Weapon systems and target limitaions?

[pad152]

Weapon systems and target limitaions?

Seeing the ability of the simple RPG to be fired at and hit aircraft, helo's, and other targets, what limitations are there on the target types of some of the fancer weapon systems in the game?

firing ATGM's at a helo?

firing anti-air missiles at tanks?

[flamingknives]

Most SAMs would not be able to identify a ground target - not enough heat difference, too much clutter etc., but some are some form of CLOS (Command to Line Of Sight) and can. If the British Make it in, the Starstreak is one of the few that would pose a threat to armoured vehicles.

[Colin]

Hmm...well I'm thinking if I'm a Syrian irregular and I have a SAM and a tank is coming at me, I'm gonna point and shoot and hope for the best rather then die waiting for a plane to come.

If a LT ever saw you fire the TOW at a helicopter I'd imagine you'd have some hell to pay. Also you'd need a helicopter to shoot at in the first place.

[SgtMuhammed]

You can shoot a SAM at a tank but it will just scratch the paint. They are designed as proximity warheads and have little penetration power.

When I was with TOWs one of our possible targets was helicopters. It would take a bit to hit one that wasn't hovering but we were expected to try to engage them.

[Colin]

Well.

LOL I am pwned.

I've try to engage heli's in BF and it's hard. There would defintly be an effect of shooting AT rockets at helis. They might think you were equipped for AA and leave which is almost as good as destroying them.

I still don't think the Syrian's would have many heli's anyway.

[pad152]

I wonder if the Army ever thought of a simple cheap RPG type weapon with a dual AT and AA role?

Iraq has shown even an Abrams tank can be disabled with enought RPG hits.

Seems to me, if you over specialize you run the risk of having the wrong weapons in the wrong fight.

[Kurtz]

Helicopters can be engaged with ATGMs. The problem is that the missile has limited manueverability and slow speed. But firing at hovering helos is no different from firing at other stationary targets.

Just hope the helo remain stationary during the 10 or so seconds it takes for the ATGM to reach its target.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

regarding using AA systems against ground targets, the real deal is not the AA-missiles, it's the 23mm AA-guns. when facing Stryker force they turn into very lethal AT-guns.

with their stealth, very fast ROF and the ability to punch thru Stryker, the 23mm AA-gun systems will light up platoons of Strykers in seconds. they also exist in such vast numbers, and are cheap in reality, that getting a AA-gun battery should be practically free when buying Syrian troops.

mobile AA-gun systems, the hundreds of Shilkas (4x23mm guns, very fast turret, able to engage moving ground targets on the move) will become very powerful predators.

the good things is that both the towed & self-propelled AA-gun systems are themselves soft targets, which should lead to very exciting & bloody battles. this applies to the ~2000 Syrian BMP-1s as well, which will transform from IFVs to tank hunters when facing a Stryker force.

i think the Syrian side will be the fundamentally easier side to play.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

the good things is that both the towed & self-propelled AA-gun systems are themselves soft targets...

Lest anyone misunderstand, the Shilka is armored, though very thinly so (about 8-9mm).

Michael

[Sergei]

Originally posted by pad152:

I wonder if the Army ever thought of a simple cheap RPG type weapon with a dual AT and AA role?

Good luck with hitting air targets with an RPG - other than a chopper hovering at place, but then any RPG is just as good.

Really, you need a guidance system, but it just is a fact that it is more effective to have specialized AA missiles for taking jets down. Except in Command & Conquer.

[birdstrike]

It's a´ll a matter of size.

The Navy's SM-2 AAMs can be used against aircraft and (to some degree) ships alike -

but then again those things are BIG (almost 15ft) and weigh almost a ton, which makes them unlikely to be used in ground combat.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

in WW2 Japanese had rockets in their battleships for AA use. i don't know what their range was, but perhaps they could have been used against ground targets as well.

[stoat]

The Japs had rockets?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

yes, i think they had AA rockets in their battleships. in pods. shot them rockets up the sky where only the eagles dare. hit not, they ever did, i fear. thinking now, them Brits had them as well. but me not Navy person am. seas evil.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

googled a bit and found this pic of British AA rocket:

didn't find a pic of the Japanese AA rocket, but found many mentions about it. apparently they were used in carriers, not battleships.

[stoat]

It was the battleship bit that threw me off. The Japs did put 28 barreled rocket launchers on carriers such as Junyo and Shinano from late 1944. These were terribly inaccurate, but I guess if a 5 in. rocket were to hit you, it would ruin your day pretty quick.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by stoat:

These were terribly inaccurate...

My guess would be that the Japanese intended to use them the same way the Brits would have, i.e., not to target individual planes, but to try to break up formations. I'd reckon they might be distracting if you were trying to set up a bomb run with a squadron of Dauntlesses.

Michael

[birdstrike]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stoat:

These were terribly inaccurate...

My guess would be that the Japanese intended to use them the same way the Brits would have, i.e., not to target individual planes, but to try to break up formations. I'd reckon they might be distracting if you were trying to set up a bomb run with a squadron of Dauntlesses.

</font>

[stoat]

That was also the intention with the arial phosphorus bomb. That proved ineffective, so did little to break up bomber formations.

Why would you be attacking rocket equipped ships with Dauntlesses? By the time the rockets came around, Helldivers were on the first line carriers, and Dauntlesses were relegated to CVE duty attacking shore targets, submarines, or coastal barge traffic.

[Michael Emrys]

The British, under impetus of Churchill as MoD, developed the AA rocket during the Blitz. It was expected to be launched in a barrage fashion against massed bomber formations. I don't recall it being very successful. It certainly scored very, very few kills. Probably wasn't worth the effort put into it, but in situations like those, you try everything you can think of.

Originally posted by stoat:

Why would you be attacking rocket equipped ships with Dauntlesses? By the time the rockets came around, Helldivers were on the first line carriers, and Dauntlesses were relegated to CVE duty attacking shore targets, submarines, or coastal barge traffic.

I think the Dauntless was still present on the fast carriers through the Battle of the Phillipine Sea in June, 1944 (corrections welcome). When were the rockets installed on the IJN carriers? In any event, I mentioned the Dauntless because I thought it would be more recognizable. Probably not a wise move in retrospect.

Michael

[tar]

Well, the navy's Sparrow-based AA missile also has a secondary anti-ship role. IIRC a US carrier accidentally engaged and hit a Turkish destroyer during NATO maneuvers.

Google helps me find that destroyer MUAVENET was hit by a Sea Sparrow missile fired from US aircraft carrier Saratoga during NATO Exercise Display Determination 92. http://www.turkishnavy.net/tepee.htm

Wikipedia adds: The missiles struck Muavenet in the bridge, destroying it and the Combat Information Center, killing most of the Turkish ship's officers. http://tinyurl.com/ax7am (This BBoard doesn't allow parethese in URLs and the Wikipedia link uses parentheses.)

Other info: USS SARATOGA accidentally launched two Sea Sparrow missiles of which one hit the Turkey destroyer MAUVENET killing 5 Turkey sailors including the destroyer's commanding officer. http://navysite.de/cvn/cv60.htm

[stoat]

From: http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/

The SBD was gradually phased out during 1944, and the 20 June 1944 strike against the Japanese Mobile Fleet in the Battle of the Philippine Sea was its last major action as a carrier-borne aircraft.

You are right in that SBDs were still in use at Philippine Sea. After June, SB2Cs stared to come on line rapidly. However, rockets only started to appear on ships such as Shinano and Junyo. I don't think that Junyo had its rockets during Philippine Sea, but probably got them during its prot stay from July to December 1944. I can't find information that says other carriers had rocket batteries, nor of their use in battle.