Wargame: Airland Dragon

User avatar
Sireyn
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Mon 27 Jan 2020 03:13

Mandolin wrote:I remember you mentioning you split the Starstreak into AP ground and HE air weapons. Is it possible to split the 20mms into air and ground weapons so the 3,000rpm air and 1,000rpm ground modes are represented?


The download link isn't functioning for me.

I could split the weapons, but I modeled them in 100-round burst mode for balance and so I could give it the correct ammo capacity. A weapon's salvo length (100 rounds) is multiplied by its ammo stock (11 salvos) to give it its final capacity (1,100 rounds).

To give it another weapon with a different salvo length may create inconsistencies or not work as intended.

Yeah, but everyone measures a weapon's penetration in RHA, even if the target's armor isn't.

That reminds me. There's a nice document with MBT armor numbers from the Swedish tank testing a while back. Might be useful.


I'm trying to research the Bradley's armor, and it stops 14.5mm rounds (40mm penetration) using spaced composite armor with much less RHA thickness, at least on the sides. Armor is super complicated.


Even RHA measurements are inconsistent. The exact quality of the armor plate, distance, angle, and what constitutes penetration or perforation may be different between tests, let alone nations. It's a difficult thing to compare, so RHA equivalents are only a basic starting point to me. Especially during the later Cold War, rounds were designed to defeat certain targets. You have something like 3BM-42 that incorporates two penetrators in a sheathe, reducing effectiveness against solid RHA but may allow it to maintain integrity through a composite array, as on a modern MBT.

My approach here would be to take its RHA value and increase its effectiveness by 1-3 AP to meet its contemporary opponents. I placed this normally 17-18 AP round at 20 AP to be marginally effective against 20AV HA Abrams and effective against 19AV Leo 2A4.

Stopping 14.5mm AP is 1 or 2 AV in game. I have the Bradley at 3 front and side AV currently, but all my IFV and autocannon AP need a rework.

Honestly I'd just leave the non-shaped charge Mavericks as they are. There isn't really anything to replace them with and modeling them as medium-high HEAT penetration works well enough.


I have two reasons to want to change them. If the mission is to kill tanks, they probably would have been given the correct model. Then, the other models should have a large explosion and damage more than the target. Working out the details is too much work right now, so it's low on my list.

Why not keep the AV-8C as rocket attacker and rerole the A-4M to light bomber?


A-4 is very slow and defenseless. Using it as a light bomber is high risk and limited effects, so it is much more suited for rockets or something that fires from range.

Anything else you're working on that I might be able to help with?


Some random things I am considering.

New Units
A new US unit with M67 RR. Another fire support team or giving it to Ranges may work. The weapon existed, was used instead of M47 Dragon in freezing climates, and has even been issued in modern times as a cheap alternative to Javelins in Afghanistan.

USA : Light Riflemen '75 with basic LAW and basic M60. Kind of crap.
USA : AH-1W recon with AGM-122.

UK : Tornado with ALARM

USSR : PT-76K
USSR : BTR-60PBK instead of BTR-70K
USSR : Naval Su-24 with anti-shipping missiles

Balancing
Increase HE to 1.5 of 30-40mm autocannons

Should Soviet gun launched missiles have anti-helicopter capability? (I could duplicate the round and give it its own stats)

Merge US Motorized and US Airborne decks

ANZAC placed into Blue Dragons

More cards, but less units per card of special forces units

How prolific was Armbrust and did it have/what was the HE round?

Large Scale Balancing
IFV / Autocannon armor and penetration

Infantry rocket launcher reduced range and correct AP

Overpenetration mechanics for HEAT and KE rounds - AP too far above the target armor reduces the damage done

Change the number of men in infantry squads to their correct number, instead of 2/5/10/15. This could be just visual or include hitpoints and point costs per unit.

Adjust infantry weapons to represent authentic ammo capacities without affecting balance.

Mandolin wrote:
Spoiler : :
So I very literally just found this. Its a penetration chart for the AGM-65's blast warhead from the AV-8B tactial manual.

So you have about 200mm of penetration, after which 36kg of explosives go off.


Anything without fancy composite armor is screwed.


Also, it has PGU-20 API rounds with subcaliber DU penetrators in a aluminum sleeve. They were even kind enough to include the penetration tables for it!


Nice finds.

I think the Kh-29 in Wargame is a similar case to the later Mavericks, so if I were to adjust Mavericks to have an HE charge then there are other missiles that would require changing.

Mandolin
Warrant Officer
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat 12 Oct 2013 23:13
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Mandolin » Tue 28 Jan 2020 01:55

Sireyn wrote:The download link isn't functioning for me.
Really? Well I uploaded them to my Archive.compage.

Also, check out this site for old FMs, it has among other thing a Redeye manual.

I could split the weapons, but I modeled them in 100-round burst mode for balance and so I could give it the correct ammo capacity. A weapon's salvo length (100 rounds) is multiplied by its ammo stock (11 salvos) to give it its final capacity (1,100 rounds).

To give it another weapon with a different salvo length may create inconsistencies or not work as intended.
Understood. Speaking of which, it might just be my reading of the manuals but I'm pretty sure the M163 has 900-1000 rounds stowed in addition to the 1000-odd rounds in the drum.

Stopping 14.5mm AP is 1 or 2 AV in game. I have the Bradley at 3 front and side AV currently, but all my IFV and autocannon AP need a rework.
14.5 should require at least 2 AV to stop. I always pictured 1 AV as "stops 7.62", the basic level of armor on all APCs. Then .50BMG should come next, as it has more penetration than 7.62 but about half as much as 14.5.

Also, 1990s improvements to the .50BMG in the form of Nammo's AP-S and M903 SLAP (APDS) push the .50BMG into 14.5mm territory. AP-S improves standard 12.7mm penetration from 22mm/100m to 22mm/900m and SLAP does 34mm/500m and 23mm/1200m. Both of those rounds are fully equivalent to 14.5mm in armor penetration (30mm/500m, 20mm/1000m).

Mk211/Rafous is actually a high-explosive AP round, the US calls it API and Nammo calls it MP. Not quite enough AP to give it a value until a very recent improved version, but belted with AP-S you have a .75HE autocannon.


I have two reasons to want to change them. If the mission is to kill tanks, they probably would have been given the correct model. Then, the other models should have a large explosion and damage more than the target. Working out the details is too much work right now, so it's low on my list.
But then the Marines don't get Mavericks and they apparently did just fine with them in reality.

A-4 is very slow and defenseless. Using it as a light bomber is high risk and limited effects, so it is much more suited for rockets or something that fires from range.
That makes sense.

Some random things I am considering.

New Units
A new US unit with M67 RR. Another fire support team or giving it to Ranges may work. The weapon existed, was used instead of M47 Dragon in freezing climates, and has even been issued in modern times as a cheap alternative to Javelins in Afghanistan.
I should note that the M67 ingame is massively over-modeled, the real thing's sights only go to 700m.

USA : Light Riflemen '75 with basic LAW and basic M60. Kind of crap.
What is the difference between Light Rifleman '75 and Rifleman '75? Light Rifleman IRL are just Rifleman with no ATGMs at platoon level.

You have Rifleman for Motorized and Support decks, Mechanized Rifleman for Armored and Mechanized, and Airborne for Airborne decks...oh wait you got rid of the plain Rifleman didn't you?

My suggestion:
Spoiler : :
Rifleman '75: M16A1, M72A3, M60
Rifleman '90: M16A2, M136 AT4, M249
Pretty standard and historically accurate. Technically they don't actually have M60s at squad level, so third weapon could be M16A1-Automatic Rifleman or M203 grenade launcher. But I think M60 is fine

Mech Rifleman '75: M16A1, M47 Dragon, M16A1/PVS
Mech Rifleman '93: M249, ATGM of choice, M203
'75 gets a higher rate of fire on their M16A1s due to having some in the automatic rifle role (or not, see Rifleman). M16A1/PVS is due to doctrinal "RIfleman/Sniper" in the squad, I gave him the squad's 3.8x PVS-4 sight. M60 is on their M113.

'90 has M249 as standard weapon because the 1993 manual gives a nine-man squad three of them. Whatever ATGM you want, depending on your thoughts on Dragon upgrades versus AAWS-M. Also, 1993 squad has two ATGM gunners. Then third weapon is an M203 because why not?


Airborne '75: Colt 653, M72A3, M60
Airborne '90: Colt 653, 727, or ('95) M4A1, M136 AT4, M249 Para
The only unit that isn't super accurate, as IRL they'd be identical to Rifleman. I'm making them a mashup of 82nd Airborne and 75th Rangers, shock-trained CQC types in helicopters and light vehicles

'75 could get M132 Viper as very accurate M72 replacement. Viper did make the 1980 edition of FM 7-8. M60 gets better stabilizer.

'90 gets whatever carbine you feel like and a Para M249 (CQC)


Marines '75:M16A1, M72A3, M60
Marines '90:M16A2, Mk.153 SMAW, M249 or M60E3
Marines, shock trained because their own propaganda says so! '90 gets SMAW with reduced rate of fire from SMAW team and no HEDP rounds.

Assaultman '85: M16A2, Mk.153 SMAW HEAA, Mk.153 HEDP
A SMAW team. Has SMAW with HEAA (HEAT anti-tank) and HEDP (HE, light anti-armor) as separate weapons

Rangers '75: M60, M67
Rangers '90: M240, M3 Gustav
The Rangers become a weapons team. Very good ROF on the machine guns, this is pretty much most of a Ranger platoon's MG squad plus a recoilless team from the weapons squad.

Rangers are then replaced in the recon role by...

Green Berets '80: HK33, FIM-92A, MG3
Green Berets '90: AK-74, FIM-92C, M249
Kind of an SAS clone. Rifle and MG nonstandard for the "behind enemy lines" feel, or switch the MG for a rocket launcher.

Navy SEALs get sent to the infantry tab:
SEALS '80: Colt 653, M203, Mk.23 Stoner
SEALS '95: M4A1, M203, M249 Para
Anti-infantry with a M203 that can damage APCs. '95 could get SOPMOD M4A1 and get suppressors (they're quiet) and dot sights (really amazing stabilizers). I would give them M60E3 but the Para SAW works better with their other weapons.

To replace the SEALs in recon:
Force Recon '75: M16A1, M67, M60
Force Recon '90: M16A1, Mk.153 SMAW, M60E3
Recon that can hunt enemy vehicles. The M67 was stolen borrowed from the Army, in keeping with proper Marine Corp acquisitions practices.

And before I forget, Delta Force:
Delta Force '85: Colt 723, M72AX, HK21E
Mid-80s SF with early dot sight on the rifle, prototype M72s for "field testing" (Dealer's choice: A4 more powerful, A5 more accurate, A6 less penetration but HE), and HK21E because I couldn't decide on a third weapon. Some sort of M14/M21 with a dot sight/low-power scope a la Black Hawk Down might work as well.

Cav Scouts and Scout Sniper remain the same.



USA : AH-1W recon with AGM-122.
I'm actually trying to trade for the -1W manual right now.

I do recall some people having an issue with Sidearm Cobra because it didn't have the range, but I'd need to search the forums again.

What would the third weapon be? TOW, Hydra, Zuni? Zuni has a chaff round, and the Army came close enough to adopting a 70mm chaff round to put it in the fire-control computer.


AH-1W is Hellfire-capable you know.

Balancing
Increase HE to 1.5 of 30-40mm autocannons
Good idea.

Should Soviet gun launched missiles have anti-helicopter capability? (I could duplicate the round and give it its own stats)
I'm unsure. Yes they could be used against a helicopter but I'm not sure the turret could track fast enough at close range and elevation would be an issue.

Also I'm seeing this result in a scout helicopter flying over some woods and getting instantly obliterated by a lurking tank that just saw the chopper.

Or using a scout helicopter to bait the enemy into wasting ATGMs.


On this topic, the US has M830A1, a sabot HEAT-MP round with a proximity fuze for anti-helicopter work.

The US also was developing XM 943 STAFF. Its a full-bore fire-and-forget top-attack smart round. There was also X-Rod, which is a KE smart round.


Merge US Motorized and US Airborne decks
Good idea, I've never been able to figure out what an American motorized deck is even supposed to be. Unarmored unarmed Humvees and...what else?

I might turn US Motorized into another Marine deck and have Marine Mechanized (with Abrams and LVPT-7s) and the either Marine Air Assault (CH-46s everywhere!) or Marine Motorized (LAVs and Humvees everywhere!).


Also, Airborne decks should be renamed to Air Assault. Airborne is paratroopers jumping from planes, Air Assault is helicopters.

ANZAC placed into Blue Dragons
I'm unsure. They don't really seem to fit.

More cards, but less units per card of special forces units
From what to what?

How prolific was Armbrust and did it have/what was the HE round?
I'll get on that.

Large Scale Balancing
IFV / Autocannon armor and penetration
Not really atainable without messing with the part where all rounds gain AP every blank meters. I'd suggest +1 AP for every 500m, you could get realistic penetration loss at range from this.

Also, I'm trying to research the Bradley's armor, but I'm at the point where I'm asking other folks.

Infantry rocket launcher reduced range and correct AP
I can help with that

Overpenetration mechanics for HEAT and KE rounds - AP too far above the target armor reduces the damage done

KE maybe, but HEAT is still a big explosion.

Change the number of men in infantry squads to their correct number, instead of 2/5/10/15. This could be just visual or include hitpoints and point costs per unit.
Steel Division manages, but then SD manages more than three weapons per unit.

Adjust infantry weapons to represent authentic ammo capacities without affecting balance.
That would be hard, given there is a huge difference between theory and reality. Standard US load was 7x M16 mags, which didn't seem to change when the mags went from 20 to 30 rounds. And then you read about SF types packing 20-25x 20 round mags in Vietnam, or the Rangers in Somalia packing every mag they could and not bothering with water.

And 7.62 battle rifles are handicapped by having larger mags with less capacity.


IWS 2000- mid-80s Styer anti-material rifle that penetrates 40mm armor at 1,000 meters with custom 15.2mm APFSDS rounds. Thing is basically a scaled down tank cannon.

Just for comparison's sake, .50BMG does 11mm/1200m and 14.5 does 20mm/1000m


Couple plane loadout notes based of Rangoo's vids:

German F-4F Peace Rhino can't have AGM-65 and AIM-9 at the same time, both missiles use the same inner wing hardpoints. You could do 2x AGM-65 and 2x AIM-9, but that would require asymmetrical loads to be a thing.

On that note, no one seems to have told the devs that F-4s carry their AIM-9s in pairs on the inner wing hardpoints (#2 and #8), same with the F/A-18s, they carry paired AIM-9s on the underwing stations.

South Korean F-4E Peace Pheasant I has more bombs than it can carry. It has 25, real thing was limited to 24 (MERs on #9, #5, and #1, TERs on #2 and #8)

User avatar
Sireyn
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Tue 28 Jan 2020 16:38

Mandolin wrote:
Sireyn wrote:The download link isn't functioning for me.
Really? Well I uploaded them to my Archive.compage.


Lot's of nice documents in there, thanks. The download on your original link didn't seem to do anything. I use Google drive myself and haven't had any issues until then.

Understood. Speaking of which, it might just be my reading of the manuals but I'm pretty sure the M163 has 900-1000 rounds stowed in addition to the 1000-odd rounds in the drum.


A lot of units would or could have extra ammo, but there is no perfect way to model it. Giving the VADS more salvos is the same as giving it a longer belt. Most units would need to perform a lengthy reloading procedure anyway, so forcing them to resupply is close enough.

Most tanks especially could carry more ammo, but there is no way to split the racks into different reload times.

14.5 should require at least 2 AV to stop. I always pictured 1 AV as "stops 7.62", the basic level of armor on all APCs. Then .50BMG should come next, as it has more penetration than 7.62 but about half as much as 14.5.

Also, 1990s improvements to the .50BMG in the form of Nammo's AP-S and M903 SLAP (APDS) push the .50BMG into 14.5mm territory. AP-S improves standard 12.7mm penetration from 22mm/100m to 22mm/900m and SLAP does 34mm/500m and 23mm/1200m. Both of those rounds are fully equivalent to 14.5mm in armor penetration (30mm/500m, 20mm/1000m).

Mk211/Rafous is actually a high-explosive AP round, the US calls it API and Nammo calls it MP. Not quite enough AP to give it a value until a very recent improved version, but belted with AP-S you have a .75HE autocannon.


If I get around to adjusting the standards, I would probably agree with your ideas. I would need to prevent these weapons from gaining additional AP and keep them from trying to engage tanks or you may end up with a situation where infantry won't fire their rockets.

But then the Marines don't get Mavericks and they apparently did just fine with them in reality.


I mean I would want to exchange the blast-frag missiles for HEAT and give the blast-frag an explosion.

I should note that the M67 ingame is massively over-modeled, the real thing's sights only go to 700m.


Nearly all infantry AT weapons are overmodeled. I'd want to change them all at once according to the same standards, except for the serious outliers, as with the 55 S 55 Raika.

What is the difference between Light Rifleman '75 and Rifleman '75? Light Rifleman IRL are just Rifleman with no ATGMs at platoon level.

You have Rifleman for Motorized and Support decks, Mechanized Rifleman for Armored and Mechanized, and Airborne for Airborne decks...oh wait you got rid of the plain Rifleman didn't you?


Yeah, they turned into Mechanized Riflemen. The original Light Riflemen were turned into Airborne and my old Mountaineers turned into a 1985 Light Riflemen (10th Mountain). There wasn't a need for the basic Riflemen '75 until I specialized the Mech infantry.

My suggestion:
[spoiler=]Rifleman '75: M16A1, M72A3, M60
Rifleman '90: M16A2, M136 AT4, M249
Pretty standard and historically accurate. Technically they don't actually have M60s at squad level, so third weapon could be M16A1-Automatic Rifleman or M203 grenade launcher. But I think M60 is fine


The '75 Sounds fine to me. I would prefer to keep the Light Riflemen '85 with M16A2, M72A4, and M240. It coincides with the reactivation of 10th Mountain and doesn't step on Airborne '90's toes.

Mech Rifleman '75: M16A1, M47 Dragon, M16A1/PVS
Mech Rifleman '93: M249, ATGM of choice, M203
'75 gets a higher rate of fire on their M16A1s due to having some in the automatic rifle role (or not, see Rifleman). M16A1/PVS is due to doctrinal "RIfleman/Sniper" in the squad, I gave him the squad's 3.8x PVS-4 sight. M60 is on their M113.

'90 has M249 as standard weapon because the 1993 manual gives a nine-man squad three of them. Whatever ATGM you want, depending on your thoughts on Dragon upgrades versus AAWS-M. Also, 1993 squad has two ATGM gunners. Then third weapon is an M203 because why not?


Fair point about the sniper in the squad. The Soviets had a similar man in 1 of the 3 squads in a company, but modeling realistic squads is difficult to balance, price, and may be impossible to show in the UI intuitively. I will be keeping with standard vanilla conventions and put company/platoon LMGs in place of squad weapons where needed.

One thing I have overlooked is distinguishing M16A1 and M16A2. Do you think the differences are enough to put the A1 into the SMG role of shorter range and higher rate of fire while A2 remains a standard assault rifle?

Airborne '75: Colt 653, M72A3, M60
Airborne '90: Colt 653, 727, or ('95) M4A1, M136 AT4, M249 Para
The only unit that isn't super accurate, as IRL they'd be identical to Rifleman. I'm making them a mashup of 82nd Airborne and 75th Rangers, shock-trained CQC types in helicopters and light vehicles

'75 could get M132 Viper as very accurate M72 replacement. Viper did make the 1980 edition of FM 7-8. M60 gets better stabilizer.

'90 gets whatever carbine you feel like and a Para M249 (CQC)


Viper was an utter failure and cancelled, so it's out. I've only read a short summary, but it astounds me how its development made it as far as it did. My '75 unit has Carl Gustav Mk2, which may not have been available to the US until later. An alternative is to give them M67 so they aren't stuck with a basic LAW.

Did Airborne ever get anything other than M16 variants until the M4? I always had the impression that the CAR-15 style carbines were for SF and Rangers.

Marines '75:M16A1, M72A3, M60
Marines '90:M16A2, Mk.153 SMAW, M249 or M60E3
Marines, shock trained because their own propaganda says so! '90 gets SMAW with reduced rate of fire from SMAW team and no HEDP rounds.

Assaultman '85: M16A2, Mk.153 SMAW HEAA, Mk.153 HEDP
A SMAW team. Has SMAW with HEAA (HEAT anti-tank) and HEDP (HE, light anti-armor) as separate weapons


SMAW is already a company level fire support team, so it's hard to justify giving it to the main squads. My '90 unit has AT4, otherwise they are the same as your suggestion. They are shock because of their specialized nature, just like airborne.

Is Assaultmen the correct designation for the SMAW team? The current unit is 1984 and has AP and HE rounds. Another round that isn't smoke would conflict with targeting priorities. Increasing the HE to 3 and the date to 1985 may be justified however.

Rangers '75: M60, M67
Rangers '90: M240, M3 Gustav
The Rangers become a weapons team. Very good ROF on the machine guns, this is pretty much most of a Ranger platoon's MG squad plus a recoilless team from the weapons squad.


I feel these are best suited as recon units, but the loadouts and '90 variant sound nice.

Rangers are then replaced in the recon role by...

Green Berets '80: HK33, FIM-92A, MG3
Green Berets '90: AK-74, FIM-92C, M249
Kind of an SAS clone. Rifle and MG nonstandard for the "behind enemy lines" feel, or switch the MG for a rocket launcher.


Unique idea, but I am happy with the position my Deltas are in as a dedicated infantry fighter. I renamed them to Green Beret very early in my mod, but forgot why I changed it back. If the US infantry lines weren't becoming bloated, I might create an '80 unit, but as something more conventional.

The SAS load always struck me as odd for a raiding unit. I've debated on moving it to recon and trading the rocket for an MG.

Navy SEALs get sent to the infantry tab:
SEALS '80: Colt 653, M203, Mk.23 Stoner
SEALS '95: M4A1, M203, M249 Para
Anti-infantry with a M203 that can damage APCs. '95 could get SOPMOD M4A1 and get suppressors (they're quiet) and dot sights (really amazing stabilizers). I would give them M60E3 but the Para SAW works better with their other weapons.


My SEALs : 1975, MP5SD, Hawk MM1, Stoner 63

I could make a 90/95 version, but I don't see a strong gameplay or historical need. They can go either as recon or infantry tabs, so I have them as recon to avoid too much bloat.

To replace the SEALs in recon:
Force Recon '75: M16A1, M67, M60
Force Recon '90: M16A1, Mk.153 SMAW, M60E3
Recon that can hunt enemy vehicles. The M67 was stolen borrowed from the Army, in keeping with proper Marine Corp acquisitions practices.


I created a '75 Force Recon with CAR-15, M72A3 LAW, and M40A1. It's kind of Vietnam-esque, but it works thematically (Marines have out-dated stuff) and it fills a gameplay niche. You have a point about borrowing stealing equipment however.

I don't see a strong need for a '90 variant. It would end up as straight upgrade to the '75 version or a clone of the existing Marines.

And before I forget, Delta Force:
Delta Force '85: Colt 723, M72AX, HK21E
Mid-80s SF with early dot sight on the rifle, prototype M72s for "field testing" (Dealer's choice: A4 more powerful, A5 more accurate, A6 less penetration but HE), and HK21E because I couldn't decide on a third weapon. Some sort of M14/M21 with a dot sight/low-power scope a la Black Hawk Down might work as well.


My '90 Delta have Colt 723, M203, and suppressed SR-25. I'm very satisfied with this.
There is room for an '80 version, but more SF is bad for gameplay. My ideas were similar, either ultra-light raiding with a LAW and DMR or heavy AT with Carl Gustav and an LMG.

USA : AH-1W recon with AGM-122.
I'm actually trying to trade for the -1W manual right now.

I do recall some people having an issue with Sidearm Cobra because it didn't have the range, but I'd need to search the forums again.

What would the third weapon be? TOW, Hydra, Zuni? Zuni has a chaff round, and the Army came close enough to adopting a 70mm chaff round to put it in the fire-control computer.


AH-1W is Hellfire-capable you know.


Third weapon would be some basic rockets. I didn't even realize the AH-1W had a Sidearm instead of the Sidewinder. It's been a number of years since I've seen what vanilla looks like and I think that change came after I started my mod.

Hellfires sound great for the Helo tab variant, but there would be a large price increase and the SH-60B Sea Hawk carries them already. I haven't checked to see if it was a real thing or if Eugen took some liberties.

Should Soviet gun launched missiles have anti-helicopter capability? (I could duplicate the round and give it its own stats)
I'm unsure. Yes they could be used against a helicopter but I'm not sure the turret could track fast enough at close range and elevation would be an issue.

Or using a scout helicopter to bait the enemy into wasting ATGMs.

On this topic, the US has M830A1, a sabot HEAT-MP round with a proximity fuze for anti-helicopter work.


I recall reading somewhere that the missiles are meant to be used against hovering helicopters, not just that they could be. I had to thought to reduce the missile range to within tank cannon range and give it a medium HE damage, but it's probably too much to try to balance and too easy to abuse. I was going to mention M830A1 but forgot.

The US also was developing XM 943 STAFF. Its a full-bore fire-and-forget top-attack smart round. There was also X-Rod, which is a KE smart round.


I remember STAFF from Armored Fist, from many years ago. In Wargame, the M1A2 already has a strong AP superiority; it doesn't need experimental death from above rounds, no matter how cool.

I might turn US Motorized into another Marine deck and have Marine Mechanized (with Abrams and LVPT-7s) and the either Marine Air Assault (CH-46s everywhere!) or Marine Motorized (LAVs and Humvees everywhere!).


Are you making your own mod, or just theorycrafting?

Also, Airborne decks should be renamed to Air Assault. Airborne is paratroopers jumping from planes, Air Assault is helicopters.

Semantics really. In US parlance that is true, but airborne is a good catch-all for all nations. The 101st is still "Airborne" even though it is Air Assault, so it works.

A while back I created custom deck types with appropriate names for the USSR, but it had some unexpected problems. One is that some units unpredictably are not deployable in a match. Two is that if you have a unique deck selected during deck creation and switch the spec to a nation that doesn't have that deck, the game crashes. I haven't attempted to resolve this since then.

ANZAC placed into Blue Dragons
I'm unsure. They don't really seem to fit.


They are all Pacific theatre, but they would need some major help to deploy out of Australia; either the UK or more likely the USA. ANZAC is terrible on their own and mediocre in Commonwealth, hence the thought.

More cards, but less units per card of special forces units
From what to what?


I want to reduce the prevalence of SF units. Increasing the number of cards and reducing the squads per card is a soft way to make it more difficult to stack them up in a city or forest. I'd rather see shock units take over that role.

IFV / Autocannon armor and penetration
Not really atainable without messing with the part where all rounds gain AP every blank meters. I'd suggest +1 AP for every 500m, you could get realistic penetration loss at range from this.


I have it set as +1 AP per 227.5m (+10 AP for a max range gun) for simplicity. I'm not opposed to changing it.

EfficaciteSelonPortee is a variable set to true in all KE weapons. I haven't had the opportunity to test it yet.

Also, I'm trying to research the Bradley's armor, but I'm at the point where I'm asking other folks.


In training, my leadership said our M2A2s would protect against the AP from a BMP, but that is probably something parroted since the 80s. I'm curious what you find out.

(National Guard six years, not deployed, but still had good experiences.)
Image

Infantry rocket launcher reduced range and correct AP
I can help with that


I started a spreadsheet long ago but became distracted by other things. I'd want to start over with better sources and better formatting.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Jf-E1cab3qp5r7PuZfCB_BCt5nh8fz80L7mEzPF9RPs/edit?usp=sharing

Overpenetration mechanics for HEAT and KE rounds - AP too far above the target armor reduces the damage done

KE maybe, but HEAT is still a big explosion.


It's also a design parameter with different philosophies. Soviet HEAT generally penetrates more and NATO HEAT generally optimizes for explosion or post-penetration effects. The difference might remain academic in practice, but it's worth thinking about.

This brings up the topic of damage tables. I want HEAT to be more effective when it penetrates and increasingly marginal in its effects when it doesn't. I still want some damage for non-penetrations so units continue to fire weapons and cause crits.

Adjust infantry weapons to represent authentic ammo capacities without affecting balance.
That would be hard, given there is a huge difference between theory and reality. Standard US load was 7x M16 mags, which didn't seem to change when the mags went from 20 to 30 rounds. And then you read about SF types packing 20-25x 20 round mags in Vietnam, or the Rangers in Somalia packing every mag they could and not bothering with water.


I would go for standard loads. I don't need to change any weapon performance, just the number of salvos or the salvo size. Ammo consumed is just a fluff number not related to damage rolls. Presently, each man with an M16 has 80 rounds, which is silly. Shock and SF already have extra ammo, so the effects would be proportional.

IWS 2000- mid-80s Styer anti-material rifle that penetrates 40mm armor at 1,000 meters with custom 15.2mm APFSDS rounds. Thing is basically a scaled down tank cannon.

Just for comparison's sake, .50BMG does 11mm/1200m and 14.5 does 20mm/1000m


It's cool, but I don't see a place for it in Wargame.

German F-4F Peace Rhino can't have AGM-65 and AIM-9 at the same time, both missiles use the same inner wing hardpoints. You could do 2x AGM-65 and 2x AIM-9, but that would require asymmetrical loads to be a thing.

On that note, no one seems to have told the devs that F-4s carry their AIM-9s in pairs on the inner wing hardpoints (#2 and #8), same with the F/A-18s, they carry paired AIM-9s on the underwing stations.

South Korean F-4E Peace Pheasant I has more bombs than it can carry. It has 25, real thing was limited to 24 (MERs on #9, #5, and #1, TERs on #2 and #8)


I'll check it out.

Mandolin
Warrant Officer
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat 12 Oct 2013 23:13
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Mandolin » Tue 28 Jan 2020 23:54

Yeah, they turned into Mechanized Riflemen. The original Light Riflemen were turned into Airborne and my old Mountaineers turned into a 1985 Light Riflemen (10th Mountain). There wasn't a need for the basic Riflemen '75 until I specialized the Mech infantry.
But what are the Light Rifleman for? They're Rifleman. The 10th Mountain's reactivation didn't really mean much, they're still standard leg infantry trading on an old semi-prestigious name. Light Infantry just don't make any sense in the context of World War Three. Sure you can deploy them faster, but they don't have any armor or artillery and a lot less ATGMs, so they just die faster.

The '75 Sounds fine to me. I would prefer to keep the Light Riflemen '85 with M16A2, M72A4, and M240. It coincides with the reactivation of 10th Mountain and doesn't step on Airborne '90's toes.
I'm not sure the M72A4 existed in 1985

Fair point about the sniper in the squad. The Soviets had a similar man in 1 of the 3 squads in a company, but modeling realistic squads is difficult to balance, price, and may be impossible to show in the UI intuitively. I will be keeping with standard vanilla conventions and put company/platoon LMGs in place of squad weapons where needed.
The "sniper" is just a rifleman designated as such. Officially he doesn't even get an optic. I just gave the guy the PVS-4, as the sight is issued one per squad.


Thoughts on AAWS-M? There are three versions.

Texas Instruments had a straight-up fire-and-forget missile with IIR guidance. This is right out, you can't balance it.

Ford's version was laser-guided top attack, so either crazy high AP or you add a top-attack weapons tag. Could be the most balanced version.

Hughes has IIR guidance as well but also has a fiber-optic guidance cable so you can steer the missile yourself and switch targets. Not fire-and-forget, so actually maybe balanced.

Penetration is around 750-800mm, Introduction To Crew Served Weapons says Javelin is "well in excess of" 30 inches, so I figure you can put an earlier version at about that.


One thing I have overlooked is distinguishing M16A1 and M16A2. Do you think the differences are enough to put the A1 into the SMG role of shorter range and higher rate of fire while A2 remains a standard assault rifle?
No. You're on semi 99% of the time anyways, and even the SF types are going to stick to short bursts. A2 would just be +5% accuracy.

Viper was an utter failure and cancelled, so it's out. I've only read a short summary, but it astounds me how its development made it as far as it did. My '75 unit has Carl Gustav Mk2, which may not have been available to the US until later. An alternative is to give them M67 so they aren't stuck with a basic LAW.
Viper sounded like a good idea that had a few too many issues to be worth it to me, but it sounded cool.

I'm fairly sure the Carl Gustav wasn't in US service until late 80s/early 90s, and then only in Ranger units.

M67 is a bit better than M72. +1 AP, up a range increment, and a little more accuracy.

Did Airborne ever get anything other than M16 variants until the M4? I always had the impression that the CAR-15 style carbines were for SF and Rangers.
No idea. I was just treating them as sort-of Rangers.

SMAW is already a company level fire support team, so it's hard to justify giving it to the main squads. My '90 unit has AT4, otherwise they are the same as your suggestion. They are shock because of their specialized nature, just like airborne.
SMAW for Marines has been tossed around on the forum a few times.

Is Assaultmen the correct designation for the SMAW team? The current unit is 1984 and has AP and HE rounds. Another round that isn't smoke would conflict with targeting priorities. Increasing the HE to 3 and the date to 1985 may be justified however.
Assaultman is the correct name. The MOS is 0351, Infantry Assault Marine.

And yeah, the HE round has some AP but I guess that isn't workable.

I feel these are best suited as recon units, but the loadouts and '90 variant sound nice.
I'm not sure the loadout works on a recon team, its a weapons squad load.

Unique idea, but I am happy with the position my Deltas are in as a dedicated infantry fighter. I renamed them to Green Beret very early in my mod, but forgot why I changed it back. If the US infantry lines weren't becoming bloated, I might create an '80 unit, but as something more conventional.

The SAS load always struck me as odd for a raiding unit. I've debated on moving it to recon and trading the rocket for an MG.
I was thinking they get behind the lines and snipe random helicopters, though in retrospect a single MANPADS isn't going to do that in one shot.

Green Berets, given they're supposed to train locals, could actually give the US a reservist squad if you really wanted....and yes that is a terrible idea you shouldn't implement.

My SEALs : 1975, MP5SD, Hawk MM1, Stoner 63

I could make a 90/95 version, but I don't see a strong gameplay or historical need. They can go either as recon or infantry tabs, so I have them as recon to avoid too much bloat.
The MM1 does not exist, at all, outside like one in a movie armory. I'm unsure the MP5SD was out in 1975...Wiki says H&K started work in 1972. I don't really like subguns for a game on this scale, and the SD is subsonic for worse range.

If you're going Vietnam, the Mk 4 Mod 0 was a 70s SEAL assault rifle that was pretty much a M16A1 with suppressor. Pics are hard to find, AR15.com had afew threads on it.

There is nothing supporting the MM1 existing as anything other than some prototype that got into a movie armorer's possession. Certainly not in military service.

Back in the day posters complained so much that one that Graphic made a China Lake graphic just to shut people up.

Stoner 63 is very Vietnam flavor, but just looks odd by the 80s.

I created a '75 Force Recon with CAR-15, M72A3 LAW, and M40A1. It's kind of Vietnam-esque, but it works thematically (Marines have out-dated stuff) and it fills a gameplay niche. You have a point about borrowing stealing equipment however.
Yeah that works well. Thoughts on M21 versus M40A1?

I don't see a strong need for a '90 variant. It would end up as straight upgrade to the '75 version or a clone of the existing Marines.
Good point.

My '90 Delta have Colt 723, M203, and suppressed SR-25. I'm very satisfied with this.
There is room for an '80 version, but more SF is bad for gameplay. My ideas were similar, either ultra-light raiding with a LAW and DMR or heavy AT with Carl Gustav and an LMG.
Yeah that works.


Hellfires sound great for the Helo tab variant, but there would be a large price increase and the SH-60B Sea Hawk carries them already. I haven't checked to see if it was a real thing or if Eugen took some liberties.
SH-60B can carry Hellfire IRL.

AH-1W would get more Hellfires than the SH-60B, as well as put them on a platform with rockets and a gun.


I recall reading somewhere that the missiles are meant to be used against hovering helicopters, not just that they could be. I had to thought to reduce the missile range to within tank cannon range and give it a medium HE damage, but it's probably too much to try to balance and too easy to abuse. I was going to mention M830A1 but forgot.
I'm not convinced a tank could acquire a helicopter, load the ATGM, fire, and guide it to target before the helicopter's missile hits and it ducks out of sight.

And once Hellfire is a thing the helicopter is out of range, and may well be out of sight lobbing missiles from behind a hill as someone else designates.

I remember STAFF from Armored Fist, from many years ago. In Wargame, the M1A2 already has a strong AP superiority; it doesn't need experimental death from above rounds, no matter how cool.
I was thinking a counterpoint to Soviet gun-launch ATGMs, but yeah its kinda OP.

And I notice you didn't even bother to comment on X-Rod ;)

Are you making your own mod, or just theorycrafting?
Just theorycrafting. I don't even own Red Dragon and barely touched AirlandBattle, but I think the concept is pretty fascinating.

In training, my leadership said our M2A2s would protect against the AP from a BMP, but that is probably something parroted since the 80s. I'm curious what you find out.
Yeah, the A2 upgrade was supposed to stop 30mm AP. I just wish I had any idea what the armor really was. Maybe I need to find a place that will let me crawl around and measure stuff....

I started a spreadsheet long ago but became distracted by other things. I'd want to start over with better sources and better formatting.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Jf-E1cab3qp5r7PuZfCB_BCt5nh8fz80L7mEzPF9RPs/edit?usp=sharing
You're far more detailed than I am.

I would go for standard loads. I don't need to change any weapon performance, just the number of salvos or the salvo size. Ammo consumed is just a fluff number not related to damage rolls. Presently, each man with an M16 has 80 rounds, which is silly. Shock and SF already have extra ammo, so the effects would be proportional.
Yeah, I can see the issue.

And I would greatly increase rocket ammo as well. Disposables were light enough you could issue one to everyone, more if you wanted. At least for M72s and the like, late-80s silliness like LAW80, APILAS, and especially AT12T are getting a bit too large.

It's cool, but I don't see a place for it in Wargame.
Didn't think so (anti-material rifles are poorly modeled and really shouldn't be in), but its a cool experiment.

User avatar
Sireyn
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Thu 30 Jan 2020 12:55

But what are the Light Rifleman for? They're Rifleman. The 10th Mountain's reactivation didn't really mean much, they're still standard leg infantry trading on an old semi-prestigious name. Light Infantry just don't make any sense in the context of World War Three. Sure you can deploy them faster, but they don't have any armor or artillery and a lot less ATGMs, so they just die faster.


Basic infantry for CAT C motorized decks, instead of only Airborne. They would get trucks, humvees, and helicopter transports. A '75 light riflemen fills a gap and stands in for those wanting National Guard units. Keeping the current unit at '85 prevents competition with Airborne '90, adds a unit to CAT B decks, and allows the unit to stand in as 10th Mountain if the player desires.

10th Mountain is significant because they are high readiness and may be deployed alongside airborne units, though I'm not trying to suggest that 10th Mountain or any other foot infantry is somehow critical to fighting Soviet mechanized troops. It was part of the force structure, so I'd like to represent it if possible.

I'm not sure the M72A4 existed in 1985


Nor am I. I think I took the date from Canadian Rifles '85 without researching. Another thread discussing the rocket suggests the weapon wasn't available until 1993, but was tested during the 80s. My thoughts on an alternative below.

You're on semi 99% of the time anyways, and even the SF types are going to stick to short bursts. A2 would just be +5% accuracy.


In real life, yes, but Wargame models things differently. The AKS-74U is really an assault rifle, but it has the rate of fire and stabilizer of an SMG and the range of an assault rifle. All infantry weapons are abstracted strangely and inconsistently.

Thoughts on AAWS-M? There are three versions.

Texas Instruments had a straight-up fire-and-forget missile with IIR guidance. This is right out, you can't balance it.

Ford's version was laser-guided top attack, so either crazy high AP or you add a top-attack weapons tag. Could be the most balanced version.

Hughes has IIR guidance as well but also has a fiber-optic guidance cable so you can steer the missile yourself and switch targets. Not fire-and-forget, so actually maybe balanced.

Penetration is around 750-800mm, Introduction To Crew Served Weapons says Javelin is "well in excess of" 30 inches, so I figure you can put an earlier version at about that.


A while ago I gave the Ford version to Cav Scout '90 with 2100m and 26AP. When Dragon missiles were buffed to being usable, I replaced it with Dragon II, keeping Cav Scouts in the '91 deck and better grounding them to reality. A Javelin would be a 28-30 AP missile, F&F, and 1996-97, so I didn't bother trying to work it in.

I'm fairly sure the Carl Gustav wasn't in US service until late 80s/early 90s, and then only in Ranger units.

M67 is a bit better than M72. +1 AP, up a range increment, and a little more accuracy.


Airborne '75 : Replace Carl Gustav with M72A3 or M67
Light Riflemen '85 : Replace M72A4 with M72A3 or M67

I'm not sure the loadout works on a recon team, its a weapons squad load.

I meant that Rangers are suited to recon in general. Their loadout can be adjusted.

Green Berets, given they're supposed to train locals, could actually give the US a reservist squad if you really wanted....and yes that is a terrible idea you shouldn't implement.


Would be interesting in another game or as flavor for a campaign. I could set the squad leader as a Delta guy and the squad members as militia. Yes, this is a terrible idea.

The MM1 does not exist, at all, outside like one in a movie armory. I'm unsure the MP5SD was out in 1975...Wiki says H&K started work in 1972. I don't really like subguns for a game on this scale, and the SD is subsonic for worse range.

If you're going Vietnam, the Mk 4 Mod 0 was a 70s SEAL assault rifle that was pretty much a M16A1 with suppressor. Pics are hard to find, AR15.com had afew threads on it.

There is nothing supporting the MM1 existing as anything other than some prototype that got into a movie armorer's possession. Certainly not in military service.

Back in the day posters complained so much that one that Graphic made a China Lake graphic just to shut people up.

Stoner 63 is very Vietnam flavor, but just looks odd by the 80s.


Thanks for pointing out the MM1. I always assumed it was an M32 MGL or some early version of it and never looked twice.
MP5SD is the vanilla weapon for Delta. I gave it to SEALs because it matched the range on their grenade launcher and was simple to exchange. Most of the Vietnam flavor is from Eugen; I'd prefer to keep CAT C to what existed in 1975-1980.

With my Force Recon as CAT C, I wouldn't mind moving SEALs to 1983-85 and giving them the MGL or another anti-infantry loadout.

Thoughts on M21 versus M40A1?
It's an option. The range and rate of fire on all "dmr" weapons is the same at 1,050m and 15 r/m (but there is room to change that).

AH-1W would get more Hellfires than the SH-60B, as well as put them on a platform with rockets and a gun.


If there aren't any major balance concerns and it would realistically be used over TOW-2s, I'll change it.

I'm not convinced a tank could acquire a helicopter, load the ATGM, fire, and guide it to target before the helicopter's missile hits and it ducks out of sight.

And once Hellfire is a thing the helicopter is out of range, and may well be out of sight lobbing missiles from behind a hill as someone else designates.


Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery Design Practices: 1945-1995 (1996) does mention that the tank missiles may be used for self defense against helicopters, but I tend to agree with you. I would have considered it for Refleks/Invar, but it's probably more trouble than it's worth.

And I would greatly increase rocket ammo as well. Disposables were light enough you could issue one to everyone, more if you wanted. At least for M72s and the like, late-80s silliness like LAW80, APILAS, and especially AT12T are getting a bit too large.


I have light rockets at 8 per 10 man squad and heavy rockets at 6 per 10 man squad. There is room for more adjustment, but I think this is fair.

Mandolin
Warrant Officer
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat 12 Oct 2013 23:13
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Mandolin » Fri 31 Jan 2020 00:08

Sireyn wrote:Basic infantry for CAT C motorized decks, instead of only Airborne. They would get trucks, humvees, and helicopter transports. A '75 light riflemen fills a gap and stands in for those wanting National Guard units. Keeping the current unit at '85 prevents competition with Airborne '90, adds a unit to CAT B decks, and allows the unit to stand in as 10th Mountain if the player desires.

10th Mountain is significant because they are high readiness and may be deployed alongside airborne units, though I'm not trying to suggest that 10th Mountain or any other foot infantry is somehow critical to fighting Soviet mechanized troops. It was part of the force structure, so I'd like to represent it if possible.
Okay.

Nor am I. I think I took the date from Canadian Rifles '85 without researching. Another thread discussing the rocket suggests the weapon wasn't available until 1993, but was tested during the 80s. My thoughts on an alternative below.
Ah. I'll have a look through my stuff.


In real life, yes, but Wargame models things differently. The AKS-74U is really an assault rifle, but it has the rate of fire and stabilizer of an SMG and the range of an assault rifle. All infantry weapons are abstracted strangely and inconsistently.
AKS-74U is more or less a subgun, or at least fills the role. The barrel is all of 8 inches.


A while ago I gave the Ford version to Cav Scout '90 with 2100m and 26AP. When Dragon missiles were buffed to being usable, I replaced it with Dragon II, keeping Cav Scouts in the '91 deck and better grounding them to reality. A Javelin would be a 28-30 AP missile, F&F, and 1996-97, so I didn't bother trying to work it in.
I was thinking 1925m range for a little more balance. And given how bad Dragon is, I could see one of them entering production if thing went south.


Airborne '75 : Replace Carl Gustav with M72A3 or M67
Light Riflemen '85 : Replace M72A4 with M72A3 or M67
M67 should probably go to the light rifleman, the Airborne are going to think piles of LAWs are a good idea more.

Would be interesting in another game or as flavor for a campaign. I could set the squad leader as a Delta guy and the squad members as militia. Yes, this is a terrible idea.
Green Beret Militia recon, 15 strong, regular training!


Thanks for pointing out the MM1. I always assumed it was an M32 MGL or some early version of it and never looked twice.
MP5SD is the vanilla weapon for Delta. I gave it to SEALs because it matched the range on their grenade launcher and was simple to exchange. Most of the Vietnam flavor is from Eugen; I'd prefer to keep CAT C to what existed in 1975-1980.

With my Force Recon as CAT C, I wouldn't mind moving SEALs to 1983-85 and giving them the MGL or another anti-infantry loadout.
The MP5SD is mostly just me complaining, a simple rename would satisfy that nickpick. Wouldn't be the first time a gun had the wrong image, the German's MP2 has a Mini-Uzi on the tag despite the MP2 being the full size.

And if you're going 80s I'd say MP5 and M60E3 as the machine gun. MM1 doesn't exist, China Lake is probably out of service by the 80s, Delta already has the M203, MGL came out in...1983 but US service in 2005.

The SEAL vs Delta loadout is its own headache, I'll post my thoughts some other time.

It's an option. The range and rate of fire on all "dmr" weapons is the same at 1,050m and 15 r/m (but there is room to change that).
Honestly I'd drop the range and accuracy a bit and perhaps up the fire rate.

If there aren't any major balance concerns and it would realistically be used over TOW-2s, I'll change it.
That reminds me, AH-1W doesn't have overwing hardpoints, the AGM-122 should be under the wing.


Oh, and on a side note Marines AH-1s have their M197 cannon on a lower rate of fire than Army AH-1s. Fun fact!

Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery Design Practices: 1945-1995 (1996) does mention that the tank missiles may be used for self defense against helicopters, but I tend to agree with you. I would have considered it for Refleks/Invar, but it's probably more trouble than it's worth.
Refleks is even harder to use, the laser guidance will set off the target's laser warning system!

I have light rockets at 8 per 10 man squad and heavy rockets at 6 per 10 man squad. There is room for more adjustment, but I think this is fair.
I'd break disposables into three categories.

Light disposables are things like M72A3, SARPAC, RPG-18, and Miniman. They fire 24rpm, a two-shot burst then a five second reload. This will reflect the salvo-fire method, and help achieve more first-round hits. These get fairly poor accuracy but you get a giant pile of them. I would in all seriousness suggest at least 12, maybe even 16, in a 10 man squad. They exist to get spammed at anything that gets close.

Medium disposables are AT4/M136, M72A4/5/6, RPG-22/26, and Ambrust. They fire 20rpm. They have decent accuracy and you get 8 per ten men.

Heavy disposables are the late-80s stuff like APILAS, LAW 80, AT12T, and RPG-27. These are fairly accurate (LAW 80 actually has a spotting rifle) and fire 15rpm. 6 per 10 men, these things are too heavy to carry many of but will hurt MBTs badly.


Then you get into the relodables, the Carl Gustav, RPG-7 series, the M20 Super Bazooka, LRAC F1, SMAW series all with their own multiple rounds, and the M67/Blindcide/Panzerfaust 44/Panzerfasut 3 with just one rocket type each.

And then finally the recoilless rifles, which only go to weapons teams. SPG-9, 95 S58-61, RPG-29, maybe M20 RCL



Germany should get a 20mm AA on the back of a truck, they had plenty of RH202 twin mounts on cargo trucks. Two 1,000rpm cannon.

User avatar
Sireyn
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Mon 3 Feb 2020 02:07

AKS-74U is more or less a subgun, or at least fills the role. The barrel is all of 8 inches.


What is considered a submachinegun depends who you talk to. Some base it on caliber, some size of the weapon, and some based on the role it fulfills. You are probably right that the M16A1 isn't different enough to push it into the same place as the -74U. What if the M16A2 was given battle rifle range with the same stats? (595m instead of 525m)

I was thinking 1925m range for a little more balance. And given how bad Dragon is, I could see one of them entering production if thing went south.


There were three avenues of seeker technology in case the F&F version encountered a technological problem that would delay or impede introduction. Both the Army and Marines were dead set on the F&F, top attack version and I believe they would have waited rather than adopt a command fire version. Moreover, IOC would have remained close or the same as Javelin for any AAWS-M variant.

Javelin : Functional prototypes 1992-3, Training/Integration Nov/Dec 1993, IOTE Sep 1994, LRIP I May 1994 (750 missiles), IOC/FRP April 1996
The Javelin was apparently delayed four months because of Desert Storm (needed a non-critical test that the Army didn't want) and encountered budget constraints between 1992 and 1995 with the end of the Cold War. There was consideration for accelerating the program to have missiles ready during Desert Storm, but costs were too high, weight was a concern, and the focal plane arrays had some sort of technical problem (accuracy was still about the same as TOW in 1992). It could be balanced by only giving a unit 1 or 2 missiles.

If a Dragon replacement was required immediately, there are a few options besides an early, F&F, top attack Javelin.

Dragon II+ : Dragon II with the III's motor was conceived, but rejected for obvious reasons based on the attitude of those in power. No chance.

Dragon III : Missile had two successful test firings and was apparently ready to start production, but was obviously cancelled. The Marines were pushing for this because, "...they didn't trust the Army to get it right...". As of 1989, introduction was expected 1992-1993 and would have the same or similar performance as Super Dragon. The Army was against this and the Marines had no money, so very little to no chance.

Milan-2T and RBS-56 : These were regularly considered, but were not thought of as worthwhile investments because of their weight, crew requirements, and ineffectiveness against ERA. Neither the Army nor Marines wanted funds taken out of AAWS-M for any reason and their force structures didn't support them. RBS-56 did have a lot of political backing, however, Milan-2T is by far the more likely because of the tandem warhead.

In my opinion, Dragon II, with it's 20 AP, is good enough that I don't need an alternate history missile. Retrofit kits were available for the Army if needed and an early Javelin would have been able to fill in for a high intensity conflict.

Spoiler : :
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image


M67 should probably go to the light rifleman, the Airborne are going to think piles of LAWs are a good idea more.


I concluded the same. Rangers need a Carl Gustav replacement too. LAW makes the most sense to me.

Green Beret Militia recon, 15 strong, regular training!


Militia AK-47, Regular RPG-7, and Elite CAR-15.

The MP5SD is mostly just me complaining, a simple rename would satisfy that nickpick. Wouldn't be the first time a gun had the wrong image, the German's MP2 has a Mini-Uzi on the tag despite the MP2 being the full size.


What is wrong with the MP5SD? I did a quick check and didn't see any full size Uzi icons.

And if you're going 80s I'd say MP5 and M60E3 as the machine gun. MM1 doesn't exist, China Lake is probably out of service by the 80s, Delta already has the M203, MGL came out in...1983 but US service in 2005.


I'd be willing to allow the MGL, but I strongly prefer authentic loadouts. If you feel strongly that it doesn't make sense, I'd switch it for M203 or something else.

Honestly I'd drop the range and accuracy a bit and perhaps up the fire rate.


I had a similar idea a long time ago, but never planned out any changes. 875m, 20 r/m, 60-70% accuracy sounds about right to me for marksman rifles.

That reminds me, AH-1W doesn't have overwing hardpoints, the AGM-122 should be under the wing.

Oh, and on a side note Marines AH-1s have their M197 cannon on a lower rate of fire than Army AH-1s. Fun fact!


Both of these come as a surprise. When did the overwing and outboard hardpoints come along? The model is very restrictive, so overwing is all I have to work with unfortunately.

If I do an autocannon rebalance, I'll need to keep the rate of fire fact in mind.

Refleks is even harder to use, the laser guidance will set off the target's laser warning system!


Not all helicopters had such a system. These were the most capable missiles and their intro dates are late enough to limit abuse. I'll leave this out though.

Also, this brings up countermeasures for helicopters. Narc Black, myself, and a few others have tried to track down all the systems used on different platforms, but gave up fairly early. I have been thinking about at least adding flares to known helos for aesthetic purposes.

I'd break disposables into three categories.

Light disposables are things like M72A3, SARPAC, RPG-18, and Miniman. They fire 24rpm, a two-shot burst then a five second reload. This will reflect the salvo-fire method, and help achieve more first-round hits. These get fairly poor accuracy but you get a giant pile of them. I would in all seriousness suggest at least 12, maybe even 16, in a 10 man squad. They exist to get spammed at anything that gets close.

Medium disposables are AT4/M136, M72A4/5/6, RPG-22/26, and Ambrust. They fire 20rpm. They have decent accuracy and you get 8 per ten men.

Heavy disposables are the late-80s stuff like APILAS, LAW 80, AT12T, and RPG-27. These are fairly accurate (LAW 80 actually has a spotting rifle) and fire 15rpm. 6 per 10 men, these things are too heavy to carry many of but will hurt MBTs badly.


Then you get into the relodables, the Carl Gustav, RPG-7 series, the M20 Super Bazooka, LRAC F1, SMAW series all with their own multiple rounds, and the M67/Blindcide/Panzerfaust 44/Panzerfasut 3 with just one rocket type each.

And then finally the recoilless rifles, which only go to weapons teams. SPG-9, 95 S58-61, RPG-29, maybe M20 RCL


I'll keep your suggestions in mind if I go for a rebalance. With more authentic rocket ranges, a higher ammo count is fine.

Germany should get a 20mm AA on the back of a truck, they had plenty of RH202 twin mounts on cargo trucks. Two 1,000rpm cannon.


Are you referring to towed or truck-mounted items? Norway is the only country with a similar model and it is a single mount.

Mandolin
Warrant Officer
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat 12 Oct 2013 23:13
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Mandolin » Tue 4 Feb 2020 00:36

I have to confess I messed up reading the infantry FMs. Also, light infantry do not exist until 1985 and the 10th Mountain showing up.

In the mean time, Dragon teams at platoon level weren't a thing. M60 machine gun teams were.


Because in the early-mid 80s every single squad, regular or mech, has a Dragon gunner. It's ATGM city here.

Quick note on manuals/squad layouts:

Spoiler : :
Regular infantry (Infantry, Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger) units are defined by FM 7-8
This is available in 1980 and 1992 editions. 1980 has a 11-man squad with a SL and two 5-man fire teams. All squad members carry M16A1s, with one M203 per fireteam and a Dragon gunner in one team. Platoon has platoon commander, platoon SGT, and 2x 3-man M60 team

1992 adds Light Infantry to the roster. The squad is now nine men, SL and 2x 4-man fireteams with the familiar mix of team leader, rifleman, grenadier (M16/M203), and automatic rifleman (M249). Platoon weapons teams are 2x 2-man MG teams for Light, 3x 3-man MG teams for Ranger, and 2x 2-man MG and 2x 2-man ATGM teams for the rest.

Mechanized infantry is defined by FM 7-7 (M113) and 7-7J (Bradley)
FM 7-7 comes in 1977 and 1985 editions. The 1977 edition from Google doesn't have any info on squad composition becasue that part wasn't scanned. I actually bought a copy, should have the missing bits scanned in a few weeks.

The 1985 edition has a seven (J-series) or nine (H-series) man squad. There is also a two-man M113 crew, driver and commander/gunner. (They're technically part of the squad but as vehicle crew they don't matter). We have a squad leader, assistant squad leader, an antiarmor specialist (has the dragon), two Automatic Rifleman (M249), and a grenadier. H-series has a two-man M60 team and a extra rifleman. J-series has a "Rifleman/Sniper", who doesn't really get any optics but the squad gets two PVS-4 3.8x night scope so assume he gets it. J-series keeps the M60 sans dedicated crew, probably keep it on top of the M113.

FM 7-7J has 1986 and 1993 editions. The 1986 edition pretends the 3-man crew is part of the squad. The dismount section is six men, with two automatic rifleman, one Dragon gunner, one grenadier, one rifleman/sniper (only one PVS-4 in the squad), and squad leader (technically the ASL, because the squad leader is the Bradley commander. Oh, and he gets a M203). This is a three-squad platoon with a HQ section of radio operator(RTO), platoon SGT, Forward observer, FO's RTO, and medic.

1993 has two nine-man squads, each with squad leader, two team leaders, three automatic rifleman, two antiarmor gunners, and a grenadier. Platoon HQ rides wherever there is room.

Rangers are FM 7-85. Standard squad composition, with the aforementioned platoon-level MG squad. Company-level weapons platoon has 2x3 man 60mm mortar teams and 3x 3-man Dragon/M67 anti-tank teams.


Light Infantry/Light Rifleman '75 aren't a thing.


What is considered a submachinegun depends who you talk to. Some base it on caliber, some size of the weapon, and some based on the role it fulfills. You are probably right that the M16A1 isn't different enough to push it into the same place as the -74U. What if the M16A2 was given battle rifle range with the same stats? (595m instead of 525m)
I guess?

There were three avenues of seeker technology in case the F&F version encountered a technological problem that would delay or impede introduction. Both the Army and Marines were dead set on the F&F, top attack version and I believe they would have waited rather than adopt a command fire version. Moreover, IOC would have remained close or the same as Javelin for any AAWS-M variant.

Javelin : Functional prototypes 1992-3, Training/Integration Nov/Dec 1993, IOTE Sep 1994, LRIP I May 1994 (750 missiles), IOC/FRP April 1996
The Javelin was apparently delayed four months because of Desert Storm (needed a non-critical test that the Army didn't want) and encountered budget constraints between 1992 and 1995 with the end of the Cold War. There was consideration for accelerating the program to have missiles ready during Desert Storm, but costs were too high, weight was a concern, and the focal plane arrays had some sort of technical problem (accuracy was still about the same as TOW in 1992). It could be balanced by only giving a unit 1 or 2 missiles.

If a Dragon replacement was required immediately, there are a few options besides an early, F&F, top attack Javelin.

Dragon II+ : Dragon II with the III's motor was conceived, but rejected for obvious reasons based on the attitude of those in power. No chance.

Dragon III : Missile had two successful test firings and was apparently ready to start production, but was obviously cancelled. The Marines were pushing for this because, "...they didn't trust the Army to get it right...". As of 1989, introduction was expected 1992-1993 and would have the same or similar performance as Super Dragon. The Army was against this and the Marines had no money, so very little to no chance.

Milan-2T and RBS-56 : These were regularly considered, but were not thought of as worthwhile investments because of their weight, crew requirements, and ineffectiveness against ERA. Neither the Army nor Marines wanted funds taken out of AAWS-M for any reason and their force structures didn't support them. RBS-56 did have a lot of political backing, however, Milan-2T is by far the more likely because of the tandem warhead.

In my opinion, Dragon II, with it's 20 AP, is good enough that I don't need an alternate history missile. Retrofit kits were available for the Army if needed and an early Javelin would have been able to fill in for a high intensity conflict.

Spoiler : :
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Okay, but what exactly did you decide? Dragon II (600mm pen), and maybe Javelin?

Issue is Dragon II still has 1050m range and terrible accuracy, while Javelin is balanced by not giving them to people.


What is wrong with the MP5SD? I did a quick check and didn't see any full size Uzi icons.
Oh, I meant you could rename MP5SD to MP5A3 and ignore the weapon icon.

My issue with the SD is that the suppressor taps off propellant gas to make the round subsonic for better noise reduction. Which is fine for CQB but is going to really hurt your range. Regular MP5 with a suppressor is supersonic.


Issue with the Uzi is that "MP2" is the full-size model but the icon is of the Mini version.

I'd be willing to allow the MGL, but I strongly prefer authentic loadouts. If you feel strongly that it doesn't make sense, I'd switch it for M203 or something else.
I really can't see the US adopting the MGL in the 80s, sorry. Among other things, South Africa is an apartheid state under international embargo.

I had a similar idea a long time ago, but never planned out any changes. 875m, 20 r/m, 60-70% accuracy sounds about right to me for marksman rifles.
Sounds about right.

Both of these come as a surprise. When did the overwing and outboard hardpoints come along? The model is very restrictive, so overwing is all I have to work with unfortunately.
Wingtip came out for the mid-200s AH-1Z. Overwing either never existed or was trialed on the AH-1W (4BW) test airframe that is basically a prototype for the Zulu.

Flare launchers go on top of the wings


If I do an autocannon rebalance, I'll need to keep the rate of fire fact in mind.
Also, the M197 should not get any AP at all, the API round used was terrible. Marine AH-1s were qualified to use Mk149 APDS though.

Not all helicopters had such a system. These were the most capable missiles and their intro dates are late enough to limit abuse. I'll leave this out though.
True. I thought I saw a US helicopter with LWR, will have to keep looking?

Also, this brings up countermeasures for helicopters. Narc Black, myself, and a few others have tried to track down all the systems used on different platforms, but gave up fairly early. I have been thinking about at least adding flares to known helos for aesthetic purposes.
I have most AH-1 and all AH-64 manuals, and am planning to buy the remaining manuals relatively soon (I just need the 1975 G edition and the J). I can review those

Archive.org has many editions of Jane's All the World's Aircraft. I would recommend borrowing them all, run them through a de-DRM program, and keep them. Then pick one of them and go through the entire thing taking notes on ECM.

What do you get ECM from? I assume that:
Radar Warning Receiver.
Chaff/flare launcher
(bonus for large flare magazines?)
Internal Jammer
ECM pod
SEAD
bonus

all give +10%?

For helicopters I would add:
IR jammer: ALQ-144 "disco ball" for the US, no idea for Warsaw Pact
Exhaust suppressor: makes it harder for IR missiles to pick up your exhaust.
Laser Warning receiver: Picks up laser signals


If you want to get fancy, consider a bonus for having disposable jammers (turns out that before Gen-X was POET (Primed Oscillator Expendable Transponder)

If F-111 isn't survivable enough give it (depending on date) ALE-28 or ALE-40 as a weapon that targets missiles. It mounted two ALE-28s, no idea how many flares, and eight -40s for 240 rounds.

A-10 could get the same, having 16x ALE-40s. It could get some integral bonus forcing IR weapons to take longer to lock on

AV-8B went from 60 rounds on basic to 180 on Night Attack/Plus

Or ALE-37s, a 240-round dispenser fitted to standard 14-inch hardpoints. Maybe for the Advanced Wild Weasel?


Any thoughts as to implementing a "VCM" stat? Visual Counter-measures, basically ECM but against optically guided weapons. In short, faster is better, air-superiority fighters get a bonus (because they're too high for most optical stuff to bother with), flying low is good, and false cockpits/deceptive camo get another bonus. (this is mostly for the A-10 and Canadian F-18s with false cockpits painted on the bottom)

I'll keep your suggestions in mind if I go for a rebalance. With more authentic rocket ranges, a higher ammo count is fine.
Glad you like it.

Are you referring to towed or truck-mounted items? Norway is the only country with a similar model and it is a single mount
Truck-mounted. Norway has a Oerlikon, this is a twin RH202 mount. They were mostly fixed but a 6x6 truck was fitted with them and I'm sure enough were fitted to the backs of trucks to justify it. Check the Jane's Air Defense I sent you, you can Control-F search it.



You mentioned some other folks were working on/providing suggestions on this? Any chance of getting them on here, or maybe us going to wherever they are (reddit?) Might be nice to bounce ideas off others. Also this forum is old and I don't really like it.

User avatar
Sireyn
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Tue 4 Feb 2020 23:05

Mandolin wrote:I have to confess I messed up reading the infantry FMs. Also, light infantry do not exist until 1985 and the 10th Mountain showing up.

In the mean time, Dragon teams at platoon level weren't a thing. M60 machine gun teams were.


Because in the early-mid 80s every single squad, regular or mech, has a Dragon gunner. It's ATGM city here.

Quick note on manuals/squad layouts:

Spoiler : :
Regular infantry (Infantry, Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger) units are defined by FM 7-8
This is available in 1980 and 1992 editions. 1980 has a 11-man squad with a SL and two 5-man fire teams. All squad members carry M16A1s, with one M203 per fireteam and a Dragon gunner in one team. Platoon has platoon commander, platoon SGT, and 2x 3-man M60 team

1992 adds Light Infantry to the roster. The squad is now nine men, SL and 2x 4-man fireteams with the familiar mix of team leader, rifleman, grenadier (M16/M203), and automatic rifleman (M249). Platoon weapons teams are 2x 2-man MG teams for Light, 3x 3-man MG teams for Ranger, and 2x 2-man MG and 2x 2-man ATGM teams for the rest.

Mechanized infantry is defined by FM 7-7 (M113) and 7-7J (Bradley)
FM 7-7 comes in 1977 and 1985 editions. The 1977 edition from Google doesn't have any info on squad composition becasue that part wasn't scanned. I actually bought a copy, should have the missing bits scanned in a few weeks.

The 1985 edition has a seven (J-series) or nine (H-series) man squad. There is also a two-man M113 crew, driver and commander/gunner. (They're technically part of the squad but as vehicle crew they don't matter). We have a squad leader, assistant squad leader, an antiarmor specialist (has the dragon), two Automatic Rifleman (M249), and a grenadier. H-series has a two-man M60 team and a extra rifleman. J-series has a "Rifleman/Sniper", who doesn't really get any optics but the squad gets two PVS-4 3.8x night scope so assume he gets it. J-series keeps the M60 sans dedicated crew, probably keep it on top of the M113.

FM 7-7J has 1986 and 1993 editions. The 1986 edition pretends the 3-man crew is part of the squad. The dismount section is six men, with two automatic rifleman, one Dragon gunner, one grenadier, one rifleman/sniper (only one PVS-4 in the squad), and squad leader (technically the ASL, because the squad leader is the Bradley commander. Oh, and he gets a M203). This is a three-squad platoon with a HQ section of radio operator(RTO), platoon SGT, Forward observer, FO's RTO, and medic.

1993 has two nine-man squads, each with squad leader, two team leaders, three automatic rifleman, two antiarmor gunners, and a grenadier. Platoon HQ rides wherever there is room.

Rangers are FM 7-85. Standard squad composition, with the aforementioned platoon-level MG squad. Company-level weapons platoon has 2x3 man 60mm mortar teams and 3x 3-man Dragon/M67 anti-tank teams.


Light Infantry/Light Rifleman '75 aren't a thing.


Thanks for the details. I will probably retain the Dragons in fire support teams unless I can find a good way to stack AT weapons on infantry.

If there is a way to make it work, I would merge grenade launchers with assault rifles and add smoke grenades, but I've been trying since I started this mod with no success. The infantry are limited to four effects; two for the squad and two for the squad leader.

Okay, but what exactly did you decide? Dragon II (600mm pen), and maybe Javelin?

Issue is Dragon II still has 1050m range and terrible accuracy, while Javelin is balanced by not giving them to people.


I gave Dragon II to everyone a patch or two ago and have not decided on Javelin. I laid out the whole story to avoid piecemeal explanations.

Implementation options I am considering for Javelin are a fire support team, Cav Scouts, or an SF team. It was a replacement for Dragon, so it makes the most sense for it to actually replace an existing Dragon-equipped unit. It's probably best to just leave it out.

What is wrong with the MP5SD? I did a quick check and didn't see any full size Uzi icons.
Oh, I meant you could rename MP5SD to MP5A3 and ignore the weapon icon.

My issue with the SD is that the suppressor taps off propellant gas to make the round subsonic for better noise reduction. Which is fine for CQB but is going to really hurt your range. Regular MP5 with a suppressor is supersonic.


Ah, I didn't know that. I'll make the change.

I'd be willing to allow the MGL, but I strongly prefer authentic loadouts. If you feel strongly that it doesn't make sense, I'd switch it for M203 or something else.
I really can't see the US adopting the MGL in the 80s, sorry. Among other things, South Africa is an apartheid state under international embargo.


Thanks for your input. I'll replace it with M203.

Wingtip came out for the mid-200s AH-1Z. Overwing either never existed or was trialed on the AH-1W (4BW) test airframe that is basically a prototype for the Zulu.

Flare launchers go on top of the wings


Noted. I wish there was something I could do about the model.

Also, the M197 should not get any AP at all, the API round used was terrible. Marine AH-1s were qualified to use Mk149 APDS though.


AP will be removed from all the 20mm-armed Cobras by the next update.

Also, this brings up countermeasures for helicopters. Narc Black, myself, and a few others have tried to track down all the systems used on different platforms, but gave up fairly early. I have been thinking about at least adding flares to known helos for aesthetic purposes.
I have most AH-1 and all AH-64 manuals, and am planning to buy the remaining manuals relatively soon (I just need the 1975 G edition and the J). I can review those

Archive.org has many editions of Jane's All the World's Aircraft. I would recommend borrowing them all, run them through a de-DRM program, and keep them. Then pick one of them and go through the entire thing taking notes on ECM.


Thanks for the tip. I've already downloaded one edition and had a glance through.

What do you get ECM from? I assume that:
[spoiler=]Radar Warning Receiver.
Chaff/flare launcher
(bonus for large flare magazines?)
Internal Jammer
ECM pod
SEAD
bonus

all give +10%?


I don't have my own system. I've been using whatever Eugen came up with and have been assigning values based on comparable units.

I would remove the SEAD bonus and base stats purely on equipment, then break it down by 5% instead of 10%.

For helicopters I would add:
IR jammer: ALQ-144 "disco ball" for the US, no idea for Warsaw Pact
Exhaust suppressor: makes it harder for IR missiles to pick up your exhaust.
Laser Warning receiver: Picks up laser signals


The USSR had some systems, but whether they were exported is unclear. There are also missile warning receivers

Mi-24D/V/P : Four dispensers under tail, replaced by six dispensers on rear fuselage. IR jammer behind the main rotar installed sometime during Afghanistan. After 1984, exhaust mixers could be installed, but I don't know how common it was.
Mi-8 : Dispensers, maybe IR jammer
Mi-28 : Dispensers and IR suppressors
Ka-50 : Dispensers and RWR

SPO-10 : Radar Warning Receiver
SPO-15LM Beryoza : Radar Warning Receiver
ASO-2V : Countermeasure Dispenser
SOEP-VIA Lipa : IR Jammer


If you want to get fancy, consider a bonus for having disposable jammers (turns out that before Gen-X was POET (Primed Oscillator Expendable Transponder)

If F-111 isn't survivable enough give it (depending on date) ALE-28 or ALE-40 as a weapon that targets missiles. It mounted two ALE-28s, no idea how many flares, and eight -40s for 240 rounds.

A-10 could get the same, having 16x ALE-40s. It could get some integral bonus forcing IR weapons to take longer to lock on

AV-8B went from 60 rounds on basic to 180 on Night Attack/Plus

Or ALE-37s, a 240-round dispenser fitted to standard 14-inch hardpoints. Maybe for the Advanced Wild Weasel?


The document you linked provides some good data on a lot of countermeasure systems, but I'm not familiar enough with them to start rebalancing the ECM system yet. This will be good information if I get around to it.

Any thoughts as to implementing a "VCM" stat? Visual Counter-measures, basically ECM but against optically guided weapons. In short, faster is better, air-superiority fighters get a bonus (because they're too high for most optical stuff to bother with), flying low is good, and false cockpits/deceptive camo get another bonus. (this is mostly for the A-10 and Canadian F-18s with false cockpits painted on the bottom)


There are two values that can simulate this. "Size" reduces the chance to be hit just like ECM and "Stealth" reduces the chance to be seen. The info panel hides the size stat for aircraft, so there is a problem with communicating values to the player. Truly small or low emissive aircraft may still deserve something though.

False cockpits and camouflage are too situational to apply as a generic bonus. Speed is too abstracted and compressed to extend to another system. Altitude is an option I thought about a long time ago, but there is a large workload involved with increasing air and ground based radar spotting and aircraft ground attack ranges (or reducing ranges on short range AD systems).

Truck-mounted. Norway has a Oerlikon, this is a twin RH202 mount. They were mostly fixed but a 6x6 truck was fitted with them and I'm sure enough were fitted to the backs of trucks to justify it. Check the Jane's Air Defense I sent you, you can Control-F search it.


I meant that if I was going add the German unit, the closest thing I have to work with is the Norwegian truck with the Oerkilon.

You mentioned some other folks were working on/providing suggestions on this? Any chance of getting them on here, or maybe us going to wherever they are (reddit?) Might be nice to bounce ideas off others. Also this forum is old and I don't really like it.


Discord is more active and is the fastest way to communicate. I can reply to you instantly there, where I tend to take an hour or more writing a reply on here.

This mod was originally a personal project to use with friends, so I never bothered advertising or expanding early on. As such, this mod's following is modest. Now that the Wargame community and the game are well past its prime, I continue working on this mod because I enjoy the research and there isn't a successor title.

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1465
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby FrangibleCover » Thu 20 Feb 2020 02:08

One for you, since we did the research but obviously couldn't use it: The Ford Aerospace entry to the AAWS-M programme that eventually produced Javelin was called Topkick, you can have a look for your own stuff on it (Russian Wikipedia is strangely good on it) but the bottom line is similar capabilities to Javelin except overflight top attack so the AP is similar to RBS-56 and SALH so you have the barest chance against it once it's fired. Easier to balance and a more realistic option for a rushed into service prototype than the real FGM-148.
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

Return to “Modding”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests