Attack Helicopters

Discuss Supreme Ruler 2020 here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Attack Helicopters

Post by Feltan »

A bit of discussion about real life and game play for attack helicopters. Just to set the stage, I am not including transport or ASW helicopters here.

So, I have noted over several dozen games of SR2010 that attack helicopters are really limited in their application -- that is if you don't want them destroyed by the boatload.

I use them to pick off "leakers," those pesky AI battalions that try to cut off your lead forces. And, as a secondary role, I use them in rear areas to take out guerillas and partisans that form behind the lines. Using them in these roles, I normaly keep one stack of 6 attack helicopters around for about 10 line brigades -- attack helicopters are not a big build initiative for me.

I have learned that you need to keep them away from the front lines. Generally, they will get whacked quickly if they are in the thick of things. And, they aren't all that effective against front line infantry/armor to begin with.

These findings, to the extent they are common among game players, is certainly at odds with how military planners see thier use in real life. Modern attack helicopters are envisioned as perhaps the #1 killer of armor on the modern battlefield -- not too different from how aircraft doomed submarines in WWII.

At least that is how they are envisioned. I am not so sure military thinkers have squared their vision against reality. Certainly, the US experience in Iraq is illustrative. There, attack helicopters have been "successful" but at a high damage rate. The equipment readiness rate has been very low due to small arms fire damage. Not a lot have been destroyed (as game experience would suggest), but they become mission non-operational much more quickly than planned.

As I think this through, I believe the damage profile in the game may be a tad bit too much, but not that far off given real life eperience. However, I do believe that attack helicopers should be able to inflict more damage against armor/hard targets. In a contest between one battalion of attack helicopters and one enemy armor battalion -- well, there is no contest, you would have burning hulks of tanks and some very happy aviators. Such isolated one-on-one encounters are, and should be rare -- but the lethality should be modelled even if they are fragile against air defenses.

Regards,
Feltan
ETA Five Minutes ......
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Attack Helicopters

Post by Balthagor »

Feltan wrote:...These findings, to the extent they are common among game players, is certainly at odds with how military planners see thier use in real life. Modern attack helicopters are envisioned as perhaps the #1 killer of armor on the modern battlefield...
IIRC this is only in areas with complete air superiority. Attack helos work well for the US who have overwhelming air power or for countries like South Africa who's neighbours have essentially no airforce.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Lightbringer
General
Posts: 2973
Joined: May 23 2006
Location: Texas

Post by Lightbringer »

While you have a valid point about air superiority Chris, Feltan does bring up a good point. I stopped building attack helicopters some while back...because they suck at their job, killing armored vehicles. If they actually did what they were designed to do, then I would accept high losses from AA or air attack. As it stands, a whole stack of them can attack a few units of mediocre mech infantry (all alone...no other unit involvement from either side) and not achieve diddly squat. High price+low effect= No thank you! (something about firing once or twice even in full supply areas and then finding a nice cornfield to park at and relax.)

P.S. Feltan, I find F/Bs do that "leak stopping" job much more cost effectively. Actually where airstrips are scarce, I use WS-1bs or other Uber ranged tube arty.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” -Winston Churchill
User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Post by Feltan »

Light,

Please don't cringe, but I play by certain "house" rules. If I am playing a major power, I won't build other nation's equipment. Of course you can, but I find things get too homogeneous if you do -- esentially you end up building the same units in a different geography. So, as the U.S., it is M280 MRLS for a long time.

With regard to your point about F/B's: yep, they work dandy for that. However, I was trying to find a legitimate mission for the attack helicopters. When you can gang them up on isolated units they are effective. That situation only happens in a few circumstances; one being combatting the leakers.

Regards,
Feltan
ETA Five Minutes ......
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

to be clear, I have no problem with increasing the fighting power of helos in such missions, I just don't want us to go too far or devalue fixed wing units. I too would like helos to have a bit more kick...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Lightbringer
General
Posts: 2973
Joined: May 23 2006
Location: Texas

Post by Lightbringer »

Feltan,

I agree with your house rule about native equipment for a major power. The thing is, I have been playing minor powers longer than I have been an "Arms Shopping Network" member. The last time I played the U.S. I hadn't really caught on to the method of buying techs from others. I tried to, but I had not discovered that all it took was a few extra billion to seal the deal. I have never actually played as Russia or China. I find the challenge of playing David much more rewarding than the thrill of Goliath's strength.

To get back on subject: I find that even average SP Arty with a range upgrade or two can form an effective loose net behind advancing lines. Yes, they get smashed now and then, but they also can cover gaps and deal out enough damage to discourage adventurous enemy units until something meatier can arrive.

As for Attack Helos, I suppose my comments were a bit harsher than they needed to be. They aren't helpless or toothless. I will stand by the concept that they are cost prohibitive compared to what they achieve. This comment is merely my opinion of them as a SR2010 unit. Whether the game capabilities are a realistic reflection of real performance or not, I usually find other ways to spend my military budget. I'll also admit that perhaps I misuse them.

(Edit: That is good to hear Chris...and don't worry, the Speed and range of Fixed Wing aircraft will always find them a spot on my team. :D)
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” -Winston Churchill
dust off
General
Posts: 1182
Joined: Sep 23 2003
Location: UK

Post by dust off »

Me too for what Felten said. Again setting waypoints would be useful to keep them away from built up areas where they should take more losses.
red
General
Posts: 1092
Joined: Feb 14 2004
Location: New York

Post by red »

I'm a fan of the rubberbanded group of twenty fighter/bomber squadrons. If you play the game hard like that, helos just could never possibly compare. Quickly shot up, in the best circumstances slowly duke it out one-on-one with their target and in most do this while also being exposed to everyone else in the vicinity--it's no good.

Not that I'm for a change. I've read about attack helos popping over German forests to snipe tanks and all this, but I'm skeptical; the only action they've ever seen has been against far weaker forces, and in this comparatively benign environment their survivability has been unimpressive. Their survivability in an environment where every unit has trained operators of actual guided missiles and sweeping fighters at their call--well, I wouldn't want to be a helo pilot.
Jan
Captain
Posts: 122
Joined: May 15 2007
Location: Belgium

Post by Jan »

don't take any offence guys, it's not my goal, but definitely should visit some forums and meet real expert.

Since i'm not a combat helo pilot, i won't speak for them but they definitely dserve more than what we actually have, combat helo are really more potent than what is usually said.

The following links should be a good start:

FM 1-112 ATTACK HELICOPTER OPERATIONS
Modeling Attack Helicopter Operations in Theater Level Simulations
http://www.3rd-wing.net/pipelettevolant ... onpag.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rotary.htm

by the way, i'm not saying that having a credible wargame in a grand strategy game is easy.

cheers,

Jan
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Jan wrote:...The following links should be a good start:...
I did a quick check of those links and found nothing I had not seen before. There are still no veteran helicopter pilots anywhere in the world that have flown in combat against an enemy with nearly equal fixed wing capabilites. As red mentioned, most "experts" on helicopter combat are using simulations or confilcts that had only some of the aspects that would be seen today. I suppose vietnam would be our closest real world example since Cobra's saw action there but the Vietnamise army did not have aircraft that were as good as what we have today with long range AA missiles. And I would bet that even a Mig-15 could take out a cobra with little trouble.

I had been looking into some of this in our later updates, if we had done a few more updates I might have started playing with the values again. One article I had found;
Which Attack Helicopter is the Most Deadly?
by Harold C. Hutchison
February 18, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic
Apache vs. Havoc vs. Hokum vs. Tiger. Which is the most deadly? Attack helicopters are fast moving, low flying and lethal combat aircraft. They are high-speed forces capable of delivering a heavy punch against armored vehicles – while not having to worry about impassable terrain. But which is the best attack helicopter in the world?

Contenders for this come primarily from the United States (AH-64 Apache) and Russia (the Mi-28 Havoc and the Ka-50/52 Hokum), and the Eurocopter Tiger from France and Germany. These helicopters are all lethal – they are capable of destroying anywhere form eight to 24 tanks in a single sortie – anywhere from 25 to 80 percent of a standard Russian tank battalion (31 tanks). They also can carry unguided rockets (usually 2.75-inch or 3.15-inch) for use against soft targets like trucks or infantry.

The Russians designed two top-rate attack helicopters. The Mi-28 Havoc is a direct successor to the famous Mi-24 Hind. The Havoc carries up to 16 AT-6 “Spiral” or 32 AT-9 “Vikhr” anti-tank missiles, up to four 20-round 3.15-inch rocket pods, or a mixture. It also has a powerful 30mm cannon, which is also used on the BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle. It can hit targets as far as 4 kilometers away. The Mi-28 has a top speed of 300 kilometers per hour, and a range of 460 kilometers.

The other Russian design is the Ka-50 Hokum. It also can carry 24 “Vikhr” missiles, four 20-round rocket pods, or a mixture. The Hokum also can carry the AA-11/R-73 Archer air-to-air missiles, which makes the Hokum a very capable threat against opposing attack helicopters. The 30mm 2A42 is also mounted on the Hokum, albeit more like a fighter’s cannon. The Hokum’s top speed is 350 kilometers per hour, and it has a combat radius of 250 kilometers.

The AH-64 Apache is slower that either of the Russian helicopters (296 kilometers per hour), but features more range (520 kilometers). It also only carries 16 Hellfire anti-tank missiles, 76 2.75-inch rockets, or a mixed load. It has a 30mm gun, but the M230 is not as powerful as the 2A42. That said, it holds more than twice as many rounds (1200) as the Ka-50’s mount (500), and nearly five times as many as the Mi-28’s (250). The Apache has been exported to the UK, Israel, Greece, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the Netherlands. It also has proven itself in Desert Storm, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Eurocopter has built the Tiger, which is a versatile helicopter for both observation and attack duties. It carries eight anti-tank missiles (Trigat, HOT, TOW, or Hellfire). One version has a 30mm cannon with 450 rounds. It has a top speed of 322 kilometers per hour and a range of 800 kilometers. It is in service with France, Germany, Spain, and Australia.

Which is the best of these? Judging by performance specifications, the Ka-50 is the best – barely edging out the Tiger. That said, the AH-64 Apache, however, has a combat record in four conflicts, and unlike either Russian helicopter, it has secured a wide variety of export orders. Only the Tiger comes close, but it lacks the firepower and the combat record of the Apache. The Apache is probably the most proven design of these, and has the fewest question marks regarding its weapons or electronics.
All the major conflicts that they list for the Apache are against a notably inferior opponent.

I still see it reasonable to review the attack values of helicopters and probably increase those values, but the defense values still seem to make sense.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Post by Draken »

Don't forget the soviet occupation of Afghanistan... The soviet did have air supremacy like the US in Vietnam and the enemy presented, mostly, soft targets... Of course, neither the NVA nor the VC deployed shoulder launched AA missiles like the mujahaddin did.

I don't use attack helis in SR2010 but it is mostly because they don't know how to use FARPs...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
Jan
Captain
Posts: 122
Joined: May 15 2007
Location: Belgium

Post by Jan »

you are trying to simulate the performance of combat helos in major symetrical engagement but you are refering to asymetrical conflicts.

hopefully, nobody knew a such conflict, so expert's simulations and their doctrine is the more reliable source.

you are only seeing figures versus figures, you are not taking in account the tactics and doctrine (what the links i posted are showing).

in the case of combat helos, they are not sitting ducks, they are using the terrain, they can hover, they are far more agile than any plane.

by the way, it' your game, not mine.

cheers,

Jan
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Post by Draken »

Jan wrote:you are trying to simulate the performance of combat helos in major symetrical engagement but you are refering to asymetrical conflicts.

hopefully, nobody knew a such conflict, so expert's simulations and their doctrine is the more reliable source.

you are only seeing figures versus figures, you are not taking in account the tactics and doctrine (what the links i posted are showing).

in the case of combat helos, they are not sitting ducks, they are using the terrain, they can hover, they are far more agile than any plane.

by the way, it' your game, not mine.

cheers,

Jan
Indeed they aren't sitting ducks and they have been proved effective in asymetrical conflicts... But those same conflicts have proved them not as invulnerable as the doctrines and simulations might show... I'm not talking about attack helis been shot down by the dozen but their readiness suffered a lot... And I can only think of this getting worse if they are fighting against an enemy with good AA defenses and without air superiority...

Unfortunately when it comes to SR2010 the readiness of an individual chopter is either 0% or 100% ...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
red
General
Posts: 1092
Joined: Feb 14 2004
Location: New York

Post by red »

Jan, our argument for their weakness is their actual performance, but your argument for their strength is doctrine. Theorists can come up with whatever crazy idea they want. Remember tank destroyers? Those fast, mobile, heavily-armed vehicles that would zip around using cover and speed as their armor and shoot up German tanks before they could shoot back? Yeah, complete failure. Theory is not a good basis for game values. :)
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

I also think their attack values need some love.

But id hold off on the defensive values for the moment.As with most games that include combat, a stronger offense acts as a surrogate defense.

IE the faster one unit kills another unit , the less attacks the enemy unit even gets on the attacker.

So id say, up the attack values for sure, and add the unit type to the long list of things to look at hard during beta as far as changes to its defense go.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - 2020”