Manpad failure

[Buzpilot]

A direct hit with a Stinger from Manpad, should bring a KA-50 down or?

 

 

About 3:55 on track.

Manpad test.trk

Manpad Practice.miz

Edited April 5, 2014 by Buzpilot

[Davis0079]

a single hit does not always bring me down when in the BS....but will normally send me home...

 

lots of armor on a Ka-50, duel engines separated by armor, more then a few back up systems....

 

shoot at something that is not referred to as a flying tank (ka-50, A-10) for a better judgement of a manpads damage capabilities

[hypersonik]

My ka-50 has survived 4 man-pad hits (once) :P

[Nerdwing]

The spoof-rate for the FIM-92C seems to be remarkably high as well, in my experience. I'm literally looking at 90% in the 1.28 beta for a flare to properly trick my MANPAD in front and rear aspect shots.

 

Isnt the FIM-92C supposed to have a degree of countermeasures-resistance?

[Buzpilot]

Maybe they put more armor in after this?

 

[Weta43]

Ahhh the good old days when the CIA were teaching the Afghan Mujahedeen how to fight a guerrilla war, and supplying the weapons to do it.

 

1/Different aircraft,

and

2/ All the clips are chosen and edited to tell a particular story.

You don't demonstrate the effectiveness of the weapon by showing the occasions where it misses, or where it fails to destroy the target - you show it by picking the clip where the weapon is at it's upper bound of effectiveness - in this case a non manoeuvring, unarmoured target where the missile flies in through the door before detonating (at least 2 of the clips are of the same 'hit' from different angles, so I suspect it's something other than impromptu combat footage).

[Buzpilot]

Ahhh the good old days when the CIA were teaching the Afghan Mujahedeen how to fight a guerrilla war, and supplying the weapons to do it.

 

1/Different aircraft,

and

2/ All the clips are chosen and edited to tell a particular story.

You don't demonstrate the effectiveness of the weapon by showing the occasions where it misses, or where it fails to destroy the target - you show it by picking the clip where the weapon is at it's upper bound of effectiveness - in this case a non manoeuvring, unarmoured target where the missile flies in through the door before detonating (at least 2 of the clips are of the same 'hit' from different angles, so I suspect it's something other than impromptu combat footage).

 

I used the Afghanistan Stinger, to show that it actually penetrates targets too, not using proximity fuses in front of it, like it do now.

To avoid this, they probably used Xor logic, to avoid proximity to premature explode, if seekerhead still have target in front.

And the last comment was 'After, they refitted countermeasures, they still downed 200+, in 1987 alone' but I agree they didn't tell how many Stingers they used, could be 250, or even 2500, we won't know for sure.

I was under impression the CIA only delivered a few hundred, not thousands, but they could have been extra generous too, after all the US had 2 wars experience, where russian weapons and personell helped , both in Korea and Vietnam. (Russian Mig pilots, Korea, and russians to handle SAM's in Vietnam, that Vietcong soldier was too weak to handle.)

Edit; I just read the Stinger actually only shot down 7% of total kills, the rest was high caliber machine guns.( Not meaning it was only 7% hit rate.)

Edited April 11, 2014 by Buzpilot

[Buzpilot]

The spoof-rate for the FIM-92C seems to be remarkably high as well, in my experience. I'm literally looking at 90% in the 1.28 beta for a flare to properly trick my MANPAD in front and rear aspect shots.

 

Isnt the FIM-92C supposed to have a degree of countermeasures-resistance?

 

I agree, it's like they have 4 extra guys, just looking for missile launches in each sector, you see that when you look at the flare numbers, after a missile launch, the chopper responds 100%.

And Stinger don't use any laser, or does it, for range? I still think it's only the signal strength, but you never know.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Buzpilot

[Nerdwing]

I'm also noticing some generally bizarre behavior in regards to all helicopter DM's. I had an Mi26 eat THREE Roland missiles last night that I fired at it from a rear aspect. Today, I had an Mi8 eat two OSA Sam's. This is in addition to small things like helicopter shrugging off direct hits from MANPADS, like the OP has mentioned.

 

I wonder if something was changed in the warhead coding, or helicopters as a whole? They are taking alot more damage than I remember, as well as ignoring the effects of full-blown engine fires (fired a ZSU23/4 at a Hip's engine, set the right one ablaze. Stopped shooting and watched it flee for 10 minutes using time acceleration, engine a full-on inferno. It climbed/descended with no difficulty over mountains and generally seemed unbothered by the giant fire that had consumed the engine!)

 

And good lord, the CM rejection rate (or lack there-of) for Stingers is absolutely abysmal. Are these what the 92C variants were really like? I can imagine the A being this bad, but damn!

Edited April 6, 2014 by Nerdwing

[karambiatos]

And good lord, the CM rejection rate (or lack there-of) for Stingers is absolutely abysmal. Are these what the 92C variants were really like? I can imagine the A being this bad, but damn!

 

all the IR seekers seem to be abysmal in the beta, they are like ADD children.

[Nerdwing]

Understood. Hopefully this is just a beta quirk, I'd hate to try and fly with all IR being so ineffective.

 

I mean I'd love to ~FLY~, but hate to play, if that makes sense :P

[ARM505]

I still think this is a failure of the core DCS world blast model (mentioned before many times). It's like the engine just considers the shotgun type fragmentation effect and ignores the giant explosion that just occured right next to the helo. Watching the replays in slow motion, sometimes it seems odd to have the helicopter disappear in a giant fireball, then come out the other side with some holes in it, trailing a bit of smoke or something (admittedly this is one the rare-ish side, but weird things do happen with the current model) Especially if it's hit tail-on or something where the warhead's effect seems to get 'eaten' by non-critical structures.

[Gloom Demon]

I thought they added an additional armor option for the Huey and the Mi-8 - that should make them more resistant to SAMS, shouldn't it?

[GriffonBR]

Even an air to air missile, such the R-60 is not enough to bring down a helicopter like the Huey(in DCS I mean). In the tragert pratice mission of the Su-25T I had to do another pass to finish it with my cannon because he was flying like nothing happened.

Edited April 15, 2014 by GriffonBR

[Tucano_uy]

Even an air to air missile, such the R-60 is not enough to bring down a helicopter like the Huey(in DCS I mean). In the tragert pratice mission of the Su-25T I had to do another pass to finish it if my cannon because he was flying like nothing happened.

 

The Huey is ridiculously tough in DCS, I guess it is for playability, to allow human UH pilots to survive a bit more in combat. The pilot and copilot are completely exposed to fire from the front and sides, however, even if the cockpit canopy is completely full of bullet holes, you can still fly as if nothing happens.

[Buzpilot]

Maybe it's done to attract more gamers from the BF1/4 style, if EDGE can compete, where you need half a magazine to kill a soldier.

But then at least there need to be a option for sim players to have realistic dammage too.

[Nerdwing]

I strongly doubt that :P It feels much more like a bug than intentionally removing realism elements in such a way. That sort of goes against what DCS's intentions are anyways