How to overcome Tunguskas?

[markh]

I created a blue-attack scenario using the editor involving the red force having a company of BMP3s and I attached 2 Tunguska using "single vehicles" from the editor.  Blue force was a company of Bradleys, and I gave blue force 2 Apache attack helios and 2 F-15 ground attack FBs.  The environment was clear, time was 9 am and and temperature was warm.

 

I used the Ravens to locate the Red force and then I gave both the Apache's and the F-15s the "area" attack command based on a 700 m radius covering the the red icons.  The result was that I lost both Apaches and 1 F15 in 8 minutes.

 

My question is - are the Tunguskas really that good?  If so, in real life, how does NATO deal with these systems if it does not have heavy artillery with precision rounds?

 

 

[sburke]

I have taken on Tunguskas with Apaches with a fair amount of success, but it can be a real hit of miss .  My favorite choice is a Javelin. followed by precision rounds guided by a Gray Eagle.  With a Company of Bradleys you should have had enough Javelins to wipe out that entire force with plenty to spare.

 

Yeah the Tunguska is pretty darn good.

[John Kettler]

markh,

 

Yes, it's that bad. Why? The Tunguska (crash course here) was specifically designed to do what the Shilka cound not: reach out and kill the Hellfire armed Apache at what would have been standoff range vs the Shilka, not to mention deal with the other American "flying tank," the A-10. But that's not all, at a classified threat conference in 1985, we were informed the Russians waited until they knew what gun threat the new Apache was being designed to defeat. Once they definitely learned it was the 23 mm, they committed to a much more powerful gun, the 30 mm, knowing it would punch right through the Apache's armored windshield, engine, rotor hub and similar. Even earlier Russian tactical AD manuals explicitly addressed firing on weapon stations armed with rocket pods and missiles, too. Far flimsier than heavy armor glass. And if they blew up or caught fire? But for all the potency of the gun, it was but a supplement, for the high velocity, high agility missile was the means to nail western ATGM armed helicopters once they popped up and before they could remask.

 

The correct way to deal with the Tunguska problem is synergistically. You need to beat on it with DF, mortars and artillery to disrupt and degrade it, then do something to make it look one way then kill it from the other. I don't know whether there is enough player control in-game to be able to coordinate three way live fire like that, though.  The earlier Zoo (ZSU-23/4) killing drill was to suppress with artillery (the DPICM you don't have was much favored), kill the Zoo from standoff ranges with ATGMs and 2.75" rockets from attack helicopters, then clobber the real CAS target with fixed wing tacair plus whatever the helos had left. Shells fall when the planes aren't over the target.

 

But now you're facing a system designed to smack down those self same helos as soon as they popup, greatly complicating the problem. Further, it appears the F-15s are operating inside the engagement envelope, where they really shouldn't be. The F-15s can't possibly pull the 18Gs the missiles can. The F-15s should be attacking from standoff, using things like Mavericks, lob tossed CBUs, LGBs. No CBUs in the game, so forget submunitions delivered  via TMDs and WCMDs. On real battlefields, though the AD does have 360 capability, it focuses on specific threat axes, much like a Cover Arc in CM. That's where the real attention of the defense is focused. Also, though the Tunguska is armored, it's eyes and long fangs aren't. The radar is highly vulnerable to a host of threats, and the all-important missiles which ruined your day are outside of the armor envelope and easy to ruin. One other thing. The Tunguska can also shoot down PGMs, though it's not optimized for the task the way the Pantsir is. As the saying goes "Good luck on your new assignment."

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited February 2, 2015 by John Kettler

[Macisle]

If possible, you want to destroy those Tunguskas before your air arrives. In addition to the Javelins, your Bradleys should be able to chew up any Tunguskas they find with their Bushmaster main guns (or missiles, but they are slower). They just need to get the first shot in.

 

I just did a quick draw test: 6 Brads vs. 6 Tunguskas on the default tiny flat map at 260m. I ran the test 3 times. Results:

 

1.  One lightly damaged B, six dead Ts.
2.  One dead and three damaged Bs, 6 dead Ts.
3.  One dead and 4 damaged Bs, 6 dead Ts.

So, try to isolate the Tunguskas and attack with at least 2 to 1 odds with your Brads, if you're using those. In my three test runs, the Bradleys never fired any missiles.

[ikalugin]

Russian/Soviet SHORAD was always fairly capable. There is a move now to upgrade those to some new standard, for example tracked Panzir (which in turn is expected to gain new, longer ranged, roudns).

[BlackAlpha]

...in real life, how does NATO deal with these systems...?

 

Well, in real life, you have more toys at your disposal, like anti-radiation missiles (ARM), jamming or the ability to time an artillery strike together with an airstrike (SEAD). But I guess that doesn't answer your question of how to deal with Tunguskas in game...  

 

Umm... Well, since we are discussing how to deal with anti air units in game, maybe we should suggest to the devs to give us more options to deal with AA, like the above examples and such.

Edited February 2, 2015 by BlackAlpha

[Agiel]

Would have been interesting to see the OH-58D Kiowa in the game with its ability to peak over terrain features with its mast mounted sight (and to a certain extend the AH-64E and the Mi-28N's mast mounted radars) and engage targets that way.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Would a UAV/precision artillery strike work? You might lose the UAV but if it can spot the Tunguska long enough to get the artillery on target....

[markh]

Hi Guys

 

Thanks to all of you for your combined input.  In particular, thank you John for taking the time to explain the realities and providing the web link.

[slysniper]

If possible, you want to destroy those Tunguskas before your air arrives. In addition to the Javelins, your Bradleys should be able to chew up any Tunguskas they find with their Bushmaster main guns (or missiles, but they are slower). They just need to get the first shot in.

 

I just did a quick draw test: 6 Brads vs. 6 Tunguskas on the default tiny flat map at 260m. I ran the test 3 times. Results:

 

1.  One lightly damaged B, six dead Ts.
2.  One dead and three damaged Bs, 6 dead Ts.
3.  One dead and 4 damaged Bs, 6 dead Ts.

So, try to isolate the Tunguskas and attack with at least 2 to 1 odds with your Brads, if you're using those. In my three test runs, the Bradleys never fired any missiles.

Now that is the stuff I like to read, that's for posting.

[Macisle]

Now that is the stuff I like to read, that's for posting.

 

Thanks!

 

I ran the same test at just over 1,000 meters. The Bradleys did even better. 1-2 Bradleys took light damage (like 1-2 TOWs knocked out) with all Tunguskas being quickly knocked out. I ran it three times.

 

BTW, everybody was buttoned in all test runs.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

However Tunguskas and other AA are often to be found skulking well to the rear which makes the direct fire aproach a little tricky. UAVs can at least find them under these conditions. And it probably won't matter to much if you lose  UAV compared to a multi mmillion dollar manned jet/helicopter with an expensively trained flight crew

Edited February 2, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[womble]

However Tunguskas and other AA are often to be found skulking well to the rear which makes the direct fire aproach a little tricky. UAVs can at least find them under these conditions. And it probably won't matter to much if you lose  UAV compared to a multi mmillion dollar manned jet/helicopter with an expensively trained flight crew

Yeah, great as those 30mm are for scrubbing high-tech gubbins off the outside of MBTs, that's not what they're there for, and keeping your AAA out of harm's way so it can keep the skies clear of importunate RC planes, rotorheads and zoomies is probably worth more towards keeping your force in being. That said, do Helos executing popup attacks on troops well out of LOS if the AD assets still come under fire from them in the game? If the AAA is behind a hill, I can imagine it being able to shoot at drones and fast-movers "way up in the sky", but not being able to target an Apache sliding out from behind a wooded knoll and waxing an MBT when that knoll is well below the crest of the hill that's giving the Tunguska all that comfortable defilade.

My guess is that CAS/AD interactions are necessarily somewhat abstract and the Tunguska will be "firing into the air" at a steepish angle, on the notional bearing from which the attack helo is approaching the battlefield, even if that fire wouldn't come anywhere near the chopper.

[Macisle]

Okay, I ran a final test 3 times at 2000m. I unbuttoned the Tunguskas for the last run. The results were exactly the same each time. The Tunguskas never got off a shot and were all dead by the end of Turn 1.

 

If you can't manage Javelins or direct fire from your Bradleys, I guess the next best option would be risking a UAV with Precision arty, followed by regular point arty. I can't see risking your pilots, planes, and helicopters unless you are absolutely desperate and that's the only way you have a shred of hope to win the mission. I don't know, but my guess is that the brass would rather risk some extra ground losses than roll the dice on losing valuable manned air assets to known, high-power AA threats like Tunguskas.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Macisle

[gunnersman]

 Even earlier Russian tactical AD manuals explicitly addressed firing on weapon stations armed with rocket pods and missiles, too.

 

Really? Specifically target individual weapons stations? How did they do that from 4 miles away...or even less? On a moving target. I would hope it would enough just to get one bullet to hit anywhere on the airframe.

[Apocal]

If so, in real life, how does NATO deal with these systems if it does not have heavy artillery with precision rounds?

 

With rotary-wing aviation, Hellfires can be launched from outside of line-of-sight with the Apache only exposing its radar or (in case of non-Apaches) a different platform can buddy-lase the target. For fixed-wing tactical aircraft, Mavericks, JDAMs, SDBs and Paveways all out-range the Tunguska by a substantial margin and the aircraft themselves don't make it a point of flying directly over the battlefield. That's why you're seeing so many newer Russian systems claiming the ability to shoot down PGMs: they don't realistically expect they'll get a shot at aircraft flying low-level 5, 10, 20, even 30 miles deep in our backfield but they ordnance has to come to them.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Apocal

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Yeah, great as those 30mm are for scrubbing high-tech gubbins off the outside of MBTs, that's not what they're there for, and keeping your AAA out of harm's way so it can keep the skies clear of importunate RC planes, rotorheads and zoomies is probably worth more towards keeping your force in being. That said, do Helos executing popup attacks on troops well out of LOS if the AD assets still come under fire from them in the game? If the AAA is behind a hill, I can imagine it being able to shoot at drones and fast-movers "way up in the sky", but not being able to target an Apache sliding out from behind a wooded knoll and waxing an MBT when that knoll is well below the crest of the hill that's giving the Tunguska all that comfortable defilade.

My guess is that CAS/AD interactions are necessarily somewhat abstract and the Tunguska will be "firing into the air" at a steepish angle, on the notional bearing from which the attack helo is approaching the battlefield, even if that fire wouldn't come anywhere near the chopper.

I managed to lose 7 aircraft (including a couple of UAVs) to the Tunguskas despite the warnings given in the scenario about Russia AA capabilities and so quickly learned a healthy respect. Speaking of AA the US seem quite weak in this area.

[sburke]

I managed to lose 7 aircraft (including a couple of UAVs) to the Tunguskas despite the warnings given in the scenario about Russia AA capabilities and so quickly learned a healthy respect. Speaking of AA the US seem quite weak in this area.

Yep roger on that. Your only hope is you have some Urainian buddies bringing their own Tunguska. The stinger can work, but is nowhere near the threat eliminator the TG is.

[John Kettler]

markh,

 

You're most welcome.

 

gunnersman,

 

Since you're splitting hairs, understand what I've said to mean "For a given AA gun, the fighting instructions specifically show missiles and rocket pods as aimpoints (then explosions) on armed enemy helicopters." I can show this in translated Viet Cong air defense instructions!

 

LUCASWILLEN05, womble and Apocal

 

The Tunguska operates as part of an integrated air defense. You won't find it with the tanks, unless maybe as part of a march column. In battle, as the ZSU-23/4 did, it'll be trailing the tanks, IFVs and APCs, considerably reducing its exposure to DF. It'll also be found protecting HQs, bridges, defiles and other high priority areas.  It has significant capability against even stealth cruise missiles. Consequently, things like Maverick and HARM are themselves engageable and JDAMs and LGBs even more so.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Nerdwing]

I'm a Apache fanboy, so I think they should be doing their super-duper no-LoS Hellfire shots as they hould IRL.  But I'm also terrible

 

John: Regarding the Maverick and Harm, are you sure they're engageable?  I've seen some highly varying figures by RCS calculation.    It really depends on the variant of the Tunguska as well as the parameters of the engagement itself from what I've read.  The SA-15 is what would be engaging missiles it seems, and providing a SHORAD bubble.  The SA-19 would just be the Ultra Shilka, so to speak.

 

Both deadly parts of the IADS as mentioned

[MikeyD]

There's Apache Longbow that can shoot without being seen. But if you're going to need eyes on the target you might as well bring along a .50 cal sniper rifle and do the deed yourself.

[Nerdwing]

There's Apache Longbow that can shoot without being seen. But if you're going to need eyes on the target you might as well bring along a .50 cal sniper rifle and do the deed yourself.

 

And the AH-64E Guardian, that does it from (roughly) 2x the range of the AH-64D if I remember right?  

 

And also gets shot down by guys with AK's just about as easily I imagine

Edited February 2, 2015 by Nerdwing

[ikalugin]

Panzir has a 40km ranged round in development.

[Tux]

My guess is that CAS/AD interactions are necessarily somewhat abstract and the Tunguska will be "firing into the air" at a steepish angle, on the notional bearing from which the attack helo is approaching the battlefield, even if that fire wouldn't come anywhere near the chopper.

 

Just thought I'd post this pic here, too.  It shows an Igla-S being fired off at a nice, shallow angle as a turn ends.  I heard a helicopter arrive last turn, so I'm pretty sure that's what it's being fired at.

 

 

I'll be posting in Tech Help with regards to the mssing texture, btw.

[Nerdwing]

Panzir has a 40km ranged round in development.

 

Is it or the Panzir ingame, though?

Edited February 3, 2015 by Nerdwing