Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

OK, here's what we have in some of the OOB's I've checked :

Egypt OOB-1
Imp HAWK ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot= 4 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
HAWK IIIP ACC=150 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot= 3 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
Patriot ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 Sabot= 4 Range=255 EW=9 FC=120 RF=0

Israel OOB-4
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot= 4 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot= 4 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
HAWK IIIP ACC=150 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot= 3 Range=255 EW=8 FC=100 RF=0
Patriot ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 Sabot= 4 Range=255 EW=9 FC=120 RF=0

Japan OOB-5
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=0 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=14 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=130 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=12 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0

France OOB-6
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=14 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=130 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=12 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0

Jordan OOB-9
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=14 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=12 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
Patriot ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 Sabot=30 Range=255 EW=9 FC=120 RF=0

US Army OOB-12
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=0 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=14 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=130 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=12 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
Patriot ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 Sabot=30 Range=255 EW=9 FC=120 RF=0

US Marines OOB-13
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=0 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=14 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=130 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=12 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
Patriot ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 Sabot=30 Range=255 EW=9 FC=120 RF=4

Now looking at this site
Raytheon MIM-23 HAWK

We see the origional HAWK had a 54kg warhead and the Improved a 74kg one. Yet the OOB's don't show any improvement.

So - I'm VERY confused here.

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

Funny you should raise that issue, I've been bumping on the same for a couple of days. Wait until you factor in the equivalent Russian SAMs which have wildly varying HE values for similar warheads, or reverse. Not even mentioning the accuracy scaling where the western bias is way larger than for ATGMs... that's another matter.

As regards the differences between OOBs, this is simply because different OOBs have been created and updated at different times by different persons, sometimes with different views on the values to give, and no one has time to check up all the OOBs and review and compare all these figures, and as importantly, no one would agree on a common value.

Thing is, there is no other scale to which we could relate the SAM HEK/WHS values.The class-11 bombs and the artillery won't work because the weight-to-payload ratio is in a different league (around 10% explosive for iron shells against 30-50% for SAMs)

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

Western bias?
I suppose it could just be me but from what I've seen US AA weapons (gun and missile) are at best half as accurate as Soviet ones. I rarely see a hit probability over 15-20% for the US and under 50% for the Soviets.
Add to that the warhead issue it tends to make US anti-aircraft weapons not worth the purchase cost. They can't hit anything and if by chance they do at best they scratch the paint 90% of the time.

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

Which period would that be in, that Soviet AA weapons are far more accurate than US equivalents?
Just to take an example, you mentioned the HAWK here. Note how the baseline HAWK (MIM-23A, IOC 1960) has an accuracy of 100 and EW of 5, while the S-125 Neva aka SA-3 Goa has an accuracy of 40 and EW of 3. As far as I can tell, both systems are broadly comparable, with accordingly a possible advantage to the HAWK in terms of guidance and propulsion. Not enough to give it the accuracy level of a Stinger, and give the improved 70s solid-state models the same accuracy as a Patriot.
As I said, there's the same issue with ATGMs, but I can live with a Konkurs at 80 acc and a TOW-1 at 90.

Now granted, at more recent dates the Russian material takes the lead to some extent, but maybe that's because the US OOB doesn't feature any SAM newer than the late 80s while the Russian developments are better modeled.
And as far as I have seen, SAMs are pretty much useless against modern aircraft in any case (I mean, any). That's probably a side-effect of EW scaling, so I think it could be worked out.

P.S. just running a test scenario with a selection of Russian aircraft against my best CWM French SAMs. It took 6 launches and 3 hits from 2 Aster-15 launchers (accuracy 180, EW 25) to down one MiG-1.42 with 20 EW. The 1990-top-range Crotale-NG with 10 EW and 150 accuracy didn't even get a chance above 5%.

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

S-125 Neva SAM (aka SA-3) with missile V-600P - should have in 1961 accuracy 50 and EW=4 HE=60 FC=100 RANGE=120-255

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

OK, here are the modified values I've come up with for my OOB rebuild.

Redeye...............(1/67-1/81).....EW=2 Acc=90 Whd=4 HEP=3 HEK=3 SabotRange=12 WpnRange=66
Stinger B............(2/81-12/89)....EW=3 Acc=100 Whd=5 HEP=4 HEK=4 SabotRange=4 WpnRange=96
Stinger D...........(1/90-12/101)...EW=4 Acc=110 Whd=5 HEP=5 HEK=5 SabotRange=4 WpnRange=96
Stinger E..........(1/102-12/120)..EW=5 Acc=120 Whd=5 HEP=6 HEK=6 SabotRange=2 WpnRange=100
SLAMRAM.......(1/105-12/120)..EW=7 Acc=130 Whd=10 HEP=18 HEK=18 SabotRange=12 WpnRange=240
Nike Hercules.(1/58-12/75)......EW=4 Acc=84 Whd=30 HEP=255 HEK=255 SabotRange=18 WpnRange=255
HAWK..............(1/60-12/72).....EW=5 Acc=100 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 SabotRange=14 WpnRange=255
HAWK(imp).....(1/73-12/82)......EW=7 Acc=140 Whd=19 HEP=63 HEK=63 SabotRange=12 WpnRange=255
HAWK(pip)......(1/83-12/91)......EW=8 Acc=150 Whd=19 HEP=63 HEK=63 SabotRange=10 WpnRange=255
Patriot..............(1/92-12/120).....EW=9 Acc=160 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 SabotRange=30 WpnRange=255

Thoughts ?

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

Suhiir, did you rerun your HE values since last time we went over the MANPADS issue?
Since that point, my Stinger all have 5-2-5 as WHS-HEP-HEK. BTW where did you get that Stinger warhead efficiency should rise over the years?

Regarding the accuracy ratings, I have stuck to the following (The early Stinger being my 100 benchmark model for comparison purposes):
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>Model Name Acc. WHS HEP HEK MinRange MaxRange EW
FIM-43 Redeye 60 4 2 3 ??? 90 0
FIM-92A Stinger 100 5 2 5 4 80 2
FIM-92B Stinger 100 5 2 5 4 96 3
FIM-92C Stinger-RMP 110 5 2 5 4 96 5
FIM-92E/F/H Stinger-RMP Block1 120 5 2 5 4 120 8
FIM-92J (?) Stinger-RMP Block2 135 5 2 5 4 160 12</pre><hr />
Regarding the heavier SAMs, as I said, the warhead scale is fuzzier. For now I have settled for 1kg -&gt; 1HEK and WHS=3.5+M(wh)/3. Gives the following, not tested yet or expanded to other countries:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>Model Name Acc. WHS HEP HEK MinRange MaxRange EW
MIM-23 HAWK 80 22 5 54 40 203 3
MIM-23B I-HAWK 90 28 5 74 30 207 6
MIM-23C HAWK-III 105 28 5 74 30 209 10
MIM-104A Patriot 125 32 5 91 160 214 9
MIM-104C PAC-2 150 32 10 84 60 234 10
MIM-104D PAC-2/GEM 150 32 10 84 60 234 15
MIM-104E PAC-2/GEM+ 165 32 10 84 60 234 18
MIM-104M (?) PAC-3 180 32 70 40 60 (?) 202 20</pre><hr />Tell me if you find more workable scales for HE and acc/EW values.

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

Now granted, at more recent dates the Russian material takes the lead to some extent, but maybe that's because the US OOB doesn't feature any SAM newer than the late 80s while the Russian developments are better modeled.

There's been a lot of Patriot improvements like:

MIM-104A : Original Production

MIM-104B: Late 1980s. Also known as the SOJC (Standoff Jammer Countermeasures) missile and uses a modified guidance and navigation hardware. The MIM-104B adds a surface-to-surface capability against ground-based radar jamming sources to the Patriot system. The missile can fly an optimized (lofted) trajectory towards the jammer, and use its seeker to select the strongest emitter for terminal homing. The anti-aircraft/anti-missile capability is the same as for the MIM-104A.

MIM-104C: 1990: The PAC-2 upgrade includes further software changes, and an improved MIM-104C missile. The MIM-104C has a blast-fragmentation warhead with larger fragments (45 g compared to 2 g for the MIM-104A/B warhead) to increase lethality against ballistic missile warheads. It also has a new pulse-doppler proximity fuze with two beams, a narrow one for missiles, and a broader one for slower aircraft targets.

MIM-104D: (PAC-2/GEM) 1994: It has a seeker with better performance against low-RCS targets, and an improved fuze against high-speed ballistic missiles.

MIM-104E: (PAC-2/GEM+) 2002: The upgrade consists of a new low-noise front end to increase seeker sensitivity (improving acquisition and tracking of small RCS targets) and a modernized fuzing system for better performance against ballistic missile targets. Reliability of the GEM+ missile is also improved by replacement of older components with new technology.

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

Yeah, I done some more looking at what real data I could find and came up with some new values. Why I was tossing them out to see what folks thought.

That, it turns out was a mistake on my part.
I'd thought the FIM-92A had a 1 kg warhead and the B+ a 3 kg one. Further (and better) research shows they have the same warhead, tho better fusing on the latter models, hence the slight increase in HEP-HEK.

Part of my problem is my OOB rebuild of the USMC is that it's intended to be compatible with the default OOB's. Thus I'm sorta stuck using the default values as a baseline
Default SA-7 (9M32 Strela-2) values are EW=1, Acc=60, WHS=4, HEP=2, HEK=2
Default FIM-43 values are EW=2, Acc=70, WHS=4, HEP=3, HEK=3
I'd found numerous indications the FIM-43 was considerably more accurate then the SA-7 so gave it a 50% accuracy increase, perhaps 25% would be more reasonable (Acc=75).
So while your values are based on math mine are based on scientific wild-***-guesswork within a preset framework *chuckles*

I'd be very inclined to accept your values here with a couple exceptions.
I note your MM-23 is HEP=54 HEK=40 and your MM-23B HEP=74 HEK=30. I assume the HEP 54 to 74 increase is based on the warhead being increased from 54 to 74 kg. Why does the HEK go down with the larger warhead?
Since these are all medium range SAM's (range 25ish km) they all have a default MaxRange of 255 since apparently this is the "can shoot anywhere on the map" rating.
Again, I'm "stuck" with default OOB values for EW and such as a minimum.
As near as I can figure default values are WHS = warhead mass in kg/3. HEP = warhead mass in kg. HEK = warhead mass in kg. All of the above modified upwards based on some indication the warhead is more effective then normal.
As to a "better" scale I'm sure we could come up with one, but unless we plan to modify every OOB - why ?

Data I've found :

FIM-92A 1981 passive IR homing Range 4,000 m
FIM-92B 1983 Stinger-POST passive IR/UV homing Range 4,800 m
FIM-92C 1989 Stinger-RMP Range
FIM-92D 1995 upgraded FIM-92C with improved countermeasures
FIM-92E 1995 Stinger-RMP Block I
FIM-92F 2001 upgraded FIM-92E with improved countermeasures
FIM-92G 2002 upgraded FIM-92D with improved countermeasures
FIM-92H ???? FIM-92D upgraded to RMP Block I standard

The Stinger-RMP Block II (1996, also known as Advanced Stinger) replaces the IR seeker with an FPA (Focal Plane Array) IIR (Imaging Infrared) seeker, which increases detection range and accuracy especially in high clutter and countermeasures environments. The higher detection range increases the effective range to the Stinger missile's maximum range of 7,600 m. Production was scheduled for 2004, but the project was canceled in 2002

The basic Stinger (FIM-92A) is an infrared (IR) reticle-scan analog system using discrete component signal processing. The Stinger-POST (FIM-92B) employs an IR/UV dual detector (the cooled two-color, infrared-ultraviolet detector is highly resistant to IR countermeasures), rosette-pattern image scanning, and digital microprocessor-based signal processing. Advanced features include improved acquisition, false target rejection, and additional countermeasures capabilities. The Stinger-RMP (FIM-92C) adds additional microprocessor power, external software reprogramability allowed upgrades without costly retrofit as the threat evolved, and is highly countermeasures resistant. Stinger Block I (FIM-92E) added a roll sensor, a ring laser gyro eliminates the need to super elevate prior to firing, an improved computer processor and memory, improved countermeasures capabilities (IRCCM), increased terminal accuracy.

The 3 kg (6.6 lb) blast-fragmentation warhead consists of 1 (or possibly 1.2) kg of high explosives encased in a pyrophoric titanium case to ensure that the desired blast/fragmentation effect is achieved, and is equipped with both a proximity and time-delayed impact fuze. As the weapon nears its target the seeker head activates its Target Adaptive Guidance (TAG), this guidance logic will modify its trajectory away from the exhaust plume towards a vulnerable area of the target (e.g. the cockpit).

Notes :

FIM-43 Redeye Warhead - M222, 1.06 kg blast-fragmentation

Armed with SA-7 Strelas, the Arab forces in the Yom Kippur war brought down no less than twelve Israeli aircraft. Another eighteen were hit by this heat-seeking missile but were able to regain their home base owing to the poor terminal effect of the missile head.

Strela-2 (SA-7a): Is among the least sophisticated and most highly proliferated MANPAD. Strela-2s can engage aircraft only when launched from behind the targeted aircraft. Its infrared (IR) seeker - the device the missile uses to identify its target - homes in on the infrared energy emission of the aircraft. The seeker can be fooled by simple countermeasures such as flares. The missile's small 1.17 kg warhead detonates upon impact with the target.

Strela-2M (SA-7b): The Strela-2M was developed shortly after the first Strela to address several of its shortcomings. Improvements in the guidance system allows the missile to engage planes and helicopters head-on, unless the aircraft is flying faster than 540 km/h.

Strela-3 (SA-14): The SA-14 was accepted into Soviet service in 1974. Improvements to the missile's IR seeker reduce the effectiveness of flares as decoys and allow the user to engage jet aircraft head-on. The SA-14 also features a larger, more lethal warhead (1.8 kg) and a launching mechanism that prevents the user from shooting at targets outside of its range.

Igla-1 (SA-16) and Igla (SA-18): Igla missiles have warheads that are smaller (1.17 kg with 390 g explosive) but more lethal than the Strela's, and their warheads are equipped with both a proximity and an impact fuse. The missile's IR-seeker is specifically designed to distinguish between countermeasures (such as flares) and the targeted aircraft. Minimum range 800 m.

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

Same thing as with some Igla variants then? That'll award them +1HEK and +1HEP from the 92C onwards. Thanks for the update!Math? Me? Which math? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif
Rest assured that all my accuracy and EW figures are 90% wild-*** guesses as well, but being fuzzy on this is easy because no one know how it works. Actual HE weight and warhead type and fuzing are a big bit more accurate, so if I can't set up a proper scale related to real-life data, people are bound to complain (I know I would)...Mmh, i think you misread my minimal (sabot) range figures for HEK. Did I write them in the wrong order?Regarding that, I've tried scaling the SAM ranges offmap relatively to each other. Thing is, 200 is "one step off the map" and 255 is "farther than anything else offmap" as far as I understand it, so I don't see why there shouldn't be a real rating for that as well. As far as I can tell, it competes with aircraft standoff weapon ranges in cases of standoff attack, so both SAMs and ASMs should be ranged together, to make sure you don't have the same standoff capabilities in a HAWK and a SA-5, and that anything with more legs than a GBU doesn't have the potential to out-range a medium area SAM.
Right now my range scale is linear, which explains the short range of the HAWKs, but I'll probably try out a logarithmic scale or something.Cold War mod, remember? I do plan to modify every OOB. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I'll take it for granted on the Redeye. It probably deserves a bit more accuracy than the baseline Strela-2, though we could debate for days about the relation between better operational results, inbuilt accuracy, operational use, training level... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
I'll have to iron out my Igla family as well, now that you mention it. I'll tell you what comes of it.

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

Strela-2 - should have following characteristics - 9M32, ACC=50, EW=1, HE=2, RANGE=16-68
Strela-3 - should have following characteristics - 9M36, ACC=80, EW=2, HE=2, RANGE=10-80
Igla-1 and Igla - should have following characteristics - 9M313, ACC=118, EW=3, HE=2, RANGE=10-104
Igla-N - should have following characteristics - ACC=126, EW=3, HE=4, RANGE=10-104

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

Kramax, maybe you can enlighten me a bit on the various Igla models? I'm using the 9M39 Igla, 9M313 Igla-1, 9M313 Igla-1E, 9M313M Igla-1M and 9M342 Igla-S for now.
I'm particularly unsure about the export Igla versions, but here are my values anyway:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>Model Name Acc. WHS HEP HEK MinRange MaxRange EW
9M32 Strela-2 60 4 2 3 16 68 0
9M32M Strela-2M 67 4 2 3 16 84 1
9M36 Strela-3 85 4 2 3 11 90 2
9M39 Igla 108 4 2 5 10 104 7
9M313 Igla-1 96 4 2 5 10 104 4
9M313 Igla-1E 90 4 2 3 10 104 4
9M313M Igla-1M 110 4 2 5 10 110 6
9M342 Igla-S 125 5 4 6 7 120 10</pre><hr />Mainly quite close to yours, except for some of the Igla-1. I assumed the 1E to be early export variant with low-grade electronics and no fuel fuzing module, and the -1M to be a 90s export upgrade, dunno if that's worth anything.

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

You're right, I misread your table, let's hear it for 2 AM posting !
What I'd intended to say was - How did you come up with your HEP values? Apparently you've based the HEK value on the warhead weight in kg.

The problem is the 200+ range values are used for off-map artillery, a 155 out-ranges a 105.
The SAM systems are all on-map units, thus wind up using the MaxRange as the maximum firing range and the SabotRange as the minimum. So for example your Patriot with a MinRange of 160 and MaxRange of 214 won't even fire on a map smaller then 160 X Whatever and will only fire at targets between 160-214 on any larger map.
This is one of those cases where we run face first into the game engine limitations (and don't misunderstand, I'm NOT complaining about them, just acknowledging they exist and we sometimes have to work around them).

One point for Plasma !
While you plan to "fix" every OOB I just want to add some accuracy to OOB #13 USMC and leave it compatible with the default ones. I'm trusting the Cost Calculator to do as it's intended and create new unit costs to reflect the changes in weapons, manpower, ammo loads, etc.

I fully realize my changes will never be accepted as a new default OOB because I'm not using certain set-in-stone default values.
Example :
My standard infantry squad armed with M16's has an ammo loadout of 105 vs the default 80-90. This increased ammo load reflects Marine doctrine and training, Aimed Fire. So the Marines will tend take a bit longer to go thru the same amount of ammo then the Army, hence the Army gets 90 and my Marines 105. I chose 105 because average rifleman carries 7 X 30 round magazines (210 rounds) and 105 just happens to be half of that and slightly more then the game default 90 shot ammo load.

Actually I've come up with what seems to work surprisingly well as a way to determine operational accuracy VS manufacturer claims.
Cut it in half. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

PlasmaKrab
----------------
Hello.
You could give links to your sources of the information on missiles Strela, Igla etc...???
Best regards

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

Kramax,
Some sources I use on Russian SAMs:
Waffnen der Welt, good listing of lots of things, not much detail.
Encyclopedia Astronautica, same problem except for few items.
Rosoboroneksport, official version of the recent stuff.
Vestnik's PVO Herald, most complete source available, most of it in Russian.
Do you have something more in English, or that you can translate?

Suhiir,
Regarding HEP values: guesswork!
Basically I have one range of values for HE-Frag (2 to 6 depending on warhead size and fragment weight), one for continuous-rod (generally 10), and then my imagination and rough ATGM-based calculations for HEAT and APHE missiles.
There are also bonus points for impact fusing, directed fragmentation and smart fusing.

Off-map ranges only have to relate to AGMs in my opinion. You won't find artillery interacting with SAMs and planes.
So I agree that the behavior of long-range SAMs on small maps is somewhat warped, but that'll teach you to waste 2000 points on a Patriot battery on a small map! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Anyhow long range SAMs aren't supposed to take on low-flying CAS planes or helos, even IRL. In game terms, they are meant to intercept planes attacking standoff, which is why I insisted on the SAM and AGM ranges being linked.
I don't see where this is a real disadvantage, since air-launched weapons are bound to suffer the same limitations.
Remember: always protect your long-range AA assets with SHORADS of some kind! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

PlasmaKrab
------------------
In the first and in the second source I have not found the information on probability of defeat of the purpose in the sources resulted by you one missile. Rosoboronexport - gives data on export to the weapon and on its data it is impossible to speak about accuracy of our arms objectively. PVO-GUNS. RU - a good site, the data I have written I use data of it and more one Russian-speaking site. If you used for the formula of accuracy of our missiles data of site PVO-GUNS.RU - why then my and your data differ?

sorry for my bad English

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

I think there's some confusion regarding the Igla variants.
As far as I know it goes like this:
-9M39 Igla is the "final" variant, IOC 1983, with the definitive seeker and fuel fusing charge. I've modelled this one slightly better than the FIM-92A in accuracy and significantly in EW due to dual-mode (IR and UV) seeker mostly.

-9M313 Igla-1 is the "interim" variant, IOC 1981, with less advanced seeker, fuel fuzing charge as well. I've made this one slightly inferior to the Stingers but well above the Strela-3. These two versions have equal range and HE values, right?

Then it gets weird:
-9M313 Igla-1E should be the export variant. I'm not sure about the name or designation. This is apparently a 9M313 without the IFF and the fuel charge. I considered it had an less-capable seeker as the 9M313, but it looks like I was wrong.
So the only difference with the 9M313 above should be less HEK, right?

-9M313M (?) Igla-M (?) is apparently similar to the Igla-E above, except maybe for the IFF. No big deal here.

-What I was considering Igla-M in my previous post should have another name. It is supposed to be an improved Igla-1, still inferior to the Igla-S. Maybe I should call it Igla-1S?

-All I have for the Igla-N is the following: heavier warhead, lower range.
I see why you gave it a higher HEK, but why better accuracy and same range?
Anyway I haven't modeled this one as I don't know if it is produced at all.

-9M342 Igla-S is a new development based on the 9M39 Igla, and largely superior to all previous models. Is that the one you called Igla-N?

Re: Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies
 

Hello PlasmaKrab.

Strela-2 - 9M32 with probability of defeat of object 0.25 on to catch up courses - in game ACC=50.
Strela-3 - 9M36 probability of defeat of object 0.40 - in game ACC=80
On missile Igla-series. Jobs on missile creation 9M313 and 9M39 were conducted by the Soviet designers simultaneously.
Igla-1 - 1981 9M313 with probability of defeat maximum on passers and to catch up courses 0.59 - in game ACC=118
Igla - 1983 9M39 more powerful head part. ACC=118
Igla-N - 1991 upgrade 9M39 with more powerful head part and new system of prompting on the purpose with probability of defeat on passers and to catch up courses - maximum 0.63 - in game ACC=126
Igla-S - 2002 presumable name of a missile 9M338 the new head part with two photo-receivers, also at the same weight as well as Igla - is considerably increased capacity of explosive, the new reusable sight is used. Exact data for it are not present, it is spoken that several times more precisely and more powerfully usual Igla. I have put ACC=150 HE=6 or 8.
These rockets are in the Russian army, other variants - is possible for export.

Yours faithfully.