Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

It's disponible in-game in 2007, as planned by Uk's ministry of defense, is it true?
I'm amazed by this missile because it's a TA-ATGM and it has a better penetration than a maverick! Has anybody confirmation than this missile is already in service and so efficient?
I just discovered it when playing against a player with germany in 2007; his poor Leo II were disabled in a few turns, without any possibility to strike back!

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

It is unit 235, even if I didn't ask for any change...

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

It's a top attack missle. They do attack the weakest bits on a tank

Don

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

That's just why I miss the interess of being able to penetrate 150cm of anti-HEAT armour when best roof are around 20cm, and that no DC-ATGM are able to penetrate a so great thickness... Why not give them such a warhead (in game, best DC have a 100 to 120 penetration, against face hull/turret up to 170 in the worst case)
But if I understand you correctly, this value is just in-game to assure a more frequent success of this weapon, maybe because of a better system or something else? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif
In fact what shocks me is that it seems pretty unlogical to have such a warhead, when only a 5 times smaller is needed... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif
Cheers
Loktarr

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

So it's not the fact that it can kill just about anything it's fired at it's the number we choose to represent that fact that's bothering you. Tell you what...... you find me hard info on the actual armour penetration of a Bofors MBT-LAW and I'll read it and if we are wrong. I'll fix it

OK?

Don

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

It doesn't bother me and I never asked for modifications of game values; my question was if the value was the consequence of a revolutionar penetrator or "the fact that it can kill just about anything it's fired at": your present answer is the only thing I asked for.
Now, if you want to know if I think that this value is too high, my is NO, because I never saw any MBT-LAW in action, probably never will and my guess is that some of the OOB maker did.
Thank you for your answer and sorry , but I was just trying to understand something, not to upset you.
Loktarr

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

The MBT LAW apparently uses the same warhead (or one based on) as the Bofors Bill 2.

http://www.global-defence.com/2006/U...icle.php?id=30

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT_LAW

The RBS-56B Bill 2 weapon number 152 obat66 - Sweden has a heat penetration of 100, so my guess is that the MBT LAW should have a similar value.

It's an easy fix for anyone interested - just pop into MOBHACK and make the change =)

Adrian

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

I'll look into this in the fall

Don

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

OK, now I'm curious.
The Javelin (OOB 12 US Army and OOB 13 USMC, weapon 143) is also a top attack missile and has a HEAT Pen of 45.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Javelin actually have a higher warhead weight/penetration then the MBT LAW ?

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

Well you guys have a few months to dig up the answer. I'll be interested to see what you find out

Don

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by Listy

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

FGM-184 Javelin

Warhead 8.4KG
Armour penetration >600 mm RHA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-148.html
http://warfare.ru/?catid=351&linkid=2527

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

definitly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SiIoT87Xts&NR=1 form Bofor itself...

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

I'm inclined to think this is one of those cases where two different people came up with different answers to the same problem - How to "properly" represent top attack ATGM's.

Both obviously work, the question is - does one work "better" ?

Re: Uk\'s MBT-LAW
 

I would be interested in any source that gives a penetration number for the MBT-LAW or NLAW. Something that specifially states what it will do as so far I haven't found anything at all that says "this weapon will penetrate X mm of armour" Usually in cases like this we guess based on past weapons of similar types. The 150 pen of the MBT-LAW is not the most powerful top attack ATGM represented in the game. The "NT-D Dandy" or Spikes are ( but not all. The Israeli version are half what the other are and I suspect the Israeli values are closer to reality )so if anyones interested in this during the summer see what you can come up with for any of these missles as well and we'll review the info in the fall and make adjustments were required

Please try to avoid Wikipedia. I know it's tempting and much of the info is correct but the fact that anyone can edit it leaves it a bit "iffy" as a be all and end all source of information.

Don

Re: Uk's MBT-LAW
 

MBT LAW indeed seems to have too good penetration values now.
NLAW at FDF site states that the penetration is >500 mm (RHAe?) and net weight of explosively formed penetrator is 1.8 kg.

Comparing to RBS-56 Bill2 and it's 110mm (main) warhead the NLAW has smaller, 102mm warhead. Simple calculation with scaling gives that NLAW supposedly has 79.7% warhead size and/or effect. Assuming penetration of 100 cm for Bill2 (as in the Swedish OOB) we have 80 cm for NLAW.

Comparing to APILAS, that has a 1.5 kg warhead and 720 mm RHAe penetration and again simply scaling (although APILAS is older tech) gives 864 mm for NLAW.

In the end we have something that has heavier warhead than APILAS but probably smaller than Bill2. Current 100 HEAT pen might be a bit high, 85 could probably be closer as it is smaller detonator than the one in RBS-56B (Bill 2).

Re: Uk's MBT-LAW
 

The APILAS has a 112 mm warhead, which means that the shaped charge cone diameter is probably somewhat larger than in the NLAW. That might more or less cancel out the fact that the APILAS is older tech. Also, the NLAW being a top attack weapon is probably not 100% optimized for penetration, since MBTs rarely have very thick armor on the top. My guess is that the actual penetration might be no more than 600-700 mm RHAe, but with enhanced behind armor effects over purely penetration optimized warheads.

The 720 mm for the APILAS is quite optimistic, by the way. Lower figures have also been floating around; 650 mm appeared in some sources. Considering that the APILAS is from the same generation as the I-TOW and the latter has recently been found falling quite short of the old 800 mm marketing figure, I have a strong feeling that 650 mm is closer to the truth than 720 mm...

Re: Uk's MBT-LAW
 

I've posted OPFOR items here before, so if you have looked at them in the past, you should remember if we own it, buy it or capture it we'll break it down, figure it out, test it, shoot it and evaluate it. Yeah just like any other army should if it wants to figure out how effective the weapon system is especially against your own equipment so you can figure out how to make them less effective. So to help take some of the guess work out of this topic Ileave you with the following information.
1. From the author...
A. If in the tables it doesn't say it's RHA then it isn't RHA armor.
B. Using IPAD so I can't "copy" the website (Yes I'm sure you can but, not to be rude but, I don't care.) so bear with me.
C. Sample item: APILAS/122mm/HEAT/@330mm=720mm Pen./ReinConcrete 2000mm Pen.
D. For all weapons shown look to lower right side of column for any armor pen values including for each type of ammo used by the weapon.

Google searched for "armor penetration tables for top attack attack atom" on first page about 3 down the following came up "PDF Worldwide Equipment Guide"
fas.org/man/Dod-101/sys/land/row/weg2001.PDF

Page 1-8.6 starts you on the road.

Today we started our annual Spring Training trip we would arrive @ the bottom of the 7th inning and see my team score 9 runs to win the game 11 to 9. The reason we were late was because about 25 miles of I-95S was completely shutdown because of three accidents within a few miles of each other. Those that know the road know that's drastic, I would simply ask for your "positive thoughts" for those involved.

Now quit posting about things I like to look into please!?! ;)

Regards,
Pat

Re: Uk's MBT-LAW
 

Pat, WEG is a very useful document for gaming purposes, but it contains only open source data. It specifically says that it's not a product of the US Intelligence community. So, it contains no classified data, unless it has been declassified at some point, as is often the case with older WarPac, Soviet and ChiCom systems and even older US/NATO stuff. Basically, apart from the oldest declassified systems, it's a collection of manufacturers' marketing material and educated guesses.

I also wonder what the 330/720 mm figure for the Apilas actually means. 330mm does not fit 60 or 65 degrees angle of incidence, if we assume that 720 is at 0 incidence. HEAT penetration path should usually not deviate much from the calculated.

Re: Uk's MBT-LAW
 

"About India's upgrade of the ZSU-23-4 Schilka, I did use the words "I can refer to..." it makes Don's life a lot easier if I can find if you will a "baseline" unit from which to work from since, we will never truly know the full extent of or the technical issues involved in many of the upgrades involved on a certain piece of equipment so history helps. In this case a Russian upgraded unit of the same type provides us with that "baseline" from which when I submit this Indian ZSU-23-4 Schilka it'll be easier to address any further enhancements to said unit within acceptable game parameters."

Unaltered from the SPA/SPAA Thread Post #66. Trust me I know the limitations of the data because of it and as I had my own issues over the last couple of years, I was just as happy/relieved there was no deadline this year as well, though I REALLY wish it wasn't for the reasons Andy and Don needed the break as well. Some equipment might take hours of research and preparation and many have taken years to develop for submission and I can't count the follow up after submissions that's been submitted in regards to status or revision due to modifications etc. etc. The Threads I try to keep up with are littered with them.

That should have read 330m not 330mm.

The first pages do read this data is from the field manuals and the WEG is designed as a quick reference guide which when finally released to the public is I agree a very useful tool for people like me, you game designers etc. etc. but even with it I WOULDN'T use it as as single source document only "DID" can do that as it's a multi-sourced document and I only have done it rarely when I've or others have already posted on the topic at hand.

It's not always fun, easy or any other term you wish to use and sometimes I ask myself why but, I keep coming back to it anyway I do know why though and I know maybe five others out do as well, but for now I take it one day at a time and when I really get ready depending on what else is happening, one piece of equipment at a time. ;)

Regards,
Pat

Re: Uk's MBT-LAW
 

I've always liked doing research.
"Why" is the important word in any language if you ask me.