No C-300 ?

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Sleksa » Fri 8 Sep 2017 18:39

Markenzwieback wrote:He has a point though. Maybe not with T-62s, but in general its a true "feature" that he is describing. Switching to ATGM during main gun reload works particularly well with two or three T-72 Obr. 89 in USSR armored. On medium ranges the three extra damage even against superheavies can be a very effective tool.


This has been a known feature pretty much since ee and while it is an advantage, the tanks that can do this are still on average more pricy or lower in other stats (rof, acc) in comparison to other tanks. However saying that some midrange (elite vet) T62 can cock up a m1a1 with the gun-missile-gun micro is still extremely implausible

Many years ago we tried max-abusing this feature during a tournament in alb and the result was that against a competent enemy (motoko&toppo) a nswp deck's best tanks were still at massive a disadvantage against 2a4's even in 2:1 numbers, and the only way to win was to gather a much larger mass of the high end missile tanks to try and start the fight at a 2275+ range
Image

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1575
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Markenzwieback » Fri 8 Sep 2017 18:45

Sleksa wrote:
Markenzwieback wrote:He has a point though. Maybe not with T-62s, but in general its a true "feature" that he is describing. Switching to ATGM during main gun reload works particularly well with two or three T-72 Obr. 89 in USSR armored. On medium ranges the three extra damage even against superheavies can be a very effective tool.


This has been a known feature pretty much since ee and while it is an advantage, the tanks that can do this are still on average more pricy or lower in other stats (rof, acc) in comparison to other tanks. However saying that some midrange (elite vet) T62 can cock up a m1a1 with the gun-missile-gun micro is still extremely implausible

Many years ago we tried max-abusing this feature during a tournament in alb and the result was that against a competent enemy (motoko&toppo) a nswp deck's best tanks were still at massive a disadvantage against 2a4's even in 2:1 numbers, and the only way to win was to gather a much larger mass of the high end missile tanks to try and start the fight at a 2275+ range

I'd argue that its a fair bit more effective in RD now. Especially since autoloaders and generally acceptable tank accuracy made its appearance.
Image

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Steamfunk » Fri 8 Sep 2017 18:51

I'd argue that its a fair bit more effective in RD now. Especially since autoloaders and generally acceptable tank accuracy made its appearance.


I'd say the opposite given the fact T-72Bs have 50% accuracy across the board compared to 60/65% for nearly all Blufor tanks - Leo 2A0 and A1 had 35% in EE/ALB.
Last edited by Steamfunk on Fri 8 Sep 2017 19:16, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
47andrej
Lieutenant
Posts: 1289
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 19:22
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby 47andrej » Fri 8 Sep 2017 19:15

Markenzwieback wrote:I'd argue that its a fair bit more effective in RD now. Especially since autoloaders and generally acceptable tank accuracy made its appearance.

Which aint apply to T-62 at all.

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Steamfunk » Fri 8 Sep 2017 19:18

Which aint apply to T-62 at all.


The autoloader patch killed Soviet tanks better than TOW-2 aimed right at the turret ring.

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12999
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby another505 » Fri 8 Sep 2017 19:49

As much as i try the tank atgm switcharoo, its effectiveness is still very limited
the huge micro it requires when you have to do a lot of stuff on top of microing your tanks. Smoke, AA, recon, asf, artillery and so on
and not every engagement allows you to use it. And smokes are being more and more common reduce it even applicability even more.

m1a2 will wreck a t80um(pre buff 1fav) using it despite forest range to compensate atgm travel time
Nevertheless, wouldn't mind seeing this trick remove so mobi gets one less thing to cry about.
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6550
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby molnibalage » Fri 8 Sep 2017 19:58

Steamfunk wrote:
Yeap, R-33 was made with SARH+ data link, just not because "stoopid soviets can't in ARH". It was made with ARH seeker even in first stage of development (when it was much smaller), it just was considered unnecessary. MiG-31 wasn't supposed to conduct fleet defence or some other shit like F-14. It was made to intercept bombers and cruise missiles. Do you need costlier ARH for that?..


Phoenix was based on the AIM-47 which was a long-range missile designed for the YF-12, the active seeker gave it greater range. The F-14 has a CW mode, however range is slightly decreased and it can only track one target at a time using this method. On the other hand, the MiG-31 can can illuminate 4-6 targets in CW due to the radar. I really don't think I'd describe the Foxhound as 'cheap' however - any money they saved on missile guidance would be marginal compared to the cost of the engines, materials and avionics.

F-14 CW mode was designed for AIM-7F. AIM-7M could use the natural radar reflection, it did not need anymore CW illumination.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6550
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby molnibalage » Fri 8 Sep 2017 20:02

Sleksa wrote:
Markenzwieback wrote:Many years ago we tried max-abusing this feature during a tournament in alb and the result was that against a competent enemy (motoko&toppo) a nswp deck's best tanks were still at massive a disadvantage against 2a4's even in 2:1 numbers, and the only way to win was to gather a much larger mass of the high end missile tanks to try and start the fight at a 2275+ range

Bro, I have done it with K1 in 10v10 many times and other tanks to. On open field the elite T-62MV-1 is uber brutal. It put into brackets any med tank up to 15AV as long as you have enough ATGM even the M1IP with 17AV because it has powerless gun.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6550
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby molnibalage » Fri 8 Sep 2017 20:04

another505 wrote:As much as i try the tank atgm switcharoo, its effectiveness is still very limited
the huge micro it requires when you have to do a lot of stuff on top of microing your tanks. Smoke, AA, recon, asf, artillery and so on
and not every engagement allows you to use it. And smokes are being more and more common reduce it even applicability even more.

m1a2 will wreck a t80um(pre buff 1fav) using it despite forest range to compensate atgm travel time
Nevertheless, wouldn't mind seeing this trick remove so mobi gets one less thing to cry about.

Huge micore? One click for turning it off once the gun. Two ATGM launches and one gun shot mostly decides the result of a tank battle as long as we spean up to 17AV and 120 CP...

Comparing to how micro intensive SAMs..? Comparing to how micro intensive the inf. usage? Comparing to how micro intensive using well any AC...? This is just a one click stuff...

Test replays are here about the T-62MV-1.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/ae613h ... ame_series

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Steamfunk » Fri 8 Sep 2017 20:47

F-14 radar modes -

Pulse-Doppler Search (PDS): This mode is for basic long range detection, and is the maximum range mode of the unit. The infor­mation is displayed on the Detailed Data Display (DDD) as raw radar data in azimuth, elevation and range-rate (rate of closure). This mode does not provide absolute range to the target (only closure rate).

Range while Search (RWS): This mode yields the greatest surveillance volume, and also returns absolute range in addition to clo­sure rate. Maximum range in this mode is slightly less than in the PDS mode. Information can be displayed on the DDD or on the Tactical Information Display (TID), although this display does not include heading, speed, or altitude information.

Track while Scan (TWS): This mode is capable of tracking 24 targets simultaneously. The radar sweeps every two seconds, stores the targets position and vectors, and estimates where the target will appear next. This mode is used only for the launch of AIM-54 missiles. This mode tracks ‘virtual’ targets while it con­tinues to scan for new ones. However, if the target is maneuvering violently, it is possible for the radar to loose track on that target.

Pulse-Doppler Single Target Track (PDSTT): This mode provides the maximum range for an AIM-54 launch. This mode locks the radar’s attention onto a single target continuously illuminating that target. A Jam Angle Track (JAT) facility can be use to pro­vide range, speed, and angular information on targets being protected by ECM. In this mode, the radar can be slaved to the aircraft’s elec­tro-optical sighting unit.

Pulse Search (PS): A non-Doppler mode used for air-to-air search and ground map­ping. In this mode there is no range-rate infor­mation, only range versus azimuth.

Pulse Single Target Track (PSTT): This is another non-Doppler mode, used primary during close-in combat where Doppler infor­mation is not of much value.


TL/DR: PDS has the longest range, TWS is the standard mode and PDSTT is used in high ECM environments. Seeing as multiple engagement is unnecessary, I propose the AIM-54 swap the F&F tag for 50% accuracy. The R-33 could get the same treatment in exchange for ripple fire, which hasn't made much of a difference. I'd also give the MiG-31 a decent IR missile.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], damoj and 13 guests