Wargame: Airland Dragon

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

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Mandolin » Wed 22 Jan 2020 00:06

I trust the Marines a lot more than Forecast.

I've never seen anything solid to suggest Dragon II+ or III were ever real. IRL Dragon II didn't seem to exist before the late 80s, there's an article in the October 1990 edition of Army magazine talking about plans to upgrade to Dragon II while waiting for AAWS-M to come out.

Redstone Arsenal's Dragon program timeline doesn't mention upgrades either.

Maybe the range upgrade was a further development of Dragon II, so II+ sorta exists?


Data on Mk.149 APDS penetration since you gave it to M163 CS


M261 entered service about 1980. It was part of the big Modernized Cobra upgrade that resulted in the E and F models. There were several articles on the upgrade published in 1978 by US Army Aviation Digest, I pulled the relevant pages from google.

AH-1S and AH-1F manuals. And AH-1T because I have it. 1981 rocket manual


Short version is that there are up to five zones with 4x 19 round pods.

Zone 1 and 3 are the outer ring of rockets, 1 is the outboard pair and 3 the inboard, 12 rockets each. Zones 2 and 4 are the top and bottom two tubes on the outboard (2) and inboard (4) pairs, 8 rocket each. Zone 5 is the three center rockets in all four pods for 12 rockets. With 7-round pods you loose Zones 1 and 3.

Apache is the same but the zones are A-E instead of 1-5 for some reason



RAAF Mirage IIIO/D Weapons Delivery Manual


A few notes on helicopters:

AH-1J should have the M197 20mm. You can give it more rockets, it could take 19-round pods on all hardpoints.

AH-1G, Q and P are available, all with the minigun/grenade launcher turret. Q and P could use TOW, G is just rocket spam. Oh, and G also got a 20mm gunpod but apparently gunpods don't work in WG

If you want a prototype, AH-1W (4BW) for the Marines. Basically the prototype for AH-1Z. Gets extra hardpoints so it can put SIdewinders on top of the wings. Could actually carry 6x AIM-9 if you really wanted.


UH-1C Hog/Heavy Hog shouldn't exist. The M3 rocket system they are fitted with went out in the middle of Vietnam. UH-1C is still in the field manual as a gunship into the 1980s, as is the UH-1M. So you can give them 19 round pods and the grenade launcher, or 7 round pods and the miniguns like the old UH-1E, or 6x AGM-22/SS-11 ATGMs.

If you wanted to buff rockets, give them M229 in place of regular M151. M229 has double the HE filler. Flechette head exist, but I've no idea how you would model them.


Per Loach!, the best resource on the OH-6 family I've found, AH-6C came out in 1980. "F" is from 1985, with an upgraded engine. "G" and "J" are from 1989, the "J" model gets a FLIR system (Recon?) .

Twin Mk19s are obviously a made-up loadout. Twin M134s and 2x 7-round pods are standard, though the "J" can use GAU-19. They can actually use 19-round pods, so 2x GAU-19, 19x rocket or 2x M134, 19x rocket, and 2x Hellfire are actually possible.


UH-60A shouldn't have Miniguns on the doors, those were SF-only on MH-60 variants. M60D or M240D would be correct.


Ever consider doing the F/A-18s by block and adding another? Super Hornet is OOTF, so you'd get another Hornet back. Decent source on F/A-18 variants and blocks

Ever consider copy-paste A-7E as A7D for non-Marine decks?


Could older NATO tanks (M48s, maybe M60A1, some Centurion) get WP rounds for the main gun? Perhaps as a second weapon, abstracted as Napalm with a short burn time and really high suppression?

If you could figure out flechette warheads, tanks could get APERS rounds as well. And that could allow SEAD missiles to be more realistically modeled, but I'm fairly sure a complete rework of every single SEAD missile and Radar AA in the entire game is more than you're interested in.


I think thats long enough for now.

User avatar
Sireyn
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Wed 22 Jan 2020 05:26

Mandolin wrote:I trust the Marines a lot more than Forecast.


Even official documents should be critically analyzed. It's common for these kinds of documents to contain small errors, especially for technical details, when they are intended to be used for introductory classroom work. I will keep the 2000m figure in mind, but for now I am considering it a clerical error or a misunderstanding of the writer as to the different Dragon models (real, planned, or conceptualized).

Mandolin wrote:I've never seen anything solid to suggest Dragon II+ or III were ever real. IRL Dragon II didn't seem to exist before the late 80s, there's an article in the October 1990 edition of Army magazine talking about plans to upgrade to Dragon II while waiting for AWS-M to come out.

Redstone Arsenal's Dragon program timeline doesn't mention upgrades either.

Maybe the range upgrade was a further development of Dragon II, so II+ sorta exists?


First, I need to correct myself. M222 and Mk1 Mod 0 are the names of the missiles, not the motors, for the Dragon and Dragon II respectively.

Dragon II+ was an abandoned concept to take the Gen III's motor and retrofit it to the Gen II instead of dedicating resources for what would be comparable to a new missile. Redstone's history doesn't mention Dragon II or Super Dragon at all, so it makes sense that a conceived subvariant of Dragon II isn't. It seems that only history relating to the US Army is mentioned.

Unfortunately, I don't have any better sources than Forecast or websites that claim to be quoting Jane's.

Edit : DoD Appropriations, 1989 PIP Dragon (Dragon II) only refers to warheads. Gen 3 Dragon is mentioned on page 745 as a defunded project as of a year prior.

Edit : DoD Appropriations, 1990 "...the Dragon II has only an increased warhead and it changes the penetration capability of the basic Dragon system. It is a marginal fix to our inventory weapon system. Its probability of hit and kill does not change. It is only the penetration." - General Pihl, page 137

Mandolin wrote:Data on Mk.149 APDS penetration since you gave it to M163 CS


Thanks. The training manual specifically mentions ground ammunition when used as close support. I am still uncertain how the belts were loaded for ground engagements; whether a mixture of ammunition is used, or purely APDS.

Operations and Training, Vulcan
Image


Mandolin wrote:
Spoiler : :
M261 entered service about 1980. It was part of the big Modernized Cobra upgrade that resulted in the E and F models. There were several articles on the upgrade published in 1978 by US Army Aviation Digest, I pulled the relevant pages from google.

AH-1S and AH-1F manuals. And AH-1T because I have it. 1981 rocket manual



Short version is that there are up to five zones with 4x 19 round pods.

Zone 1 and 3 are the outer ring of rockets, 1 is the outboard pair and 3 the inboard, 12 rockets each. Zones 2 and 4 are the top and bottom two tubes on the outboard (2) and inboard (4) pairs, 8 rocket each. Zone 5 is the three center rockets in all four pods for 12 rockets. With 7-round pods you loose Zones 1 and 3.

Apache is the same but the zones are A-E instead of 1-5 for some reason


I'll take a look.




I scanned through it, looks interesting. I'll read it in more detail when I get a chance.


Mandolin wrote:A few notes on helicopters:

AH-1J should have the M197 20mm. You can give it more rockets, it could take 19-round pods on all hardpoints.

AH-1G, Q and P are available, both with the minigun/grenade launcher turret. Q and P could use TOW, G is just rocket spam.

If you want a prototype, AH-1W (4BW) for the Marines. Basically the prototype for AH-1Z. Gets extra hardpoints so it can put SIdewinders on top of the wings. Could actually carry 6x AIM-9 if you really wanted.


I vaguely recall that the 20mm turret was developed after the AH-1J and retrofitted later, but I could be mistaken. If they did all have the 20mm, I feel it's worth ignoring the incorrect model. Model restrictions have prevented me from exploring more possibilities with the Cobra lineup, as well as a number of other interesting vehicles.

Mandolin wrote:UH-1C Hog/Heavy Hog shouldn't exist. The M3 rocket system they are fitted with went out in the middle of Vietnam. UH-1C is still in the field manual as a gunship into the 1980s, as is the UH-1M. So you can give them 19 round pods and the grenade launcher, or 7 round pods and the miniguns like the old UH-1E, or 6x AGM-22/SS-11 ATGMs.

If you wanted to buff rockets, give them M229 in place of regular M151. M229 has double the HE filler. Flechette head exist, but I've no idea how you would model them.


My mod removes the Hog and Heavy Hog. I haven't added a Huey Gunship in their place because of model and texture restrictions, but there also isn't a great gameplay requirement for them. The SS-11 variant is available in the USA/Canada coalition and a proper minigun/rocket combo would mean copying the Australian unit with the Aussie markings.


Mandolin wrote:Per Loach!, the best resource on the OH-6 family I've found, AH-6C came out in 1980. "F" is from 1985, with an upgraded engine. "G" and "J" are from 1989, the "J" model gets a FLIR system (Recon?) .

Twin Mk19s are obviously a made-up loadout. Twin M134s and 2x 7-round pods are standard, though the "J" can use GAU-19. They can actually use 19-round pods, so 2x GAU-19, 19x rocket or 2x M134, 19x rocket, and 2x Hellfire are actually possible.


I wasn't ever sure what to do with the AH-6C, but it was unique and some people liked it. I experimented with the minigun/rocket loadout years ago, but ended up reverting it. If the Mk19 loadout is indeed fictional, I'll be happy to correct it. I would need to see if there is a proper unused model if I want to add a new variant.

Mandolin wrote:UH-60A shouldn't have Miniguns on the doors, those were SF-only on MH-60 variants. M60D or M240D would be correct.


I never would have thought to check this.

Mandolin wrote:Ever consider doing the F/A-18s by block and adding another? Super Hornet is OOTF, so you'd get another Hornet back. Decent source on F/A-18 variants and blocks


Already done. I've thought about switching the Block 29 and Block 36 so the Marines have an earlier ASF, but the two F-14s currently serve that role.

F/A-18C : Block 23 (1987), AIM-9M + AGM-65F
Super Hornet : Block 36 (1992), AIM-9M + AIM-120A
Super Hornet (Naval) : Block 29 (1989), AGM-84, AIM-9M, AIM-120A

Mandolin wrote:Ever consider copy-paste A-7E as A7D for non-Marine decks?

No, but it is an option. I could convert the F-16A into its proper short range ASF role and give the light iron bomber role to the A-7D.

Mandolin wrote:Could older NATO tanks (M48s, maybe M60A1, some Centurion) get WP rounds for the main gun? Perhaps as a second weapon, abstracted as Napalm with a short burn time and really high suppression?

If you could figure out flechette warheads, tanks could get APERS rounds as well. And that could allow SEAD missiles to be more realistically modeled, but I'm fairly sure a complete rework of every single SEAD missile and Radar AA in the entire game is more than you're interested in.


WP is primarily a smoke round with limited incendiary effects. I'm sure a tanker would fire whatever he had in the tube at a target, but there are far more effective rounds. Also is the problem that this would obscure a target for any follow-on shots. I did add smoke ammunition for some light vehicles, mostly to incentivize their use and emphasize their role.

One problem with flechette rounds in Wargame is that it doesn't mesh with the abstracted ranges very well. A tank would have to get well within infantry AT range to fire a round that would have to ride a fine line of balance. HESH is another problem that Eugen abstracted as HE or HEAT.

You are right that it's very late in RD's life cycle to start overhauling another game system. Next on my list would be infantry rockets, tank aim times based on fire controls, and the ongoing campaign rework, but the time investment is beginning to outweigh the benefits. Thanks for the great suggestions, interest, and source documents!

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

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Mandolin » Thu 23 Jan 2020 01:53

Sireyn wrote:
Spoiler : :
Mandolin wrote:I trust the Marines a lot more than Forecast.


Even official documents should be critically analyzed. It's common for these kinds of documents to contain small errors, especially for technical details, when they are intended to be used for introductory classroom work. I will keep the 2000m figure in mind, but for now I am considering it a clerical error or a misunderstanding of the writer as to the different Dragon models (real, planned, or conceptualized).

Mandolin wrote:I've never seen anything solid to suggest Dragon II+ or III were ever real. IRL Dragon II didn't seem to exist before the late 80s, there's an article in the October 1990 edition of Army magazine talking about plans to upgrade to Dragon II while waiting for AWS-M to come out.

Redstone Arsenal's Dragon program timeline doesn't mention upgrades either.

Maybe the range upgrade was a further development of Dragon II, so II+ sorta exists?


First, I need to correct myself. M222 and Mk1 Mod 0 are the names of the missiles, not the motors, for the Dragon and Dragon II respectively.

Dragon II+ was an abandoned concept to take the Gen III's motor and retrofit it to the Gen II instead of dedicating resources for what would be comparable to a new missile. Redstone's history doesn't mention Dragon II or Super Dragon at all, so it makes sense that a conceived subvariant of Dragon II isn't. It seems that only history relating to the US Army is mentioned.

Unfortunately, I don't have any better sources than Forecast or websites that claim to be quoting Jane's.
Fair enough.

Edit : DoD Appropriations, 1989 PIP Dragon (Dragon II) only refers to warheads. Gen 3 Dragon is mentioned on page 745 as a defunded project as of a year prior.

Edit : DoD Appropriations, 1990 "...the Dragon II has only an increased warhead and it changes the penetration capability of the basic Dragon system. It is a marginal fix to our inventory weapon system. Its probability of hit and kill does not change. It is only the penetration." - General Pihl, page 137
Nice find. I really hate how little actual info is out there on Dragon.

Mandolin wrote:Data on Mk.149 APDS penetration since you gave it to M163 CS


Thanks. The training manual specifically mentions ground ammunition when used as close support. I am still uncertain how the belts were loaded for ground engagements; whether a mixture of ammunition is used, or purely APDS.

Operations and Training, Vulcan

The manual only lists HEI and HEI-T as ammo, the API round was terrible. If you're using APDS you'd only use that, the ballistics are too different from HEI.

BTW, the muzzle clamp is some goofy device you add to the muzzle that increases dispersion to theoretically increase hit chance.


Side note: None of the AH-1s should have any AP value unless modeled as using Mk149 (and then they loose HE). 20x102mm M53 does a whopping 6mm/1,000m. .50BMG does 11mm/1200m, so heavy machine guns deserve AP more than Cobras.


PGU-28 SAPHEI is actually in timeframe and has semi-decent penetration ( 0.375 inch/45*/2786fps -or 9.5mm/45*/80% muzzle velocity) Yes, that is how they wrote the spec.

Mandolin wrote:
Spoiler : :
M261 entered service about 1980. It was part of the big Modernized Cobra upgrade that resulted in the E and F models. There were several articles on the upgrade published in 1978 by US Army Aviation Digest, I pulled the relevant pages from google.

AH-1S and AH-1F manuals. And AH-1T because I have it. 1981 rocket manual



Short version is that there are up to five zones with 4x 19 round pods.

Zone 1 and 3 are the outer ring of rockets, 1 is the outboard pair and 3 the inboard, 12 rockets each. Zones 2 and 4 are the top and bottom two tubes on the outboard (2) and inboard (4) pairs, 8 rocket each. Zone 5 is the three center rockets in all four pods for 12 rockets. With 7-round pods you loose Zones 1 and 3.

Apache is the same but the zones are A-E instead of 1-5 for some reason


I'll take a look.
Happy to help.


Mandolin wrote:A few notes on helicopters:

AH-1J should have the M197 20mm. You can give it more rockets, it could take 19-round pods on all hardpoints.

AH-1G, Q and P are available, both with the minigun/grenade launcher turret. Q and P could use TOW, G is just rocket spam.

If you want a prototype, AH-1W (4BW) for the Marines. Basically the prototype for AH-1Z. Gets extra hardpoints so it can put SIdewinders on top of the wings. Could actually carry 6x AIM-9 if you really wanted.


I vaguely recall that the 20mm turret was developed after the AH-1J and retrofitted later, but I could be mistaken. If they did all have the 20mm, I feel it's worth ignoring the incorrect model. Model restrictions have prevented me from exploring more possibilities with the Cobra lineup, as well as a number of other interesting vehicles.
AH-1J was the first Cobra to fit the M197, it was on it from the start. It was one of the changes the Marines wanted. Here's a link to amanual for sale, should be enough pictures to show it has the M197

And model is fine as long as you give it the right weapon stats.

Mandolin wrote:UH-1C Hog/Heavy Hog shouldn't exist. The M3 rocket system they are fitted with went out in the middle of Vietnam. UH-1C is still in the field manual as a gunship into the 1980s, as is the UH-1M. So you can give them 19 round pods and the grenade launcher, or 7 round pods and the miniguns like the old UH-1E, or 6x AGM-22/SS-11 ATGMs.

If you wanted to buff rockets, give them M229 in place of regular M151. M229 has double the HE filler. Flechette head exist, but I've no idea how you would model them.


My mod removes the Hog and Heavy Hog. I haven't added a Huey Gunship in their place because of model and texture restrictions, but there also isn't a great gameplay requirement for them. The SS-11 variant is available in the USA/Canada coalition and a proper minigun/rocket combo would mean copying the Australian unit with the Aussie markings.

Makes sense. Huey gunships are a bit outdated in a European WW3 context. They were going out by late Vietnam anyways.

Mandolin wrote:Per Loach!, the best resource on the OH-6 family I've found, AH-6C came out in 1980. "F" is from 1985, with an upgraded engine. "G" and "J" are from 1989, the "J" model gets a FLIR system (Recon?) .

Twin Mk19s are obviously a made-up loadout. Twin M134s and 2x 7-round pods are standard, though the "J" can use GAU-19. They can actually use 19-round pods, so 2x GAU-19, 19x rocket or 2x M134, 19x rocket, and 2x Hellfire are actually possible.

I wasn't ever sure what to do with the AH-6C, but it was unique and some people liked it. I experimented with the minigun/rocket loadout years ago, but ended up reverting it. If the Mk19 loadout is indeed fictional, I'll be happy to correct it. I would need to see if there is a proper unused model if I want to add a new variant.
I wouldn't say twin Mk.19 is fictional - you could probably fit it if you really wanted. Its just not an ideal weapon for the role. I seem to recall another poster noting that no matter how hard he googled, it just wouldn't show any pictures of a AH-6 with grenade launchers.

To be entirely fair, Loach! does have a picture of an AH-6 with various possible weapons laid out and a Mk.19 is present. Though I really can't see why you would fit it. You're either replacing the Miniguns or rockets with something that kinda-sorta does both jobs.

Also the 240m/s muzzle velocity is painfully low for an airborne weapon.

Mandolin wrote:UH-60A shouldn't have Miniguns on the doors, those were SF-only on MH-60 variants. M60D or M240D would be correct.

I never would have thought to check this.
Glad to help

Mandolin wrote:Ever consider doing the F/A-18s by block and adding another? Super Hornet is OOTF, so you'd get another Hornet back. Decent source on F/A-18 variants and blocks


Already done. I've thought about switching the Block 29 and Block 36 so the Marines have an earlier ASF, but the two F-14s currently serve that role.

F/A-18C : Block 23 (1987), AIM-9M + AGM-65F
Super Hornet : Block 36 (1992), AIM-9M + AIM-120A
Super Hornet (Naval) : Block 29 (1989), AGM-84, AIM-9M, AIM-120A
Hm. I'd keep the F-14s as early and late ASFs, but a 1985 F/A-18A would give you a Cat B ASF with extra AIM-9M.

Does Naval Block 29 not get the gun?

If you're going 1992, might as well give it AIM-9R with IIR seeker. Yes it got cancelled OTL but handwave.

Oh, and make it 1993 and you get better flare launchers and RWR, so higher ECM!

Mandolin wrote:Ever consider copy-paste A-7E as A7D for non-Marine decks?

No, but it is an option. I could convert the F-16A into its proper short range ASF role and give the light iron bomber role to the A-7D.
Interestingly, the A-7D's SAC gives performance numbers for two CAS loadouts: Eight Mk82 500 pounders...and twelve LAU-3s.

LAU-3 holds 19 rockets.

Mandolin wrote:Could older NATO tanks (M48s, maybe M60A1, some Centurion) get WP rounds for the main gun? Perhaps as a second weapon, abstracted as Napalm with a short burn time and really high suppression?

If you could figure out flechette warheads, tanks could get APERS rounds as well. And that could allow SEAD missiles to be more realistically modeled, but I'm fairly sure a complete rework of every single SEAD missile and Radar AA in the entire game is more than you're interested in.


WP is primarily a smoke round with limited incendiary effects. I'm sure a tanker would fire whatever he had in the tube at a target, but there are far more effective rounds. Also is the problem that this would obscure a target for any follow-on shots. I did add smoke ammunition for some light vehicles, mostly to incentivize their use and emphasize their role.
"limited incendiary effects" is mostly a PR sham. There's a reason the bleeding heart anti-war folks scream about that stuff. It burns at 2700C and does horrible horrible things to people.

Naturally, soldiers find it really useful.

One problem with flechette rounds in Wargame is that it doesn't mesh with the abstracted ranges very well. A tank would have to get well within infantry AT range to fire a round that would have to ride a fine line of balance. HESH is another problem that Eugen abstracted as HE or HEAT.
Ah ha ha ha! But that's where it gets really fun!

This isn't canister. APERS shells look like regular shells. You set the nose fuze to the desired range and the shell bursts a bit short, at which point this happens and anything not behind cover dies.

You can also set it to muzzle action, which does exactly what it sounds like.

The old WDU-4 and -13 flechette rockets were deceleration-detonated, firing at about 1.8 seconds after launch when the rocket dropped below 11Gs. The latter M255 you can set the range on.

You are right that it's very late in RD's life cycle to start overhauling another game system. Next on my list would be infantry rockets, tank aim times based on fire controls, and the ongoing campaign rework, but the time investment is beginning to outweigh the benefits. Thanks for the great suggestions, interest, and source documents!
Happy to help.

What exactly you mean by "infantry rockets"? You mean the anti-rank rockets?


On a fun pie-in-the-sky uber-SEAD note:

The ALE-50 towed decoy came out in 1995 on F-16s. F-16CJ could get it, either as some anti-missile weapon as an actual weapon, or by giving the plane a CIWS rating (is that even possible?)

Also, RT-1489. Its an active jammer, but small enough to fit in a standard flare launcher so you can launch active decoys. Did I mention its from 1988?

If you're even more ambitious, try implementing the ADM-141 TALD. Its an air-launched decoy that dispenses chaff.


The Carl Gustav can actually get the FV 597, an oversize HEAT head with 900mm penetration. Short range but nice punch.


Any chance of a quick rundown of all US aircraft loadouts? I get it if its too much, but I'm curious how you're working it.

User avatar
Sireyn
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Thu 23 Jan 2020 04:48

Mandolin wrote:The manual only lists HEI and HEI-T as ammo, the API round was terrible. If you're using APDS you'd only use that, the ballistics are too different from HEI.


I am wondering now if I should remove the aircraft range on the M163 CS. Even with radar, it would have been barely serviceable.

Mandolin wrote:Side note: None of the AH-1s should have any AP value unless modeled as using Mk149 (and then they loose HE). 20x102mm M53 does a whopping 6mm/1,000m. .50BMG does 11mm/1200m, so heavy machine guns deserve AP more than Cobras.

PGU-28 SAPHEI is actually in timeframe and has semi-decent penetration ( 0.375 inch/45*/2786fps -or 9.5mm/45*/80% muzzle velocity) Yes, that is how they wrote the spec.


Neither of those rounds deserve an AP value. This is unfortunate, but still worth changing if my follow up research confirms it.

Mandolin wrote:I wouldn't say twin Mk.19 is fictional - you could probably fit it if you really wanted. Its just not an ideal weapon for the role. I seem to recall another poster noting that no matter how hard he googled, it just wouldn't show any pictures of a AH-6 with grenade launchers.

To be entirely fair, Loach! does have a picture of an AH-6 with various possible weapons laid out and a Mk.19 is present. Though I really can't see why you would fit it. You're either replacing the Miniguns or rockets with something that kinda-sorta does both jobs.

Also the 240m/s muzzle velocity is painfully low for an airborne weapon.


You make good points and I prefer the minigun/rocket combo. This is what the model will look like, which isn't great, but it is serviceable.
Image

Mandolin wrote:Hm. I'd keep the F-14s as early and late ASFs, but a 1985 F/A-18A would give you a Cat B ASF with extra AIM-9M.

Does Naval Block 29 not get the gun?

If you're going 1992, might as well give it AIM-9R with IIR seeker. Yes it got cancelled OTL but handwave.

Oh, and make it 1993 and you get better flare launchers and RWR, so higher ECM!


I have the F-14A (1979) and F-14A+ (1987) with 2xAIM-9 and 4xAIM-54. This difference is in missile models and ECM.

All F-18s have their M61A1 Vulcan, unless you mean something else?

I did exclude the AIM-9R because it was cancelled Dec 1991. I would need to do some research to see how early it could have been ready, but the in game effects would only amount to a small accuracy increase.

My 1992 F-18 has the improved countermeasures, so I may have the date incorrect or I saw a reference somewhere that it was ready earlier.

Mandolin wrote:Interestingly, the A-7D's SAC gives performance numbers for two CAS loadouts: Eight Mk82 500 pounders...and twelve LAU-3s.

LAU-3 holds 19 rockets.


That's a lot of rockets. I have a Mig-27 with 96 57mm rockets and that produces audio artifacts, so I would be hesitant to make an aircraft with more. US Army decks do lack a rocket attacker, so I may use some variation with less rockets.

Mandolin wrote:This isn't canister. APERS shells look like regular shells. You set the nose fuze to the desired range and the shell bursts a bit short, at which point this happens and anything not behind cover dies.

You can also set it to muzzle action, which does exactly what it sounds like.

The old WDU-4 and -13 flechette rockets were deceleration-detonated, firing at about 1.8 seconds after launch when the rocket dropped below 11Gs. The latter M255 you can set the range on.


Interesting. For Wargame's purposes, I would need to find a way to give it a large HE damage without an explosion so it doesn't damage armor. The HE damage is directly associated with the number of men (hitpoints) it will kill. Vehicles armed with canister, like the Scorpion and older MBTs, could certainly benefit if I worked out the details.

Mandolin wrote:What exactly you mean by "infantry rockets"? You mean the anti-rank rockets?


Yes. The ranges are generally too long and several systems have inconsistent/incorrect accuracy and armor penetration. Some systems have the opportunity for alternative ammunition.

Mandolin wrote:On a fun pie-in-the-sky uber-SEAD note:

The ALE-50 towed decoy came out in 1995 on F-16s. F-16CJ could get it, either as some anti-missile weapon as an actual weapon, or by giving the plane a CIWS rating (is that even possible?)

Also, RT-1489. Its an active jammer, but small enough to fit in a standard flare launcher so you can launch active decoys. Did I mention its from 1988?

If you're even more ambitious, try implementing the ADM-141 TALD. Its an air-launched decoy that dispenses chaff.


CIWS and "missiles" that target other missiles is possible, but I have avoided implementing it. I am not sure I can make it look good, feel authentic, or represent the system in the UI intuitively. ECM is already heavily abstracted and amounts to a -% chance to hit against all weapon types, so extending the system isn't something I have interest in at this time.

Mandolin wrote:The Carl Gustav can actually get the FV 597, an oversize HEAT head with 900mm penetration. Short range but nice punch.


I only did a quick google search and didn't see an answer; Who used it and when was it ready?

Mandolin wrote:Any chance of a quick rundown of all US aircraft loadouts? I get it if its too much, but I'm curious how you're working it.

I haven't done a full analysis on available ECM/Countermeasure suites and which aircraft had them when, so the ECM values may not be authentic.

USAF/Mixed
Spoiler : :
A-10A Thunderbolt II (1978)(20%) : Gau-8, 6x AGM-65B, 14xHydra-70
F-111E Aardvark (1967)(30%) : 12xM117
F-111F Aardvark (1971)(30%) : 12xMk.20 Rockeye

F-117 Nighthawk (1983)(10%) : 2xGBU-27/B Paveway III

F-16A Fighting Falcon (1979)(20%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 6xMk.82 Snakeye, 4xAIM-9L
F-16C Fighting Falcon (1984)(30%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 6xMk.20 Rockeye II, 4xAIM-9M
F-16C Block 50 (1991)(40%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 2xAGM-65G Maverick, 4xAIM-9M

F-4E Phantom II (1978)(20%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xAIM-9J, 4xAIM-7F
F-15A Eagle (1982)(30%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xAIM-9L, 4xAIM-7M
F-15C Eagle (1991)(50%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xAIM-9M, 4xAIM-120A AMRAAM
F-15E Strike Eagle (1988)(50%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xMk.84, 4x AIM-9M

F-4G Wild Weasel V (1977)(30%) : 4xAGM-45B Shrike, 2xAIM-7F
F-4G Advanced Wild Weasel (1988)(40%) : 2x AGM-78D Standard, 2x AIM-7M
F-16CJ (1993)(50%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 2xAGM-88B HARM, 4xAIM-9M


Navy/Marine
Spoiler : :
A-4M Skyhawk (1971)(20%) : Twin Colt Mk.12, 16xMk.24 Zuni
A-6A Intruder (1963)(20%) : 12xMk.82 Snakeye
A-7E Corsair II (1979)(20%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 2x AGM-62 Walleye II, 2x AIM-9L
F-4S Phantom II (1979)(30%) : 8xMk.77 Napalm, 4xAIM-9L

AV-8A Harrier (1977)(0%) : Twin ADEN 30, 4xMk.83, 2xAIM-9G
AV-8C Harrier (1979)(20%) : Twin ADEN 30, 38x Hydra-70, 2xAIM-9L
AV-8B Harrier II (1983)(30%) : Gau-12/A, 2xAGM-65E Maverick, 2xAIM-9M

F-14A Tomcat (1979)(30%) : 2xAIM-9L, 4xAIM-54A Phoenix
F-14A+ Tomcat (1987)(40%) : 2xAIM-9M, 4xAIM-54C Phoenix

EA-6B Prowler (1985)(50%) : 2x AGM-88A HARM

F/A-18A Hornet (1983)(30%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 2xMk.84, 4xAIM-9M
F/A-18C Block 23 (1987)(40%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xAGM-65F Maverick, 2x AIM-9M
F/A-18A Block 36 (1992)(50%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xAIM-9M, 4xAIM-120A AMRAAM


Naval
Spoiler : :
A-6E Tram Intruder (1979)(30%) : 4xAGM-84 Harpoon
F/A-18A Block 36 (1989)(40%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 2xAGM-84 Harpoon, 2xAIM-9M, 2xAIM-120A AMRAAM

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

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Mandolin » Fri 24 Jan 2020 00:13

Sireyn wrote:
Mandolin wrote:The manual only lists HEI and HEI-T as ammo, the API round was terrible. If you're using APDS you'd only use that, the ballistics are too different from HEI.


I am wondering now if I should remove the aircraft range on the M163 CS. Even with radar, it would have been barely serviceable.
I would do the M163s differently.

M163 CS in the Vehicle tab becomes just M163. Old ammo and range and all that jazz from the base M163. The real thing had an effective range of 1200m against planes - basically nothing.

M163 PIVADS stays in Support and gets APDS ammo. No HE (or at least AoE), but great range and accuracy for a 20mm SPAAG

Then a PIVADS copy with M940 MP-T ("PIVADS-S" ?) as a transport for Stinger-C. Per Jane's Air Defense (I linked you it earlier), the PIVADS started carrying Stingers for the observer team. Less range than with APDS but much better than with old ammo.

Mandolin wrote:Side note: None of the AH-1s should have any AP value unless modeled as using Mk149 (and then they loose HE). 20x102mm M53 does a whopping 6mm/1,000m. .50BMG does 11mm/1200m, so heavy machine guns deserve AP more than Cobras.

PGU-28 SAPHEI is actually in timeframe and has semi-decent penetration ( 0.375 inch/45*/2786fps -or 9.5mm/45*/80% muzzle velocity) Yes, that is how they wrote the spec.


Neither of those rounds deserve an AP value. This is unfortunate, but still worth changing if my follow up research confirms it.

Eh. I was messing around with possible values for AP/AV and figured that if you could have [KE] penetration not automatically go up every 175m you could model autocannon a lot better with armor values scaled to known weapons.

Mandolin wrote:I wouldn't say twin Mk.19 is fictional - you could probably fit it if you really wanted. Its just not an ideal weapon for the role. I seem to recall another poster noting that no matter how hard he googled, it just wouldn't show any pictures of a AH-6 with grenade launchers.

To be entirely fair, Loach! does have a picture of an AH-6 with various possible weapons laid out and a Mk.19 is present. Though I really can't see why you would fit it. You're either replacing the Miniguns or rockets with something that kinda-sorta does both jobs.

Also the 240m/s muzzle velocity is painfully low for an airborne weapon.


You make good points and I prefer the minigun/rocket combo. This is what the model will look like, which isn't great, but it is serviceable.
Image
I mean its ugly but it works.

Mandolin wrote:Hm. I'd keep the F-14s as early and late ASFs, but a 1985 F/A-18A would give you a Cat B ASF with extra AIM-9M.

Does Naval Block 29 not get the gun?

If you're going 1992, might as well give it AIM-9R with IIR seeker. Yes it got cancelled OTL but handwave.

Oh, and make it 1993 and you get better flare launchers and RWR, so higher ECM!


I have the F-14A (1979) and F-14A+ (1987) with 2xAIM-9 and 4xAIM-54. This difference is in missile models and ECM.

All F-18s have their M61A1 Vulcan, unless you mean something else?

I did exclude the AIM-9R because it was cancelled Dec 1991. I would need to do some research to see how early it could have been ready, but the in game effects would only amount to a small accuracy increase.

My 1992 F-18 has the improved countermeasures, so I may have the date incorrect or I saw a reference somewhere that it was ready earlier.
Why only two AIM-9 on the F-14s? No reason not to carry two more.

And I really wouldn't give F-14A the AIM-54A. Basic Phoenix was for killing Russian heavy bombers and missiles, not fighters. Wouldn't have the accuracy to be any good against small maneuverable planes, I'd just give it AIM-7F

How does Naval F-18 get gun and three missile types?

AIM-9R was cancelled due to a lack of funds. Like a ton of other cool stuff, the end of the Cold War meant the money faucet got turned off. In a Cold War gone hot game, I'd say -9R is a perfectly valid weapon

Date isn't too important, there isn't all that much info on this stuff and the info is old.

Mandolin wrote:Interestingly, the A-7D's SAC gives performance numbers for two CAS loadouts: Eight Mk82 500 pounders...and twelve LAU-3s.

LAU-3 holds 19 rockets.

That's a lot of rockets. I have a Mig-27 with 96 57mm rockets and that produces audio artifacts, so I would be hesitant to make an aircraft with more. US Army decks do lack a rocket attacker, so I may use some variation with less rockets.
Yeah, it would be a bit much. If you wanted you could give it two kinds of rocket, so like 72x M151 HE and 38x M156 WP

LAU-3 is a salvo-only pod firing at 100 rockets/second, so if you cut out most of the noises and just had it go "woosh" that might work.

Anyways, rockets should all fire in about a 1 second and go everywhere. They're not accurate, especially FFARs mass-launched from planes, but it still sucks to be on the other end.

Interesting. For Wargame's purposes, I would need to find a way to give it a large HE damage without an explosion so it doesn't damage armor. The HE damage is directly associated with the number of men (hitpoints) it will kill. Vehicles armed with canister, like the Scorpion and older MBTs, could certainly benefit if I worked out the details.
Honestly I don't think canister is worth modeling, it would only have 175m range. 350m if very generous.

On that note, did you leave flamethrower squads in? I never understood the logic behind them being included.

Mandolin wrote:What exactly you mean by "infantry rockets"? You mean the anti-rank rockets?


Yes. The ranges are generally too long and several systems have inconsistent/incorrect accuracy and armor penetration. Some systems have the opportunity for alternative ammunition.
I've actually put some though into that, I can share it if you want.

Mandolin wrote:On a fun pie-in-the-sky uber-SEAD note:

The ALE-50 towed decoy came out in 1995 on F-16s. F-16CJ could get it, either as some anti-missile weapon as an actual weapon, or by giving the plane a CIWS rating (is that even possible?)

Also, RT-1489. Its an active jammer, but small enough to fit in a standard flare launcher so you can launch active decoys. Did I mention its from 1988?

If you're even more ambitious, try implementing the ADM-141 TALD. Its an air-launched decoy that dispenses chaff.


CIWS and "missiles" that target other missiles is possible, but I have avoided implementing it. I am not sure I can make it look good, feel authentic, or represent the system in the UI intuitively. ECM is already heavily abstracted and amounts to a -% chance to hit against all weapon types, so extending the system isn't something I have interest in at this time.
Thats fair. Though could you give it the stats of ship missiles that can target incoming anti-ship missiles?

Mandolin wrote:The Carl Gustav can actually get the FV 597, an oversize HEAT head with 900mm penetration. Short range but nice punch.


I only did a quick google search and didn't see an answer; Who used it and when was it ready?
I have no idea who used it, it seems to have been part of the late Cold War obsession with increasingly large anti-tank rockets.

Mandolin wrote:Any chance of a quick rundown of all US aircraft loadouts? I get it if its too much, but I'm curious how you're working it.

I haven't done a full analysis on available ECM/Countermeasure suites and which aircraft had them when, so the ECM values may not be authentic.
They'll never be authentic, mostly because there's no real info on ECM gear.

USAF/Mixed
Spoiler : :
A-10A Thunderbolt II (1978)(20%) : Gau-8, 6x AGM-65B, 14xHydra-70
F-111E Aardvark (1967)(30%) : 12xM117
F-111F Aardvark (1971)(30%) : 12xMk.20 Rockeye

F-117 Nighthawk (1983)(10%) : 2xGBU-27/B Paveway III

F-16A Fighting Falcon (1979)(20%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 6xMk.82 Snakeye, 4xAIM-9L
F-16C Fighting Falcon (1984)(30%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 6xMk.20 Rockeye II, 4xAIM-9M
F-16C Block 50 (1991)(40%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 2xAGM-65G Maverick, 4xAIM-9M

F-4E Phantom II (1978)(20%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xAIM-9J, 4xAIM-7F
F-15A Eagle (1982)(30%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xAIM-9L, 4xAIM-7M
F-15C Eagle (1991)(50%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xAIM-9M, 4xAIM-120A AMRAAM
F-15E Strike Eagle (1988)(50%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xMk.84, 4x AIM-9M

F-4G Wild Weasel V (1977)(30%) : 4xAGM-45B Shrike, 2xAIM-7F
F-4G Advanced Wild Weasel (1988)(40%) : 2x AGM-78D Standard, 2x AIM-7M
F-16CJ (1993)(50%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 2xAGM-88B HARM, 4xAIM-9M


Spoiler : :
A-10A: Loose two AGM-65s. Per the weapons delivery manual (page 250), you can only carry two missiles on the triple launcher for tactical use.

F-111E: Decent. It could carry a lot more M117s or just 4x MK.84s.

F-111F: No. Go for LGBs, the F-111F was basically the primary users of smart bombs at the time. I would go 2x GBU-10 2,000lb

F-117: Loose it. The Nighthawk is a strategic weapon for hitting stuff behind the lines, not participating in ground battles. The thing only flew at night, and this just isn't the role it was designed for or could even do.

F-16A: I'd give it the Rockeyes and call it Block 5.

F-16C: I'd go full lightweight fighter with six AIM-9Ms in two weapons slots, four-and-two in each. Block 25

F-16C Block 52: Loose the -65G for -65D. D has a HEAT shaped charge, G has some penetrator warhead unsuited for obliterating tanks. Also, consider giving it some AIM-120s

F-4E: I would make it a light bomber 6x M117 or Mk.82

F-15 fighters:
Personally, I would make the "A" the 1978 model with Aim-9L/AIM-7F.

Then "C" with -9M/-7M.

Prototype superfighter status goes to F-15C MSIP II, the F-15 with AIM-120 capability. Pretty much anything goes here. AIM-120B is 1994. AIM-9R is 90s, and the Air Force only pulled out for post-Cold War funding issues. Eight AIM-120B in two weapons slots could work for MAXIMUM FREEDOM.

F-15E: Personally I would give it either a bunch of CBU-87s (think Rockeye but with a HE value) or a pair of AGM-130s. These are Mk84s on a big rocket with a guidance system for maximum pain with minimum risk.

Wild Weasel: I would loose the AIM-7s. Shouldn't need them and is a distraction from killing SAMs. Also Shrike is way outdated by this point. Give it a pair of AGM-78 Standards and then either 2x AGM-65Bs (because who said non-radar AA should be safe?) or 2x AGM-45s on the theory of "they exist, might as well use them"

Advanced Wild Weasel: Should get 2x AGM-88A and no AIM-7s

F-16CJ: Sounds good, unless you were to go for the ALE-50 weapon. Also, it could get the AGM-88C version. This would do more damage, so extra AP.


Navy/Marine
Spoiler : :
A-4M Skyhawk (1971)(20%) : Twin Colt Mk.12, 16xMk.24 Zuni
A-6A Intruder (1963)(20%) : 12xMk.82 Snakeye
A-7E Corsair II (1979)(20%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 2x AGM-62 Walleye II, 2x AIM-9L
F-4S Phantom II (1979)(30%) : 8xMk.77 Napalm, 4xAIM-9L

AV-8A Harrier (1977)(0%) : Twin ADEN 30, 4xMk.83, 2xAIM-9G
AV-8C Harrier (1979)(20%) : Twin ADEN 30, 38x Hydra-70, 2xAIM-9L
AV-8B Harrier II (1983)(30%) : Gau-12/A, 2xAGM-65E Maverick, 2xAIM-9M

F-14A Tomcat (1979)(30%) : 2xAIM-9L, 4xAIM-54A Phoenix
F-14A+ Tomcat (1987)(40%) : 2xAIM-9M, 4xAIM-54C Phoenix

EA-6B Prowler (1985)(50%) : 2x AGM-88A HARM

F/A-18A Hornet (1983)(30%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 2xMk.84, 4xAIM-9M
F/A-18C Block 23 (1987)(40%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xAGM-65F Maverick, 2x AIM-9M
F/A-18A Block 36 (1992)(50%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 4xAIM-9M, 4xAIM-120A AMRAAM

Spoiler : :
A-4M: I'd go for 12x Mk.63 HE and 4x MK.32 HEAT. Mk.63 is a newer HE head with more explosive and Mk.32 has 450mm pen. Should be balanced depending on the accuracy.

A-6A:Rename to A-6E, the A was out by this time. Also 12x Mk82 is nowhere near enough, this is a heavy bomber. 8 or 9x Mk.83 is what I'd suggest. That or add Rockeyes to the current load. A bunch of FAE clusters could work. Also the A-6 is AIM-9 capable if you really want.

A-7E: I like it.

F-4S: Not a fan. Napalm mostly went out after Vietnam, and per the SAC a more realistic load would be 7x Mk77, three centerline and two on each inner wing.

I might give it CBU-59s. A Rockeye relative, these have smaller bomblets that can act as anti-personnel bombs. So think Rockeye with 1 less AP and HE 1.5 or something.

AV-8A:ha ha no. AV-8A is way too old and can't carry that load. It only has 5 hardpoints and can only carry 2x Mk.83 anyways.

I'd remove it and add a copy-past AV-8B as "AV-8B NA" with:
GAU-12
2/4x AGM-65F
2x AGM-122

AV-8C:Personally I would give it 4 Mk77s and take the napalm role from the F-4S

AV-8B: I like it, but give it two more AIM-9Ms. Should make a decent knife fighter/helicopter killer with anti-tank ability

F-14A:Add two more AIM-9L and switch 4x AIM-7F for 4x AIM-54A. -54A is not going to be useful against fighters.

F-14A+: Add two more AIM-9M.

EA-6B:Not much else you can do with it, so fine. Also, it doesn't have a RWR so if you're including that in you ECM calcs drop it. (Seriously)

F-18A: Huge waste of an airframe. Also Marines don't really use Mk.84. Options;
4/6x Mk83 and 6x AIM-9 (medium bomber replacing AV-8A)
8x Mk.20 Rockeye and 2x AIM-9 (anti-tank clusters)
4x AIM-7F and 6x AIM-9M (Cat B fighter)

F-18 Block 23: Not a real fan of that many AGM-65s on a fast jet. I'd switch the load to the old AV-8A (now AV-8B NA) and give it either 8x Rockeyes or 2x GBU-16 1,000lb smart bombs

F-18C Block 36: You have eight missile hardpoints to play with and thats all you gave it? Also you're prototype so go nuts.
2x AIM-120A and 6x AIM-9R
6x AIM-120A and 6x AIM-9R
6x AIM-120A and 4x AIM-120B


Naval
Spoiler : :
A-6E Tram Intruder (1979)(30%) : 4xAGM-84 Harpoon
F/A-18A Block 36 (1989)(40%) : M61A1 Vulcan, 2xAGM-84 Harpoon, 2xAIM-9M, 2xAIM-120A AMRAAM

Spoiler : :
A-6E is fine.

How are you getting 4 weapons on the Block 36 when you only have 3 weapons slots?

Too bad you can't add S-3B Viking as a cheap Harpoon mule with a pair of AGM-84s. It could even get better variants.

You still have more planes to play with
Spoiler : :
A-4M got the ARBS upgrade for improved bombing accuracy, could justify a copy-paste A-4M with a new loadout (I'd go for 8x Mk82 as a nice light bomber)

A-6E got the WCSI and SWIP upgrades to use precision and standoff weapons in the mid/late 80s, so two more possible airframes. A-6F was cancelled, but you can handwave it. Also the A-6F is AMRAAM-capable, so that could be fun.

A-7E got a big FLIR added so A-7E FLIR. Not really sure of the point but still.

A-7K is a combat capable two-seater.

F-16 has enough blocks you could always add more.

F-14D is 1991 with better engines.

A-10A LASTE was a 1990 upgrade with upgraded weapon firecontrol and ALL THE FLARE DISPENSERS

F-111G was a conversion of FB-111s if you really like your Ardvarks.

F-5E was in service, not really in combat roles but there were enough squadrons you could add them.


Your Marine list needs another SEAD bird or two. My AV-8B NA isn't really it. Either an EA-6B clone or A-7E if you clone it and give the Walleye to the FLIR version.

EA-6B clone as "EA-6H" (the latest EA-6 upgrade sounds bit like the A-6F to me and A-6G was the low-cost version, so H is next) with 2x AGM-88B and a chaff dispenser- think smoke but for air that blocks [RAD] line of sight if that is a thing.

A-7E with a couple Shrikes for cheap SEAD

User avatar
Sireyn
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Fri 24 Jan 2020 08:28

Mandolin wrote:
Sireyn wrote:I am wondering now if I should remove the aircraft range on the M163 CS. Even with radar, it would have been barely serviceable.
I would do the M163s differently.

M163 CS in the Vehicle tab becomes just M163. Old ammo and range and all that jazz from the base M163. The real thing had an effective range of 1200m against planes - basically nothing.

M163 PIVADS stays in Support and gets APDS ammo. No HE (or at least AoE), but great range and accuracy for a 20mm SPAAG

Then a PIVADS copy with M940 MP-T ("PIVADS-S" ?) as a transport for Stinger-C. Per Jane's Air Defense (I linked you it earlier), the PIVADS started carrying Stingers for the observer team. Less range than with APDS but much better than with old ammo.


I am attempting to keep the CAT eras functional and reasonably balanced, hence some outdated equipment. I retained the VADS so CAT C has some sort of AAA. The CS represents a VADS that is equipped for ground support. PIVADS has the targeting radar and was the only close air defense until the 90s, so that is staying loaded with anti-aircraft ammo.

The anti-aircraft ammo self-detonates between 1400-1800m and the radar takes at least 4 seconds to target and align the gun, so effectiveness would have been very poor against aircraft. Moreover, I doubt the radar is calibrated for APDS since that is considered purely ground support ammo. Without the radar, I don't think a gunner would have much of a chance to hit (but then again, his job was mostly suppression and deterrence). The ground attack optic has stadia up to 2000m, so that would be my approximate limit for APDS.

Stinger teams are meant to be deployed defensively and kept out of harms way (different mission set than PIVADS). They are transported by truck and may temporarily transition to tracks if the attached unit gives them up or makes room. Putting stinger teams in fighting vehicles, such as PIVADS or Bradleys, was not approved as a concept until FAAD in 1986 (when Sergeant York was cancelled). These weren't fielded until April 1992 and ceased once Linebacker came online. ADATS was cancelled Feb 1992 due to budget cuts after the Cold War ended, leading to another stopgap solution- Bradley Linebacker. An M2A2 Bradley was retrofitted with an ATAS pod (later replaced with SVML) and successfully tested by Dec 1992 (the same year!). All further test phases were concluded by August 1993.
In a Cold War gone hot scenario, I find it likely that these "off the shelf" parts would have been quickly retrofitted and put into service rather than continue with a limited and "inherently flawed" stopgap that itself ended once the Linebacker was introduced.

Because of the differing mission sets, balance concerns with giving a primary AAA unit as a transport, and that the role is already filled by Avenger and Linebacker, I didn't make a unique transport for the CAT A Stinger teams. I am not necessarily rejecting it, but this is why I set it aside.

Mandolin wrote:
Neither of those rounds deserve an AP value. This is unfortunate, but still worth changing if my follow up research confirms it.


Eh. I was messing around with possible values for AP/AV and figured that if you could have [KE] penetration not automatically go up every 175m you could model autocannon a lot better with armor values scaled to known weapons.


Agreed. There is a boolean in the TAmmunition that seems to dictate whether the AP can increase, but I haven't tested it. I've wanted to reassess all of the autocannon ammunition and how they compare against IFVs, but the workload kept me from digging in.

Mandolin wrote:Why only two AIM-9 on the F-14s? No reason not to carry two more.

And I really wouldn't give F-14A the AIM-54A. Basic Phoenix was for killing Russian heavy bombers and missiles, not fighters. Wouldn't have the accuracy to be any good against small maneuverable planes, I'd just give it AIM-7F

How does Naval F-18 get gun and three missile types?

AIM-9R was cancelled due to a lack of funds. Like a ton of other cool stuff, the end of the Cold War meant the money faucet got turned off. In a Cold War gone hot game, I'd say -9R is a perfectly valid weapon

Date isn't too important, there isn't all that much info on this stuff and the info is old.


Two AIM-9 on F-14's are mostly for balance; to give them a weakness in close in fights. They are extremely effective flying in circles at the rear of a map. In ALB, there was a time when this was the end-all be-all of air superiority.

I haven't checked the maneuverability characteristics of the A model and assumed it would be similar to the C. I'll check it out and switch the missile if I confirm it.

There is no true limit to the number of weapons on a unit. The limit is what can be displayed in the UI and how the model is rigged to handle the visuals. My Naval F-18 has all weapons as normal, except I merged the AIM-120s with the AIM-9s in the weapon panel. The aircraft model does not display AIM-120s on the rails, but missiles are produced when fired. The alternative is to create a dummy weapon to hook all of the appropriate weapon models to the rails, but then they don't detach when the real weapon fires.
Spoiler : :
Image


AIM-9R would receive a 5% accuracy increase over the AIM-9M. Since I started this mod, I have increasingly moved in the direction of wanting everything I change to be grounded to reality as closely as possible- though there are exceptions when gameplay required it. I would need to know when IOC was planned and whether the new seeker technology encountered any problems that would delay it to be out of timeframe. AIM-9X began production September 2000 and included similar technology, so a bit of research into that might point to something relating to AIM-9R's development.

Mandolin wrote:Honestly I don't think canister is worth modeling, it would only have 175m range. 350m if very generous.

On that note, did you leave flamethrower squads in? I never understood the logic behind them being included.


Flamethrower squads are still in. It's another case of low priority and not researching exactly who used what, when. I don't want to selectively remove one nation's unit and create a disparity.

Mandolin wrote:
What exactly you mean by "infantry rockets"? You mean the anti-rank rockets?


Yes. The ranges are generally too long and several systems have inconsistent/incorrect accuracy and armor penetration. Some systems have the opportunity for alternative ammunition.
I've actually put some though into that, I can share it if you want.


I would have simply reduced the base range by one step and then reevaluate each rocket's capability. I'll be happy to read your ideas.

Mandolin wrote:Thats fair. Though could you give it the stats of ship missiles that can target incoming anti-ship missiles?


I could give a weapon whatever stats I like. Displaying the weapon in the UI, coming up with a balancing scheme, and the research on all of the various equipment and airframe combinations is the hard part.

Mandolin wrote:
I only did a quick google search and didn't see an answer; Who used it and when was it ready?

I have no idea who used it, it seems to have been part of the late Cold War obsession with increasingly large anti-tank rockets.


I would probably restrict it to a post-Cold War era Swedish unit then. A 90s Norrlandsjagare or fire support team could work, but I don't see a strong need for it.

Mandolin wrote:
Spoiler : :
A-10A: Loose two AGM-65s. Per the weapons delivery manual (page 250), you can only carry two missiles on the triple launcher for tactical use.

F-111E: Decent. It could carry a lot more M117s or just 4x MK.84s

F-111F: No. Go for LGBs, the F-111F was basically the primary users of smart bombs at the time. I would go 2x GBU-10 2,000lb

F-117: Loose it. The Nighthawk is a strategic weapon for hitting stuff behind the lines, not participating in ground battles. The thing only flew at night, and this just isn't the role it was designed for or could even do.

F-16A: I'd give it the Rockeyes and call it Block 5.

F-16C: I'd go full lightweight fighter with six AIM-9Ms in two weapons slots, four-and-two in each. Block 25

F-16C Block 52: Loose the -65G for -65D. D has a HEAT shaped charge, G has some penetrator warhead unsuited for obliterating tanks. Also, consider giving it some AIM-120s

F-4E: I would make it a light bomber 6x M117 or Mk.82

F-15 fighters:
Personally, I would make the "A" the 1978 model with Aim-9L/AIM-7F.

Then "C" with -9M/-7M.

Prototype superfighter status goes to F-15C MSIP II, the F-15 with AIM-120 capability. Pretty much anything goes here. AIM-120B is 1994. AIM-9R is 90s, and the Air Force only pulled out for post-Cold War funding issues. Eight AIM-120B in two weapons slots could work for MAXIMUM FREEDOM.

F-15E: Personally I would give it either a bunch of CBU-87s (think Rockeye but with a HE value) or a pair of AGM-130s. These are Mk84s on a big rocket with a guidance system for maximum pain with minimum risk.

Wild Weasel: I would loose the AIM-7s. Shouldn't need them and is a distraction from killing SAMs. Also Shrike is way outdated by this point. Give it a pair of AGM-78 Standards and then either 2x AGM-65Bs (because who said non-radar AA should be safe?) or 2x AGM-45s on the theory of "they exist, might as well use them"

Advanced Wild Weasel: Should get 2x AGM-88A and no AIM-7s

F-16CJ: Sounds good, unless you were to go for the ALE-50 weapon.


Note that many aircraft are leftovers from prior games and Eugen prioritized gameplay roles over authenticity. In addition to wanting authentic and characteristic loadouts, I have sought to reduce the number of F&F missiles, flatten the capability curve, and bring units as close to the 1980-1991 timeframe as is reasonable.

Spoiler : :
A-10A: This is the first I've heard that it couldn't use 6 Mavericks at once. If this is so, I would want better missiles.

F-111E: Leftover from Eugen. Additional bombs means higher cost and longer rearm time, so I like where it sits.

F-111F: Leftover from Eugen. LGBs are interesting, but why are you opposed to Rockeyes?

F-117: Leftover from Eugen. I left it in because it adds something to gameplay and it isn't the only purely strategic unit.

F-16A: Not opposed to giving this the rockeyes, but it has the consequence of being a bomber that is less survivable. Since the F-16 was originally designed as a light dogfighter, isn't it doctrinally and thematically more appropriate for this to have 6xAIM-9?

F-16C: Splitting the missiles creates a gamey situation where this unit's firepower is doubled and causes unit disparity.

F-16C Block 50: The AGM-65G was copied from the ANZAC Kahu. I didn't bother to check whether the missile was appropriate for tank busting. This also affects the AGM-65E on the Harrier II. I am thinking an AP buff for the B/D to 28 would resolve this.

F-4E: I created this specifically to be a CAT C fighter. Recalling from when I first added it, the F-4E was the Air Force's primary fighter before the F-15. It also gives the F-15A room to improve its missiles.

F-15A: Your suggested loadout is what the vanilla aircraft had. With the F-4E, I found updating the missiles to be seemless, but I recognize that the airframe was available in CAT C.

F-15C: This basically represents the MSIP II. 1991 fits within the same CAT era in my custom system and I didn't want an overabundance of aircraft. I could rename this one and add another F-15C, but I'd prefer to simplify the choices.

F-15E: Mostly leftover from Eugen. I haven't looked at alternative loadouts as this one performs well in game. AGM-130As sound like they would perform like 20 HE Mavericks, which is interesting.

Wild Weasel: I've gone back and forth on wanting to change this. It fills a useful role with 4 Shrikes that would be too powerful or expensive with better missiles. The AIM-7s are for self-defense and so the AIM-9s aren't sitting in the Sparrow wells. I've considered variations of 2 SEAD + 2 Mavericks, but always came back to the stock setup.

Advanced Wild Weasel: This is technically the same aircraft as the Wild Weasel, but an alternative name. This carries the Standards that the earlier one could have and is a later date for the extra ECM and better AIM-7s. I've considered a loadout with 1 Standard and 1 HARM, but mounting limitations prevented me from messing with it.

F-16CJ: You are right about the AGM-88C, but more damage doesn't mean much with SEAD missiles. Even the worst missiles result in one-hit kills.


Mandolin wrote:
Spoiler : :
A-4M: I'd go for 12x Mk.63 HE and 4x MK.32 HEAT. Mk.63 is a newer HE head with more explosive and Mk.32 has 450mm pen. Should be balanced depending on the accuracy.

A-6A:Rename to A-6E, the A was out by this time. Also 12x Mk82 is nowhere near enough, this is a heavy bomber. 8 or 9x Mk.83 is what I'd suggest. That or add Rockeyes to the current load. A bunch of FAE clusters could work. Also the A-6 is AIM-9 capable if you really want.

A-7E: I like it.

F-4S: Not a fan. Napalm mostly went out after Vietnam, and per the SAC a more realistic load would be 7x Mk77, three centerline and two on each inner wing.

I might give it CBU-59s. A Rockeye relative, these have smaller bomblets that can act as anti-personnel bombs. So think Rockeye with 1 less AP and HE 1.5 or something.

AV-8A:ha ha no. AV-8A is way too old and can't carry that load. It only has 5 hardpoints and can only carry 2x Mk.83 anyways.

I'd remove it and add a copy-past AV-8B as "AV-8B NA" with:
GAU-12
2/4x AGM-65F
2x AGM-122

AV-8C:Personally I would give it 4 Mk77s and take the napalm role from the F-4S

AV-8B: I like it, but give it two more AIM-9Ms. Should make a decent knife fighter/helicopter killer with anti-tank ability

F-14A:Add two more AIM-9L and switch 4x AIM-7F for 4x AIM-54A. -54A is not going to be useful against fighters.

F-14A+: Add two more AIM-9M.

EA-6B:Not much else you can do with it, so fine. Also, it doesn't have a RWR so if you're including that in you ECM calcs drop it. (Seriously)

F-18A: Huge waste of an airframe. Also Marines don't really use Mk.84. Options;
4/6x Mk83 and 6x AIM-9 (medium bomber replacing AV-8A)
8x Mk.20 Rockeye and 2x AIM-9 (anti-tank clusters)
4x AIM-7F and 6x AIM-9M (Cat B fighter)

F-18 Block 23: Not a real fan of that many AGM-65s on a fast jet. I'd switch the load to the old AV-8A (now AV-8B NA) and give it either 8x Rockeyes or 2x GBU-16 1,000lb smart bombs

F-18C Block 36: You have eight missile hardpoints to play with and thats all you gave it? Also you're prototype so go nuts.
2x AIM-120A and 6x AIM-9R
6x AIM-120A and 6x AIM-9R
6x AIM-120A and 4x AIM-120B


Spoiler : :
A-4M: HEAT rockets are too powerful because of their damage mechanics. Mk.63 and an extra half point of HE may help. Good suggestion.

A-6A: Leftover from Eugen. I think it remained the A model because ALB had the A-6E TRAM as a bomber, but then that was rerolled for anti-shipping for RD. It sat in a nice price/performance spot, so I never gave it a second look. I'll correct the name and If I go about shaking up the US air lineup, this will be my first choice for a larger bomb load.

F-4S: Leftover from Eugen. Another one I've considered changing for one of the large number of combinations of bomb loads it could carry, but I felt the US needed some kind of napalm bomber. The bombs are either all wing or all centerline mounted, so the bomb load was kept at 8 to keep it from looking strange.

AV-8A: Interesting suggestion for a reroll. If I remember right, the vanilla aircraft had two mk83, which is garbage for Wargame. I might have confused the max loads between the models when I added two extra bombs.

AV-8C: A cheap rocket attacker is important for gameplay. I'll keep the napalm option in mind however.

AV-8B: I've found that two missiles is perfect for helicopter duty. It has just enough time to fire both missiles and then evac without having to turn around (presumably over enemy lines). More missiles also means higher price.

F-14A: See above. Two AIM-9 is for balance.

F-14A+: See above. Two AIM-9 is for balance.

EA-6B: Wouldn't the jammer pod serve as a RWR, hence the lack of a dedicated RWR? I admit I am not familiar with the different pods and their capabilities.

F-18A: I originally chose this load to replace the four Mavericks and to act as a lighter, earlier Strike Eagle. Canada already has the Rockeye load on its CF-18 and AIM-9/AIM-7 for its CF-188. 4 or 6 Mk.83s sounds fine to me. Why doesn't the Navy use Mk.84s?

F-18 Block 23: As I recall, this model was specifically upgraded to be able to use Mavericks (Maybe it was a laser designator?). In gameplay terms, this is a more expensive and survivable alternative to the Harrier II. Four missiles is sometimes necessary to guarantee a kill against a "superheavy" tank.

F-18C Block 36: I chose this load to keep the price reasonable, to fit within the existing balance scheme, and because the model still only supports 6 pylons.


Mandolin wrote:Too bad you can't add S-3B Viking as a cheap Harpoon mule with a pair of AGM-84s. It could even get better variants.


Among many other units.

Mandolin wrote:You still have more planes to play with
Spoiler : :
A-4M got the ARBS upgrade for improved bombing accuracy, could justify a copy-paste A-4M with a new loadout (I'd go for 8x Mk82 as a nice light bomber)

A-6E got the WCSI and SWIP upgrades to use precision and standoff weapons in the 80s, so two more possible airframes. A-6F was cancelled, but you can handwave it. Also the A-6F is AMRAAM-capable, so that could be fun.

A-7E got a big FLIR added so A-7E FLIR. Not really sure of the point but still.

A-7K is a combat capable two-seater.

F-16 has enough blocks you could always add more.

F-14D is 1991 with better engines.

A-10A LASTE was a 1990 upgrade with upgraded weapon firecontrol and ALL THE FLARE DISPENSERS

F-111G was a conversion of FB-111s if you really like your Ardvarks.

F-5E was in service, not really in combat roles but there were enough squadrons you could add them.


Some very good suggestions. I would restrict myself to aircraft with existing US models, but most of these would be fine.


Mandolin wrote:Your Marine list needs another SEAD bird or two. My AV-8B NA isn't really it. Either an EA-6B clone or A-7E if you clone it and give the Walleye to the FLIR version.

EA-6B clone as "EA-6H" (the latest EA-6 upgrade sounds bit like the A-6F to me and A-6G was the low-cost version, so H is next) with 2x AGM-88B and a chaff dispenser- think smoke but for air that blocks [RAD] line of sight if that is a thing.

A-7E with a couple Shrikes for cheap SEAD


Every deck has Shrikes, Standards, and HARMs. There are endless possibilities to expand it, but the differences become marginal in gameplay terms. What Wargame really needs is a loadout swapping system.

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

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Mandolin » Fri 24 Jan 2020 23:44

Sireyn wrote:I am attempting to keep the CAT eras functional and reasonably balanced, hence some outdated equipment. I retained the VADS so CAT C has some sort of AAA. The CS represents a VADS that is equipped for ground support. PIVADS has the targeting radar and was the only close air defense until the 90s, so that is staying loaded with anti-aircraft ammo.

The anti-aircraft ammo self-detonates between 1400-1800m and the radar takes at least 4 seconds to target and align the gun, so effectiveness would have been very poor against aircraft. Moreover, I doubt the radar is calibrated for APDS since that is considered purely ground support ammo. Without the radar, I don't think a gunner would have much of a chance to hit (but then again, his job was mostly suppression and deterrence). The ground attack optic has stadia up to 2000m, so that would be my approximate limit for APDS.

Stinger teams are meant to be deployed defensively and kept out of harms way (different mission set than PIVADS). They are transported by truck and may temporarily transition to tracks if the attached unit gives them up or makes room. Putting stinger teams in fighting vehicles, such as PIVADS or Bradleys, was not approved as a concept until FAAD in 1986 (when Sergeant York was cancelled). These weren't fielded until April 1992 and ceased once Linebacker came online. ADATS was cancelled Feb 1992 due to budget cuts after the Cold War ended, leading to another stopgap solution- Bradley Linebacker. An M2A2 Bradley was retrofitted with an ATAS pod (later replaced with SVML) and successfully tested by Dec 1992 (the same year!). All further test phases were concluded by August 1993.
In a Cold War gone hot scenario, I find it likely that these "off the shelf" parts would have been quickly retrofitted and put into service rather than continue with a limited and "inherently flawed" stopgap that itself ended once the Linebacker was introduced.

Because of the differing mission sets, balance concerns with giving a primary AAA unit as a transport, and that the role is already filled by Avenger and Linebacker, I didn't make a unique transport for the CAT A Stinger teams. I am not necessarily rejecting it, but this is why I set it aside.

Basic VADS in my suggestion would be Cat C AAA. Also, all M163s came with radar.

PIVADS radar isn't calibrated for APDS because it isn't calibrated for anything. The radar is range-only, which is why no one liked the idea of PIVADS getting the [RAD] tag-the radar would never be on long enough for a SEAD missile to lock on.

APDS isn't ground support, you can use it anti-air just fine. In fact its vastly better. You have a much higher muzzle velocity, higher velocity at range, and you're not going to bounce off a Hind at long range or tell everyone where you are with a stream of tracers.

Then the third M163 would get M940 MPT-SD. M940 has the HE of M246 HEI-T-SD, but has a much better shape and retains its velocity better. M940 also self-destructs ~500 meters after M246 as well.

So M246 HEI-T-SD gets you like 1400 meters against planes and 1500-1700 against helos and ground,

Mk149 APDS gets 2100m against planes, a bit less against helicopters, and ground range depends on if you want it as AA or ground support.

M940 MP-T-SD gets a bit more range than M246 and is a little more accurate.


Honestly I always figured the M6 Linebacker should be a Stinger transport as well. It has the room and Stinger teams seemed really vulnerable and lacking mobility riding around in jeeps.

Two AIM-9 on F-14's are mostly for balance; to give them a weakness in close in fights. They are extremely effective flying in circles at the rear of a map. In ALB, there was a time when this was the end-all be-all of air superiority.

I haven't checked the maneuverability characteristics of the A model and assumed it would be similar to the C. I'll check it out and switch the missile if I confirm it.
The AIM-9 load makes sense then.

AIM-54 was a very large and fast missile for killing large things far away. Its too big to maneuver much. Though at the ranges you're using it at in WG, you're already inside the range of the missile's radar set.

There is no true limit to the number of weapons on a unit. The limit is what can be displayed in the UI and how the model is rigged to handle the visuals. My Naval F-18 has all weapons as normal, except I merged the AIM-120s with the AIM-9s in the weapon panel. The aircraft model does not display AIM-120s on the rails, but missiles are produced when fired. The alternative is to create a dummy weapon to hook all of the appropriate weapon models to the rails, but then they don't detach when the real weapon fires.
Spoiler : :
Image

Ohh, cool.

Flamethrower squads are still in. It's another case of low priority and not researching exactly who used what, when. I don't want to selectively remove one nation's unit and create a disparity.
I would really suggest removing/reroling them. Flamethrowers were never anything more than a close-assault bunker killer and the idea of a ten-man flamethrower squad somehow killing a rifle squad at 300m is absurd. The absolute max range of a flamethrower is like 60 meters. Even with napalm fuel you still have the issue of your projectile burning up as it flies.


I've actually put some though into that, I can share it if you want.


I would have simply reduced the base range by one step and then reevaluate each rocket's capability. I'll be happy to read your ideas.
I've been working on them in this Google Spreadsheet. The rocket, ATGM, and MANPADS sections are good, most of the rest is old.

It also has my armor/penetration scale. Simply put, it goes has a very small difference between values until 100mm, then goes in 50mm increments (skipping 250mm) to 1,000mm, at which point it goes in 100mm steps. Armor stops at 26 AV (1300mm), penetration goes to AP 29 (1600mm) with AP 30 being auto-delete on anything with less than 20 AV (open for adjustment).

I would probably restrict it to a post-Cold War era Swedish unit then. A 90s Norrlandsjagare or fire support team could work, but I don't see a strong need for it.
Yeah, its one of those wacky weapons from the days we though you could make a disposable that could kill a MBT frontally.

AT-12-T probably could yes, but a 14kg disposable...you might as well bring an Eryx and have a better hit chance.

Note that many aircraft are leftovers from prior games and Eugen prioritized gameplay roles over authenticity. In addition to wanting authentic and characteristic loadouts, I have sought to reduce the number of F&F missiles, flatten the capability curve, and bring units as close to the 1980-1991 timeframe as is reasonable.

Spoiler : :
A-10A: This is the first I've heard that it couldn't use 6 Mavericks at once. If this is so, I would want better missiles.

F-111E: Leftover from Eugen. Additional bombs means higher cost and longer rearm time, so I like where it sits.

F-111F: Leftover from Eugen. LGBs are interesting, but why are you opposed to Rockeyes?

F-117: Leftover from Eugen. I left it in because it adds something to gameplay and it isn't the only purely strategic unit.

F-16A: Not opposed to giving this the rockeyes, but it has the consequence of being a bomber that is less survivable. Since the F-16 was originally designed as a light dogfighter, isn't it doctrinally and thematically more appropriate for this to have 6xAIM-9?

F-16C: Splitting the missiles creates a gamey situation where this unit's firepower is doubled and causes unit disparity.

F-16C Block 50: The AGM-65G was copied from the ANZAC Kahu. I didn't bother to check whether the missile was appropriate for tank busting. This also affects the AGM-65E on the Harrier II. I am thinking an AP buff for the B/D to 28 would resolve this.

F-4E: I created this specifically to be a CAT C fighter. Recalling from when I first added it, the F-4E was the Air Force's primary fighter before the F-15. It also gives the F-15A room to improve its missiles.

F-15A: Your suggested loadout is what the vanilla aircraft had. With the F-4E, I found updating the missiles to be seemless, but I recognize that the airframe was available in CAT C.

F-15C: This basically represents the MSIP II. 1991 fits within the same CAT era in my custom system and I didn't want an overabundance of aircraft. I could rename this one and add another F-15C, but I'd prefer to simplify the choices.

F-15E: Mostly leftover from Eugen. I haven't looked at alternative loadouts as this one performs well in game. AGM-130As sound like they would perform like 20 HE Mavericks, which is interesting.

Wild Weasel: I've gone back and forth on wanting to change this. It fills a useful role with 4 Shrikes that would be too powerful or expensive with better missiles. The AIM-7s are for self-defense and so the AIM-9s aren't sitting in the Sparrow wells. I've considered variations of 2 SEAD + 2 Mavericks, but always came back to the stock setup.

Advanced Wild Weasel: This is technically the same aircraft as the Wild Weasel, but an alternative name. This carries the Standards that the earlier one could have and is a later date for the extra ECM and better AIM-7s. I've considered a loadout with 1 Standard and 1 HARM, but mounting limitations prevented me from messing with it.

F-16CJ: You are right about the AGM-88C, but more damage doesn't mean much with SEAD missiles. Even the worst missiles result in one-hit kills.


Spoiler : :
A-10A: There aren't any better missiles, and you don't need any. -65B has the shaped charge head, a monster of a thing with 85lb HE. Should be AP 30 and kill everything in one shot. The only thing that should survive is a superheavy from the front, and even then it should take a lot of damage.

Bump the ECM to 30%, it has RWR and flares and can take a jamming pod.

F-111E Yeah that's fine.

F-111F: Because you're wasting America's premiere LGB truck on a job a low-block F-16A could do.

F-117: I really don't think stealth bombers should be a thing, and the F-117 never did anything resembling CAS. It was strictly night raids on enemy infrastructure.

Also, where is its ECM coming from?

F-16: I'm trying to save the dogfighter role for the more advanced C model, which would also get the AIM-9M

F-16C: That was kinda the point, a really amazing close-range fighter. But hey, then you get to give the Russians a similar thing!

F-16C Block 52: I'm sure the E/F/G could badly damage a tank, but they're some APHE kind of thing with 80lb HE in a 220lb steel casing. I'd give them a HE value and AP 20 or 22.

AGM-65B/D should get AP 30, nothing save a superheavy taking it to the nose should survive a hit.

Fighters: Fair enough, I just liked the idea of an all-F-15 lineup with MAXIMUM FREEDOM. Would you consider giving the F-15C AIM-120B though?

F-15E: yeah, the base game loadout was super unimaginative. Also, AGM-130 isn't just HE 20 Maverick- it has several times the range. Really the only issue is balancing it so you don't turn it into some mutant flying super-artillery with no supply cost.

Wild Weasel: I see what you're saying, but Shrike is still a bit old to be carrying as your main. Shrike + Standard would be more realistic IMO

Advanced Wild Weasel: Have you tried giving them Block numbers like the F-16 and F-18? Yes I realize block numbers are a pain to research but a which look at JoeBaugher's page suggests Block 33 for basic and Block 45 for Advanced.

As far as the weapons, Standard is by the late 80s a bit old.


Spoiler : :
A-4M: HEAT rockets are too powerful because of their damage mechanics. Mk.63 and an extra half point of HE may help. Good suggestion.

A-6A: Leftover from Eugen. I think it remained the A model because ALB had the A-6E TRAM as a bomber, but then that was rerolled for anti-shipping for RD. It sat in a nice price/performance spot, so I never gave it a second look. I'll correct the name and If I go about shaking up the US air lineup, this will be my first choice for a larger bomb load.

F-4S: Leftover from Eugen. Another one I've considered changing for one of the large number of combinations of bomb loads it could carry, but I felt the US needed some kind of napalm bomber. The bombs are either all wing or all centerline mounted, so the bomb load was kept at 8 to keep it from looking strange.

AV-8A: Interesting suggestion for a reroll. If I remember right, the vanilla aircraft had two mk83, which is garbage for Wargame. I might have confused the max loads between the models when I added two extra bombs.

AV-8C: A cheap rocket attacker is important for gameplay. I'll keep the napalm option in mind however.

AV-8B: I've found that two missiles is perfect for helicopter duty. It has just enough time to fire both missiles and then evac without having to turn around (presumably over enemy lines). More missiles also means higher price.

F-14A: See above. Two AIM-9 is for balance.

F-14A+: See above. Two AIM-9 is for balance.

EA-6B: Wouldn't the jammer pod serve as a RWR, hence the lack of a dedicated RWR? I admit I am not familiar with the different pods and their capabilities.

F-18A: I originally chose this load to replace the four Mavericks and to act as a lighter, earlier Strike Eagle. Canada already has the Rockeye load on its CF-18 and AIM-9/AIM-7 for its CF-188. 4 or 6 Mk.83s sounds fine to me. Why doesn't the Navy use Mk.84s?

F-18 Block 23: As I recall, this model was specifically upgraded to be able to use Mavericks (Maybe it was a laser designator?). In gameplay terms, this is a more expensive and survivable alternative to the Harrier II. Four missiles is sometimes necessary to guarantee a kill against a "superheavy" tank.

F-18C Block 36: I chose this load to keep the price reasonable, to fit within the existing balance scheme, and because the model still only supports 6 pylons.


Spoiler : :
A-4M: Even with only four of them and medium-low accuracy? Honestly Mk24 versus Mk63 is mostly the name, which IMO should be updated because this is the 80s. If you want a more varied loadout, the Mk34 WP head is also in service.

A-6A: that's fair.

F-4S: Okay. I can see why you'd like it.

AV-8A: yeah, you probably got confused. And the A was on its way out already, being upgrade to C and then replaced by B

AV-8C: Don't you already have the A-4M as a cheap rocket plane?

AV-8B: I figured you might want to kill more than one helicopter, or be able to miss against a plane and still kill it

EA-6B: Hell if I know. And the EA-6B was supposed to be standoff anyways, so combined with the sheer volume of emissions you're not really worried about knowing if you're detected. You'll just jam whatever gets close.

F-18A: I think I'm over-generalizing again. Mk83 is a Navy-only bomb, and you should have at least one plane using them.

F-18 Block 23: Honestly I think fast jets should get two AGMs and slow ones four. And even a superheavy shouldn't be able to survive more than two AGM-65.

F-18 Block 36: Ah practicality, the enemy of really cool!


Mandolin wrote:You still have more planes to play with
Spoiler : :
A-4M got the ARBS upgrade for improved bombing accuracy, could justify a copy-paste A-4M with a new loadout (I'd go for 8x Mk82 as a nice light bomber)

A-6E got the WCSI and SWIP upgrades to use precision and standoff weapons in the 80s, so two more possible airframes. A-6F was cancelled, but you can handwave it. Also the A-6F is AMRAAM-capable, so that could be fun.

A-7E got a big FLIR added so A-7E FLIR. Not really sure of the point but still.

A-7K is a combat capable two-seater.

F-16 has enough blocks you could always add more.

F-14D is 1991 with better engines.

A-10A LASTE was a 1990 upgrade with upgraded weapon firecontrol and ALL THE FLARE DISPENSERS

F-111G was a conversion of FB-111s if you really like your Ardvarks.

F-5E was in service, not really in combat roles but there were enough squadrons you could add them.

Some very good suggestions. I would restrict myself to aircraft with existing US models, but most of these would be fine.

A-7E FLIR should have a big FLIR pod on one hardpoint, but who cares?

I'd suggest A-10A LASTE get a bunch of GBU-12s (500lb) and then either a pair of AIM-9s or maybe AGM-122s. It can hang around putting PGMs on stuff and SEADing any radar AA that gets too close. And yes, AGM-122 is a Navy missile but its a moded AIM-9, the A-10 uses AIM-9, and the further you go in a WW3 timeline the more you can handwave. Just say it was part of the upgrade in this timeline.

AGM-123 is a thing for the A-6E upgrades. Mk83 with a rocket and laser guidance. Also AGM-84E for those times you want AGM-130 but remember you're Navy so you do it better.

Every deck has Shrikes, Standards, and HARMs. There are endless possibilities to expand it, but the differences become marginal in gameplay terms. What Wargame really needs is a loadout swapping system.
So all SEAD planes are available in a Marine deck? Okay, never mind then.


Can you give Marine decks a M109? Yes they didn't use it but I figure they can sub for towed artilery. Sort of like how everyone with towed HAWK got SP HAWK for gameplay reasons.

User avatar
Sireyn
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Sun 26 Jan 2020 03:56

Mandolin wrote:Basic VADS in my suggestion would be Cat C AAA. Also, all M163s came with radar.

PIVADS radar isn't calibrated for APDS because it isn't calibrated for anything. The radar is range-only, which is why no one liked the idea of PIVADS getting the [RAD] tag-the radar would never be on long enough for a SEAD missile to lock on.

APDS isn't ground support, you can use it anti-air just fine. In fact its vastly better. You have a much higher muzzle velocity, higher velocity at range, and you're not going to bounce off a Hind at long range or tell everyone where you are with a stream of tracers.

Then the third M163 would get M940 MPT-SD. M940 has the HE of M246 HEI-T-SD, but has a much better shape and retains its velocity better. M940 also self-destructs ~500 meters after M246 as well.

So M246 HEI-T-SD gets you like 1400 meters against planes and 1500-1700 against helos and ground,

Mk149 APDS gets 2100m against planes, a bit less against helicopters, and ground range depends on if you want it as AA or ground support.

M940 MP-T-SD gets a bit more range than M246 and is a little more accurate.


Sorry, I didn't mean the radar; technically its the sighting system in radar mode, which provides automatic lead and elevation if the gunner maintains radar track for two seconds. My thinking was, as the system has only one radar mode, I doubt the system was calibrated for anything other than the intended aerial ammunition. (manual was from 1978)

Previously I wasn't aware that the PIVADS was specifically made compatible with the APDS, but I am not sure if that refers to the radar mode, the optical sight, something mechanical with the gun/recoil system, or simply that it was issued.

I had already removed the [RAD] tag for the reason you mentioned. VADS will get the model with the radar and a range adjustment. CS may need to lose its APDS or become a PIVADS.

Thank you for breaking down the different ammo types; it makes it easier to follow up with my own research.

Mandolin wrote:Honestly I always figured the M6 Linebacker should be a Stinger transport as well. It has the room and Stinger teams seemed really vulnerable and lacking mobility riding around in jeeps.


One of the reasons for the Linebacker was to avoid having to use Stinger dismounts. Dismounts have too many drawbacks- exposure to enemy fire, having to stop to mount and dismount, not being able to communicate/network/coordinate fire, among many other objections brought up.

The MANPADS teams were also organic to the battalion while the Vulcans may or may not have been detached from divisional assets, so it follows that the force structure and doctrine don't rely on these for transportation. This only changed after military leaders determined that PIVADS was useless and they needed Stingers up front until a proper vehicle was created (1986). Stingers in Bradleys became available in 1992 and continued until Linebacker. Since I can justify a marginally lesser Linebacker in 1993, I would need strong gameplay or historical reasons to pair Stingers with PIVADS.

Feel free to correct me or supplement with your own sources.
FM-71-2 : The Tank and Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force - 1977
Case Analysis...Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle- Enhanced... - 1996
Spoiler : :
Image
Image


I would really suggest removing/reroling them. Flamethrowers were never anything more than a close-assault bunker killer and the idea of a ten-man flamethrower squad somehow killing a rifle squad at 300m is absurd. The absolute max range of a flamethrower is like 60 meters. Even with napalm fuel you still have the issue of your projectile burning up as it flies.


I can''t say I disagree with you. If a nation used them between ~1975-1996, I would keep it in for that nation. Range may be reduced as long as the unit doesn't kill itself. For any nation that didn't have or wouldn't have used flamethrowers, I would see if there are alternative loadouts before removing the unit. Soviet Sapery might get RPOs, for example.

I've been working on them in this Google Spreadsheet. The rocket, ATGM, and MANPADS sections are good, most of the rest is old.

It also has my armor/penetration scale. Simply put, it goes has a very small difference between values until 100mm, then goes in 50mm increments (skipping 250mm) to 1,000mm, at which point it goes in 100mm steps. Armor stops at 26 AV (1300mm), penetration goes to AP 29 (1600mm) with AP 30 being auto-delete on anything with less than 20 AV (open for adjustment).


Your document is private. You should be able to create a link that is shared and set the permissions.

The damage scales in Wargame are not linear and not necessarily associated with simple RHA values. Realistically, RHA becomes largely meaningless for modern equipment. Ammunition is designed to defeat specific targets, which may require a fatter or composite penetrator, more explosion for HEAT, or other techniques that technically reduce the paper effectiveness against a solid steel plate. In my mod, 21 AP on a tank doesn't mean it has a certain penetration, it means it is able to defeat the protection of a 20 AV vehicle and would be marginally effective against 21 AV.

Image

Spoiler : :
A-10A: There aren't any better missiles, and you don't need any. -65B has the shaped charge head, a monster of a thing with 85lb HE. Should be AP 30 and kill everything in one shot. The only thing that should survive is a superheavy from the front, and even then it should take a lot of damage.

Bump the ECM to 30%, it has RWR and flares and can take a jamming pod.

F-111E Yeah that's fine.

F-111F: Because you're wasting America's premiere LGB truck on a job a low-block F-16A could do.

F-117: I really don't think stealth bombers should be a thing, and the F-117 never did anything resembling CAS. It was strictly night raids on enemy infrastructure.

Also, where is its ECM coming from?

F-16: I'm trying to save the dogfighter role for the more advanced C model, which would also get the AIM-9M

F-16C: That was kinda the point, a really amazing close-range fighter. But hey, then you get to give the Russians a similar thing!

F-16C Block 52: I'm sure the E/F/G could badly damage a tank, but they're some APHE kind of thing with 80lb HE in a 220lb steel casing. I'd give them a HE value and AP 20 or 22.

AGM-65B/D should get AP 30, nothing save a superheavy taking it to the nose should survive a hit.

Fighters: Fair enough, I just liked the idea of an all-F-15 lineup with MAXIMUM FREEDOM. Would you consider giving the F-15C AIM-120B though?

F-15E: yeah, the base game loadout was super unimaginative. Also, AGM-130 isn't just HE 20 Maverick- it has several times the range. Really the only issue is balancing it so you don't turn it into some mutant flying super-artillery with no supply cost.

Wild Weasel: I see what you're saying, but Shrike is still a bit old to be carrying as your main. Shrike + Standard would be more realistic IMO

Advanced Wild Weasel: Have you tried giving them Block numbers like the F-16 and F-18? Yes I realize block numbers are a pain to research but a which look at JoeBaugher's page suggests Block 33 for basic and Block 45 for Advanced.

As far as the weapons, Standard is by the late 80s a bit old.

A-4M: Even with only four of them and medium-low accuracy? Honestly Mk24 versus Mk63 is mostly the name, which IMO should be updated because this is the 80s. If you want a more varied loadout, the Mk34 WP head is also in service.

A-6A: that's fair.

F-4S: Okay. I can see why you'd like it.

AV-8A: yeah, you probably got confused. And the A was on its way out already, being upgrade to C and then replaced by B

AV-8C: Don't you already have the A-4M as a cheap rocket plane?

AV-8B: I figured you might want to kill more than one helicopter, or be able to miss against a plane and still kill it

EA-6B: Hell if I know. And the EA-6B was supposed to be standoff anyways, so combined with the sheer volume of emissions you're not really worried about knowing if you're detected. You'll just jam whatever gets close.

F-18A: I think I'm over-generalizing again. Mk83 is a Navy-only bomb, and you should have at least one plane using them.

F-18 Block 23: Honestly I think fast jets should get two AGMs and slow ones four. And even a superheavy shouldn't be able to survive more than two AGM-65.

F-18 Block 36: Ah practicality, the enemy of really cool!


A-10A: I will increase the AGM-65's AP to 30 and work out replacements for other units mounting non-HEAT models. The A-10 would use all six Mavericks during a high intensity conflict, as in Wargame, but I still reduced the count to 4 for gameplay.

F-111F: LGBs in Wargame act more like F&F missiles that concentrate their damage on one target. In many cases, iron bombs are preferable and clusters are even better. I think Eugen gave them this loadout to be a direct alternative to the iron bomber, and it has worked well for gameplay. If my followup research confirms that it was designed specifically for LGBs, I'll put it on my list to change.

F-117: Fair enough. The ECM is because of its low signature and in lieu of assigning it an equivalent size bonus. For aircraft, ECM is visible in the UI and size is not.

F-16: There are pros and cons both ways. I would want the earlier F-16 to be ASF to represent its original purpose and to have more aircraft in total. Later F-16s were pushed more and more to be multirole, as with most aircraft.

F-16C: I've made many efforts to stay within familiar vanilla conventions and to balance all nations equally. Which F-16 is better as ASF is a matter of opinion; mine being the flavor/doctrine option.

F-16C Block 50: This is a block 50 so it can barely fall inside the 1991 CAT. Reducing it to a block 40 may be more reasonable. I didn't give it AIM-120s as part of an effort to reduce cancer epidemics during gameplay. A new block 50/52 might work as a light ASF with 2 AIM-120 and 2-4 AIM-9.

F-15C: It had the AIM-120B before the new 1991 era. As the improved missile would only give 5% more accuracy, it isn't worth creating a new F-15 or pushing the existing aircraft to the post Cold War era.

F-15E: I like the idea of AGM-130s, but balancing would be a challenge. LGBs have the unfortunate tendency of reducing the survivability of aircraft due to delayed drops and/or becoming F&F anti-everything Mavericks, let alone a powered glide bomb. I'll need to consider it further.

Advanced Wild Weasel: I'll look at breaking it down into blocks.

A-4M: I don't want to give this HEAT rockets and then ignore it on every other aircraft. They tend to be too powerful because their damage is too consistent against superheavies. Keeping it with HE is simpler.

AV-8C: This is usually more efficient and desirable as a cheap rocket attacker. This is faster, has ECM, and can also kill helicopters and dogfight in a pinch. The A-4 is more of a niche loadout.

AV-8B: Fair points, but keeping the missile load down keeps the price down on an already limited chassis airframe. I'll ask some other people what they think.

EA-6B: A jammer pod needs a receiver to know how to retransmit interference. I am not certain whether the pilot benefits from this, but I am giving it the benefit of the doubt until I get around to checking it.

F-18A: Six Mk.83 sounds reasonable to me.

F-18 Block 23: Superheavies don't survive more than two hits- more than two missiles compensates for inaccuracy. One of the gamey aspects of Wargame is that aircraft need to bring excessive payloads to guarantee effectiveness. I'm not rejecting reducing the missile count, but I am afraid it would reduce capability too much.

I'd suggest A-10A LASTE get a bunch of GBU-12s (500lb) and then either a pair of AIM-9s or maybe AGM-122s. It can hang around putting PGMs on stuff and SEADing any radar AA that gets too close. And yes, AGM-122 is a Navy missile but its a moded AIM-9, the A-10 uses AIM-9, and the further you go in a WW3 timeline the more you can handwave. Just say it was part of the upgrade in this timeline.


I would lean towards giving it longer range and more accurate Mavericks, but maybe just two of them. The model only supports limited hardpoints, so I would lean towards a couple invisible LGBs or AIM-9s. I like to avoid as much handwaving as possible.

AGM-123 is a thing for the A-6E upgrades. Mk83 with a rocket and laser guidance. Also AGM-84E for those times you want AGM-130 but remember you're Navy so you do it better.


Glide bombs would set a new precedent and take a lot of work to balance and research. Guided bombs are really just missiles as far as the game is concerned. For now, I am sticking to conventional loadouts.

So all SEAD planes are available in a Marine deck? Okay, never mind then.


I've discussed a replacement for the Wild Weasel with a friend and we agreed that Standard+Maverick would be good instead of Shrikes. Shrikes were still used into the 80s because they were dirt cheap, but likely would have taken a back seat to more modern missiles in a high intensity conflict.

Mixed ARMs means multiple missiles are fired at a time and would require a lot more work to represent on the model and UI. It's not worth the work at this point.

Can you give Marine decks a M109? Yes they didn't use it but I figure they can sub for towed artilery. Sort of like how everyone with towed HAWK got SP HAWK for gameplay reasons.


I don't use substitute units. It opens a massive can of worms and looks bad in game. I won't make any model exceptions that Eugen couldn't have gotten away with. Towed HAWKs look fine and operate close enough to a towed version, not to mention the desperate gameplay need. I consider the lack of mobile howitzers to be a design weakness of the deck.

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

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Mandolin » Sun 26 Jan 2020 05:48

Sireyn wrote:Sorry, I didn't mean the radar; technically its the sighting system in radar mode, which provides automatic lead and elevation if the gunner maintains radar track for two seconds. My thinking was, as the system has only one radar mode, I doubt the system was calibrated for anything other than the intended aerial ammunition. (manual was from 1978)

Previously I wasn't aware that the PIVADS was specifically made compatible with the APDS, but I am not sure if that refers to the radar mode, the optical sight, something mechanical with the gun/recoil system, or simply that it was issued.

I had already removed the [RAD] tag for the reason you mentioned. VADS will get the model with the radar and a range adjustment. CS may need to lose its APDS or become a PIVADS.

Thank you for breaking down the different ammo types; it makes it easier to follow up with my own research.
Happy to help with the ammo.

I really have no idea what the PIVADS upgrade specifically did.

One of the reasons for the Linebacker was to avoid having to use Stinger dismounts. Dismounts have too many drawbacks- exposure to enemy fire, having to stop to mount and dismount, not being able to communicate/network/coordinate fire, among many other objections brought up.

The MANPADS teams were also organic to the battalion while the Vulcans may or may not have been detached from divisional assets, so it follows that the force structure and doctrine don't rely on these for transportation. This only changed after military leaders determined that PIVADS was useless and they needed Stingers up front until a proper vehicle was created (1986). Stingers in Bradleys became available in 1992 and continued until Linebacker. Since I can justify a marginally lesser Linebacker in 1993, I would need strong gameplay or historical reasons to pair Stingers with PIVADS.

Feel free to correct me or supplement with your own sources.
FM-71-2 : The Tank and Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force - 1977
Case Analysis...Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle- Enhanced... - 1996
Spoiler : :
Image
Image

Eh, that was really just my opinion. I did stick all my AA unit FMs in a zip file for you though.


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?
I can''t say I disagree with you. If a nation used them between ~1975-1996, I would keep it in for that nation. Range may be reduced as long as the unit doesn't kill itself. For any nation that didn't have or wouldn't have used flamethrowers, I would see if there are alternative loadouts before removing the unit. Soviet Sapery might get RPOs, for example.
Your decision, but flamethrowers are not something you give an entire squad and have ranges too short to model on the game's scale.

Your document is private. You should be able to create a link that is shared and set the permissions.
Oh my bad, I fixed the permissions.

The damage scales in Wargame are not linear and not necessarily associated with simple RHA values. Realistically, RHA becomes largely meaningless for modern equipment. Ammunition is designed to defeat specific targets, which may require a fatter or composite penetrator, more explosion for HEAT, or other techniques that technically reduce the paper effectiveness against a solid steel plate. In my mod, 21 AP on a tank doesn't mean it has a certain penetration, it means it is able to defeat the protection of a 20 AV vehicle and would be marginally effective against 21 AV.

Image
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.

A-10A: I will increase the AGM-65's AP to 30 and work out replacements for other units mounting non-HEAT models. The A-10 would use all six Mavericks during a high intensity conflict, as in Wargame, but I still reduced the count to 4 for gameplay.
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.

F-15E: I like the idea of AGM-130s, but balancing would be a challenge. LGBs have the unfortunate tendency of reducing the survivability of aircraft due to delayed drops and/or becoming F&F anti-everything Mavericks, let alone a powered glide bomb. I'll need to consider it further.
Yeah I figured it would be impossible to implement in a remotely balanced manner.

A-4M: I don't want to give this HEAT rockets and then ignore it on every other aircraft. They tend to be too powerful because their damage is too consistent against superheavies. Keeping it with HE is simpler.

AV-8C: This is usually more efficient and desirable as a cheap rocket attacker. This is faster, has ECM, and can also kill helicopters and dogfight in a pinch. The A-4 is more of a niche loadout.
Why not keep the AV-8C as rocket attacker and rerole the A-4M to light bomber?

I would lean towards giving it longer range and more accurate Mavericks, but maybe just two of them. The model only supports limited hardpoints, so I would lean towards a couple invisible LGBs or AIM-9s. I like to avoid as much handwaving as possible.
I guess you'd get a pair of AGM-65G then. Only A, B, and D got the HEAT warhead.

I have no idea how effective the penetrator warhead was, bu given it being the standard warhead now the military presumably likes it.

I've discussed a replacement for the Wild Weasel with a friend and we agreed that Standard+Maverick would be good instead of Shrikes. Shrikes were still used into the 80s because they were dirt cheap, but likely would have taken a back seat to more modern missiles in a high intensity conflict.

Mixed ARMs means multiple missiles are fired at a time and would require a lot more work to represent on the model and UI. It's not worth the work at this point.
Okay.

I don't use substitute units. It opens a massive can of worms and looks bad in game. I won't make any model exceptions that Eugen couldn't have gotten away with. Towed HAWKs look fine and operate close enough to a towed version, not to mention the desperate gameplay need. I consider the lack of mobile howitzers to be a design weakness of the deck.
Honestly I was just a random thought I had in the middle of typeing.



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

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

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Mandolin » Sun 26 Jan 2020 19:04

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!

Return to “Modding”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests