Just How Accurate Are Russian Missiles?

[madavid0]

I also have a serious concern about how Russian-Soviet weapons are modelled in terms of accuracy. Additionally, there's only very few "trustworthy" data sources and none of them are detailed enough to make a better model. For example, the Pentagon said that Russia's missile attacks hit the intended target about %40 of the time. That's abysmal, but I really doubt that newer stuff like the Iskandar-M and and Kalibr miss 60% of the time; if they were THAT bad I can't imagine why the Russians would make so many of them. Did the Pentagon include unguided MLRS rockets and ancient Cold War-era anti-ship missiles in that calculation?

Also, we're talking about CMO which rarely has a bunch of civilian structures in a scenario, so the only thing any weapon can hit are target facilities. If you wanted to model something like accidently hitting non-targets the game doesn't appear to model CEP. Only reliability effects weather or not you do damage to what you're shooting. Maybe all we can do is just stick to scenarios with only legitimate targets and tweak reliability figures to get something close to reality. Between modeling limitations and minimal real-life data we may have no choice but to live with massively boosted Russian weapon performance.

[gennyo]

CMO do have collateral damage model.

I used to have thousands of civil buildings mixed with targets in a city environment, and got a decent amount of collateral when I used something like AS-4 and they missed. Not as crazy as the Rus did, but still demolished something.

Even friendly targets might get splashed by clusters or something huge and not that accuate.

The only thing that is not "real" enough IMHO is not "deliberate" friendly fire.

[bsq]

I also have a serious concern about how Russian-Soviet weapons are modelled in terms of accuracy. Additionally, there's only very few "trustworthy" data sources and none of them are detailed enough to make a better model. For example, the Pentagon said that Russia's missile attacks hit the intended target about %40 of the time. That's abysmal, but I really doubt that newer stuff like the Iskandar-M and and Kalibr miss 60% of the time; if they were THAT bad I can't imagine why the Russians would make so many of them. Did the Pentagon include unguided MLRS rockets and ancient Cold War-era anti-ship missiles in that calculation?

When you are shooting tests, in a permissive scenario, with the exact location of the target nailed down (because your mate nailed it down, or towed it into the test target area) then its easy to demonstrate to the Admirals, Generals and Politicians just how 'good' your weapons are. When you are shooting them in a war at an opponent (who isnt going to cooperate) with jamming, deception and shooting back, then things arent so rosy.

Did you see many images of Hostomel with big holes in runways etc - no there were great big craters in the grass, off site and a very sad looking AN-224 and all this 'destruction' was caused by Iskander.
Was the hotel (owned by a Russian sympathiser, frequented by rich Russians in better times) a military target, was it near a military target, but it was struck by a Kalibr that obliterated it foyer and much of the domestic areas. Said Russian, quickly changed his affiliation after that. All this was in open source, press release, twitter feeds, instagram etc. Not disputed really except by the Russians, so yes they are THAT bad, they just claim everything they hit, was military and they intended to. One half of that statement is clearly not true or disingenuous.