T-72b Rogatka

[Wdll]

I was wondering if the extended view range of 50 is deliberate or not. I know is is in the OOB for some time now. Just..why 50? :confused:

[DRG]

cut and paste error

Don

[Wdll]

AHA! ok thanks :)

[Wdll]

Out of curiosity, is the Khrisantema-S atgm vehicle, view of 60, also an error?

[DRG]

I'll look into it at some point

[Wdll]

Thank you very much.

[Marcello]

Out of curiosity, is the Khrisantema-S atgm vehicle, view of 60, also an error?

It uses a millimetric wave radar for target detection and missile guidance (the latter with a laser backup against jamming). I would guess that 50 or 60 would be about in line with game convention for GSR systems.

Last I heard about it Rogatka may have been axed. Neverthless the 80's vintage T-72Bs are still being upgraded ona routine basis, with the light ERA being replaced by Kontakt-5 and other improvements, though not as extensive as the Rogatka program.

[Wdll]

So you think it is normal for the Khrisantema-S (not the missile, the system with it being land vehicle and very short at that) to have the same and better view than most modern Gunships?

[Marcello]

So you think it is normal for the Khrisantema-S (not the missile, the system with it being land vehicle and very short at that) to have the same and better view than most modern Gunships?

An helicopter is going to have a greater theoretical visual horizon and ability to see over obstacles than a ground vehicle, of course.
But that, in a way, is already factored in the game independently from the night vision rating: with a high visibility setting a high flying helicopter is going to see much further than a ground vehicle on most maps.
But under adverse visual conditions the system characteristics must be taken in consideration; given it is a radar we are talking about antenna, wavelenght, power available etc
A radar system capable of detecting a tank at 3km (60 game hexes) will be able to exploit its 3km maximum range far more frequently mounted on an helicopter. It isn't however going to detect a tank at 30km even if the theoretical radar/visual horizon is there thanks to the helicopter height.
And, on the other hand on some relatively rare but not impossible terrains (some Iran-Iraq battlefields come to mind) the same ground mounted radar system might be placed to exploit its full 3km range.
Keep in mind that the theoretical radar horizon of a two meters tall object looking at an other two meters tall object (both placed on the surface) is in excess of eleven kilometers.
This of course a theoretical discussion, in practice we don't know how these systems stack up to each other.

[Wdll]

I haven't seen anything that suggests the Krisantema to be able to "see" that far away when other vehicles can't. I can understand having increased fire control, but not viewing range.

As for the helicopters in the game, let's not forget that certain helicopters, certain scouts and the apache with the longbow, can't do the search while behind a hill or other object as they could in reality. But that is another matter.

[Marcello]

I haven't seen anything that suggests the Krisantema to be able to "see" that far away when other vehicles can't. I can understand having increased fire control, but not viewing range.


Well, if you have read the published specs the missile range is supposed to be six kilometers. Given it is a radar guided systems it seems logical that detection could be accomplished at least within a good fraction of such range.
Nearly all others vehicles in the game use thermal sights which operate on a different principle, with different advantages and disadvantages.

[Wdll]

That doesn't make any sense.
Leo2s for example have a view of 40. In real life they can see and kill at far great range. That doesn't mean that the 40 view range in the game is too little.
And if your issue is that it uses radar, so do all helicopters. In fact Hellfires shouldn't even be able to lose track of the target while in air, but we all know that this is not how they work.

I am sorry, but in game terms there is no way any land vehicle, especially this short and without protracted radar mast to be able to see 50% more than modern equipped MBTs, or even gunships.
You want its missile to have a six km range? Fine with me, but having that short carrier ability to detect through bad conditions etc more than any tank, helicopter, is silly IMO.
The range of the missile is irrelevant, my problem is with the view range of the vehicle and I have seen nothing to propose it has equipment which can detect targets at 50% more than anything else on a battlefield under bad or not conditions.

[Marcello]

That doesn't make any sense.
And if your issue is that it uses radar, so do all helicopters.


Actually not. Only the most modern ones and they too have 60 as per game covention for high end radar systems. See unit 340 in OOB 44 or unit 123 in USA OOB.

In fact Hellfires shouldn't even be able to lose track of the target while in air, but we all know that this is not how they work.

As I recall, it depends on the model.

I am sorry, but in game terms there is no way any land vehicle, especially this short and without protracted radar mast to be able to see 50% more than modern equipped MBTs, or even gunships.

It does not outrange all gunships, only the non radar fitted ones. And it does outrange TI tanks but that is is realistic. Thermal sights and radars have different features.

You want its missile to have a six km range? Fine with me, but having that short carrier ability to detect through bad conditions etc more than any tank, helicopter, is silly IMO.

1) Again, it does not outrange all helicopters.
2) The pop up radar sensor isn't probably all that much lower than a lot of tanks' gunner sights (Leopard 2A4 comes to mind), and radar horizon is generally greater than visual one due to propagation characteristics.

I have seen nothing to propose it has equipment which can detect targets at 50% more than anything else on a battlefield under bad or not conditions.

And as a matter of fact it does not. Plenty of helos with same range

[Marcello]

Note also also there are a lot of vehicles with range of 50 such as unit 206 in the Ukraine OOB, unit 272 in Russia or unit 558 in the USA, to represent less capable radar systems. All of these can see further than TI equipped MBTs in the game.

[Wdll]

How can you...this is insane...
Yes there are helos that manage to have the same range.

They are HELICOPTERS flying higher than 2m from the ground and they are the not even the rule among helicopters. There are plenty of helicopters that have view range of 0. Does this mean the pilot has a blanket covering the helicopter?

I am sorry, but I have seen nothing to make me believe that the specific unit is entitled to a view range of 60. I don't care if the missile can hit the moon. The vehicle does not have the optics to see (in relation to the other ones) that far away.

[Imp]

Fail to see the logic here being a helicopter or a ground unit makes zero diffrence to the visibility rating the extra height of the helo does make a diffrence to its fields of view as it can see over stuff the ground unit cant.
What that means is it can make use of its visibility rating far better than the ground unit because any obstacle blocks the view.
Visibility ratings & fields of view are two entirely diffrent things land the helo & it can now see what the comparitvly equipped ground vehicle can see.
Stick the ground vehicle on a level 5 hill & it now has better fields of view than the low flying helo thats now below it skimming over level zero ground.

Yes the helicopter with vis 0 has a blanket over it if global vision dictates, moonless night or fog if you want a blanket, its likely to find a hill abruptly before it finds a target if it tries NOE.
If it goes high its a prime target for any ground unit with vision aids & AA capability.

[Wdll]

I didn't expect you to agree with me Imp, but what you said about helos still doesn't change what I said about the specific vehicle.
There is nothing showing that the specific vehicle has better optics/view/whatever you want to call it, than most modern vehicles, including modern gunships. As for the hill example, it works the other way too, place a modern gunship (except 1 or 2 models) on top of that same hill level 5, and it will see less than the khrisantema-s. Based on what?
Again, we are not talking about the range or guidance of the missile, but the view of the VEHICLE in question.

[Marcello]

How can you...this is insane...
There are plenty of helicopters that have view range of 0. Does this mean the pilot has a blanket covering the helicopter?


In a dense fog/bad conditions an helicopter with no vision aid will indeed see exactly diddly squat even if it is flying at 300 meters of height.As any pilot will attest.

Whereas a radar system on the ground will see much further than it becausese radar waves penetrate fog (which incidentally can play some tricks at least with some thermal sights). Understand?

And if visibility is **** and the both have radars they will see only as far as their radar can see.

If the radar mounted on the helicopter is not more powerful and capable than the one on the ground it will not see further (not at the ranges we are talking about anyway) even if it is sitting on Himalaya. There will typically be fewer obstructions but that's it.

I can't make it simpler that the above.

[Marcello]

Note also that there already are several ground vehicles with a range of 50 in the game.A partial list including:

1) BTR-94
2) BRM-3K
3) M577A2
4) SNAR-10

[Marcello]

There is nothing showing that the specific vehicle has better optics/view/whatever you want to call it, than most modern vehicles, including modern gunships. As for the hill example, it works the other way too, place a modern gunship (except 1 or 2 models) on top of that same hill level 5, and it will see less than the khrisantema-s. Based on what?

On the fact it is fitted with a millimetric radar set, which all the others vehicles you keep talking about lack.
The presence of the radar is confirmed by every source and every picture of the vehicle.
And on the, well known, fact that radar has better long range detection characteristics than optical systems, including thermal sights, especially in several conditions. If you didn't know that, now you do. If you don't believe me, then do some reading on you own.
Thermal sights have several advantages such as lower bulk, lower vulnerability and power consumption, are passive and cannot be jammed, but radar does beat them at the pure range game, especially under some circumstance.
And radar fitted ground units, and there are several of them in the game even if you never noticed them, have always had greater range than thermal sights fitted MBTs you keep talking about, precisely to reflect this. There is absolutely nothing insane about this.

[Wdll]

Note also that there already are several ground vehicles with a range of 50 in the game.A partial list including:

1) BTR-94
2) BRM-3K
3) M577A2
4) SNAR-10


Apparently I am speaking to myself here.

The vehicle in question has a vision of 60.

[Marcello]

Apparently I am speaking to myself here.

The vehicle in question has a vision of 60.

50 is still greater than 40, and according to your previous posts it should not be correct since it can still further than the most modern MBT and Helos you keep bringing up.
But as I explained there are good reasons for giving radar extra range over optical systems and this is in fact well established in the game.
I hope that that has finally sunk in.
50 is a convention because the radar fitted to those vehicles were simple surveillance types.
So now you wonder why this vehicle wound 60, comparable to high end gunships?
Because it is a modern millimetric set, exactly like the one mounted on said gunships and exactly unlike the others ground vehicles. Hence 60.

Now if you want to argue that the Khrizantema radar does not deserve 60 and should be knocked back to 50 or 55 because it is a POS compared to Longbow, then you might actually be arguing something pretty reasonable. Given however we both know nothing and nada about its characteristics beyond "modern millimetric set" I am not sure where facts are going to come from.

[Wdll]

This is fruitless. Let's just agree to disagree Marcello.

[Pibwl]

Going back to T-72B Rogatka - the first date 1/06 is doubtful. Tekhnika i Vooruzhenie 8/2007 still treat it as being in development stage. Maybe 1/08. BTW, gun is designated 2A46M5.
PS - I've just found that Russian Wikipedia says, that it is not produced in series (without source).

Michal

[DRG]

The actual gun designation is irrelavantwe do not care about the guns in this case as it's the ammo that advances. The Russian tank guns in the game are set up as combinations of Sabot and HEAT ammunition advancements. In this case the sabot rating goes up over the 125mm Gun 00


Don

[Pibwl]

I know - this was just by the way, if somebody wanted to change system (M5 is obviously better, than M4 ;))