Jump to content

Bolt

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Bolt's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

10

Reputation

  1. Actually, it was Alek who gave me those books and all this info. i'll post more when I'll get to talk with that ex-artillery man In this case, it's wrong..
  2. I mean, in CMBB there was such option to adjust the artillery target when it is firing. usually, it took 1-2 minutes to adjust (and it was green line). Is there such option in CMSF? If yes, what is the average time for it in the latest version?
  3. Guys who can't read Russian, please excuse me, but I'll qute some text in it. 2 Dima Check the document named "Методичное пособие кмсп", page 30. There is planned, not planned and fire adjustment missions. The second one suits CMSF conditions very good as there are no TRP in the game. The format of the text if it was copied/pasted is ruined, but if you look at that page, you'll get the idea - everything is there. Also, as far as I know, one can't adjust fire mission as in CMBB (although I can be mistaking), so if you want to move your artillery target a little bit, you will have to wait for 9-12 more minutes (if we're speaking about mortars). In RL, it would be task Nr 3 - adjusting fire mission, on page 35 and it would be done much faster, than in game.
  4. stikkypixie It's easy to check if this is true. Put three US crack troops in the houses, just like in Thomm's test, and make Syrian squad run (or was that a hunt command?) into their sector of fire. If Syrian squad will be able to effectively return fire, then your point that fire on the move being too effectice is true. I can't check this myself, as I don't have the latest patch. Delta228 Well, that as sure as hell is one narrow-minded statement. Look, it doesn't matter, how many millions of dollars one US MBT costs, the blind BMP and very fast spotting Abrams tank are not connected directly. So if one expensive piece of kit can spot fast, it doesn't mean that more cheaper will not be able to spot enemy vehicles which are standing in the open in 300 meters straight ahead and constantly firing at infantry near that blind BMP. I had this very experience in 1.08, playing Red on Red Quick battle. I'm awaiting for 1.11 patch now to check how does the game feel after all the fixes. Maybe it is much better, who knows? In case you don't know, there are very different versions of T-72 out there, the early ones are really not match for modern tanks, while the latest versions are capable to go head to head with them. And yes, you are right, that statement about Abrams being the best tank in the world is really arguable. You are talking about Abrams in hull-down position at 3km distance. Why? Did anyone here mentioned that it is not right when at such distances and in such conditions Abrams spots faster than Syrian tanks? All I've seen was when people complained that Syrian tanks couldn't spot anything that was standing literally 30-70 meters from them. I can't talk about these issues, as I haven't tried 1.11 patch yet. But there were issues in the earlier versions of the game. What about the latest versions of T tanks? About the calling in Syrian artillery times. I've managed to find some information about this from em.. I don't know how to translate "методичка"? maybe "manual"? of Russian army. Also, I've spoken to ex-artillery contractor, he said that he will be able to call his old friend officer who is serving at the moment in Artillery school and ask him about the times. But he will do that after the holidays are over, and it will take time to translate that manual as there are lots of specific terms in it.
  5. Hello all and Merry Christmas to you guys! Here's the situation: a FO observer (yes, of the few Syrians have, but it was a lucky day and it's a FO who is calling for a fire mission this time) actually sees the target. He (the Forward Observer, mind you, not just some grunt) decides to call in artillery support. About what net changes are you talking about if he (and only he in his Company) has the dedicated support of the guns? AFAIK, CMSF doesn't let usual Syrian grunts or even commanders to call in arty. Only Syrian FO can do it. We don't mention low level commander, we were talking about long time intervals when a Forward observer who was sent on a mission specially to provide eyes for his artillery unit tries to get fire support from his very own battalion has to wait from 7 to 9 minutes to get it. It's centralized system. Only few lucky guys on the ground get to get the arty support. And those are Forward observers who have guns somewhere behind their backs sit and wait just for his call, they know that they will give support only to this guy and can say "F you" to everybody else. Why does it take so long to to fire 82mm mortars then? "Limited doctrine" is limited to usual Ivan or in this case - Achmed, but not to a guy with a radio with direct connection to artillery unit which awaits for him to sent them coordinats, map and binocular who was sent to do the forward observation. Syriand DO have computers in their artillery units. I don't want to sound like an ass, if I do, then please excuse me. You said that if someone feels that something with this game is wrong, he should say what and provide evidence why does he thinks the thing is not OK. As was pointed out in my thread, we think time to call in artillery is too long. I wrote that 155mm guns were called in in 3 minutes in late 80s during some training. If I try to search and provide the norm time (I mean, the time that is mentioned in the military regulations) for modern Russian artillery, will this be enough? Also, I'd like to ask how you guys want us to make tests? Create scenario, save it, make tests and then send via email to you? Dima mentioned few times that he needs "replays" and can't judge anything from screenshots. How can I create such "replay" when palying in Real time mode? Did he mean just a save game? Before or after weird thing happened? Looks like words of a real expert on Russian psychology. I totally agree with you. We, Russians, are the most unfair and lying people on the planet. As long things fit our agenda, we are happy. One more thing, not connected with Syrian/Russian vehicles. Is there any information how many Javelins does US Army have at the moment? How many Javelins (CLU and the rockets) does Stryker company have? DO CLU really come with every Stryker? I've tried to search but with no luck. Can anyone help?
  6. Here's an illiustation of ATGM vs Abrams situation. Pics, test and the whole text are (and were) not mine, but Alek's from cmbb.borda.ru 2 ATGM crews with squad HQ, Regular level (with -1 in Leadership and morale), Regular Abrams 1. Sometimes ATGM launched without being spotted first and second time 2. Sometimes Abrams kills him with return fire with one try, and not misses like it is shown here
  7. Yes, thank you Vulture! That's the thread I was talking about
  8. Thanks for the greetings and responses, all! JP76er, thank you for your interest in our POV! However Babelfish does suck badly, as I understood only some Russian phrases of yours. Dima, here's the main Russian CM forum with CMSF's discussion over here: http://cmbb.borda.ru/?1-1-0-00000150-000-0-0-1226834096 I'm completely sure there was a thread on this very forum from ex-Bradley crewman (I've tried searching it, but with no luck.. ). He told that every time Bradley needs to fire its TOW missiles, they must stop, manually "deploy" them (which takes time) and only then they can fire. I know many of forum members served/serving in the Army, so please correct me if I'm wrong. And if my memory serves me right (usually it does, but not always ), BF said that this wasn't implemented for gameplay purposes. So, if BMP's aiming time could be realistic, Bradley's is not. Also, you say that it could be the difference between Syrian training and US training. Well, this could be the issue if Syrian IFV was at Green or Conscript level, and US at Veteran. But when they are equal, is it right to simulate such differences in aiming time?..
  9. Hello guys! First of all, I want to apologize for my bad English – I didn’t know many military and technical terms but I hope you’ll figure out what the hell I was trying to say. Consider this thread as an open later from Russian CM community. Majority of us really love playing CMBB and for some extent CMAK, however we bump all the time at various issues which don’t let us enjoy playing CMSF as much as CMBB. We’ve wrote this “letter” in order to maybe suggest few fixes for the next patches (I know guys at BF are really open to it) and not to grumble or rant. We all would like to play a perfect CM, and we think these suggestions will help making it a little bit closer to such condition. These observations were made while playing in WEGO mode, on Elite settings with 1.10 patch. 1. Very big increase in the chance of ATGM to be spotted, for example in the test scenario lone M1A1SA tank immediately (within 1-2 seconds) was spotting the fire from ATGM AT-4 Spigot. The test condition were: day, sunny, 1900m distance, the angle of attack was ~45-60 degrees, veteran ATGM crew, which was positioned in something like 4-6 meters from the edge of a dense forest, regular tank crew, positioned in the middle of a desert. Everything would be normal if it was a laser-guided missile spotted with the help of a special spotting systems, however it’s quite unclear why this is happening with a usual small wire-guided rocket at such distances. At the moment, ATGM is literally useless – the missile launch is being instantly spotted and the crew then dies like flies, sometimes even with the rocket still in the air. 2. The ATGM of fighting sides are unbalanced. Remember that topic started by the (I believe?) ex-Bradley crewmember, where he said that such speed of reaction from target spotting to firing the TOW is insane and in RL in must be deployed before firing? When BMP-2 spots enemy tanks or APC, the commander then decides to use his AT-5 Spandrel, but the aiming process takes up to 18-26 seconds (this was tested on Veteran settings, distance was about 280-350 m), this not includes the time of spotting and making the decision to use the AT-5. Often enemy vehicles just cross the firing arc or just spot this aiming BMP-2 and take it down before it managed to shoot its AT-5. However, if you try to shoot M2A3 Bradley with your T-72 from close distance, you’ll only have a smoking wreck of T-72’s hull as a result. It will take only 6-8 (sometimes – 10-14) seconds for IFV M2A3 Bradley to spot your tank from the distance of 150-300 meters (Veteran settings) and launch its TOW-2 AT-5 and TOW-2 missiles are roughly in the same league in RL, however, in CMSF the time of using the first is about 3-6 times slower than latter. 3. Last grumbling about ATGM. When someone takes down the ATGM operator, the commander of ATGM crew has a chance of 1:6 of appropriately bringing missile to the target. This is true even when we speak about relatively simple systems such as AT-4 and AT-7. Usually, the crew commander just “drops” the missile on 1/3 or 1/4 of the needed trajectory. As we think, this is wrong, because crew commander (not only ATGM’s, but any artillery system’s) is usually trained good enough to do any of crewmember’s work and always is the most trained soldier of his team. 4. Abrams’ reaction time to the incoming fire is just too fast. For people who sit inside a metal box and use spotting systems to look around, no matter how efficient they are, Abrams crews look like some psychics. Example Nr 1 Tank platoon of 3 M1A1SA (veterans) – stays in open ground, with their flanks exposed to the enemy Republican Guard (vet) – HQ and one rifle squad are on the second floor of some building. Firing distance is 90-100 meters. In order to spot the tanks and start firing RPGs at them, the Syrians need: If cover arcs were issued – around 3-4 seconds for HQ and 6-8 seconds for usual rifle squad. Without cover arcs: around 3-6 seconds for HQ and 8-12 seconds for usual rifle squad. If under fire, it takes only 1-2 seconds for Abrams tanks to figure out where did the grenade come from and start firing at Syrians. If you’re controlling these tanks, you will even see an icon of Syrian unit, which won’t disappear even when AT soldiers will try to reload their RPG-7s. And probably with some help of telepathy, it takes 1-2 seconds to not only spot the enemy in the window, but also pass this information to other units in the platoon and start laying down massive fire. After the Syrians have been spotted, they won’t disappear from Americans’ POV and usually are being killed very fast. In this case, Syrian infantry is able to make only one shot until all soldiers in the unit die. But if some lucky guy manages to survive, then he can shoot his rifle at enemy infantry, and neither tanks nor other people at the ground will spot him. Such reaction speed and vigilance in spotting are 2-5 times faster than any other infantry’s of similar training. But if Abrams is as good as shown in CMSF, then why Army is using other vehicles, such as IFV M2A3 Bradley? Example Nr 2 Let’s use veteran mechanized infantry platoon with 4 M2A3 Bradley and 4 infantry squads instead. Infantry sits inside the IFV. After Syrians open up with their RPG-7, it takes ~6-8 seconds to figure out where those shots are coming from. Until then, Bradley try to reverse after 3-5 seconds from the start of a firefight, accompanied with automatically deployed smoke screen. And what’s more, not all vehicles know the exact location of the enemy after they were spotted. Those vehicles that did not spot the AT soldiers only have ? icon at the their possible location. Also, M2A3 can’t see Syrian AT soldiers when they are reloading their RPGs – mark with ? is the only thing player can see at such moments. It’s obvious, that with similar spotting systems, Abrams tank is modeled in game much more potent then Bradley (we don’t talk about its armour or its gun, we’re talking about the spotting efficiency). Something should be done about this. Artillery. The response time for Syrian artillery is very long. It became so long, that even battalion level mortars are useless for every mission, except a prep-fire one. Test with calling in artillery with Republic Guard’s forward observer. Both forward observer and battery are veterans (in brackets – results for regular FO and battery). 82mm and 120mm mortars: 9-10 minutes (10-12 minutes), if FO and battery are in the same battalion, then the response time will be less at 1 minute. D-30 howitzers: 11-12 minutes (13-14 minutes) SPG 2S1 Gvozdika: 12 minutes (13 minutes) M-46 guns: 15 minutes (16 minutes) Adjusting fire takes the same amount of time, for example, for D-30 howitzers it will be 11 minutes. For comparison, response time of American 155mm M109 Paladin howitzers is 5 minutes at Regular and Veteran level. Probably, the developers tried to simulate the situation where communication systems at the Syrian infantry’s disposal are worse than US ones; Soviet doctrine of centralized artillery use is being used. 1) Soviet communication systems, such as radios R-159, R-173 etc are much more complicated in their usage and bigger in comparison to more compact and lighter American radios. But even they are quite capable in transmitting FO’s voice to the artillery battery, just like their American counterparts. 2) Beginning from ‘60-‘70 of the last century various computers, calculation machines mounted on special vehicles are being used for solving artillery calculations, topographical bindings, mathematical modeling. They were used in the Soviet Army as well. The fact that such Soviet computers, which are used at artillery battery’s CP, don’t have installed Windows NT, doesn’t mean that they’re incapable of performing complex mathematical calculations in acceptable time (few dozens of seconds). Even the African armies are beginning to use simple calculations made with pencil on a sheet of paper less and less, and of course one couldn’t stumble upon such anachronism in the Syrian army, which in ’70s-’80s was receiving from Soviet Union not only modern (at that time) tanks, but quite normal guns and fire control systems. 3) Even while using centralized doctrine for reinforcing assets that gives the right to use artillery from higher command to lower ranks, there are enough assets in pro-soviet armies for flexible fire maneuver in the limits of appointed usage. Firestorms of hundreds and hundreds guns’ preparing fire, which needed thousands of ammunition wagons for one square kilometer, with concentration of badly maneuverable artillery pieces lasting for weeks, are in history now, they were left in WW2. Having huge amount of experience in the artillery usage, good scientific base and manufacturing capabilities, Soviet Army has developed the doctrine of centralized artillery support, which, however, had some flexibility. Every commander having in his disposal his own artillery and additional artillery, placed under his command, could as well organize and control it. Divisional artillery (division’s own arty and attached to it) would be organized into Divisional Artillery Group (DAG). It was controlled by artillery HQ of the division. The head of such HQ was artillery commander, who had his own control company. Artillery was split, depending on the tasks, into smaller groups (e.g., counter-battery fire etc), and also was issued to operational subordination to regimental commanders in order to reinforce them at the direction, which was picked by Division command. Every Soviet motorized rifle (tank) regiment had its own artillery commander with a small HQ. All artillery (regiment’s own artillery and attached to it) was organized into operational structure – Regimental Artillery Group (RAG). Battalion commander received artillery support from regiment commander according to the plans of regiment commander. The cooperation depended on regiment’s artillery commander who had his own radio network in the limits of DAG (RAG), as well as on FO sent from batteries to fighting formations of motorized rifle or tank units. Thereby, centralized usage system lets obtain artillery reinforcement in chosen sector, and battalion commander could manage it just like his own artillery, and the artillery worked in the interests of only the unit it was attached to, and ideally it wouldn’t be distracted by other battalions or regiments. In game one can see that dedicated forward observers for centralized fire support (like 120mm mortar battery) attached to a certain battalion, just can’t get their selves heard at their own batteries over the radio chatter and need to use foot messengers. Because reaction time of 11 minutes for mortar company is just the right time to run to firing positions (which are 1-3 km from the frontline). In my opinion, the “rare” rarity for Syrian artillery is logical for modeling centralized use of artillery, while the response time 3-4 times longer than the Blue force has, is defiantly not. In fact, it should be equal for both sides or the Red side’s reaction time could be even slightly faster, because it’s being compensated by battery’s organization focused to support certain area of the frontline. Example: In 1986 regimental self-propelled artillery division of 339th Guards motorized rifle regiment of 120th Guards motorized rifle division (Byelorussian MD) having 2S3 Acacia’s in its disposal had a exercises with live firing, where a new (at that time) type of weapon – guided round – was tested. According to participants’ memoirs, response time for FFE, based on information received from exercise commanders, was “…less than three minutes”. As I think, such period of time (+ 1-2 minutes) is normal for artillery of Veteran level.
×
×
  • Create New...