no, the title is different. And i wouldwatch out if i were you. People posted things already on the internet, and went out with a bang.
No, no, I don’t have access to closed documents. I only use what is available on the network and is easy to operate. As you can see, I found your file, but I don’t want to register on that site.
This is just a textbook for students.
look at the sources
from 1 to 8km range
Shud I send a report for not accurate minimal and maximum range
Have fun. Those values are both incorrect.
in the same “source”
the penetration was signed as 957mm and 900mm
again us mains are pulling out there crayon drawings
Finds 1 area that says 8km in a list of sources that say 10km. Wants to make a bug report to change range based off that. Peek WT forum moment.
1 Like
Are you talking about the Forecast International source? If so, at best, it is a secondary source. The primary sources (by lockheed martin and oerlikon) overrides that secondary source.
In addition, it could be very well referring to it’s high speed maneuverable targets.
Source: https://www.moore.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1996/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust1996web.pdf
Not really sure if this counts as a primary source but at least it’s on the same level of a secondary source
“A note on armor penetration: While ADATS was designed as a dual purpose system, its primary mission is against hostile aircraft. However, its performance against armor is described as formidable: at least 100 cm (39.37 in) was claimed. The application of our standardized formula for chemical (HEAT) warheads to the ADATS missile warhead yielded a penetration figure of 95.76 cm.”
The document reveals two different sources for these penetration figures:
- 100 cm: A claim made by the system’s developers but we don’t know who it is referring to
- 95.76 cm: A calculated figure derived by Forecast International
Reading comprehension sure is a nice skill to have.
Also, stop hiding behind a burner account lmao
5 Likes
Regarding the system’s developers, they’re referring to “both” ADATS’ we have in game
Again, once I have the documentation sent to me from the only person who is still associated with the system I will send it here too
4 Likes
Now on the dev server, Tracer is gone. Planes now have no idea that the missile is coming, but,
Well, trust me, there is a missile in the middle of my crosshair.
6 Likes
And how to use it against air targets then? Missile almost always isnt in center of crosshair
5 Likes
Idk. Guess that was not a problem IRL. They pointed a laser at a thing, it died.
During burn phase the missile was gathered onto the main beam using ALCOS, and then it rode the beam to the target.
1 Like
did they fix smokeless motor
It was smokeless for a while
Well, IRL the missile corrects itself based on the laser generated matrix in order to stay in the middle of the beam. In game it does not work the best.
3 Likes
I think that in reality the missile should have an IR tracker that is visible only to the SAM operator in the thermal imaging channel.
4 Likes
Nope, that is not the case in the ADATS. The system uses the same principle in gathering phase, where burning missile motor it tracked by IR camera, and a smaller coded laser beam directs it onto the main beam, after the missile enter the main beam it reads the projected matrix and collects itself, no IR tracker takes part in that.
2 Likes
Hmm, I see, another reason why the gameplay execution of SAM Gaijins is wrong.
So if its tracked by IR surely the missile will still be hot enough at the rear to be seen in IR even if not by the naked eye. So surely the missile should be visible in game in thermal imaging but harder to see by eye?
1 Like
Who knows. I am yet to come across (or i dont remember one) a video where the missile would be seen after launch from gunner screen, so i cant confirm it. What i can say for sure is that the leftover heat is not strong enough for the system to guide it.