need purchase advice, aircraft or no

[Doug Williams]

So, I'm not a modern player at all. Only played a few games against the AI and one PBEM. Starting a new QB PBEM with me attacking (Probe, actually) as the Yanks against the Soviets, er...I mean Russians. My opponent is a skilled player with a lot of experience playing Black Sea. I have a lot of WW2 CM experience, but not modern.

So, he set the weather to random, and it came up Thick Haze. It's a dawn attack. Looks like I get 16k+ points to purchase with. So.......should I buy any aircraft or drones, or would the Thick Haze make them useless (like it would in WW2)? I already know I'm probably in for a shellacking, but I don't want to waste purchase points.

 

[gnarly]

ROTFLMFAO at  Art's game name!!!! 

 

HAAA-MWAAA-haaaa!!!! 

 

Chuckles!

 

That does truly trump his previous ArtProbesGnarly gamename......!!

 

 

[Doug Williams]

@gnarly   I happen to love the "trash talking" (i.e. psychological warfare). Art seems to be well versed.....  

 

 

[MikeyD]

Thick haze and dawn is certainly not ideal air support weather. Also there's no telling the level of electronic counter-measures (which could ground your air support) or purchased AA. Are you a betting man? Perhaps your opponent sees thick haze & dawn as a reason to NOT purchase any anti-aircraft units. Maybe his forces are meat on the table completely undefended. Because who in their right mind would purchase air under these conditions?

[exsonic01]

Hello Doug 

IMO CMBS Russian airplanes has the all-weather capability, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong. At least Su-24 and Su-34 are available in any weather condition according to the manual. But "available" is not "effective" so be cautious. Your pilots may unable to see any ground targets and fly away. 

I once tried Zala UAV in the heavy fog condition, and it detected some vehicles in the region (not all), but no soldiers. Plus, the most of vehicle detection was just unknown icon except one or two Abrams, meaning something is there but unable to recognize. And experience of Zala and Air controller also may effect on detection. Thick Haze would be slightly better than heavy fog IMO, but I guess you will see unknown icons...more or less. 

But beware, US stingers are really really deadly, and I had no fun with Redfor air so far. I'm really curious are there anyone who achieved major success by Redfor air assets in PBEM. If there is, I really wish to learn how to manage them. One need to neutralize stingers first, but that is also really really hard to even find them usually. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by exsonic01

[Doug Williams]

I'm Yanks.

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Doug Williams said:

I'm Yanks.

Hey MG .  The Russians have the Tunguska which will shred two of the three US UAVs and all US aircraft both fixed and rotary.   The only thing the Tunguska cannot shoot down is the US Gray Eagle UAV as long as the Gray Eagle remains in the observer role (it is vulnerable in the attack role).  However the Gray Eagle costs so many points (to include rarity points) it is often not worth it.  As a result I usually will not bother with any US aircraft.  If I do take US aircraft it is a Gray Eagle (you will only be able to afford one) and at least two platoons of 155mm Paladins that have 12 precision rounds each to be used with the Gray Eagle.   

I take some stinger teams for the Russian aircraft.  However if the Russians have a Zala UAV you will not be able to shoot it down.  The Zala cannot do precision strikes but can observe your units in a 400 meter area and spot for conventional artillery.      

The US strength is the Abrams and the Javelin.  I take a combined arms team well equipped with Abrams & Javelins.  

Good luck and make Tank Hill Fort Jackson proud.    

[Doug Williams]

@MOS:96B2P

 

Tank Hill baby!  Thanks. 

[MikeyD]

Theoretically Apache Longbow has over-the-horizon capability to reduce chance of a shootdown. But I play with air so rarely I don't know if you should place your trust in that.

[Doug Williams]

I don't want to reveal what I plan to do in this case, as I understand my esteemed opponent frequents this forum.

 

Thanks for the advice, men. 

[gnarly]

and he 

6 minutes ago, Doug Williams said:

I don't want to reveal what I plan to do in this case, as I understand my esteemed opponent frequents this forum.

 

Thanks for the advice, men. 

and he IS a devious opponent!

[Artemis258]

*peeks from behind bushes* who, me? 

[John Kettler]

Doug Williams,

One of the problems the game has is that SA levels when it comes to lasers are unholy. It is altogether too easy to see and target any kind laser emitter. This has the effect of greatly reducing the combat utility of things like the COLT, which is a Brigade asset. Tacair does "Smite" very well for real and in terms of the game, but Russian AD is fearsome: proliferated, layered and lethal. If ECM affecting the Russians is good enough, you can degrade the deadly Tunguska's radar, and Tunguska doesn't have a FLIR. You can also selectively target and neutralize it before the air strike arrives. Were I buying tacair (sans jamming of Russians) using fixed wing armed with nothing nastier than a Maverick as far as a missile goes, I'd be very much inclined to buy Apache Longbows, since they can operate effectively in fog and are much less exposed, being pretty much in or behind terrain. The other issue is combat persistence. Aircraft, be they fixed wing or rotary, typically have few passes or firing opportunities, whereas the much cheaper FA can blaze away for quite some time and use things like Excalibur to make especially irritating problems go away. Until CM/CB is modeled, together with Russia's MRLs sporting unitary warheads, thermobarics, bomblets or SFW crashing down on US gun positions, I think FA is the best general solution. The Tunguska has significant capability vs bombs, Maverick  and Tomahawk type cruise missiles IRL (not sure about in CMBS), and the Pantsir is designed to deal with the far more taxing HARM, since Pantsir's combat task is protection of long range mobile SAMs.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited February 17, 2017 by John Kettler

[Doug Williams]

That's a lot of acronyms. Off to wikipedia.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Basically it means that US air is probably safer in the game than it should be. 

[MOS:96B2P]

4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Basically it means that US air is probably safer in the game than it should be. 

IMO US aircraft are not at all safe in the game.  If the Russian player has two Tunguskas backed up by 3 to 4 Igla-s troops the air is usually denied to the US side.  The one exception is the Gray Eagle in the observation role calling in PG rounds as explained above.  However the Gray Eagle is often to expensive for the US player to purchase.

It is kind of ironic because I think in RL the modern US in known for air power.  However in game the US strength is on the ground with the Abrams and Javelin.    

[Sgt.Squarehead]

To be fair US air has never been seriously tested against a near peer opponent. 

My opinions on the relative capabilities of the Javelin & Abrams in game are made clear elsewhere. 

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

It is kind of ironic because I think in RL the modern US in known for air power.

In RL a primary mission for the Air Force would be SEAD, which has not found its way into the game yet.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

To be fair US air has never been seriously tested against a near peer opponent.

Well, prior to 1953 there were several air forces that did give us some trouble.

Michael

[Sgt.Squarehead]

OK I'll grant you that....But I get the feeling you know what I mean. 

Let's hope it doesn't happen either, actual warfare has a habit of finding loopholes nobody expects and never with good consequences. 

FWIW - If in doubt and there's an option, buy more Abrams, they're kinda indestructible. 

[MOS:96B2P]

41 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

In RL a primary mission for the Air Force would be SEAD, <Snip> 

Thank you ........Had to google it but I learned a new acronym.  SEAD. Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses.  I think we knew it as wild weasel when I was in.     

[IICptMillerII]

My advice would be to skip the aircraft and use those points for more artillery. 

Currently, US aircraft (and Russian aircraft for that matter) are pretty similar to a precision artillery fire mission in effect. They primarily drop precision explosives on a designated target. The two main downsides to this is: 1) they can be interdicted and 2) they only drop one bomb per target. With artillery, you can dump a lot more rounds on the same target, and the artillery cannot be interdicted once fire for effect is called. Artillery more effectively covers a larger area and in generally more useful all around. 

Fixed wing ordinance is best used for destroying key targets, such as a building, or other high priority targets of opportunity, like tanks if you don't have any armor of your own. Again though, this only works if the enemy doesn't have effective AA on the field. 

Helicopter support is essentially only useful against tanks/AFVs, and can also easily be interdicted by enemy AA.

UAVs are very prone to enemy AA and I personally have found their use limited at best. 

 

Just my 2 cents on the matter. Hope it helps, and good luck in your battle! Some added advice, just remember that weapon systems are extremely lethal on the modern battlefield, and they kill very quickly over great distance. Abrams are amazing at what they do, but that makes it all the more important to remember what they do NOT do. Good luck!

[Doug Williams]

A very practical and informative answer! Thanks, IICptMillerII .

One last question.....are Drones any good in Thick Haze?

[John Kettler]

4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Basically it means that US air is probably safer in the game than it should be. 

Sgt.Squarehead,

Not at all. What I was trying to point out was that, by virtue of some of the under the hood mechanics, units using lasers (such as the COLT and other air direction entities) are detected and engaged near instantly, thus degrading their impact in terms of being able to provide effective air support. US ability to use CAS in Iraq has been predicated on near total/total lack of MANPADS in opposition, which I find more than odd. Even odder to me is Afghanistan, where the Stingers wrought so much havoc. Happily, those Stingers still in bad guy hands can't fly for want of a special battery! Have read ISIS has a bunch of MANPDS, but I don't recall reading anything about US planes being shot at by them. CAS ops vs even the low end of the Russian air defense are not for the faint of heart, and the Tunguska was designed to eat CAS and helicopters. Regarding the cannon, the CIA told us the Russians waited until they knew the design specs for the AH-64 and A-10 (top end 23 mm, except 57 mm vs titanium bathtub for A-10 cockpit) before selecting 30 mm. The missile, according to what Carlo Copp dug up and reported on Australian Air Power, was designed to kill an ATGM armed helo that popped up to fire before it could remask. When it comes to AD, the Russians have their act together. In the last few years, they've fielded a new radar and control system (9S932-1) which supports not just the Tunguska but the Verba MANPADS as well. Reading the below thread will be valuable. it would be extremely safe to say the IS has nothing like Russia's ground based tactical integrated, layered and redundant AD system.

Regards,

John Kettler

[IICptMillerII]

3 hours ago, Doug Williams said:

A very practical and informative answer! Thanks, IICptMillerII .

One last question.....are Drones any good in Thick Haze?

Glad I could help!

I am not entirely sure how weather conditions, specifically Thick Haze impacts the effectiveness of drones. My educated guess would be that drones equipped with thermals would not be hindered. Someone else can likely provide a more thorough answer, or digging through the manuals may yield a sufficient answer.

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

Not at all. What I was trying to point out was that, by virtue of some of the under the hood mechanics, units using lasers (such as the COLT and other air direction entities) are detected and engaged near instantly, thus degrading their impact in terms of being able to provide effective air support. US ability to use CAS in Iraq has been predicated on near total/total lack of MANPADS in opposition, which I find more than odd. Even odder to me is Afghanistan, where the Stingers wrought so much havoc. Happily, those Stingers still in bad guy hands can't fly for want of a special battery! Have read ISIS has a bunch of MANPDS, but I don't recall reading anything about US planes being shot at by them. CAS ops vs even the low end of the Russian air defense are not for the faint of heart, and the Tunguska was designed to eat CAS and helicopters. Regarding the cannon, the CIA told us the Russians waited until they knew the design specs for the AH-64 and A-10 (top end 23 mm, except 57 mm vs titanium bathtub for A-10 cockpit) before selecting 30 mm. The missile, according to what Carlo Copp dug up and reported on Australian Air Power, was designed to kill an ATGM armed helo that popped up to fire before it could remask. When it comes to AD, the Russians have their act together. In the last few years, they've fielded a new radar and control system (9S932-1) which supports not just the Tunguska but the Verba MANPADS as well. Reading the below thread will be valuable. it would be extremely safe to say the IS has nothing like Russia's ground based tactical integrated, layered and redundant AD system.

This is starting to get ridiculously off topic. A question was asked about the cost effectiveness of planes and UAVs in an upcoming battle. Speculating what anti-air assets IS has access to is a topic for a different thread. 

To bring this back on topic, I will say that MANPADs and other infrared based anti air missiles have a service ceiling of 15,000 ft AGL. Aircraft that fly above this altitude generally only have to worry about longer range radar missiles. However this is not simulated in CM, as any and all aircraft can be engaged by any ground based AA system. This adds to my point about how aircraft are vulnerable to AA and can easily be interdicted (drones too) and is more reason why artillery is likely a better choice. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by IICptMillerII