Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Is this an error? [SA-16&SA-18]

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Is this an error? [SA-16&SA-18] Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is this an error? [SA-16&SA-18] - 7/11/2019 11:59:54 PM   
LewisOwen

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/3/2017
Status: offline
Hi there,

I stumbled upon a certain peculiarity in the DB3000.

Database entries for both the MANPADS [9K310] and the missile that it uses [9M313] claim 1988 as the first year in which the 9K310 Igla-1 [SA-16 Gimlet] system is available to USSR.

Whereas the database entries for 9K38 and its missile 9M39 claim that the 9K38 Igla [SA-18 Grouse] system was first available in 1984.

From what I know, the SA-16 system was a stop-gap measure before the "proper" Igla, that is the SA-18 system, could be introduced.

If that's the case then, if anything, the exact opposite should be true. [that is, 1988 for Igla and 1984 for Igla-1]

It doesn't make much sense for 9K38 to be available before 9K310.

Am I missing something here or is it an error and belongs in the DB3000 suggestions thread?

I'm asking, because maybe this is something that has been discussed and explained already and I would just annoy people by posting this on the already heated DB3000 suggestions thread.

Cheers

_____________________________


"Nuclear weapons might be the currency of peace... but what a terrible price..."

-Stuart Brown


Post #: 1
RE: Is this an error? [SA-16&SA-18] - 7/12/2019 11:42:33 AM   
KLAB

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: LewisOwen

Hi there,

I stumbled upon a certain peculiarity in the DB3000.

Database entries for both the MANPADS [9K310] and the missile that it uses [9M313] claim 1988 as the first year in which the 9K310 Igla-1 [SA-16 Gimlet] system is available to USSR.

Whereas the database entries for 9K38 and its missile 9M39 claim that the 9K38 Igla [SA-18 Grouse] system was first available in 1984.

From what I know, the SA-16 system was a stop-gap measure before the "proper" Igla, that is the SA-18 system, could be introduced.

If that's the case then, if anything, the exact opposite should be true. [that is, 1988 for Igla and 1984 for Igla-1]

It doesn't make much sense for 9K38 to be available before 9K310.

Am I missing something here or is it an error and belongs in the DB3000 suggestions thread?

I'm asking, because maybe this is something that has been discussed and explained already and I would just annoy people by posting this on the already heated DB3000 suggestions thread.

Cheers


Its counterintuitive but the SA-18 is older than the SA-16 it's to do with NATO reporting names.
Essentially the SA-16 came to NATO "attention" before the older SA-18 despite the in service dates as given.
If anything the DB3K is more accurate than many online "encyclopedia" which continue to assume the NATO system is accurate chronologically.
My first impression was that its the SA-18 which was the interim model and because fewer were made it didn't get noticed until after the SA-16.
Although one source I checked is stating that the less capable later SA-18 entered service first due to delays in the more advanced SA-16 which would offer another explaination.
Many sources are confusing the designations and seem to be using 9M and 9K designations interchangeably.

Good example of this is the SA-9 which actually predates the SA-7 and SA-8 by some time.
In Soviet terms the Strela 1 is the SA-9 but Strela 2 is SA-7. Its simply that SA-7 was "noticed" by NATO before the SA-9.
I will dig out some better references when not just on mobile.
https://defense-update.com/20070723_sa-8.html
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/382806037062447179


< Message edited by KLAB -- 7/12/2019 1:38:36 PM >

(in reply to LewisOwen)
Post #: 2
RE: Is this an error? [SA-16&SA-18] - 7/12/2019 1:58:18 PM   
LewisOwen

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/3/2017
Status: offline
Man, you've created so much confusion. I think you got confused yourself

First of all, The two sources you've given contradict each other...

The first source reinforces what you've said about the NATO designations and gives the 9K310 system and its missile 9M313 the NATO designation SA-18 Grouse and claims that it is the newer, more capable system. In other words, the 9K310 Igla-1 system is the "proper" Igla, and the 9K38 Igla system is the stop-gap measure.

Your second source confirms the, in your opinion, common misconception.

quote:

The SA-16 is a variant of the Igla (SA-18)
design. Because of delays in the Igla program,
the Igla-1 with a simpler and slightly less
capable seeker was rushed into production and
fielded 2 years prior to its progenitor...


Even if we'd assume that you and your first source are right it still wouldn't make sense, because the game itself disagrees with this notion.

CMANO gives the 9K310 [Igla-1] system and its missile 9M313 the NATO designation SA-16 Gimlet and it is, in game, the less capable system with Single Spectral IR Technology. Despite this CMANO still claims that this less capable version of the Igla was first available in 1988. That is, after the other Igla we're discussing here.

CMANO gives the 9K38 [Igla] system and its missile 9M39 the NATO designation SA-18 Grouse and it is, in game, the more advanced, more capable system with Dual Spectral IR Technology. Despite this CMANO still claims that this more capable version of the Igla was first available, before Igla-1, in 1984.

Something is wrong here either way. Either the naming is wrong and mixed up or the years of introduction are wrong, or the technology is completely wrong.

Cheers



_____________________________


"Nuclear weapons might be the currency of peace... but what a terrible price..."

-Stuart Brown



(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 3
RE: Is this an error? [SA-16&SA-18] - 7/12/2019 2:26:43 PM   
KLAB

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: online
https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/SA-16

Agree and the more I have checked the more confused it gets, and I am none the wiser!

And I haven't checked CMANO's references as I only have the DB viewer which is from DB 474,

But in short 9K38/9M39 SA-18 entered service before the 9K310 ‘Igla-1’ (SA-16) 9M310 / 9M313 missile.

Per the KBM website it is the 9K38 that is in production still and appears to be a superior system?

https://www.kbm.ru/en/production/pzrk/

This didn't make it any clearer either:

https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/65/65B127CBF02A4667D8A8A229D6A5E87BIGLA.pdf

< Message edited by KLAB -- 7/12/2019 2:37:54 PM >

(in reply to LewisOwen)
Post #: 4
RE: Is this an error? [SA-16&SA-18] - 7/12/2019 2:41:18 PM   
LewisOwen

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/3/2017
Status: offline
I don't know man...

Perhaps everything is perfectly fine and is the result of lot of research from the devs side and I'm just not knowledgeable enough to realize this

Maybe someone else will come along and clear the fog

Cheers

_____________________________


"Nuclear weapons might be the currency of peace... but what a terrible price..."

-Stuart Brown



(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 5
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Is this an error? [SA-16&SA-18] Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117