Lethality of SAMs

Wdll · #1 March 17th, 2008, 06:17 PM

I mostly play as Greece and there are no AAA guns that don't need a truck, so I find them a bit useless. Combined with the lower stats of the SAM batteries and mobile SAMs.

Then again i "refuse" to use any type of artillery that requires a seperate truck.

The few times that I used mobile AAA guns (playing PBEM as Syria for example) they were very bad at getting hit, but also very good at hitting enemy helicopters and also forcing the enemy to go out of their way to avoid getting detected by them.

I do find the mobile SAMs not being very accurate against modern planes so I find myself in a 12000 points game to have 5 mobile SAMs and 4 Inf-Stinger. I don't like having so many, but cluster bombs are a ....to deal with.

PlasmaKrab · #2 March 24th, 2008, 06:28 AM

Regarding inf-SAMs, I have been surprised to find out that even the most advanced MANPADS were hardly even a nuisance against any plane better than a first-generation F-16. And I'm talking about missiles in the range of a FIM-92J or Igla-S or even better fictional stuff.
It looks like the EW scaling doesn't work exactly the same way on planes and AA, or maybe it's the absence of radar FC that does it. But that's another matter.

Basically, I find that buying a cheap enough MANPADS platoon or AA gun section provides less of a kill capability than a no-entry zone for enemy helicopters for a few turns. The nuisance is enhanced by the fact that it calls up precious enemy arty support to silence those AA units.

But maybe I should play less high-tech

Sarunas · #3 March 25th, 2008, 07:15 AM

Just lost a Jaguar in 1979 (48 damage points, I guess the pilot was pulverised...) to some Soviet standoff system (Gainful?).

DRG · #4 March 25th, 2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

PlasmaKrab said:
Regarding inf-SAMs, I have been surprised to find out that even the most advanced MANPADS were hardly even a nuisance against any plane better than a first-generation F-16.

If you find any hard evidence that the "advanced" MANPADS are anything BUT a nuisance to the more "modern" aircraft let us know. We think they are being modelled realistically.

Don

PanzerBob · #5 April 2nd, 2008, 08:53 PM

IIRC Reports I've read over the years from pilots, fixed and non-fixed wing,(Mudmovers in particular) in modern hot zones, AAA is their biggest fear. (Even the unguided stuff as it has nothing to jam or give it away.) Transport pilots fear everything. All based on the armour and CM their craft carry plus it's size and nibblness. A good pilot with capable craft obviously has much better odds underfire. Missions as well are planned to avoid anti-air defences as well.

As far as damage taken some A10's have taken some what looks to be major damage and completed their missions.
We must remember as combat aircraft they can take some punishment, it's their nature.

IMHO

mr_clark · #6 April 8th, 2008, 05:27 PM

I think after the last couple of changes with EW etc SAM and AAA is very well modeled in game. I play mainly modern games (2000s) and I now "love" that an incoming SU-25 strike doesn't get killed by the loads of MANPADS the AI buys...

And I don't think area SAMs are ineffective. Especially the modern russian/soviet systems like SA-10 or SA-11 are quite good at blowing up some nasty A-10 or F-16 coming in to haras a peacefull tank company...

PanzerBob · #7 April 11th, 2008, 01:50 AM

Yes an airstrike against an hitech enemy without SEAD assistance is a surefire way to make expensive smoking holes in the ground.

Wdll · #8 April 11th, 2008, 04:59 AM

So I guess I am the only one that finds SEAD more or less useless. (in game that is). Yes it could help, but if you manage to locate the source of your problems, a cluster bomb looks better to me.