SEAD vs SPAA
 

I welcome all.

At me a question.
I play fight 2010, summer. W. Germany vs Israel.
I buy much SEAD aircrafts for W. Germany. Arms of these planes - rockets ALARM.
I buy for Israel - much SPAA Machbet. Arms 20mm a gun and rockets Stinger SAM.

After an attack of these planes on the Israeli armed forces - ALL Machbet have remained are whole and safe. Each plane has got on Machbet, some planes have got several times in the same Machbet. And only after several aviaimpacts on the position of Israelis, was possible to planes IMMOBILIZED one of SPAA Machbet.

I think it is completely not realistic.

Sorry for bad English.

Re: SEAD vs SPAA
 

Yes, things like that happen all the time. It seems that somehow some ARMs have very small warheads and/or nearly no heat or AP values, such they're quite useless as a hit doesn't do mcuh good. And with icreasingly good (EW rating) SAMs and good EW on non SEAD planes I found that most often aircraft equipped with 500lbs and more PGM are just as well suited for SEAD, as all aircraft primarily target AAA.

But actually what I find much more 'disturbing' is the the sometimes ridiculus amount of handheld SAM the AI purchases. An even dozen and even more MANPADS in a half battallion sized unit is quite a lot more then realiticly to be expected IMHO.

Re: SEAD vs SPAA
 

I've found that having a pair of SEAD aircraft make runs over the battlefield in that situation will end up causing the AI to waste its MANPADS. The high EW of the SEAD aircraft makes its very difficult for MANPADS, AAA stands a better shot of doing damage at times. A small sized helo like a Kiowa skimming the edge of their SAM range also works in a pinch. After two or three turns most of their MANPADS are used up or down to more bleveable levels. But if they have large SAM sytems (SA-6s or Hawks etc) then its a diffrent ball game.

Re: SEAD vs SPAA
 

AFAIK the problem with the SEAD is that the game system does not allow for an AP score for them. So the penetration has to be worked into the HE penetration value. But that is a lot more variable in actual penetration and usually is much lower than listed. It has to be because the same HE penetration system applies to other units too. Make the HE penetration 'fixed' or more effective and suddenly you'll find your 155mm arty blowing up AFV's all over the place with HE rounds.

The original game code was written with a much more limited view and don't forget, it was written for a WW2 game! While MBT does a great job in modelling modern combat, for some area's the system is simply not up to as good an approximation of reality as it is in other area's. SEAD is one of the weaker points. I don't think there's much that can be done about it.

Re: SEAD vs SPAA
 

Anti-RADAR rockets in the majority are rockets with HE (shrapnel) warhead... I agree that such rocket difficultly to destroy the machine with a radar, but it should destroy the RADAR at hit.

Re: SEAD vs SPAA
 

You know the system can't do specific damage like that.
The only thing I can think about is to give the weapons a HEAT score to use instead of the HE value. In earlier versions that wouldn't work because HEAT rounds only had and AT effect and no HE effect, but the latest versions have added a limited HE effect to HEAT rounds. Perhaps by giving it a HEAT value it's possible to simulate the effect vs armored targets (knocking out the radar would effectively mean the unit is 'destroyed' as far as the game mechanics are concerned) and by increasing the HE side-effect of the HEAT round (increasing warhead or HEK perhaps) the weapons might still be as effective against non-armored targets as they are now.
I don't know if it's possible at all code-wise, that's up to the designers to decide, and whether the improvement would be worth the work involved but that's the only way I can see to get the SEAD game-mechanic a bit closer to 'reality', assuming that the result even is closer to reality.

Narwan

Re: SEAD vs SPAA
 

Wait a tick, guys: 1) it happens that anti-radar missiles knock out the AA unit's radar or force it to shut down. In this case, I wouldn't say the AA unit is useless, but its ability to pick out air targets at a distance in adverse weather and to hit it will be severely reduced. Considering an armored SP-SAM or SPAAG, that's what a light ARM warhead will likely do. AFAIK they are more effective against large fixed radars with parabolic antennae, where a hole in the wiring is enough to disrupt the waveform and make the radar blind.

2)HEAT ratings on ARM weapons make no sense. Bear in mind that aircraft cannot use anything other than HE ammo. That's why aircraft guns and rockets have a large HE penetration compared to helo variants. Reducing the HE penetration of ARMs to realistic levels should be feasible, but could be tricky when engaging hardened units like armored SP SAMs.

Hope this clears things a bit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: SEAD vs SPAA
 

You're right, I'm mixing up aircraft and helicopter weapons. Aircraft weapons have no HEAT values.

And you're also right that on occassion radars get knocked out. Sigh, I guess it's true, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: SEAD vs SPAA
 

It agree. All is true but how then to be with game? How to be with that situation which I have described in the first post? It turns out there is no probability to destroy such radar or to damage him. So?

Re: SEAD vs SPAA
 

Performed experiment: 8x Tornado WW versus 8x Machbet, each Tornado aimed at different Machbet.
While no Machbet was killed, upon checking vehicles after SEAD strikes five of 8 got their FC at 0, ie radar knocked out.
ARM's do work http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif