HARM - too weak in penetration?

[Moon Pine]

Just found that the HARM's off-map attack was too hard to penetrate a SP-SAM or SPAA gun, even the M2A2 or chinese HQ-7 though its penetration rate was 10
Seems ridiculous
Is it designed like that or just my bad luck?

[Marek_Tucan]

Bear in mind HARM isn't armor-piercing weapon, it has a fragmentation warhead designed to cut radars to shreds.

[Listy]

Take a SEAD aircraft with PGM's as its secondary weapon. That's allot more deadly than it sounds. the ARM code attracts the ARM to the hex with the Radar in, then the PGM attacks the same hex. I've seen these attacks come in at extreme angles.

[Suhiir]

In the process of my redesign on the USMC OOB (#13) this is one of the things I did.
Made sure SEAD aircraft had some sort of secondary weapon to actually kill (usually) the target their ARM fired on.
Seems to work fairly well

[PanzerBob]

Originally Posted by Listy

Take a SEAD aircraft with PGM's as its secondary weapon. That's allot more deadly than it sounds. the ARM code attracts the ARM to the hex with the Radar in, then the PGM attacks the same hex. I've seen these attacks come in at extreme angles.

Unless I'm stuck point wise, I always buy SEAD with secondary strike weapons, certainly increases your chances of success.

Bob out

[Moon Pine]

Just noticed there's no problem for the harm to hit but the chance for it to penetrate a SPAA or SPSAM was too low.
The munition of aircrafts couldn't be replenished, it's really annoying.
Would the unpenetrating hit destroy the AA's radar?

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Moon Pine;650386:

The munition of aircrafts couldn't be replenished, it's really annoying.

Do you SERIOUSLY think in a game typically representing 1 1/2 - 2 hours of real time battle that aircraft should be able to fly back to distant air bases, re-arm and return the the battle ?

Or are you referring to some problem with a campaign game ?

Don

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

Do you SERIOUSLY think in a game typically representing 1 1/2 - 2 hours of real time battle that aircraft should be able to fly back to distant air bases, re-arm and return the the battle ?

Or are you referring to some problem with a campaign game ?

Don

Just to be annoying

This is one of the reasons the USMC is so fond of the AV-8 Harrier.
We have mobile (a small truck convoy) refuel/rearm stations that set up in less then 15 minutes well forward on the battlefield specifically to service helo's and Harriers.
WinSMBT already allows you to rearm helo's, and I've toyed with the idea of making a Harrier using a helicopter unit type (it works, kinda, but not worth the trouble).

This is however the exception to the "rule" for aircraft.
As Don said, for any other aircraft to return to base, rearm, and return to the battlefield in a couple hours just ain't gonna happen.

I do however question the cost/benefit ratio of aircraft in general in WinSMBT.
While I have, on rare occasions, had truly spectacular results from an airstrike for the most part I rarely find them worth the point cost.
If they cost say half as much they might be worth the cost, in my (and i stress this is personal) opinion.

[Moon Pine]

Bear in mind HARM isn't armor-piercing weapon, it has a fragmentation warhead designed to cut radars to shreds.

You mean the unpenetrated hit could still take apart the AA radar and decrease the AA fire control of the target unit?

[Companion]

Originally Posted by Moon Pine

You mean the unpenetrated hit could still take apart the AA radar and decrease the AA fire control of the target unit?

Actaully, HARM hit will not merely decrease the target's fire control value; FC will drop to zero.

But since the target is not totally destroyed, it can still shoot albeit with very low accuracy.