maturin

Come on, just learn like 3 letters.

First of all, I never said it was impossible, just an unrealistic expectation. And 'helicopters can take a beating' is a meaninglessly vague statement applied to the most fragile machines ever used by mankind for war.

Ooooohhh... they're ARMORED! Silly me, I must have forgotten. I guess all those armored helicopters can't be shot down by anything, then. Because, after all, they're armored. I wonder why people still even use MANPADS. Reading comprehension, if you please. A Ka-50 can fly after you surgically remove the tail, but anything that hits the tail hard enough to knock it completely off is almost certain to damage the rest of the bird as well, making it a casualty. No one expects a chopper of any kind to survive a hit that dismembers it. It's small caliber bullets and minor fragments hitting vulnerable control cables and gear boxes that gives traditional helicopters trouble.

Even if the KA-50 can fly without a tail, it's virtually impossible that an impact severing that much airframe wouldn't spray the rest of the chopper with fatal amounts of shrapnel. So it's not quite right unless you were attacked with a laser/chainsaw.

I believe they claim 0.9 for the TOW's hit rate, and anything lower than that is operator error or bad firing conditions (foliage, fog and water).

Absolutely no DRM, small file, you do the math.

The diamond indicates your mission, so your mission may be to defend those units. Or it just locks on to any old thing. Don't pay attention to it,

If you read about the Tunguska a bit on the internet, you'll find some statistic analysis the Russians did on the superiority of 30mm over 23mm shells against aircraft.

But really, is this realistic behavior? It seems downright dangerous to have trim retained like that, and unnecessary when it's all controlled by computer anyways. I'm more careful about not steering on autopilot than I am around AAA, and I still bump the stick now and then (which can crash you at low altitudes), or miss the hotkey (the indication lights are out of your field of vision when in ground attack mode). Don't tell me not to use autopilot, as the plan is designed to be flown that way, so you can maintain a steady dive while setting up the FCS for your workload-intensive Vikhrs.

Those are rockets....

When you're guiding a Vikhr, you have no choice but to fly more or less predictably. And since Hellfires have a range of 8km, this makes a loitering Apache much better defense for ground vehicles than any amount of AAA. Surely you see the problem here?

No, the AI gunners just have supernatural targeting abilities with flawless laser designators that lock targets better than any SAM radar, and the idiocy to go after jets.

RBKs work fine, just not against anything tougher than a T-80.

Jammers aren't doing anything to the Buk launch unit radars on my end.

April fools? The OP is a fool for posting this thread in three different forum sections.

I wish. Once you realize the alphabet is 60% english letters and learn it two days, the angst begins.

Every one of those topics was already conclusively addressed, kaktus. Read the thread.

Pepin, when you shoot down an ARM, the interception takes place at a FRACTION of the missile's maximum range. The little bit of fuel the missile wastes turning around is absolutely meaningless, because only like 10% of the missile's range and kinetic energy will be needed. And if you are right, and turning a missile around destroys its effectiveness, than the S-300 has big problems. Since they fire vertically, EVERY launch has to waste all its fuel on a 90 degree turn! Whereas a Patriot often doesn't have to turn at all. But you didn't think of that. And your argument is irrelevant, since even if a turning missile magically became incapable of intercepting an ARM, a Patriot battery facing the right direction has nothing to worry about. So the ability modeled in the game is correct. Patriots can intercept Kh-58s. Period. Furthermore, the turning rate of the Patriot launchers is modeled in the game. Once again, your objection is meaningless. And finally, when is a Patriot launcher NOT going to be turned towards the threat the radar is painting? And once an ARM launch is detected, that Kh-58 will have to cover a hundred kilometers, giving the launcher plenty of time to rotate. Use your brain.

Do you often fly P-51s against AAA?

The AI will pick out and engage MANPADs (even with PGM, lol), so give each enemy squad a Strela-carrier with orders not to fire.

Now they assume the presence of Tunguskas, and leave the engagement to them. There's a now quite ignored AI forum thread about how Tor units should be doing this instead, but do not.

S-300s no longer launch on ARMs. And their pk was never that high.

It began with Russia being the key broker in ending the first war, partnering with Shevardnadze to create the peacekeeping arrangement. That's why the latitude for handing out passports existed in the first place. Russia wanted to punish/topple Saakashvili in general, but I think the status quo in the breakaways suited them just fine. Recognizing them carried considerable risks, after all. It was Misha who wanted to take South Ossetia by storm, even if he sleepwalked into it, rather than choosing the most opportune time. Meanwhile, Russia was across the border begging him to do it. And the Bush Administration was the criminally inept watchdog slumbering in back. That's what I've already thought, and every new piece of the puzzle that came out in the following years only confirms it.

Oh yeah, the Heritage Foundation. Wingnut dipshits.

I only read the introduction, where the authors outlined the origins of the conflict. I'm fairly confident that I would get into a roaring argument with any Russian I engaged on this topic, so believe me when I say that the description of the political situation is biased pretty heavily. That said, I really don't understand what effect that bias is going to have on a strategic and tactical analysis of the war. After all, would a biased American want to laud the performance of his allies and Western equipment, or inflate the abilities of the Russians in order to serve a political agenda focused on confrontation and increased military spending? After all, if everything is hunky doory with our military tech and clients, most of the military industrial complex is out of a job and there's no need for new projects and ramped up capabilities.