Lethality of SAMs

[hveldenz]

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

[Marcello]

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.

[narwan]

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).

[hveldenz]

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?

[Marcello]

hveldenz said:
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...

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.

hveldenz said:
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?

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.

[Mobhack]

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

[Wdll]

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.

[PlasmaKrab]

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

[Sarunas]

Just lost a Jaguar in 1979 (48 damage points, I guess the pilot was pulverised...) to some Soviet standoff system (Gainful?).

[DRG]

PlasmaKrab said:
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.

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