Air power in FPC

[Tazak]

Rather than continue to highjack this newbie q thread I figured a separate post was in order as I don't think air power in FPC has been discussed

FAQs (to avoid posting what we already know)
1. yes NATO combat formations air defence is weak
2. no the AI/engine doesn't simulate helicopter tactics well - already confirmed to be dealt with in 2.1

Going to start with this

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

I'm unconvinced of the plausibility of the conspicuous absence of both side's airforces from most scenarios, but I do know that when they show up the sudden and unavoidable evaporation of a unit to an airstrike is immensely tedious and makes for a not-fun scenario.

and respond with this as I think it sums up western view on air power

The U.S. Army has not had to worry about enemy air since 1942, and at that time the army commanders found the situation intolerable

- Source - Tactical Air Power within NATO

I think air power is simulated/abstracted fairly well and happy enough that's it's left down to the scenario designer to decide how much air power arrives on the battlefield

Would NATO have quickly achieved air supremacy that it needed to protect its ground forces from mass soviet air attacks or roving battalions of Mi24, not unless it had some serious advance warning and was able to disperse its aircraft.

The soviets had detailed plans of all NATO fixed airfields and plans to hit them hard in the opening hours of WW3, would they achieve the same level of destruction as was witnessed in the Arab-Israeli 6 day war - not likely, one source cites a soviet air general as saying in an exercise against 300+ aircraft in 10 airfields the soviet coordinated SSM/ground/air-attack had destroyed 45% of the aircraft/base/AD/C3i - even if you tone those numbers down to 25% that's still a lot of airpower wiped from NATO's arsenal.

In my view best case for NATO would be local air superiority over some areas of the front but air polarity in areas where the WP forces were attacking or worst case (reverse situation) of air polarity in most areas but air denial in areas where the WP were focusing their air forces.

[Pawsy]

In a time of tension before an attack NATO forces would have deployed and activated the general deployment/defence plan (GDP). I think its realistic to assume some preparation by NATO. You can assume that no ground units would have been in their barracks and CAP would have been up. I tend to agree with your analysis though

air power is simulated/abstracted fairly well

Only at Div level was there an air LO to co-ordinate the air assets. So a few ground attack ac as shown in the scenarios is accurate I think.

We should remember the combat range (the Achilles heel of most helicopters of that period) is 160km or 100 miles. This would severely limit its employment en mass and its sustainability through forward arming and refuelling points. Crew training wasnt all it could be either.

[Alchenar]

The post of mine that didn't make it to this thread was that I don't mind the absence of CAS (the sudden, unavoidable evaporation of your units is not fun or good game design), what I think is the real discussion is the extent to which the presumption of a totally permissive airspace has a knock-on effect on the effectiveness of helicopter gunships.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar
I think is the real discussion is the extent to which the presumption of a totally permissive airspace has a knock-on effect on the effectiveness of helicopter gunships.

+1

[Lowlaner2012]

I really don't See what the fuss is about, I have managed to take down numerous helos in a number of scenarios, its a matter of tactics.

Regarding the NATO air superiority plan, no plan is perfect and I'm sure Soviet planes and helos would slip through the net to trouble NATO ground forces...

In the end the war didnt happen so we really don't know for sure how it would have went, to me FCRS is a really good game that for me at least it feels as authentic as any game covering this period helos and all...

Thanks OT Sims

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

I really don't See what the fuss is about, I have managed to take down numerous helos in a number of scenarios, its a matter of tactics.

Regarding the NATO air superiority plan, no plan is perfect and I'm sure Soviet planes and helos would slip through the net to trouble NATO ground forces...

In the end the war didnt happen so we really don't know for sure how it would have went, to me FCRS is a really good game that for me at least it feels as authentic as any game covering this period helos and all...

Thanks OT Sims

I am with you. I have never understood all the negativity regarding helos. I consider them a nuisance at worst. I have felt for a long time that the problem that others players are having is one of tactic and not that helos are overpowered. Helos on any battlefield are an awesome weapon system--if they are not properly countered. They will get their licks in, but I don't seem them as anymore of a threat than any other weapon system. You have to apply proper tactics when you expect to encounter them.

[Alchenar]

So again, the problem is not that helicopters get their licks in, it's that they get a forward airbase that exists in a quantum cloud floating 1.5km around the top level HQ which isn't counterable in any way and gives them in practical terms 100% persistence on the forward battle area.

I think unless there's good reasons for an exception it should be standard practice for gunships to have a withdraw timer attached to them in scenarios where they are present.

[CapnDarwin]

A couple of changes will temper that effect of "helo persistence" a bit in 2.1. First off we plan to add a FARP marker to scenario building. This will be a fixed location item when used and will help with the short ranged HiHQ "FARP" used now. This location can also be found and taken out (assuming we figure out some fancy way of accounting for equipment to be lost). If no FARP is used then we will look at having helos "go off map" to a FARP/Base to reload. We will also look at upping the turn around time a bit for both helos and aircraft. Even with all that helos will be in the battlespace and could be in good numbers. Heck, it's quite possible for 2 Hellfire equipped AH-64s with a scout to take out a motorized or tank regiment in a matter of minutes. Same could be said for a flight of Hinds. It's a deadly battlefield out there.[8D]

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Heck, it's quite possible for 2 Hellfire equipped AH-64s with a scout to take out a motorized or tank regiment in a matter of minutes. Same could be said for a flight of Hinds. It's a deadly battlefield out there.[8D]

Well, maybe if they are demoralized Iraqi army in 1991

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13 ... er,00.html

Entire concept of helicopter operations in battle is undermined by their extreme vulnerability to ground fire.

The harsh reality is that today the helicopter is a terrible choice of troop transport or firepower against any competent or well-equipped force - of any size.

The only major battle in the Iraq war centered on U.S. attack helicopters ended in mission failure.

The results of that failed mission strongly suggest that the modern helicopter is a battlefield liability, versus such close air support aircraft as the A-10.

The final issue regarding helicopters on the battlefield comes down to an unpleasant premise. The United States may not always be conducting war with a third-world country. It is clear that any competent army armed with sophisticated anti-aircraft weaponry or aviation assets, will quickly drive our fleet of attack and reconnaissance helicopters from the sky, rendering them to a marginal role as a vehicle used for air evacuation and mop-up operations.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Heck, it's quite possible for 2 Hellfire equipped AH-64s with a scout to take out a motorized or tank regiment in a matter of minutes. Same could be said for a flight of Hinds. It's a deadly battlefield out there.[8D]

I am not a helo expert other than my tour in the 101st back in the day. Apaches are not THAT good, and Hinds certainly are not. The whole issue of Cobras and Apaches being able to accurately fire while at hover has to be contrasted with Hinds inability to do so; Hinds needed to make gun runs at targets to engage them and while doing so were vulnerable to fire. Stuff like this needs to be reconsidered for 2.1. I don't mind the level of abstraction in the game, but it still needs to be a little more realistic for the 1980s, not today. I'll defer to aviation experts, but my suggestion is to engage some for 2.1 and take a hard look at improving things and clarifying it all for us. Fair enough?

Ditto for air-to-air between helos and CAS vs helos. Again, abstract is fine but let's ensure results are realistic. Things seem better now than the early versions and I look forward to MR's rebalancing tweaks, but I still question some of the details that I observe. Let's get the whole helo/CAS/ADA model adjusted to be as believable as possible?

[guderian68]

Just my opinion but I agree that the airmodel is good enough. In my first battles I thinked that helicopeters were too much strong, but by now they are only a bother to me.

What have to be correct in my opinion is the amno usage by land unit against helicopeters. Playing as soviet my best tactic is to send helicopert 5-10 minutes ahead of my land units so the american M1's shoots all their AP/HE and goes out of amno just when they meet my tanks. It does not seem a realistic tactic.

by

Paolo

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: guderian68

In my first battles I thinked that helicopeters were too much strong, but by now they are only a bother to me.

I disagree with this statement. They are too lethal IMO. One thing is the common perception of the helicopter effectiveness ( based on the Desert Storm results, movies and other computer games ) and another thing is the reality. A notion that 10 lightly armed German Bo-105's can destroy in 20 minutes an entire Soviet tank battalion is just completely unrealistic.

[Lowlaner2012]

I have just done some test with Hells crossroads scenario, I only moved the rapiers and hinds, after 2 hours trading shots at each other the rapiers had killed 4 hinds and the hinds had killed 1 rapier...

The key seems to be that the rapiers where in cover. When the hinds came into range...

I then done another test with the rapiers in the open and the rapiers where wiped out... so again cover is the key...

Also I tested the hinds against the scimiter recon tanks, again the recon tanks managed to kill about half the hinds and took around 50% casualties themselves, basically they gave as good as they got...

I am going to do a few tests with the USA, Red and German forces...

I'm not saying its perfect, I like the idea of a FARP and longer arming and resupply times for helos that may be in 2.1, but compared to earlier game versions where it was nigh on impossible to kill helos the air part of the game plays a lot better now...

[mb4329]

I think a significant issue with the article is that similar to the risks of basing ones assessment on the effectiveness of Russian armor by looking at the effectiveness of Iraqi armor; extrapolating the effectiveness of helicopters in Europe based on outcomes in Iraqi holds many of the same risks (as well as cherry picking an event and using that single data point to generate broad generalizations -- hardly good analytic tradecraft). As the author points out, in an environment with cover the helo is a much more effective weapon system. Certainly the abundance of cover in Europe, among other factors, would likely change the survivability of helos compared to Iraqi.

Like their tanks the US and the Soviet Union developed their helos for different missions and the TTPs each would employ are influenced by the limits of the their helos and doctrine. If FPC is meant to be more of simulation than a game, which I think it is - but that may be my personal bias, then accurately reflecting those difference should be (and does appear to be) the goal. Certainly, in RL helos have significant vulnerabilities. Having them impacted by fires that don't result in kills or damage makes sense and may already be captured by readiness levels, but also capturing the difference in system capabilities (as mentioned by pzgndr) and doctrine would help.

Merrick

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

I have just done some test with Hells crossroads scenario, I only moved the rapiers and hinds, after 2 hours trading shots at each other the rapiers had killed 4 hinds and the hinds had killed 1 rapier...

I think, that testing helos against the air defence is more tricky, than testing for example infantry against the tanks. First of all, in reality an AD system like Rapier, wouldn't be effective against the helicopters at all, in case they were flying below the altitude of 200-300 feet. My main complaint in regards to the helos, is their effectiveness in the attack and their resilience against the ground fire from a close range. Helicopters are effective if they attack ground units over an open terrain. But their effectiveness against enemy positions, concealed in an urban terrain or a forest, over an unknown and hostile territory, would be very low ( especially if we're talking about the Mi-24's, that are not equipped with any thermal imaging systems ). At the same time, they would be very vulnerable to the unguided AA systems, MANPADS and even small arms fire. In the game you can hover over the enemy units that occupy urban or forest hexes and the helos are quite safe, because this type of terrain blocks the LOS against the air units.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: mb4329
As the author points out, in an environment with cover the helo is a much more effective weapon system. Certainly the abundance of cover in Europe, among other factors, would likely change the survivability of helos compared to Iraqi.

Apaches were very effective during the First Gulf War and not so much during the invasion of 2003. I think that the main issue is not the flat terrain then, but the type of combat and the role assigned to the helicopters. They would be an effective anti tank asset when performing the CAS missions, especially in the defence. But offensive, "deep" missions over an enemy terrain are a completely different story. The helos performing them are vulnerable and their ability to spot the targets is limited. Unfortunately currently in the game the helicopters are very effective in both types of missions.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a435566.pdf

[Tazak]

Should we be building hindsight into a period game???

too explain - we need to separate attack helicopters from Anti-tank helicopters and we also need to separate nations approaches to helicopter usage in the time period.

attack helicopters - carry a variety of weapon systems designed to conduct offensive and defensive operations i.e. AH1, Apache, Hind
Anti-tank helicopters - carry a pure ATGM loadout designed for defensive operations i.e. Lynx, BO-105

National approaches
US - more aggressive style based on offensive operations experience in Vietnam
UK/WG - purely defensive weapon platform
Soviet - middle ground?? - can be used in defensive operations or offensive with shit tons of support (look up 'soviet descent tactics' or 'soviet vertical envelopment')

we now know that pure helicopter deep strike missions are doomed but during the time period the US view was that deep strikes by AH1 or apache were feasible (otherwise why would they have tried in 1991/2003), certainly the UK approach was purely defensive in that helicopters offered a quick reaction force that could be moved to an area to engage masses of red armour.

Should helicopters be more fragile to HMG (and upwards) calibre weapons yes, should they be easily spotted in wooded & rolling hilly terrain - no

[Lowlaner2012]

Unfortunately Tazak I think that its really hard not to bring hindsight into historical strategy games, I do it in ageods CW, I think well this general done this and lost so there is no way I am repeating the same mistake... sometimes its automatic...

Katukov, when the Rapiers engaged and destroyed some of the hinds they where at tree level which I assume is lower than 300 ft... try it for yourself, play by hotseat and test away

Tazak I managed to bring down quite a few hinds in my tests last night with the 30mm gun on the Scimitar recon tank...Im going to do some tests later with infantry in heavy cover, with smaller calibre weapons in very close combat v helos tonight... I honestly think the game simulates helo combat reasonably well...a lot better than in previous patches and I'm sure the OT guys will make it even better in future patches and dlc

P.S I did a quick test with apaches v 1 sa8 gecko unit and 1 Tunguska unit, they were both on a heavily wooded ridge, they managed to kill one apache and drive the other one off... I honestly feel like sometimes I am playing a totally different game to some of the people on the forums

[Tazak]

There's a difference to a player applying hindsight and having hindsight built into game, anyone who's taken a slight interest in military history and tactics and played a WW2 game applies hindsight without thinking about it. But that's different to trying to suggest a case for a AI not to do something that at the time was accepted but has since shown to be incorrect (hope that makes more sense).

Personally I think helicopters should be a touch more fragile IF their hit by anything larger than a HMG, beyond that I've got no issue with deep strikes by helicopters.

Has anyone tried experimenting with CAP aircraft, take any multi role aircraft - remove all the weapons (yes including guns) and give it 4x stingers to represent siderwinders (their similar enough other than range), haven't looked at soviet aircraft and AAMs yet but gives a close enough approximation to seeing 2 tornados swooping in on a flight on hinds

[CapnDarwin]

Tazak, you should be able to make a fighter with a gun and any SAM weapon system and it should be able to take down helos.