|
AndrewJ -> [FIXED B495] 95% effective chaff? (2/2/2014 7:25:37 PM)
|
Hello,
Noticed that in some cases (B486, Battle of the First Salvo) that generic chaff was 95% effective against incoming SARH missiles. 95%! [X(]
[img]http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/q716/AndrewJsPhotos/95percenteffectivechaff_zpsd548275a.jpg[/img]
Now I know the earlier 1960s era SARH missiles weren't all that great, but isn't this overstating the case a bit?
A 95% failure rate for the missile engagement overall would be steep, but this is 95% before any other missile situational modifiers are added (maneuvering targets, long range, basic hit chance, etc.). If we start with the base 55% hit chance for an unmaneuvering target you're looking at only a 2.7% final hit chance just by adding the chaff launcher. Throw in some regular pilots in a big clumsy plane like a Badger and you're down at 2.1%, and if they're at any range then you're down at 1.4%. And these are the type of large bomber targets the missiles were designed for!
Now I'm not talking about trying to hit fighters or taking edge of the envelope shots here (situations which resulted in the rotten 10% to 15% success rate of these missiles in Vietnam). That would be a different situation. But would scabbing on a chaff pod really make bombers almost invulnerable to these missiles? I wonder if there was a database typo here? (Perhaps 0.95 was accidentally put in for 0.65, which would have given 15% bomber hit rates in optimal conditions, which is much closer to observed historical rates.)
|
|
|
|
