Jump to content

Helicopters ruining gameplay SB


5 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Holy mother of god ... I'll explain it one last time ... And one last time only ...

 

It was more effective against High Flying Helicopters, against Ground hugging Helicopters the AIM-7 proved ineffective (or useless, whatever word you prefer) ... You have it black on white by the statement that the J-CATCH findings DON'T recommend it against low flying targets ... Is that so hard to understand ? 

 

I do understand but again: numbers. Also: not what I asked for. (Wich is my main point please read my text) I asked for something specific.... Because you responded to something specific. 

 

You do not decide what claim I asked evidence for. How is that a hard concept to grasp? 

 

 

5 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

If they don't recommend it against low flying targets, what do you think is more effective ? Ding ding, Guns and Missiles ... I really have absolutely no clue what's so hard to understand at this point.

 

Still not what I asked for. I was specific. 

 

5 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Wow, you're using Tactics from Fighter Pilots that used it in J-CATCH, I'm impressed ! Now I wonder who can fly lower, a Helicopter or a Plane :o)

 

Are you mentally challenged? Physically both. Do you know the intermediate value theorem? Because in flight altitude is continuous so if I can land and my altitude is 0 and I can reach 100m then I also reach every value in between. Therefore for both there exist an arbitrarily small epsilon > 0 that will always be reached. So technically... Both. 

 

5 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

And yes, I did provide numbers multiple times now ... If you can't read in context it's not my problem, sorry not sorry. 

 

 

Not for the specific problem I asked you for. You provided other stuff with numbers because you never got what I was asking. You still are beating around the bush. 

 

5 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

Yes, I denied it by saying the AIM-7 is not as effective as guns against low flying targets ... Is that true or not ?

 

Can't be certain there was no study of that spefic situation. How low is low? In this case. You would need something controlled. So without quantities... Not really something that can be answered. Wich is why I asked for evidence. 

 

5 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

If the official report says they do not recommend using the AIM-7 but instead go for the Sidewinder it's safe to say that it's not greatly reduced but plain and simple useless, once again, I'm trying to understand what is so hard to understand about that statement. 

 

Less effective than the sidewinder doesn't mean useless. At no point was there a test with a direct comparison to guns at different altitudes for both attackers and helis. How low where the Helis I j catch, why wasn't that low enough for the aim 7 to be worse than guns? 

 

Be specific! Numbers and controlled test is the only thing that can answer this... But you don't have those. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

I do understand but again: numbers. Also: not what I asked for. (Wich is my main point please read my text) I asked for something specific.... Because you responded to something specific. 

 

You do not decide what claim I asked evidence for. How is that a hard concept to grasp? 

 

 

 

Still not what I asked for. I was specific. 

 

 

Are you mentally challenged? Physically both. Do you know the intermediate value theorem? Because in flight altitude is continuous so if I can land and my altitude is 0 and I can reach 100m then I also reach every value in between. Therefore for both there exist an arbitrarily small epsilon > 0 that will always be reached. So technically... Both. 

 

 

Not for the specific problem I asked you for. You provided other stuff with numbers because you never got what I was asking. You still are beating around the bush. 

 

 

Can't be certain there was no study of that spefic situation. How low is low? In this case. You would need something controlled. So without quantities... Not really something that can be answered. Wich is why I asked for evidence. 

 

 

Less effective than the sidewinder doesn't mean useless. At no point was there a test with a direct comparison to guns at different altitudes for both attackers and helis. How low where the Helis I j catch, why wasn't that low enough for the aim 7 to be worse than guns? 

 

Be specific! Numbers and controlled test is the only thing that can answer this... But you don't have those. 

 

Alright, let's talk numbers shall we ? 

 

The AIM-7 E (that was launched during J-CATCH) was garbage as can be seen here 

https://books.google.at/books?id=L5g3CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=kill+probability+aim-7&source=bl&ots=9txVtua0cj&sig=ACfU3U1s08B1oB3eDt94-iEVU2lqmGkktQ&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8ydyP28DpAhXQTcAKHcSyCsEQ6AEwC3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=kill probability aim-7&f=false

As well as 

https://web.archive.org/web/20130720010705/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_winter_roundtable/watts.pdf#

And

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html

 

These numbers account for targets at combat altitudes, NOT Helicopters, the F-4 fired 612 AIM-7 over Vietnam and hit only 15% of it, it's safe to assume they did not fire it at low flying targets (or at least as low as a ground hugging Helicopter)

 

Now if we take into consideration that the Kill Probability of the AIM-7 that was fired during J-CATCH is less than 10%, it's not hard to imagine that it's greatly decreased (as you would say) for a ground hugging, small target that doesn't really get picked up by Radar ... If we half that number (and that's generous) we get a whooping 5% Kill Probability of a launched Missile against a low flying Helicopter ... Yes, very effective indeed !

 

There is a reason why the official Report said they do not recommend using the AIM-7, would you depend your life on 5% (again, generous) or would you rather go for a safer option ? 

And yes, I know that the AIM-7F was improved but then again, Report clearly states that both the AIM-7E and AIM-7F should not (EDIT: are not recommended to (otherwise you're saying they didn't say should not)) be used against Helicopters.

 

But go ahead, launch all the Sparrows at a low flying Helicopter, I will probably enjoy it really much seeing all of them miss ... Or wait, 5% actually kill me, great !

Edited by IKG51_Lennox
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Alright, let's talk numbers shall we ? 

 

The AIM-7 E (that was launched during J-CATCH) was garbage as can be seen here 

https://books.google.at/books?id=L5g3CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=kill+probability+aim-7&source=bl&ots=9txVtua0cj&sig=ACfU3U1s08B1oB3eDt94-iEVU2lqmGkktQ&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8ydyP28DpAhXQTcAKHcSyCsEQ6AEwC3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=kill probability aim-7&f=false

As well as 

https://web.archive.org/web/20130720010705/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_winter_roundtable/watts.pdf#

And

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html

 

These numbers account for targets at combat altitudes, NOT Helicopters, the F-4 fired 612 AIM-7 over Vietnam and hit only 15% of it, it's safe to assume they did not fire it at low flying targets (or at least as low as a ground hugging Helicopter)

 

Now if we take into consideration that the Kill Probability of the AIM-7 that was fired during J-CATCH is less than 10%, it's not hard to imagine that it's greatly decreased (as you would say) for a ground hugging, small target that doesn't really get picked up by Radar ... If we half that number (and that's generous) we get a whooping 5% Kill Probability of a launched Missile against a low flying Helicopter ... Yes, very effective indeed !

 

There is a reason why the official Report said they do not recommend using the AIM-7, would you depend your life on 5% (again, generous) or would you rather go for a safer option ? 

And yes, I know that the AIM-7F was improved but then again, Report clearly states that both the AIM-7E and AIM-7F should not (EDIT: are not recommended to (otherwise you're saying they didn't say should not)) be used against Helicopters.

 

But go ahead, launch all the Sparrows at a low flying Helicopter, I will probably enjoy it really much seeing all of them miss ... Or wait, 5% actually kill me, great !

 

5% is better than 0% Kappa

 

Not to mention any modern heli-year equivalent jet that can hold them is gonna have way better cockpit visibility, manoeuvrability, speed, acceleration, roc and flares/chaff/receivers than an F4 :)))))))))) 

 

Gun probably easier to aim too but that one is a little obvious 

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Alright, let's talk numbers shall we ? 

 

The AIM-7 E (that was launched during J-CATCH) was garbage as can be seen here 

https://books.google.at/books?id=L5g3CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=kill+probability+aim-7&source=bl&ots=9txVtua0cj&sig=ACfU3U1s08B1oB3eDt94-iEVU2lqmGkktQ&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8ydyP28DpAhXQTcAKHcSyCsEQ6AEwC3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=kill probability aim-7&f=false

As well as 

https://web.archive.org/web/20130720010705/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_winter_roundtable/watts.pdf#

And

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html

 

These numbers account for targets at combat altitudes, NOT Helicopters, the F-4 fired 612 AIM-7 over Vietnam and hit only 15% of it, it's safe to assume they did not fire it at low flying targets (or at least as low as a ground hugging Helicopter)

 

OK you don't get it. Nothing answers the question. 

 

You denied a claim about specific margins. But are unable to provide that margin. 

 

Again I asked whether or not there is a test that shows that a tactic drops the kil ratio to less than twice of that of guns only. 

 

In j catch it was 2.9 and guns was 0.7 (as fighters carry 20mm)

 

So more than 4x as effective. All you show me are absolute numbers of hit ratios without the margin the tactics change will provide, so I can not differentiate if the 2.9 was achieved with the same hit ratios. 

 

Simple thing you need to show represented simpler. This is what you need to show. 

 

(2.9*X)/2<0.7

 

But for that you need X. 

 

7 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

Now if we take into consideration that the Kill Probability of the AIM-7 that was fired during J-CATCH is less than 10%, it's not hard to imagine that it's greatly decreased (as you would say) for a ground hugging, small target that doesn't really get picked up by Radar ...

 

But compared to Vietnam using that kill probability rounding it down to 9% we get 2.9*(9/17)=1.5.....

 

So more than 0.7

 

 

7 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

If we half that number (and that's generous) we get a whooping 5% Kill Probability of a launched Missile against a low flying Helicopter ... Yes, very effective indeed !

 

X=5/17 would still result in more than 0.7

 

But then again you take the 5% out of thin air you only assume it. Wich was my criticism from the beginning that it is just your interpretation and nothing you have evidence for. 

 

 

7 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

There is a reason why the official Report said they do not recommend using the AIM-7, would you depend your life on 5% (again, generous) or would you rather go for a safer option ? 

 

If the regular hit Chace of sparrows are 17% then yes... I would prefer them over guns in this instance. 

 

7 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

And yes, I know that the AIM-7F was improved but then again, Report clearly states that both the AIM-7E and AIM-7F should not (EDIT: are not recommended to (otherwise you're saying they didn't say should not)) be used against Helicopters.

 

See but that isn't what I asked for. I asked for the specific margin. You can come back to this all you want but without specifics it doesn't answer the question. Guns weren't recommended either because helicopters are getter at using them. So to compare two not non recommended weapons it is not enough to say one wasn't recommended there fore it is worse. Especially not if you reacted to a question asking for how much worse the aim 7 is.... Because then you need numbers that you obviously don't have. 

 

7 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

But go ahead, launch all the Sparrows at a low flying Helicopter, I will probably enjoy it really much seeing all of them miss ... Or wait, 5% actually kill me, great !

 

OK why are you coming back to this? 

My claim was that you have no evidence to put numbers on your assumption. And now you are using an arbitrarily selected number as an argument against that? You serious? 

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With what plane did they made tests and what was altitude of heli? If it was f4e and heli was below 1km. Hitting it with aim7 is pure lie. They had to be well above 1km or f4e had to fly below helicopter and by significant margin as ground clutter in these alts is really dense and radar have to be poinetd up quite a lot. Pulse radar combined with any type of Aim7 exept M and P is absolute garbage at low alts around 1-2kms as there is too much ground clutter, no heli filters on missiles and radar, no optimalized missiles for look down shoot down from low alts, hmmm that tells one thing, aim7 is pure garbage compared to gun. If they were that successful, they had to use plane with PD radar atleast. 

Edited by MysteriousHonza
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

OK you don't get it. Nothing answers the question. 

 

You denied a claim about specific margins. But are unable to provide that margin. 

 

Again I asked whether or not there is a test that shows that a tactic drops the kil ratio to less than twice of that of guns only. 

 

In j catch it was 2.9 and guns was 0.7 (as fighters carry 20mm)

 

So more than 4x as effective. All you show me are absolute numbers of hit ratios without the margin the tactics change will provide, so I can not differentiate if the 2.9 was achieved with the same hit ratios. 

 

Simple thing you need to show represented simpler. This is what you need to show. 

 

(2.9*X)/2<0.7

 

But for that you need X. 

 

 

But compared to Vietnam using that kill probability rounding it down to 9% we get 2.9*(9/17)=1.5.....

 

So more than 0.7

 

 

 

X=5/17 would still result in more than 0.7

 

But then again you take the 5% out of thin air you only assume it. Wich was my criticism from the beginning that it is just your interpretation and nothing you have evidence for. 

 

 

 

If the regular hit Chace of sparrows are 17% then yes... I would prefer them over guns in this instance. 

 

 

See but that isn't what I asked for. I asked for the specific margin. You can come back to this all you want but without specifics it doesn't answer the question. Guns weren't recommended either because helicopters are getter at using them. So to compare two not non recommended weapons it is not enough to say one wasn't recommended there fore it is worse. Especially not if you reacted to a question asking for how much worse the aim 7 is.... Because then you need numbers that you obviously don't have. 

 

 

OK why are you coming back to this? 

My claim was that you have no evidence to put numbers on your assumption. And now you are using an arbitrarily selected number as an argument against that? You serious? 

 

Holy ****, you're a big brain champion ... I don't get it how someone can be so dense, I really don't get it lol

 

The literal fact that they used AH-1G's during J-CATCH without any AAMs alters any result ... Of course the Kill Probability is higher for the Sparrow if you can launch missiles without any threat, if you don't hit you just disengage and if you hit, congrats, you're a winner !

 

Try that within visual range (ID range) against targets that are equipped with AAMs (J-CATCH clearly states that they haven't been equipped with them and therefore the results may be different if they were, even for the AIM-7) ... But once again you fail to read certain parts of the Reports, you nitpick the things you want to see ... But aIm-7 So GoOd, 2.7 kIlL rAtIo while simply ignoring the fact that the AIM-7 used during J-CATCH had a kill probability of less than 10%, my god. 

 

It's honestly beyond pathetic that you want absolute numbers because you've read 2.7 - 1 kill ratio for the AIM-7 without acknowledging the fact that it's literally useless and can't be used because of the Helicopters flying high back then ... Holy jebus

Edited by IKG51_Lennox
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Holy ****, you're a big brain champion ... I don't get it how someone can be so dense, I really don't get it lol

 

You have anything else then ad hominem? 

 

Quote

The literal fact that they used AH-1G's during J-CATCH without any AAMs alters any result ...

 

Yes but that is equipment I already covered that. Stop moving goalposts. 

 

Quote

Of course the Kill Probability is higher for the Sparrow if you can launch missiles without any threat, if you don't hit you just disengage and if you hit, congrats, you're a winner !

 

Yes, I never denied that. But you said you had evidence that tactics alone reduce that number by at least a specific margin. Please provide evidence for that margin. You again go on a tangent. 

 

 

Quote

Try that within visual range (ID range) against targets that are equipped with AAMs (J-CATCH clearly states that they haven't been equipped with them and therefore the results may be different if they were, even for the AIM-7) ... But once again you fail to read certain parts of the Reports, you nitpick the things you want to see ... But aIm-7 So GoOd, 2.7 kIlL rAtIo while simply ignoring the fact that the AIM-7 used during J-CATCH had a kill probability of less than 10%, my god. 

 

Again this might very well be true but has nothing to do with the thing I asked for evidence for. 

 

Quote

It's honestly beyond pathetic that you want absolute numbers because you've read 2.7 - 1 kill ratio for the AIM-7 without acknowledging the fact that it's literally useless and can't be used because of the Helicopters flying high back then ... Holy jebus

 

No quite the contrary... I want a relative number not an absolute one. As I want this relative to gun kill ratios. 

 

And i want it because you made a claim about it (a quantifiable one) . So al I asked was for you to provide evidence. So I need a test with the according numbers.

 

If you can't provide that than my conclusion that you did not have evidence and it is a. Personal estimate is correct and I don't know why you complained in the first place. 

 

Stop going on tangent about things I never asked about. 

 

So instead of saying you had evidence for that specific issue you could have just said "no but it is a reasonable estimate" but you didn't, Wich was dishonest, and I won't let it go. Coming up with different scenarios I never asked any evidence for is just a tangent you go on over and over again. So if you cannot provide the specific empirical evidence on how a tactic changes the kill ratio quantifiable under the same circumstances of J CATCH with only the helicopters using different tactics not different equipment... Then no you don't have evidence for your claim. 

 

Because the question was about the kill ratio reaching a threshold, and therefore you need numbers. 

 

Saying that flying low lowers the probability of kill of a missile is true... But without a quantifiable assessment on how this affects kill ratios exactly and on how Mut the PK changes. You cannot check the threshold. 

Edited by DerGrafVonZahl
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

You have anything else then ad hominem? 

 

 

Yes but that is equipment I already covered that. Stop moving goalposts. 

 

 

Yes, I never denied that. But you said you had evidence that tactics alone reduce that number by at least a specific margin. Please provide evidence for that margin. You again go on a tangent. 

 

 

 

Again this might very well be true but has nothing to do with the thing I asked for evidence for. 

 

 

No quite the contrary... I want a relative number not an absolute one. As I want this relative to gun kill ratios. 

 

And i want it because you made a claim about it (a quantifiable one) . So al I asked was for you to provide evidence. So I need a test with the according numbers.

 

If you can't provide that than my conclusion that you did not have evidence and it is a. Personal estimate is correct and I don't know why you complained in the first place. 

 

Stop going on tangent about things I never asked about. 

 

So instead of saying you had evidence for that specific issue you could have just said "no but it is a reasonable estimate" but you didn't, Wich was dishonest, and I won't let it go. Coming up with different scenarios I never asked any evidence for is just a tangent you go on over and over again. So if you cannot provide the specific empirical evidence on how a tactic changes the kill ratio quantifiable under the same circumstances of J CATCH with only the helicopters using different tactics not different equipment... Then no you don't have evidence for your claim. 

 

Because the question was about the kill ratio reaching a threshold, and therefore you need numbers. 

 

Saying that flying low lowers the probability of kill of a missile is true... But without a quantifiable assessment on how this affects kill ratios exactly and on how Mut the PK changes. You cannot check the threshold. 

 

Holy moly, you can deny it as much as you want, but if an official report says they do not recommend using the AIM-7 against low flying targets clearly indicates that it's beyond useless ... This is hilarious, I love it !

 

EDIT: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a486826.pdf

 

As noted above, the effect of altitude during MIG engagements had a pronounced bearing on the success of the missile due to its dependence upon achieving full system radar lock-on prior to launch and throughout its flight. Thus, tactics against MIGs at low altitudes resulted in poor missile performance. During several MIG encounters over NVN, the 366th Tactical Fighter Wing fired 21 AIM-7Es below 8,000 feet without a single success. Although maneuvering conditions and *PK - Probability of Kill. 5 SECRET SECRET I launch ranges were also factors, this lack of success was caused primarily by ground clutter. Either the radar operator could not distinguish the target aircraft from ground clutter, or, when the target was located, the 5 32 missile would not lock on or would transfer radar lock-on to the ground.

 

Page 5, clearly shows that the AIM-7 fired at low flying targets (8000 feet is roughly about 2300 meters) is useless.

 

https://defenseissues.net/2013/06/15/air-to-air-weapons-effectiveness/

 

Immediately after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, claims were made than 1/3 of Israeli 251 air-to-air kills were due to Sparrow, and that Sparrow achieved Pk of 50%. As it turned out by 1978, only 12 Sparrows were fired, achieving either none or a single kill, with majority of Israeli pilots refusing to carry Sparrow at all. Only 4 of these firings were made from beyond visual range, and a single kill made might have been from beyond average visual range (5 nm) despite the fact that Israel does not claim it as a BVR kill. As many large fighters are visible well beyond 5 nm (up to 15 nm if engine smokes heavily) it is possible that kill in question was a visual-range one. Out of remaining kills, 2/3 were made with IR missiles and 1/3 with guns, according to statistics avaliable; Israelis however credited 2/3 of their air-to-air kills in both wars to guns or to guns aided by initial missile launch. Syrian pilots hated MiG-23 and considered it a worse fighter than MiG-21. Israeli general Hod stated that in 1973 war radar was “essentially useless” and that only one or no kills were made by radar-guided missiles.

 

So, there you go ... Actual numbers of how accurate the AIM-7 is at low flying targets ... Hope you're happy now :)

Edited by IKG51_Lennox
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Holy moly, you can deny it as much as you want, but if an official report says they do not recommend using the AIM-7 against low flying targets clearly indicates that it's beyond useless ... This is hilarious, I love it !

 

I haven't said anything about it. You clearly don't understand what I want evidence for. 

 

This is another tangent about something I haven't stated. 

 

Quote

EDIT: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a486826.pdf

 

As noted above, the effect of altitude during MIG engagements had a pronounced bearing on the success of the missile due to its dependence upon achieving full system radar lock-on prior to launch and throughout its flight. Thus, tactics against MIGs at low altitudes resulted in poor missile performance. During several MIG encounters over NVN, the 366th Tactical Fighter Wing fired 21 AIM-7Es below 8,000 feet without a single success. Although maneuvering conditions and *PK - Probability of Kill. 5 SECRET SECRET I launch ranges were also factors, this lack of success was caused primarily by ground clutter. Either the radar operator could not distinguish the target aircraft from ground clutter, or, when the target was located, the 5 32 missile would not lock on or would transfer radar lock-on to the ground.

 

Yes... So? Still not representing aargin. 

 

Quote

 

Page 5, clearly shows that the AIM-7 fired at low flying targets (8000 feet is roughly about 2300 meters) is useless.

 

Not really useless, the numbers are given the hit percentage dropped from 23% to 10%....

 

So using the example we had earlier where dropping 17% to 5% wasn't enough for the claim to be supported. 

 

Dropping less i. e. 23% to 10% does not support your claim. 

 

Here is the calculation assuming pk directly linearly influences kill ratios.

 

So we get. 

 

2.9*(10/23)=1.26

 

Wich is still more than 0.7

 

Quote

https://defenseissues.net/2013/06/15/air-to-air-weapons-effectiveness/

 

Immediately after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, claims were made than 1/3 of Israeli 251 air-to-air kills were due to Sparrow, and that Sparrow achieved Pk of 50%. As it turned out by 1978, only 12 Sparrows were fired, achieving either none or a single kill, with majority of Israeli pilots refusing to carry Sparrow at all. Only 4 of these firings were made from beyond visual range, and a single kill made might have been from beyond average visual range (5 nm) despite the fact that Israel does not claim it as a BVR kill. As many large fighters are visible well beyond 5 nm (up to 15 nm if engine smokes heavily) it is possible that kill in question was a visual-range one. Out of remaining kills, 2/3 were made with IR missiles and 1/3 with guns, according to statistics avaliable; Israelis however credited 2/3 of their air-to-air kills in both wars to guns or to guns aided by initial missile launch. Syrian pilots hated MiG-23 and considered it a worse fighter than MiG-21. Israeli general Hod stated that in 1973 war radar was “essentially useless” and that only one or no kills were made by radar-guided missiles.

 

Stop doing this. Please provide the exact evidence of the claim not tangents. This has nothing to do with the claim. Please be specific. This is getting annoying you just post random kill probabilities but I want the margin of change when firing at helicopters. There are no controlled tests here. 

 

 

Quote

So, there you go ... Actual numbers of how accurate the AIM-7 is at low flying targets ... Hope you're happy now :)

 

Not really.... Because I didn't ask for that. The second source is just a summary and not a controlled test. With different causes being listed (pilot training being the most crucial)... Wich suggest a controlled environment is needed... Wich I asked for. 

 

 

 

Edited by DerGrafVonZahl
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

Yes... So? Still not representing aargin. 

 

So it's not representing that 21 Missiles fired at low altitudes targets missed them completely ? Alrighty then ! 

 

8 hours ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

Not really useless, the numbers are given the hit percentage dropped from 23% to 10%....

 

So using the example we had earlier where dropping 17% to 5% wasn't enough for the claim to be supported. 

 

Dropping less i. e. 23% to 10% does not support your claim. 

 

Here is the calculation assuming pk directly linearly influences kill ratios.

 

So we get. 

 

2.9*(10/23)=1.26

 

Wich is still more than 0.7

 

The hit percentage didn't go from 23% to 10% when fired at low altitude targets, it went to 0% ... There is not a single confirmed kill from the early AIM-7 variants at low flying targets, period.

 

Now, I would love for once that you provide sources that the AIM-7 is killing targets at low altitudes, I've provided you multiple sources now that low flying targets have been missed the entire time ... Care to once get a source claiming your statements ? All you rely on is the J-CATCH 2.7 Kill Ratio, how many missiles have been fired during that exchange ? We know the Ratio, but you want exact numbers, so enlighten me once and provide sources, all you do is complain about mine :o)

 

8 hours ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

Stop doing this. Please provide the exact evidence of the claim not tangents. This has nothing to do with the claim. Please be specific. This is getting annoying you just post random kill probabilities but I want the margin of change when firing at helicopters. There are no controlled tests here. 

 

The exact evidence is that the official finding was that they do not recommend the AIM-7E/F at low flying targets, supported by multiple different sources that a.) they didn't get a single hit in Vietnam with AIM-7E's against low flying targets, b.) the Israelis didn't get a "single" AIM-7 Kill (the "Kill" is not confirmed as of today and it's very likely that it didn't happen)

 

8 hours ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

Not really.... Because I didn't ask for that. The second source is just a summary and not a controlled test. With different causes being listed (pilot training being the most crucial)... Wich suggest a controlled environment is needed... Wich I asked for. 

 

I'm sure you can provide sources other than J-CATCH with exact numbers (and not just the kill ratio as I've mentioned) and a controlled test that the AIM-7 proves to be a capable missile to destroy low flying targets, right ? :o)

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

So it's not representing that 21 Missiles fired at low altitudes targets missed them completely ? Alrighty then ! 

 

Not what I said and you know it.

This is tedious... Stop beating around the bush. I said it doesn't represent the margin... Wich was correct. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

The hit percentage didn't go from 23% to 10% when fired at low altitude targets, it went to 0% ... There is not a single confirmed kill from the early AIM-7 variants at low flying targets, period.

 

Those were the numbers of the Pk from the source. 

 

14 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

Now, I would love for once that you provide sources that the AIM-7 is killing targets at low altitudes, I've provided you multiple sources now that low flying targets have been missed the entire time ... Care to once get a source claiming your statements ?

 

I asked for evidence I didn't make a claim. I can reject without evidence what is stated without evidence. 

 

14 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

All you rely on is the J-CATCH 2.7 Kill Ratio, how many missiles have been fired during that exchange ? We know the Ratio, but you want exact numbers, so enlighten me once and provide sources, all you do is complain about mine :o)

 

No I wanted relative numbers. Actually I wanted the ratio. So this is fine. You really don't understand what I asked for... Wich is fine I guess. Because it seems you aren't trying to understand it. Just repeating over and over. Claiming I said stuff I didn't

 

14 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

The exact evidence is that the official finding was that they do not recommend the AIM-7E/F at low flying targets, supported by multiple different sources that a.) they didn't get a single hit in Vietnam with AIM-7E's against low flying targets, b.) the Israelis didn't get a "single" AIM-7 Kill (the "Kill" is not confirmed as of today and it's very likely that it didn't happen)

 

Yes but that wasn't the claim I wanted evidence for... So why present that? 

 

14 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

I'm sure you can provide sources other than J-CATCH with exact numbers (and not just the kill ratio as I've mentioned) and a controlled test that the AIM-7 proves to be a capable missile to destroy low flying targets, right ? :o)

 

No because I never made that claim.. I only rejected yours. My stance is I don't know. Wich should be the stance for everything you don't have evidence for. 

 

What we know is that lower altitude lower the Pk of the aim 7. What we also know is the kill ratios of J catch of guns and missiles. What we do Not (!!) know is if the kill ratio of the missiles is lower than the gun kill ratio of guns if the tactics change (Wich I guess you haven't specified in Our original post). So as the claim. Was vague to begin with with no specific parameters mentioned there obviously was never a specific test for that. So all we can do is make estimations and deduction... But those aren't empirical evidence... Wich is why I asked for evidence. 

 

But you are unable to admit thatyou are deducting it from other sources no you claim you have evidence of a claim (Wich was so unspecific that empirical evidence for it to exist was impossible). Now you want to sell me your deduction Wich is based on evidence as evidence. But a deduction even based on evidence is still a deduction and not empirical evidence in itself. This is the part you cannot wrap your head around it seems. Because when I say you have no evidence you think it means your deduction are wrong... A claim I never made... I said it isn't evidence. 

Wich is why you go on these tangent over and over and over. Because you are unable to differentiate between these things. 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

.. and one more : HOW MANY HELI CAN HAVE ONE MAN ? Really, War Thunder going to typical P2W format. To get heli on top, you must ... BUY them. :x 

 

Really, i think SB battle give something more from War Thunder. I dont have problem to heli as much (but is **** when you dont get AA in team and heli hovering 10 km away, and you can only suck they balls) but "spam" like someone said, is terrible. Ofc - if i buy heli i do that too, because u give me such a possibility for that.

From last 2 years all another tank game get 2 steps forward. Gaijin get 1 step backward and 10 underground :x 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...