How to use Early SA-1 / 2s?

[GeneralVikus]

Hey guys,

I've been playing around with early Cold War stuff lately and I can't figure out how to employ the early SA-1 and SA-2 batteries / battalions, namely the SA-1 and SA-2 A and B respectively. They won't fire on any target, regardless of size, speed, altitude, and range. When using manual fire, the battery either pleads imprecise target or minimum range. Turning the illuminators on manually doesn't make a difference. The only sensors they have are the Fan Song illuminator and the Spoon Rest search radar. I've tried surrounding the area with Spoon Rests, but that doesn't help. The Fan Song can't be deployed except as part of a separate battery, so I've tried placing several SA-1s / SA-2 batteries together in a cluster, but that doesn't seem to work either. The only way I can get them to fire is by placing down a different type of friendly SAM battery. I presume the SA-1s / 2s then piggy back on the friendly illuminators, which I'm guessing is unrealistic. How are these units supposed to work? I guess they need some other system which doesn't come in the box, but I can't figure out what it is. If anyone could explain to me how to use these units and what fact about these early SAMs I'm missing, it would be very much appreciated.

[eclair]

Hmm… here is my test scenario attached and SA-1/SA-2 (with EW Radar) of Red Force are able to intercept Blue bombers.

However, unless backed up with other optical sensors (for example, S-75M/SA-2f (#318) has TV camera while SA-2a/b not), most of Cold War-era radar do not identify air contacts (i.e. whether B-52 or Tu-22M), and SAM does not engage non-Hostle targets under some doctrine settings.

[BDukes]

The SA-1 is off. SA-2 seems to work fine.

Mike

[SeaQueen]

However, unless backed up with other optical sensors (for example, S-75M/SA-2f (#318) has TV camera while SA-2a/b not), most of Cold War-era radar do not identify air contacts (i.e. whether B-52 or Tu-22M), and SAM does not engage non-Hostle targets under some doctrine settings.

1) Visual lookouts are an important part of many IADS to this day.
2) The Soviets looked at fighters as filling the gaps between SAM sites. The fighters are an extension of the ground controller. Visually ID-ing targets using fighters may be part of the kill chain in some eras for some nations. Sometimes that will limit you.
3) SAM sites without EW or air surveillance ASV radars are vulnerable, and when they're shorter ranged, don't have enough warning to engage effectively. You need those ASV/EW sites to build up your picture. You really don't want the SAMs to emit until right before they're ready to launch.
4) It's okay to declare things hostile if they get too close. In the US, for example, there's "Restricted Airspace."

Restricted areas denote the existence of unusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft such as artillery firing, aerial gunnery, or guided missiles. Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the aircraft and its occupants.

There are also "Prohibited areas."

Prohibited areas contain airspace of defined dimensions identified by an area on the surface of the earth within which the flight of aircraft is prohibited. Such areas are established for security or other reasons associated with the national welfare.

Is it possible to get shot at in a restricted or prohibited area? Absolutely. Furthermore there's what are called "temporary flight restrictions," which are mobile. In wartime, if there's concerns about civilian overflight, these would be published in the NOTAMS so the areas could be avoided. Use navigation zones, and exclusion zones to protect important things.

[thewood1]

"It's okay to declare things hostile if they get too close. In the US, for example, there's "Restricted Airspace.""

CMO players WAY underutilize this concept. They keep expecting 1960s era SAM sites to be able to ID individual aircraft. I always put restricted airspace around defended areas and ships. If I have commercial aircraft around, I put neutral side no fly zones around those sites to keep airliners out of them.

[SeaQueen]

CMO players WAY underutilize this concept. They keep expecting 1960s era SAM sites to be able to ID individual aircraft. I always put restricted airspace around defended areas and ships. If I have commercial aircraft around, I put neutral side no fly zones around those sites to keep airliners out of them.

Totally.

The problem, in my mind, is partially that some players want to believe that warzones are filled with airliners randomly flying around and there exists no airspace control plan for determining who is what. Nobody talks to anyone. Nobody monitors guard. Nobody squawks any transponder codes. IFF doesn't exist, and there is never an adequate amount of sensor coverage of any type.

If I know an airbase is hostile, I'll put a zone over it to make sure everything I detect taking off there is declared hostile, or at least "unfriendly." If I know that the badguy's longest ASCM is a 200NM missile, then I might assume any unidentified aircraft inside of that is hostile. I'd also try to identify, classify and engage them if necessary WAY outside of 200NM, where they're not a threat. Thinking through what distances matter and what decisions they need to make by then is part of the game. You can use zones to help with that process. Part of good tactics is understanding distance and what it means. How far can you shoot? How far can you fly? How far can the badguys do the same? How far can you see each other? Given all that, where do you need to put things so that you can identify and engage as necessary without putting important things at risk? What's important and what isn't?

Some of it I blame on bad scenarios, where the scoring is basically just a weighted exchange ratio, and often a weirdly weighted one at that. Players should have to make decisions about what they're willing to risk and what they're willing to defend. That should be part of the game, and there shouldn't be one obvious answer all the time. There might be lots of ways to solve the problem.

[BDukes]

CMO players WAY underutilize this concept. They keep expecting 1960s era SAM sites to be able to ID individual aircraft. I always put restricted airspace around defended areas and ships. If I have commercial aircraft around, I put neutral side no fly zones around those sites to keep airliners out of them.

Totally.

The problem, in my mind, is partially that some players want to believe that warzones are filled with airliners randomly flying around and there exists no airspace control plan for determining who is what. Nobody talks to anyone. Nobody monitors guard. Nobody squawks any transponder codes. IFF doesn't exist, and there is never an adequate amount of sensor coverage of any type.

If I know an airbase is hostile, I'll put a zone over it to make sure everything I detect taking off there is declared hostile, or at least "unfriendly." If I know that the badguy's longest ASCM is a 200NM missile, then I might assume any unidentified aircraft inside of that is hostile. I'd also try to identify, classify and engage them if necessary WAY outside of 200NM, where they're not a threat. Thinking through what distances matter and what decisions they need to make by then is part of the game. You can use zones to help with that process. Part of good tactics is understanding distance and what it means. How far can you shoot? How far can you fly? How far can the badguys do the same? How far can you see each other? Given all that, where do you need to put things so that you can identify and engage as necessary without putting important things at risk? What's important and what isn't?

Some of it I blame on bad scenarios, where the scoring is basically just a weighted exchange ratio, and often a weirdly weighted one at that. Players should have to make decisions about what they're willing to risk and what they're willing to defend. That should be part of the game, and there shouldn't be one obvious answer all the time. There might be lots of ways to solve the problem.

Hmm. Other people doing it wrong again.

I just build and share within my own little circle. Keeps the hobby engaging and fun.

Mike