Lethality of SAMs

[Shan]

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...

[c_of_red]

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.

[Wdll]

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.

[Urban]

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 .

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 ***

[Guynumber7]

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!