Manny Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I saw a video of a Tunguska successfully engaging Kh-25Ls and destroying them while in-flight .... :icon_wink :p Kidding I did view a Tunguska vid and they engaged a surface target with a missile :confused: Perhaps a shortage of drones and they simulated a helo or very slow flying plane placing a target on a small hill. http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/2K22_Tunguska_M-1.wmv Do Tunguskas have the capability to engaging surface targets with other than their gun which looks awfully deadly. In that video you see tracer rounds but how many bullets per tracer round is there? 10, 15, 20, 100???
Yellonet Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 In that video you see tracer rounds but how many bullets per tracer round is there? 10, 15, 20, 100???That depends on how they loaded the magazine, but maybe between one in five and one in ten rounds are tracer rounds. But if you know the rate of fire for their guns you could calculate it... i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5
enigma6584 Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 The rate of fire for the guns must be tremendous. Did you notice the volume in which the shells were ejected from the chamber?
Gazehound Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Have you ever watched a shilka go surface to surface in lomac? Is scary! Not sure if tonguesuckers can do it in LO. VVS504 Red Hammers
Force_Feedback Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Have you ever watched a shilka go surface to surface in lomac? Is scary! Not sure if tonguesuckers can do it in LO. Imagine how scary Shilkas are in Operation Flashpoint :p, when you see one, and if you carry a LAW, you better react within 3 seconds, otherwise you'll be blown into the skies (literally). Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Guest Jinker Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Guys those tonguers in FC 1.11 are silly. They will engage a Mav, and shoot it down 100% of the time. I have found a way around it though. You have to fly at 14,000 feet and drop and 84 or 82 on them. Don't use CCIP! If you dive for a CCIP run you will go below 11,500 (the envelope of the Tonguelicker) and guess what happens nex? mmmhmmm, eject, eject, eject! I havene't tried lower than 14,500 so if you you go below that I can't gurantee anything. I'm not sure they have the range modelled properly. They sure don't have the Pk modelled correctly, and I doubt very seriously the land based weapon can even do this. The ballistics of the Mav, and the ballistics of the Tonguelicker give it an almost zero Pk. It kinda reminds me of the Gulf, where they were taking pots shots at our Tomahawk's. It's about as silly, but when you fly LOMAC you have to treat a Tonguelicker as if it were a Patriot Battery. What ED has effectively done is turn the A-10 into a high Alitude Bomber in any battle where Tonguelickers are involved. As long as the Pk is at anything above 2-3% (and that's being very generous) I will continue to reach out an touch them. I am also working on a B-52 mission that will drop 2 ALCM's for each Tonguelicker to take them out of the equation until the issue is fixed. If they want to make the Mav's useless on the A-10, I'll just take them out of the equation totally. On the B-52 mission, I'm going to setup two B-52's from different waypoints drop 2 ALCM's at the same point in time, so that if the Tonguelicker tries to to shoot one down, the other will hit it from a different quadrant. I'd likle to see the dang thing shoot in two different directions at the same time. :icon_hang :icon_evil Tonguelickers, you are now OWNED!
Force_Feedback Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 It's called a Tunguska (like the river), or a 2S6M, 2S6M1 if that's a little easier to remember. And I don't thing you're really serious by saying the Tunguska shot down all the missiles in all cases, even on uber AI setting and "leet" missile slider. The Tunguska can engage cruise missiles, and since the Maverick approaches at cruise missile speed, it will take a shot at it, and in like 0.4 of the cases it will hit the maverick. And the Tunguska M1, which is in that video, has an even better capability in engaging "cruise" missiles. So please don't try to whine that the Mav can't hit sh** or that the moddelling isn't realistic, just fire 2 mavs at short intervals, and go home or blast the objects the 2S6M was guarding. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Guest Jinker Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I know what it is called. :icon_roll Right now I'm calling it a tonguelicker because it sounds as stupid as as shooting down those Mav's looks. So, basically what you're saying, is everybody is supposed to waste a Mav they need just to get the tonguelicker. Sorry, not gonna do that. Like I said, I already have the cure. They'll just get owned by two B-52's until they get fixed. The tonguelickers are gonna have a hard time shotting down two ALCM's coming from two directions at the same time. Can you say owned? LOL I'm definitely not whining. In fact, I'm actually going to be quite amused watching them get owned like that. In fact, it'll be more like total world domination. :Flush: Kinda like flushing them. :icon_lol:
Force_Feedback Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Sorry to disappoint you, but the "fix" you want, won't be around for a long time. You can't fix something if it's like that in real life ;). And if you hate wasting mavs, then you like flying the other 2 flyables in lomac (which are very undermoddled, performance wise, but ED has other things to fix) Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
GGTharos Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 When they're working alone instead of IADS, sure ... of course, real US doctrine has Stingers shooting down cruise missiles ... not Patriots. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Guest ruggbutt Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I've found the Tungs don't shoot down KH58's. They'll shoot down the other antiradar missile though. You just need to fire enuf to get thru the defenses. A high attack gives you a better chance of breaking thru their defenses.
Yellonet Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I've found the Tungs don't shoot down KH58's. They'll shoot down the other antiradar missile though. You just need to fire enuf to get thru the defenses. A high attack gives you a better chance of breaking thru their defenses.If you don't want to wast missiles you can do this: fly towards the target, lock him up and wait until he fires, as soon as he does (or just before) this you fire your missile and commence evasive manuevers. i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5
Guest ruggbutt Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 If I'm carrying '58's I just fire at max range. They can't (or won't) engage '58's the majority of the time. The KH58 comes in from a high angle of attack, the KH25's come in lower, and they engage those. I have an LMR mission that has a KUB site w/2 tungs, and I can beat the mission if I carry the bigger missiles. I loadout my wingman w/the KH25's (MPU) and tell him to attack air defenses after I've bitchslapped the KUB radar. If I carry 4 KH25's one will get thru to kill the KUBsr. The Tungs are set to expert btw. I had them at good and the KUB was a sitting duck.
GGTharos Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 The trick is the speed and what they're grouped with. Tunguskas have a short sensorrange, so if no bigger radar is available to them they simply cannot react to a fast missile in time. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
ED Team Wags Posted November 28, 2005 ED Team Posted November 28, 2005 I tend to agree more with the guy you are arguing with in this thread: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=146;t=000438 Also, your insulting comments in that thread about Eagle are unfounded and uncalled for. -Matt I know what it is called. :icon_roll Right now I'm calling it a tonguelicker because it sounds as stupid as as shooting down those Mav's looks. So, basically what you're saying, is everybody is supposed to waste a Mav they need just to get the tonguelicker. Sorry, not gonna do that. Like I said, I already have the cure. They'll just get owned by two B-52's until they get fixed. The tonguelickers are gonna have a hard time shotting down two ALCM's coming from two directions at the same time. Can you say owned? LOL I'm definitely not whining. In fact, I'm actually going to be quite amused watching them get owned like that. In fact, it'll be more like total world domination. :Flush: Kinda like flushing them. :icon_lol: Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/wagmatt Twitch: wagmatt System: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3729544#post3729544
Guest Jinker Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I see you quoted a post out of context. Here you go. I'll fix that for you... I'm definitely not whining. In fact, I'm actually going to be quite amused watching them get owned like that. In fact, it'll be more like total world domination. :Flush: Kinda like flushing them. :icon_lol: Next time, don't quote the part you want to childlishly react to, quote the entire meaning of it. Therefore you will not look foolish.
Guest Jinker Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I tend to agree more with the guy you are arguing with in this thread: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=146;t=000438 Also, your insulting comments in that thread about Eagle are unfounded and uncalled for. -Matt Well, I hope they prove me wrong. I really do. So far, we're still waiting. :cool:
WhiskeyRomeo Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I see you quoted a post out of context. Here you go. I'll fix that for you... Next time, don't quote the part you want to childlishly react to, quote the entire meaning of it. Therefore you will not look foolish.*falls over laughing even harder*
GGTharos Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Well, I hope they prove me wrong. I really do. So far, we're still waiting. :cool: No, 'we' are not waiting :) Octobus made very good points, and you offered no reasonable counter-examples. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
iceden Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Does anyone have a link to maybe some footage where some of the Russian equipment used in LockOn has been proven in actual combat? I have not been able to locate any only training clips. thanks-
Gazehound Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Best way to beat tungs is with Vikhrs. They dont fire on those. VVS504 Red Hammers
Manny Posted November 28, 2005 Author Posted November 28, 2005 Best way to beat tungs is with Vikhrs. They dont fire on those. Unfortunately, aircraft in LO-MAC can't interchange loadouts. IT would be interesting to see an A-10 deploying a Vikhr.
Guest Jinker Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Does anyone have a link to maybe some footage where some of the Russian equipment used in LockOn has been proven in actual combat? I have not been able to locate any only training clips. thanks- I can tell you this much. I searched and searched lastnight for that info, and found nothing that stated or showed that a Tunguska can shoot down missle threats. The closest thing i came to was a naval system based on that, and it used a different radar. I know I searched for at least 5 hours after I fixed an issue I was having after changing abck to an old stick I have laying around here on my gaming system. Well, actually flight sim system as there are no games loaded on it right now. ;) I searched every known search engine imagineable, and did searches on miltary forums, as well as speciffic military sites I ran accross while surfing. I found zero. I did find alot of information on the Tunguska and it talked about it's envelope and everything, but no mention at all that it had shot down missles, or that was even capable of it.
Guest Jinker Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 No, 'we' are not waiting :) Octobus made very good points, and you offered no reasonable counter-examples. That's because it was a moot point, and was off topic in that thread. He showed absolutely no evidence that a Tunguska had any capability at all to shot down missiles. He tried a tangent of his own argument (again off topic) by citing sources for a Naval version of the weapon that doesn't even use the same radar, and nowhere in those sources did it have any info at all on land based Tunguska's other than the fact that the system they talked about was based on it. See my post above. If somebody can show me a source that states otherwise, I will be glad to change my beliefs, but until that happens I have seen no evidence that they can, so like was stated, arguing with a troll about it is pointless. His argumentative attitude not only got him put on Ignore, I was also notified that he got the thread closed down, and not to engage in any further discussion with him...by two or three different people. I took their advice. I'm not gonna sit there and waste my time arguing with somebody. It's stupid. If it's not any fun for them, why do they do it? I don't come onto a hobby related forum to get drug through the mud. I got better things to be doing with my time, and i definitely am going to have fun doing this. If I have to put the chronic complainers and naysayers on Ignore, even if I have to put every single on of them on Ignore I will. I don't wanna have to do that, but I'm not gonna let those types waste my time. I don't waste theirs, and I don't expect them to waste mine. I feel like that is pretty fair.
Recommended Posts