SeaRich Posted February 24, 2001 Share Posted February 24, 2001 Does anybody know if it is a possibility to mount a Stinger SAM or a blowpipe SAM on the top of a M113 IFV transport? If so, is this represented in TacOps or do we just get the standard M113 with a 50 cal MG on the top? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I know this is a ton of questions, but suppose you only had the 50 cal, isn't that "good enough" for most things(ie Mi-24 Hind, AA fire, etc...)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 24, 2001 Share Posted February 24, 2001 In TacOps you can add a portable SAM launcher to any vehicle by simply loading a SAM equipped infantry unit onto it. A SAM gunner embarked on/in a vehicle can still fire his weapon at fixed wing aircraft and helos even if the APC is moving - you don't have to do anything to make this happen except to load the unit onto/into the vehicle. The game engine assumes that the SAM gunner is riding on top, standing in a hatch, or dismounting and firing from the short halt - whatever is appropriate. More about SAMS than you probably wanted to know follows ... What follows is the current game logic controlling the TacOps surface to air missile (SAM) implementation. Most of the logic sprang from advice provided in mid 1995 by members of the TBRSTABVDM (TacOps Blue Ribbon SAM Threat Analysis Board and Volunteer Day Marchers). The TBRSTABVDM actually existed <g>. In early 95 (the Mac only days) neither I nor a lot of TacOps users liked the SAM routines. A group of 20 or so enthusiasts argued about the topic via email for a couple of months and I then implemented the group's consensus in an update to the Mac version - that new code was/is included in the original/current Windows version. LINE OF SIGHT RULES. Line of sight is determined for SAMs vs helicopters flying at nap of the earth altitude (NOE) in the same way as for ground units firing at ground units. A clear line of sight is assumed to exist from a SAM launcher to a fixed wing airstrike or to a helicopter at medium altitude if there is no intervening woods or town terrain within 125 meters of the SAM launcher - or if a man portable SAM is dismounted in town terrain (assumed to be on a rooftop). Otherwise, if there is intervening woods or town terrain within 125 meters of the SAM launcher then the line of sight is usually blocked. ACQUISITION AND TARGET EFFECT LOGIC. SAM firing is a two step process. The first step is a target acquisition attempt. If acquisition is successful then the SAM is launched and a second step occurs in which the effect on target (if any) is determined. STEP 1 - ACQUISITION LOGIC. If there is a clear line of sight from the SAM launcher to the aircraft then the basic acquisition probability is 85%. The following cumulative percentage modifiers are then applied to the basic probability to determine the final acquisition probability. If the cumulative modifiers cause the acquisition probability to fall to less than 5% and if the SAM is not otherwise prohibited from acquisition then the final acquisition probability will be 5%. If the SAM is a man portable weapon and is embarked aboard a vehicle: -20 for being mounted, -50 if the vehicle is moving, -70 if the vehicle is suppressed,-5 if in edge of woods, -5 if in edge of town, -50 if the SAM is in smoke, even if the SAM has a thermal sight. Man portable SAMs that are being carried in or on vehicles are limited to one target acquisition attempt per vehicle per fifteen second fire pulse. In other words, if you have more SAM's in a vehicle unit marker than there are vehicles, then the excess will not even attempt to acquire a target. If the SAM is a man portable weapon and is dismounted: -30 if the SAM gunner is moving, -70 if the SAM gunner is suppressed, -5 if in edge of woods, -5 if anywhere in town, -50 if the SAM is in smoke, even if the SAM has a thermal sight. If the SAM is not a man portable weapon (i.e. is permanently mounted on a vehicle): -30 if vehicle is moving, -50 if vehicle is suppressed, -50 if vehicle is smoked, even if the SAM has a thermal or radar sight, -5 if in edge of woods, -5 if in edge of town. STEP 2 - TARGET EFFECT LOGIC. Target effect percentages vary according to the model of SAM but in general ... Versus fixed wing targets. In the real world, fixed wing aircraft are seldom shot down by man portable SAMs or by small vehicle mounted SAMs, even in high threat environments - in relation to the total number of sorties flown - but they frequently get discouraged and or handicapped. By discouraged I mean they miss the target. By handicapped, I mean that they are directed by higher authority or good pilot judgment to attack at altitudes/attitudes different from what would provide the best accuracy. In TacOps, if there is SAM launch against a fixed wing aircraft then the most likely thing to happen will be that the aircraft will unload and probably miss the target, the next most likely thing to happen is that the aircraft will abort the bomb run - actually hitting and or destroying the aircraft is the least likely thing to happen. If multiple SAMs are launched against a single airstrike, as each succeeding SAM is launched a bonus/cumulative modifier is applied to the chances that the aircraft will miss the target or abort. Versus airborne helicopter targets. Small SAMs are very effective against helos. Accordingly in TacOps there is no discouragement result in SAMs versus helo engagements. The SAM either hits or it misses. If it hits, the helo will usually be destroyed. << How should I employ my SAMs [surface to Air Missiles] for best effect?>> You should not overly depend on your SAMs being effective in the first place. The game engine assumes that fixed wing aircraft are attacking with the best possible flight profile to defeat portable SAMs - i.e. low level, terrain hugging, high speed, pop up, etc. When using proper approach and delivery methods, a fixed wing aircraft in real life is only vulnerable to SAM fire for a few seconds. The best defense against fixed wing aircraft is not portable SAMS. Your best defense is to keep your units moving so that they are somewhere else when an airstrike arrives at their last spotted position and to keep your units dispersed so that a successful airstrike does not decimate an entire company. As per most other ground unit direct fire in TacOps, SAM units are not guaranteed to acquire and or fire at every opportunity - even at targets in plain sight. The most important factors in getting the most out of portable SAMs is good line of sight, keeping them dismounted and stationary, and not letting them get suppressed. If your Stingers are in vehicles - dismount them. Don't have them moving around while they are supposed to be overwatching your other units. - i.e. put them somewhere and leave them stationary. Site them so that they have a line of sight to the units that you most want to protect, but when possible put them several hundred or several thousands of meters away from the supported units to reduce the chance that they will become suppressed by fires directed at the supported units. Check the unit info for your SAMs and see if they have a minimum range limit that is relevant to your siting and support planning. Minimum range for SAMs is only relevant to SAM vs helo engagements. Minimum range is ignored for SAM vs airstrike engagements. In TacOps, a dismounted, stationary SAM gunner is significantly more likely to acquire a target and or hit a target. Dismounting SAMs is particularly important in towns. Avoid exposing your SAMs to enemy direct fire or arty. Suppressed SAMs are very unlikely to fire or to hit anything if they do fire. Put your SAMs somewhere and leave them alone - keep them stationary - SAMs on the move are less likely to fire. If your SAMs are traveling in/with an APC or HMMWV, halt the vehicle and dismount the SAMs for the greatest chance of firing. SAMs can fire when loaded in/on APCs (or even tanks) but the chance of them doing so is greatly reduced. For maximum efficiency, man portable SAMs should be unsuppressed, dismounted, stationary and either in clear terrain or in the thin edge of woods/town terrain. Being on high terrain is better than being on low terrain. In TacOps, SAMs will not engage UAVs. Smoke laid on top of a SAM launcher is useful even if the launcher is equipped with thermal sights. Smoke laid elsewhere is not useful unless you are screening NOE helos from SAMs that do not have thermal/radar sights. If you must move man portable SAMs by vehicle, then don't load more SAMs into the vehicle unit marker than there are vehicles in the marker. Man portable SAMs that are being carried in or on vehicles are limited to one target acquisition attempt per vehicle per fifteen second fire pulse. In other words, if you have more SAM's in a vehicle unit marker than there are vehicles, then the excess will not even attempt to acquire a target. Misc Q&A ... << I don't know if we can fix the need for AA fire to visually confirm the target before engaging; perhaps this is something for the Major to consider?>> The following is based on recent discussions with an Army STINGER section leader. In the real world, visual confirmation is usually only relevant to AAA vs helos engagements unless the tactical AAA Rules of Engagement are unusually restrictive. If a SAM gunner waits for a positive visual id before firing on a fixed wing target then he will be unable to prevent the aircraft from releasing its load - the SAM would degrade to a punishment weapon fired at the departing aircraft. Absent momentary lock down orders a SAM gunner will probably engage any fixed wing target that enters his field of vision - that is why SAM gunners have their own radios and control net. Interesting sidebar - I was just told that in the real world if a friendly aircraft has attacked friendly positions by mistake and if it appears to be setting up for another pass, STINGER gunners are generally free to shoot it down. << Can Stingers and SAM16 really shoot through smoke?>> I added the capability to engage through smoke primarily due to convincing testimony from an active duty US Army STINGER section leader. Another reason it was added was to eliminate an unrealistic game trick - i.e. laying smoke and then parking an Apache in the middle of it for long periods of time. << I was recently playing a game of Task Force Kincaid. I lost the most helicopters to some unknown missile from an APC, I think it was the BTR-80. But when I looked in the unit data base, none of the OPFOR APC's have SAMs. Is the BTR dismounting infantry that fire at my helicopters or what?>> The SAM being fired from the OPFOR APCs is the SA16 - a man portable, shoulder fired SAM. OPFOR fields enough of them to put a launcher in almost every rifle platoon. The SA16 gunner is conceptually firing from an open hatch or the roof of the APC. << I little while ago I read a discussion (on this board) about Stinger Teams "riding on top" of APCs in TacOps. How is this done? Are any Stinger (or OPFOR SAM) teams loaded on an APC said to be riding on top?>> In TacOps, a SAM gunner embarked in an APC can still fire his weapon at fixed wing aircraft and helos - you don't have to do anything to make this happen - even if the APC is moving. The game engine assumes that the SAM gunner is riding on top, standing in a hatch, or dismounting and firing from the short halt - whatever is appropriate. <<If so, what does this do to their effectiveness vs. standing on the ground?>> In TacOps, a dismounted, stationary SAM gunner is significantly more likely to acquire a target, fire on a target, and or hit a target. Dismounting SAMs is particularly important in towns. <<I had trouble with the Canadian Javelin SAM--it was shooting through smoke. Game specs say it has no thermals.>> Smoke that is far away from SAMs and other anti air weapons does not block their fire against fixed wing airstrikes even if they have no thermals. In the first Mac version of TacOps, smoke clouds had a very unrealistically high top height. I later changed that. In the current Mac and Windows versions, the top of a smoke cloud is conceptually much closer to the ground. Therefore, unless the smoke cloud is very close to the firing unit, it can not block line of sight to a fixed wing aircraft. Rule of thumb: A clear LOS is assumed to exist from any ground based anti air weapon to a fixed wing airstrike or to a helicopter flying at medium altitude unless there is woods or town terrain or a smoke cloud within 125 meters of the SAM and that terrain or smoke cloud is directly between the SAM and the fixed wing or helo target. << What is the best way to get rid of pesky UAVs as the OPFOR player?>> Helos will go after UAVs (air strikes will not). The ZSU-23-4 AAA and ZU-23 AAA do ok if the UAV comes close enough. Whatever you use, it will usually take a good number of firings to down a UAV. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com [This message has been edited by MajorH (edited 02-24-2001).] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Robel Posted February 24, 2001 Share Posted February 24, 2001 What the major said, plus: In the real world, yes. The Avenger is HMMWV with two four round stinger pods and a .50 caliber machine gun mounted. The LAV-AD is a standard LAV with two four round stinger pods in addition to its 25mm. the Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle (BSFV) is a bit of a red herring. It is a standard Bradley carrying a Stinger Gunner. He must dismount to fire, although it is possible to have it fire from the cargo hatch (not something I would want to try.) the Bradley Linebacker is a bradely with a single four round stinger pod mounted in place of the TOW launcher. All three of these are represented in TACOPS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaRich Posted February 26, 2001 Author Share Posted February 26, 2001 Ok, one more question. If I mounted an infantry team on a Griffon Helo unit, would that change the firepower of the Helo to that of the soldiers riding in it? IF I placed a 50 cal team on a Griffon, would it do the same? If so, cool. Thank you so much for your answers! Rich 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 26, 2001 Share Posted February 26, 2001 No and no. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaRich Posted February 28, 2001 Author Share Posted February 28, 2001 Is there a "gunship" version of the Griffon Helo? I know that there is a gunship Huey so I thought Canada might have the same thing. I couldn't tell from the photo database if you could stick a big gun (7.62mm) out the window or something. It would be neat if you could. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 >Is there a "gunship" version of the Griffon Helo? According to the Canadian Army - no. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.