"Did the cold war rules get Manpads wrong?" Topic

When we wrote Maneouver group in 2008 we finally admitted we got Aerial vehicles wrong. Even the Helicopter in our set which allowed vehicles to briefly appear looked a bit suspect. Even by the 80's Anti aircraft weapons were looking very powerfull. The S300 though not in its current form was fully integrated by 1988. Thus games with Hinds flying over its own tanks look to be pure fantasy. The current Ukraine war mostly, fought with cold war equipment on both sides shows Helicopters to be far more fragile then anybody would have thought.

It would be interesting to know on what basis game designers decided it was realistic to put helicoptets on board very close to the protagonoists main force projection. Have we missed something? It looks like cold wat close in support would be much more limited. It would need massive pre planning multi platform SEAD missions which would be few and far between and may even have been beyong Russia even then and difficult for NATO

Perhaps it's because attack helicopters can't perform their role by lurking in the background like wallflowers at a dance?

You don't stick a 30mm chain gun on an Apache if you intend it to hover in the distance.

There's a reason militaries spend a lot of time and money training helicopter pilots NOE flying.

Seriously, the life of an attack helicopter on a modern symmetrical battlefield is recognised to be short, but I remember reading that one attack helicopter is capable of destroying materiel 15 times its own production cost before being destroyed itself.

My opponents seem to last forever while mine always get shot down when I play the Soviets in Team Yankee. Maybe Cold War dice just aren't as good as today's. ;)

"shows Helicopters to be far more fragile then anybody would have thought."

Maybe it's just Russian (or Russian made) helicopters and/or their tactics that need to be examined. My guess is that a battalion of AH-64s would do a lot of damage on the battlefield, especially working in conjunction with artillery and close air support. The one thing that this war is showing is that Western armies, particularly the U.S forces, benefit greatly from continuous training and participating in any number of exercises, which really seems to be lacking on both sides of the current war.

Helicopters are vulnerable to AAA – they are slow moving. Even if they are armoured like Apache and Hinds they can still get damaged which takes them out of the fight. However, they are lethal if they are given the chance. So some form of Air Defence Suppression is needed if you want the choppers to play a meaningful role. Take a look at the Battle of Najaf in 2003 Gulf War II – 32 Apaches were sent into the attack and the mission failed with one lost and all of the rest damaged to some extent. But this was a form of deep penetration strike and not a close air support mission. Two days later they tried again with artillery and air strike support and were far more successful

link

So I think the conclusion is, as in my opening statement. In specialized conditions with much planning with SEAD assets its a telling force but on the typical battlefield its not really a player and probably never was.

32 Apaches is hardly an ad hoc support arm and it was on a specialized mission.

That's not the conclusion at all. It's like reaching the conclusion that tanks are limited because they need infantry support.

The concept of combined arms seems to have passed you by. Ad hoc groups of anything don't do well on a modern battlefield, but a well co-ordinated all arms attack can be devastating. Attack helicopters are an essential element, they can recce, acquire and engage enemy vehicles that ground forces can't. Having your expensive tanks chewed up by a helicopter you didn't see coming can be a tad embarrassing.

There's not much of that happening in Ukraine though.

One thing I noticed from the Ukraine war footage is that after the first week or so, there are few if any large forces appearing. You see one or two choppers, maybe a handful of tanks, but where are the regimental or divisional assaults?

Maybe it is all a series of skirmishes, or maybe everyone's too busy to film when a big attack is going in, maybe the artillery means forces are more dispersed I don't know.

There's a reason militaries spend a lot of time and money training helicopter pilots NOE flying.

My son flew AH-64D's and later E models. He went to JRTC and their commander and CW-5 were experienced Cold Warriors and they flew NOE aggressively and wiped out a 'red' OPFOR quickly and often. The anti-air threat was simulated S-300 & S-400 systems but they were not invincible. I do not think their missions ever used more than 4 aircraft at a time. (except at NTC where their O-5 was an idiot).

At NTC a different commander didn't take the AAW threat seriously and they got wiped out.

At both JRTC and NTC they never had/trained with USAF SEAD assets.

Training and doctrine can overcome really serious threats but in the Ukraine, there may be simply too many MANPADS to operate effectively.

The obvious Russian solution would seem to be a small high altitude nuclear detonation resulting in a considerable EMP, rendering non-NBC-protected systems inoperable. An advance or assault using"obsolete" but NBC-protected armor would probably succeed tactically and psychologically.

For the last three hundred plus years, we have underestimated Russia's ability to absorb destruction, rebuild, and ultimately succeed in its defense or aims. Afghanistan would seem to be the exception….

Robert Johnson

Attack helicopters are an essential element, they can recce, acquire and engage enemy vehicles that ground forces can't.

Exactly helicopters have a very distinct role. However few if any war games I have seen cover recce, even we struggle the world of the FEBZ is too big to model on a tabletop.
Similarly we don't tend to fight where the protagonists ground forces can't effectively engage.

The point is Real world helicopters have a role, but that does not equate to the area where most war games are played, the point where the protagonists are within tank gun/ATGW range.

McKinstry,
I was talking to an American that's been in Ukraine as a MANPAD Specialist for the Ukrainian Special Forces and has shot down a Su-34 with a Stinger and has seen a few other crashes.

They have positions hidden throughout the countryside, mainly in the open so they have a good view and field of fire. He said the jets typically fly high enough to be safe from them.

After that Apache mission over enemy positions, they didn't try that again. The Russian 57mm rockets helicopters use have a range of 3-4km and there are many videos of the firing off a volley at an attack angle of 20 degrees and about 100 feet altitude which is basically indirect fire so they are not getting any closer than 4-5km from the enemy.

One thing I noticed from the Ukraine war footage is that after the first week or so, there are few if any large forces appearing.

As soon as either side consolidates vehicles for an attack they are spotted and hit by everything the enemy has available. This is one of the reasons that neither side can make an advance. There are not going to be large tank battles in the woods and not out in the open either until one side degrades their opponent's EW and indirect fire assets.

The Kharkiv offensive last month (a lightly wooded area with a typical engagement range of 50-75 yards) started with a strategic deception by the Ukrainian command that had the Russians pull many units out of the Kharkiv area to the Kherson area achieving an 8-1 advantage according to some reports. A Western volunteer unit that had been in that AO for 6 months had identified the forward Russian positions and their SigInt unit run by two US Marines confirmed that the HQ of Russian units had left.

To kick off the offensive, the Western units attacked on foot without radios at 2am and took the initial Russian trenches from behind without causalities. They took the bridge to Balakliya paving the way for the Ukrainian 94th Mech Brigade and 3rd Legion to exploit and overrun the Russian rear and artillery positions capturing a very large arsenal intact. There were no organized efforts to stop the vehicle's advance.

Then using civilian cars with Russian markings the Westerners harried the Russian retreating units and took over their checkpoints for the next 48 hours. All with small arms and rockets, no supporting artillery or vehicles. They eventually took Kupyansk and Izium and saw firsthand the atrocities committed by the Russians.

In the Kherson area, it appears the Ukrainian strategy is for the Russian pull out as they'd have to attack over mostly open ground.

Until one side or the other dominates the EW spectrum that will enable deep drone operations to visually identify targets there is probably not going to be a successful large-scale offensive. The Ukrainians are planning a big surprise to achieve that.

Wolfhag

the Western units attacked on foot without radios at 2am

I suspect that those kinds of innovative tactics are a big part of why the Ukrainians are doing well along with a major motivational difference.

The 2am success also seems to imply NVG's are both rare and not terribly good on Mr. Putin's side.

As to helicopters, some sources have claimed 25% of Russia's pre-war gunship fleet has been destroyed. I hope Ukraine can maintain enough MANPAD density to keep the Russians on the back foot.

"However few if any war games I have seen cover recce, even we struggle the world of the FEBZ is too big to model on a tabletop."

Except the likes of TY where recce troops are used as another sabre troop, by the time of most games recce will have been and gone, passed their information and been re-tasked. Occasionally I have had recce troops in my Gyros Teller games, but whizzing back to pass through their own lines turrets reversed!

Effective recce is best played as a pre game factor, influencing deployment etc.

The thing is as wargamers we have lots of toys we have spent time and money on and want to see them on the table!

Tally Ho!

nickinsomerset. That's the point recce is 10's of kilometers ahead of the Engagement Area. To model the whole of the FEBZ would need a table to represent maybe 30km. A standard table (6ft) is 1800mm long. So a ground scale of about 1mm would represent 17m. That would make my German tank about 870m long even with 1/144 scale vehicals and at 1/72 scale 1.7km long! In my opinion that is long past a plausible use of models. Even at 3mm (I assume about 1/576) a tank would be something over 200m long so fields would be typically 3 tank lengths long or less in parts of northern Europe: again pushing the credibility of using minatures. On that basis Helicopers over the Engaement area strays into fantsy. Nothing wrong with that, but perhaps such gemes would be better under a fantasy banner like GW games.

MANPADS are great, but have very limited range, and situational awareness is an issue too.

A lot of times aircraft and helos may get past or thru the engagement zone before the SAMs may be shouldered and brought to bear. Of course, if the helos re-attack, or pass thru the same are shortly after flying over the same area again, then they will be much more vulnerable.

Losses to AA fire and SAMs are usually much lower than presumptive kill rate %s would have you believe, and tens if not scores of them will need to be fired to bring down a single aircraft or helo.

That said, modern warfare is exceedingly deadly for ALL forces involved, so helos and jets are very vulnerable to them, since there frequently are so many fielded, especially at the sharp edge of the battle zone.

From what I have read… back in 80s when UK just had armed Lynx… and not many…no loitering or pop up. Hit from range and get out.
Apaches made a difference…. but pilots not stupid… usually!
Rockets or Chain guns… different tactics… but not much life expectancy, close in.
Astan / Iraq a bit different from ETO.

There is a very good book by UK Apache pilot in Astan. Sadly, cannot remember title… and 'lost' under a Pile of stuff.

By Ed Macy?

Here is an interesting video of a Ukrainian MANPAD gunner: YouTube link

Keep in mind, he's on the front lines under almost constant bombardment in Bakhmut. He describes aircraft basically using indirect fire with their rocket pods without going over enemy lines. Both sides may be cautious about flying over enemy territory at this time as it is too dangerous.

The Apache Longbow has a big advantage:
The AN/APG-78 Longbow is a millimeter-wave fire-control radar (FCR) target acquisition system and the Radar Frequency Interferometer (RFI), which are housed in a dome located above the main rotor. The radome's raised position enables target detection while the helicopter is behind obstacles (e.g. terrain, trees or buildings, like being Turret Down).

The APG-78 is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 128 targets and engaging up to 16 at once; an attack can be initiated within 30 seconds. A radio modem integrated with the sensor suite allows data to be shared with ground units and other Apaches, allowing them to fire on targets detected by a single helicopter. It has a range of 8km.

The updated AN/APG-78 radar for the AH-64E Guardian has overwater capabilities, potentially enabling naval strikes.

It's no wonder McKinstry's son was so successful. If you portrayed this in a game no one would want to play the Russian side.

Most Russian artillery is 6-8km behind their lines, too far for most quadcopter drones and suicide to fly through even at NOE.

Wolfhag