What is your "Go-to" rocket type?

[Varry007]

Not sure what is the best rocket type to use? M151 or M229 or other?

[Scaley]

The M229 is just a bigger-bang version of the M151. There is also a penetrator version in DCS, but since most of DCS's objects don't model armour or penetration I'm not sure it has any use. Basically the way damage works in DCS is just based on a sort of health bar for the vehicle, which is depleted by various incoming hits in an simple arithmetic fashion.  Fragmentation is not modelled in any way at all, meaning whatever rocket you choose it will perform much worse than you expect if you land a lot of very-near misses and never actually directly hit the target. 

Essentially the only use for rockets in DCS is against infantry (where a near-miss will be effective) or buildings (where you can actually score direct hits). For infantry the 151 is more than enough. For buildings the 229 is probably a better choice since a high proportion of the rocket is payload, so you get a better "payload to overall weight" ratio. Either way the main doctrinal use of rockets (as an area suppression/neutralisation system) doesn't work at all in DCS, so most of the time you are better off either carrying a few for infantry groups, or none at all. 

[Varry007]

how about range? since the M151 is lighter, would it have a bigger range?

Thank you @Scaley for this very detailed clarification!

 

[dedlike.]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb Varry007:

how about range? since the M151 is lighter, would it have a bigger range?

Thank you @Scaley for this very detailed clarification!

 

i would almost argue that range is less of a problem than accuracy in the apache since the pylons adjust so that your rockets will reach the target, its just if you shoot too far out, the spread is gonna be realy bad, and in that regard i think the 151s and the 229s are almost the same

[kgillers3]

151s for me 

[NeedzWD40]

M151s if I have to go for extended ranges/endurance and can get close for direct hits, M229s if I need more of an arc for defilade fire and an anti-infantry focus.

[FalcoGer]

I always take the 229s. You run out of ammo way more often than you do run out of fuel and 5 minutes of extra flight time isn't going to matter a whole lot either way. Since rockets are essentially useless even against soft skin vehicles where shrapnel would kill tires, crew, fuel tanks, etc unless you land a direct hit, the only use for them is groups of infantry. And the larger warhead seems to be more effective. If you know that you won't be going up against a lot of infantry or if your main target is mostly vehicles, then I just take hellfires.

Because rockets are so limited in their use in DCS, and because hellfires are the same price as rockets (one time fee of $60/$80 for a lifetime supply) even if you have to shoot at 2 or 3 groups of infantry, a hellfire will do the job just as nicely and you still get plenty left to kill tanks with. Besides, the gun is extremely good against infantry and vehicles as well. Just gotta watch out for manpads and ATGMs.

[NeedzWD40]

On 10/13/2022 at 7:18 PM, FalcoGer said:

Because rockets are so limited in their use in DCS

I see this sentiment a lot and I always get the impression that it comes down to misunderstanding how to use rockets, particularly from helicopters. The AH-64 has incredible flexibility when it comes to rockets and they are one of the best weapons you can employ when used correctly. Don't get me wrong: there are a number of issues with the current mechanics as implemented, especially in regards to fragmentation damage and ballistic calculations, but that doesn't make them useless.

Rockets can act as your own personal MLRS battery or your lightweight quick fix for lightly defended targets. They give you extra room to operate between the gun and the HELLFIRE. They can provide illumination at night and mark targets for friendly assets. When we get the more advanced warheads like M255 and M261, they'll become even more flexible in these capacities. There's so many different ways to use them within the context of DCS that I'm surprised there isn't more out there on just a few of the key ways to employ them.

[FalcoGer]

1 hour ago, NeedzWD40 said:

I see this sentiment a lot and I always get the impression that it comes down to misunderstanding how to use rockets, particularly from helicopters. The AH-64 has incredible flexibility when it comes to rockets and they are one of the best weapons you can employ when used correctly. Don't get me wrong: there are a number of issues with the current mechanics as implemented, especially in regards to fragmentation damage and ballistic calculations, but that doesn't make them useless.

Rockets can act as your own personal MLRS battery or your lightweight quick fix for lightly defended targets. They give you extra room to operate between the gun and the HELLFIRE. They can provide illumination at night and mark targets for friendly assets. When we get the more advanced warheads like M255 and M261, they'll become even more flexible in these capacities. There's so many different ways to use them within the context of DCS that I'm surprised there isn't more out there on just a few of the key ways to employ them.

If you can mark a target with a rocket, you might as well kill it. The issue with the rockets is that you need a direct hit, meaning square on, while in real life rockets are area weapons, meant to be fired in a general direction and wiping out everything in a general area, while in DCS rockets do near 0 damage if they land even just ever so slightly next to a target that has the slightest bit of paper armor. What good is your "personal MLRS battery" when you get no kills. All it does is produce a fancy firework show. The way I see it is, I can either have 38 rockets or 8 hellfires. Or in other words, I could have 2, maybe 3 kills on vehicles or 8 guaranteed kills from a way greater standoff range (provided that you have a human CPG). Marking targets is great and all, but if you can mark it, you might as well kill it. And even without smoke rockets you could mark with your laser. Nearly all modern, western aircraft have a laser spot tracker. And even without that, you can feed them the coordinates. I never found a use for smoke rockets, vehicles smoke on their own when you hit them with a hellfire, no need to waste your pylons for something that has no effect. As for night illumination, that is great for the Ka50 which has very limited nighttime capability, but the Apache has FLIR. Maybe it would be useful in real life to support troops on the ground or something, but not in DCS when you can put something on that actually has an effect.

Given the limitations of the vehicle damage models, the lack of frag simulation, the borked up ballistics calculations > 3km (they always land short it seems), the fact that you have a gun that can kill an APC in 3 direct hits but has 10 times the ammo that you get with your rockets (and soon 40 times the ammo with the removal of the aux tank) and also can swivel around and that you can have missiles instead of rockets means that rockets in DCS are only ever useful if you fight a lot of large groups of infantry without AA capability. If you actually want a decent chance to kill something with rockets, you need a decent salvo size if you want a certain certainty of killing it. And when you have to fire 8-12 rockets to get a kill from 3km away, you might as well just shoot a hellfire from 8 and then you're still more efficient with what you can actually carry in terms of kills per trigger pull.

Sure, rockets are cool, they look great, and they do actually work against squishy humans, but for anything else it's just a waste of payload and space right now until frag and vehicle systems are simulated. The utility rockets are even more situational. So I disagree, they are meant to be inaccurate, they are inaccurate, but in DCS they must get a direct hit to do anything. In short, it just doesn't work out.

Between the gun and the hellfire you get something that can kill from 0 to around 2.5km and something that can kill from around 3km to 10km. Rockets are sort of landing in the right area around 500m to 2.5km without blowing yourself up. They're great fun to use, but again, only effective against infantry. Of course you can kill a truck or APC with it, but at that point why not just use the gun? It's way more accurate, you get way more ammo and you get more standoff capability if you take missiles instead.

Edited October 15, 2022 by FalcoGer

[NeedzWD40]

27 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

If you can mark a target with a rocket, you might as well kill it.

What ordnance does the AH-64 carry that can destroy an ammunition bunker? How about a warehouse? How many trips will it take to ferry enough HELLFIRE to knock out a vehicle depot? Why would you not request other assets with the proper tools to more efficiently deal with the targets?

29 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

What good is your "personal MLRS battery" when you get no kills.

Why should my personal kills matter? If I've enabled my team to win, regardless of kills, have I not completed my objective?

30 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

Or in other words, I could have 2, maybe 3 kills on vehicles or 8 guaranteed kills from a way greater standoff range (provided that you have a human CPG).

Example: You have an SA-2 site. This site needs to be destroyed in order to allow friendly aircraft freedom of motion. This site is protected by equivalent SHORAD: ZSU-23-4, ZU-23, SA-9, SA-13, and MANPADS. If you use exclusively HELLFIRE, will you have enough to destroy all of the SHORAD pieces plus the actual site itself? Why would you not destroy key threats with HELLFIRE and then finish up with rockets at close range? Further, what if you come across more targets of opportunity that are easily serviced with gun and rockets, but have one or two pieces of ADA that prohibit leveraging those weapons?

Properly leveraged, you can potentially knock out the critical components of the SA-2 site with rockets alone. You can do so without even having a line of sight to the target.

38 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

And even without smoke rockets you could mark with your laser.

Not all aircraft have laser spot capability. How do you vector a C-101 onto a target? An F/A-18 without a TGP?

39 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

And even without that, you can feed them the coordinates.

Ignoring that coordinates take time to read back and enter, how do you direct specifics? Is it not easier to place a smoke rocket right on the target versus a complicated talk on?

41 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

As for night illumination, that is great for the Ka50 which has very limited nighttime capability, but the Apache has FLIR.

How do you see cold vehicles on FLIR? How do you assist friendly forces that may only have NVG capability?

50 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

the borked up ballistics calculations > 3km (they always land short it seems)

This can be corrected by adjusting your sight (assuming manual range or target point rather than coop). You can throw rockets out to ~10km under the right conditions.

Have you tried defilade fire with rockets?

[FalcoGer]

1 minute ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Why should my personal kills matter? If I've enabled my team to win, regardless of kills, have I not completed my objective?

In DCS if you don't get a kill, you are ineffective. It's not about your personal kills, it's about how effective you use your ammo. And if you pick rockets, you choose to pick ammo that is ineffective.

3 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

destroy an ammunition bunker? How about a warehouse?

As I said, mark with laser or give coordinates. That is just as, or more effective than having people to look for a large structure with their eyes that doesn't require marking anyway.

4 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

An F/A-18 without a TGP?

Who does that? That's just silly. If you are attacking ground targets with bombs, you should have a TGP to aim those bombs at things. Also you can still drop on coordinates even without a TGP.

6 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

C-101

Via radio, I guess. No idea about that aircraft. You could pop flares in a pinch if you had to mark it somehow. Or you could give them coordinates again. Alternatively you could tell them that the warehouse is some offset from a landmark, say a bridge, airport, road junction, river, or whatever else.

8 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

how do you direct specifics?

I don't get what you mean by that. What specifics? "Blow up the warehouse at DDMMSSss from the east" vs "Blow up the warehouse at the smoke from the east", provided they already know the general area where to look for the smoke anyway? How about your C101 is 20 miles away and they can't see the smoke? You gotta use coordinates anyway.

10 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Is it not easier to place a smoke rocket right on the target versus a complicated talk on?

Is it? How complicated is your talk onto the smoke vs your talk onto a building without your smoke? I don't see much of a difference. If you use a 5 or 9 line you gotta say the exact same things, except for "Marked by smoke" instead of "No mark" or "Marked by laser, 1688". Is it not easier to enter some coordinates, fly there and blow it up than to look for smoke god knows where that dissipates in 15 seconds and then needs to be placed again? Is it not easier to mark a target from 8km away from behind the safety of a hill, then duck and take all the time in the world that you might need instead of risking flying into manpads to place your silly smoke marker? If you must blow up a building, you can usually wait 5 minutes more, not that placing smoke would save you those 5 minutes usually.

15 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

You have an SA-2 site. This site needs to be destroyed in order to allow friendly aircraft freedom of motion. This site is protected by equivalent SHORAD: ZSU-23-4, ZU-23, SA-9, SA-13, and MANPADS. If you use exclusively HELLFIRE, will you have enough to destroy all of the SHORAD pieces plus the actual site itself?

Yes. 16 hellfires is way more than you need to take out a few AAA and SR sams. You get 16 guaranteed kills after all. The launchers you can take out with guns once the tracking radar is destroyed. In fact you can just kill the tracking radar and then move on with your life, since the short range defenses failed in their mission and provide minimal area denial on their own.

What would rockets change in your scenario? It would be detrimental, you will have less hellfires to play with, allowing you to take out only 8 targets. Say you have a single shilka left, then you are down to rockets. Rockets don't do crap against a shilka unless you get a direct hit. And to get that direct hit you need to close within the shilka's range, putting you at risk. Taking rockets on that mission would be ridiculous, I'd never take rockets against short range air defenses, even manpads.

And even if you kill all the actual threats with your hellfires and then you get all those juicy rockets left over, what are you going to do with them? Kill the launchers and utility vehicles and "Mop up"? Of course you can do that, but again you need direct hits to be effective, then you will expend 4-8 rockets per vehicle/launcher, effectively giving you 4 kills per pylon at best, which you could've just put on a hellfire for and called it a day. No, mopping up is what the gun is for.

22 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

If you use exclusively HELLFIRE, will you have enough to destroy all of the SHORAD pieces plus the actual site itself?

If I put on less hellfires, will I have enough hellfires? No, and that's exactly the point.

23 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Properly leveraged, you can potentially knock out the critical components of the SA-2 site with rockets alone. You can do so without even having a line of sight to the target.

You can. Or you could shoot a hellfire at the radar. I've taken out SA15 and SA8 from behind cover with LOAL shots and it works out just fine. Rockets on the other hand would require marking the target, setting up the acquisition source and then perfectly lining up from a hover. Rockets are rather inaccurate from hover fire I found out. Then waste your entire rocket load and hope one of them scores a direct hit on something useful. And all that needs to be done in cover and within 3km of the target. If the situation permits such tactics, then you can do it of course. But personally, I think that's just suicidal and impractical in most cases. I prefer to keep out of sight and out of range. You can just about outrange most IR missiles and skirt on the edge of SA19. SA15 and SA8 can be beat with LOAL.

28 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Further, what if you come across more targets of opportunity that are easily serviced with gun and rockets, but have one or two pieces of ADA that prohibit leveraging those weapons?

You make excellent points of not using rockets here. What would you do if you came across such a target? Well you would use hellfires of course to kill the air defense and then close for a gun kill. Another question, what happens if you came across targets of opportunity that are not easily served with guns or rockets, such as, for example a column of tanks? Or anything else that actually shoots back, such as a BTR82. You don't want to go to rocket range, miss your shots and then get a 30mm to the face. What you want to do is stay well away and shoot them from range.

30 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

How do you see cold vehicles on FLIR?

How do you know where to deploy your illumination flares? Also even cold vehicles can be seen reasonably well if you know where to look.

34 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

How do you assist friendly forces that may only have NVG capability?

I don't know, do I have to? I mean if they absolutely depend on it and can't bring their own flares, sure. But that's a situation that I never found myself in. I have never been asked to provide illumination for anyone, nor have I ever witnessed such a thing.

31 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

You can throw rockets out to ~10km under the right conditions.

What's the CEP in that case? 500m? Rockets are area suppression systems. In DCS they fly like area suppression systems, but they behave like bullets. They either hit or they don't. And if they don't they don't do jack all. You can shoot your 38 rockets in one giant salvo at 10km and you might actually hit something. Or your can shoot 8 hellfires at 10km and be sure to hit 8 things. It's just not an effective weapon to use against anything other than infantry. You can shoot your rockets at that SA2 site and you might hit the radar dish (with a probability of 0.5% or somesuch). Or you might hit one utility truck and a whole lot of bushes all around the radar. Or you might whiff it entirely and it lands in the kindergarten the next city over.

[NeedzWD40]

5 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

In DCS if you don't get a kill, you are ineffective.

Incorrect. My kills ~= mission success. Properly designed scenarios do not tie such to mission success. I've been the bait for a SAMbush, the eyes and ears of a recon force, the designator for laser ordnance, all of which resulted in no kills on my own part. Enabling my team to succeed is task number one.

5 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

As I said, mark with laser or give coordinates. That is just as, or more effective than having people to look for a large structure with their eyes that doesn't require marking anyway.

Once again, not every aircraft will have a targeting pod nor the capability to employ GPS guided weapons. The F-14 for example lacks a LST, even though it has self designation, and the INS is rough. Providing a laser for terminal designation is part of the equation and goes beyond just the F-14. A cloud base where self designation puts the aircraft inside a hard deck is a common usage I've found.

5 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Who does that? That's just silly.

I've done it a lot, as have many of my friends. This is especially true in situations where the TGP is of limited utility at typical fast jet altitudes. Not every scenario is bright, clear sky weather. Further M2000, F-5, and F.1CE all have the ability to employ laser guided ordnance, yet have no self designation capability.

5 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I don't get what you mean by that. What specifics?

I take it you don't have much experience with directing friendly assets onto targets? It's not as simple as "Coordinates are XYZ, fetch 'em fido!" Smoke rockets are incredibly useful for attracting attention right where it belongs in a number of scenarios, often far better than a convoluted talk on. This is especially true if you have multiple assets in the stack.

5 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Yes. 16 hellfires is way more than you need to take out a few AAA and SR sams. You get 16 guaranteed kills after all.

Why not destroy the most threatening SHORAD pieces with HELLFIRE, then follow up with gun and rockets on the weaker parts? This leaves more HELLFIRE in reserve for other targets, potentially multiple sites, and being able to get in close means you can make 1 rocket = 1 kill. Yes, I've done it many times, from modern SA-10 sites guarded by SA-15 and SA-19, to early generation SA-2 guarded by AAA and MANPADS.. If I pick a pure HELLFIRE loadout, I lack the flexibility to engage nearly as many targets due to lack of ordnance.

6 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

In fact you can just kill the tracking radar and then move on with your life, since the short range defenses failed in their mission and provide minimal area denial on their own.

Those SHORAD pieces can be dangerous in their own right. Leaving them behind can be disastrous for a variety of reasons.

5 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I'd never take rockets against short range air defenses, even manpads.

You can out range 23mm gun systems with rockets, same with MANPADS. So as long as you're not at pylon elevation limits, you can manually aim above the target to get rockets right on. Just tonight I scored on two MANPADS with one rocket each at 4.5km.

5 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

then you will expend 4-8 rockets per vehicle/launcher

You use 1 rocket per target. Get within 500m and offset your I beam a hair, you can get direct hits easy. Even shots are left hand, odd shots are right hand.

5 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

You make excellent points of not using rockets here. What would you do if you came across such a target?

But you don't have any HELLFIRE left, remember? You shot them all up on the SA-2 site. You now have no engagement capability whatsoever against an armored column. Plus, you're now having to evade ADA that you cannot neutralize. On the other hand, if you had 2xHELLFIRE, 14xM151, and 150 gun left over... You could at a minimum destroy two targets in that column.

5 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

How do you know where to deploy your illumination flares? Also even cold vehicles can be seen reasonably well if you know where to look.

That's part of what you'd use illumination flares for. Light up an area where you suspect targets may be present, scan with NVG.

5 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I don't know, do I have to? I mean if they absolutely depend on it and can't bring their own flares, sure. But that's a situation that I never found myself in. I have never been asked to provide illumination for anyone, nor have I ever witnessed such a thing.

FM 1-112: "An attack helicopter battalion never fights alone. Attacks are coordinated with other maneuver, combat support, CSS, and joint forces to form a combined arms team."

I've found myself in situations where I have requested illumination as well as requests to provide it.

6 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

What's the CEP in that case? 500m? Rockets are area suppression systems.

Much tighter depending on parameters. The use case would be for area targets such as vehicle depots, assembly areas, ADA, etc.

6 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Or you might whiff it entirely and it lands in the kindergarten the next city over.

This is possible if one is not well practiced with rockets. From running fire, using M229 rockets against a level ground target, pitch up 22deg with max pylon elevation from 8km out. This will get you very close, depending on rocket dispersion. Pitch will vary for targets significantly lower/higher from the firing point. Fire in pairs for best, most accurate results.

It's important to remember that my point isn't that rockets are perfect anti-armor weapons. My point is they are an important tool in the toolbox and neglecting them leaves you with insufficient tools for the job. If you're only concerned with blowing up tanks, then by all means go nuts with HELLFIRE.

[FalcoGer]

1 hour ago, NeedzWD40 said:

But you don't have any HELLFIRE left, remember?

I never said I shoot them at the launchers and utility vehicles. you get more munitions to play it safe from long range. 3 30mm bullets take out a BTR, one is enough for a launcher. Why would I run out of hellfires earlier when I take more of them? That makes no sense.

Say there are 6 short range air defenses guarding that SA2 site, one SR, one TR, 6 launchers and 2 trucks. I take 16 hellfires, because no infantry. I shoot at 6 short range AA, 1 TR and have 9 missiles left, then clean up with the gun, say 100 rounds. Now I have 9 missiles, 200 gun.

Alternatively you would take 8 hellfires, 38 missiles. You shoot the same 7 targets because anything else is insane, then go in with rockets. Now you have 1 missile and 20 rockets left and 300 gun.

Now we both come across your target of opportunity defended by 2x AAA. I have 9 missiles left to play with, you have 1. You shoot your one missile and you run in with your 20 rockets and because they do no damage unless you get a direct hit you either have to get well within the danger area or shoot from long range and hope for good luck. I'm comfy, you are left without options other than to be risky or to disengage.

Alternatively you shoot your 38 rockets into the SA2 site and get 0 to 3 kills random kills maybe, if you're really lucky. say 2 launchers and a shilka. you shoot your hellfires, have 2 hellfires left and no rockets, clean up with guns. At the end of that engagement you have 2 missiles, 200 guns, no rockets, where I would sit at 9 missiles, 200 guns.

Maybe you do something else. But I can't come up with anything else that would make sense. Sure, a rocket salvo from 10km away would damage the missiles and the radar dishes to the point of being dangerous to use or being INOP IRL, but not here.

Tell me how your version is better again?

When it comes to effectiveness per pylon, yes you can get 38 kills with 38 rockets at point blank if you're perfect and you're in the perfect conditions. In those very same perfect conditions you can kill almost anything with guns anyway. Yes you can kill 50 infantry with a single rocket. Yes if you have a parking lot full of APCs packed so tight that there is no space between them, then rockets would be amazing. But the norm is something else. And in that normal situation with no infantry, because DCS infantry is basically just for flavor or for being a manpad, vehicles spread out and there being mostly armor, IFVs, APCs and ADUs, rockets don't do much for you.

 

Granted wild weaseling and buddy lasing are effective and baiting SAMs in a helicopter is fun, but that has nothing to do with taking rockets or hellfires, which is the point of all of this.

If you are close enough to guarantee a rocket hit, you are well close enough to guarantee a gun hit. Again, I don't see the point. I have shot an SA8 down with rockets before, yes. I just launched 38 of them in one go from a very low pass and popping up about 2km away. It works, yes. But why would you put yourself at such risks?

1 hour ago, NeedzWD40 said:

You use 1 rocket per target. Get within 500m

Again, that's way too close, well within machine gun range. Use the gun or use standoff.

1 hour ago, NeedzWD40 said:

my point isn't that rockets are perfect anti-armor weapons. My point is they are an important tool in the toolbox and neglecting them leaves you with insufficient tools for the job

Yes. Rockets are great for anti infantry. I said as much. If you expect that you will be fighting mostly infantry, then take rockets. Even I take rockets if I know that there will be multiple groups of infantry that I go up against. Another fun one is convoys, but only if there isn't all too much shooting back at me. Come in from behind and blast them all to pieces in one run. Again, mostly leaves 70% of them still alive if I want to stay > 2km, but it's fun to do. That said, if you can not kill 8 things with your 38 rockets and if you could kill the things that you would use rockets for with the gun instead, then you would've been better of with missiles. If you take smoke rockets, and your smoke can't make something go boom that couldn't be taken out by a missile, again you would've been better off with missiles. If you can get away with extra firepower and make your mate's bombs land on some target using some other method, then you're better off with that firepower. At least that's my opinion. I talked plenty people on target before using coordinates and laser codes and it was just fine without any smoke.

1 hour ago, NeedzWD40 said:

FM 1-112: "An attack helicopter battalion never fights alone."

That may be so IRL. But try coordinating anything in any of the public servers. I tried. It's a mess. The best I ever got was 4 guys shooting harpoons at a ship together. Didn't work out and then they all just kinda gave up and went back to doing their own thing again. If you're lucky you can get to buddy lase or talk someone onto a target and blow up a building.

We could go back and forth all day long. How about you come up with a scenario and send a track on how you do. And I'll fly it my way and we can compare? Caucasus or Marianas for convenience.

[placsea]

I gotta heavily agree with FalcoGer, while rockets aren't 'useless' perse, in DCS with the mission archetype that dominates multiplayer (tanks,ifvs,apcs,sams) rockets are dead weight. Now if there was a warthunder-esque damage model OR a tree damage model so tactical deforestation was a possibility well that would change the dynamic completely. 

[Avimimus]

Hmm... pity those of us flying Mi-8 or Mi-24 where rockets are supposed to be the primary weapon  You guys talk as if it is an option to not rely on rockets!

[placsea]

15 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Hmm... pity those of us flying Mi-8 or Mi-24 where rockets are supposed to be the primary weapon  You guys talk as if it is an option to not rely on rockets!

Hind guys are cowboys, they'd attack with just a giant knife welded to the nose  

[Dagobert666]

FalcoGer is absolutely right on every point.

I also wanted to write a whole book about Rockets being gabage.....

It's all about rockets vs missiles.... and that in DCS...

-In the end, the APACHE that fired 16 Hellfire is always ahead with destroyed tonage.
More destruction = more team help.
YES, they are special cases, but smoke rockets are just that... a special case.

-The gun can do everything that the rockets can do, just a little more precisely and therefore at a greater distance and because it can be swiveled in more flight attitudes.

-8 Hellfire are lighter than a fully loaded rocked pod (that's the death knell for me)

Annotation:
-In real life, the purchase price plays a role.
-In real life, badly damaging a vehicle is enough to disable it for weeks.
-In real life, the destructive power of a Hydra 70 is probably greater than in DCS

But that's just DCS and as it is at the moment, I'd rather have 8 Apaches with 16 Hellfires each on my side than 8 Apaches with 76 Hydras!

In a normal attrition scenario, I'm 100% sure the Apaches will help me a lot more with Hellfire....
And in the event that the smoke from Apache Hydras should have been THE decisive advantage, I would prefer a tank exploded by a Hellfire with the resulting cloud of smoke... as a marker  Markt by: Fire and Black Smoke    

Edited October 16, 2022 by Dagobert666

[Swift.]

Flechettes will make it interesting, because those have a significantly different mode of damage to most everything else in DCS (big boom = big damage).

 

[dedlike.]

interresting to see people defending rockets in dcs, i get it, it can be nice to get kills with them but in terms of effectivenes its like trying to compare a fox1 vs a fox3...

The damage model in dcs isnt even close for rockets to be of any use, if they could atleast dissable a vehicle by blowing its tires it would already be a big step forward but

the damage state in dcs is Alive/Not Alive,  no inbetween ...

 

Its sad to see how DCS handels it, i would love to take the hind out and acualy be.. you know .. effective with rockets !

[Dagobert666]

49 minutes ago, Swift. said:

Flechettes will make it interesting, because those have a significantly different mode of damage to most everything else in DCS (big boom = big damage).

 

Do you have any background information for this? I can't find anything informative about the Flechettes right now.

-the warhead is probably smaller than that of the M229?
-the Flechetes probably don't fly much further than the Spitters from FRAG?
-I can imagine that the Flechettes go better through body armor but make no difference to REAL armor of armored vehicles?

The question is also how this is to be implemented in DCS, since vehicles do not have a real armoring system and no components that can fail.
The damage model of DCS vehicles is totally binary. Either fully Combat capable or broken and out of Order...

[Swift.]

2 hours ago, Dagobert666 said:

Do you have any background information for this? I can't find anything informative about the Flechettes right now.

-the warhead is probably smaller than that of the M229?
-the Flechetes probably don't fly much further than the Spitters from FRAG?
-I can imagine that the Flechettes go better through body armor but make no difference to REAL armor of armored vehicles?

The question is also how this is to be implemented in DCS, since vehicles do not have a real armoring system and no components that can fail.
The damage model of DCS vehicles is totally binary. Either fully Combat capable or broken and out of Order...

Its not all about vehicles. Flechettes aren't a point explosion like all the other warheads. Itll be a cone of death darts flying through anything in their way. Ripping into soft targets whether they be under a canopy or in a soft building etc.

[NeedzWD40]

19 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

We could go back and forth all day long. How about you come up with a scenario and send a track on how you do. And I'll fly it my way and we can compare? Caucasus or Marianas for convenience.

Yeah, it's clear we're playing completely different scenarios and styles. I'm all for a scenario though, it will go in line with the rocket article I'm working on. Give me a couple days and I'll have something.

11 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Hmm... pity those of us flying Mi-8 or Mi-24 where rockets are supposed to be the primary weapon

Have to temper expectations and usage parameters. I expect that I'll be saturating an area when using rockets with those platforms and use them appropriately. Sometimes I'll loft from defilade, but the S-8s are really short-legged.

10 hours ago, Dagobert666 said:

-8 Hellfire are lighter than a fully loaded rocked pod (that's the death knell for me)

A pod of M151 rockets are lighter than 4xHELLFIRE. M229s are heavier.

10 hours ago, Dagobert666 said:

And in the event that the smoke from Apache Hydras should have been THE decisive advantage, I would prefer a tank exploded by a Hellfire with the resulting cloud of smoke... as a marker  Markt by: Fire and Black Smoke  

Ah, if only those pesky munition dumps and bunkers would be so kind as to smoke and burn from a HELLFIRE hit...

9 hours ago, dedlike. said:

interresting to see people defending rockets in dcs, i get it, it can be nice to get kills with them but in terms of effectivenes its like trying to compare a fox1 vs a fox3...

From what I'm gathering from the peanut gallery, it seems that there's a lot of unrealistic expectations from rockets in general, without understanding when, how, where, and why to employ them. That's to be expected with a majority adjusted to fixed wing flight.

8 hours ago, Dagobert666 said:

Do you have any background information for this? I can't find anything informative about the Flechettes right now.

-the warhead is probably smaller than that of the M229?
-the Flechetes probably don't fly much further than the Spitters from FRAG?
-I can imagine that the Flechettes go better through body armor but make no difference to REAL armor of armored vehicles?

Search for the M255 flechette and you'll find a lot of info. It's essentially an air bursting shotgun round. It's not anti-armor, but will tear into unarmored vehicles. You could also in theory use it against aircraft. There was a thread on it here:

 

8 hours ago, Dagobert666 said:

The damage model of DCS vehicles is totally binary. Either fully Combat capable or broken and out of Order...

Not exactly. Damage affects speed and at the highest level results in the vehicle moving slowly and no longer utilizing weapons. However, this threshold is pretty low.

[Dagobert666]

2 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

 

From what I'm gathering from the peanut gallery, it seems that there's a lot of unrealistic expectations from rockets in general, without understanding when, how, where, and why to employ them. That's to be expected with a majority adjusted to fixed wing flight.

 

"Peanut Gallery.": Someone who has squirrel brains. Anything they say should and will be ignored.....

Really now? It's nice to let go of a condescending insult just because there are many other opinions here, so YOU...
There's really no place for that here...

[shagrat]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb Dagobert666:

In a normal attrition scenario, I'm 100% sure the Apaches will help me a lot more with Hellfire....

And in the event that the smoke from Apache Hydras should have been THE decisive advantage, I would prefer a tank exploded by a Hellfire with the resulting cloud of smoke... as a marker  Markt by: Fire and Black Smoke    

 

That is the point. In other scenarios, where collateral damage, area coverage against infantry, quick snapshots against a general area of suspected infantry and light vehicles is called for by the mission, the rockets (especially if we finally have all warheads and can mix!) are the "better" choice.

If the mission calls for quick and precise destruction/disabling/blocking heavily armored columns of enemy, Hellfire missiles (especially the Radar-Hellfire AGM-114L) is the preferred choice.

Though the damage model of fragmentation warheads like the M151 rockets (but also Mk-80 series and the general cluster bombs) still need some love, the overhaul of the ridiculously resilient infantry a while ago, was a game changer, in my opinion.

Since then you can actually kill infantry with rockets, especially the new warheads on the AH-64D.

Damage to vehicles is actually modeled, though not visible. You can reduce their speed, or get a mobility kill. Cumulation of damage from multiple rockets in the vicinity, can take out a Zsu-23, Technical or truck... People expecting a BMP or Tank getting killed without at least a few direct hits, need to lower their expectations. A mobility kill against a BTR or BMD is actually debatable. Really didn't test that one for quite some time.

Bottom line, if you use rockets against their preferred targets (infantry, unarmored vehicles/weapon emplacements) the results are pretty believable, though not perfectly realistic.

The addition and realistic modeling of effects of M255 flechette, M261 MPP and the option to define zone loadouts ourselves will further increase the usefulness of the Hydra rocket system on the Apache in DCS.

If ED further overhauls the damage effects of cluster bombs, rockets to better model fragmentation warheads that would be the icing on the cake.

The change of the infantry damage model and introduction of technicals had a very positive impact on the typical Counter Insurgency scenarios, already.

[FalcoGer]

7 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Ah, if only those pesky munition dumps and bunkers would be so kind as to smoke and burn from a HELLFIRE hit...

And how often do you find yourself a bunker with literally nothing around it that can be blown up to make a nice pillar of smoke? And at the same time have people on the other end with ground attack aircraft that can blow up the bunker but don't have the means to find a bunker with coordinates and/or laser and absolutely must rely on smoke because apparently there are also no landmarks and you also ran out of flares because you had to dodge all those missiles from the non existing air defenses?

You're grasping and make up ridiculous scenarios to justify how great DCS rockets are.

 

Also I have made my arguments. Guns can do what rockets can do, except you get it for free and it can swivel and be more accurate. And 4 missiles on a pylon are on average and in an average scenario way more useful than 19 rockets on a pylon, be it explosive, smoke, illumination or otherwise.

The reason is how DCS doesn't model neither vehicle damage nor frag damage from rockets and instead relies on direct hits to get a kill. Because rockets are area weapons, direct hits from realistic ranges are rare and as such they are ineffective. And while you can get very good accuracy at 500m, there is no point using rockets at those ranges. The gun doesn't just work just as well, it's straight up better because it's more accurate, more responsive, has more ammo and doesn't use up a pylon space. And when they finally implement the removal of the aux tank and you can carry 1200 rounds, that will just get exacerbated.

IRL rockets are great because frag can damage equipment and you can actually wipe a whole area clean of infantry and soft skin vehicles and maybe blow up an apc or two. They are also cheap, at least compared to missiles. But that's not what we're talking about here. If you want to compare DCS rockets to IRL, it'd be more like shooting training rockets with a real motor but just a metal slug for a warhead. A direct hit would still penetrate an APC, but anything else just makes a puff of dust and dirt. No army would take a training rocket into the field unless it had literally nothing else to throw in the general direction of the enemy.

Infantry is special, at least in DCS, because it can't do much without scripting, is slow, uses computing resources and is mainly just there to look pretty and be killed. As such infantry is either the focus of the mission, sprinkled in for flavor or just omitted completely to make room for more capable units that actually matter in the scale of things. If by chance your mission involves killing infantry but is otherwise sparsely populated with vehicles, or perhaps has only very few armored vehicles, then rockets are a great choice. Even when there is the occasional group of infantry you can still wipe out a whole group with one missile if you have to, but you might as well just use the gun. Any special rocket types, such as smoke or illumination flare, are a special scenario that isn't the aforementioned average scenario and thus shouldn't be your "go-to" rocket type.

I stand by my point: Rockets are circumstantial, if you want to have a default loadout that you just take most of the time for almost any scenario, then it should be all missiles unless the situation dictates otherwise.

Whatever scenario you come up with, it can be done with 16 hellfires and guns. Rockets may help, but generally they do not. And because they are generally not doing much, I say missiles are better to pick as a default.

I don't know what your obsession is trying to prove that something that clearly doesn't work as intended is the greatest thing since perforated toilet paper, but I won't argue any more. Do what you think is fun.

7 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Damage to vehicles is actually modeled, though not visible

That's half true. They get slowed down at some % of HP left. There isn't actually any damage to wheels or tracks or the engine or fuel tanks or anything. It's just a number that determines how "healthy" a vehicle is. If you land a real rocket next to a real ural truck, say 15m away, I expect the driver to be perforated as well as the fuel tanks and the tyres. In DCS it takes like 5% "damage". Since 5% or even 30% damage doesn't do anything, it might as well be nothing.

 

What's more, you can kill infantry from what feels like 50m away with a rocket hit, but a guy sitting at a ZU-23 emplacement magically survives hits 5m away. The gun may get scratched up a little by flying sharpnel and a few ammo boxes might be knocked over. But a guy now having suddenly consisting of 10% metal shouldn't be able to operate anything anymore.

Edited October 17, 2022 by FalcoGer