Blue Air Defence

[vincere]

With the announcement of Red Air support and Shilka included in Nato I had some thoughts nagging me.

I wondered whether Blue air defence may be included?

Was that the definitive list today or are there any more surprises?

Or is Red air support really just aimed at the Red on Red campaigns?

[Dietrich]

Concurrent questions:

Will Shilkas be able to deter/shoot down enemy helicopters? If not, then Blue air defenses need not necessarily be included.

Is the engagement range of the Apache/Cobra/etc. greater than that of the Shilka? Well, according to Wikipedia the Shilka's maximum horizontal range is 7 km, maximum vertical range 5.1 km; whereas the Hellfire's maximum operational range is 8 km.

Is Syrian CAS against Blue realistic/likely? I would reckon not. Wouldn't Syrian helicopters and/or fast-movers be interdicted before they got within engagement range of the typical CM:SF battlefield or destroyed on the ground in the first place? Besides, I surmise that coming under sudden sharp air attack, even if a few helos/jets and fuel bowsers remained intact afterward, would be quite an inducement to forgo taking off.

In my view, CM:SF's omission of actual anti-air stuff is fine, because it's beyond the game's intended scale. What happens on the map (i.e., exclusing air support and artillery) is in the <2 km range, whereas tactical air support (even just in terms of helicopter gunships) happens in the 2-8+ km range.

That said, I look forward to Red-versus-Red scenarios involving air support for one or both sides as well as Red-versus-Blue scenarios in which I (as one who plays plays Blue most of the time) have to keep my pixeltruppen moving and/or in cover to minimize the risk of air attack. =)

[Boche]

Concurrent questions:

Is Syrian CAS against Blue realistic/likely? I would reckon not. Wouldn't Syrian helicopters and/or fast-movers be interdicted before they got within engagement range of the typical CM:SF battlefield or destroyed on the ground in the first place? Besides, I surmise that coming under sudden sharp air attack, even if a few helos/jets and fuel bowsers remained intact afterward, would be quite an inducement to forgo taking off.

this is why red CAS wasnt included in previous versions (due to the stated reasons) but as players wanted more and more battlefront included it in NATO

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I wondered whether Blue air defence may be included?

Given that the Shilka (as in CM:A) cannot actually shoot at aircraft (since nothing can in-game ), but is included only in the anti-ground fire role, there wouldn't be much point in including Blue AA since they'd seldom if ever be on the front lines with the rest of the Blue forces depicted.

[MikeyD]

Yeh we're talking about a 2010 (actually a 2007) war against a major superpower. Shilka should either have it radar immediately targeted by HARM missiles or jammed by ECM aircraft. I doubt Syrian AAA would even bother to turn on its tracking radars, except perhaps for a few seconds to 'spook' the an attacking aircraft into aborting a bombing run.

But light armor with a fast turret and heavy firepower does have its ground support uses. I'm a convert - I used to think Shilka would just be another 'target vehicle'. I was wrong. CM:Afghanistan players can confirm that.

CMSF red aircraft? The better to build crazy red-on-red scenarios with! Egypt vs Libya. Chad vs Sudan. China vs Vietnam! You asked for it.

[Eagle2]

But light armor with a fast turret and heavy firepower does have its ground support uses. I'm a convert - I used to think Shilka would just be another 'target vehicle'. I was wrong. CM:Afghanistan players can confirm that.

You definitely got me there. I've just played the demo, but the Shilka is definitely one of my new favorite toys. The sheer amount of firepower is enough to make a grown man cry. I usually don't play as red, but something tells me that I'll be playing them a bit more with that bestower of lead

[vincere]

AA fire as a feature obviously is a resource issue. I don't see it as a huge omission for SF. But adding red air support begs the question really. Great if it's intended just for Red V Red; was it an easy quick thing to add.

As a blue player I'm going to be pissed if red wack a platoon because I have absolutely no on map or even abstracted riposte. Hell, at least get the .50s working against the Hinds.

I'll be like, "where are the stingers"?

Oh and this scenario: red air at same time as blue. My F16 should have wacked that Hind that is hosing my line.

Is there AA as a featue with Normandy?

[Sequoia]

AA fire as a feature obviously is a resource issue. I don't see it as a huge omission for SF. But adding red air support begs the question really. Great if it's intended just for Red V Red; was it an easy quick thing to add.

As a blue player I'm going to be pissed if red wack a platoon because I have absolutely no on map or even abstracted riposte. Hell, at least get the .50s working against the Hinds.

I'll be like, "where are the stingers"?

Oh and this scenario: red air at same time as blue. My F16 should have wacked that Hind that is hosing my line.

Is there AA as a featue with Normandy?

Sure all of this can occur, but it shouldn't happen in a scenario where the scenario maker knows what the hell he's doing. The possibility of someone now being able to create dumb scenarios is worth the trade off in giving us the Shilka and Red Air in Red vs Red scenarios.

I bet in the NATO module they don't give the blue side any helicopters in any scenario where the Syrians have a Shilka.

[Dietrich]

Some would use the inclusion of the Shilka as yet more grist to the ever-grinding "the asymmetry of this game is ridiculous" mill. They would assert that in any given scenario that includes a Shilka either the Blue player will have multiple means of taking it out (Javelins, super-accurate artillery, fixed-wing CAS) or any Blue rotary-wing CAS will be "gamey-ly" omitted.

Am I overestimating the tactical capabilities of the Apache and/or Cobra, or could at least an AH-64D Longbow engage a Shilka at a great enough distance to be considered relatively safe? (Yes, I know that the scene in Generation Kill where the Cobra flies to within 800 meters or so of the Shilka to launch a Hellfire at it is unrealistic.) In any case, I look forward to using the new Blue long-range AT assets against any Shilka that I come across, just as I look forward to making good use of the Shilka.

[vincere]

Sure all of this can occur, but it shouldn't happen in a scenario where the scenario maker knows what the hell he's doing. The possibility of someone now being able to create dumb scenarios is worth the trade off in giving us the Shilka and Red Air in Red vs Red scenarios.

I bet in the NATO module they don't give the blue side any helicopters in any scenario where the Syrians have a Shilka.

Hmm, that begs the question of Red V Red- Shilka V red air support.

Yes scenario makers can contrive that they never appear on opposite sides but that has an air of half finished business in my opinion. Plus I guess some people use quick battles.

I guess we'll know soon enough when Nato is released. As it stands it looks like air support red air support will be included and reasonable Air defence vehicle that can't shoot at air targets. A situation that has flaws.

[LongLeftFlank]

Are there any known instances of Shilkas or ZSUs being used in a ground role against Coalition forces by Saddam's army during OIF? I remember seeing footage of some ZPU twin 57mms being thermite-grenaded by US soldiers near Baghdad.

Also, for all the high ROF, just how effective are 23mm airburst shells at penetrating ground cover (e.g. mud brick walls)? Strikes me as possibly inferior to metal-jacketed 12.7mm or .50cal meatchoppers unless you have treeburst potential or sumfink. Thoughts?

I'm all for including these weapons in CMSF for what-if / Red v Red purposes, but they ain't no superweapon. At best they're eggshells with hammers.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Are there any known instances of Shilkas or ZSUs being used in a ground role against Coalition forces by Saddam's army during OIF? I remember seeing footage of some ZPU twin 57mms being thermite-grenaded by US soldiers near Baghdad.

Also, for all the high ROF, just how effective are 23mm airburst shells at penetrating ground cover (e.g. mud brick walls)? Strikes me as possibly inferior to metal-jacketed 12.7mm or .50cal meatchoppers unless you have treeburst potential or sumfink. Thoughts?

I'm all for including these weapons in CMSF for what-if / Red v Red purposes, but they ain't no superweapon. At best they're eggshells with hammers.

I have a vague recollection of Iraqi AA assets being used against 1st LAR at An Nasiriyah, but I don't have a reference for it.

[c3k]

I recall hearing (sorry, no source) about an M1 mobility kill due to ZU-23-2 hits penetrating the engine compartment. I can't even recall which highway/urban area.

Again, not definitively sourced by me.

Ken

[vincere]

I'm all for including these weapons in CMSF for what-if / Red v Red purposes, but they ain't no superweapon. At best they're eggshells with hammers.

Well in CMA demo it's a beast against infantry and buildings. Also and eggshell; playing as Muj I took it out with three flank bursts from a 12.7 mm

Just finished reading Black Hearts: at some point insurgents deployed a reasonable amount of AD assets in the triangle of death- brought down a black hawk and a mini-bird. The AD probably had much less bit than a shilka.

[ChrisND]

The best description of the Shilka is that it is a glass cannon.