[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

Theoretical physicist 36yrs old. Full civilian. UAV designer. Submerged Harpooner since nineties.

Air guy, my kind of guy hehe

Originally Posted by kbosak

Thank you those explanations are 100% ok. Except ONE thing: most people will complain, since official figures are never taking account rare cases. This should be something that doesn't makes think a retired navy recruit 'what a kid designed that, it is more than our radars was'

Yeah we've discovered we need to post more information on the internal mechanics of the sim, they are quite complex. Probably need a FAQ or something also.

Originally Posted by kbosak

In reality it is not how it works. It is all-around backup system with which in practice you can destroy floating mine from 2nm, terrorist RIB or something. It is the worst thing for shoting down AA and certainly not aircrafts. Do you know what Kołonka-221 is? A steel frame, round nest with optical sights not better than most binoculars, not even stabilised. No way you can spot anything flying from distance unless the mount is 100% stable.
It is a very primitive contraption, not a real optical system with fancy LCD.
Here it is, 660 class, Kolonks is above AK-630M (this steel cylinder-shaped frame)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Corvette.PNG
BTW I was mistaken, there is indeed quad strela-2 on class 660, between kolonka and AK-630M

Okay please check this one out:
http://www.warfaresims.com/forum/vie...p=47868#p47868

I have the impression that Kolonka is quite similar to the Galileo OG R7 manned sight. The R7 has 2.3x and 7x magnification (also in the Command database!) and a 30 and 10 deg FOV. Max 'effective' range is 2km.

So although these systems have rather long max ranges in the database, they are quite limited in capability as they do not search on their own (the system does not replace the bridge watchman). The system can see contrails when ordered to look in the right direction, it can make a rough guess on the contrail size, etc, but ID'ing stuff is quite difficult. The long max range stems purely from the fact that contrails from a very large aircraft can be seen at ranges up to 50nm (!).

If it makes sense I can remove the anti-air capability and reduce the magnification level for the Kolonka. What was the magnification settings for this system IRL?

Originally Posted by kbosak

Slaving it to radar? 'John, south west, south west' you can hear on intercom. The guy rotates the mount and tries to think on estimating target length and guess its distance.

Yeah well, hehe.

Originally Posted by kbosak

I would like to be able to edit some details manually since a list is HUGE.
Maybe a smaller sub-database.

That can be a bit difficult so only way right now is to give me a list of the stuff you want fixed. Since the Command databases cover 1950-2015+ I also need historical data on these platforms, i.e. dates when equipment was installed/removed etc.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Tried to use Turkey Firting 155/L52 howitzer simulating polish Krab battery,
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab

Those things fire into 35km range by design. Distance from polish border to Baltijsk is 23km = 14Nm, S-300 is 5km to the south from that, one coudl also use bosted 122mm polish MLRS to 35-45km, or czech DANA guns. If a small raid is possible, a few short-lived suppressions are possible, or not, depending on ground situtation. Certainly those woudl be able to defend polish coast, keep in mind russians have all 130mm and polish ships have 76mm so evaluating if anything could be done with field arty is interesting by itself purely for shore bombardment scenario, not intending to shot with howitzers onti shipos maybe except direct dire from a few Nm.

Hmm agree we should probably consider doing something here. Giving arty 'area targets' is a bit of a challenge, however, due to the way the targeting model is implemented. But have added this to the list of things we need to look into.

As for arty range... although you _can_ make a modern 155mm BB shell fly 40km downrange it isn't really done in practice as accuracy is (horribly) low and trajectory high. So you won't actually hit anything and the shells produce perfect target coordinates for enemy counter-battery.

In practice, arty fire is limited to 20-30km, possibly 35km or 38km in extreme cases if-you-really-have-to. Shorter ranges allows lower trajectories which reduces the chance of detection. This, when going up against the Russians, is very very important as they took counter-battery pretty seriously.

So while the max (practical) range for Krab in Command would probably be 16nm (35km) I'm not sure the arty would be used at that range for harrasing fire on the Russians.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Cmoon, this is for triggerhappy ppl. The last thing you spend on the Baltic is 80% of SAMs. You simply turn around and run, hoping they send some fat flying targets after you in order to improve balance of power..

Yeah been discussing this (for the 20th time!) with the others, and we're looking for a good solution. No promises, but lets see.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Generally agree in 99%.
Unless it is a smokingy 1st generation crap, maybe. You can see it roaring at 200 m AGL, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raduga_KS-1_Komet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit
Since those are NOT much different from half-scale MIG-15 at low altitude.


For sure. They were marketing it claiming for years that it has been proven that you need many hits with 20mm in order to get hard kill on a missile, while a single DU shell from gkeeper guarantees warhead penetration (which is in a middle of the missiles, fron are batteries, seekers, guidance). This meant that Sunburn woudl get through even with multiple hits.

Yes... its a shortcoming in the model as it stands now. Implementing this will be a big (hour-wise) job and will probably also generate a lot of controversy so have to thread carefully. Imagine the flamewars. "Duuuuude Ciwizzz ruuulz!"

Originally Posted by kbosak

Using TNT equiv for shellsss... that have PURELY kinetic energy... 35mm Oerlikon is the smalles with explosive warhead, and even then subammo is used kinetic way, narrow cone. in calibers up to 30mm in most platforms it is pure kinetic thing, the equations I have posted.
Kinetic energy Ek=m*v^2/2.
Destructive power=Ek*ammo_coeff, Goalkeeper has extra bonus due to APFSDS Du shells (it is GAU-8 from A-10 Warthog, in fact. Can pierce all tanks from above).
So this is only analysis about a single bullet.
The rest is MOA precision (1MOA for goalkeeper and most non-gatlings, some 3MOA for phalanx, armor of the target (ignored, a missile), deflection probability(ignored, a missile) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_angle
all this multiplied by missile cross section gives number of hits.

Yes!

Complex stuff, I think you've seen the challenges (and pain) we're facing hehe.

As for TNT equivalents, you can convert the kinetic energy to Joules and then to TNT eqv.

Or, set off 1kg of TNT and compare to the estimated amount of damage a gun burst would do, and make wild-a$$ guesses on figures.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Whatever you do I think things should not be made by US style wishful thinking that Phalanx shots Sunburn with 85% from 1Nm and the carcass is not even damaging the target - lowering kill probability based on kinetic bullet energy looks like simplest thing to implement correctly, withotu throwing a ton of bizarre knobs into database of several thousands armaments. There a few hits per any misisle in order to 20mm to be effective.

Understood, but the CWIS fires 200-300 rounds per burst (depending on model), so there is a good chance the Sunburn missile would get hit by a fair number of tungsten rounds...

One interesting book I read (can't remember the name right now) viewed the CWIS more as Damage Control than an actual weapon. The reason being that the ship would most likely be damaged if the warhead was triggered within 500m, or hit by shrapnel from a disabled missile.

The biggest issue in the sim right now (as I see it) is not the CWIS vs Goalkeeper per-round or per-burst kinetic energy, but that the anti-ship missile warhead doesn't trigger when hit.

So while CWIS and Goalkeeper probably would produce a similar number of hits, the Goalkeeper would (likely) disable the warhead further out (outside 500m), resulting in less blast/frag damage.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Some polish navy sources:
-rendered movies:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa9yFleOhkzkfPVQoNZUhwQ
-equipment
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marynarka_Wojenna

Some imbalance problems: Garpun surface search radar has longer range even OTH!) than Sea Giraffe 150 on 660 Orkan. The problem is that Tarantul is 1980 russian equipment, Sea Giraffe is 2005 swedish tech. What is the chance... What you did is that you took passive mode range for Plank Shave radar, when one ship illuminates and the others receive. The problem is, with such a crude ECM modelling as we have in games, such use evaporates the ship that is closer to enemy and it is a marginal application. Certainly cannot imagine more surface range from that than from AN-SPS55 on OH perry.

Polish manpads GROM:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grom_%2...w_rakietowy%29
Is heavily modified and improved IGLA1 (motor, seeker, guidance, well everything but airframe).
Quoted range 5500m (3Nm), ceiling 3500m 1.9Nm
has built-in IFF of unknown range.
Max 13..14s flight time.
Engagement envelope: incoming target 400m/s, chasing 320m/s, AVERAGE flight speed 680m/s, max around 800m/s +/- 100m/s.
Here you have russian manpads speeds and ranges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla
Those systems have in theory min range something like 500m, min altitudes agains helos iaround 10m GL.


----------------------
Polish platform differences to bring them to real life:
660 Orkan [P.660] 2013: (three)

*Remove all sonars, ST240 Toadfish.
*CRM-200 is being easily detected in the game, while in face it has some
0.01W emission power and 10-20Nm practical ranges.
http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/a...-morski-rm-100
http://www.pit.edu.pl/index.php?p=oferta&id=29&idk=
'CRM means Silent Naval Radar'
*Should put 4xdouble RBS-15 Mk3 mounts, not 4x1.
*AKM-630 mounts excludes frontal 30deg
*AK-176M excludes rear 35deg
*Quad Grom manpads excludes frontal 40deg
*Grom manpads near the bridge, 180deg port and 180deg stdb

OH Perry x2:
*Remove all ammo fro standard arm and phalanx mounts
*Change torpedoes to triple MU-90 mount and one-two reloads for onboard Kaman Seasprite

Kaszub x1:
*Sonar is http://cmtm.pg.gda.pl/files/2012/04/...ja-opisowa.pdf
now called MG-322DSP, and always had circular radiation pattern, not as modelled

Tarantul x2:
*They should be Tarantul-1 without sonar, without ECM, with radar certainly not OTH

ORP Orzel 877R x1:
*replace SA-N-8 mast launcher by Grom manpads.
*not sure, if they have any ASW torpedos, those are TEST-71 x4 in certain loadouts

Kobben x4:
*remove all NT-37C asw torpedoes
*they use Tp 613 type, submarine version

NOTE: I have some problems understanding why there are dual entries for both 613 and 617 torpedoes, with vastly different range but same speed. I have a book on that with curves and so many data but at the end, it is just approx simulation so the idea is, why double entries in database.

How one can limit battery chargning state and fuel in the scenario?
Woudl be best to limit max rnages and carrying capacity on all those submarines to about 60% of original state.

Okay I will get started on this, please give me a couple of days

If there are any other items you need for the next db update please post up.