RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire

RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade

Message

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/29/2018 3:13:34 PM)
^ did something similar to those tests but rather with 2 platoons of 500 damage OSAs... total of 6 aircraft were launched and all died at the first missile volley

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/29/2018 3:15:51 PM)
also did another test with BMP (73mm grom and 9m113 konkurs) and T-80U (9m119 refleks) fire against kiowas... the damage simply forced a retreat rather than destroy the unarmored helicopter... and we know what a stinger can do to a helicopter in real life

CapnDarwin -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/29/2018 3:37:14 PM)
The problem here is a hit does not equal a kill for every shot. The quality of hit/proximity of a missile shot, the size of the warhead and the toughness of the target aircraft all need to be accounted for. In our system, upping the damage would have unintended impact to the hit by making a larger proximity size giving the weapon an unrealistic capability. Do we know how AB conducts its SAM fires?

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/29/2018 3:44:07 PM)
what i did demonstrate at the least was that the problem was not hit vs miss but hit vs kill... which points the problem at the AA system damage values itself rather than the accuracy values... as per realisms sake helos for the most part are shot down by a stinger shot or 2... even the mighty MI24 hind can potentially be downed by a stinger... it should be that helicopters/planes with countermeasures can potentially doge missiles better than one without... but a hit of a missile or 2 destroying the craft in question...

Veitikka -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/29/2018 5:35:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zacklaws Not once did I get a flight to abort. But by the end of the scenario, all 38 aircraft had been shot down quote: Engagement over, no aircraft appeared to be hit I see contradictions in your reports. When you play the game the aircraft do not abort, are not hit, but all are shot down? How is it possible that when I tried this the aircraft aborted or took damage every time?

varangy -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/29/2018 7:04:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gbem and we know what a stinger can do to a helicopter in real life Real life example: Mi-24 shot down in Syria with one missile Another one from Ukraine

Veitikka -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/29/2018 8:06:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gerardo quote: ORIGINAL: Veitikka quote: ORIGINAL: zacklaws You can bring down an artillery barrage down on helicopters as well and despite only hovering 50 metres or 80 metres above the ground, it does not destroy them, damage them or even drive them away. zacklaws, I believe we've discussed this with you a few times on the Beta forums. Currently artillery doesn't damage aircraft. Works as designed. To others: Are you aware that aircraft can abort their attack and escape via the closest map edge when they take fire, even if they're not damaged? This happens quite often. Ok so it's not a bug but a design decision but why? Too difficult to implement? If it was possible to shoot down helicopters with artillery then it would become a helicopter hunt. The helicopters should run away from artillery shells. Is it realistic to use artillery for that?

zacklaws -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/29/2018 9:27:51 PM)
quote: I see contradictions in your reports. When you play the game the aircraft do not abort, are not hit, but all are shot down? How is it possible that when I tried this the aircraft aborted or took damage every time? There is no contradiction in my report, in that engagement, no aircraft were hit as is evidenced as they are about to fly off the edge of the map. How do you know if an aircraft has been hit? There is no effects of an hit on an aircraft either by an explosion or smoke trail as it flies over the map being engaged by air defences. They either just fly off the map or crash and one has to presume they have been hit. So how can you state that an aircraft has took damage when there is no visible evidence of such happening. Am I supposed to see a box flash up saying that it has been hit or damaged in the same way as a ground unit? But during the whole scenario, aircraft where hit (non ever aborted), one has to presume as they just crashed on the map after being engaged by the air defences. At the end of the scenario, there was 20 wrecks on the map caused by engagements later on in the scenario, and the summary stated 38 had been shot down. Perhaps in the engagement I posted pics of, maybe non of them had been hit and crashed off map. or maybe all of them had been hit and crashed off map or just 1 or 2 did. During the game, there is no way of knowing of such happening. As for what happens in your case and my case, I do not know what is happening. Has it to do with morale and training levels? For my scenario, both were set at 100%. quote: The helicopters should run away from artillery shells. Is it realistic to use artillery for that? I know for a fact that helicopter pilots have a strong disliking to artillery shells, either being close to them exploding on the ground but equally just as much possibly having to fly in an area with artillery shells passing through in flight. And if helicopters were seen close to the ground hovering, then it would be a viable target to engage with artillery. Just squeezed in a repeat of the same scenario that I posted the pics in with adjusted training and morale levels. FRG, +100% for both, Russia -100% for both. Totally different scenario, FRG destroyed 4 helicopters with a mass volley straight away and all aircraft flights aborted after receiving a mass volley of missiles and AAA and only the odd one flew over the FRG. In case I was missing something, I studied carefully if I was missing something to denote if an aircraft was hit or damaged and saw nothing, so how does one know if an AI aircraft has been damaged? And this probably points out why we had different results, morale and training values. The picture denotes aircraft aborting and about to leave the map edge, 1 aircraft has already left and the two others not being engaged, have they been damaged, hence why they are not being engaged? After they left the map. I zoomed out and watched them fly off till they faded away:- [image]local://upfiles/23637/5DF368C5A3C0400DB4CA486ADF396F3E.jpg[/image]

Lowlaner2012 -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/29/2018 9:46:17 PM)
So is there a way to give players better feed back regarding aircraft being shot down during the scenario? Cheers

Veitikka -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/29/2018 10:36:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowlaner2012 So is there a way to give players better feed back regarding aircraft being shot down during the scenario? Cheers The line symbol below the NATO icon tells the damage type, if any. When the aircraft is going to crash you see the "going down!" message. This is only for the friendly aircraft.

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/29/2018 11:41:51 PM)
quote: There is no contradiction in my report, in that engagement, no aircraft were hit as is evidenced as they are about to fly off the edge of the map. How do you know if an aircraft has been hit? There is no effects of an hit on an aircraft either by an explosion or smoke trail as it flies over the map being engaged by air defences. They either just fly off the map or crash and one has to presume they have been hit. So how can you state that an aircraft has took damage when there is no visible evidence of such happening. Am I supposed to see a box flash up saying that it has been hit or damaged in the same way as a ground unit? its not exactly no hit... my 500 damage SAM seems to oneshot planes happily... errr well one volley at least...

Veitikka -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 2:13:54 AM)
It was reported that "the airgame is almost unplayable" because helicopters are too hard to shoot down with SAMs, so I did some testing. Two flights of small OH-58C Kiowa scout helicopters on the other half of the default sized NTC map. On the other half of the map, a section of Osa-AKM SAMs. The average time the helicopters went down after receiving fire was 20 seconds. I don't see an issue here, unless you have hard proof showing how fast they should have been killed after being spotted. [image]local://upfiles/25564/B23925DF76344C0A93331DAB6386C3D0.jpg[/image]

Veitikka -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 2:38:26 AM)
I admit though that AA missile accuracy could be higher than it is, but the problem we have is that the helicopters in the game are not using terrain intelligently like a real pilot would. What happens in the game is that usually the SAMs scare the helicopter away.

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 3:08:44 AM)
my testing concluded it takes a 8 SA13 missiles on average to either down or force a retreat for an unarmored kiowa... this is in stark contrast to videos we see where helicopters would be hit and destroyed easily on the first shot...

nikolas93TS -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 9:10:11 AM)
A case in point is Afghanistan where from 1982 to 1987 there were 1285 MANPADS launches for 63 kills, mostly transport helicopters (although CIA at certain point claimed 70% success rate). When we consider that, for example, 181st Independent Helicopter Regiment alone (operating Mi-6/Mi-8/Mi-24) conducted an astonishing 120 440 sorties (and they were not the only unit) from December 1979 to August 1988, both number of launches and kills sounds even less impressive. In particular Stinger role is fairly overhyped in public imagination, as first generation MANPADS (FIM-43 Redeye and mostly Egyptian SA-7b) showed up in Mujaheddin hands long before the Stinger, which arrived around 1985-1986 when Soviets had already begun the large-scale withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan. Initially Stinger had some effect (several Su-25 losses in November were probably of greatest importance) and there was a surge in lost airframes, but Soviets quickly adapted and introduced different attack patterns, so the things went back to relative normal. Only a handful of Soviet losses came from Strela and at least one from Redeye. Blowpipe was also delivered in 1986 but with its MCLOS guidance requiring highly skilled operator, it was even less effective, most likely scoring no kills. That same missile was also used in Falklands, on which the official report stated that of the 95 missiles fired, only 9 managed to destroy their targets and these were slow flying planes and helicopters. A later report indicated that only 1 kill could be attributed to Blowpipe. Another example is Yom Kippur war, where in best case only 3% missiles killed their targets, while the lower end projection would suggest only 1,3% chance of kill. Arguably, statistics can be misleading as we don't know how many of those missiles were fired properly (e.g within the engagement envelope, and percentage of helicopters was lower) but still it illustrates that manufacturer claims tend to be significantly higher than actual combat performance. In Armored Brigade some things are abstracted at the moment (such as evasive manuevers, EW, chaff, flares etc.) but kill chance of missiles tend to be quite realistic in my opinion (and it is often luck dependand like in real war).

Lowlaner2012 -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 11:34:01 AM)
+1 nikolas93TS I played a scenario last night, I had 2 cobras, they managed to fire off a few TOWs before one was shot down and the other was chased off the map... One thing I would hate to see is AA/Sams become so powerful that helos and fixed winged become useless... For me like nikolas93TS I think the balance is just about right and is for the most part realistic... Cheers

nikolas93TS -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 12:24:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kevinkin The AI seems to bring their choppers in ASAP and can ruin your day at the outset to the battle. I put AA up with the lead units but have been consistently losing 3-5 of the point units. I have been planning for this initial loss in Advance type battles for a few days now. It might be my OOBs are too small and the chopper sections are having a disportionate affect on the battle. Kevin In June 1972, Phase IV of the "Joint US-German-Canadian Attack Helicopter Evaluation" was conducted near the town of Ansbach, West Germany, and came to be known as the "Ansbach Trials". The test was designed to determine how well attack helicopters would fare in a European environment against attacking enemy armor, including the type of anti-aircraft weapons typically employed by the Soviet forces. The results of the test were as follows: 18 enemy tracked vehicles destroyed for each attack helicopter lost, or 13:1 if the scout helicopter casualties are recorded. What many tend to forget (and, in all honesty, it was not widely publicized) is that US pilots killed only 8.6 aggressors per anti-armor helicopter lost, whereas the combined record of the German and Canadian pilots was 41.7 aggressors killed per helicopter lost. Since the US pilots were at least as proficient in the AH-lG Cobra as their NATO counterparts, and as a group had far more flight hours recorded in the aircraft, what caused this startling difference? The report of the evaluation explains it this way: "The German and Canadian pilots ... appeared to have a better appreciation of the European terrain and of the application of nap-of-the-earth flight techniques, generally selected better firing positions, and had a better grasp of the tactical situation and likely aggressor actions. But in general, if used well, helicopters can be a very powerful asset indeed.

kevinkins -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 12:35:23 PM)
Thank for posting that. I need to do some research i.e. what would be the "concentration" of attack choppers on the battlefield in order to make sure their effectiveness is balanced. My poor reinforced company team always seems to get the wrath of the Hinds. But of course, as the designer, I don't have to include them all the time [:D] Kevin

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 3:00:23 PM)
quote: +1 nikolas93TS I played a scenario last night, I had 2 cobras, they managed to fire off a few TOWs before one was shot down and the other was chased off the map... One thing I would hate to see is AA/Sams become so powerful that helos and fixed winged become useless... For me like nikolas93TS I think the balance is just about right and is for the most part realistic... Cheers thats interesting... because ive lost more strela-10`s to cobras than cobras to AA units... quote: A case in point is Afghanistan where from 1982 to 1987 there were 1285 MANPADS launches for 63 kills, mostly transport helicopters (although CIA at certain point claimed 70% success rate). When we consider that, for example, 181st Independent Helicopter Regiment alone (operating Mi-6/Mi-8/Mi-24) conducted an astonishing 120 440 sorties (and they were not the only unit) from December 1979 to August 1988, both number of launches and kills sounds even less impressive. In particular Stinger role is fairly overhyped in public imagination, as first generation MANPADS (FIM-43 Redeye and mostly Egyptian SA-7b) showed up in Mujaheddin hands long before the Stinger, which arrived around 1985-1986 when Soviets had already begun the large-scale withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan. Initially Stinger had some effect (several Su-25 losses in November were probably of greatest importance) and there was a surge in lost airframes, but Soviets quickly adapted and introduced different attack patterns, so the things went back to relative normal. Only a handful of Soviet losses came from Strela and at least one from Redeye. Blowpipe was also delivered in 1986 but with its MCLOS guidance requiring highly skilled operator, it was even less effective, most likely scoring no kills. That same missile was also used in Falklands, on which the official report stated that of the 95 missiles fired, only 9 managed to destroy their targets and these were slow flying planes and helicopters. A later report indicated that only 1 kill could be attributed to Blowpipe. Another example is Yom Kippur war, where in best case only 3% missiles killed their targets, while the lower end projection would suggest only 1,3% chance of kill. Arguably, statistics can be misleading as we don't know how many of those missiles were fired properly (e.g within the engagement envelope, and percentage of helicopters was lower) but still it illustrates that manufacturer claims tend to be significantly higher than actual combat performance. In Armored Brigade some things are abstracted at the moment (such as evasive manuevers, EW, chaff, flares etc.) but kill chance of missiles tend to be quite realistic in my opinion (and it is often luck dependand like in real war). an interesting statistic... 1285 MANPADS launches and 63 helicopter hits... what about aircraft though? and what of extraneous factors such as mishandling? what about firing range? also for the yom kippur war wasnt AA missile technology at the time considered inaccurate? i remember reading that at the time of the vietnam war... which ended around 2 years before the yom kippur war that F4s would expend their entire missile load on the Mig21 fishbed... miss and be slaughtered by the cannon armed MiG21s since the F4 at the time lacked the vulcan... also it seems that 3% statistic seems more like a vs aircraft argument over a vs helicopter argument... helicopters after all cant maneuver as well as aircraft... it also doesnt state the firing range and other extraneous factors... regardless i do agree with the statistic... aircraft are hard to kill...they can after all perform rapid maneuvers and have ECM/flares/chaff but helicopters? the statistic provided isnt evidence enough to conclude performance vs helos atm

Lowlaner2012 -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 3:16:59 PM)
Hey man, I can only post what Ive seen in game, I'm not making this stuff up :-)

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 3:27:49 PM)
well honestly i dont want AA to obsolete helicopters or anything... but at the very least id like my 2xstrela-10 to be able to knock out a helicopter that`s spotted without dying to a TOW... the situation was interesting as the cobra was simply hovering over the battlefield when i fired my first strela volley... no damage done on the first try... the cobra then started aiming at my strela but i managed to get off another volley... still no damage... the cobra then shot its tow and killed 1 strela... the last strela managed to ward it off however... but not kill it helicopters should be powerful... but not counter their counters

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 3:50:10 PM)
ahh the ansbach trials... AA technology was at its infancy during 72... the problem was as stated during the ansbach trials the cobra only had a 3 foot cross sectional area... as a result the ability to see the cobra no less fire at it was extremely limited... there were cases where the cobra was spotted by the "warsaw pact" forces but there was little that they could do at the maximum reach of the TOW missile... a battle against the improved strela-10 however would spell death for the cobra as the improved detector of the strela 10 would outrange the TOW... granted it would only be true if AA assets like the tunguska or the tor or strela 10 were present... ingame however the opposite is true since apprently the cobra can kill a strela or a tunguska with impunity...

noooooo -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 4:02:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gbem well honestly i dont want AA to obsolete helicopters or anything... but at the very least id like my 2xstrela-10 to be able to knock out a helicopter that`s spotted without dying to a TOW... the situation was interesting as the cobra was simply hovering over the battlefield when i fired my first strela volley... no damage done on the first try... the cobra then started aiming at my strela but i managed to get off another volley... still no damage... the cobra then shot its tow and killed 1 strela... the last strela managed to ward it off however... but not kill it helicopters should be powerful... but not counter their counters One thing to keep in mind is that from what I can tell it doesn't really matter whether you actually catastrophically destroy the helicopter or not. As long as you hit (and do any damage) the helicopter they will leave and won't be able to come back (their status becomes N/A) so you effectively mission killed them. But yeah in an actual fight between purely 2 helicopters vs 2 AA units it seems helicopters come out on top more often than not. I think it's because of their faster aiming speed on their weapons and their better spotting ability so they're seeing the AA earlier and shooting earlier. However, I also did test it in the open desert terrain map and without any other units around so it's hardly a good representation of an actual battlefield.

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 4:09:00 PM)
quote: But yeah in an actual fight between purely 2 helicopters vs 2 AA units it seems helicopters come out on top more often than not. I think it's because of their faster aiming speed on their weapons and their better spotting ability so they're seeing the AA earlier and shooting earlier. However, I also did test it in the open desert terrain map and without any other units around so it's hardly a good representation of an actual battlefield. and this is what i find ridiculous... the ansbach trials were done with 1972 technology... AA technology was still young at this era and nowhere near as advanced as the tunguska tor or strela 10.... and yet a 1972 cobra can win in a straight up fight vs a tunguska tor or strela....

nikolas93TS -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 4:25:08 PM)
63 include both helicopter and aircraft. Indeed, MANPADS performance increased but so did helicopter techniques, countermeasures etc. I wrote down that statistics can be misleading, but I prefer at least some sources over no sources. While I agree Tunguska can be buffed (probably should be) I like suggestions to be backed up with sources rather than opinions or "gut feeling". Also, I haven't noticed Strela-10 really impacted any conflict in a significant manner in any conflict it was used over the last four decades or so.

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 4:38:30 PM)
here it states that the tanks could not engage at the maximum range of the tow resulting into helicopter victories as per the tunguska outranging the TOW here quote: Tunguska-M used the 9M311 missile with a range of 8 km as for the strela wikipedia quotes janes but the source can no longer be retrieved... regardless it has a 5km operational range which beats the 3750 of the tow

CapnDarwin -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 5:15:47 PM)
Nikolas, at the end of the day, you are dead on target that missiles even into the 90s in combat situations are a low probability hit. The critical aspects of the engagement are not even being brought to the discussion. First off, is the weapon deployed properly? Is the shot within lethal envelope? Did the shooter have a clean shot? Was the shooter under any stress? Next important factor is the target aircraft. Does the pilot see the shot? If so, chance of a hit goes down assuming some reaction time. Are decoys and jamming in use? Another high degrading factor. Stick with real world data like you are and the rest will work out. Like our game, you have a dataset that players can edit to better suit their numbers or beliefs. Great game and great developer support.

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 5:23:50 PM)
^well it hasnt been tested yet... but i dont think its realistic to have a cobra with a TOW destroy a strela 10 or tunguska soo easily and consistently... after all if it were that easy SEAD would never have been developed as a countermeasure against AA... this statement is a hunch not a fact as there are no statistics ive found of 80s/90s missile kill probability against helicopters alone... and have no recorded instance of an aircraft or a helicopter engaging AA and knocking the AA out

gbem -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 5:39:32 PM)
that reminds me... will IADS (heavy AAM) and SEAD (antiradar) be introduced or are planned to be introduced in the game?

noooooo -> RE: helicopters too resistant to SAM fire (11/30/2018 5:50:01 PM)
I feel like those are far too beyond the scope of the game. The game's maximum distance map size is 15x15km and things like SEAD would only make sense if they're firing off map.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.78125