Helicopter Modern rules question

[Hans Fitting]

Maybe somebody can tell me if I'm doing something wrong, or I missed a paragraph somewhere. I'm getting my clock cleaned by AH 64 Longbows and I don't see any AAA or SAMS that can hurt them. Am I missing something obvious?
(And does this make any sense? It's been a looong day at work, full moon and all....)

[kgpanzer]

the longbow AH64 is a marvel of military machines.....can SAMs hurt them yes....however most combat the longbows has been up against is 3rd world targets not main line russian etc. the russian equipment used by 3rd world counties is not the same as what the russians use

Cheers
Anthony

[microgeorge]

Try using SA-2s or SA-3s. I-Hawks would work pretty well too. despite the tech level
disadvantage. Don't throw 1 or 2 up against them. Use a lot because you'll have a lot of "no results". Or use a bunch of Tunguskas ( TL3 OR 4 - I forget) There is always a way to bring something down. Just find the right hammer. Remember, those Apaches (especially the Longbows) cost a lot of points. You can buy a lot of low-tech but powerful SAMs to knock them down or neutralize them. Good luck and happy hunting!

[jb]

the longbow AH64 is a marvel of military machines.....can SAMs hurt them yes....however most combat the longbows has been up against is 3rd world targets not main line russian etc. the russian equipment used by 3rd world counties is not the same as what the russians use

Cheers
Anthony

...and in 2003 Invasion, it was very disconcerning seeing the damage that that 3rd world AAA was doing to our Apache units!

[kgpanzer]

John yet it was...I agree.

[skypig53]

Attack helicopters are only as tough as you let them be. Take away there ability to use thier advanced technology and they are no better than a fat slow transport. Their greatest ability is to be able to see you while you can't see (or hear) them. They will use terrain masking to get into postion and expose themselves to danger only long enough to acquire and destroy you. Use terrain (urban terrain if the scenario allows) to block their long range line of sight, make them come to you and they will be out of their element. Then you hit them from multiple sights simultaneously. Now Longbows are definately tough and I would almost say that they're almost unfair when used on the battlefield in a scenario but you can limit their effectiveness. Also, if going up against an opponent that I know will field longbows, I would be very careful about the terrain to be used before agreeing. If someone asked me to be Iraqi and duke it out in wide open desert terrain I would tell them to pack sand, it would be a turkey shoot. Give me some buildings and lots of rough terrain with nooks and crannies I might consider. Give me city to hide in and I will destroy them. Just look at current events. "Super Advanced" aircraft being shot down with gen II Manpads and cold war RPG's.

[Timothy OConnor]

I agree with SkyPig. In a recent game (home grown rules) the mere presence of Apache Longbows forced enemy AFVs to limit their maneuver to the city. But when the Apaches maneuvered to get closer and gain LOS on the AFVs they were shot down by AA autocannon fire.

Sometimes the mere presence of a weapon system can limit an opponent's tactics without engaging while actually engaging can then negate that advantage.

[SSgtBuck]

I am very curious just how effective attack helicopters would have been in a high intensity warfare enviroment such as would have been present had there been a large scale land battle in Europe. Personally I think they would have been shot down in large numbers.
Anyone have any stats on how Soviet Mi-24s faired against the mujahedeen in Afghanistan?

[Timothy OConnor]

A couple of books that I've read about the Soviets in Afghanistan indicate that not many helicopters were shot down BUT (and this is a very big but) that's because muj tactics forced changes in Soviet tactics to avoid helicopter losses. For example the introduction of Stinger missiles didn't mean the Soviet helictopter fleet was destroyed but it could no longer operate in an effective manner to support tactical operations for fear of the missile (eg by providing close air support or landings in hot LZs).

Three very good books on the subject are:

"The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan"

"Afghan Guerrilla Warfare: In the Words of the Mujahideen Fighters"

"The Soviet Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost"

Another book is "The Other Side of the Mountain" which is a companion piece to "The Bear Went Over the Mountain" and covers the Afghan perspective. This one is very tough to find and darn expensive when you can.

All are written or edited by Lester W. Grau (most of this material is translated from original Russian and Afghan sources and Grau provides a running commentary)

I would agree that on a conventional battlefield helictopters would be toast against a well run air defense system, especially in light of US losses in Vietnam and Iraq and Soviet losses in Afghanistan. In all cases ill-equipped insurgent forces managed to either down large numbers of helicopters (Vietnam) or force significant changes in helicopter operations to avoid such losses (Iraq and Afghanistan).

There are also some interesting anecdotes about helicopters (especially the AH-64) in "Not a Good Day to Die". Based on that account and recent news accounts from Iraq one realizes that the "armor" on helicopters such as the AH-64 serves mostly to delay the inevitable and simply forces the enemy to apply more firepower to force the chopper down thus taking it out of battle.

At the end of the day there are so many delicate bits on a helicopter that if you shoot enough 7.62, 14.5, and RPGs at the thing you're going to get lucky. One also realizes that even though such "casualties" are often non-fatal the helicopter is still taken out of that particular fight for the day and represents an enormous running repair cost at the strategic level.

This Satuday our club is playing a more conventional battle with a Stryker battalion backed by M1s and Apaches going up against Type 98 MBTs, a WZ-551 mech infantry battalion, and Tunguska air defense AFVs. The interaction between the Apaches vs the Tunguska and shoulder launched SAMs will be interesting!

Tim

[av8rmongo]

Tim,
How do you provide Apaches with the desired maneuver room? In a "more conventional fight" they are (or at least were) by doctrine another maneuver element designed to find and fix the enemy in their own right not just serve as support units the way Cobras are and Huey gunships before them. What would be an interesting fight to me would be an Apache troop (or whatever the company sized equivalent would be) with some OH-58 support given some maneuver room trying to take apart the Type 98's, WZ-551's etc. Fight the way they were meant to fight.

Paul

[Timothy OConnor]

Paul,

You've hit the nail on the head when it comes to maneuver space! It's a very tough issue and getting it resolved requires either a very large ground scale, or a very large table, or a willingness to compromise the helicopter/SAM game while focusing elsewhere.

I've been playing with my ground scale to optimize my home grown rules for a 4'x 6' table. This seems to be the most common table size for most gamers. At my current ground scale (yes, I'm always tinkering...) of 400m per square a 4' x 6' table is 4800m x 7200m (each square is 4" x 4"). This is essentially the same as most other modern rules which use a scale of 1" = 100m.

At 400m per square typical rifle platoons with a mix of rifles, SAWs, and GPMGs can engage in "point fire" out to 1 square and "area fire" out to 3 squares (each stand is roughly a platoon of 2-4 squads or 20-40 men). Area fire won't kill much but at least it might pin or suppress enemy troops, especially in the open. Against infantry in buildings such area fire won't kill but still has a hope of keeping their heads down or forcing them to withdraw.

At the upper end of the spectrum battalion-level 120mm mortars fire 18 squares or about 7200m (the length of the 6' table).

So, the lower end of the scale provides for at least some detail for platoon/company tactics while the upper end scopes heavy battalion-level weapons such as heavy mortars to the length of the table. Everything else fits in between. For example the M1 tank has an effective range of 4,000m or about 10 squares. Finding and hitting hidden targets at such a range is another matter so even for MBTs usual engagement ranges are closer to 2-5 squares or about 800m-2000m.

The result is that when playing on a 4 x 6 table there's plenty of room for interesting maneuver and fire with platoon, company, and battalion-level weapons, especially since terrain usually limits LOS to just a few squares (unless in a perfectly flat and open desert!).

For long range weapons such as hellfires and most SAMs play is unfortunately relegated to the long axis of the table. Many of these weapons have a range of 6000 to 8000m or about 15 to 20 squares, or about the total length of the table. So the chopper vs SAM game is mostly about finding a stand-off range or using terrain to maneuver along the long axis while at NOE. In other words, if the choppers want to hit enemy tanks while avoiding SAMs and operating within the SAM's range, they need to stay low and out of the SAM's LOS. The SAMs need to find a position which will cover the tanks but also limit their exposure to enemy tanks.

An interesting tabletop tactical problem but not as satisfying as what a huge table or ground scale would allow, but for me that's ok since my focus is on mech infantry with tanks, helicopters, and arty in a supporting role. Thus the game scale relative to table size and unit speed is optimized for mech infantry weapons such as platoon and company level weapons, autocannons, APCs, IFVs, etc. Given my scale such weapons have a truly effective range of about 1-3 squares (2-5 for MBT main guns) so there's lots of room on a 12 square x 18 square table (4' x 6') and still get a game finished in a few hours.

On a 6 x 8 table one can get into helicopter flanking maneuvers since it's possible to maneuver outside the SAM's range. Even then the enemy might spread their AD AFVs across the table to cover every approach. At the end of the day it all becomes a matter of priorities, focus, and compromise. If one reduces typical SAM and AH weapon ranges to fit on the typical table one must severly limit the level of granularity of tyical mech infantry weapons. I'm probably pushing in that direction but I want to be careful and not destroy all contrast between various platoon and company level mech infantry weapons.

hope that makes sense!

Tim

[av8rmongo]

Tim,

I get your point about granularity and where you want to expend your effort. One of the weaknesses of all modern rules that I've seen (although not an exhaustive list) is that they tend to treat soldier- airman interaction too casually because that's not where the focus is. Radars, SAMs and AAA tend to become death rays - if LOS exists for even a second a shot is fired and has a chance to kill. In real life it doesn't work that way. Even if a crew is alerted to the presence of aircraft, it takes a finite amount of time to acquire, track and engage a target. And even after the trigger is pulled it takes a finite amount of time for the missile or rounds to get down range. If an aircraft is being stupid then it deserves to get shot down but helicopters using the proper pop-up and shoot and scoot techniques are not likely to expose themselves long enough to be engaged. That's why mast mounted radars and sights were developed.

That statement assumes that we're talikng about modern AH-64 type attack helicopters with radar warning receivers or anything operating in hunter killer groups with OH-58 type helicopters that also have threat receivers. It also assumes the threat is radar guided or at least radar cued. MANPADS are something else entirely - portable, concealable and nothing to alert the aircraft its been targeted. I think it just takes too much to write that intelligently into a set of rules and still have it playable and fun.

Paul

[Timothy OConnor]

Radars, SAMs and AAA tend to become death rays - if LOS exists for even a second a shot is fired and has a chance to kill. In real life it doesn't work that way.

Fully agree Paul. That even happens with fire from ground systems in wargames too. I call this "extremes of opfire". With traditional opfire a target is toast even if only visible for a brief moment and even if 2000m away. It's as if the weapon is linked to a sensor which automatically locates a taregt, aims, and fires on a hair trigger. Maybe robots can do that, but not humans, even with top notch fire control.

At the other end are game systems such as FOW and WH40H which allow one to move and shoot at a stationary defender while he waits politely.

Neither extreme makes sense to me.

I've settled on a middle ground which eschews traditional real-time interuppt opfire (which slows down game play too much and is too responsive) for an overwatch mechanic which allows a stationary defender to get the drop on an advancing enemy but which also requires the defender to make a deliberate decision to take the time to setup appropriately. It also prevent robotic snap-shots at impossibly fleeting targets and allows for the possibility that a target may escape while the defender is moving into position.

[kgpanzer]

depending on the scale of the game....I do not normally allow direct fire either from tank on tank or helos on armor simply no street is street and open unless you have a major highway going through the middle of it...like we do in our town however anything off the highway is hidden....I normally allow a 1-3 inch range on ATGM in towns the same for armor to reflect buildings and curved streets

this also takes into account that Helos have to be careful and move slow because there blades will hit the building sides...wires etc.

Cheers
Anthony