CT Special Supplemet 3 Missiles & Consolidated CT Errata

[snrdg082102]

CT Special Supplement 3 Missiles & Consolidated CT Errata

Evening all,

In the topic CT Book 2 Space Combat Return Laser Fire Piper mentioned both CT Mayday and CT Special Supplement 3 (SS3) Missiles. Both appear to have similar combat rules to Book 2. I'll admit I haven't started comparing the three rule sets yet.

The missile design rules in each caught my eye, actually I tried using SS3 a long time ago without success. The rules in Mayday I never got around to working with. Today, 2/16/13 (PST), I've tried them both and I was able to match the numbers for the Mayday missile example. Unfortunately, I wasn't successful with the missile example on SS3 page 3 even using the Consolidated CT errata. I did come closer with the errata than when using the supplement as written.

The area I'm having a problem with is the Propulsion system and I'll be using the Consolidated CT Errata for the example.

Page 3, Missile Identification, second paragraph (correction): The second paragraph should read: For example, the standard missile in Traveller is a 5G6 continuous burn (36 kg, Cr3,600, TL 8), mass sensing (1 kg, Cr1,000, TL 10), proximity detonator (1 kg, Cr500, TL 6), high explosive (10 kg, Cr500, TL 6) warhead missile (all produced at their standard tech level), costing Cr5,600 and massing 48 kg. This price does not take into account tech level effects. At TL 9, this missile costs Cr5,540; at TL 12, it costs Cr4,480.

Page 14, Propulsion System Costs (corrections): The formulas in the table are wrong. The correct formulas are given below:

Continuous Burn: TL 8; Casing Mass (kg) MC=G; Casing Cost: CC=100 × MC; Fuel Mass: MF=B × G; Fuel Cost: CF=100 × MF

Here is what I'm getting for the propulsion specifications.

A 5G6 missile has a casing mass equal to the maximum number of Gs which is 5. The casing according to the equation has a mass of 5 kg and a cost in Cr of 100 x the Mass of a 5 kg case or Cr 500.

The 5G6 missile has a Burn Rating of 6. To determined the fuel mass you multiple the number Gs by the number of burns: Fuel Mass = 5G x 6 = 30 kg. The fuel costs is determined by multiplying Fuel Mass 30 kg x Cr 100 = Cr 3,000.

My propulsion system comes in as 5G6 continuous burn (35 kg, Cr3,500, TL 8) and the example is a 5G6 continuous burn (36 kg, Cr3,600, TL 8).

Have I missed something or is this possible errata?

 

[Piper]

(snip)
the example is a 5G6 continuous burn (36 kg, Cr3,600, TL 8).

Have I missed something or is this possible errata?

Those numbers (36 kg, Cr3,600) are for a 6G6 system. The errata needs errata.

 

[snrdg082102]

A fine 4:11 AM PST to you Piper,

Those numbers (36 kg, Cr3,600) are for a 6G6 system. The errata needs errata.

At least my math wasn't out lunch for a change, thanks Piper for the check.

Unfortunately, my shifting of the numbers doesn't match for 6G6. The combination of Gs and Burns I came up with suggests the example is for a 6G5 continuous burn propulsion system (36 kg, Cr3,600, TL 8). Just to make sure I'll crunch the numbers here:

Model 6G6 max acceleration = 6G with fuel for a Burn of 6

Continuous Burn Casing Mass = G = 6kg
Continuous Burn Casing Cost = 100 x Casing Mass = 100 x 6 = Cr 600
Fuel Mass = Burns x G = 6 x 6 = 36
Fuel Cost = 100 x Fuel Mass = 100 x 36 = Cr 3,600

Specification:
6G6 continuous burn propulsion system (42 kg, Cr4,200, TL 8).


Model 6G5 max acceleration = 6G with fuel for a Burn of 5


Continuous Burn Casing Mass = G = 6 kg
Continuous Burn Casing Cost = 100 x Casing Mass = 100 x 6 = Cr 600
Fuel Mass = Burns x G = 6 x 5 = 30
Fuel Cost = 100 x Fuel Mass = 100 x 30 = Cr 3,000


Specification:
6G5 continuous burn propulsion system (36 kg, Cr 3,600, TL 8).

Looking at the Consolidated CT Errata's corrected Continuous Propulsion System Table a missile with 5 Burns at 6G has a mass of 36 kg and costs Cr 3,600.

Now if both my math and the corrected table are right I may be able to build and stockpile SS3 missiles.

 

[Piper]

My apologies, Tom. I omitted the case weight and calculated fuel only. Looks like the example did, too.

Thing is, a 6G5 missile doesn't make any sense under the rules. Look at the "Propulsion Systems" paragraph on p.3 again. A 6G5 missile only has 5 units of burn. The sentence describing the 3G12 system gives a good example: a maximum of 12 total.

A 6G5 missile can burn at a rate of 6G but only has 5 units of "fuel". It can never achieve 6G thrust.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again Piper,

My apologies, Tom. I omitted the case weight and calculated fuel only. Looks like the example did, too.

Thing is, a 6G5 missile doesn't make any sense under the rules. Look at the "Propulsion Systems" paragraph on p.3 again. A 6G5 missile only has 5 units of burn. The sentence describing the 3G12 system gives a good example: a maximum of 12 total.

A 6G5 missile can burn at a rate of 6G but only has 5 units of "fuel". It can never achieve 6G thrust.

No problem Piper I usually omit or transpose numbers I just took a lot more time and did a ton of rechecking.

I'm not saying a 6G5 missile makes sense, however that is what the equations and table indicate to meet the parameters for a continuous burn propulsion system of 36 kg and Cr 3,600 at TL 8.

Both SS3 and the Consolidated CT Errata on pages 31-32 have me slightly baffled on how G-Burns work.

I've always pictured that a missiles is ejected, the means I'm not sure about, from the launcher before the propulsion system lights off at a safe distance from the turret and hull. Once the missile reaches the safe distance the propulsion system ignites at the designated G setting.

Here is the sequence I worked out before looking at the examples in either SS3 and the errata.

Model 6G5 continuous burn propulsion system set to travel at max of 6G

Launch +0: ejected from launch tube unpowered
Launch +1: Propulsion system ignites Burn time 1 total of 6 kg fuel consumed at designated 6G setting Distance covered = 6 x 100 mm = 600 mm
Launch +2: Burn time 2 total of 12 kg fuel consumed at designated 6G setting Distance covered = 2 x 600 mm = 1,200 mm
Launch +3: Burn time 3 total of 18 kg fuel consumed at designated 6G setting Distance covered = 3 x 600 mm = 1,800 mm
Launch +4: Burn time 4 total of 24 kg fuel consumed at designated 6G setting Distance covered = 4 x 600 mm = 2,400 mm
Launch +5: Burn time 5 total of 30 kg fuel consumed, system shuts down due to no more fuel, at designated 6G setting Distance covered = 5 x 600 mm = 3,000 mm.
Launch +6 missile covers 3,000 mm forever until some event occurs that destroys the missile.

The same 6G5 missile set to run at 1G consumes one sixth the fuel and I think that by Launch +6 the missile has consumed 6 kg and covered 600 mm. The propulsion system exhausts the fuel at Launch +30.

Anyway that is how I thought until I looked at the examples.o:

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

First item DonM replied to a possible SS3 errata change and let me know the SS3 was revised in 2011. Unfortunately and as usual, I'm behind the curve with only the SS3 article in the FFE 007 JTAS book and Consolidated Ct Errata v. 07, which wasn't updated.

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the revised SS3?

I did check out the FFE web site but couldn't seem to find any reference.

Next, in my last post Piper brought up the subject of G-burns, which I haven't got my mind wrapped around yet. In that post I provided the sequence I think happens when launching a missile.

Unfortunately, after reviewing my work, which is probably out to lunch since the missile doesn't have 30 kg of fuel, I'm still clueless.

Finally can a missile designed in SS3 original or SS3 revised using a continuous/constant thrust propulsion system have a guidance system?

I recall reading that a continuous propulsion system can't have a guidance system, but I could be thinking about Mayday.

 

[Piper]

Next, in my last post Piper brought up the subject of G-burns, which I haven't got my mind wrapped around yet. In that post I provided the sequence I think happens when launching a missile.

Unfortunately, after reviewing my work, which is probably out to lunch since the missile doesn't have 30 kg of fuel, I'm still clueless.

Hi Tom;
You're reading the final number in the descriptor as turns of thrust instead of units of thrust. Go back to the "Propulsion Systems" paragraph on page 3 and look at the sentence that describes the 3G12 missile. Note that it can thrust at 3G for four turns, 2G for six turns, or 1G for twelve turns. In each case, the total is twelve units of burn.

Note that 3G for twelve turns isn't allowed. That would require a 3G36 missile.

Finally can a missile designed in SS3 original or SS3 revised using a continuous/constant thrust propulsion system have a guidance system?

I recall reading that a continuous propulsion system can't have a guidance system, but I could be thinking about Mayday.

In SS3 a continuous burn system can't alter course (propulsion systems, p.4) so a guidance system is of no use.

In Mayday, a constant propulsion system can alter course (subject to limitations) and can benefit from a guidance system.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Piper,

Hi Tom;
You're reading the final number in the descriptor as turns of thrust instead of units of thrust. Go back to the "Propulsion Systems" paragraph on page 3 and look at the sentence that describes the 3G12 missile. Note that it can thrust at 3G for four turns, 2G for six turns, or 1G for twelve turns. In each case, the total is twelve units of burn.

Note that 3G for twelve turns isn't allowed. That would require a 3G36 missile.

I'm glad that my statement about being out to lunch on how G-Burns work was correct. I've re-read that section several times and seemed never to get a handle on the rule.

I'm thinking that maybe this time, with your help, I've got the concept.

In SS3 a continuous burn system can't alter course (propulsion systems, p.4) so a guidance system is of no use.

In Mayday, a constant propulsion system can alter course (subject to limitations) and can benefit from a guidance system.

Actually Mayday does not allow a homing guidance system on a constant acceleration propulsion system per the Guidance-Propulsion Systems Table in the copy I have in FFE 005 Games 1-6+ The Classic Games.

Cross-referencing the Constant row with the Homing column on the table lists No.

Of course the Consolidated CT Errata may not have the latest updates similar to SS3.

Do you know where I can get a copy of the revised SS3?

 

[Piper]

Actually Mayday does not allow a homing guidance system on a constant acceleration propulsion system per the Guidance-Propulsion Systems Table in the copy I have in FFE 005 Games 1-6+ The Classic Games.

Cross-referencing the Constant row with the Homing column on the table lists No.

It doesn't allow a "Homing" guidance system, but it does allow a "Guided" guidance system.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Piper,

It doesn't allow a "Homing" guidance system, but it does allow a "Guided" guidance system.

Strike one hundred fifty million for me, wait a minute I got confused with the Mayday section of the Consolidated CT Errata which states

"Page 8, Standard Missiles (correction): The standard missile should have 5G6 constant acceleration, a homing guidance system, and proximity detonation. Such a missile would cost Cr5,400."

Unfortunately that makes my strike count now Strike one hundred fifty-three million

Thanks again Piper for the help.

 

[atpollard]

Unfortunately that makes my strike count now Strike one hundred fifty-three million

Babe Ruth had roughly two strikes for every time he hit ... the strikes aren't remembered, only the hits.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

So fight on and "dare greatly".

 

[snrdg082102]

Hi atpollard,

Originally Posted by snrdg082102
Unfortunately that makes my strike count now Strike one hundred fifty-three million

Babe Ruth had roughly two strikes for every time he hit ... the strikes aren't remembered, only the hits.

Originally Posted by Teddy Roosevelt
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

So fight on and "dare greatly".

Thanks for the reply and the inspiring quote by Teddy Roosevelt. I know strikes are good in bowling so I'm doing really well.:rofl:

 

[snrdg082102]

Late afternoon PST Piper,

Back on February 19th, 2013, 02:05 AM we discussed that I was modifying how a 6G5 missile moved per SS3. Unfortunately, the problem kept nagging me so in sheer desperation I ran my understanding of how the propulsion system, modified by using 1 G-burn of fuel instead of kilograms, worked through DonM off the forums. Much to my surprise and delight his reply was

Yes, you are extrapolating logically

Here is a recap:

Model 6G6 continuous burn propulsion system accelerates 6G every turn until the fuel is exhausted


Launch: The Missile is ejected from the launch tube
Launch +1: The missile accelerates to 6G and has used 1 G-burn of fuel, 5 G-burns of fuel left
Launch +2: The missile accelerates to 6G and uses 1 G-burn of fuel, 4 G-burns of fuel left
Launch +3: The missile accelerates to 6G and uses 1 G-burn of fuel, 3 G-burns of fuel left
Launch +4: The missile accelerates to 6G and uses 1 G-burn of fuel, 2 G-burns of fuel left
Launch +5: The missile accelerates to 6G and uses 1 G-burn of fuel, 1 G-burns of fuel left
Launch +6: The missile accelerates to 6G and uses 1 G-burn of fuel, 0 G-burns of fuel left
Launch +7: The missile has achieved 36G of acceleration at the time the propulsion shuts down due to being out of fuel.

In my earlier example the missile was 6G5 which means that the fuel is exhausted at Launch +5 and the missile is travelling at 30Gs.

Also in the discussion

In SS3 a continuous burn system can't alter course (propulsion systems, p.4) so a guidance system is of no use.

In Mayday, a constant propulsion system can alter course (subject to limitations) and can benefit from a guidance system.

The only difference between a homing system and a guided system is where the missile gets the inputs to maneuver. A homing guidance system uses systems onboard the missile while a guided missile has input from the gunner. Of course I could be splitting hairs here.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Piper]

SS3 "Propulsion Systems":, p. 4:

"A continuous burn propulsion system must always use its maximum acceleration in each turn until its fuel is exhausted. For example, a 3G6 continuous burn missile must accelerate 300 millimeters in its first turn and 300 millimeters in its second turn;thereafter its fuel is exhausted."

You apparently see the 3G6 missile in the above example as having the ability to accelerate for six turns. I see it as two turns. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Piper]

Restating the original question regarding guidance systems:

Finally can a missile designed in SS3 original or SS3 revised using a continuous/constant thrust propulsion system have a guidance system?

I recall reading that a continuous propulsion system can't have a guidance system, but I could be thinking about Mayday.

I drew my answer here from a couple of points since SS3 lacks the cross-referencing chart from Mayday.

First, continuous propulsion systems can't change course (see "Propulsion Systems").

Second, continuous propulsion missiles can only impact the target during the first turn of movement. The guidance in this case being from the launcher (see "Impact" under "Missile Movement", p. 8). Any powered missile receives this benefit.

The only difference between a homing system and a guided system is where the missile gets the inputs to maneuver. A homing guidance system uses systems onboard the missile while a guided missile has input from the gunner.

I'm hip.
Mayday does a better job of handling guided missiles but the scale in Mayday is vastly different. At one light-second per hex, light speed lag could effect operator-guided missiles. A "real" missile would probably use on-board sensors for terminal guidance.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Piper,

Thanks for the reply and for catching on forgetting some background, which I apologize for overlooking.

SS3 "Propulsion Systems":, p. 4:

"A continuous burn propulsion system must always use its maximum acceleration in each turn until its fuel is exhausted. For example, a 3G6 continuous burn missile must accelerate 300 millimeters in its first turn and 300 millimeters in its second turn;thereafter its fuel is exhausted."

You apparently see the 3G6 missile in the above example as having the ability to accelerate for six turns. I see it as two turns. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

My original example typed back on Feb. 17 was based on my view of how the system worked before reviewing Consolidated CT Errata v 0.7 for SS3.

The example DonM reviewed and I posted last night came from the Consolidate CT Errata v 0.7 pages 31-32.

As a quick, for me at least, recap the topic started with my attempt to match the Missile Identification example errata with the table and equations also in the errata. That relieved the propulsion system mass and cost weren't matching up. I then posted the possible errata find to the CT Errata Compendium and the in 2011 a revised SS3 (SS3-R) is available with the purchase of the CT CD. I imposed on DonM by asking, in my email, if the SS3 errata matched SS3-R description of how G-Burns worked and then sent him the break down I used for my example posted Feb. 22, 2013. This shows that at least the second errata entry appears to match with SS3 to SS3-R. Here is the errata, pages 31-32, with the changes, the errata italicized them and I added the bolding of the type.

Page 3, Propulsion Systems, third paragraph (corrections): The third paragraph should read: Propulsion systems are defined by two numbers commonly separated by a capital G. The first number is the maximum number of Gs which the missile is capable of in a turn; the second is the number of G-burns of fuel the missile can make at maximum G. For example, a 1G1 propulsion system can accelerate a maximum of 1G per turn, and is capable of burning fuel to achieve 1G once. A 6G6 system can accelerate to a maximum of 6G per turn, and has enough fuel to reach 6G six times. A 3G3 system can accelerate to a maximum of 3G in one turn, and has fuel to allow reaching 3G for three turns. This same missile could accelerate at 1G for 9 turns, or 2G for 4 turns.

I actually ran through each of the example's examples in the email sent to DonM which is why I was shocked by his reply. Now I'm itching to dig up the purchase price of the CT CD to check if all the SS3 errata in Consolidated CT Errata brings my paper copy up to SS3-R standards. The bad news is the itch is all I have for now.

 

[rancke]

Page 3, Propulsion Systems, third paragraph (corrections): The third paragraph should read: Propulsion systems are defined by two numbers commonly separated by a capital G. The first number is the maximum number of Gs which the missile is capable of in a turn; the second is the number of G-burns of fuel the missile can make at maximum G. For example, a 1G1 propulsion system can accelerate a maximum of 1G per turn, and is capable of burning fuel to achieve 1G once. A 6G6 system can accelerate to a maximum of 6G per turn, and has enough fuel to reach 6G six times. A 3G3 system can accelerate to a maximum of 3G in one turn, and has fuel to allow reaching 3G for three turns. This same missile could accelerate at 1G for 9 turns, or 2G for 4 turns.

This is expressly contradictory to Piper's example. If the original material contained two mutually contradictory examples, it is, of course, equally correct to disregard one or the other. If you're saying that there is no contradiction, I have to disagree, vide Piper's example of the continuous burn missile. If you have chosen to disregard that example in favor of another, I submit that you made a bad choice. Your sample missile would be better labeled a 6G36 missile because it is easier to understand intuitively, whereas the 6G6 label requires consulting the rules precisely because there are two ways to interpret it.

(I would even venture to suggest that your discretionary burn missile would be better labeled 0-6G36, but that would be adding new material, I suppose ).


Hans

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Hans,

This is expressly contradictory to Piper's example. If the original material contained two mutually contradictory examples, it is, of course, equally correct to disregard one or the other. If you're saying that there is no contradiction, I have to disagree, vide Piper's example of the continuous burn missile. If you have chosen to disregard that example in favor of another, I submit that you made a bad choice. Your sample missile would be better labeled a 6G36 missile because it is easier to understand intuitively, whereas the 6G6 label requires consulting the rules precisely because there are two ways to interpret it.

The original material has some contradictory material which the Consolidated CT Errata has attempted to fix. I have chosen to use the errata and on the of missile propulsion system performance have run it by the Consolidated CT/MT/TNE Errata Coordinator. Based on the individuals response the example in the errata replaces the example in SS3 published in 1984. If Piper is using the original SS3 article without the correction then I am out to lunch, however I used a verified correction that changed the results. Prior to learning that there is a SS3-R I submitted a possible item of errata on the appropriate forum and was requested to run anything else I found by the Consolidated CT/MT/TNE Errata Coordinator DonM. I'm in the process and I think what he is doing is bouncing my material off SS3-R.

SS3 appears to be another combination of CT Books 2 and 5, which does have some conflicts.

Here are the sources I used.

SS3 Scale page 3: One G of acceleration for one turn moves an object 100 mm.


CT Book 2 Scale page 26: 1 G will produce a velocity change of 10,000 km, or 100 mm in scale, per turn.


Consolidated CT Errata v 0.7 Page 3, Propulsion Systems, third paragraph (corrections) page 32: A 6G6 system can accelerate to a maximum of 6G per turn, and has enough fuel to reach 6G six times.


SS3 Missile Movement, pages 7-8,

"Missiles move using the same vector movement system that is used for ships. The procedures are the same except that the player must monitor the available fuel for the missile, and it may not maneuver once it exhausts that fuel supply.

Continuous burn missiles begin at maximum acceleration and continue to operate at maximum acceleration until fuel is exhausted. They may not maneuver if their target moves or changes course. Consequently, continuous burn missiles are most effective if fired against targets which can be intercepted during the first phase of movement. For example, a 6G6 missile can intercept a target within 600 millimeters of its launch point during its first turn of movement. Chances of interception in subsequent turns are much less."


Putting all the rules together this is what I get and is what basically was run by DonM.


Launch +1 distance covered 600 mm = 600 mm/100 mm = 6G
Launch +2 distance covered 1,200 mm = 1,200 mm/100 mm = 12G
Launch +3 distance covered 1,800 mm = 1,800 mm/100 mm = 18G
Launch +4 distance covered 2,400 mm = 2,400 mm/100 mm = 24G
Launch +5 distance covered 3,000 mm = 3,000 mm/100 mm = 30G
Launch +6 distance covered 3,600 mm = 3,600 mm/100 mm = 36G


CT Book 2 page 28 uses an example of a free trader limited to 100 mm (1G) over 10 turns of continuous acceleration which at the end has a vector 1 m, 1,000 mm if I'm converting right, long.


Of course I may have my wording wrong but the process appears to match with the source documentation.

(I would even venture to suggest that your discretionary burn missile would be better labeled 0-6G36, but that would be adding new material, I suppose ).

Hans

The missile identification example text does not mention what type of propulsion system the performance rating of 6G6 is being used by my second example, dated as posted today at 01:05 AM, is for a continuous burn propulsion not a discretionary burn system. I'm going to be checking everything and if my work doesn't match I'll run the process by DonM.

Thanks again Hans, aka rancke, for the help and comments you've provided me all the time I've been on the forums.

 

[Piper]

Consequently, continuous burn missiles are most effective if fired against targets which can be intercepted during the first phase of movement. For example, a 6G6 missile can intercept a target within 600 millimeters of its launch point during its first turn of movement.

Tom;
this is a 6G missile; it moves 600 millimeters on the first turn of movement. In doing so, it consumes ALL of its fuel. Subsequent movement is by Newton, not thrust.

 

[rancke]

It looks like you may have missed the point I was making. It wasn't whether or not there was evidence to support your interpretation. It was whether or not your interpretation was the best choice to resolve what seemed to be a canon conflict.

That said, the evidence seems to be pretty scanty not to say non-existent.

SS3 Scale page 3: One G of acceleration for one turn moves an object 100 mm.

CT Book 2 Scale page 26: 1 G will produce a velocity change of 10,000 km, or 100 mm in scale, per turn.

Neither of these says anything about how to interpret the label '<number>G<number>'. They would apply to either interpretation.

Consolidated CT Errata v 0.7 Page 3, Propulsion Systems, third paragraph (corrections) page 32: A 6G6 system can accelerate to a maximum of 6G per turn, and has enough fuel to reach 6G six times.

This is the resolution to the presumed canon conflict, right? It's not evidence that there ever was a conflict in the first place (Not that this was my main point anyway).

SS3 Missile Movement, pages 7-8,

"Missiles move using the same vector movement system that is used for ships. The procedures are the same except that the player must monitor the available fuel for the missile, and it may not maneuver once it exhausts that fuel supply.

Still nothing. Would apply to either interpretation.

Continuous burn missiles begin at maximum acceleration and continue to operate at maximum acceleration until fuel is exhausted. They may not maneuver if their target moves or changes course. Consequently, continuous burn missiles are most effective if fired against targets which can be intercepted during the first phase of movement. For example, a 6G6 missile can intercept a target within 600 millimeters of its launch point during its first turn of movement. Chances of interception in subsequent turns are much less."

Still doesn't say anything about the interpretation of the aforementioned label. It may simply refer to the fact that after the first turn, the opponent will know precisely where the missile will be at any future moment and can maneuver to avoid being intercepted.

So far there is no conflict with Piper's example that I can see. And Piper's example explicitly contradicts what the consolidated errata says.

Do you have any references that actually support the other interpretation?


Hans