RE: Helicopters in FPC (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series



Message

Mad Russian -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/24/2014 11:21:53 PM)

Seems to me that what is needed is a change in tactics. No matter how much people would like it to be true helicopters are not flying tanks. The desert is also the worst place to deploy helicopters as there is little to no cover for them to use.

A single incident shouldn't and probably won't influence the deployment of the equipment. What should and probably has happened is a reevaluation of how to use that equipment to the best advantage.

Good Hunting.

MR



duckenf -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/24/2014 11:38:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Seems to me that what is needed is a change in tactics. No matter how much people would like it to be true helicopters are not flying tanks. The desert is also the worst place to deploy helicopters as there is little to no cover for them to use.

A single incident shouldn't and probably won't influence the deployment of the equipment. What should and probably has happened is a reevaluation of how to use that equipment to the best advantage.


I agree with you, but in the current incarnation as evidenced by the AARs, Apaches are used as flying tanks because they are relatively invulnerable and effective. That tactic will be used if Apaches can operate that way with impunity. I'd take issue somewhat with the characterization that it was just in the desert as NATO commanders were so worried about their survivability vs Serbian AA and their general limitations that they grounded them in SE European terrain which would have had a lot more cover than central Germany.

Probably the best tactic is to keep them close to the front and have air superiority with a lot of AA/AAA suppression. And, of course, keep them and the Hinds out of the way of fixed-wing aircraft.....

But at the moment, the Apache and Hind seem to be the Queen of the battlefield.



LuckyJim1010 -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/26/2014 7:53:33 AM)

What an absolutely fascinating thread, worthy of discussion at a War College somewhere.
I'm going to try and start a thread over at ARRSE and see if we can get some Brit tankers take on this.
I had a boardgame called Air Cav (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3309/air-cav
Been a long time since I played it but looking at the data cards on the site above it looks like nearly everything could engage Helicopters.
And if I am reading those cards right someone obviously thought MBT main guns could, in the words of our Army Brethren, 'Deliver the good news' to Ivan's Helicopters



LuckyJim1010 -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/26/2014 9:13:36 AM)

Interesting documentary from the 70's about the use of US Helicopters on the Central Front.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f3_1241969828



LuckyJim1010 -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/26/2014 9:23:08 AM)

Sorry for the multiple posts but just came across this after someone on another site mentioned a UK Lynx being engaged by a T-55

Full story here: T-55 v Lynx

High above the southern Iraqi desert there was a loud crash to the right of our Lynx helicopter. It was followed by what felt like a sack of gravel being thrown over the window.

One, two, three, four, five - BOOM! A blinding flash lit the air in front; an explosion so strong that my armoured chest plate lifted from my body and our Lynx bucked wildly as if a lorry had rammed it.

The helicopter filled with the stench of cordite. Below, an Iraqi T55 tank was firing at us. We faced a classic engagement, a straight gunfight. The best shot would win. The loser would die in flames.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442846/Its-straight-gunfight-best-shot-wins-.html#ixzz3MzwExhAR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Mad Russian -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/26/2014 1:07:00 PM)

Not a problem. Post as many times as you like...we don't have a limit!! [:D]

Good Hunting.

MR



LuckyJim1010 -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/26/2014 1:55:14 PM)

This has kicked off over at ARRSE, well a little bit anyway [:)]

One chap replied:

"Used to practice engaging enemy rotary sh1t regularly on the Challenger 2 PGTE trainers at Lulworth, easy work, lase it, auto track, and fin round away"

And the consensus seems to be "Yep we would have fired at the Helicopters"




CapnDarwin -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/26/2014 2:59:33 PM)

My question on the whole matter of weapons at helicopters has always been you can take one down with a rock if you do it right, but when do you do it. In training, when it is the only target is one thing. On the battlefield with steel, tungsten and depleted uranium flying around from all angles, when do you stop to even notice the helo? We can do up some AI logic to engage helos with main guns on tanks, but what are realistic engagement parameters in battle? If we can nail that down clearer I would be in favor of adding some additional logic in 2.1 to allow for it.



LuckyJim1010 -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/26/2014 4:22:37 PM)

Well to kick start the discussion.

Unit spots an enemy Helo unit

Is spotting unit under attack? NO - Go Next
Does unit have LOS to High Priority target NO - Go Next
Is enemy Helo hovering - YES - Go Next
ENGAGE_ENEMY_HELO_UNIT(FiringUnit,Target_Unit,WeaponType,Range)

You get the idea

However how would you deal with the 'Hold your fire they have not spotted us yet' type of situation.

No one said it would be easy [:)]





Mad Russian -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/26/2014 8:00:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyJim1010

No one said it would be easy [:)]



Least of all us! [:D]

Good Hunting.

MR



Mad Russian -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/27/2014 2:24:00 AM)

Attack helicopters were originally designed to escort helicopter troop transports and give gun and rocket fire suppressive support for their airmobile assault. The first purpose built attack helicopter, the AH-1G, was put into service in 1968. They weren't looked at as anti-tank weapons until 4 years after that. when a UH-1 fired a TOW missile for the first time in combat, in support of the South Vietnamese Army at the Battle for An Loc.

Good Hunting.

MR



LuckyJim1010 -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/27/2014 11:41:55 AM)

Over at the other forum the thread has morphed a little bit into the effectiveness of Gun based AD units,Zoo 23, Vulcan etc

But back to MBT v Helo. The consensus seems to be that unless they were ordered to hold fire they most definitely would engage Helicopters. Here is an interesting post from one of the chaps over at ARRSE

"
Was there a reason we didn't go down the SPAAG route to give mobile AD that could bring fire to the party quickly to protect armour from AH? A doctrinal thing or financial?

Practical problems. The US found this out the hard way with the M247 "Sergeant York" Divisional Air Defence System: they built a radar-aimed, self-propelled gun system to engage helicopters out to a nominal (and never really proven) 4km range, just in time for the dastardly Soviets to upgrade to AT-6 on Hind with a 6km range: so DIVADS, a kilometre or so behind the tanks it was defending (because it was the size of a Routemaster bus, and on a M48 chassis so slower than the rest of the force) was totally outranged.

By the time you'd moved to a system that got you in the same sort of range as the threat, you were either talking a 76mm gun or thereabouts (the Italians designed a SP 76mm AA gun, but from memory got no sales) or were driven to missiles. SPAAG could deter and occasionally kill aircraft using unguided munitions, or first-generation HELARM, but lacked the range to handle aircraft with guided weapons (Maverick, AS-14B, et cetera) or helicopters with second-generation missiles like HOT/TOW/AT-6.

And tanks firing their main armament were considered a major threat to HELARM at least by the 1990s: accurate, short time of flight, and the armour on a Hind was enough to turn a APFSDS round from a knitting needle through-and-through to spall, fragmentation, and major misery for the recipient.

I'm on holiday, why am I weapons-geeking for free on Boxing Day? "



LuckyJim1010 -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/27/2014 11:43:52 AM)

And here is a good little video of why you do want to be near these things when something goes wrong. Watch it to the end.

Oh Dear



CapnDarwin -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/27/2014 12:36:21 PM)

U.S. Doctrine centered on having the Air Force grab and maintain air superiority over the battlefield. Hence no real need for local AD assets. The US also would not by a foreign system (like the west German Gepard) and that led to the sergeant York fiasco.



MikeAP -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/27/2014 1:26:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyJim1010
And the consensus seems to be "Yep we would have fired at the Helicopters"


There are doctrinal procedures for firing main gun, coax, and caliber 50 at rotary AND fixed wing aircraft.




LuckyJim1010 -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/28/2014 11:06:52 AM)

Getting back into the game as I tend to wait for upgrades/patches.
Just played the Tutorial and has lost only 2 tanks (1st Armd SHQ) when the popup said you have killed 70% of the enemy force - Carry on or Quit
I played on
I had the 1st Inf sat in Nordheim occupying all the VP hexes. The Javelin Team was West of the river in the Northernmost town hex.
Up to this point I had not seen any Pact Helicopters.
Then a flight of 3 Hind P's appeared and hovered over Eastern Nordheim. The Javelin team fired a couple of times I think (Ammo was 85%) but no hits.
The 3 mech platoons all fired - no hits or at least no damage.
The 3 Hinds then proceeded to take out 5 Challengers, 3 Warriors and a Striker.
All engagements were at max 2K range,except the Striker - that was 3000M, with the Brit Infantry all being one hex away or for one lucky unit, same hex.
Then the Hinds bugged out. I assume they left as they were out of Ammo after the Turkey Shoot they just had.
So 3 Hinds swan around a battlefield with complete immunity for a 20 minute turn resolution.
Okay so nothing damaged them but surely their morale and common sense alone would make them think 'WTF, get me out of here'
One of the posts above you mention 'They are not Main Battle Tanks' but they are MORE POWERFUL than MBT's at the moment.
I must stress again, these 3 Heroes of the Soviet Union were all alone out there, no Pact ground forces anywhere.










MTTODD -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/28/2014 11:24:08 AM)

When I read reports like that, it makes me not want to start playing the game.

I bought the game recently hoping that all the patches and complaints over to powerful Hinds had been fixed.

Now I'am not so sure.



CapnDarwin -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/28/2014 1:43:55 PM)

Just because a unit like the Hinds roll in, standoff at 2k, lay waste to exposed enemies and then fly off does not show any problem in the game or an overpowered unit. Attack helos only real fear is AD units. More to the point ones it can "see" with its sensors. Another point here to make too. This is the tutorial scenario. It is clearly stated in the tutorial manual as be an unbalanced mashup of units to show players how to use each item. Third point. The player achieved a sudden death victory and played on. This gave the Hinds a chance to refuel and rearm and go hunting again and hit a clump of the players units.

Again no real problems here to patch or fix. We will look at adding tank main guns as a possible valid attack against helos in 2.1 and that may add a bit more influence in helos going in toe to toe with units, but it won't end standoff shots with ATGMs and rockets.



MTTODD -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/28/2014 7:18:51 PM)

HI,

Thanks for getting back, sorry for asking all these questions!

But reading this thread still leaves a few questions that would be great if they were answered:

1) I understand that ATGMS would cause havoc on tanks (hitting the top & side armour etc), but would the same be true with unguided rockets ?
The test that TAZAK ran still show destructive results with Hinds using only rockets, is that to be expected with 57mm rockets on modern armour ?

2) Some users mentioned NATO AD not firing at all in an engagement, why would that be ?

Many thanks.





LuckyJim1010 -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/28/2014 7:20:38 PM)

I don't see what difference playing on makes. The Hinds had not appeared until after the Carry On button was pressed. They didn't need to go back and and replen.

Plus it may be the tutorial but given the Brits lack of AD I think that scenario is pretty much a standard setup

So 12 - 14 unharmed Warrior AFVs' with what, 100 ground troops, a Javelin section, and 9 Challengers with no ground unit distraction sat there and got walloped by a section of Hinds at ranges from less than 500 m out to 2 kms. And the whole turn the Javelins were 1 hex away.

I'll move on to a 'real' scenario and see what happens but I have to say, something don't feel right.








CapnDarwin -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/28/2014 8:00:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MTTODD

HI,

Thanks for getting back, sorry for asking all these questions!

But reading this thread still leaves a few questions that would be great if they were answered:

1) I understand that ATGMS would cause havoc on tanks (hitting the top & side armour etc), but would the same be true with unguided rockets ?
The test that TAZAK ran still show destructive results with Hinds using only rockets, is that to be expected with 57mm rockets on modern armour ?

2) Some users mentioned NATO AD not firing at all in an engagement, why would that be ?

Many thanks.



1). ATGMs are clear tank killers. Rockets can do a number on soft targets and depending on type and amount they can hurt tanks as well. Probably not getting hard kills, but doing enough damage to render the tank combat ineffective.

2). No LOS is a big one. Got to be able to see what you are shooting at. There was a bug a number of version back that was causing a weird sighting bug with radars. All is good now. If you are not shooting , odds are you can't see it.



CapnDarwin -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/28/2014 8:13:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyJim1010

I don't see what difference playing on makes. The Hinds had not appeared until after the Carry On button was pressed. They didn't need to go back and and replen.

Plus it may be the tutorial but given the Brits lack of AD I think that scenario is pretty much a standard setup

So 12 - 14 unharmed Warrior AFVs' with what, 100 ground troops, a Javelin section, and 9 Challengers with no ground unit distraction sat there and got walloped by a section of Hinds at ranges from less than 500 m out to 2 kms. And the whole turn the Javelins were 1 hex away.

I'll move on to a 'real' scenario and see what happens but I have to say, something don't feel right.



I did the tutorial and it is a smashup. Formations are loose and there are a lot of added units to show features. As for the Hinds, you got lucky if they did not show before the sudden death kick in. That's why I send went back. Usually you get hit by them as you engage for the city. Next issue is the helos. They only know there is an objective to take so they will hunt in the area for enemies. They have no visible threats (IE no radar painting them). They will head in to the objective. Once they spot targets, they fire. If they take fire/losses they may scoot away. Barring that, they will unload and then leave. Now one good thing about all this, was I looked at the British data and found a couple errors in the sensors listing for some units. Warriors being one of them. They should have a thermal sight, but got miscoded as a jammer instead (not in the right place for that to work either). I just fixed that. That will help with their targeting and spotting a bunch.
The only credible threat are the Javelins. Once they shoot. Ground troops are non-issue at any number, unless AD weapons are being fired. Tanks and APCs are a slight threat with MG and autocannon fire.



MTTODD -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/28/2014 8:41:43 PM)


Yes I agree with what you about rockets not getting hard kills, but that was not what the TAZAK'S test data showed :


Rkt armed HIND-P vs MGs only armed M1A1 (in woods)
Test 1
4 HIND-P KO’d – 3 fallen, 1 destroyed
1 M1A1 KO'd - 1 destroyed
Test 2
4 HIND-P KO’d – 1 fallen, 3 destroyed
9 M1A1 KO’d – 5 fallen, 4 destroyed
Test 3
4 HIND-P KO’d – 3 fallen, 1 destroyed
8 M1A1 KO’d – 2 fallen, 6 destroyed
Test 4
4 HIND-P KO’d – 2 fallen, 2 destroyed
2 M1A1 KO’d – 2 fallen, 0 destroyed
Test 5
2 HIND-P KO’d – 1 fallen, 1 destroyed
10 M1A1 KO’d – 6 fallen, 4 destroyed


Rkt armed HIND-P vs MGs only armed M1A1 (in clear hex)
Test 1
4 HIND-P KO’d – 3 fallen, 1 destroyed
3 M1A1 KO’d – 2 fallen, 1 destroyed
Test 2
4 HIND-P KO’d – 4 fallen, 0 destroyed
7 M1A1 KO’d – 3 fallen, 4 destroyed
Test 3
4 HIND-P KO’d – 3 fallen, 1 destroyed
4 M1A1 KO’d – 1 fallen, 3 destroyed
Test 4
0 HIND-P KO’d – 0 fallen, 0 destroyed
10 M1A1 KO’d – 7 fallen, 3 destroyed
Test 5
3 HIND-P KO’d – 1 fallen, 2 destroyed
8 M1A1 KO’d – 5 fallen, 3 destroyed



CapnDarwin -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/28/2014 9:13:23 PM)

The Mi-24P is carrying 80mm S-8 anti-armor rockets with a 29 HEAT value warhead. Not very accurate, but enough to punch through the top of a tank.



Sabre21 -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/28/2014 10:48:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: medck

The Apaches seem to be rather less vulnerable and more powerful than reality. There was the rather major debacle in Gulf War 2 and a series of concerns in the Kosovo War,etc:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2003/04/chop_the_chopper.html

The level of damage inflicted the the iraqi RG on that Apache unit would suggest the WP/USSR would dish out rather more.


Well it's about time for me to put in my 2 cents worth again, it has been awhile.

The article above is a pretty bonehead one. The author really doesn't know the entire story. When it comes to the battle he is referring to in Iraq, some of the aircraft suffered battle damage but no where to the extent he suggests. As for the aircraft that was "shot down", not even, the crew ran out of gas. The aircraft wasn't even damaged. The 2 dummies deserved to be caught for running out IMO.

Jump forward to Kosovo, I remember that very well too. Yes, there were 2 training crashes resulting in fatalities, but then again, when I was in Germany out flying in my Cobra one night, there were 2 apache crashes then resulting in 4 fatalities too. It just happened to be a nasty night. While I used Anvis at night, the early models of the Apache's NVS (thermals) can't see wires and that's what got both of them.

It is unfortunate that in peacetime shortcuts to save money are taken, and one way it was done was to reduce flight hours for training. The aircraft itself was hard to maintain and pretty expensive to fly, so those pilots had far fewer hours than we did in our cobra's.

When they got deployed to Kosovo, they didn't have any train-up time and were thrown into an unfamiliar mountainous area. It's no wonder they had 2 crashes, I knew one of the pilots that died. The command got gun shy after losing 2 in training, considering at the time the Apache was developing the Longbow variant and the Comanche was also being developed. Even though the two weren't supposed to be in competition, they really were. So losing many apaches could have had a huge impact on future development. FYI, I spent 8 years on the Comanche program when the plug was pulled on it. Politics caused it's demise and I suspect politics played a role in holding the apaches back in Kosovo.


I also want to add some about Soviet Hinds. They were pretty well armed and armored as you all know, but they were pretty heavy and couldn't really hover too well and were not nearly as maneuverable as a cobra. I had no fear what so ever about air to air encounters with them, the 20mm cannon on my cobra would make mincemeat of them. I couldn't out race them for they were faster than me, but I could fly circles around them. On a side note, their pilots got even less flight time than our Apache guys.

There were 5 Soviet armies in the former E Germany each with a regiment of 40 Hind-e's with a few f models thrown in. Their maintenance record was pretty atrocious and rarely got to 75%, typically it was 50%. But let's say they managed to put all the Hinds into the air, that's 200 for all of Germany. Add in the few the E Germans had (Hind-d's) and maybe an extra regiment or 2 from the motherland. So at full strength we might have seen 300 Hind to cover the entire front.

US forces in Germany on the other hand had 350 to 400 apaches in country in 1988 along with around 80 cobras. That doesn't include the Reforger units that would have added at least another 400 apaches and another hundred or so cobras. Add in the Brits, W Germans, French, Dutch, Belgium, and Danish helo units and Nato would have out numbered the Warsaw Pact about 3 to 1 in helos.

What was a bigger concern to me than their helo's was the 2S6 ADA vehicle, probably the best ADA of it's type. The SA-19 is a nasty missile that can lock onto the Doppler effect created by a rotor system even if the helo is tucked in below the treeline. I've seen what that missile can do. But the US in 1988-90 wasn't defensless, there were more stinger teams on the battlefield than you could imagine, they were everywhere. The armored units were deploying Linebacker, a Bradley modified with stingers mounted on the turret and a 25mm modified for AA engagements. I don't know how prevalent they were, but we had them in the 3rd ID during the Reforger 88 exercise.

Well I need to go get my dinner before it burns, nice chatting with all of you again.

Andy/Sabre21



CapnDarwin -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/29/2014 12:05:14 AM)

Andy, thanks for jumping in with the clearer first hand info. I hope your holidays are going well.



David Clark -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/29/2014 2:45:06 AM)

I wouldn't get too worked up about outputs from the tactical resolution engine - as a minimum, I'd suggest everyone do the obvious:

- Play either solitaire with no AI, or hotseat.
- Turn off limited orders.
- Edit the scenarios to remove forces handled poorly by the game engine.
- Edit the database as required to meet your own political or emotional needs.

I think it's useful to remember the ideological basis of the game, before raising comparisons to real-world experience. Red Storm is explicitly NOT a military-grade or realistic simulation; it's an entertainment software product specifically designed as a Russian Power Fantasy. The scenarios and equipment databases are specified to resolve every possible ambiguity as much as possible in the favour of the Soviets, and the overarching setting is basically 30-foot-tall Russian Supermen vs prostrate American victims. I definitely see the virtue in the approach taken by the game designers; Measuring Military Power by Epstein assumes a similarly extreme worst/best case scenario, although in that case it's more as an epidemiological hedge than what's seen here. Comparisons to the real world are neither appropriate nor ultimately helpful; if you're using the default database, you really deserve what you're getting. Either way, this is still the most entertaining video game I've bought in the last year; as long as your expectations are realistic, you'll definitely get excellent value for your money.






Jakerson -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/29/2014 9:56:15 AM)

Well I never had any serious problems against helicopters not even on those scenarios where red side has lots of them and NATO side has few ADA units. I use what I have trying to get those hinds in cross fire of my ADA units. After there are only couple hinds left I start my assault. Yes some of my troops die but that is war. Couple hinds don’t have ammo to stop concentrated assault until it reaches the point where those hinds can be deal with just machine gun fire.

I think those scenarios where red side has lots of helicopters and NATO has few ADA units are purposely designed that way to make them more challenging.

In world war 2 people used wooden logs and Molotov cocktails or even suicide attacks with carrying artillery rounds to stop tanks when they had no any anti tank weapons or tanks and enemy had thousands of tanks. They did not give up just because enemy had thousands of tanks and they had no anti tank weapons or tanks.

War if not fair thing. If you have only 2 ADA units and enemy have 100 helicopters you don’t give up you do your best what you have. It could be worse some people don’t have even those 2 modern ADA units or any ADA at all and they need to destroy helicopters with even less than that and some of those people don’t give up even when they have only one shotgun to stop those 100 helicopters. It could be always worse.





Mad Russian -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/29/2014 2:09:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

I think those scenarios where red side has lots of helicopters and NATO has few ADA units are purposely designed that way to make them more challenging.



Every scenario has a balance of forces that were set to a 'reality' of sort on the battlefield. The most prevalent issue for them is chaos. In chaos situations, things happen. Or don't happen.

Every single scenario is set to highlight some form of the modern battlefield and give you guys the best possible exposure to the game engine. To show you what the game engine is capable of and then to have you push those boundaries yourselves with your own designs. I knew from the beginning that I would never be able to create every single combat situation imaginable to man.

But together we can cover most of them.[:D]

One issue that I looked into deeply was the Stinger. Why are there not more stingers in the game? Because, the US had sent a high percentage of it's stockpile to Afghanistan to shoot down Soviet helicopters there. If a shooting war had started in 1989 there could well have been a shortage for our own troops. Just as the number of LAW's, MG and rifle ammo would have been restricted if the Cold War had gone Hot in 1968. Those are some of my rationale behind why you get or don't get certain things for particular sides.

Good Hunting.

MR



CapnDarwin -> RE: Helicopters in FPC (12/29/2014 2:34:32 PM)

@David Clark, I'm sorry, where is this belief of a Soviet power fantasy coming from? We do our best to model up the best data and information we can find. There are no cheats or biased results. Now if you can show us data or information the shows that a platform is overstated for the Soviet's or understated for NATO, please do. We can review it and make changes as required. I not sure what you would consider a "serious" cold war simulation.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875