GHC Mordern Micro Armor rules questions

[RedDragon]

I generally agree with you Panzergator. However I am curious about the spotting Helos question, what about IR optics? Certainly if I picked up a Helo while in a Tank I would focus on popping smoke, hauling it away and finding better cover, engaging it would be a muuuuch lower order of priority and more of a last resort.

I enjoyed your Reforger Vulcan spotting story; it would seem WarPac doctrine incorporated more organic local air defense at much lower levels of organization.

I confess that prior to your earlier post I have never heard of, much less imagined the application of the Buratino MLRS for Air Defense! Do you have some source regarding this or is it just a desperate measure you came up with?

[panzergator]

RedDragon,

Welll... I can't cover all the circumstances, hence the "what scenario, which side, which tank, which helo..." I just wanted to illustrate the challenges of acquiring a helo target in combat.

If I were sitting fat, dumb, and happy in an M1A2, well-camouflaged and secure, in the defense, watching through my THERMAL sights in the dark night, and a Russian AT settled into a hover 4000 meters to my front intending to engage an adjacent unit, I would not hesitate. GUNNER! SABOT! HELO! FIRE!. Sabot because, at 4000 meters, it will fly straight and true all the way. I'm old. I don't know the range of a 120mm HE round, but I DO know they don't fly straight. Ballistics of their spin mean they are gonna hook.

On the other hand, if in the attack, bouncing off the sides of the cupola of that Cadillac of tanks, the M1A2, while the hull rocks left and right, turning one way while the turret turns the other and the cupola goes round, the main gun firing, trying to find anything threatening, giving fire commands to the crew, switching frequencies between platoon and company to direct the platoon and respond to the boss, calling for and shifting fires, keeping track of how many rounds my tanks have, keeping track of where I am in relation to the objective, reporting phase lines, am I gonna see a helicopter 3000 meters off, hiding just below the trees, lining up a shot? Doubt it. Even if I do, when I drop down into that three-dimensional confusion of motion to line up the sight, am I gonna be able to get the sights close enough to FIND that helo in the limited aperture I have with those sights?

Now, if I'm in an M60A2 (I used A2s), RACING cross-country at FIFTEEN MILES PER HOUR, getting beaten to death in the cupola, doing all of the above, even given a gun stabilized in azimuth and elevation, and I DO see a Hind making a strafing run on my platoon, what can I do? We have power cupolas with M85 50cals. The power cupola makes it easier to hip shoot, but the HIND is well-armored and the 50 won't do the trick unless we are VERY lucky.

By the way, I STILL hear the M-1 (and M60A2) lock on to a target. That is NOT TRUE. Stabilization makes it EASIER, but it's still difficult, for the gunner to adjust the lay of the gun to keep it on target, but the gun is NOT locked on the way an aircraft missile locks on.

Substitute an M60A2 for the M1A2 in paragraph 1, make it broad daylight, and I spot the helo at 3000 meters in daylight, broadside to me. What can I do? Max range of the 50cal is 1500 meters. Max range of my HEAT round (the only gun round I have) is 1500 meters. The missile will reach out to 3000 meters, but yeah, riiiiigggght... Gotta hope the Vulcans and Chaparrals are on the bounce.

I assume you are really talking about THERMAL sights, not IR sights. US tanks are equipped with the thermals.

M60A2s had daylight, infra-red, and passive. Our searchlights could be set for white or infra-red light. Two tanks would illuminate the target area while one tank would engage the target. The area had to be illuminated with the infra-red searchlight in order for our infra-red sight to work. Range was about 1000 meters. We could also use passive sights, a newer technology at the time. The passive sight used light "gathering" and amplification to give us the green image you often see on TV for "night sights." It could be washed out by bright light - headlights, gun flashes, or a flashlight. Searchlights disappeared from our tanks with the M60A3.

Thermal sights use technology to differentiate heat levels in the environment and "draw" a picture of what the sight "sees" in shades of green or black and white. 3-dimensional or depth perception can be difficult. Heat produced by vehicles and humans is easy to detect. In an earlier life, I user-tested the M-1 driver's thermal viewer.

The Burotino just seemed like a good idea, not a perfect solution, but if you can detect a flight of enemy AHs moving around, a fuel-air explosive in the right spot would mess up their day. Couldn't hurt. Gotta use what's available. As for it being doctrine, I have no idea, but I'm sure the Russians have thought of it. The ZSU23-4 was a fearsome weapon back then, as are the current Russian AD.

[panzergator]

For those interested, a brief foray into research tells me Buratino had an initial range of 3500m and a subsequent modification extended that to 4100m, which means it's pretty much a direct fire weapon. It travels with combat units. This means it could be coordinated with other air defense measures, such as radars mounted on other AD weapons. That range means it could be used to put up an AA wall for incoming AT helos. It would be even better if it could be linked to other ADA weapons for coordinated effort. It might even be made to work against incoming AT missile salvos. Maybe someone could write some supplemental rules or guidance. Clearly it offers an expanded dimension.

You can see the reasoning behind the BMP-T, with its 30mm cannon and multi-purpose missiles

I am upgrading my divisional ADA bn from Vulcan and Chaparral to Avenger and will consider adding some unofficial Buratinos, maybe two batteries of 8 each.

It's time to restore the two-battalion attack helicopter brigade and develop an AH killer helicopter.

[Cav Dog]

Having spent years in the cockpit as a scout pilot in air Cav and attack helicopter units, I can share some thoughts from the other side of this discussion.

Yes, helos, especially Cobras are very difficult to detect head on and if we are doing our job correctly, we'll be to the observer's flank at 3000m+ making acquisition even more difficult especially if you are moving laterally to our firing positions. Once we start deploying missiles or rockets, acquisition become easier as the firing signature is fairly obvious, more so with rockets than TOW.

If we are in Apaches you'll never see us, since we will be firing Hellfires from cover 5 km or more away with either ground or aero scouts designating targets. And in the modern era, potentially drones as well.

The Sovs had a pretty good countermeasure to Cobras in the ZSU assuming we were in range, but we were trained to kill those first, and when working with ground Cav units, so were they. They were also a priority target for any supporting arty.

We weren't too worried about turret mounted AAMG because they didn't have the effective range to target us, but getting jumped by MI-24s while engaging ground targets was always a concern, hence the reason the Army put Stingers on the scouts. The shoulder fired SAMs weren't much of a threat either because in the NOE flight envelope, they won't stay locked on. Different story 100' higher though as our Soviet comrades learned in Afghanistan.

The Buratino and other rocket artillery systems could force us out of our firing positions but helos can vacate an impact area pretty quickly, especially if the scouts can see it coming, which is fairly easy if being engaged by rockets.

We can argue the accuracy of the weapons interactions at the National Training Centers all day but based on my 14 rotations there, the biggest killer of helos was tank main gun rounds, followed by the 30mm on BMP-2, with the occasional SA-14.

In WW Persian Gulf 1, the only thing that engaged our Cobras were friendly A-10s but fortunately for my buddy Dan, Dan the Snake Man, the A-10 pilot was a rotten shot. Unless you count the time my other buddy Wild Bill shot a hole in his own chin bubble with his 9mm but that is a story for another thread. But it does highlight that Mohammed underneath you with an AK is your biggest threat, as an Apache company learned in WW Gulf War II, the Sequel, when they got shot up deploying into firing positions over an Iraqi infantry company one night. Forgot to look down I guess, which was the first thing my Vietnam Nam era instructors taught me. Fortunately Apaches can take a fair amount of damage due to redundancy, and the crew is pretty well protected by cockpit and body armor. Several were put out of action and aborted the mission.

[panzergator]

Cav Dog,

Thanks for the info. I'm surprised about the tank main gun. It just doesn't seem to me to be a quick enough method of engagement, but I never went to NTC, and it probably depends on circumstances.

Appreciate the thoughts on Buratino, as well. It WAS justa WAG.

[dougeagle]

Interesting stuff guys

[Cav Dog]

Yeah the main gun hits threw me too, but they either use gun cameras to video their shots or the ops center picks up the telemetry and displays it on the electronic map. It's hard to argue in the AAR when they have pictures. Invariably, it is a tank that is part of a recon patrol or the flank guard operating undetected within 1500m of our firing positions. Apparently, it is pretty hard to miss a flank shot at a helicopter hovering in place for 20-30 seconds.

If the OPFOR guys at Irwin could figure that out, I'm certain the bad guys would too.

But the OPFPR there is really good. A visiting Russian general once remarked "You know our tactics better than we do!"

[panzergator]

CavDog,

The Russians have been known to say interesting things. I heard once that after the '73 war, a Russian officer in the peacekeeping force drily remarked to his US counterpart "Next time, you have to take the Egyptians and WE get the Israelis."

Yes, those guys in the '80s really set it up right out there at NTC. I can only hope the tradition continues. I heard things fell off in the '90s, but I'm so far out of the loop, I have no way of knowing for sure. One thing in our favor was our OPFOR got more practice than their guys.

AND WE have NCOs.

[Waddell]

Panzergator's comments set me to thinking about how helicopters are used. He's entirely correct about how their use has changed but some, particularly the UH-60's will still have to fly into harm's way if only to fetch casualties.

However, based on his comments I had a look at the various ratings of the weapons and how they apply. Applying the tech level difference is likely to move the CRT one or more columns to the left depending on who is fighting who. Add in the effects of range and your 2d6 will have 1, 2, or 3 added to it. Now the real meat of this issue. There is no helicopter that has a defense rating of less than about 7. Let's put an AH-64 at 3000 meters from a group of T-90's. All of the T-90's fire a pot shot at the AH-64. Each shoots at 0 difference if I remember the T-90 properly. There's a 1 level difference in the tech level so you slide on column to the left, making the attack on the -1 column. It's at 3,000 meters (30") so you get a +1 to the die roll. The absolute best result you can get is an S result. Helicopters ignore S results so there is no effect.

Basically, you can shoot at the helicopter as much as you want with non-AA units but all you're going to do is waste shots and generally annoy yourself so why bother. That seems to answer the question as to whether or not tanks can shoot at helicopters. They can but who wants to bother?

[RedLeif]

Doug Eagle and Wadel are on the right track here. Helicopter stands may be attacked by tanks, AA Guns, APC/IFV’s, Infantry, etc. per the rules using the attackers HE value.

I would remind readers of this post that the units or stands of playing piece in the game represent platoons or sections of combatants. So a tank stand is 3 to 5 tanks and a Helo stand is 2 to 4 helicopters.

Personally I think tank/AFV and maybe APC/IFV stands should only be able to attack ‘Cruising’ Helo stands at 2â€￾ or greater range as their guns generally can not elevate to fire at targets overhead/high elevation. However as I understand it for some modern IFVs this is not an issue. This is a personal experimental rule. The problem is that the helicopter units altitude is not defined by the ‘cruising’ posture. It could be flying 1000m up or 50m up and both would be in ‘Cruising‘ posture. A ‘grounded’ and ‘NOE’ Helo stand is fair game at any range as they are basically on the ground.

We could add a fourth altitude/posture called ‘High’ in which only AA Guns and SAM’s could target the Helicopter stand as the bird would be 500m or higher and not engaging ground targets but rather just flying along a course. In this posture the Helicopter stand may not attack ground units. But this too is experimental and I’m not sure it adds anything to the game.

Another experimental rule in the tank vs helicopter issue is the 12.7mm and 14.5mm HMG’s mounted on some tanks. If the helicopter is too close these ‘secondary’ weapons could be used. In the AA role these HMG’s have a range of 5â€￾ and an HE value of 4 and 5 respectively. They may fire at helicopters within 2â€￾ and even ‘directly up’ if the helicopter flies over the firing stand.

Just thought I’d throw in my 2 cents.
Red Leif

[dougeagle]

Panzergator's comments set me to thinking about how helicopters are used. He's entirely correct about how their use has changed but some, particularly the UH-60's will still have to fly into harm's way if only to fetch casualties.

However, based on his comments I had a look at the various ratings of the weapons and how they apply. Applying the tech level difference is likely to move the CRT one or more columns to the left depending on who is fighting who. Add in the effects of range and your 2d6 will have 1, 2, or 3 added to it. Now the real meat of this issue. There is no helicopter that has a defense rating of less than about 7. Let's put an AH-64 at 3000 meters from a group of T-90's. All of the T-90's fire a pot shot at the AH-64. Each shoots at 0 difference if I remember the T-90 properly. There's a 1 level difference in the tech level so you slide on column to the left, making the attack on the -1 column. It's at 3,000 meters (30") so you get a +1 to the die roll. The absolute best result you can get is an S result. Helicopters ignore S results so there is no effect.

Basically, you can shoot at the helicopter as much as you want with non-AA units but all you're going to do is waste shots and generally annoy yourself so why bother. That seems to answer the question as to whether or not tanks can shoot at helicopters. They can but who wants to bother?

Very true.
But can't forget the Cohesion roll first. Unless that tank stand got orders from the GHQ stand to fire at the helo's. Otherwise it may never even happen.

RedLeif- weren't there a newer updated version of the Modern Rules coming out?

All good stuff guys

[jimklein1966]

Thanks all. This has been really interesting even if most wasnt rules related.
The general consensus then, within the rules, is that non AA weapons (aside from infantry) cannot fire at helicopters?

[jimklein1966]

Thanks all. This has been really interesting even if most wasnt rules related.
The general consensus then, within the rules, is that non AA weapons (aside from infantry) cannot fire at helicopters?

[dougeagle]

Thanks all. This has been really interesting even if most wasnt rules related.
The general consensus then, within the rules, is that non AA weapons (aside from infantry) cannot fire at helicopters?

Yes they can. But you will have modifiers against you on the roll when doing so.

Waddell did do a quick example, stated earlier.

If your still unsure about understanding how this works, fire away with questions.

[jimklein1966]

The mention of a unit requiring an order from a GHQ to fire on a helicopter threw me off. Stands do not require an order to fire do they?