fixed internally SA19 Being used to Kill Main Battle Tanks

[Hawkeye_UK]

Please can we fix the SA19 Tungusta missile.

 

Alas on public servers it is being used often innappropriately to kill MBT's in combined arms.

 

The point is there is no way this system should be killing tanks with the rocket warhead, AP its not.

 

Also the main AA guns will shred tanks in seconds, HE shells are causing huge damage.

 

Which also brings me onto another issue of HE rounds in tanks being able to kill other tanks.  Both issues need to be resolved please.

 

Track file attached , the Tungusta is a priority however.

SA19 armour killing.trkSA19 armour killing with he guns.trk

Edited March 20, 2021 by Hawkeye_UK

[BIGNEWY]

Hi Hawkeye, 

 

I am not seeing a bug here, the 30mm cannons are using HE / AP mix 

 

and the missile will damage tanks, in your shots you noticed that angled shots with the missile does not destroy, but if you hit a flat surface with a missile like this you are going to do damage and even penetrate. 

[Hawkeye_UK]

Hi Bignewy,

So the 30mm cannons for the SA19 are they not normally configured with a HE-I and HE-T mix operationally, they are not enough to penetrate a MBT with composite armour.  Either way these tunguskas in game will plow through MBT's front on also irregarding of the position or angle.  Also distance does not seem to effect the punch power, if it connects it kills.

 

Also all because a round is labelled as AP does not mean it will defeat and penetrate all armour.  Yea systems like the Bushmaster on the Bradly with the 791 round will punch through foot thick  concreate walls easily and really thick sangars and steel, but a MBT head on, no thanks.  Its why they have the TOW for self protection.

 

Here lies the problem.

 

Also again with the anti aircraft missile, the 9M311 would not penetrate a MBT.   It's hardly a Javelin.

 

But to run around in Tunguska killing MBT's just makes the whole thing feel really gamey.  More attention to detail needs to go into ammunition types.

 

I can upload more tracks if you like of tanks using HE rounds that blow up MBT's (infact oddly enough more reliably than AP rounds)! 

 

 

 

 

[nighthawk2174]

In general ground units could use some love but it's unlikely to happen for a few years.

[BIGNEWY]

On 3/26/2021 at 9:44 PM, nighthawk2174 said:

In general ground units could use some love but it's unlikely to happen for a few years.

 

We are working on ground units, these things take time, but I understand why you feel you need to be negative about it. 

On 3/26/2021 at 6:48 PM, Hawkeye_UK said:

Hi Bignewy,

So the 30mm cannons for the SA19 are they not normally configured with a HE-I and HE-T mix operationally, they are not enough to penetrate a MBT with composite armour.  Either way these tunguskas in game will plow through MBT's front on also irregarding of the position or angle.  Also distance does not seem to effect the punch power, if it connects it kills.

 

Also all because a round is labelled as AP does not mean it will defeat and penetrate all armour.  Yea systems like the Bushmaster on the Bradly with the 791 round will punch through foot thick  concreate walls easily and really thick sangars and steel, but a MBT head on, no thanks.  Its why they have the TOW for self protection.

 

Here lies the problem.

 

Also again with the anti aircraft missile, the 9M311 would not penetrate a MBT.   It's hardly a Javelin.

 

But to run around in Tunguska killing MBT's just makes the whole thing feel really gamey.  More attention to detail needs to go into ammunition types.

 

I can upload more tracks if you like of tanks using HE rounds that blow up MBT's (infact oddly enough more reliably than AP rounds)! 

 

 

 

 

 

I will show this thread to the team, but my own opinion is this is not a bug. 

 

Thanks

[nighthawk2174]

9 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

We are working on ground units, these things take time, but I understand why you feel you need to be negative about it. 

Yeah it takes time but its been like this in DCS from the start and no to very little progress has been made since.  Meaning to get a WT level of DM will take years at the pace ED works.  Just being realistic here updating the ground unit DM isn't a big money maker and as such isn't top priority.

9 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

I will show this thread to the team, but my own opinion is this is not a bug. 

 

Thanks

Frontally all modern MBT's should be immune (there are exceptions leclerc has a large weakpoint susceptible to 30mm if at close range) to the 30mm fire there just isn't enough penetration.  Even at point blank range.  The missile themselves have no more than a few kg of explosive in a frag warhead.  this could potentially damage components but killing a tank?  No its not enough explosive especially from the front.

[GGTharos]

11 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

I will show this thread to the team, but my own opinion is this is not a bug. 

 

Hi BIGNEWY, I agree it's not bug (software works as intended) but it is incorrect.   Probably due to DCS limitations at the moment it can't really be made correct.

[Hawkeye_UK]

7 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

Hi BIGNEWY, I agree it's not bug (software works as intended) but it is incorrect.   Probably due to DCS limitations at the moment it can't really be made correct.

 

Never classified how this should be titled however probably my fault for listing in the bugs section.   To elaborate on this i appreciate if i "termed" it a bug , i would mean its not how it should be.  Probably to be clear and despite not referencing it in my title i should have stated this might be how its designed in coding.  But, and a large one at that is that the ED design specification is incorrect.

 

As for the other comments about specific weak points, its not something that going to encourage on an internet forum.  That said in terms of vehicle models certain assumptions in the public domain can be made.  All weapons systems have vunerabilites and weaknesses, parameters that they work well in, others that you avoid using them in however things such as tank armour are highly sensitive (even ones no longer in service) / classified along with balistics capabilites of certain rounds so appreciate assumptions need to be made. 

 

What i would say is the SA19 system is not a recognized threat to heavy armour in that sense neither are the rounds it fires for an MBT. 

 

How the system functions in game, and exploited on public servers does need to be addressed, thanks at @BIGNEWY

Edited March 29, 2021 by Hawkeye_UK

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

Never classified how this should be titled however probably my fault for listing in the bugs section.

 

You didn't do anything wrong, don't worry about this.

 

2 hours ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

What i would say is the SA19 system is not a recognized threat to heavy armour in that sense neither are the rounds it fires for an MBT. 

 

How the system functions in game, and exploited on public servers does need to be addressed, thanks at @BIGNEWY

 

The AI just needs to be able to properly protect itself and counter-attack as well.

[BIGNEWY]

I have reported for the team to check 

 

thanks

[BIGNEWY]

Hi, the team have replied, this is not a bug and is correct as is.

 

The Tunguska was made by the developers of anti-tank missiles, based on anti-tank missile technologies.

 

thanks

 

[nighthawk2174]

On 3/29/2021 at 7:10 AM, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, the team have replied, this is not a bug and is correct as is.

 

The Tunguska was made by the developers of anti-tank missiles, based on anti-tank missile technologies.

 

thanks

 

Correct as is in that its accurate to how they think it should be and wouldn't change it if they could or they know its not accurate to rlf but its correct to how the current DM works?

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Correct as is in that its accurate to how they think it should be and wouldn't change it if they could or they know its not accurate to rlf but its correct to how the current DM works?

 

Based on the information the team has the damage is correct. 

[BIGNEWY]

30 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Correct as is in that its accurate to how they think it should be and wouldn't change it if they could or they know its not accurate to rlf but its correct to how the current DM works?

 

 

 

EDIT: We will be checking the Abrams armour again. 

thanks

[Harker]

 
Based on the information the team has the damage is correct. 

Wait, the team is saying that a AAA platform can eat modern MBTs for breakfast? 30mm penetrating from any angle? Seriously? If that were the case, MBTs wouldn't exist. What's the point of all that thick, sophisticated armor and 120mm guns and shells like the APFSDS? Everyone would just run around with high RPM 30mm guns, much lighter armor and small warheads.

I thought that this was a limitation of the game engine. If not, it's completely wrong. Please reconsider.

[BIGNEWY]

The team is now checking Abrams armour, we may have found a armour issue, but the SA-19 is correct. 

 

thanks

[Mad_Shell]

@BIGNEWY I did some tests, and the SA-19 missile also eats T-55 and T-72 front armor for breakfast. I believe it has more to do with an incorrect calculation of HE damage against armor in general, because MBTs HE shells also work really good against others MBTs, better so than AP ones, which it shouldn't...

[BIGNEWY]

the team are looking into it, and may have found a common problem with the armour. 

[Harker]

the team are looking into it, and may have found a common problem wit the armour. 

Good to hear, thanks, BN.

[Hawkeye_UK]

On 3/29/2021 at 1:10 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, the team have replied, this is not a bug and is correct as is.

 

The Tunguska was made by the developers of anti-tank missiles, based on anti-tank missile technologies.

 

thanks

 

Oh dear, all because the missile is made by KBP that make numerous missiles im wondering if there is some misunderstanding here.  That company makes a whole host of arms from the Vikhr's to VSK94 Sniper rifles and various other cannons that can be found in the hands of various factions spread out accross the middle east.  I think the research team have got confused which is understandable as the SA19 fires the 9M311, yet the same company makes the 9M133 that we know as the Spirragan (Kornet) which will indeed puncture and kill MBT's and are lethal to the latest operational armour the west has (also very heavily fortified reinforced concreate structures for that matter).  It is the reason why systems such as Trophy has been developed to counter Kornet capability and this has been operationally deployed in the Middle East with success given the diversification of operators of the Spirragan system (Daesh for one).   They could also be getting confused with the the earlier 9M113 Sprandrel (Konkurs).  Both of these missiles are very different in nature and capability to the 9M311 of the SA19 despite being made by the same company and looking similar on paper.  It has to be that they have got very confused.

 

Furthermore consider this vital aspect, the Tungusta 9M311 being an Anit Aircraft system has a laser proximity fuse and the warhead itself is that of a fragmentation design, it will not knock out a MBT like we have currently in game.  The only other type of the 9M311 is the Kashtan system that is a boat based CIWS (again will not kill a tank lol).  The design team are wrong in this instance.

 

Appreciate that the Trophy system will not be able to be modelled given the sensitive nature of that system but that is away from the point of this post.  I will state again the SA19 should not be able to kill MBT's as it currently does, let alone with the 30MM which fires HE and HEI !

 

Please can you go back and ask them to verify their findings - the status quo is not acceptable.

 

Regards.

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

Oh dear, all because the missile is made by KBP that make numerous missiles im wondering if there is some misunderstanding here.  That company makes a whole host of arms from the Vikhr's to VSK94 Sniper rifles and various other cannons that can be found in the hands of various factions spread out accross the middle east.  I think the research team have got confused which is understandable as the SA19 fires the 9M311, yet the same company makes the 9M133 that we know as the Spirragan (Kornet) which will indeed puncture and kill MBT's and are lethal to the latest operational armour the west has (also very heavily fortified reinforced concreate structures for that matter).  It is the reason why systems such as Trophy has been developed to counter Kornet capability and this has been operationally deployed in the Middle East with success given the diversification of operators of the Spirragan system (Daesh for one).   They could also be getting confused with the the earlier 9M113 Sprandrel (Konkurs).  Both of these missiles are very different in nature and capability to the 9M311 of the SA19 despite being made by the same company and looking similar on paper.  It has to be that they have got very confused.

 

Furthermore consider this vital aspect, the Tungusta 9M311 being an Anit Aircraft system has a laser proximity fuse and the warhead itself is that of a fragmentation design, it will not knock out a MBT like we have currently in game.  The only other type of the 9M311 is the Kashtan system that is a boat based CIWS (again will not kill a tank lol).  The design team are wrong in this instance.

 

Appreciate that the Trophy system will not be able to be modelled given the sensitive nature of that system but that is away from the point of this post.  I will state again the SA19 should not be able to kill MBT's as it currently does, let alone with the 30MM which fires HE and HEI !

 

Please can you go back and ask them to verify their findings - the status quo is not acceptable.

 

Regards.

 

I have asked, the team are happy with the missile itself, we are looking at the tanks armour as there maybe an issue. Acceptable or not that is where we are currently and we will have to wait for the results.

 

thanks

 

[Hawkeye_UK]

Thanks Bignewy for the quick reply, however as i highlight i'm confident the team are confused and need to properly review and revisit their source information, somewhere, someone has got the information wrong.  Its an easy transposition error if writing down hence why i stated the model numbers above. (9M311 to 9M133 or 9M113 is an easy human error which is the only reason i perceive they are claiming their work on the subject is correct).  I know developers quite often have this we are correct mode, the whole A10 gun debarcle proved that, but in this instance they are incorrect again.

 

Even on a simple level please can you go back to them with this information and ask how a fragmentation proximity fused warhead can kill a MBT, its just not possible on the thickness of armour we are talking about for a MBT.  Suggest perhaps they have got the wrong design re numbers again.

 

Edit - yes we are aware of differences with the Armour, we use alot on DDCS and the Abrams we purposely price high for crate slinging units as thy are extra hard to kill compared to say a Challenger MBT or Leopard 2.  However this issue does not change the core issue of the SA19 system being incorrect in its capability. 

 

Many thanks.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Hawkeye_UK

[Hawkeye_UK]

Edit i should also have added - get your guys to look at the weight of the fragmentation from the continous rods and the distribution - that in itself tell's you all you need to know.

Edited April 6, 2021 by Hawkeye_UK

[Harker]

Edit i should also have added - get your guys to look at the weight of the fragmentation shrapnel and distribution - that in itself tell's you all you need to know if you have any background knowledge in explosives and armour.

DCS doesn't simulate shrapnel at all, unfortunately.

[Hawkeye_UK]

Not starting a new topic but in 2.7 not only are SA19's the lethal tank killing machine but they now shoot down mavericks, yes you read that right they now shoot down all air to ground missiles. 

 

Bloody good these systems, kill tanks, kill aircraft and also provide a missile shield.  Its getting to the point of being funny how bad this system is modelled.

 

What is going on?