SAM sites have no provision for Search Radar placement

[Eihort]

I'm looking at the SA-2 and SA-5 emplacements on the map, and there's no place to put the FLAT FACE or (incorrect, but that's another thread) TIN SHIELD search radars for their respective systems in DCS. Looking at the layouts on various websites like Aussie Air Power and other excellent sources always shows another pad or emplacement at the location for these radars to sit.

When/if we ever get TIN SHIELD this is going to be rather problematic as that system is HUGE. Another thread has some excellent historical sat photos and you can see provisions in the SA-5 site just WSW of Templin for both TIN SHIELD and ODD PAIR.

Can these get edited for this? The SA-2 sites have some space still left in them you could put them. The SA-5 sites might need a little shuffling to cram it in, but otherwise they'd need their "back end" moved out a bit from what I've seen in other layouts. It's really annoying to have to put them out to the side, or otherwise put them in some other weird place that doesn't make a whole lot of sense or is unrealistic.

[Northstar98]

+1

I personally wish that if Ugra are going to be doing SAM sites based on a generic template, is to look at a real site in the region, recreate that and then copy and paste where appropriate.

For instance: in this image of this SA-2 site near Wittstock, all revetments are visible. If Ugra were to just recreate this (though with the trees removed) and copy and paste it (maybe moving individual revetments as appropriate) for every SA-2 site. Then if they repeat that for each type (here's an SA-3 example, here's an SA-5 example, here's an SA-6 example, here's a HAWK example, here's a Nike-Hercules launch site example), that would be perfectly adequate.

Of course, ideally we'd get as 1:1 as possible, but if Ugra were to simply recreate what's shown in these images, that would be fine. There SA-5 site already has fairly accurate objects, but it's incorrect and personally this is missing the forest for the trees - a less detailed accurate site with only essential positions > a highly detailed site that's inaccurate - right now the SA-5 sites also have another launch battalion that no SA-5 site in Germany had (they all have 2).

And FWIW, SA-2 sites in the GDR were equipped with the Spoon Rest-D as a search radar and the SA-5 sites had a Tall King-C and an Odd Pair. Tin Shields in the GDR were only stationed at EWR sites (and Tin Shields IRL are generally used as EWR/GCI radars). The Flat Face-B was only present at SA-3 sites (though the Flat Face-A and Squat Eye could also be seen at some EWR sites).

Edited July 7 by Northstar98

[Eihort]

Why in God's name we don't have SPOON REST as one of the most proliferated eastern systems, much less TALL KING and ODD PAIR is anyone's guess by now. ED has said we're only using TIN SHIELD as a place holder for the SA-5 "until the appropriate systems are modeled and ready"... There's always BOX SPRING I guess? But it's HUGE by comparison.

Given the poor state of the IADS AI, you kind of need the 3 battery SA-5 sites anyway. I suppose, you could always put the search radars over there, instead of making it an actual SAM battery?