No C-300 ?

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12407
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Mike » Tue 5 Sep 2017 04:39

ilias wrote:
Mike wrote:I believe the MIM-104 was a replacement for the HAWK and Nike Hercules. The former is why it's in game and the later is why it shouldn't be. :lol:

S-300 long time was, and still stays, you think its not reason for adding ?


Source for that reasoning?
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

ilias
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Tue 5 Sep 2017 05:00

Mike wrote:
ilias wrote:
Mike wrote:I believe the MIM-104 was a replacement for the HAWK and Nike Hercules. The former is why it's in game and the later is why it shouldn't be. :lol:

S-300 long time was, and still stays, you think its not reason for adding ?


Source for that reasoning?

?

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby GARGEAN » Tue 5 Sep 2017 07:50

molnibalage wrote:S-300P variants never to be intended Army SAM defens systems becuse thy did not had any armord and ABC protection... Even the less armored SAMs in Army had armor against at least 7.62 mm buller and shrapnels.

Miss.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6699
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby molnibalage » Tue 5 Sep 2017 09:48

ilias wrote:LR SAM is not firstine thing
(though i'm not saying it wasn't not intended--pretty much could be used)

I do not understand this comment, at all.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6699
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby molnibalage » Tue 5 Sep 2017 10:11

Steamfunk wrote: I mean it is basically a mobile version of the system that protects Moscow.

No, it is not. This is a total misconception...
S-300V is a totally different animal regardless of "300" in its designation.

So far all S-300P variants used a ESA type FCR and SAGG guidance, each missile battery has its own fire control radar. Each missile battery has its own low level 360 deg. search radar and only the command battery has the 360 deg. long range Big Bird radar.

But are exceptions in both ways.

Some exported variant where some countries did not bougth the command battery because it is pointless to have for a single S-300PMU, such as Slovakia. A single S-300PMU (Volhov-M6M, 5V55R 75 km range) missile battery therefore has ST-68U radar for 360 med-hi alt. search.

Some countries even bougth command battery also bougth 360 med-hi alt search radar for each missile battery besides the command battery Big Birt, for ex. Vietnam later bougth the 96L6E VVO (Cheese Board) radars for missile batteries.

------------------------------------------

In the doc. I made and linked you can see S-300V had totally different structure.

The 9S32 Grill Pan radar provides MCU/MCG for missiles which requires terminal phase CW target illumination. S-300V is rather close to AEGIS which also uses CW target illumination in terminal phase. This means no matter how many CW illuminatiors you have (PU tracked vehicles) without the Grill Pan the battery is not operational. Even each battery has its own Grill Pan the whole brigade also has a long range 360 deg search radar, but one of ABM search (like operates in sector search mode because in a NATO vs WPACT was all BM were arrived for west) and one against airplanes.

This is AEGIS, similar conception. Are ESA type radar for target tracking but for terminal target illumination SPG-62 are used, they are the CW target illuminators what you can see also in '70s and '80s Ticonderoga CGs.
https://defencyclopedia.files.wordpress ... aphic1.png

BTW didn't you notice S-300V has totally different missiles than any S-300P variants and for ABM role has a different missiles while S-300P - if you nelgect the backward compatibiliy - uses only a single type of missiles against both type of targets?

I' writing in HUN about a 600 page long stuff about military aviation and SAMs. Here is just a fraction about homeland SAMs to illustrate how deeps is the stuff even lots of thigs are not mentionted.. Maybe one day I translate into ENG to help better understaning things to prevent urban legends and misinformations.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/dzqggjolh1t8m8a/SAMs.pdf

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Sleksa » Tue 5 Sep 2017 11:59

molnibalage wrote:
ilias wrote:Do you know Patriots count at that period ?


Only US or other nations either?

MIM-104A/B - Standard/SOJC

1980-85 USA 6750 M USD 60 battery 3600 missile
1983 Germany 2100 M USD 28 battery 896 missile
1983 Netherland 333 M USD 4 battery 60 missile (was not even a full battalion with 6xFU FU = battery)*
1984 Japan 4000 M USD 24 battery 1000 missile


Image
Image

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6699
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby molnibalage » Tue 5 Sep 2017 13:11

Sleksa wrote:
molnibalage wrote:
ilias wrote:Do you know Patriots count at that period ?


Only US or other nations either?

MIM-104A/B - Standard/SOJC

1980-85 USA 6750 M USD 60 battery 3600 missile
1983 Germany 2100 M USD 28 battery 896 missile
1983 Netherland 333 M USD 4 battery 60 missile (was not even a full battalion with 6xFU FU = battery)*
1984 Japan 4000 M USD 24 battery 1000 missile


Image

Any valuable comment from you...?

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12407
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Mike » Tue 5 Sep 2017 14:16

ilias wrote:
Mike wrote:Source for that reasoning?

?


What comment from the developers leads you to you to think that the Patriot was added because of the S-300?
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Tue 5 Sep 2017 14:30

ilias wrote:if you mean in the game (from 7000 to 5000) i totally disagree with that ridiculousity cause it was made based of certain view on gameplay and totaly against realism, but what we have, desigions made by devs. (thanks for your work on creation of the game in any case [heart][heart][heart]), point is anyway stays: "same kind as patriot (if it is there, S-300 have to be too)"


It simply made it too hard to balance around.

The Patriot itself was on shaky ground itself, as it was a German based platform which bought up the fact that it should be in German decks too, which meant that Japan should get it too because of the same circumstances.

It's the same with the S-300, USSR would have it, but also East Germany and Czechoslovakia had S-300 sites on their territory before their dissolution. China could be argued that it should be in too

It also meant that smaller countries like North Korea and Sweden etc. Would be completely in the dust when it comes to AA.

Patriot was far too much of a con of worms, S-300 would just make everything worse off.
Image

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Markenzwieback » Tue 5 Sep 2017 14:41

Reducing Patriot to regular AA range and making it a wheeled AA options for Germany and Japan (in addition to the US) could really help the coalitions those two are in. Especially the motorized elements.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests