Jump to content


An Argument FOR Guided Munitions


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

Blackgunner #1 Posted May 06 2018 - 10:39

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13912 battles
  • 3,019
  • [JMO-H] JMO-H
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011

It's long been a standing system that some munitions would not be introduced into the game.  This tends to be due to the varying time period of the game and its allowed areas of effectiveness.

 

One system that I have researched, however; has often been thrown into the box as automatically a no.  Today, I want to change your mind on that.

 

Anti-Tank Missles were in their early hay-day in the periods in question.  Their effectiveness was relatively limited by often troubled targeting, overly complex design, overexposure of the firing vehicle and weak follow up capability.  In this instance, we're going to be looking at the MGM-51 Shillelagh.

 

The Shillelagh was prone to several technical problems over its development, primarily due to how advanced the missle system was for its time.  While many users are quick to point out that the guided component of these systems would make it 'OP', this isn't inherently the case.  The Shillelagh, while relatively accurate depending on how trained the gunner was, also suffered from a main drawback.  The missle travelled at about 320 m/s, slower than most rounds available in the game.  At ranges, this meant quite a bit of time between firing the missle and having it impact something.  When it did impact, it was capable of penetrating about 390mm of flat armor. (Christensen Allan R, et al., TETAM Model Verification Study. Volume II. Modified Representations of Intervisibility).  Is this a huge amount?  Not particularly.  I'll tell you why.

 

​1. The Missle is slow.  Dreadfully slow.  Because of its initial launch phase, short range engagements closer than 100m are ill advised.  At brawling ranges, the missle wouldn't have enough arming range to actually deploy its guidance fins, thus being virtually unguided at this phase beyond where the gun system was pointing.  This means it would function, basically, like a regular gun shot.  Take into account this isn't a ballistic shell but a missle, and its accuracy would be abysmal at best.

 

​2. The vehicle firing is exposed.  The main drawback of the IR tracker used in this weapon system is that the vehicle that fired it has to remain in Line of Sight to actually steer the missle.  Now, take into account that the missle isn't fast to begin with, and tanks ingame are significantly more mobile than real life counterparts; the effectiveness of the weapon would be limited at best.  Exposure of the firing vehicle to actually steer the missle means their camo is virtually negated by 100% and they're stuck with their tailpipe in the wind until that missle decides to finally impact something.  Once the vehicle is destroyed, the missle would no longer be steerable.  Thus, it just fops off into oblivion?  A balancing factor could be requiring the vehicle to 'X' and deploy stationary to actually fire the missle.

 

​3. Situations where the missle is actually effective would be limited.  As its stated here, due to the mobility of other vehicles and the inherent slow nature of the missle, tanks going cover to cover or peek a booming don't really have a lot to fear.  The only vehicles where this missle is a threat are vehicles that are in open, exposed environments with little to no cover available, eg. A tactical mistake.

 

​4. Delay.  One thing people often forget is the delay.  The missle needs time to respond to changes in course.  It doesn't automagically get pinpoint precision as soon as you move the cursor.  This is an important factor at ranges, where the delay increases.

 

​And that is my argument for the inclusion of early guided missle systems ingame.  Change my mind.


Edited by Blackgunner, May 06 2018 - 10:54.


Pipinghot #2 Posted May 06 2018 - 10:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 11,654
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostBlackgunner, on May 06 2018 - 04:39, said:

And that is my argument for the inclusion of early guided missle systems ingame.  Change my mind.

Even though we all know that there are some tanks from the Cold War era in this game, they don't feel like Cold War era tanks because WG has limited all tanks in the game to WWII style abilities. Hence no smooth bore barrels and no guided munitions.

 

I'm not trying to change your mind, maybe you would like WoT to look and feel more like a Cold War game so attempting to change your mind would be futile. So instead I'll just register my "vote" against this idea and make note that for the significant majority of players the WWII feel is one of the major features that draws them to this game. The game includes post-WWII tanks, but not post-WWII tech, and that makes a difference. I have absolutely no interest in seeing post-WWII technology added to the game, and I'll bet you that most players don't want it either.

 

Guided weapons would be find in AW, but not so much here in WoT.


Edited by Pipinghot, May 06 2018 - 20:46.


Enginseer_66 #3 Posted May 06 2018 - 11:08

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 16372 battles
  • 249
  • [CJC] CJC
  • Member since:
    06-01-2016
I bet WG wants to open -another- can of worms, after the artillery one.

CynicalDutchie #4 Posted May 06 2018 - 11:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 45225 battles
  • 4,584
  • [CYNIC] CYNIC
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011
This game already has enough retarded mechanics, no need to push it further.

Thunder_Storm_713 #5 Posted May 06 2018 - 11:20

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 13275 battles
  • 541
  • Member since:
    06-08-2015
No.

Blackgunner #6 Posted May 06 2018 - 11:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13912 battles
  • 3,019
  • [JMO-H] JMO-H
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011

View PostThunder_Storm_713, on May 06 2018 - 05:20, said:

No.

 

​One word responses to a laid out argument isn't exactly what anyone would call a worthwhile response.

Huey_Long #7 Posted May 06 2018 - 12:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 25940 battles
  • 14,349
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostBlackgunner, on May 06 2018 - 10:49, said:

 

​One word responses to a laid out argument isn't exactly what anyone would call a worthwhile response.

 

Your thread isnt what anyone would call a worthwhile read either.

ArmorStorm #8 Posted May 06 2018 - 12:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 39284 battles
  • 9,099
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

1. A buttload of programming would be required for what, two vehicles?

2. If they are too easy to use they would be OP, too difficult would make them useless. 

 

 

 



Blackgunner #9 Posted May 06 2018 - 12:11

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13912 battles
  • 3,019
  • [JMO-H] JMO-H
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011

View PostDeutschesKaiserreich, on May 06 2018 - 06:04, said:

 

Your thread isnt what anyone would call a worthwhile read either.

 

​Come now Lacey, don't be so harsh.

Blackgunner #10 Posted May 06 2018 - 12:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13912 battles
  • 3,019
  • [JMO-H] JMO-H
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011

View PostArmorStorm, on May 06 2018 - 06:04, said:

1. A buttload of programming would be required for what, two vehicles?

2. If they are too easy to use they would be OP, too difficult would make them useless. 

 

 

 

 

​They're not particularly easy or difficult to use.  They're situational at best.

MagillaGuerilla #11 Posted May 06 2018 - 12:35

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 26236 battles
  • 5,000
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
I want anything designed post 1945 removed from the game. Make WW2 great again.

Lethalhavoc #12 Posted May 06 2018 - 12:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 38720 battles
  • 11,572
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

Honestly, this is a pretty bad idea, because it would start WG on a very slippery development slope.

 



Huey_Long #13 Posted May 06 2018 - 13:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 25940 battles
  • 14,349
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostBlackgunner, on May 06 2018 - 11:11, said:

 

​Come now Lacey, don't be so harsh.

 

It's the truth. 

General_Lee_Miserable #14 Posted May 06 2018 - 13:34

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11457 battles
  • 2,379
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013
No to rockets, missiles, etc. The great thing about this game is it's relatively simple in it's mechanics. I do not want to see it become a convoluted mess.

Kliphie #15 Posted May 06 2018 - 13:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 35625 battles
  • 7,377
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012
How would the missile be guided in game?  Would it be guidable in third person where line of sight is not required?  If it simply required holding the pip over the target, would that be fun?  

GeorgePreddy #16 Posted May 06 2018 - 14:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 14680 battles
  • 15,511
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostBlackgunner, on May 06 2018 - 07:49, said:

 

​One word responses to a laid out argument isn't exactly what anyone would call a worthwhile response.

 

If the "laid out argument" is based on a poor premise, it doesn't deserve or need a good argument against it, it is it's own counter.

 

Such is your "argument".



Lonewolfpj #17 Posted May 06 2018 - 14:20

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 4017 battles
  • 801
  • [HHOUR] HHOUR
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
It works for warthunder but I don’t think it will ever work for this game.

SpectreHD #18 Posted May 06 2018 - 14:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17137 battles
  • 17,656
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostPipinghot, on May 06 2018 - 17:55, said:

Even though we all know that there are some tanks from the Cold War era in this game, they don't feel like Cold War era tanks because WG has limited all tanks in the game to WWII style abilities. Hence no rifled barrels and no guided munitions.

 

Don't you mean smooth bore barrels? Heck, I think there is one or more vehicle in this game which historically have a smooth bore gun but has an added "rifled" added to the name. Personally, I feel smooth bore guns should not be a problem since all the gun stats can be changed.

 

And just to say I do agree. The devs want to keep the tanks in this game as "traditional" as possible so as to keep it WW2 despite going passed it into the Cold War era. And there is nothing wrong with that.



dominator_OwO #19 Posted May 06 2018 - 15:46

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25170 battles
  • 3,927
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostNudnick, on May 06 2018 - 05:35, said:

I want anything designed post 1945 removed from the game. Make WW2 great again.

 

RIP every single tier 10 in the game except the Maus.

__Worm__ #20 Posted May 06 2018 - 15:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 36971 battles
  • 5,035
  • [JEDI] JEDI
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011

View PostBlackgunner, on May 06 2018 - 03:49, said:

 

​One word responses to a laid out argument isn't exactly what anyone would call a worthwhile response.

 

but you ask for opinion and sometimes a simple no is self explanatory.

I don't feel the need to write a blog on my feelings in book form so I will simply say please, no.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users