero » Sat 10 Dec 2016 07:20

hansbroger wrote:
codextero wrote:For the M109 at least, the Paladin has a good reason to aim significantly faster than the previous versions. It was equipped with a wireless data bus, which meant a battery of guns stopping to fire did not need to pull cables between the vehicles for secure communication. While the SOP is for each vehicle to receive fire control data from the battery director, the on-board computer was able to do local fire control. The earlier INS system was supplemented by GPS in the 1990s.


Oh the top tier of SPH's has every right to be faster than the rest, it just seems like everything else, red and blue is held back a bit too much. It should be 20s vs 10s and the gps type stuff really only conferring accuracy rather than aimtime


I'd argue that GPS is one of the things that improve firing speed the most, since it makes surveying firing sites much much faster. INS in vehicles going off road through rocks and bumps loses zero extremely fast. Without GPS, determining your altitude requires very good maps, or pre-surveyed positions.

That said, I very much agree with 20 seconds for mid tier 155/152 artillery, and save 30s for the 203s and WW2 era relics. 15s for the 80-100 pointers also sound reasonable.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 22 guests