CSC artillery rule question-direct hits

[apoc527]

CSC states that direct hits from artillery weapons do double damage. Is this true for guided missiles? The rules for smart missiles say they get a direct hit on 8+. So, is that double damage? And if so, do you double the AP effect (if any)?

Finally, isn't 8+ a little stingy for TL 8+ smart weapons? That means they only hit 42% of the time! Maybe it should be hit on 16-TL or higher? A TL 12 smart missile would need a 4+ that way.

Or maybe 8+ is a direct hit, and anything not a 2 is a normal hit?

 

[rust]

Finally, isn't 8+ a little stingy for TL 8+ smart weapons? That means they only hit 42% of the time!

As our fighter-bomber crews used to say: "Intelligent air to ground missi-
les are very precise, they always hit the ground."

It depends a lot on the size of a target and its mobility. A building is easy
to hit with smart weapons, a moving vehicle much less so, and the chan-
ce to hit a specific running person is almost nil.

 

[AndrewW]

It depends a lot on the size of a target and its mobility. A building is easy to hit with smart weapons, a moving vehicle much less so, and the chance to hit a specific running person is almost nil.

Start running and we'll test that theory with a nuclear warhead.

 

[rust]

Start running and we'll test that theory with a nuclear warhead.

No doubt that would kill me, but the chance to do so with a direct hit would
still be almost nil.

To give some data: The GBU-39, the newest smart bomb of the USAF,
has a circular error probable (CEP) of only 5-8 meters, which means it
has a 50% probability of hitting within 5-8 meters of its intended target.

 

[locarno24]

To give some data: The GBU-39, the newest smart bomb of the USAF,
has a circular error probable (CEP) of only 5-8 meters, which means it
has a 50% probability of hitting within 5-8 meters of its intended target.

Of course, if you're shooting at something you need a double damage result from a tactical nuke to hurt, then I suggest you're doing something wrong......

 

[mrfingle]

To give some data: The GBU-39, the newest smart bomb of the USAF, has a circular error probable (CEP) of only 5-8 meters, which means it has a 50% probability of hitting within 5-8 meters of its intended target.

Remember that's not 5-8m from the traget, that's 5-8m from the aiming point, which, as 'centre man' is generally what the pilot/observer/spotter is 'aiming' at, still means the 50% will be a direct hit for a lot of targets. Also, with a 5-8m CEP, that means 93% of rounds within 16m, which is still a kill in most circumstances.

I think the 8+ for TL8 weapons isn't too far off here, what needs to be factored in is that, using real-word figures, a roll of 7 will still get close enough to damage the target even if it doesn hit etc (as will a 6 in my book).

 

[BP]

To give some data: The GBU-39, the newest smart bomb of the USAF, has a circular error probable (CEP) of only 5-8 meters, which means it has a 50% probability of hitting within 5-8 meters of its intended target.

As reported

(Plausible deniability can be a handy thing -> well our pilot wasn't aiming there, remember these things aren't miracle bombs regardless of what you media hounds would have us believe... )

 

[apoc527]

So to address both issues, maybe a fair clarification (cough house rule cough) is as follows:

On a direct hit, any weapon using the Artillery Size table does double the listed dice of damage, affecting AP qualities as normal.

Guided smart weapons score a direct hit on an 8+ but will cause the listed damage on a 6+. At TL 10, smart weapons get a +1 DM. At TL 12, smart weapons get a +2 DM. At TL 14 and up, such weapons get a +3 DM.

 

[rust]

Yep, I think that looks good.

 

[apoc527]

By the way, maybe this was unintentional, but it makes missiles WAY more frightening, which is good. That light tac missile actually does 18d6 to most vehicles it hits. If we treat the Fusion Z gun as artillery, then it actually does 56d6 on a "direct hit.". That...uhmm...hurts. (196 average damage)

It's probably stretching the intent of the rules with the fusion gun, but I think it helps fix vehicle combat somewhat.

 

[apoc527]

Ummm. Oops? There are already rules for advanced guidance systems. CSC page 112. Ahem. I'll go away now. Yup.

 

[apoc527]

I am amused. Talk about opening one's mouth before really understanding all the rules.

So, the book does talk about doubling damage on a direct hit. However, this really only makes sense in the context of HE or Frag rounds fired in high ballistic arcs. So, for missiles, launched grenades, thrown grenades, etc. it probably doesn't apply. That might mean that light tac missiles aren't powerful enough, but we can deal with that elsewhere.

 

[phavoc]

So unless the "smart missiles" are something like the (D)ICM warheads used for modern artillery rocket systems like LARS or MARS/MLRS where the guidance is in the individual bomblets released by the carrier rocket I'd say a smart missile should get a better "to hit"

MLRS bomblets don't have any guidance packages. The round distributes them in a roughly circular radius. I forget the exact area, but it is a relativley large footprint. Back in the 80s when I was on the MLRS system we were able to target an entire grid square with a single salvo of all 12 rounds. With the targeting changes and changing the laying of the launcher, it only takes about 60 seconds to take out most soft targets.

Even the anti-tank mines don't have guidance packages - those too are spread out in a set pattern.

The only guidance is in the rocket itself, to get the round over the target area. Internal charges then go off causing the round to spreading out the payload.

Still, its a fun system to fire. Cleanup is a bitch though. Rocket exhaust gets everywhere.

 

[rust]

MLRS bomblets don't have any guidance packages.

There are now several types of MLRS guided missiles, some already de-
ployed and others still under development.
A good example is the BAT for the M270:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Anti-Tank_(BAT)

 

[phavoc]

Oh, well, yah, sure. There are lots of new things out, like the TACCMS replacing the 6 M203 rounds in the launcher.

But I was talking back when MLRS was first out (80s). We had standard bomblet rounds and the AT round. I think only the Germans used the AT round, though all nation's launchers and fire control software could use anyone else's stuff.

We never did get the nuke round. They were winding down the whole nuclear artillery thing, gutted Lance (what a POS!) and the IRBM programs and threw everyone into MLRS just about.

 

[mrfingle]

Back in the 80s when I was on the MLRS system we were able to target an entire grid square with a single salvo of all 12 rounds.

"...you've only given me a 6-figure grid ref here..."

"...that's all you need..."

 

[phavoc]

Back in the 80s when I was on the MLRS system we were able to target an entire grid square with a single salvo of all 12 rounds.

"...you've only given me a 6-figure grid ref here..."

"...that's all you need..."

A box of grid squares should fix that problem!