SAM Effectivness

[SGTGunn]

Hi,

I was wondering how the effectivness of SAMs was calculated in the game. I've noticed that many manportable and "mid-sized" SAMs seem to be incapable of downing fixed wing combat aircraft without multiple hits. For example in a recent West Germany vs. the Soviet Union campaign I was playing (1988), I watched with dismay as Soviet aircraft absorbed hit after hit by Stinger and Roland SAMs. Both SAMs typically did 2-4 points of damage to the aircraft, most of which required at least 12+ to be destroyed. During a particularly hairy turn where I was attacked by TWO DOZEN Soviet Aircraft, all of my kills went to either Improved Hawks (which do an astonishing 200+ points of damage) or to my Gepards 35mm finishing off planes that had already recieved 2-3 Stinger or Roland hits. The Stinger is purported to have destroyed over 300 Soviet fixed and rotary winged aircraft in Afghanistan, so it seems odd that the weapon (and similar light SAMS) is so ineffective in the game.

[Mustang]

By "destroyed", do you mean damaged or shot down? If a plane gets hit by a small warhead like one carried on a MANPAD, it will probably stay in the air, but it's likely to be mission-killed. Same with an attack helo- to kill it in one shot you pretty much have to hit one of the rotors or tail boom (to cut off hydraulic supply to the rear rotors) (or of course the cockpit), and that's rare.

[Kone]

According to Combat Aircraft article the number of MANPADs needed to bring down a Hind was around 10 in 1984 (average of all missile types Stinger, Redeye, Blowpipe, Strela etc.). At this time Stinger was generally lethal.

Thanx to better countermeasures and tactics, in 1986 the number had increased to 100. Although the Stinger-only ratio would certainly be a lot better, it's no more a one-shot-one-kill situation.

Fixed wing aircraft are also harder prey for MANPADs being faster and usually tougher.

[hoplitis]

SGTGunn,
the way you describe it is more or less what is expected to happen. Comparing the effectiveness of MANPADS to Hawks is like comparing granades to artilery shels (sort of). The question really is how many of those TWO DOZENS aircrafts returned in a later turn or were "mission killed" as Mustang said.

Kone,
interesting input!

[Mustang]

There is a problem here, though. Any plane that gets hit with a MANPAD is probably going to be too beat up to keep flying a later turn. I remember that in the old SP3 there was a "morale check" where planes with low morale/high supression weren't allowed to do any missions. There dosen't seem to be much of this in WinSPMBT because I keep getting attacked with planes that I've already hit.

[Pepper]

I'm pretty sure if a plane has any damage, it won't fly any more missions....

[Mobhack]

A plane with 1 or more damage returns to base.

Helos can (occasionaly) manage to fly after some damage, if you can rally them enough, perhaps for a turn or so (allows you to drop passengers before bugging out) but in most cases - go home on 1+ damage too. Theoretically they are supposed to go right home, but I am happy with this occasional extra turn of hanging around "bug" becoming a "feature", and so do not propose to find out where in the spaghetti it happens in order to fix it.


Andy

[Mobhack]

And to reply to myself - I think it has to do with troop carring helos, to give them a chance to offload the pax?.

Cheers
Andy

[Mustang]

I think that helos should stick around, because I'm sure certain attack helicopters, like the Apache, are tough enough to stick around. There wouldn't be too many planes, though, that would stay around after being hit. There still would be some times, though, when a plane could ignore a light hit, espeically for a plane like an A-10 Warthog.

[PlasmaKrab]

Mustang said:I think that helos should stick around, because I'm sure certain attack helicopters, like the Apache, are tough enough to stick around. There wouldn't be too many planes, though, that would stay around after being hit. There still would be some times, though, when a plane could ignore a light hit, espeically for a plane like an A-10 Warthog.

What do you consider "ignoring a light hit"? I'm no fighter pilot meself but I'd tend to consider flying back home in one piece a relaxed enough, posture, as opposed to outright ejecting. A plane like the Warthog already is much more resistant than other planes, i.e. I guess it means it can take more damage before being critically damaged and crashing.

Also keep in mind that a damage pericieved as non-critical when it occurs, can turn really nasty minutes afterwards, like a tiny fuel or oil leak for instance. So IMHO a pilot will return to base after any kind of hit, because he will prefer being (himself and his plane) fit and available in the near future than running a last dash that can turn deadly (he got an enemy hit, remember, so probably he has chances taking another one if he comes back). Not mentionning loitering around waiting to be called again while his plane disintegrates slowly...