Lethality of SAMs
 

How lethal are SAMs in real life? I am working on some battles to learn about TOEs of various countries, and it seems that almost every plane or helo needs to be smacked by 3-4 stingers/SA-18/ADATs/Triumf/Patiots to be KIA. Many of the hits only nick the target for a 1 pt. hit. Great to not have the bogey return, but is that what really happens. It seems the Gepards/Vulcan AA guns score bigger damage hits more frequently. I would think that the Patriot/Triumf/Rolands (with their big warheads) would swat down stuff with one hit fairly frequently.

Can someone 'splain to me?

Thanks

hveldenz

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

It is difficult to say. We have had very few discussions about it, probably because most players prefer to use AA artillery instead, given that it can be used against ground targets instead of just only air targets like nearly all SAMs.
It seems that for the most part legacy data from the old SP series is still used. Revising it is difficult because SAMs performance is complex to assess. There is not a simple benchmark comparable to the "RHA equivalent" which is used for tanks armor and antitank weapons.

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

As far as I know most sams are not meant to actually hit the target they're fired at but to explode near it and have the shrapnel from the blast do most of the damage. So the bigger warheads on sams would have a bigger impact on the chance of scoring a damaging hit than than on the actual damage amount (as the blast is more or less omnidirectional a bigger warhead means a bigger volume covered increasing hit chance but the amount of blast/shrapnel actually hitting the plane would probably not increase by as much).

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

Thanks to Narwan and Marcello. I understand that many of the SAMs are airburst devices, but I was under the impression that Stinger types were direct hits by IR tracking. I have a mental image of a Strela up the tailpipe of an A-10 engine...

Maybe my question is more what air defense will stop an airstike plane on an attack run and break it off or swat it down? I have seen SU-25 Grach's take 4-5 nicks by stingers and still lay down their ZBU's and strafe.

I guess if I were a pilot, my limit of hits would be somewhere under 4-5!

In regards to Marcello - Would actually AA be the better purchase if one knows they will have to defend against a significant number of airstrikes?

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

AFAIK, things like Strela or Igla do typically have contact/grazing fuzes. It is the bigger radar missiles that do rely more on proximity fuzes, although contact fuzes are still fitted albeit more on "if all else fails" basis.

I noted that most players seem to prefer guns because guns are dual purpose and it is better to spend points on
something that could be used against ground targets instead of specialized assets that will be useless if the adversary does not buy airstrikes.
In terms of effectiviness it is hard to tell. Personally I use mostly SAMs but that is because I play a mod that include bleeding edge tech SAMs and I am not playing against human opponents anyway. I suspect that going the gun route is the safest bet, point wise but I have never tested that.

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

I generally prefer something with AAA radar, and lots of ammo to throw about. So guns tend to win out there - missiles usually have low supply.

So - ZSU-23-4 (and these appear in 1968 or so - quite early!), Gepards etc are my favourites, and in the early years then I will make do with 40mm radar or 57mm Soviet (if available with AAA radar FC), on a hill in the deployment zone and some trucks to move at least some of them about.

If I use a missile system, it has to have the range to intercept as they arrive (so SP-rapiers, later model Geckos etc) with radar FC and >4 missiles, and ammo vehicles to hand.

The advantage of the missile system is that if it has enough range, it fires just before the plane arrives often enough, and can possibly intercept a PGM launcher. So it's worth having a section or 2 of such, but SP-AAA with radar is my close cover to my armoured columns. Longer ranged shoulder SAMs can have enough range to fire at approachers, but generally lack the sights to see through smoke etc so can have LOS blocked - a radar guided SP-SAM is a better bet IMHO.

I don't rely much on shoulder fired SAMs, though a few are a useful insurance policy. It is too much bother to keep them supplied (uses up ammo units that I'd rather use on ATGM more often than not). Can be nasty little things when there is not much ECM on the planes - e.g. 1968-72 or so. Also good if you are doing something 'commando' - if dropping a desant of infantry in his rear, add some shoulder SAM and you then have something to bother any nasty attack helos he may try to use on your commando raid. (Take in an ammo crate or 2 if possible as well)

Plus as noted above - a gun system, if no air shows up at the party can be used to bother ground targets whereas a SAM (unless it is an ADATS, which of course is usable as an ATGM if needed) - has no useful application.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

Just lost a Jaguar in 1979 (48 damage points, I guess the pilot was pulverised...) to some Soviet standoff system (Gainful?). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

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

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

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

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

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... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

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

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

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.

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

What I like about SEAD strikes is they they will usually locate any radar guided stuff automatically. And about 35% of the time take it out. If not at least I know where to drop some arty.
I find spotter drones very useful for locating the MANPAD hordes the AI usually buys. Have then run the map edge or a "V" pattern from behind your lines toward the front then back behind your lines.

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

Well like real-time Wild Weasel Missions only pay off if the enemy cooperates and flashes up his systems. It does well to check what his AD choices are. Some rather fancy stuff is only IR guided and SEAD is a waste of funds there. Of course the EN may only buy AAA and IR stuff. Now mind you if you get his AD assets to engage a RPV let's say, then yes an artillery strike is in order, like mentioned. If you have a SEAD and no HOT targets, they still are excellent follow-ups to your arty mission. I still find though if you want to bring in an A10 strike against a foe that has any radar guided systems a SEAD mission increases your chances for success. My other thought is if you have access to MRLS is to plaster all known and likely LOCs timed to rain down before your airstrike, it works as well, but like real-time NOT always.

Last opinion, major BUFF strike mopped up with A10's not much action but the game usually ends at turn 3 or 4. LOL and not too realistic either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/yawn.gif
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/airc...fo/b52drop.jpg

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

On my own OOB I increased the damage of the FIM-92 Stinger to 8 or so it has a bit more of a punch. The Stinger has a heavier explosive charge than the Strela and Ilga series anyway.

Oddly on the Russian OOB the SA-16 does 8 HE damage while their other MANPADs including the SA-18 only do 2 or 3.

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

Really?? that is odd ...maybe you best go back and have another look and tell me what weapon you're looking at because the "SA-16" in the master game has an HEK of 2 not 8

Don

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

An air defense system is like "Russian pupets" :

AA gun are use as close defense point for bigger sam unit (area sam). This weapons are really deadly for aircraft, even the mighty A10, SU25 could not really fly with big holes in the wings. On the other hand you need a really good LOS and enough time for aiming even with radar.

Shoulder sam's are not really powerful, of course a direct hit is devastating. They are used as 'mosquitos" for incoming aircraft, disturbing the pilot, force him to make evasive maneuvers (and miss the target) or worst climbing and become a prey for AA guns and area SAMs. It's a unpredictable danger for aircraft.

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

I don't know, the stingers in Afghanistan used to bite a lot on soviet aircraft.

I always thought that manpads were good mainly against helicopters, but there have been several cases where they hit other targets too. (I am not talking about the game)

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

In the current West-German OOB, a Roland I SAM (Weapon # 135) has warhead size 8 but HE penetration & kill of *only* 4 each. This is a warhead twice as large as of a MANPADS but pen&kill on MANPADS level - comparable systems like Rapier (UK OOB) (WH size only 6!) have HE pen&kill ratings of 10, SA-9 has 5 (well it's a MANPADS-derived missile AFAIK), SA-13 Strela-10 (WH size only 5) already has 10, Tunguska (WH 9) has 9, SA-8 (WH 10) has 18 (!) (data from Russian OOB) --- well, apparently there are some inconsistencies, but please don't ask me for comparisons & data (Is Roland somewhat weaker armed that other missiles?), all I got is what anybody can find on the web and those sources say no ;-).

I modded them for my German OOB as usual, as well as including newer Roland-II and III versions but I would hope that this will be included in the next patch as for PBEMs, mostly standard OOBs are used...

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

In the real world SAM's are not very lethal, unless they are compared to AA guns. IIRC, Dupuy did an analysis in his "The Arab-Israeli wars" and determined that it took over 1,000 SAM's to bring down a Jabo. I don't think he counted mission kills.
A small correction. The Larger SAM's do have directional warheads. Think of them as flying shotguns. The cone is fairly wide, 30 degrees or so. Some of the ManPADS have shaped charge warheads. They need it since the exhaust of a jet is much more violent the the explosion of a small warhead.
The inside of a jet combustion chamber is hotter and subject to more force then what can be produced by a couple of kilos of explosives.
The usual result of an up the tail pipe hit by a ManPADS is a flameout. If the jet is high enough it is possible to restart a hot engine. If you are flying a helio, you have a serious problem.
I think Dupuy is a little off, since he just looked at Egypt vs the IAF. Here is a link to the raw data for Vietnam;
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Sept2004/0904vietnam.pdf

Sucess rates vary from a high of 5.7% in '65 to 0.9% in '68.

NVA just used Large SAM's. IIRC, the Redeye was about the only ManPADS around at that time. I don't think the strella showed up intil the early 70's. I could be wrong, I'm not an equipment guy.
It takes millions of shells to bring down a Jabo on the average. Or at least that was the numbers from WW2. Not much real world useage of AAA since then. Upper limit on most SPAA systems is about 12,000 feet, so by the time you figure in slant range, the engagement cone is extremly small. Plus the Jabo has an advantage of having what ever it shoots eventually hitting the ground. Gravity ALWAYS wins. Doesn't matter what the contest is.
Modern targeting systems are good enough to get 20mm shells into a 4 hex by 4 hex area from waaay above the max range of any SPAA. So straffing runs against the AAA from beyond the range of the AAA is not only possible, but normal.
SP will not and can not model modern air power. A B-2 dropping JDAM's from 70,000 feet is untouchable by anything made by human hands. The JDAM has a CEP of 10 meters. It leaves a hole larger then that, so having an opponent wipe out a 7 hex area anytime he wants to won't be much of a game. Remember a B-2 can do this 48 times before it has to go home for more bombs. Very few people want to play a game where their part of the game consists of watching their stuff blow up. You will find out what the Taliban found out. You can't hide, you can't run, you can't fight back. All you can do is quit or die.
What I would like to see is some sort of break off test. Something along the lines of what an infantry unit takes before close assaulting a tank. Where if the Jabo starts a pass and the flak an Sam's are to heavy, the attack run is aborted. The Jabo doesn't RTB unless it is hit, but the pass isn't carried out either. That way air strikes would be something more then free points for your opponent, without dominating the game.

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

Well the AAA are not used so much to kill as to force enemy planes to avoid or approach certain corridors where they will be an easier kill for more modern and accurate air defences.

The thing about the B-2 is that as far as I know it hasn't been used in anger against any reliable enemy forces with modern and well trained air defence force. In fact if you look at all post WW2 conflicts of a world power vs someone else, there is always a huge technological difference and training between the two sides. When the differences were not that huge, say Falklands, there were major problems for the major power, or when suddently one side achieved some breakthrough in weaponry, like the afghans with the Stingers. The soviet helis were dropping like flies and some planes too.

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

Humm, any ordnance (guided or unguided) dropped from 50,000 or (worst) 70,000 feet will certainly miss anything ! GPS and LGB bombs are just iron bombs with some devices witch allow "flight" correction. It's not missiles with an engine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

Moderns area SAM are really nasty things,warhead filled with lot of high explosives, metals balls, flechettes.
Against a well equip country the 70,000 ft cruising B2 will certainly hit the ground quickly.

The Stinger in Afghanistan was really effective until the soviet mount some decoy, flare ect, stop to gently fly at medium altitude like big turkey and use tactical fly for ground operation or high altitude transit.

AAA = go away you have nothing to do here !
Light SAM = holy [censored] ! CENTCOM said theyre's NO air defense here.
Are SAM = Don't play with me if you haven't a lot of ECM's, Hawaks, Sentry ect to cover your *** http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Lethality of SAMs
 

well the S-400 is lethal enough lol. it hits an a10 and does 493 points of damage, and the biggest piece left is the engine LOL!