Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#559793 - 05/23/01 08:35 PM (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hi!

DISCLAIMER : I'm a pretty rubbish pilot, but this is fun and works for me. It isn't particularily sensible, but does keep you safe from SAM's.

Using this I can (all but) now guarantee I'll kill a Destroyer without getting blown out of the sky by SAM's or cannon.

For SAM equipped ships:
1] Equip brimstones

2] Set engines to 100%.
(Around 600-650 kph?)
(This speed is required during the escape phase.)

3] At about 3-5 miles out, dive to around 100ft or lower, aiming straight for destroyer.

(EDIT : approach at a right angle to line of convoy to keep time of over-flight to a minimum.)

(Anything above 200 and SA missiles will lock on, about 150ft and you'll get the occasional lock on. I tend to hear repeated "SAM launch" but don't get locked on.)

(You can timeskip this bit, but watch the altimeter carefully.)

4] Fire brimstones at about 1/2 mile.

(Destroyer should explode before you go over it - I tend to climb to about 150/200ft just in case)

(I've also had some success firing at multiple targets this way.)

5] Dive back down to around 100ft and perform favorite bullet-evasion tactics. Normally air will be filled with bullets flying past you.

6] If no a-g, fly back to base or whatever. If a-g remaining, circle back in a wide arc to repeat procedure.

If you expect to run out of a-g during pass then work out your escape route to land beforehand. If you really want to get out quick, just hit the afterburners after you fire.

For less dangerous ships, simply setting the throttle autopilot to around 300/350 then lining up behind and using cannon / brimstone / crv7 seems to work fine.


SanC

[This message has been edited by Arlki (edited 05-23-2001).]

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#559794 - 05/23/01 08:37 PM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


... Also - if you line up behind a series of Hovercraft low enough, it does appear that they'll shoot each other to bits for you.

SanC

#559795 - 05/23/01 08:47 PM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 669
Hitman IF Offline
Member
Hitman IF  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 669
Aberdeen, Scotland
Hi, I have found that SAM and AAA is reduced say 75%+if you fly with radar off and below 200. I took out a whole convoy with Brimstones and Guns. I guess rockets would be cool for that. Always launch brimstones in line with ships direction of travel.

------------------
---SVBS squad is playing Typhoon now at http://www.svbs.co.uk !---


---SVBS squad is playing Lock On, ADF/TAW and Typhoon now at http://www.svbs.co.uk !---
#559796 - 05/23/01 09:48 PM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hi Hitman IF!

I'd tend to disagree with that line of travel bit - as long as you're close enough, going fast enough and aimed right at the ship. Thats partly why my tactics above work - a missile going at Mach 1+, and starting from 1/2-1/4 mile distances won't take very long to hit.

SanC

#559797 - 05/23/01 09:54 PM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


... and if you do use my tactics, flying in line with the ships (ie in line over them) would likely fill you with lead.

I'll edit the message now to specify this.

SanC

#559798 - 05/24/01 01:51 AM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Arlki,

I'm glad you found a way to give the naval attack missions some chance of success.

As an alternative point of interest here are some page links, more or less by '70s-80s' and '90s-00s' dating, on Russian naval AD weapons systems. Look at the minimum altitudes especially.

SA/N-5
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-7.htm
(Dedicated (manual) multimoun of the old SA-7 Grail on FAC and GRU patrol boats and 'supplemental' on any major combattant where a dedicated SAM is not available to complement guns, not great but X6/rail 'plentiful' and cheap.)

SA/N-4
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-8.htm
(Naval SA-8, the most dangerous of the post-'73 mobile SAMs and one of the first to use high quality, dual, EOCG/RFCG 'channels' to ensure SHORADS hits...)

AK-630
http://www.glennster.com/graphics/pic12.jpg
http://www.3-lib.co.uk/aj.cashmore/.weapons/russia/ak630_1.jpg
http://www.3-lib.co.uk/aj.cashmore/.weapons/russia/.ciws.html
http://www.xsouth.freeserve.co.uk/ak630_ciws.htm
(Their version of the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS, except that they will mount 2-4 on even /small/ combattants. The weak point being the discrete Bass Tilt for all mounts)

SA/N-9 Klinok
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-15.htm
http://www.rusarm.ru/products/ad/torm1.htm
(Naval Gauntlet SA-8/N-4 successor with added multitarget/PGM defense at up to 500 m/sec engagement...)

SA/N-10 Grouse
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-18.htm
(Grail's successor and a really -good- MANPADS, sufficiently so to equal say the French naval SATCP Mistral mounts which are used for terminal missile defense)

SA/N-11 CADS-N
http://www.wonderland.org.nz/Kashtan1.jpg
http://www.rusarm.ru/products/ad/tungm.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5423/2s6.html
('Kashtan', almost a straight-across porting of the 2s6 whose _eight_ SA-19 have a .65 SSPk and can engage from .015 meters above water with guns, 3.5 with missiles).

GENERIC RUSSIAN AD LINKS-
http://www.ets-news.com/navalguns.htm
http://www.wonderland.org.nz/rnsa.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/index.html
http://users.aol.com/threatmstr/airdef.htm
http://www.aviation.ru/GRAU/

Look at those minimum altitudes. 10 meters, 30 meters, _3.5 meters_. For SAM.

You can't go 'under the radar' on Sea LOS. Especially when the threat has optical backup and command detonation channels as a function of the ability to shoot missiles from the air. From up to 4,200m out.

The Russians aren't fools and Hellfire, while it has a D/A penetrator-blast model and is indeed used in the 'anti landing craft' role by the Swedes; has some serious limits as a high-diver antitank weapon against large vessels (and even Russian LCAC are quite large). And why not? It's a 27.5lb chunk of explosive and splinters vs. a 100->5,000 tonne vessels?

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jalw/jalw001013_1_n.shtml
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/HELLFIRE.html

If you want to engage a Russian SAG or Amphib Landing Force, you need to first create a realistic 'AAW sanctuary' for them to operate in and then you need to break it with real roll back and _heavy_ AShM. Using numbers of weapons fired to saturate numbers-shot-down until you kill broach the inner zone defenses 'anyway'.

Brimstone might be a part of that but it sure as hell isn't if fired 'accurately' from .5nm.

I hope you will continue to experiment in the hopes of finding a better means to prosecute with ALARM and Penguin.

I find it particularly interestng that you take more fire when on a parallel track as usually most ships try to unmask terminal defensive mounts and sensors and generate away-from-lane (decoy separations etc.) bearing changes that at least 'tack' the vessel across the suspect inbounds.

Could you describe a little more the formation and orientation of the target group (and any defensive changes to same upon attack).

Particularly the defensive 'stacking' from inner to outer ADZ valued elements and their escorts.


Thanks- Kurt Plummer

#559799 - 05/24/01 03:28 AM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 5,955
Andy Bush Offline
Site Emeritus
Air Combat Forum Moderator
Andy Bush  Offline
Site Emeritus
Air Combat Forum Moderator

Hotshot

Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 5,955
St Charles, MO
>>can engage from .015 meters above water with guns, 3.5 with missiles)<<

Lordy!! That lends a whole new definition to the term "in the weeds".

But I really think you mis-typed there, Kurt. The link says kilometers, not meters. Think about it....015 of a meter is a little over one inch.

Thanks much for the links...my 'Favorites' list is a mile long!

Andy

#559800 - 05/24/01 07:13 AM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hi Kurt!

Just a quick update...

Typhoon isn't real life.

In this game called Typhoon there is a minimum height of around 80-120 meters at which all SA missiles tend to lose lock. AA missiles also seem to suffer probs below this height, but might still hit, especially if already low when you hit that height.

Also, whilst we're not talking 2-3 brimstones here, I'm going to _guess_ that alarm & penguin will require more than one shot to kill a destroyer - especially given how effective they were against the Typhoon Sub early on in the game. What do you want - 18 brimstones (for say 3 possible destroyer kills) with a chance to strike other targets like 6-9 AA SAMs as well - or (EDIT : 6) missiles which may or may not kill even 6 SAMs. (EDIT : Not tried them myself)

Myself, I'll stick with brimstones.

Also, given that hovercraft _appear_ to kill each other if you get down low behind them, do you really think the ships care whats between you and them, or in what direction they have to fire? Since I believe they don't care, I'd rather cross the convoy at 90 degrees to it's line of travel than at 0/180 degrees and fly over 7+ trigger/SA happy boats. Think about the maths, and you should realise that they're normally going to hit you a lot more if you do that.

Anyway, facts and figures are useful only if applied correctly. I can quote all the numbers you want, but none of them mean a thing if they don't apply in game. Let me know when you find out some stats about the missiles in game. Thanks,

SanC

[This message has been edited by Arlki (edited 05-24-2001).]

#559801 - 05/24/01 09:00 AM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Andy,

You were right. If my math is on, .015km=49.5ft Still less than most players will reliably want to fly at, even with a radalt linked autopilot.

Arlki,

Closure vs. Kill Counts.

Thanks for the info, this is what I was talking about when I asked about the formation and spacing of the enemy assault forces.

I -think- what you are seeing is less like modern naval lane and zone defense than a 'B-17' solution where at least the Sea Monster threats are causing you to approach with low closure and you are catching the combined effects of every 'tail gunner in the box'.

For these threats, AAM should be the preferred solution and target size should more than outweight AGL heights.

Against a 'real ship' it shouldn't matter, at least at less than 20nm shooter distances, they just aren't fast enough to extend out of the search lane, let alone ballistic footprint.

However; if you create separate, staggered, 2-5nm echelon or diamond group-center formations all fires can be sectored-clear of each other.

Throw in outer pickets and possibly stood off AAW controller/trap platforms another 15-20nm beyond this and not only is there less likelihood of literally 'crossed' fires but you can Inner/Mid/Outer zone your fires too.

And if the lead and trailed elements zig zag on even a lazy basis, no 'unprotected' stern-on/bow-on denied aspect is shown as each element of the group is able to bring at least two (fore and aft) sensor/gun/missile inner zone systems to bear, quickly.

This is where I would start to feel 'exposed' to too many threat fires. Not by aspect but by closure on a range overlapped threat.

For myself, rather than blow the missile/defensive models completely (as IMO, has happened), I would find it FAR more 'enjoyable', gameplay wise, to have a random-

"Hey this time 4 got thru!"

Gamblers Odds Effect upon salvo fires where say 12 Penguins, fired from 11-19nm out (max range list varies between marks and tables, 17-23nm) were assigned to attack the ring ships protecting the inner ward of merchantmen or whatever.

Because Penguin can reject hulks, if AAW Escort targets #1 and #2 on the east side of the convoy were 'already burning' after shots 1-thru-5 had been shot down or decoyed but 6, 7, and 8 had scored disabling hits, then the basically defenseless inner convoy elements are now 'eligible' for the remaining rounds which reject and flyover to acquire secondarily designated threats.

Penguin is additionally advantaged in this mode because IR decoys are not as widely deployed as floater-RF and SRBOC and transports are otherwise generally defenseless.

But as stated, Penguin is also fairly short on range and so how far 'in' it goes (past the outer ring) to -find- those targets is a function of how much risk you are willing to impart in initial closure to the defense cordon of spearpoints.

If the inner ward is 20nm inside the pickets (plenty of shoot across/back volume and warning time), you have to blow a hole in the outer defenses -just to reach AGM-119 firing range- on the true targets.

OTOH, if you withhold 4 missiles and all 8 of the initial salvo are decoyed or shot down or fail to cause disabling damage, then effectively, even if you shoot again, your 'remaining' chances of just -hitting- the AAW escorts are actually lower.

And getting past them to the convoy is now effectively impossible.

It's true that the AGM-119 has a lighter charge (265lbs IIRR) compared to 'standard' 500lb Western AShM warhead or the 1-2K equivalent of Russian missiles.

_But_ like all Anti Shipping Missiles, they are designed to go delayed-action deep and the blast through multiple bulkheads, out and down.

Either 'keel holing' the ship from a popup/diver profile through a critical (CIC or magazine or power generation) compartment or as a 'stoved in' ribcrush effect against the waterline where the effects are purely hydraulic and even a 20` caused by sea influx through through a 12ft hole can take multiple weapons mounts out of engagement. On a merchie, the weak get eaten as soon as they fall out of the convoy herd.

Surprising amounts of added damage done by the incendiary effect of unburned (rocket propellant grain in this case) fuel is still only an 'after effect' to effectively keep DC from resealing compartments against flooding and establishing power/comms back to combat.

Under 10K tonnes and usually even a singlehit causes the DC crews to lose the battle and you end up with a slow sinker whose spine breaks under the tonnage of water or a Very Long Towtruck operation back to a major refit.

Comparitively, using Hellfire of any kind (but especially Shaped Charge Brimstone) you are instead looking at shell-hole type 'surface' effects no more than a foot or so across and six feet in.

These are the kinds of insignificant damages that required 8" and 11" pocket battleships like the Graf Spee and Gneisnau to sometimes expend a hundred large caliber shells to sink the commonest cargo ships in their role as merchant raiders.

Overpenetration at the surface level doesn't leave a large enough volume behind the hull-impact to compromise it's buoyancy.

Effectively, I would feel like I was engaging in Needle-In-Voodoo-Doll warfare on a _whale_.

Operationally, the problem arises when you either have to come back and try again as mentioned above or accept let-slip-thru-to-land inshore engagement on many more point threats.

In a 'beachhead' scenario, both fires and targets are mixed and the number of signature masks on both shooter and weapon are tripled so that you have a very compressed acquisition window.

That's a bad place to be.


KP


LINKS-
FAS Penguin
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/agm-119.htm

NASNI
http://www.nasni.navy.mil/wings/hsl49/Penguin.htm

If Russian CADWS can defeat this...
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/agm-119-980721-N-5961C-001.jpg

USNI
http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapons/missrock/antiship/w0001849.html

#559802 - 05/24/01 12:49 PM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51
Gel214th Offline
Junior Member
Gel214th  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51
AIEEEE!!
OMG its KURT Again!

Oh...oh no its too late..I started reading those posts...
*winces*
Headache..
brain--pounding--too--much--military-ese...must..stop..reading...


hee hee hee


-Gel214th
#559803 - 05/24/01 12:51 PM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51
Gel214th Offline
Junior Member
Gel214th  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Arlki:


Also, whilst we're not talking 2-3 brimstones here, I'm going to _guess_ that alarm & penguin will require more than one shot to kill a destroyer - especially given how effective they were against the Typhoon Sub early on in the game. What do you want - 18 brimstones (for say 3 possible destroyer kills) with a chance to strike other targets like 6-9 AA SAMs as well - or (EDIT : 6) missiles which may or may not kill even 6 SAMs. (EDIT : Not tried them myself)

Myself, I'll stick with brimstones.
[This message has been edited by Arlki (edited 05-24-2001).]


I was wondering Arlki..what you are doing would essentially work quite well with Rockets, rather than Brimstones, and you can carry a lot more of those.

Flying close to the deck and blasting away is pretty much a cannon/rocket tactic no? So ...are the Brimstones that much more powerful that it makes sense using them, instead of carrying rockets?

Have you tried that same tactic with rockets?
And when you pop to 150-200 feet to start maneuvering away from the ships on egress, do they launch SAMs then?


-Gel214th
#559804 - 05/24/01 01:30 PM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 420
Hatch Offline
Member
Hatch  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 420
Orlando, FL USA
Actually, I use the same tactic with rockets in a couple of places in the campaign. First time was the attack on the sub. From my EECH time I foolishly am not as spooked by low flight so I came in at 50-75 (although I was scared to blink). I popped up very slightly prior to firing 3 rockets than broke hard to the right.

I have also done similar manuevers against the sea monsters and hovercraft, though I prefer the ease of use of Hellfires here.

[This message has been edited by Hatch (edited 05-25-2001).]

#559805 - 05/24/01 05:53 PM Re: (Bad?) :) Anti-Ship tactics  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hi Gel214th!

You're right, anyone with decent aim would probably use rockets. I do like the brimstone though, and I think it might be safer against SAM sites where there's lots of enemies covering. If you're a good shot, the rockets would probably win, especially given how many you carry. I think I'll have to practice then give it a go later.

Kurt...

...

Do any of your links apply to Typhoon? If you can verify that reading the links and your message will help me become a better pilot in Typhoon then I'll try reading them.

Thanks,

SanC


Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
SimHQ Formula 1 Fantasy League
by DBond. 02/21/24 05:48 PM
Brand New, 26 Year Old, House for Sale
by F4UDash4. 02/18/24 11:52 AM
E Commerce Results Filtering
by F4UDash4. 02/17/24 11:43 AM
MS to end W10 support in Oct. 2025
by Red2112. 02/15/24 09:44 PM
Your top 5 RPG's of all time?
by PanzerMeyer. 02/15/24 01:13 PM
Cold War Posters
by F4UDash4. 02/15/24 01:43 AM
Some twisted humor
by oldgrognard. 02/14/24 10:05 PM
MSFS 2020 Dune
by Red2112. 02/13/24 09:49 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0