Hydra 70 2.75in PK?

[Deltapooh]

I'm trying to determine the declassified lethality of the M151 HE rocket. My orginal theory was to use the pK stats in BCT:C. That didn't work out as planned. My next ideal was to use the pK stats for the LAW. Again, a bad ideal. I'm now considering to multiply the stats of the Mk-19 40mm AGL by 2x.

Is there a more appropriate solution?

[Pat Proctor]

I would say that 1.5 times the Mk-19 is more accurate. The 12.7 inch rocket system is VERY innacurate. There is no way to model this, currently, in the ATF engine, so you must adjust the pK's to compensate.

The rocket is point and shoot. It goes wherever the aircraft is pointing. It's also very low velocity. It gets almost all of its killing power from fragmentation.

[Deltapooh]

Thanks for the info.

[kbluck]

I think Hydra would best be modeled as indirect fire, until such time (if ever?) area-effect direct fire is possible. For all practical purposes, it is used in a similar area-saturation bombardment mode. It is rare to fire an individual rocket; usually a volley is launched to cover an impact zone. No pilot is seriously going to try and sharpshoot an enemy vehicle with one rocket like an AT-4 or LAW would be used. Make the IF accuracy fairly low, to simulate scatter. IF would also make it possible for helos out of direct sighting range (which is generally where they belong) to offer effective fire support beyond simple suppression.

The M151 HE warhead weighs a bit under 10 lbs, which I would consider comparable to an 81mm mortar round in effectiveness. The longer M229 is closer to a 107mm. There is also the M261, which is more or less a DPICM round; I'd give it a burst radius of around 30 meters, about 50% efffective due to low submunition density. There are also a variety of special-purpose warheads, including smoke and illum types, which lends further credence to the idea of making these an "indirect fire" type weapon.

--- Kevin

[kbluck]

Oh, on a related note...

Despite the game's strong emphasis on guided munitions, Soviet-style forces tend to be heavy users of unguided rocket pods. ATGMs are nice, but expensive and require special equipment and training to use. Although Mi-24 Hind helos can carry a dozen AT-6 Spirals, they often carry only a reduced load or none at all, loading down with rocket pods instead. Mi-8 Hips usually carry nothing but rockets and gun pods, although theoretically they can put on AT-2 Swatters. Until the mid-90s, the Su-25 Frogfoot couldn't carry ATGMs at all, since it had neither laser designation gear nor any sort of TV-guided weapon like Maverick available. Since iron bombs require it to get much too close for comfort, the usual loadout was plenty of rocket pods. Same for other CAS aircraft like the MiG-27 and Su-17/22.

So, truth be told, rockets are of much more than theoretical interest to a realistic scenario featuring a Soviet-doctrine enemy.

--- Kevin

[Pat Proctor]

I do not believe (at least I have never seen) a helicopter fire these rockets in indirect fire mode. This would be a definite downside of this approach (vehicles able to fire on targets without line of site).

[kbluck]

I do not believe (at least I have never seen) a helicopter fire these rockets in indirect fire mode.

No, they can. There are published procedures for indirect fire using either laser or estimated ranging with the flight computer. There is also a manual procedure if the HUD or flight computer is down, or the target is completely out of sight but position is known. See TM 1-1520-236-10, section 4-19 (ROCKET OPERATION – INFLIGHT PROCEDURES) for the AH-1 Cobra if you're interested.

Of course, I'm sure the accuracy is not fabulous for the manual mode.

--- Kevin

[Deltapooh]

Since the scenario is set in an urban environment, line of sight is important. Aircrews would need to be certain the flight path of the rocket is not hindered by buildings, etc. Of course, I do wish we could simulate fragmentation damage in the game with direct fire munitions. Submunitions and grenades are useful.

Hopefully, AATF takes this, as well as the interaction of terrain with munitions into consideration.

[CPangracs]

I have already made a "Hydra Rocket Pod" for Raging Tiger as an added weapon for the AH64A & D. I've yet to try it, but I designed it as a direct-fire weapon with PK similar to the MAW due to it firing 2 rounds per shot. I have it very effective against soft targets (natch), but I also have it fairly effective against more heavily armored targets due to a high volume and fast rate of fire! Yes, it's a "dumb" weapon, but can be devastating when you consider the effect of initial blasts weakening armor or setting-off "reactive" aromo, and the subsequent blasts possibly penetrating the next "layer". 2 pods = 38 missiles!

I'm also working on som bombs as IF weapons from a couple fast-movers in the game!;)

Anyway, I'm sure play-testing will work it all out eventually.



PS - CPT P., my work email is inop, so please contact me at my home email!!!

[kbluck]

This would be a definite downside of this approach (vehicles able to fire on targets without line of site).

I was thinking about this a bit. I've come to the conclusion that this is actually a good thing.

Any attack helicopter pilot knows they need to stay out of sight. Practically any weapon on the battlefield can shoot them down, and lines of sight work both ways. Helos spend most of their time hiding behind terrain. When it's time to shoot something, generally the target is acquired by somebody else and passed off to them. The actual engagement is usually done with a maneuver called a "popup". The helo bounces up enough to see over the terrain, shoots as quickly as possible, and then ducks back down (hopefully) before anybody has a chance to shoot back.

The game as is won't support this behavior directly. In real life, pilots count on being quicker on the draw than their enemies. It takes time for ADA assets to successfully engage a suddenly visible target. Pilots dart from cover to cover, knowing they need to be back under cover before the enemy can bring his weapon to bear effectively. Unfortunately, in ATF most weapons can fire "instantly". A SAM miles away "zaps" your helicopter the instant it appears. It seems like pretty much any weapon has little difficulty hitting a helo with no preparation; MGs routinely bring them down at max range with a few bursts, again opening up instantly. I'm sure anybody who has tried to employ helos can back me up here; the only useful helicopter is one that has weapons that can engage from out of range of the enemy. There is simply no way to close on most targets with shorter-range weapons like rockets and guns, unless you have a lot of supporting ground forces in a position to thoroughly suppress all ADA and even all enemy maneuver units --- not likely.

So, we can think of the "non-LOS" rocket attack instead as a "pop-up", and a means to allow helicopters to provide the fire support they are capable of providing in practice as well as theory. Yes, the helo is loitering out of sight, but it got its target information from somebody else, and at the moment of firing it actually rose above the terrain just long enough to fire and then ducked back down. Not a perfect simulation, but then the game mechanics that don't allow quick dashes between cover and true popups aren't perfect either.

--- Kevin

[kbluck]

I designed it as a direct-fire weapon with PK similar to the MAW due to it firing 2 rounds per shot...but can be devastating when you consider the effect of initial blasts weakening armor or setting-off "reactive" aromo, and the subsequent blasts possibly penetrating the next "layer". 2 pods = 38 missiles!


Unless the pK is quite low, I think you're going to get a "superweapon". Basic HE rockets are essentially mortar shells, except they have an exceptionally fast volley rate. Even if you are going to go the direct fire route, I would set the pK comparable to a mortar shell in the same weight class as the rocket warhead. As you say, the effectiveness comes from saturation of the target area; the individual rockets aren't particularly devastating.



I'm also working on som bombs as IF weapons from a couple fast-movers in the game!;)

I'm curious how this is going to work. In ATF, movers can't use indirect fire; since fixed-wing craft can't "stop", they effectively can't use IF. Single target direct fire seems an awful waste of a perfectly good Rockeye. Will you shoehorn it into the existing system via some innovative method, or are you adding moving indirect or area direct fire? Area effect direct fire is of intense interest to me; I think it would fix a *lot* of less-than-ideal simulation issues.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

Unless the pK is quite low, I think you're going to get a "superweapon". Basic HE rockets are essentially mortar shells, except they have an exceptionally fast volley rate. Even if you are going to go the direct fire route, I would set the pK comparable to a mortar shell in the same weight class as the rocket warhead. As you say, the effectiveness comes from saturation of the target area; the individual rockets aren't particularly devastating.
Exactly, but the pK shouldn't be TOO small, as you must account for the weakening of a target by successive hits on the target.





I'm curious how this is going to work. In ATF, movers can't use indirect fire; since fixed-wing craft can't "stop", they effectively can't use IF. Single target direct fire seems an awful waste of a perfectly good Rockeye. Will you shoehorn it into the existing system via some innovative method, or are you adding moving indirect or area direct fire? Area effect direct fire is of intense interest to me; I think it would fix a *lot* of less-than-ideal simulation issues.

--- Kevin
You are right, of course. The bombs won't be an IF weapon, they will be DF weapons with a discreet TOF and other characteristics, such as a limited range, to replicate being very near the target and "dropping" it on said target.

The one problem I have is with my AC-130. Unless I have a really good reason to try and get CPT P to allow moving IF for Raging Tiger, my Spectre may have to have its 105mm gun in the shop,...OR....maybe I make it a tank 105mm gun!:devious:

Yeah, it is too cool when I talk my way to a solution! Thanks for getting my synapses jump-started, kb!!!:D

[kbluck]

Exactly, but the pK shouldn't be TOO small, as you must account for the weakening of a target by successive hits on the target.


I disagree that this would be a factor. The odds of two rockets hitting the same spot (or even the same vehicle) from normal engagement ranges are about the same as two mortar rounds hitting the same spot; i.e., close to nil. Rockets simply aren't a precision weapon. The pilot is doing pretty well to get all his rockets into a 50 meter circle.

The low pK for armored targets simulates the low probability of any given rocket actually hitting a vehicle, since that's what it would take to have a noticeable effect; a direct hit. Even then, it would have to hit in a vulnerable spot for a tank kill.

Seriously, imagine a mortar, speed up the ROF, and that's pretty much your Hydra. Would you adjust pKs to account for "multiple hits" by a mortar barrage? A 81mm platoon could certainly drop 40 rounds on a similar target zone within a minute. There's no real difference in ultimate effect on a non-moving target.

Of course, in making this comparison I mean *my* take on mortars, not the completely emasculated, worthless mortars that come in the "stock" database. (Yes, yet another of my pet peeves... :mad: )

--- Kevin