HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

:doh:Just found that the HARM's off-map attack was too hard to penetrate a SP-SAM or SPAA gun, even the M2A2 or chinese HQ-7 though its penetration rate was 10 :doh:
Seems ridiculous:sick:
Is it designed like that or just my bad luck?

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

Bear in mind HARM isn't armor-piercing weapon, it has a fragmentation warhead designed to cut radars to shreds.

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

Take a SEAD aircraft with PGM's as its secondary weapon. That's allot more deadly than it sounds. the ARM code attracts the ARM to the hex with the Radar in, then the PGM attacks the same hex. I've seen these attacks come in at extreme angles.

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

In the process of my redesign on the USMC OOB (#13) this is one of the things I did.
Made sure SEAD aircraft had some sort of secondary weapon to actually kill (usually) the target their ARM fired on.
Seems to work fairly well :)

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

Unless I'm stuck point wise, I always buy SEAD with secondary strike weapons, certainly increases your chances of success.

Bob out:D

HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

:( Just noticed there's no problem for the harm to hit but the chance for it to penetrate a SPAA or SPSAM was too low.
:( The munition of aircrafts couldn't be replenished, it's really annoying.
Would the unpenetrating hit destroy the AA's radar?:confused:

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

You mean the unpenetrated hit could still take apart the AA radar and decrease the AA fire control of the target unit?

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

Actaully, HARM hit will not merely decrease the target's fire control value; FC will drop to zero.

But since the target is not totally destroyed, it can still shoot albeit with very low accuracy.

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

Ok this is slightly off topic, but sometimes I've seen the message "radar shuts down", which obviously makes the missile miss almost certainly. My question here is, how long will it take for the radar to go back online. Next turn? Never? Instantly?

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

The next turn, if it is a shut-down and not a radar KO result.

So any following strike planes will get a bye from radar-directed AAA from that launcher this turn.

Cheers
Andy

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

Do you SERIOUSLY think in a game typically representing 1 1/2 - 2 hours of real time battle that aircraft should be able to fly back to distant air bases, re-arm and return the the battle ?

Or are you referring to some problem with a campaign game ?

Don

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

Just to be annoying :D

This is one of the reasons the USMC is so fond of the AV-8 Harrier.
We have mobile (a small truck convoy) refuel/rearm stations that set up in less then 15 minutes well forward on the battlefield specifically to service helo's and Harriers.
WinSMBT already allows you to rearm helo's, and I've toyed with the idea of making a Harrier using a helicopter unit type (it works, kinda, but not worth the trouble).

This is however the exception to the "rule" for aircraft.
As Don said, for any other aircraft to return to base, rearm, and return to the battlefield in a couple hours just ain't gonna happen.

I do however question the cost/benefit ratio of aircraft in general in WinSMBT.
While I have, on rare occasions, had truly spectacular results from an airstrike for the most part I rarely find them worth the point cost.
If they cost say half as much they might be worth the cost, in my (and i stress this is personal) opinion.

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

If the first harm was defeated by "Radar shuts down", the second missile launched by the same fighter just in the same turn still present a high hit percentage ( like the SEAD F4 or SEAD F16 with 2 harm slots ).

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

I feel your pain, airstrikes on the modern battlefield are difficult to execute at the best of times. I just launched a SEAD strike in a Russia vs. Canada ME against some ADATS which were giving my Helos grief, AND low and behold more MADPADS lit up the freckin' battlespace than I've ever saw before. Even though my Su37's had what I believed was had a good load out and a good EW rating, they ended up expensive lawn darts. One got a HARM away but the "Radar Shutdown".:doh: The infanteers later hunted down most of these guys. I should have waited until later to strike, impatience can be b#tch too!!

Bob out:D

Re: HARM - too weak in penetration?
 

I'm on the other end of the spectrum. Air is insanely deadly. Losing a couple of BMP's to shell splinters from a JDAM impact at 100 meters range was impressive (the Same also happened to some land rovers from a 1000Lb LGB, but that I can understand).

On the Subject of ARM's and accuracy as I said earlier (and in a second thread). If you have a PGM weapon in your second slot the launcher is 90% dead. which makes SEAD's Waaaay to good. ;)