Sidearm cannot even kill a gepard

[lcabc888]

HI, I just learned how to use the Sidearm today. But I'm encountering a problem, that my Sidearm hits DIRECTLY to the Gepard, but its not killed.Did I forgot to turn on some fuze things?

Track:Sidearm.trk

[statrekmike]

So there are two different issues at play here. The first is that anti-radiation missiles in DCS don't really go straight for the radar emitter but instead the unit itself. For example. If you launch a Sidearm at a Shilka, the missile will hit the vehicle in general and not the radar emitter specifically. This leads us to the next issue. The vehicle damage models in DCS are not detailed so if a missile doesn't kill it, the vehicle will still function. The Sidearm is a tiny missile and isn't really designed to kill armored targets. 

 

  To put it bluntly, it was a failed weapon in real life because of its lack of range and it is a failed weapon in DCS for the lack of range and the simplified vehicle damage models. 

[Wisky]

i have no problems destroying Tunguskas and SA-11 with it.

 

But please dont get a wrong impression of the Sidearm. This missile is not meant for doing DEAD or SEAD. Its for self defence. You get spiked, you point the targeting carrot of the agm122 towards the emission, check distance, fire your two missiles if in range, turn around and hit the deck. If good luck the threat might be gone, if not you stay low.

 

A Gepard is rather though and has a very short range, you wouldnt want to use your sidearm for that if your doing DEAD, thats 1: not cost efficient and 2: a waste of a precious self defense weapon.

for stuff like this you use a mk82 that comes at the cost of 1% of a sidearm

Edited January 20, 2021 by Wisky

[Dragon1-1]

Well, the Gepard is an armored vehicle. Sidearm is basically a Sidewinder with a different seeker. It has the same issues as it has IRL: lack of range and paltry explosive power. In DCS, it can't even damage the radar, because damage modeling is not that detailed, and it wouldn't have been able to actually destroy the vehicle, which could then hit you using the optical tracker.

 

It might work on things like Shilkas, but Gepard is called a "flak tank" in German for a reason. It's one of the tougher AA systems in DCS.

[TLTeo]

And to add to the "The Sidearm is a Sidewinder with a different seeker", I would add "and a Sidewinder is at its core a guided 5 inch rocket". Taking out an armored vehicle with one is optimistic at best.

[WinterH]

Isn't Gepard based on Leopard I chassis? Sidearm is based on early Sidewinder variants as far as I know, and those had fairly weak warheads compared to later ones. Their warhead is geared more for fragmentation against light targets, like originally planes, and in this case soft skin vehicles/their radar sets.

 

For that Gepard, I'd say switch to a Maverick or LGB

[Dragon1-1]

Yeah, at that point it was quite literally little more than a heat-seeking (or in case of Sidearm, radar-seeking) Zuni with a frag warhead. It's not gonna hurt a Leo I very much, which the Gepard is based on. An actual Zuni with a HEAT warhead could (on a direct hit), but good luck getting close enough to hit it with one.

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, TLTeo said:

And to add to the "The Sidearm is a Sidewinder with a different seeker", I would add "and a Sidewinder is at its core a guided 5 inch rocket". Taking out an armored vehicle with one is optimistic at best.

 

5" rocket would be deadly. 

Even a 2.75" rocket with HEAT warhead has 350-400 mm penetration capability. It is comparable to a M72 LAW rocket launcher.

 

But sidewinder doesn't have HEAT penetrator but fragmentation warhead. So direct hit is nor as effective as exploding with proximity fuze from the side. As fragments fly away from missile axis.

 

But small warhead, small fragments and it didn't so much damage to radar vehicles as it exploded often too far from the dish that was front of the warhead.

 

 

[Hodo]

The only issue I have with the sidearm damage is it doesn't take into account equipment damage to the vehicle.   It may not kill the vehicle but it will disable it's radar and possibly the optics and guns.  

 

 

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, WinterH said:

Isn't Gepard based on Leopard I chassis? Sidearm is based on early Sidewinder variants as far as I know, and those had fairly weak warheads compared to later ones. Their warhead is geared more for fragmentation against light targets, like originally planes, and in this case soft skin vehicles/their radar sets.

 

For that Gepard, I'd say switch to a Maverick or LGB

 

Leopard 1 is by classification a MBT. But it was very weak. The doctrinal design was same as French AMX-30 idea, a low armor, accurate fast firing gun and high mobility.

 

The armor in Leopard 1 is around 70 mm thick at front, 55-65 mm in tower, at sides about 40 mm.

Compare that to the T-55 that has 100 mm at front, 80mm at sides and 135-140 mm at the tower etc. And that doesn't even include the innovations in turret shape designs to increase angles and generate highly ricochetting shapes. 

 

And yet T-55 was very mobile, as accurate and even more effective by it's 100 mm cannon (compared to 105 mm of leopard) by it calibers than Leopard 1 etc were. 

 

But comparing what Soviets had at their ZSU-23-4 and Strela-10 etc systems chassis, the sidewinder was capable, but not great.

 

A Sidewinder fragmentation head was not as effective as bomb fragments or even rocket direct hit.

 

But you do not need to destroy the chassis. The SAM systems are very vulnerable as their critical components are outside of the armor.

Crew, engine and extra ammunition are protected but radar, missiles etc aren't.

And you don't need much to damage a missile storage units or radar, optical sights, radios etc.

 

The problem was more of the fuze than couple kilograms warhead and fragments. 

 

Now put the sidewinder on a "Dog Ears" or "Fang Song" radars and they are done.

But to get at such range, it is suicide as you need to penetrate their SAM defense to reach launch range.

 

The mavericks doesn't have much better change as their should have a range either. In DCS their ranges are laughable long ones as their seekers shouldn't lock on at all such ranges and even in such scenarios.

In DCS you get solid lock at 6-8 nmi (12-15 km), while public documented tests are about 3-5 km at best with AGM-65D and more like 1.5-2 km for tank size target.

If we would talk about latest K and H variants based to B and D) with new EO seekers using CCD instead TV as original A and B, there would be better range than 5 km.

 

So best bet? LGB and even that is unlikely as you need to fly through a SAM defense at high altitude before you get to drop the bomb even.

 

Why AGM-154, JDAM and such exists with preset coordinates by intelligence and your job is to just get to release at max ranges and hope that bombs gets there and doesn't get destroyed.

 

Everything is possible in DCS kind missions where it is individual SAM launcher/radar but proper SAM network makes those things more of a lucky hits unless really saturating sites.

9 minutes ago, Hodo said:

The only issue I have with the sidearm damage is it doesn't take into account equipment damage to the vehicle.   It may not kill the vehicle but it will disable it's radar and possibly the optics and guns.  

 

And hopefully we get that thing fixed this year.

 

A lot of weapons would become more effective. The 250 kg bomb would be far more powerful as you don't require direct or near hit, a sub ammunition weapons becomes completely different, rockets becomes useful as area of effect weapons etc.

 

But same time SAM systems and AAA becomes as well more deadly, especially AAA if it gets proper engagement logics like currently missing barrage and prediction firing modes. So no more easy straight flying at the target or predictive maneuvering as you likely fly to shells and die. So low altitude penetration missions.

 

Harrier start to use L-L-L attacks and Viggen becomes critical by its low penetration capability at high speed etc.