More SRBM Carriers

[Tank50us]

Now, before anyone posts, no, I'm not asking for more nuclear weapons.

Now, onto the actual post:

Throughout the Cold War, and even into the modern day, Short-Range Ballistic Missile Carriers have been quite prolific. While most of these were meant to carry Nuclear Warheads, units did have the option for conventional and 'gas' warheads. The latter of which obviously doesn't work in DCS, but the conventional warheads are still viable. Examples include:

MGM-52 "Lance"

The 9K52 'Luna' (NATO: FROG-7)

The ATACM

The Pluton

And many, many more.

The reason I'd like to see these systems is because of the missions that are built around them. Usually to hunt them down and destroy them before they launch, but also to protect them, and (when the C-130 and Chinook drop) to supply their positions with more ordinance. On top of the missiles, and their mobile launchers, it would be nice to have the 'static' launchers as well, especially for the WW2 side and the V-2 and the Early Cold War when the TEL Vehicles hadn't been developed yet.

What do you guys think? Would you want to see some more TELs and SRBMs in DCS?

[Silver_Dragon]

34 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Now, before anyone posts, no, I'm not asking for more nuclear weapons.

Now, onto the actual post:

Throughout the Cold War, and even into the modern day, Short-Range Ballistic Missile Carriers have been quite prolific. While most of these were meant to carry Nuclear Warheads, units did have the option for conventional and 'gas' warheads. The latter of which obviously doesn't work in DCS, but the conventional warheads are still viable. Examples include:

MGM-52 "Lance"

The 9K52 'Luna' (NATO: FROG-7)

The ATACM

The Pluton

And many, many more.

The reason I'd like to see these systems is because of the missions that are built around them. Usually to hunt them down and destroy them before they launch, but also to protect them, and (when the C-130 and Chinook drop) to supply their positions with more ordinance. On top of the missiles, and their mobile launchers, it would be nice to have the 'static' launchers as well, especially for the WW2 side and the V-2 and the Early Cold War when the TEL Vehicles hadn't been developed yet.

What do you guys think? Would you want to see some more TELs and SRBMs in DCS?

None of that launcher has drop capable but can transport by C-130 and other aircrafts and About, no have fixed launchers (That has all mobile capable). All have HE / Fragmentation Warheads. No have a "Static launcher" (other old missiles has deploy on static site, carring nuclear warheads).

Edited June 24, 2024 by Silver_Dragon

[Kang]

I'm definitely in favour of adding one or two more of these. ED has introduced most of the mechanics necessary at the latest time with the infamous Scud a while back and, given its history, that is definitely an asset I use in quite a few missions, especially in the Persian Gulf, so I absolutely concur on their usefulness as mission objectives.

I would generally like more Cold War era assets, seeing how many of these remained in use (or at least inventories) way past 2000 and DCS currently lacks any such asset to be reasonably fielded by the western nations (both current and historic).

Furthermore, Silver_Dragon, I'm sure what Tank50us meant was to make missile positions objectives for air resupply missions, not necessarily move any of the missile carriers around by air.

[Tank50us]

10 hours ago, Kang said:

Furthermore, Silver_Dragon, I'm sure what Tank50us meant was to make missile positions objectives for air resupply missions, not necessarily move any of the missile carriers around by air.

Yeah, or carry the reloads to a reload point