Jump to content

Rename Scud-B to 9K72 Elbrus


Jonne

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

first of all, thank you for adding the R-17 including its launcher to the game. This is an important and useful unit for many conflicts. However, I am disappointed by naming it after its NATO name ingame. This is totally different than any other units currently in game, which all use their real designation. I would therefore propose changing it to 9K72 Elbrus, the name for the complex.

 

Regards

 

Jonne

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I might actually agree with this one, though the NATO reporting name is far more common to see in western nations AFAIK. I think what we should see is the full name of the country of origin and then if applicable the NATO reporting name probably in brackets. Or simply use the full NATO reporting name for English localisation and the Russian GRAU index for Russian localisation.

 

Whatever it is the naming convention should probably be consistent across the board for DCS.

 

But it should probably feature both...

 

Some systems do this in DCS such as the SA-10 e.g SAM (unit type), SA-10 (NATO reporting designation), S-300PS (Russian designation), LN (classification), 5P85C (GRAU index) the only thing missing is the NATO reporting name (which for the SA-10 is Grumble).

 

For Russian ships they have a USN Hull classication, a project number and then the ship name (not class name, Russian or otherwise).

 

E.g FF (USN hull classification for frigate), 1135M (project number), Rezky (ship name)

 

It should probably be, project number and Russian class name, NATO reporting name (or vice versa for English localisation), then hull classification (USN for English, Russian for Russian).

 

So instead of FF 1135M Rezky

 

For English: Krivak II (Pr. 1135M Burevestnik-M) FF

For Russian: Pr. 1135 Burvestnik-M BPK

 

The same can be said for basically every other unit in DCS World

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't NATO codes those are, they are USA codes that just happen to be used by NATO as well.

 

 

 

And the units should be called by their real names, not that what one group does designate them.

 

This said, that code word should be possible found out too.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things like SA-15, SA-N-9, SS-1C etc those codes are US DoD designations that typically expand on the NATO reporting names - such as Grumble, Guideline, Krivak, Goa, Kashin etc... The names are done by NATO (AFAIK originally designated by the ASCC, but they're now managed by NATO) and the code done by the US DoD - which are typically used in conjunction with the NATO reporting name throughout NATO countries.

 

I think the names should be in full and use both designations - the native designation and the NATO reporting name (if different) + US DoD designation and put one in parentheses depending on language. I think aircraft should be done by aircraft manufacturer, aircraft designation + variant/block etc and name e.g General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin F-16CM Block 50 Fighting Falcon/Viper (though this one is a pretty long one, maybe better to just use either original or current manufacturer and official or colloquial name not both).

 

For equipment I think we should use both the native designation (project number/GRAU index), name and NATO reporting name and class (if applicable). Putting one set in parentheses for the less common designations/names for a particular language.

 

 

For an easy example: the Project 1135M Burevestnik M (NATO reporting name Krivak II) class frigates (FF/)/patrol ships (СКР/SKR)/large anti-submarine warfare ships (BPK/БПК). AFAIK in NATO countries they're just referred to as the NATO reporting name (+ US DoD designation if applicable) and NATO/US classification (frigate/FF), they sometimes omit the GRAU index for equipment and for ships typically the project number and the Soviet/Russian class name and designation. E.g Krivak II class frigate (FF). Just as a side note it's probably best to use abbreviated/acronyms for the classification, simply because we're dealing with a drop-down menu with limited space.

 

So with the above example in English it would be named: Krivak II (Pr. 1135M "Burvestnik M") class FF

 

And in Russian: Пр. 1135M «Буревестник М» (Krivak II) БПК/СКР

 

 

For other equipment like missiles in the OP request, in the example of the Scud-B:

 

In English: SS-1C "Scud-B" (R-17 9K72/8K14 "Elbrus") - here I've added in the DoD designation code, which also serves as a classification. (Also what designation should it have? 9K72 I understand is the system/complex index whereas 8K14 is the rocket/missile index(?) which should be used? I'm gonna guess the system/complex index).

 

In Russian: P-17 9К72/8К14 «Эльбрус» (CC-1S «Скад-Б»).

 

 

We can apply a similar thing for tanks e.g fighting vehicle numbers for British vehicles e.g FV4034 Challenger II MBT and object numbers for Soviet tanks etc. You could also add the year of a particular modification if applicable (same applies for ships).

 

For weapons it would probably be best to use designation and names (+ NATO reporting name/US DoD designation) where applicable e.g AGM-65F Maverick, AIM-120 AMRAAM (just adding the name), R-77 Adder (AA-12) again use parentheses for native designations/NATO reporting names/less common names dependent on localisation (here while AA-12 is the US DoD designation, it's less commonly referred as it AFAIK).

 

TL;DR we should preferably use full names featuring both native and NATO reporting + US DoD names, classifications and designations if applicable across the board. Just keep it consistent across localisations.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be nice if the user could simply choose which system the units would be named in the menus... after all it's just like localisation a simply string replacement.

 

Barring that I for one would appreciate if ED could simply decide for one method of designating stuff and try to stick to it. The ships are the worst, but all of the units are a bit of a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for original names. Why would nato reporting name have priority over any other country's reporting name/ nickname?

 

Because that's what they're more commonly referred to among at the least NATO countries, DCS already uses NATO reporting names for the Su-25/-25T (Frogfoot), Su-27 (Flanker), Mil Mi-8MTV2 (Hip), MiG-21Bis (Fishbed) among others - it's simply more familiar outside of eastern nations. You'll often see ground based eastern RADARs appear in western RWRs by the acronym of their NATO reporting name. For me personally I know exactly what a Sovremenny, Udaloy, Kresta, Kara, Krivak, Kashin (I could go on for ages) I don't however, know the Russian/Soviet designations (either project number or name) and if I were to search for them, I would do so by their NATO reporting name as that's what it's more commonly referred to in English speaking nations and/or NATO countries. Obviously with the language set to Russian, it makes less sense to prefer the NATO reporting name, and instead prefer native designations.

 

Ideally it should be language dependent and in any case use both the NATO & US DoD reporting name & designation and the project number/GRAU index and native name, and just put in parentheses the less commonly referred to name/designation/classification as per my example.

 

e.g for the Project 1135M Burevestnik M - designated by the Soviet Union and later Russia as Patrol Ships (SKR) or Large Anti-Submarine Ships (BPK) (until 1977) - NATO reporting name "Krivak II" designated as frigates (FF) in the west

 

-> for the English version of DCS: Krivak II (Pr. 1135M "Burevestnik M") FF

-> for the Russian version of DCS: Пр. 1135M «Буревестник М» (Krivak II) БПК/СКР

 

and so on for other languages, with the less commonly referred to designation/name in parentheses or whatever, but preferably including both designations.

 

Barring that I for one would appreciate if ED could simply decide for one method of designating stuff and try to stick to it. The ships are the worst, but all of the units are a bit of a mess.

 

Yes the ships are definitely the worst and if you look at the Russian S-300PS in the ME, you'll see that it includes the US DoD designation (SA-10), the native Russian/Soviet designation (S-300PS) and the GRAU index (e.g 5N66M for the low-altitude acquisition RADAR, NATO reporting name: "Clam Shell" - the acronym of which appears in western RWRs as "CS" AFAIK) and obviously the type the unit is (SR for search/acquisition RADAR, LN for launcher etc).

 

But yes we should definitely pick a naming/designation/classification convention and stick with it, preferably using native and NATO + US DoD names/designations as above. Ships are also particularly bad in that they don't really follow the USN hull classification symbol in the mission editor - for instance the Oliver Hazard Perry is a guided missile frigate (FFG), however put it in the editor and it comes up as DD (destroyer).


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for the NATO names. They are short, succinct, logical, consistent, and easy to understand. If you see "SA" you know it's going to be a SAM. If you see "AA" you know it's going to be an A2A missile. When I see "9abc990090708" I have no bloody idea what category the thing even is. Thus I waste valuable time clicking through the encyclopedia instead of flying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for the NATO names. They are short, succinct, logical, consistent, and easy to understand. If you see "SA" you know it's going to be a SAM. If you see "AA" you know it's going to be an A2A missile. When I see "9abc990090708" I have no bloody idea what category the thing even is. Thus I waste valuable time clicking through the encyclopedia instead of flying.

 

This is a general sim thing. Its not there to be easy to learn.

 

When flying a Russian Air Force MiG , it is utterly unrealistic to refer to anything with its NATO code.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a general sim thing. Its not there to be easy to learn.

 

When flying a Russian Air Force MiG , it is utterly unrealistic to refer to anything with its NATO code.

 

Oh yes I agree - but then it's dependent on the language/localisation of whatever you're flying and what language you've got DCS using. But DCS should include both native and NATO designations, for each localisation/language, where applicable, so that players can see both, and use the one they're more familiar with and still be able to learn the one their less familiar with.

 

When I first installed DCS I had no idea what any of the Russian ships were as they were listed by project number and Soviet/Russian name or the ship name, I simply wasn't familiar with these at all, when I spawned them in I instantly recognised them by their NATO reporting name ("oh that's a Krivak II", "that's a Grisha-V", "that's a Kirov" etc) for basically all of them. It would've been better for me if they also (not instead of) included the NATO reporting name for the class - that way I would know what I'm selecting while being able to learn the native designation/name/classifications. It's only because of research (and writing it out so many times) that I know that the native designation for the Krivak II is the Project 1135M Burevestnik M...

 

What I think ED should do is redo the display name for all the assets to include both Soviet/Russian/Chinese designations and NATO reporting name + US DoD designation, where applicable, across the board and then simply translate accordingly for other languages. Like I've said before it might be beneficial to put one set in parentheses to separate the differing designations/names.

 

While I understand Nealius' position and it's one I kinda share, I actually quite like learning the GRAU index of things. That said I'm still far more versed in the US DoD designations for (like SA-2, SA-8, SA-N-6) than I am with the GRAU index. If you ask me to identify SA-1, SA-2, SA-3, SA-4, SA-5, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-10, SA-11, SA-15, SA-19 etc I'll probably get it right every time (only difficulty will be telling the difference between SA-10, SA-12 and SA-20 as well as some MANPADs) - I only know the GRAU index for maybe 2-3 of those systems... (only ones I do know off by heart is the SA-6 which is 2K12, SA-8 which is 9K33, the SA-11 which is 9K37 and the SA-15 which is 9K330 - simply replacing the K with M denotes the missile the system uses, in some cases, of course you'll also see another letter(s) added on the end to denote variants or modernisations etc).

 

Conversely some systems I know by their NATO reporting name (e.g Guideline, Goa, Grumble, Gadfly etc) and some by their Russian name (Osa, Tor, Tunguska etc) although if you were to say "Grison" instead of "Tunguska" I'd still know what system you're talking about, it's just I more frequently refer to that particular system by it's Soviet/Russian name rather than NATO reporting name - it would probably be best if they could be listed as both and again, with one set in parentheses.

 

For example for the 9K330 "Tor" (SA-15 "Gauntlet") short-range SAM system:

 

For English localisation: SA-15 "Gauntlet" (9K330 "Tor") SAM

For Russian localisation: 9К330 «Top» (SA-15 «Gauntlet») ЗРК


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...