Apache rocket attack....drunken shotgun of the gods

[redbear]

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

Redbear,

Alright man, another sim pilot! I miss the old Janes flight sims. Great stuff. And yes, I can fire off a salvo of rockets in any flight sim, including ww2, 50 times more accurately than these coked out apache pilots in cmsf. They must be pulling at least 12 g's while firing! Coke? I don't know, maybe they're smokin' weed and getting paranoid about ground fire and pulling up during the attack.

Btw, it seems that the current tactics in use now are diving toward the enemy and shooting, then circling around rather than hovering and firing. I think it cuts down on the possibility of being hit with ground fire.

yep i still have my old longbow copy thinking in give it a spin again there is a bunch of guys that fly it on line :cool:

I think the enemy have change this time the apache pilots won find a shilka or SAM at the next corner and a hovering helicopter is an easy target for an RPG. any way it could stand one hit it has redundant system an is armored but you will lose resorses, So keep it movil.

[Bigduke6]

I hate to rain on the parade and be contrary and all, but from what I saw in those vids CMSF does a pretty durn good job of representing air strike accuracy.

In the first place, those vids as nearly as I can see are not evidence of pinpoint accuracy. Far from it, both in a figurative and literal sense. They were shot from substantial distance, and my WAG is that the rockets are not impacting on the nose of the bad guys, but in a circle 50 to maybe even 100 meters around the bad guys.

If there is one thing the history of modern warfare teaches us, it is that air strikes never, ever are as effective as the pilots tell you, and the pilots aren't liars they're just telling you what they saw. And from the air, throughout the history of air strikes, air strikes look much more effective than they actually are.

In the second place, here is an example from a game currently in progress. I am the evil Syrians, and my opponent the noble Christian invaders was in the process of digging me out of a compound. No dummy he, he called in air before his infantry breached walls and went in.

So the Apache(s) (I think plural, maybe there was just one) came and went, and they hosed the general area, which I would say is less the size of a football field. Results as follows:

1 x Syrian armored car nearby trashed, it was its own fault it was moving and air RL spots moving vehicles first.

1 x Syrian armored vehicle sitting still pinged but not hurt, but it had to button up.

Several Syrian infantry infantry in buildings pinned for a bit, which my opponent cleverly exploited to break his grunts into said buildings and shoot some of my guys to bits.

About two US squads cut up pretty bad by wayward rockets and flex guns because they were standing up and running, and in the strike area, when the rockets and MGs went in. The separation between Red and Blue was less than 20 meters at some places, and calling in air danger close has a risk.

So all in all I would say that is an excellent replication of what I would expect in RL, if an Apache made a pass in conjunction with a platoon (or more, I don't yet know exactly how many of those turtle troops he has) of US infantry tried to bust into buildings held by some fairly dedicated Syrians. You'd expect the crud supressed out out of the Moslems but definately a friendly fire risk to the Christians.

Changing CMSF to make air more accurate, so that in the above case an Apache could hose an enemy position 20 - 50 meters away from friendlies in a urban fight, and no risk to friendlies, to me would be a big error.

Even if there is little real threat to the choppers, the chopper pilots - trust me on this - pretty much ALWAYS assume every one will be gunning for them in any kind of combined arms fight, and they fly accordingly, and that increases CEP pretty much geometrically.

Ultimately what you guys are doing is comparing apples and oranges. You are taking videos of air strikes carried out in insurgencies, and assuming the same level of accuracy and impunity would be availble to US air in a relatively conventional invasion of Syria.

Of course, it might be alot of fun to simulate insurgency conditions, where the US side has air that can act with impunity. Of course, for a proper simulation the opposition would have to have civilians, spies and maybe even turncoats inside "friendlies" supposedly loyal to US forces, access to US media, weapons caches, etc. No fair simulating an insurgency, and giving only the blue side its goodies.

But that's theoretical. From a practical POV, CMSF doesn't try and replicate an insurgency, and so the air strikes you see within them.

If you want to agitate to change something in CMSF, my opinion, then fer Pete's sake do something about the nerve gas in the tank HE shells. I mean, a squad is spread out in broken ground, one main gun round and *boom* most of the squad is toast. What's that about?

[Other Means]

It was more than 2 squads, believe me. But my own stupid fault for:

a) stacking

stacking so close (but not in) the strike area.

Won't happen again, let me tell you.

As an aside, it'd be good if you received a higher morale hit from FF, as ISTM it would be something that would really knock you, even more than a sniper hit.

{edit}

BTW my guys weren't moving, they were just too close.

[ June 12, 2008, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Other Means ]

[birdstrike]

For what it's worth, I think to a degree the rocket spread makes some sense, if the pilot is deliberately trying to saturate an area.

That said, it seems unlikely that a vertical deviaton would be as much as currently moddeled, if the pilot wants to hit a single point target.

The Apache can automatically elevate its rocket pods (from -15° to +5°) which means the rockets should be more likely to deviate in an horizontal angle, with almost no vertical error (as long as within the limits).

@redbear,

if you're looking for a good helicopter sim, I'd recommend Enemy Engaged Comanche vs. Hokum (better still, together with Apache/Havoc), that is, if you manage to find a copy. Personally I prefer the modded EEAH/EECH over LB2.

[ June 12, 2008, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: birdstrike ]

[Pandur]

They were shot from substantial distance, and my WAG is that the rockets are not impacting on the nose of the bad guys, but in a circle 50 to maybe even 100 meters around the bad guys.

Bigduke6,

the only point i have to make here is that a rocket burst wich spawns over 300-500 meters when you select "point target" is as unrealistic as if it would land on their nose.

it would be great if it would land 50 to 100 meters around the target and not X hundred meters elsewhere.

its not like we want pinpoint accuracy, but we want reasonable accuracy. right now we have only inaccuracy

[the Fighting Seabee]

Yeah bigduke, those videos do infact show a much higher degree of accuracy than in the game. Insurgency or not, those apache pilots are putting their lives on the line just going up in a chopper full of explosives and fuel, thousands of feet over the heads of lots of people who want them dead. Those guys are gonna put the rockets on target whether it kills them or not.

[redbear]

@redbear,

if you're looking for a good helicopter sim, I'd recommend Enemy Engaged Comanche vs. Hokum (better still, together with Apache/Havoc), that is, if you manage to find a copy. Personally I prefer the modded EEAH/EECH over LB2. [/QB]

Birdstrike I think you don't read well i have LB2. i prefer LB2 over EEAH the degrada of simulation in terms of avionics is super the two stations of a longbow are simulated as the way the radar and all the avionics works Also i had the original longbow but it was the dos version the videos were super too.

the point that i like in EEAH/EECH is the campaign system is very good i think is the strong point of this simulation but the avionics is much more simple like the one in longbow 2 i am talking about the vanilla one no the mods that are posted in simhq.

[SlapHappy]

I would think if this weapon system was truly as inaccurate as it is portrayed in CMSF, it would have been retired a long time ago...sheesh.

And about those AT4's..........

[Bigduke6]

Seabee,

I'll preface this by saying my personal jury is out on how accurate helicopter strikes are in CMSF. I haven't seen enough to make a proper weighted conclusion.

But from a general point of view, you are of course wrong if you think helicopter pilots will always hit the target, or if they will never let the ground threat affect them. Pilots are pilots, when the chips are down 99 per cent of them will do what it takes to keep their aircraft flying first.

It's one thing to stand off at 5000 meters and lob Hellfire missiles that are being laser-designated by some one alot nearer to the target, and after which you launch you can duck back behind a terrain feature.

It's another thing when:

(1) You're over terrain where identifying a specific point under you (forest, mountains, city) is not so easy GPS be damned.

(2) The enemy has effective - by which I mean he can shoot the aircraft down just by being organized, not just by flukes like hitting ain aircraft with an RPG - air defence. I'm talking about a combat environment where if the pilot sits still and and he could get missiled, and if he flies in the open and there are heavy MGs and/or cannon out there than can smash him.

Hero pilot or no, that second kind of situation is going to translate to less precision in helicopter trikes. The pilots are going to fly faster, navigate less accurately, and fire less carefully; because they're concentrating more on keeping from getting shot down and killed, and less on making sure their air strike is by the book.

There is a huge difference between flying a helicopter into an environment where the threat is a random .30 caliber slug, or just maybe an RPG if you hover and assume the guys on the ground are too stupid to think of shooting at you; and flying a helicopter close to a place where somewhere down there there are automatic HMG and/or cannon and/or guided missiles, in quantity, and gunners are trained to use their weapons.

It is pure human nature for a chopper pilot to fly paranoid in the second case. It is senseless to expect that he would not change his flying behavior between the two cases. It would be the same thing as expecting a rifleman to shoot as accurately in a real firefight, as he would on a firing range.

Given the speed and abruptness with which helicopters move when it's really dangerous down there, and the amount of ammunition their flex guns spit out, and the degree to which the flight of a rocket can change given where the helicopter happens to be pointing in a particular nanosecond, I for one have no problem with CMSF generating helicopter gun and rocket misses of hundreds of meters.

I don't think modern Iraq or Afghanistan are even remotely close to the air defense threat that would be expected in a CMSF scenario.

I'll go even further and say that if anything, by some standards, CMSF models a too-benign air defense threat, in that as far as I know there is no way for the Syrian player to shoot down US air; and it's a fact that the Syrian inventory contains substantial air defense weapons which, if used smartly, could really do a number on overly-ballsy US pilots.

Also, for the record I am not an expert on the subject but in my youth I did fly around in Kiowas from time to time trying to learn what Apache pilots thought they could shoot at, and what they would probably avoid shooting at. The message I got was "The closer you bring us to the flying metal, the less likely we are to hit what you want hit, and if we get scared we are going to miss and if we get really scared we are going to go hide."

Which brings me back to my original point. Present-day Afghanistan and Iraq to my mind are irrelevant to CMSF modeling, when it comes to helicopter strikes, as there is a huge difference in the air defense threat to helicopters.

Also, I bet if we went to that hill that got peppered with rockets in that vid, we would be suprised by the distance between the craters. Smoke is not the same thing as annihilation.

As to bravery, since you brought it up, you might ask yourself who is braver - the pilot firing the rockets, or the guys on the ground underneath the strike?

I will lay you 100 - 1 odds that the insurgents and the pilots both would say, that it's the guys on the ground that have the real guts.

And I will lay you 10,000 to 1 odds that the guys on the ground the helicopter pilot is shooting at, will call that helicopter pilot a coward.

You can make your own judgement of course. But since you brought up the subject of helicopter pilot bravery, you just might want to ask yourself, how brave is it, really, to fly a helicopter somewhere and push some buttons, to try and kill some people who have no way of hurting you?

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

Yeah bigduke, those videos do infact show a much higher degree of accuracy than in the game. Insurgency or not, those apache pilots are putting their lives on the line just going up in a chopper full of explosives and fuel, thousands of feet over the heads of lots of people who want them dead. Those guys are gonna put the rockets on target whether it kills them or not.

[the Fighting Seabee]

Bigduke,

When did you get out of law school?

Obviously different environmental variables will be in place for any number of different situations. But as a GENERAL rule of thumb, the chances of dying while flying a helicopter full of fuel and explosives, high enough off the ground that the fall would kill you, and when people are shooting at you and want to drag your corpse through their streets, are significantly better than, say, sitting on your ass in front of your computer.

These increased odds of dying would have an affect on any human. But these videos show, without a shadow of a doubt, clear, comprehensive and irrefutable evidence, that these pilots are highly capable of scoring a high percentage of direct hits. Every rocket attack in CMSF is shot across the map. This would be great if we could call a linear rocket attack. Also, many of the pilots fighting this Syrian War would be highly experienced veterans. I agree with almost everything else. My vote is for more accurate rockets from helos.

Idea: let the scenario designer decide just how accurate the pilots get to be. This would simulate enemy air defenses and pilot braveness according to the situation the scenario designer is trying to portray.

[ June 13, 2008, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: the Fighting Seabee ]

[Guinnessman]

I'm going to preface this with the admission that I have never called in CAS or seen it done in real life, but here goes anyway:

How about giving the opportunity for the player to have some control over the direction of attack made by the Apache?

One noticeable incident where I suffered friendly fire from rocket attack was when I called an Apache to do a point strike on a building about 150m from one of my platoons. The target building was IIRC north east of the building containing my troops. When the Apache rolled in, rockets hit the target building then 'walked up' in a line from that building directly to the building containing my troops and killed about a squads' worth.

Thinking about it logically whis would have meant that the Apache attacked from the north east of the target whilst traveling in a south-western direction. I'm pretty sure that in real-life I've heard troops requesting CAS indicate where they are and have asked the pilot to make a run in a certain direction, so that any rounds that miss aren't going to be lined up on friendly forces.

Not sure how practical this is to implement in CMSF right enough, but just a thought anyhow!

[John Kettler]

Well, if the Apache Hydra 70s arm the drunken shotgun of the gods, what are the almost certainly

more crudely manufactured, therefore more dispersion prone, Russian 57mm rockets going to be called when Red air and helos appear?

Regards,

John Kettler

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Well, if the Apache Hydra 70s arm the drunken shotgun of the gods, what are the almost certainly

more crudely manufactured, therefore more dispersion prone, Russian 57mm rockets going to be called when Red air and helos appear?

The peeing-in-a-cyclone of the gods?

[Bigduke6]

Seabee,

I never went to law school, which reminds me of a joke:

Q: Why were scientists considering using lawyers instead of rats for experiments?

A: Scientists might get attached to a rat.

Q: Why did scientists decide to use rats anyway?

A: There are some things even a rat won't do.

Moving right along, you and I are talking past one another. To repeat, I think those vids aren't proof of much viz. CMSF because:

No one is shooting at the chopper pilots in the vids, nor is there anything better than a marginal chance of any one shooting at those chopper pilots in the vids, and if some one were to shoot it would almost certainly be a very light weapon.

CMSF is modeling, as they say in military speak, a substantially more hostile and deadly air defense environment.

I think that your point about US pilots in CMSF being experienced veterans is less important that you think, as sending veterans with lots of experience fighting against an opponent who can't shoot down your aircraft, against a different opponent who can, can get lots of your aircraft shot down. The Yom Kippur War is an excellent example, the IDF had a terrific air force but because they thought Abdul is too stupid to handle ADA (which he for practical purposes he was in 1967) they got the crud shot out of them until they backed off the Egyptian missile belt. Lots of smashed aircraft and dead pilots. Sometimes, experience from the last war is not helpful in the next war.

I will add I am personally not so sure the vids you are seeing as proof of surgical accuracy, are in fact the case. Sure they look that way to me too, but history shows most air strikes are far less accurate and effective, than they look like. Something to keep in mind - although you may well be right and the rockets were on target.

As to statistics, well, sure sitting at a computer is safer than flying a CAS strike in a chopper; but flying a CAS strike in a chopper is alot safer than alot of human activities, including many wartime ones.

Again, this is my personal opinion, but according to my definition of bravery flying somewhere and pushing a button is not particularly brave. For me, brave is continuing to fight when the other side has about a bazillion ways to kill you, and all you have basically are your wits and maybe luck. I point this out not really to make the thread political, but rather to return to my basic point: the pucker factor counts, but of course you agree with that.

It would be nice if it were possible to plan air strikes like artillery, BUT as I understand it that's not the kind of planning a US company/bn commander does, he just says "I want air there". Also, it would be pretty unfair to make the US air in the game even more effective and flexible, without giving the Syrian side a way to eliminate it, and of course VPs if it does so. Positioning missile teams and AD guns is a standard part of the Soviet/Syrian tactical system; as of now it is nonexistant in the game.

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

Bigduke,

When did you get out of law school?

Obviously different environmental variables will be in place for any number of different situations. But as a GENERAL rule of thumb, the chances of dying while flying a helicopter full of fuel and explosives, high enough off the ground that the fall would kill you, and when people are shooting at you and want to drag your corpse through their streets, are significantly better than, say, sitting on your ass in front of your computer.

These increased odds of dying would have an affect on any human. But these videos show, without a shadow of a doubt, clear, comprehensive and irrefutable evidence, that these pilots are highly capable of scoring a high percentage of direct hits. Every rocket attack in CMSF is shot across the map. This would be great if we could call a linear rocket attack. Also, many of the pilots fighting this Syrian War would be highly experienced veterans. I agree with almost everything else. My vote is for more accurate rockets from helos.

Idea: let the scenario designer decide just how accurate the pilots get to be. This would simulate enemy air defenses and pilot braveness according to the situation the scenario designer is trying to portray.

[the Fighting Seabee]

If you were making a mission and you want your guys to be jinking all over the place because of heavy ground fire, my idea would let you. If you want to simulate an insurgent fight, you would also be able make them very accurate, due to no effective enemy ground fire.

[birdstrike]

Prhaps, it would also be a good idea to have some sort of slider which lets determine the percentage of enemy air threat abstractly? If, for example, it is set to 30%, you have a 1 in 3 chance of your air support being shot down (with an on-screen message to indicate the event).

The AI could use different attack patterns depending on the threat level (for example, 0-25 strafing attack; >50 standoff, &c).

[Lampshade111]

BigDuke those men in the attack choppers are far braver than the insurgent filth we are fighting. If you are implying our helicopter pilots are not brave then you are insulting those who have given their lives performing that role or who are serving today.

As for accuracy I agree that the rockets are a bit too inaccurate at the moment. I suppose the accuracy might be somewhat realistic if there were SAMs and AA guns everywhere and the choppers had to fire their FFARs from very long range. Yet Syria does not have large numbers of modern anti aircraft systems to begin with. Plus the USAF and USN would be running SEAD missions from day one.

So I imagine Apaches and Cobras would typically be making much more accurate attacks with their rockets, unless there were a few SAMs or AA guns on or near the map area which had not been destroyed.

[Bigduke6]

Lampshade,

Well, on bravery I think all men are equally brave or cowards, and nationality and cause really doesn't enter into it. Bravery to my mind depends on how much a person risks his life and limb, for some one or something else.

If you consider attack helicopter pilots braver than the people on the ground they unload rockets and flex guns and guided missiles and upon, you're welcome to your opinion. But I disagree with it.

A much more interesting discussion, I think, is how well CMSF models chopper strikes. The more I think about it, the more I am beginning to think choppers actually are modeled fairly well in CMSF. This isn't a final decision, it's more where my inclinations are leaning, right now, as I get to know the game better.

One of my starting points, of course, is I don't really accept vids of strikes from Afghanistan or Iraq as particularly relevant. Besides the fact that neither of those countries are Syria, there is the near-certainty that vids of accurate strikes will find their way into the Internet, a whole lot faster than vids of goofed-up strikes.

Here's some more reports from my game in progress. Duriing some pretty severe house to house fighting the Apache came back and made another pass. This time it for reasons best known to it flew perpendicular to the general line of contact. As noted, last time it came parallel a couple of times. I'm not positive what it was aiming at this time, but again there was a Syrian vehicle moving in the area.

This I think is excellent replication - moving vehicles draw attack helicopters like flies to outhouses, that's the way things should be.

My opponent is for sure going to read this, but no big deal this latest pass missed, there were 2-3 bursts, each maybe 10-30 m. off target. Under the battle's circumstances - think Fallujah except the Moslems are whole lot better armed and organized - I'd say the battle I'm fighting isn't too far from that.

Come to think of it, the last Apache pass several minutes also was about that close, when it hosed all those US units they were literally on the other side of a wall where a bunch of Syrians were hunkered down. It's not like the pilot missed by much. Maybe this latest perpendicular pass came as a result of the US infantry screaming at the choppers from hitting them with the parallel pass.

I suspect the A/I's reasoning on this is random, the chopper just picks a route and looks for targets.

Anyway it would be ludicrous, in the game I'm playing, to expect an Apache to just show up and neatly and surgically pound a target into dust with friendlies safe 5 - 10 meters away.

This is from that computer-generated helicopter pilot's POV, after all, a very nasty and hostile environment.

There are hundreds of Kalashnikovs in just about as many buildings underneath the chopper, a hand-held missile could be pretty much anywhere, and there are lots of places where an autocannon or some HMGs could have great fields of fire for some duck hunting.

This game where the A/I Apache pilot(s) now has hit once and missed twice in about three passes, isn't a dumb little insurgency where 10 guys shooting at each other is a major firefight. This is a friggen' conventional war, with multiple companies of professional infantry in contact.

So when I think of all that, under those circumstances, I am starting not to be surprised at all the Apaches in the game haven't performed like the pretty vids on the Internet.

I am surprised more about two things, first how close the Apache has gotten considering the chaos and violence below; and second how it is that with several companies of Syrian infantry set up in a city, in the middle of Syria, how is it they don't have a single SA-7/14, autocannon, or dedicated AAA MG?

EDITED TO FIX GOOFY BOLDING

[ June 15, 2008, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[the Fighting Seabee]

Again, I have to agree with Lampshade111.

If this F/A-18 can land these rockets so closely, a slow moving chopper can too...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5d9_1213489672

More accurate chopper fire, pounding ground positions...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=322_1213457415

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e3f_1193438830

I really do beleive that these brave warrior pilots would rather be shot down than fire rockets indiscriminately across dense urban areas where both innocent people and friendly forces are located. No one is asking them to drop rockets "5-10 meters" from friendlies. 5-10 meters in the game is within the same 8x8m tile or an adjacent one. I call in airstrikes as far away as possible, but never that close. Hell, the kill radius of a grenade is 5 meters. I'm sure as hell not going to call in an airstrike that close. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6f9_1208376411

[redbear]

Originally posted by Lampshade111:

BigDuke those men in the attack choppers are far braver than the insurgent filth we are fighting. If you are implying our helicopter pilots are not brave then you are insulting those who have given their lives performing that role or who are serving today.

As for accuracy I agree that the rockets are a bit too inaccurate at the moment. I suppose the accuracy might be somewhat realistic if there were SAMs and AA guns everywhere and the choppers had to fire their FFARs from very long range. Yet Syria does not have large numbers of modern anti aircraft systems to begin with. Plus the USAF and USN would be running SEAD missions from day one.

So I imagine Apaches and Cobras would typically be making much more accurate attacks with their rockets, unless there were a few SAMs or AA guns on or near the map area which had not been destroyed.

agree!

In desert storm the firts blow was given by apache going deap into enemy territory and killing and early radar plus SAM in the center of iraq. they do that flying nap of the earth 320 km

This same war is an example how a air campaign is conducted. they firts hit communications centers them kill down every sam in iraq to the point the the ground operators where afraid to turn the radar on the us armed force gained air superiority over iraq in a matter of weeks the us airplanes and chopper acted with impunity so i dont see that syria would stand that much. by the way CMSF simulated asymetrical combat no sam system on it is not the scope of this game.

Other thing about the apache is that this is and armored choper it could stand the hits from a shilka. is not easy to splahs one i dont think that a pilot in that helicopter would be affraid of a guys with ak47. Maybe a guy with and rpg could do damage to it but the helicopter could possible returm home if not hit on the rear rotor.

One thing a choper pilot learn in trainig is fire disipine it won open fire at ramdon with friedly troops near by and a choper is not afighter plane moving at high speed over enemy terretory it is a slow moving aircraft they look for a good location and open fire is one thing I dont see is well simulated in CMSF. In here is simulated as fas mover the chopper attack from one location and them attack for another remoted location like a plane moving at high speed. the choppers do not do passed over the taget they look for a good location or a good rute to approach and open fire. And defenitevely the rockets in CMSF have problem are not good modelled the vidios are clear at that.

[ June 15, 2008, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: redbear ]

[C'Rogers]

Prhaps, it would also be a good idea to have some sort of slider which lets determine the percentage of enemy air threat abstractly

This was discussed before the game was released. In my opinion it is an ideal solution. I think on map AA is unnecessary because the air assets are covering a greater area than just the company sized battle and have to be concerned with threats over all of that range. As intriguing as it sounds I really doubt the likelihood of a battle where one company was sitting on the AA gun that paralyzed American air assets.

The reason it was not included I believe is that it is BFCs opinion is that virtually all Syrian AA would be destroyed within hours of hostilities. His opinion, backed up by Rudel if I remember, is that Syrian AA is much worse than Iraqs and would not pose any significant danger.

[Bigduke6]

Redbear,

We're talking about different kinds of AAA. Sure a US initial air campaign would have a good chance of hunting down the major Syrian AAA, i.e., the medium and long-range stuff that has an associated radar, is not so mobile, and is not so easy to hide. The standard example would be SA-6, which has a slant range of a couple of hundred km., but has to fire up a radar the US has been practicing to hit with anti-emission missiles for about two decades. Or ZsU-23-4, which again can't work unless it runs its radar, and the moment the Syrians turn it on the Americans have triangulated it.

But what about hand-held missiles? What about a quad 20mm using the MKI eyeball as its sighting system? What about a Syrian captain who knows French and has kept up on tactical trends, and he's bright enough to set up a half-dozen 12.7mm MG to cover a Syrian battalion planning to fight in a city? All he has to do is put the guns on rooftops and issue a fire command by civilian telephone.

Well, that sort of small-scale AAA threat won't scare the jets at all, they can just stand off and (bravely, ha ha) lob laser-guided bombs in from about 25,000 feet.

But helicopters aren't immune to that threat like jets are. Helicopters are aerodynamically unstable, they fly slower and lower, and as a general thing if they are in range to use their weapons, they are in range for a hand-held missile to hit them, and often cannon and MG too.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the opposition is not organized enough, almost always, to put together an helicopter ambush (although given time I will lay 100-1 the Afghans figure out a way, they did when they fought the Soviets.) It does not follow that the same would be the case in Syria.

It comes down to organization and motivation. The essential assumption in CMSF is that the Syrians would fight as best they could. The Syrian army, it is worth remember, has decades of experience fighting against a first team opponent: the IDF. Factor in Syrian national pride and the critical motivation factor - a US invasion of Syrian would not, by any one be seen as a liberation - and you have plenty of grounds for the Syrians to fight hard, intelligently, cleverly, and that certainly goes for AAA.

Modern US helicopter pilots, it is worth remembering, are used to conditions of air supremacy. They have little and usually no practice flying in an environment where the opposition is really trying hard to shoot them down, and has the tools and brains to do it. I do not, therefore, buy the line "US pilots are brave, therefore they will do whatever it takes to put ordnance on target even if the AAA threat is severe".

I reject that arguement because in the first place there are few to no US helicopter pilots left with experience against a severe AAA threat, and in the second place because the last time US helicopter pilots flew against even a moderate AAA threat - in Vietnam - the helicopter pilots though many had big brass ones considered paranoia critical to their survival.

I do not think US helicopter pilots are somehow magically braver than the Vietnam generation, and paranoid gunship pilots will deliver less surgically-accurate strikes, than pilots confident the worst threat out there, realistically, is a couple of badly-trained guys with Kalashnikovs.

Now back to my game. The Apache came back, and again made a pass roughly perpendicular to the line of contact, this time targeting the side of a BMP that was sitting still, but had just finished leveling a building and some US turtle troops inside it. The closest live and breathing US troops were, I suspect, about 40 m. away, on the far side of a line of buildings and a big wall.

The BMP was trashed, the Apache's cannon crushed it.

Within the framework of the scenario I'm playing, that is excellent air support. The US forces are less than 50 m. away and operating vehicles of their own, separation of Syrian and US forces is (at this point) 30 - 50 meters, smoke is all over the place, and trust me there are hundreds of armed Syrians able to fire on an Apache making a pass from pretty much any direction the chopper pilot picked. Under the circumstances, that was an Apache strike worthy of the Internet.

No shotgun of the Gods at all, rather, it was a strike that should make Syrian players complain why don't they have the means to shoot the Apaches like they would in RL, the game is stacked against the Syrians?

(I am not complaining, but seeing as the Apaches have now been above my troops for about 15 minutes, you would think Syrians would think to set up some HMG on some roof tops or break out a couple of Grails. For sure, I don't have that option in CMSF, and if I did, I bet I could at least scare the A/I Apache pilot even more.)

In other words, this is more empirical evidence that basically the helicopters in CMSF are modeled correctly - albeit they certainly aren't as accurate as some of the pretty vids on the Internet.

[Daniel Something Something]

I'm sure the Syrians have MANPADS.

[Clavicula_Nox]

During the conventional phase of OIF, the Apache was considered too vulnerable to rifle firepower, and was thus removed from future engagements that could exploit that vulnerability.

[Lee]

Well, the point is that we've seen plenty of videos with U.S. choppers (Apache, Blackhawk, etc.) making highly accurate rocket attacks on terrorists who certainly have rifles on them, and our pilots don't seem particularly concerned about it. It's certainly not affecting their ability to make devastating precise attack runs.

The rockets are obviously *way* too inaccurate in CMII right now.