Zeus could be more deadly

[Azazel]

Feel free to ignore this one since I really don't now much about the ZSU but I feel like the ZSU-23-4 could be a little more accurate/harder to dodge. Right now I'm finding the BMPs to be harder to avoid then the Zeus. Love this sim. Great work ED.

[Cibit]

Feel free to ignore this one since I really don't now much about the ZSU but I feel like the ZSU-23-4 could be a little more accurate/harder to dodge. Right now I'm finding the BMPs to be harder to avoid then the Zeus. Love this sim. Great work ED.

 

Fly Slower;)

[EtherealN]

...and turn off the jammer. :)

[159th_Viper]

....Right now I'm finding the BMPs to be harder to avoid then the Zeus....

 

Quite rightly so. The BMP's 2K23 armament system is way more effective than the target acquisition radar on the Shilka.

[dunadan]

I kind of like the game of 'chicken' you get into with the Shilka . . . zoomed in and ready to fire you see the smoke and tracers coming up . . . usually just barely enough time to get a killing burst squeezed off then jink like hell and hopefully watch the tracers whiz past . . . quite the thrill!

 

For some reason I find the BMPs harder too, although I think its because I let my guard down since its 'just a BMP' and get too close, therefore I don't have time to jink when they start squirting off rounds.

[StrongHarm]

The ZSU is pretty mean if you get within it's envelope. The 'Gun Dish', as designated by NATO, is very limited. Once ECM is employed there's a good chance that the ZSU-23 crew will have to switch to visual employment of the system. With the agility and low flying capabilities of the A-10, I believe that the ZSU-23 may actually be overpowered in DCS. I'm not complaining though, I enjoy going up against these formidable foes.

 

More information can be gained from GlobalSecurity. Here's a search of ZSU-23 that yields great info.

 

An excerpt from the threat analysis:

 

As previously cited the range of the ZSU-23-4 employed

in the optical mode is 2500 meters, 500 meters less than the

radar aided range of 3000 meters. More significantly

though, the reaction time required to put accurate fire on

target is significantly increased. A Soviet article

describes the procedures for engaging a target in the

optical mode in the following manner.

First, the target must be visually acquired,

then the command given: target on the left,

helicopter. Range 2000 meters, Destroy!

"...the operator must lay the tubes in the

direction of the target by turning the handle

of the control panel, shift the sight lever

to the "double position",align the open sight

with the axis of the bore, set the distance

grid with the indicated range, bring it up

under the target, and finally, press the

button on the control lever to fire a short

burst.11

In this example, the target was missed during the first

burst of fire. A second long burst destroyed the target.

The length of time required to complete the operation

previously described will depend on gunner proficiency and

training, but a Soviet article in 1979 stated that in a

timed test of ZSU's engaging targets without radar "the

majority of the crews were lost, much time was wasted

finding targets, refining and using the fire data. The

result of this is that gun crews opened fire, as a rule,

minutes after the helicopters appeared."12 The best

trained crew and most experienced in the test took 32

seconds.

[Boberro]

In Iraq few Hogs have been shot down by Shilka, so it seems in real life it is quite deadly...... or Hogs were flying really slow, but can it fly slower than usual? :D

[-Ice]

I don't play with a Zeus... if one is around, it deserves a Maverick.

 

Try flying around without knowing where one is --- usually by the time you see tracer fire, it's a bit too late to jink unless you're really high or really lucky.

[StrongHarm]

Remember that the A-10 was created for the cold war perceived threat of a major soviet incursion into Europe by an overwhelming armored force. The primary threat perceived to the A-10 was the ZSU-23. It was engineered specifically to avoid that threat.

 

Yes, the A-10 has a much lower stall speed than anything in the inventory. Flying just above the treetops at just over 100 knots was its intended roll. As a result they had to make it very resistant to small arms fire.

 

Low and slow the Hawg does what no other aircraft can.. and for 10 times longer.

[-Ice]

Oh hell yeah! I've been flying around in the Hog for about 2 hours, most of it on full throttle, and I've got more than enough fuel to go home, re-arm, and do it all again!

 

The only downside is it takes FOREVER to get to 300 knots :D

[StrongHarm]

If you fly the Hawg around at full throttle all the time you'll seriously limit yourself. Consider slowing down and see what it does for your SA and lethality. I promise you'll find new techniques and abilities.

 

Where fighters are jaguars that chase down their prey and hamstring them, the A-10 is a Nile Croc. It won't chase you down, but God help you if it decides to slowly stalk you.

 

[Speed]

Remember that the A-10 was created for the cold war perceived threat of a major soviet incursion into Europe by an overwhelming armored force. The primary threat perceived to the A-10 was the ZSU-23. It was engineered specifically to avoid that threat.

 

Yes, the A-10 has a much lower stall speed than anything in the inventory. Flying just above the treetops at just over 100 knots was its intended roll. As a result they had to make it very resistant to small arms fire.

 

Low and slow the Hawg does what no other aircraft can.. and for 10 times longer.

 

Unfortunately for the A-10, it's no longer the 1970s. Alot of things have changed in 40 years, such as new, very deadly mobile SAMs. The A-10 would probably not fare well against the modern Russian army if they suicidally decided to try to fly low and slow- which is also what we see happen in DCS. Against the modern array of Russian radar and IR guided SHORAD, low and slow = dead.

 

High and fast (both terms being relative for an A-10) is the way to go against modern Russian air defense systems.

 

Fortunately for everyone involved, IRL the A-10 has never had to face the Russian army or any force as heavily armed and well equipped. Not even the Iraqis count. So the A-10 has proven to be a very useful aircraft.

 

When they finally do retire it... I wouldn't be surprised if something similar comes along the pipeline. When you're having to fight the kind of conflicts the US has been fighting, gunships are very, very useful. Not for killing tanks though.

 

However, due to the entry into Russian/Soviet service of SA-8, SA-13, SA-15, SA-14/16/18, SA-19 (2S6), SA-11, the tactic of trying to use the A-10's gun to bust Russian (actually Russian) tanks is at least two decades obsolete, probably three.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Speed

[StrongHarm]

I just read an interesting analysis at globalsecurity about A-10s and attack helos cooperating in nape of the earth flight against modern Russian systems. A weakness of their systems is terrain masking. I'd rather be in the trees until I get to my target than at 25k ft moving at 300knts.

 

Once in the area of operations and you have proper SA, I would agree that engaging a target while moving low and slow is a very bad idea in most cases.

[Speed]

I just read an interesting analysis at globalsecurity about A-10s and attack helos cooperating in nape of the earth flight against modern Russian systems. A weakness of their systems is terrain masking. I'd rather be in the trees until I get to my target than at 25k ft moving at 300knts.

 

I believe one of the lessons they found out from the Gulf War was it was better to be at high altitude than low, in general. The Iraqis were not nearly as well equipped as Russia (still Soviets at that time of course), but still, some lessons can be drawn. Of course, you cannot universally apply those lessons. Iraq is very flat in the southern parts.

 

In context to this game, it is certainly much safer and smarter in most missions to be at 25k feet and 300 knots than at treetops, unless there is SA-3/6/8?/10/11/15. Most missions do not feature you having to go up against these systems, or if you do, you know exactly where they are so you can go around them or kill them outright.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Speed

[-Ice]

That's funny, I've never, NEVER been to 25k. Angels 15 at the most, and I slept most of the way up :D

 

I'm most at home at 5-10k, with the occasional dip to cherubs 2.

[Speed]

That's funny, I've never, NEVER been to 25k. Angels 15 at the most, and I slept most of the way up :D

 

I'm most at home at 5-10k, with the occasional dip to cherubs 2.

Well, how you play is up to you. Personally, I usually play with the objective of almost never being shot down but still doing my mission- the priority of a real pilot, I would believe. If your priorities are to almost never die, then you will end up flying at 25K or higher if the situation calls for it- and it very often does. I usually complete a combat mission without even being shot at a single time. This is a plus, but I can see how people who like excitement and evading missiles see it as a minus. Hint: real pilots do not like evading missiles :D

[Snoopy]

I believe one of the lessons they found out from the Gulf War was it was better to be at high altitude than low, in general. The Iraqis were not nearly as well equipped as Russia (still Soviets at that time of course), but still, some lessons can be drawn. Of course, you cannot universally apply those lessons. Iraq is very flat in the southern parts.

 

In context to this game, it is certainly much safer and smarter in most missions to be at 25k feet and 300 knots than at treetops, unless there is SA-3/6/8?/10/11/15. Most missions do not feature you having to go up against these systems, or if you do, you know exactly where they are so you can go around them or kill them outright.

 

The second yes but the first (Desert Storm) the A-10s were on the deck, one reason for the large losses and damage to the old girl...

[Azazel]

Speed knows damn well he won't be hanging out at angels 25 in any mission that I make :D

[StrongHarm]

DISCLAIMER:

There are a lot of very intelligent, very opinionated people on these forums. Healthy debate and very useful information surfaces as a result. However.. fact and opinion can collide. Some good places to go to compare opinion to fact are:

 

http://www.af.mil/

http://www.acc.af.mil/index.asp (has A-10 video news!)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/index.aspx

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/index.html

 

And of course.. our own paulrkiii who is a Warthog crew chief of many years IRL is a great source for factual Warthog information.

 

Have fun!

[Speed]

The second yes but the first (Desert Storm) the A-10s were on the deck, one reason for the large losses and damage to the old girl...

 

Yes, of course the A-10As were on the deck during Operation Desert Storm. What choice did they have? Their "targeting pod" was a maverick for Christ's sake :) I'm talking about other strike aircraft, such as F-16s, that have a choice whether they want to fly low.... wasn't a major lesson overall that low flying aircraft, and low, nap of the earth ingress, was in general not as good an idea as it was once thought?

 

I suppose terrain will have alot to do with it too. There is also that news source I recently quoted that said in 1999, NATO aircraft, including attack aircraft, were ordered to stay above 16,000 feet due to Serb air defenses. I need to find an official source on that one.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Speed

[Speed]

DISCLAIMER:

There are a lot of very intelligent, very opinionated people on these forums. Healthy debate and very useful information surfaces as a result. However.. fact and opinion can collide. Some good places to go to compare opinion to fact are:

 

http://www.af.mil/

http://www.acc.af.mil/index.asp (has A-10 video news!)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/index.aspx

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/index.html

 

And of course.. our own paulrkiii who is a Warthog crew chief of many years IRL is a great source for factual Warthog information.

 

Have fun!

 

Well, you want facts? It's a fact that the A-10 has never faced lots of frontline, modern Russian equipment. All we have is simulations of what would happen. The simulations don't look too good for a low flying A-10.:thumbup:

[Frostiken]

our own paulrkiii who is a Warthog crew chief of many years IRL is a great source for factual Warthog information.

 

A knuckledragger eh? I'll be sure to ask him if I want to know what holes the red and yellow fluids go into, what to do with a piddle pack, or where the cheapest strippers are at.

 

You know if there's any A-10 specs around I can ask if I have any questions regarding, you know, actually *using* the aircraft? :D

 

<- F-15 2A371©

 

Edited April 27, 2011 by Frostiken

[SFJackBauer]

There is also that news source I recently quoted that said in 1999, NATO aircraft, including attack aircraft, were ordered to stay above 16,000 feet due to Serb air defenses. I need to find an official source on that one.

 

In the book "A-10 Over Kosovo" there are several references to that.

[BlueRidgeDx]

Here's a bit of perspective from a Hawg driver on the tactics in play in Europe back in the 80's.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I shamelessy ripped this off without permission.

 

"We were pretty sure there was going to be a nuclear war but at least we were going to have a ragefest in the Fulda Gap before it started. Most guys were going to get shot down once the balloon went up. That was a fact. Maverick/Gun was the only legit SCL.

 

There was no such thing as CSAR. Get out your compass and start trotting 270. Every squadron and detachment had an overpressurized and hardened SOC with full decon facilities where we expected to live once the balloon went up (don't ask what was going to happen to our families). When you stepped to the jet you went to a HAS. We never flew above 250'AGL unless we were going cross country, climbing up to initial or had an emergency.

 

Guys were down low constantly. We had lots of airplanes (not just A-10s) hit the dirt back then (and not just in Europe). It was considered the cost of doing business based on the threat we were facing."

Edited April 27, 2011 by BlueRidgeDx

[MBot]

Feel free to ignore this one since I really don't now much about the ZSU but I feel like the ZSU-23-4 could be a little more accurate/harder to dodge. Right now I'm finding the BMPs to be harder to avoid then the Zeus. Love this sim. Great work ED.

 

I think the Shilka is modeled pretty well. It denies close-in gun and bomb runs and therefore fulfills its task of protecting accopanying mechanized units.

 

In comparison the BMP-2 is rather overpowered. While the BMP-2 has a good gun, it should be severly limited in it's abilities to detect and acquire air targets. Unfortunately this can currently not be adjusted without handicaping it's abilities in ground engagements, since ground units only have a single engagement routine for air and ground targets. This leads to the certain situations where the BMP-2 is even more effective in engaging aircraft than the 2S6. Therfore I currently tend to use BMP-1 rather than BMP-2, they do not have an auto-cannon for air defense.