Patriot SAM poor performance
 

I have a hard time to believe that Patriot SAM system is really as poor as it is represented in WinSPMBT.

Even it has an EW value of 9, EW value of 8 planes almost always shoot before Patriot systems and destroy them. Shouldn't this be the case only if the plane have higher EW value than the SAM ?

Seems like it have some kind of response problems, and it respond quite poorly against planes that fly over the map too.

Why are they mass produced and used by top countries if they do not fare even against outdated planes ?


I also checked and found this on wikipedia:

"On February 15, 1991, President George H. W. Bush traveled to Raytheon's Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts, during the Gulf War, he declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!"[53] The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97% to that point in the war."

On a side note, the whole Stand off vs area sam and how Area Sam systems work in winspmbt seems biased as a whole to favour planes as well as having other problems such as the long ago mentioned and confirmed armor calculation problem. (All HE penetration is for some reason converted to 1 against flying armored targets so to be more truthful all HE explosive missiles should show HE penetration 1 in the info screen - because that is what they do in the game)


In WinspWW2 none of these kind of (unrealistic ?) problems exist.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

The accuracy of the Patriot during Gulf I was HIGHLY exaggerated. It was really more like 10-25% vs the SCUDs.

VS aircraft, what it was designed for, it's undoubtedly better. But in reality SAMs rarely destroy aircraft, what the do is disrupt them so their strikes are less accurate. Unfortunately the code in WinSPMBT doesn't allow for this.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

Stated by the president.

Why would they not destroy the planes ?

They outrun them ?


I might have seen couple of times a text aborts mission or something, regarding stand off attacks, doesnt that mean the plane got a missile on a tail and aborts the mission ?

If that kind of missiles hits anything im sure they would even destroy buildings. Some of them are almost size of space rockets.


Internet (britannica) states that patriot system was particularly designed against missiles.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

Nope.

It means the missile detonated close enough to the aircraft, and fragments did enough damage to cause the pilot to say "Screw this, another one of those I'm gonna get shot down!"

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

Why would the missile detonate close enough ?

So they are going against direct orders, shouldnt that take them to military court on defying direct orders from their superiors ?

Can infantry do the same without being deserters ? Abandon their posts if an artillery barrage comes close enough, im sure that happens though.


Internet says patriot can travel mach 5. Dodge that with ur su-24.


So what i gather the situation you described indeed does happen in winspmbt but its extremely rare (recall at least twice or more). Usually the missile either hits or misses. The code about the damage have been broken (on purpose ?) though. This does not seem fair against patriot systems. It also seems to lack responsive properties, outdated planes flying above from couple of kilometers with no response as if that would really happen. I do have faith in the US defence system, only russians should have better equipment. If this is all part of a plan to undermine the strength of US through games.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

I have the same impression as you regarding patriots - not super duper weapons. In my case, I wonder if has something to do with the minimum range. If you play on smaller maps it could be that a good portion of map is within minimum range that patriot cannot fire. Particularly if the enemy flys in from your side.

I try to setup my patriot battery at the extreme corner of map to help avoid minimum range issue - but often forget.

Once patriot shoots, most likely it will be quickly seen and targeted. Just like you can quickly spot enemy missile launchers.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

No version of the Patriot flys at mach 5 so IDK where you found that info

We had dealt with complaints that aircraft were too vulnerable to air defences so adjustments were made and complaints about that died away. Now you're complaining the missile isn't the wunderwaffe you think it should be.

The competitors have a different POV--https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amuJPXtXkOw


The first two Iraqi Su-24 I sent in a test ended up scattered in pieces in the desert. However, the ROF of 2 we have should perhaps be 4 as other SAM systems in the game with 4 missiles have 4 ROF so I have adjusted all the Patriots in the OOBs to 4 ROF

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

What Sam is effective then if patriot is a poor system ? I find it hard to estimate what sam systems perform better. Some older systems like buk or krub or osa seem better at responding than modern patriots or hawks in the game. Looking at the info screen patriot should be superior to those but in practice it seems not to be the case. Is thee some hidden information that are not displayed on how sam missiles react ? Like some kind of initiative value. Crew exp is usually higher on countries that use patriot too. All statistics favour them and still kub seems better. Osa seems most useful even against stand off attacks even it has a low range in comparison. I am totally confused about these. It seems to me that if a acountry does not have other area sam than patriots its not even worth taking even against outdated planes, they will still roam freely even against multiple patriots, they wont even shoot. EW 8 seems to produce immunity against patriots even patriots have higher EW value than that.

How can i predict what EW does in the game and how do anti air missiles react, is it a matter of deploy or field of vision ?

The armor code have been changed ?

Mach 5 was stated on wikipedia for MIM-104 Patriot. I guess someone could change that if its incorrect.


Still what you posted seems like propaganda to me. It contradicts strongly with the words of a president. What should we believe if not our leaders.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

In your original post, you were firing at planes with only 1 EW level below the SAM's. EW level is a major factor, if one side has a signifigant differential - and 1 level of EW different aint so. If the SAM has maybe 3 levels of difference or more it will do much better (or conversly the other way if the plane has the higher differential).

Area SAM ae a useful thing to engage stand-off planes, less so against planes that come in over the map and helicopters. So for myself, I tend to invest in ZSU systems, or short range missiles like Rapier. SPAAA gun-based systems can also contribute to the land battle if necessary, whereas SAM (other than the Canadian ADATS) cannot.

As to the aircraft armour changes, that was changed a few releases ago. Check the release notes (found in the game guide) for details. Specifically, bullet point 26 of release 12.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

Oh nice, thank you.

Why does kub and krub perform so good then, they have lower EW ?

Still believe on patriot.

Patriots seem to shoot EW 8 planes on map better than against stand offs. They usually respond on map, but almost never against stand off. The usual drill is that planes shoot their misile loadout against zero response and patriot shoots only after the plane enters the map to shoot with gatling. Then they almost always do respond but sometimes not.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

what is kub and krub? - please provide OOB, unit numbers so I can find these.

Found that in the Russian OOB.

The missiles have equivalent accuracy and range, Patriot has a larger warhead and less minimum range. The launch units, the Patriot has better radar and EW.

Therefore Patriot will be dong better at shooting planes down than the kub, given a decent sample set of firings.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

They are famous russian systems developed in 70s. Codename kvadrat and so.

Maybe nato calls them gainful.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

I work on NATO reporting names, so I know what a Sunburn or SS-N-22 is, not some other name.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

Almost all AA missiles (air or ground launched) have a tiny radar detonator in them. They rarely actually hit their target, they just get "close enough" and explode sending shrapnel all over. Aircraft are, by necessity, fairly fragile targets.

Yes/No.

Yes they have a target/mission, BUT they're also entrusted with several hundreds, if not millions of dollars of aircraft their bosses REALLY expect them to bring home in once piece. The WW II Japanese did Kamikazes, no one else really thinks that's a good idea.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

^In addition to that, there's the rather obvious detail that you cannot perform your duty/mission while you're dead (or shot down, which is the same for all intents or purposes). So, if you've encountered stronger resistance than expected, retreating is the most sane thing to do.

That isn't to say that retreating does not entail danger of its own. I mean yeah, you CAN potentially be held accountable for not completing your mission depending on the army you serve, the attitude of your superior officer etc. However, few nations are willing to expend pilots for a successful mission. After all, planes can be send to battle again if they are still flyable.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

Not trying to start an argument but really? I don't believe anything any of "our" leaders say, they are all liars. They are not experts in military or technical matters.

What we should believe is what the research shows, not what politicians say.

And on the field of battle you still can't trust the 'higher ups' at times. Prior to us going to combat they told us to expect 75% or higher casualties. We received 5%.

I just listened to U.S. Marines that were going to shore on Iwo that it had been pounded for six months and that there is nothing to worry about and its should only take 5 to 7 days to mop up the Island. It took 30 days and the Marines lost more than the Japanese.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

Yep.
Did Gulf I myself and until a week or so before the ground phase kicked off I was expecting 50ish% casualties from mostly the chemical threat. But luckily I was working Intel at the time and dealing with the Iraqi deserters and satellite footage of chemicals being shipped back to Iraq from Kuwait thus knew the casualties wouldn't nearly that bad. But damn few others had the luxury of being in a position that allowed them to know what I did.

The days of throwing bodies at a problem are over for most people. Even the Chinese make sure their people have decent equipment, if not training, to much political indoctrination.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

Couple of points
Firstly are the planes that fire first SEAD planes, they would detect the Patriot without it firing a shot?


EW rating does not guarantee a hit just improves the chance. The bigger the difference the bigger the improvement so just like most equipment older stuff with low EW ratings are in trouble.

Handling air in MBT is problematic anyway the planes already run the gauntlet Area Sam's should have taken them out long before they reached the map you are now in the domain of other Sam units that should protect the Area Sam's.

The game may in a roundabout way be fairly accurate if they made it that close its probably due to poor radar coverage because of terrain & the guys manning the Sam are probably bricking it by now.

The US has a problem in that it relies on the air force to stop the planes backed up by the Patriot where as the likes of Russia have several different units to form a layered defence.

I would guess none of the systems work as well as advertised against a modern aircraft let alone drones & missiles.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

The few times I have fired a sead at an air defense unit they shut down their radar as you fire which generally lowers the chance for a hit.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

The change to 4 ROF I made helps. I have no idea why they were set to 2 when other SAMS have a ROF that equal their missile count so now they match the others which gives more opportunities to hit and that is the last OOB change I am making and code work ended 2 weeks ago

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

In my case, aircraft survivability vs. SAM's is much greater than it used to be. It used to aggravate me so much. It could be because I don't rely on aircraft to be a "game changer" like I used to, or I don't use them like I used to and I use more caution before assigning them targets. Aircraft ain't the tremendous war machines that they used to be in earlier versions of the game. Which is more realistic if you ask me, though SAM's ain't a waste, they always seem to do some damage to aircraft if not destroying them outright, but aircraft and pilot survivability is greater. Like I say, it seems more realistic to me.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

I use aircraft a LOT.
If you try to use aircraft in the first 3-5 turns you're just begging to get them shot up if not down. I use helos in the early turns to expose AA (use TOWs/Hellfires/rockets on AA guns) and run MPADs out of missiles. Then a single SEAD aircraft to deal with "Area SAMs". After that aircraft are fairly survivable.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

2 RoF was in my guess that someone do not deplete the missiles with cheap crafts before using the strikes, overflowing the system in one turn.

Maybe thats why wikipedia tells me US have been prepared with a Patriot system with 16 Missiles. Still quite weak if they do not fire in the first place. Seems quite hard to believe that modern SAM systems have real function only against planes that have been outdated 20-30 years ago, but it is possible as i do not have any real knowledge about the subject.

Maybe it is like so that there are no countermeasures against modern planes or even against 10-20 year old planes and it is the superior system with no weaknesses. If i have understood right world wars were more or less decided with them too.

That is probably something the worlds top scientists who have specialized in warfare are trying their hardest to overcome.

With a common mind it should seem realistic that missiles have an advantage over planes. They are faster after all and cheaper to produce. The planes main function in the modern era is also to launch missiles, so i do not find a reason why it matters from which platform they are launched. Shouldnt it be basically the same technology, the ground target is stationary and the air target is moving, is the (crucial ?) difference.

Maybe there could be a ground vehicle that shoots PGM type missiles. Submarines and sea vessels at least probably do.

Most likely the modern era is not realisticly simulated in any game, and there are lots of factors no one are aware of.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

Missiles launched from planes have some major advantages compared to those fired from the ground.
Far better radar coverage the terrain does not get in the way.
They do not have to expend all that energy to climb to target.
The launching craft is mobile so it can try to get position for an optimal launch.
Air targets can change direction quickly so the window for an optimum launch is not large as the target has options from turn & run to point the nose at the missile. The missile has to have enough energy left to manoeuvre for all these eventualities for a high success rate.
Sams while expensive are still cheap compared to a modern fighter so they have their place.
If you play different eras in the game you will realise some Sam's became very effective at one point, planes have now caught up with missile tech.
Its no different to tanks penetration increases, armour improves its a vicious circle.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

Satellite targeting and volume of fire ?

I have always thought that the main advantage and reason for planes is an offensive one, to be able to bring the weapons to the enemies.

There are a lot of planes around, wonder are there a faction that has similar number, or a lot more invested on missiles. Lets say hundreds of thousands of missiles get launhced at once, what would happen. Would probably need some futuristic EMP type area / radius defence.

I have heard the US have been developing such means to defend for a long time.


Older russian systems had also manual control in case of electric countermeasures.

Re: Patriot SAM poor performance
 

It's like John (Imp) says weapons systems are always in a vicious cycle new If they do this/we'll do that, tactics/new counter tactics, jets/SAM and closer to home radar detectors/police radar jammers when on the road.

But more to the point with PATRIOT the first ref is closed due to the current update. It'll reopen after a couple of days and you'll get the total PATRIOT story covering contracts/operators/upgrades etc. etc. in a concise timeline format.

However, the update falls right into this topic and illustrates that "vicious cycle" with the latest upgrade to PATRIOT which is by chance a very significant one for that system.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...m_term=Patriot
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SAM-Effectiveness.html
http://ausairpower.net/APA-BMD-Survey.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/sams-iads.html
(Categories in RED at the top.)
http://www.ausairpower.net/msls-bmd.html

Yon can have a field day with all that's above and it ought to keep you out of trouble until "the big day"!

And yes I've read many of these over the years. You to understand the technical merits of the system to be able to translate that into game terms with it's system limitations.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

EDIT: I almost forgot, Directed Energy and EPM well, they do that as well.
http://www.ausairpower.net/dew-ebomb.html