Wargame: Airland Dragon

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Bougnas » Fri 29 Jun 2018 12:36

IMHO all MANPAD should have 5HE except Redeye and Strela-2 or maybe Blowpipe which is such garbage that nobody ever would use.

I read some stuff about the blowpipe on forums from ex users of the system and they claimed that it wasn't nearly as bad as thought.

It sure requires extensive training to master (which was available in the professional british army), but mostly thanks to it's immunity to ECM it was still decent and some ex army guy rated it better than the redeye or the strela. It's warhead was actualy much stronger than any other MANPAD.

It's main weakness was it's weight, bulkiness and complexity that made it less flexible than, say a stinger.
Image

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6677
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Fri 29 Jun 2018 12:46

Bougnas wrote:
IMHO all MANPAD should have 5HE except Redeye and Strela-2 or maybe Blowpipe which is such garbage that nobody ever would use.

I read some stuff about the blowpipe on forums from ex users of the system and they claimed that it wasn't nearly as bad as thought.

It sure requires extensive training to master (which was available in the professional british army), but mostly thanks to it's immunity to ECM it was still decent and some ex army guy rated it better than the redeye or the strela. It's warhead was actualy much stronger than any other MANPAD.

It's main weakness was it's weight, bulkiness and complexity that made it less flexible than, say a stinger.


Blowpipe is a MLCOS weapon which many times was not enough accurate against land vehicles as ATGM guidance. The Blowpipe combines the works kind of guidance with the worst kind of missile trajectory because of the guidance.
RBS-70 is LCOS but it is laser SACLOS which is a very huge difference...

On Falkand UK forces form 95 launches scored one hit and kill against and MB-339.

User avatar
Sireyn
First Sergeant
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Sat 30 Jun 2018 03:47

That was a typo, here is the loadout. AIM-7P production began in 1987 and improved the actuation system and electronics, leaving more room for propellant. I have given it extra range and a 5% accuracy increase. Source 1 and Source 2

IMHO AIM-7P should not be in DB. AIM-7F and AIM-7M should be C cat and A/B cat AAMs with 50% and 60% base ACC as long as R-27R can have 60%...

Because of AIM-120 (especially because of accel developent of WG) the AIM-7P is just as or more pointless as was in RL.


I included the AIM-7P because it allowed for a semi-active missile with qualitative improvements over the AIM-7M. Although AIM-120 did obsolete the AIM-7's, both were still used up to and during the 90's.

All airplane should be able to kill airplanes with 0 AV with two hits as long as MANPADs are able to do. As long as MANPADs can have 5HE all MANPAD and AAM should have, their range and base ACC should be different. IMHO all MANPAD should have 5HE except Redeye and Strela-2 or maybe Blowpipe which is such garbage that nobody ever would use...


I have rebalanced MANPADS according to their real life statistics. They do no more than 4.5 HE with the exception of the Igla-N's 5 HE. Here are my notes

The Su-27PU was restricted to Marines and the USSR needed a new top tier ASF.

But why...? Why needs marines a new fighter?


My understanding is that the Su-27PU was built in small numbers as a long range, command and control aircraft. I was debating on removing it or replacing it with another Su-27M variant, but settled on at least giving it to Marine decks for the same reason they have access to Mig-31's.

Do you have documentation that I could look at? My impression was that it was as simple as fitting a catapult rail to launch the missile, but my research here isn't very deep.

Hm...

You have to prove that any of MiG-29 was able to carry 4xR-27 (from any type) but you won't find any evidance. You have to prove the existance of this capability and not me that someting is not possible. :)

Just go to airwar.ru or find RU manuals. 4xR-27R never was possible. ER was not even integrated on 9.12 and 9.13.


I think you misunderstood what I was asking. I wanted to know if you had documentation on how the R-27ER was distributed among Warsaw Pact militaries and which aircraft mounted them.

I looked into the 4x R-27's and discovered that Iraq was the only nation to have modified Mig-29's that could carry four BVR missiles. The Mig-29 carried fuel tanks on the same pylons as the R-27's, which was a severe limitation, encouraging the modification. I've seen several references stating that MIG offered upgrade packages to allow for four BVR missiles on export aircraft, but I cannot find any details.

Some notes about the Iraqi modification

FIN is the most idiotic nation in WG. It has both the most advanced US stuff while also have good USSR unit. This is simply idotic To me FIN is a "NOGO" nation in WG universe.


Finland wasn't the worst option, but it's down there at the bottom. I am just trying to work with what I have.

Generally it was less advanced except it had two missile channels but that is all. Krug never was exported outside WPACT because of very good reasons. After end of CW US had chance to examine the Krug and they were very surprides how advanced it was despite its of age and design era.


WIP changes.
- Yugoslavian RSPVO Neva M1T changed into a Kub-M3
- Czechoslovakian Kub-M4 renamed Kub-M3

Image

Sadly these changes never will appear in stock WG. I play only very rarely nowadays with WG. ALB community is way too small now but in RD is very had to find a good lobby....


I play very rarely myself. I mostly enjoy the research that comes with implementing changes, which is why I am continuing to update this mod, though I have certainly slowed down in recent months

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6677
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Sat 30 Jun 2018 16:03

Sireyn wrote:I included the AIM-7P because it allowed for a semi-active missile with qualitative improvements over the AIM-7M. Although AIM-120 did obsolete the AIM-7's, both were still used up to and during the 90's.

I do not understand. Putting an AIM-7 variant just because of existed a proto seems to me a bad idea in a universe where ARHs are more prelevant than in RL. It is simply illogical in every way.

It would be much more important fix the discrepancy of range values. R-27R should have about 15-20% less range than AIM-7F/M. I have explained many times with exact data why is so inferior kinematically the R-27R. (25% larger cross section, worse L/D --->worse Cl/Cd, no dual thrust, a bit workse specific imp. comparing to even AIM-7F.)

I have rebalanced MANPADS according to their real life statistics. They do no more than 4.5 HE with the exception of the Igla-N's 5 HE. Here are my notes

This seems to me very contraproductive. Now MANPADs have three hits to kill a plane. This makes strongly less effective. It would be great to set such high alt for ASF what makes barely reachable for MANPADs as in RL would happen.

My understanding is that the Su-27PU was built in small numbers as a long range, command and control aircraft. I was debating on removing it or replacing it with another Su-27M variant, but settled on at least giving it to Marine decks for the same reason they have access to Mig-31's.


PU was the two seat variant of P. Fromn the original PU 5 airframe was shipped to PVO for training purpose which never was really accepted because PVO liked the MiG-31 insted. PU as protos got new and new upgrades (TV and laser guided bombs and AGM) these variants called the first Su-30. (You have to know even base designation is very similar for Su-30 they are very different in many ways.)

I think you misunderstood what I was asking. I wanted to know if you had documentation on how the R-27ER was distributed among Warsaw Pact militaries and which aircraft mounted them.

R-27ER never was exported to any NSWP because they have only MiG-29 9.12 and RL IOC of ER variant was about 1991.

I looked into the 4x R-27's and discovered that Iraq was the only nation to have modified Mig-29's that could carry four BVR missiles. The Mig-29 carried fuel tanks on the same pylons as the R-27's, which was a severe limitation, encouraging the modification. I've seen several references stating that MIG offered upgrade packages to allow for four BVR missiles on export aircraft, but I cannot find any details.

I have never heard about is. Some images does not mean anything. You can put lots of rack and rails to any AC without the stores can be used. I have seen F-16 with 4xGBU-24 for marketing purpose... The 9.12 variant was not able to use drop tanks generally on inner HPs.

WIP changes.
- Yugoslavian RSPVO Neva M1T changed into a Kub-M3
- Czechoslovakian Kub-M4 renamed Kub-M3

Good changes. 3M9 should be Cat C, the better missile should be cat B.

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Bougnas » Sat 30 Jun 2018 16:58

I read that the Skyflash and Aspide missiles used an inverse monopulse seeker that made them better than the AIM-7F, then the Americans designed their own seeker and got the AIM-7M.
The two missiles seems to be very similar in their electronics, so should they have the same accuracy?

And is the main difference between the Skyflash and the AIM-7M the range and maneuvrability, with the AIM-7F/M having more range while the Skyflash is more maniable?

How did those compare in guidance to the R-27R?
Image

User avatar
Sireyn
First Sergeant
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Sat 28 Jul 2018 05:08

Just a quick update on my progress, as I now have more time to mod. Suggestions and criticisms are welcome.

I took some suggestions for including Dragons into the US lineup, but I'm not sure how to best give the Dragon II to Marines. I've considered giving it to Marine '90's, but I'm not convinced the change in gameplay would be beneficial. Regarding the Super Dragon, I gave it to Riflemen '90, but I may reconsider. The Super Dragon was a late development and may not have been procured in large numbers with the AAWS-M in the works, so I may find something else.

M47 Dragon variants altered : Good info on the warheads and part of a discussion on this topic
- M47 Dragon : Range to 1050, AP to 13, Accuracy to 45%
- M47 Dragon II : Range to 1050, AP to 16, Accuracy to 45%
- M47 Super Dragon : AP to 20, Accuracy to 50%

Kub and Neva missiles altered
Image

Additionally, I will be taking a closer look at many of my additions from previous years to remove power creep and very obscure items.

(All) Armory filters fixed in many cases
(All) Centurion frontal armor reduced : Mk.5 to 7; Mk.7, Sh'ot Kal, and Austrailian 5/1 to 8; and ERA adds 2 armor.
(All) Leopard 1A5 armor standardized to match 1A3 and 1A4's
(All) Kub-M's renamed Kub-M1
(All) 105mm L7's and M68's were standardized to 9 r/m, with a couple exceptions
(All) QF-20 pdrs were standardized to 10 r/m
(US) Riflemen M72E3 LAW replaced with M47 Dragon
(US) Riflemen '85 changed to Riflemen '90 and reequipped with M47 Super Dragon
(US) Mountaineers changed to Light Riflemen (1985), reequipped with M72E4 LAW, and fixed their stealth rating
(US) Cav Scouts '90 reequipped with M47 Super Dragon (now that the missile is usable)
(US) A-4M Skyhawk II model fixed. It now has 4x 4-tube rocket pods
(W. Germany) Corrected the availability of Panzergrenadiers and Jagers to conform with other nations
(Denmark) Nearly done with these wonderful suggestions
(Denmark) Centurion Mk5/2 gun stats reduced to STRV 102 levels due to lack of gun shroud
(Denmark) Centurion speeds corrected to the 35 km/h offroad standard
(Norway) Leopard 1A5NO had its applique armor removed and the 1A5NO2 was renamed 1A5NO (both have the same name)
(Israel) Sh'ot Kal gun stats reduced to STRV 102 levels due to lack of gun shroud

(USSR) Mig-31F removed
(Finland) Mig-29 converted to a proper 9-12A with 4x R-60M and 2x R-27R
(E. Germany) Mig-29 converted to a proper 9-12A with 4x R-60M and 2x R-27R
(Yugoslavia) RSPVO Neva M1T converted into a Kub-M3
(Yugoslavia) RSPVO Neva M1 removed
(Czechoslovakia) Kub-M4 renamed Kub-M3
(Poland) NEWA-SC systems will be retained with tentative stats : 45% accuracy and 2625/5600 range
(Poland) Kub-M converted into a Kub-M3, as they had them in time for CAT C decks


WIP
- Rebalance air-to-air missiles, such that current 4 HE missiles would have 5 HE, using a technical standard (such as warhead size, fuze, and blast type)
- If my data confirms several prior suggestions, I will correct stats for relevant missiles

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6677
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Wed 1 Aug 2018 15:44

Bougnas wrote:I read that the Skyflash and Aspide missiles used an inverse monopulse seeker that made them better than the AIM-7F, then the Americans designed their own seeker and got the AIM-7M.
The two missiles seems to be very similar in their electronics, so should they have the same accuracy?

And is the main difference between the Skyflash and the AIM-7M the range and maneuvrability, with the AIM-7F/M having more range while the Skyflash is more maniable?

How did those compare in guidance to the R-27R?

As I know the Skylash engine based on AIM-7E which has less total impulse and did not have dual thrust engine as AIM-7F/M.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6677
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Wed 1 Aug 2018 15:55

Sireyn wrote:Kub and Neva missiles altered
Image

Kub-M3 against tactical targets in reality had a slightly better range so giving superior range to Neva is not a good move.
Image

S-125M Neva
http://www.mediafire.com/file/57q0rx5ah ... family.pdf

Against subsonic targets 25 km was the nominal max range but above 18 km the missile flew without power after burnout and decelerate quickly this is why is not shown the max. G value in the diagram.


Additionally, I will be taking a closer look at many of my additions from previous years to remove power creep and very obscure items.

- Rebalance air-to-air missiles, such that current 4 HE missiles would have 5 HE, using a technical standard (such as warhead size, fuze, and blast type)

:!:

User avatar
Sireyn
First Sergeant
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Fri 3 Aug 2018 13:34

molnibalage wrote:Kub-M3 against tactical targets in reality had a slightly better range so giving superior range to Neva is not a good move.


I read the linked document and have adjusted the V-600P again. I've reduced the range to 2450/4550. The four associated units received small price and availability buffs.

In addition to previously stated changes
(All) Ammunition loads between all infantry were standardized
- I am considering increasing the apparent ammunition count for rifles to be more authentic
(US) Light Riflemen loadout : M16, M72A4 LAW, [CQC] M249 SAW (Minimi stat-clone)
(US) Riflemen loadout : M16, M47 Dragon, M60
(US) Riflemen '90 loadout : M16, M47 Dragon II+ (1575m range, 45% accuracy, 16 AP), M240
(US) US Airborne '90 given M249 SAW
(US) US Marine '90 given M60E3 instead of Minimi
(Denmark) Finished the motorized options and flavor changes from this
- The M/151A2 Jeep transports can only transport 2-man teams within Scandinavia. Other squads cannot enter the vehicle

(USSR) Mig-29M loadout changed to 4x KAB-500L and 4x R-73A, stealth rating removed, and cannon ammunition reduced to 100 rounds
(USSR) Mig-29S ECM reduced to 30% and bombs changed to 4x RBK-500
- I am considering reducing the missile count on the Mig-29K to 2 missiles
(Poland) Mig-29 9-13S given R-27ER instead of R-27R or R-77
(North Korea) Mig-29 9-12B price corrected


WIP
- Gathering data for the air-to-air missile rebalance

Investigating
- Whether Mig-31B should be added
- Base Tow should have less range than ITOW
- Polish Mig-21Bis' S-24's should be external on 4 pylons

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6677
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Fri 3 Aug 2018 14:12

Sireyn wrote:[color=#FF0000](USSR) Mig-29M loadout changed to 4x KAB-500L and 4x R-73A, stealth rating removed, and cannon ammunition reduced to 100 rounds
(USSR) Mig-29S ECM reduced to 30% and bombs changed to 4x RBK-500
- I am considering reducing the missile count on the Mig-29K to 2 missiles

It is strange you set all MIG-29s to AG role while in RL the only AG role which was assigned to MIG-29 is nuclear strike. At least in units in Hungary.

- Whether Mig-31B should be added

I do not recommend. MiG-31 is a PVO fighter. Period.

- Base Tow should have less range than ITOW

Even with slow speed and 2625 m most of ATGM is useless because tanks get in range very fast...

Return to “Modding”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests