Battlefront.com Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Yup, I saw it. Obviously there was no serious threat of air defenses or they wouldn't have tried that. It's not widely known, but IIRC 2 AC-130s were shot down during the First Gulf War. They have a lot of fancy counter measures, but at the end of the day it's still a very large and slow moving target. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_Wildman Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Yep, no defense against optical systems. (read ZSU-23/4, 57-2, etc.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 2S6 has an optical backup as well, IIRC. But wasn't at least one AC-130 brought down by a MANPADS? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Here we go: 31 Jan 1991 AC-130H SA-16 Infrared Day From: http://afhra.au.af.mil/short_studies/USAFMannedAircraftCombatLosses1990_2002.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 If (a big 'if') BFC does decide they want to keep y'all happy and includes circling B1Bs with JDAMs, how would it be different to the game from just having circling F15s? I mean actually - how would it be different? Would there be a different chain-of-command for getting bombs on-target? I can almost imagine (based on no real knowledge) getting permission for a munitions drop from a 'strategic bomber' might include an okay phonecall from some Pentagon bunker! If there is no 'real' difference then they could include circling B2s, F22s, and B52s, B1s, Aurora spy planes... the only difference would be the aircraft silo in the menu, with no effect on gameplay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 As a (former) grunt, I'm more interested in effects on target than who is the delivery boy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Well, depending on what 'tools' the scenario designer has for CAS the platform can make a difference. If your grunts are dependent on a single B-52 with a large load of JDAMs for their CAS, then the sudden unavailability of this single platform ('percentage chance of CAS not being available', etc.) means (in a 'Soup NAZI' voice) - "No CAS for you !". On the other hand having multiple flights of F-16 platforms to deliver the CAS ordnance means that the percentage chances for CAS unavailability move towards your favor (if done on a flight-by-flight probability). I think it would be nice to have the B-52/B1-B/B-2 platforms for CAS. I'm not sure how much more coding that may involve, but it seems worthwhile to me. The aircraft don't even need a full load-out since they may have 'serviced' other requests in their long loiter time. Admittedly it is just a 'flavor' to the game to have the long-loiter CAS assets simulated in the game, but depending on the scenario tools, it may have a minor effect on some game play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 The planes are not visually represented in the game, just like in previous CM games, so it doesnt really matter what type of plane drops it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Cool PDF. OK, so it appears it was one AC-130 which was shot down by an SA-16 shoulder fired launcher. Makes sense. BTW, early on some people (non-Americans, mostly) questioned the assumption that the Coallition would get pretty much instant and unrestricted access to the skies. The argument ran along the lines of the Syrians being so much better able to defend themselves than Iraq. Even if true, how much better would they need to be to make a difference? Check out these stat from the PDF linked to above: Given the number of sorties flown, the number of aircraft lost is miniscule. For example, during Operation DESERT STORM against Iraq in 1991, the USAF lost a total of 14 aircraft after flying more than 29,300 combat sorties, or .048 percent. This was against an enemy with 16,000 SAMs, 7,000 antiaircraft guns, and 750 combat aircraft. During Operation ALLIED FORCE against Serbia in 1999, the USAF lost one F-16 after more than 4,500 F-16 sorties, or .02 percent. The Syrians have about 1000 SAM and 1000 AAA guns, which is about 1/7th as much as the Iraqis had, and they were wiped out without making a meaningful contribution. Their 390 or so planes is about 1/2 what the Iraqis had. There is no argument I can think of that would show how massively smaller numbers of the same weapons could possibly do exponentially more damage. Schrullenhaft. Well, depending on what 'tools' the scenario designer has for CAS the platform can make a difference. If your grunts are dependent on a single B-52 with a large load of JDAMs for their CAS, then the sudden unavailability of this single platform ('percentage chance of CAS not being available', etc.) means (in a 'Soup NAZI' voice) - "No CAS for you !".True, but then again we aren't supporting the concept of having a dozen JDAMs in a single scenario, therefore there is no reason for a Scenario Designer to put in ton of F-16s in the first place. Admittedly it is just a 'flavor' to the game to have the long-loiter CAS assets simulated in the game, but depending on the scenario tools, it may have a minor effect on some game play.The only effect I can see is the one you pointed out... if you want to have a dozen or more JDAM eggs in one basket, which can possibly not be available, then yes... not having bombers means you can't have that effect. But tell me... how many scenarios can you think of that would be fun if they required a dozen JDAMs at all, not to mention what it would play like if they didn't show up? In other words, the only sceanario type that would be harmed by the lack of bombers is a type of scenario that would probably be no fun at best, unplayable at worst. We don't care about outliers like that so we don't care about whatever shortcomings they may have. That means we don't care about bombers Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 Who were those people Steve? Syrias AA network is I would venture to say is even worse than Iraqs circa 1991. They have mostly SA-2 and SA-3 missles for static SAMs and a collection of 60s and 70s and a little of early 80s AAA. Their radar network is poor and poorly mantained and even more poorly manned. SA-14s and SA-16s and the limited # of SA-19s would be their most potent threat since they are man portable and not tied into a radar network. Their SA-6s would also pose a mild threat. The problem stems from no airforce in the world having the airpower capable of holding even parity in the skies with the USAF with the USN added. You can have a fully modern AA network with high alltitude modern SAMs, low level SP SAMs, man portatble SAMs and modern radar guided AAA, tied in with a modern radar system and manned by a elite staff. But without your own airforce up in the skies, you will still not be able to keep your own system intact for more than a few weeks. Syrias defense against airpower would be tactics. As shown in 1991 and even better in Serbia in 1999 is that even modern airpower with percision weapons has trouble against a dug in enemy in a static defense. The newest evidence from 1999 shows that the air campaign was not nearly as successful as first thought due to the Serbian army having very little of its forces in motion. Modern airpower is extremly successful in inderdiction work against forces in transit. It is also great against infrastructure and communications. But if a army was able to get in posistion before a conflict and able to break down its communications to only needed to rely on communications within its immediate unit, then I think they could successfully shurg off even a heavy air bombardment by even the Americans. I think Syria would have that advantage. In fact over the last 6-7 years that is what their military has been trying to mold itself into. A static force that is able to act on its own without needed to rely on communications from higher up the chain of command. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: We thought about having air, and artillery, be assigned by formula instead of Scenario Designer and felt it wasn't a good idea. First, it makes things far more difficult for the Scenario Designer to have something that powerful be kept out of his hands. Second, the length of time of a battle pretty much dicates that either you have the support or effectively you don't. In real life this would mean waiting around for something to free up. As for all the checks and cross checks with various unit types and what not... that's pretty much in there already. Check back in the Air/Artillery Support thread and I went into it in some detail there. Unfortunately, no radio chatter. Too much effort for something that, while cool, is a distraction for us. Steve What about TOT's? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Who were those people Steve?People who were arguing based on anti-American "imperialism" rather than sound thinking. They were quite easily brushed aside in factual debates since their positions boiled down to "all I am saying is that Americans are arrogant and therefore someday someone will be able to stand up to them. Uhm, like Syria! Yeah, that's right!" Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Who were those people Steve?People who were arguing based on anti-American "imperialism" rather than sound thinking. They were quite easily brushed aside in factual debates since their positions boiled down to "all I am saying is that Americans are arrogant and therefore someday someone will be able to stand up to them. Uhm, like Syria! Yeah, that's right!" Steve </font> 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.