Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies

[KraMax]

Strela-2 - should have following characteristics - 9M32, ACC=50, EW=1, HE=2, RANGE=16-68
Strela-3 - should have following characteristics - 9M36, ACC=80, EW=2, HE=2, RANGE=10-80
Igla-1 and Igla - should have following characteristics - 9M313, ACC=118, EW=3, HE=2, RANGE=10-104
Igla-N - should have following characteristics - ACC=126, EW=3, HE=4, RANGE=10-104

[PlasmaKrab]

Kramax, maybe you can enlighten me a bit on the various Igla models? I'm using the 9M39 Igla, 9M313 Igla-1, 9M313 Igla-1E, 9M313M Igla-1M and 9M342 Igla-S for now.
I'm particularly unsure about the export Igla versions, but here are my values anyway:
Code:

---

Model   Name       Acc.  WHS  HEP  HEK  MinRange MaxRange EW

9M32    Strela-2   60    4    2    3    16       68       0

9M32M   Strela-2M  67    4    2    3    16       84       1

9M36    Strela-3   85    4    2    3    11       90       2

9M39    Igla       108   4    2    5    10       104      7

9M313   Igla-1     96    4    2    5    10       104      4

9M313   Igla-1E    90    4    2    3    10       104      4

9M313M  Igla-1M    110   4    2    5    10       110      6

9M342   Igla-S     125   5    4    6    7        120      10

---

Mainly quite close to yours, except for some of the Igla-1. I assumed the 1E to be early export variant with low-grade electronics and no fuel fuzing module, and the -1M to be a 90s export upgrade, dunno if that's worth anything.

[Suhiir]

Mmh, i think you misread my minimal (sabot) range figures for HEK. Did I write them in the wrong order?

You're right, I misread your table, let's hear it for 2 AM posting !
What I'd intended to say was - How did you come up with your HEP values? Apparently you've based the HEK value on the warhead weight in kg.

Regarding that, I've tried scaling the SAM ranges offmap relatively to each other. Thing is, 200 is "one step off the map" and 255 is "farther than anything else offmap" as far as I understand it, so I don't see why there shouldn't be a real rating for that as well. As far as I can tell, it competes with aircraft standoff weapon ranges in cases of standoff attack, so both SAMs and ASMs should be ranged together, to make sure you don't have the same standoff capabilities in a HAWK and a SA-5, and that anything with more legs than a GBU doesn't have the potential to out-range a medium area SAM.
Right now my range scale is linear, which explains the short range of the HAWKs, but I'll probably try out a logarithmic scale or something.

The problem is the 200+ range values are used for off-map artillery, a 155 out-ranges a 105.
The SAM systems are all on-map units, thus wind up using the MaxRange as the maximum firing range and the SabotRange as the minimum. So for example your Patriot with a MinRange of 160 and MaxRange of 214 won't even fire on a map smaller then 160 X Whatever and will only fire at targets between 160-214 on any larger map.
This is one of those cases where we run face first into the game engine limitations (and don't misunderstand, I'm NOT complaining about them, just acknowledging they exist and we sometimes have to work around them).

Cold War mod, remember? I do plan to modify every OOB.

One point for Plasma !
While you plan to "fix" every OOB I just want to add some accuracy to OOB #13 USMC and leave it compatible with the default ones. I'm trusting the Cost Calculator to do as it's intended and create new unit costs to reflect the changes in weapons, manpower, ammo loads, etc.

I fully realize my changes will never be accepted as a new default OOB because I'm not using certain set-in-stone default values.
Example :
My standard infantry squad armed with M16's has an ammo loadout of 105 vs the default 80-90. This increased ammo load reflects Marine doctrine and training, Aimed Fire. So the Marines will tend take a bit longer to go thru the same amount of ammo then the Army, hence the Army gets 90 and my Marines 105. I chose 105 because average rifleman carries 7 X 30 round magazines (210 rounds) and 105 just happens to be half of that and slightly more then the game default 90 shot ammo load.

I'll take it for granted on the Redeye. It probably deserves a bit more accuracy than the baseline Strela-2, though we could debate for days about the relation between better operational results, inbuilt accuracy, operational use, training level...
I'll have to iron out my Igla family as well, now that you mention it. I'll tell you what comes of it.

Actually I've come up with what seems to work surprisingly well as a way to determine operational accuracy VS manufacturer claims.
Cut it in half.

[KraMax]

PlasmaKrab
----------------
Hello.
You could give links to your sources of the information on missiles Strela, Igla etc...???
Best regards

[PlasmaKrab]

Kramax,
Some sources I use on Russian SAMs:
Waffnen der Welt, good listing of lots of things, not much detail.
Encyclopedia Astronautica, same problem except for few items.
Rosoboroneksport, official version of the recent stuff.
Vestnik's PVO Herald, most complete source available, most of it in Russian.
Do you have something more in English, or that you can translate?

Suhiir,
Regarding HEP values: guesswork!
Basically I have one range of values for HE-Frag (2 to 6 depending on warhead size and fragment weight), one for continuous-rod (generally 10), and then my imagination and rough ATGM-based calculations for HEAT and APHE missiles.
There are also bonus points for impact fusing, directed fragmentation and smart fusing.

Off-map ranges only have to relate to AGMs in my opinion. You won't find artillery interacting with SAMs and planes.
So I agree that the behavior of long-range SAMs on small maps is somewhat warped, but that'll teach you to waste 2000 points on a Patriot battery on a small map!
Anyhow long range SAMs aren't supposed to take on low-flying CAS planes or helos, even IRL. In game terms, they are meant to intercept planes attacking standoff, which is why I insisted on the SAM and AGM ranges being linked.
I don't see where this is a real disadvantage, since air-launched weapons are bound to suffer the same limitations.
Remember: always protect your long-range AA assets with SHORADS of some kind!

[KraMax]

PlasmaKrab
------------------
In the first and in the second source I have not found the information on probability of defeat of the purpose in the sources resulted by you one missile. Rosoboronexport - gives data on export to the weapon and on its data it is impossible to speak about accuracy of our arms objectively. PVO-GUNS. RU - a good site, the data I have written I use data of it and more one Russian-speaking site. If you used for the formula of accuracy of our missiles data of site PVO-GUNS.RU - why then my and your data differ?

sorry for my bad English

[PlasmaKrab]

I think there's some confusion regarding the Igla variants.
As far as I know it goes like this:
-9M39 Igla is the "final" variant, IOC 1983, with the definitive seeker and fuel fusing charge. I've modelled this one slightly better than the FIM-92A in accuracy and significantly in EW due to dual-mode (IR and UV) seeker mostly.

-9M313 Igla-1 is the "interim" variant, IOC 1981, with less advanced seeker, fuel fuzing charge as well. I've made this one slightly inferior to the Stingers but well above the Strela-3. These two versions have equal range and HE values, right?

Then it gets weird:
-9M313 Igla-1E should be the export variant. I'm not sure about the name or designation. This is apparently a 9M313 without the IFF and the fuel charge. I considered it had an less-capable seeker as the 9M313, but it looks like I was wrong.
So the only difference with the 9M313 above should be less HEK, right?

-9M313M (?) Igla-M (?) is apparently similar to the Igla-E above, except maybe for the IFF. No big deal here.

-What I was considering Igla-M in my previous post should have another name. It is supposed to be an improved Igla-1, still inferior to the Igla-S. Maybe I should call it Igla-1S?

-All I have for the Igla-N is the following: heavier warhead, lower range.
I see why you gave it a higher HEK, but why better accuracy and same range?
Anyway I haven't modeled this one as I don't know if it is produced at all.

-9M342 Igla-S is a new development based on the 9M39 Igla, and largely superior to all previous models. Is that the one you called Igla-N?

[KraMax]

Hello PlasmaKrab.

Strela-2 - 9M32 with probability of defeat of object 0.25 on to catch up courses - in game ACC=50.
Strela-3 - 9M36 probability of defeat of object 0.40 - in game ACC=80
On missile Igla-series. Jobs on missile creation 9M313 and 9M39 were conducted by the Soviet designers simultaneously.
Igla-1 - 1981 9M313 with probability of defeat maximum on passers and to catch up courses 0.59 - in game ACC=118
Igla - 1983 9M39 more powerful head part. ACC=118
Igla-N - 1991 upgrade 9M39 with more powerful head part and new system of prompting on the purpose with probability of defeat on passers and to catch up courses - maximum 0.63 - in game ACC=126
Igla-S - 2002 presumable name of a missile 9M338 the new head part with two photo-receivers, also at the same weight as well as Igla - is considerably increased capacity of explosive, the new reusable sight is used. Exact data for it are not present, it is spoken that several times more precisely and more powerfully usual Igla. I have put ACC=150 HE=6 or 8.
These rockets are in the Russian army, other variants - is possible for export.

Yours faithfully.