Incredible Footage

[SlapHappy]

Men vs. Tanks in Daraya

Rebels duke it out with a Syrian Army T-72 raid.

[Erwin]

Wow. As a whole, the most amazing footage collection.

Shows how useless tanks are in urban environment. I kept flashing back to Daleks in Dr. Who.

And what on earth were they trying to achieve without infantry?

[Vark]

I think they are armoured raids, not designed to take territory but scout and probe for the rebel positions. I felt saddened by the destruction of the infrastructure, whoever 'wins' they will have years of rebuilding to face, worse, as in Stalingrad, there are thousands of civilains living in that shattered city.

[agusto]

I think they are armoured raids, not designed to take territory but scout and probe for the rebel positions.

It appears to me as if in some of the clips the BMPs are unloading stuff, so i think they are supplying infantry positions within the city. The tanks escort them. This also is suggested by the images i saw in a 1 hour long russian news report (of wich i didnt understand a single word) from syria.

[Erwin]

That would explain why the BMP's were backing into a side street and then coming out and going home. I wondered what on earth they were doing.

[Frankster65]

It appears to me as if in some of the clips the BMPs are unloading stuff, so i think they are supplying infantry positions within the city. The tanks escort them. This also is suggested by the images i saw in a 1 hour long russian news report (of wich i didnt understand a single word) from syria.

You are correct. There are actually several versions of this video, mainly from the perspective of the tankers and you can clearly see the troops disemarking into the side houses. First time I've seen this video from this perspective though...very interesting indeed.

[Wicky]

Harrowing - Most of the time the ERA seems to doing its job, and from what I've learned from previous discussions, you don't want infantry too nearby when it goes off...

All-in-all quite harrowing to watch, especially when a tank gun barrel points directly at the camera which made me hide behind the sofa. Late on when the tank gets hit by the AT weapon it certainly brews up like a Roman Candle, but one of the crew in tatters seems to stumble clear.

[Vark]

Harrowing as well. Not all tank runs are guarding resupply convoys, this one deliberately targets a known rebel checkpoint.

http://www.globalpost.com/photo-galleries/planet-pic/5718451/life-and-death-aleppo-photos

[Collingwood]

Late on when the tank gets hit by the AT weapon it certainly brews up like a Roman Candle, but one of the crew in tatters seems to stumble clear.

There was a discussion about that footage in January right here:

tanker tanker pants on fire

[Lanzfeld]

We need more smoke in game when a tank shell hits a building.

[Erwin]

Yes, the CM2 visual of a smoke screen created by a tank as well as the dust raised by HE explosions are not at all like (apparently) RL. Quite an eye-opener.

[Vanir Ausf B]

10:00 - 10:17

RPG fired from inside enclosed building. Are you seeing this, BFC?

[Vark]

How come my RPG-29 gunners can fire inside a building? They just have to have a window behind them.

[YankeeDog]

10:00 - 10:17

RPG fired from inside enclosed building. Are you seeing this, BFC?

RPGs and similar weapons can already be fired from inside buildings in CMSF.

[Vanir Ausf B]

RPGs and similar weapons can already be fired from inside buildings in CMSF.

I know. The decision that this was unrealistic was apparently made during development of CMBN, after CMSF had been out for several years and they did not go back to change it, presumably because it might break existing scenarios. But if they don't change their minds back it will not be allowed in CMSF 2.

[YankeeDog]

I know. The decision that this was unrealistic was apparently made during development of CMBN, after CMSF had been out for several years and they did not go back to change it, presumably because it might break existing scenarios. But if they don't change their minds back it will not be allowed in CMSF 2.

Not sure the your presumption is warranted. Modern shoulder-fired IAT weapons actually are fairly different in the details of how they work when compared to their WWII ancestors. If CMBN indicates that Steve thinks a Panzerfaust couldn't be fired from inside a building most of the time, it doesn't necessarily follow that he thinks the same of an RPG-7.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The B-10 recoilless rifle seems to be not all that much different, yet they apparently can be fired indoors.

The modern Russian RPG is an evolution of the RPG-2, which was based on the German Panzerfaust.

[YankeeDog]

The B-10 recoilless rifle seems to be not all that much different, yet they apparently can be fired indoors.

The modern Russian RPG is an evolution of the RPG-2, which was based on the German Panzerfaust.

The B-10 is the immediate antecedent and very similar to the SPG-9 -- it's a crew-served recoilless rifle that's about 6 feet long and weighs nearly 200 lbs. When moved by muscle power, it’s typically carted around on wheels, and it’s generally fired from a tripod or vehicle mount. This is a totally different class of weapon than one-man, shoulder-fired IAT weapons like the RPG-7. Could it be fired from building interiors under certain conditions? I'm sure. But I think more considerations than just backblast come into play when considering what setup and use restrictions the game should impose on a weapon of this size and bulk. Backblast aside, I can't think of any weapon this large and heavy that is allowed to setup inside buildings in any CM game. The B-10/SPG-9 are substantially larger and heavier than even 12.7mm MGs and tripod-mounted automatic grenade launchers.

And assuming by "modern Russian RPG" you mean the RPG-7, I don't think it's accurate to say that the RPG-7 is "based on" the German Panzerfaust, or at least not the Pz-30/60/100 series we’re familiar with from the WWII CM games. The RPG-2 (and, by extension, RPG-7) were actually based on the Pz-150/250, which used propulsion technology quite different from the earlier Panzerfaust weapons. The Pz-150 saw some very limited use right at the end of the war, and the Soviet captured some examples of the Pz-150 as well as early prototypes and designs for the Pz-250; this is where they got the basis for the RPG-2.

In the context of firing from enclosed spaces, the most critical difference between the Pz-30/60/100 series and the Pz-150/250 series is that the latter used a two-stage propellant design -- an initial "kicker" charge to propel the projectile a safe distance from the shooter, and then a sustainer charge to further accelerate the projectile after it was a safe distance away. This is, of course, exactly the system used in the RPG-2 and later the RPG-7, and it considerably mitigates the backblast on launch. The Pz-150/250, RPG-2 and RPG-7 are true rockets, while the Pz-30/60/100 series are actually low-velocity recoilless rifles.

But overall, I do agree that the "no IAT in buildings" prohibition in CMBN is unsatisfactory, and I'm really hoping that we see more differentiation in how and when IAT weapons can be used from enclosed spaces in CMSF2, and also the WWII titles. For example, perhaps systems like the RPG-7 and AT-4 should be allowed to fire from interior spaces more or less freely, but some other weapons systems, like the RPG-29 and SMAW, should be more restricted as they have considerably more backblast.

And I don’t actually have any objection to larger/more complex systems like the B-10 & SPG-9 being able to fire from interior, but I think there needs to be some serious restrictions here simply because they are so large and bulky. For example, perhaps weapons like the SPG-9 could allowed to setup and fire from indoors, but only from an initial setup location, representing the idea that it would probably take a fair amount of time to properly set up a firing area and deploy a weapon of this size indoors.

And I think this logic above also applies to the WWII games. For example, I don't think that a Pz-30k should under the same confined space usage restrictions as a Pz-100. The propellant charge for the latter was over three times larger. Hopefully, we'll see some refinements in both game families in these areas sooner rather than later.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The B-10 is the immediate antecedent and very similar to the SPG-9 -- it's a crew-served recoilless rifle that's about 6 feet long and weighs nearly 200 lbs. When moved by muscle power, it’s typically carted around on wheels, and it’s generally fired from a tripod or vehicle mount. This is a totally different class of weapon than one-man, shoulder-fired IAT weapons like the RPG-7. Could it be fired from building interiors under certain conditions? I'm sure.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtzvrg_baba-amr-homs_news

It can be lugged around and fired by one guy. Indoors even.

And I think this logic above also applies to the WWII games. For example, I don't think that a Pz-30k should under the same confined space usage restrictions as a Pz-100. The propellant charge for the latter was over three times larger.

Yes, but still smaller than that of the B-10.

Hopefully, we'll see some refinements in both game families in these areas sooner rather than later.

Agreed.

[YankeeDog]

It can be lugged around and fired by one guy. Indoors even.

That video shows what looks like a heavily modified B-10 (basically stripped down to the barrel only) fired by one guy who is resting the weight of the weapon on the edge of a window. It does not show it being "lugged around" by one guy. Every site I can find for stats on the B-10 agrees that the weapon sans wheels weighs around 150 lb. Remove the tripod as well and maybe you get that down to a little under 100 lb. That's still not man-portable in any real sense of the word -- maybe one decently fit guy could move it a short distance by himself, but it would be difficult and tiring to do so.

There is a Chinese copy of the B-10 that is considerably lighter, but even this weighs about 60 lbs., firing system only, which still isn't portable by one many in any real sense.

Also worth noting that the B-10 warhead's armor penetration isn't any better than that of common RPG-7 warhead types. Nor would it likely be much more accurate when fired off of the tripod, from an improvised support like a windowsill. So used in this way, it's basically a very heavy and bulky poor man's substitute for an RPG-7.

Yes, but still smaller than that of the B-10.

I couldn't say for sure. But I would not assume this, at least compared to the Pz-100. The Panzerfausts up through the Pz-100 used a rather primitive blackpowder charge for propulsion, which generates a lot of flash, smoke and concussion compared to more modern propellants. And while the Pz. warhead did toss the warhead at a lot slower speed than the B-10, the Pz. warhead was actually substantially heavier than the B-10's warhead. The Pz-100 also had no barrel, which makes is a lot less efficient at transferring the power of the propellant to the warhead than a long-barreled RR like the B-10.

So I do not feel comfortable making the assumption that the B-10's backblast is larger than the Pz-100's, simply on the basis of the size of the weapons systems -- I'd want to see some hard data on the backblast specifically before drawing any conclusion like that.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It does not show it being "lugged around" by one guy. Every site I can find for stats on the B-10 agrees that the weapon sans wheels weighs around 150 lb. Remove the tripod as well and maybe you get that down to a little under 100 lb. That's still not man-portable in any real sense of the word -- maybe one decently fit guy could move it a short distance by himself, but it would be difficult and tiring to do so.

True that it does not show how it got there, but there is no evidence that I can see that it was being "carted around on wheels" either. They appear to be shooting it out of a building several stories off the ground, so it can be reasonably assumed that it was lugged up there by someone, whether one guy or two is anyone's guess.

I couldn't say for sure. But I would not assume this, at least compared to the Pz-100. The Panzerfausts up through the Pz-100 used a rather primitive blackpowder charge for propulsion, which generates a lot of flash, smoke and concussion compared to more modern propellants. And while the Pz. warhead did toss the warhead at a lot slower speed than the B-10, the Pz. warhead was actually substantially heavier than the B-10's warhead. The Pz-100 also had no barrel, which makes is a lot less efficient at transferring the power of the propellant to the warhead than a long-barreled RR like the B-10.

So I do not feel comfortable making the assumption that the B-10's backblast is larger than the Pz-100's, simply on the basis of the size of the weapons systems -- I'd want to see some hard data on the backblast specifically before drawing any conclusion like that.

I do not have any primary sources on hand at the moment, but in the thread linked to ArgusEye, whom I have found to be fairly knowledgeable about such things in the past, claims the B-10 has a backblast 12-16 times greater than the Panzerfaust 100.

[YankeeDog]

True that it does not show how it got there, but there is no evidence that I can see that it was being "carted around on wheels" either. They appear to be shooting it out of a building several stories off the ground, so it can be reasonably assumed that it was lugged up there by someone, whether one guy or two is anyone's guess.

Yeah; I'll buy that. So assume a crew of 3-4. Considering the weight, they'll need to use the wheels to move it any significant distance unless they have vehicular transport. If they want to deploy in a building as we see in this video, they'll first have to remove the tripod and wheels prior to entering the building. Figure at least 3-4 minutes to strip the weapon down to just the bare essentials.

Then 2 guys can carry it up the stairs while the other 1-2 guys lug ammo, provide security, scout a firing position and prep the firing area. Figure another 2-3 minutes, minimum.

At least another minute or two for final setup -- get the weapon propped up onto the windowsill, get it loaded, etc.

So a bare minimum of 6 minutes to get set up and ready to fire in a building (and I think this is very generous), all for a weapon that is no more powerful than an RPG-7, is slower to reload, and also probably isn't any more accurate when fired in this unorthodox manner, off of the tripod.

The weapon is also much larger than an RPG-7, has a much larger firing signature, and they have to stick the barrel out of the window to fire it, which means they're much more likely to be spotted before they fire. "Hmmm... what's that big 82mm pipe sticking out of that window up there??"

Seems like a pretty marginal thing for CM to model. If you're trying to model unconventional forces that are so short of heavy weapons they don't even have RPGs, but happens to get their hands on a B-10/SPG-9, then sure -- forces like this will try all sorts of desperate stuff. See the other thread up on this forum right now showing catapults Syrian irregulars have built to toss makeshift explosives. But almost any other force would probably never try something like this, as they're almost certain to have RPG-7s or similar around, which can do the same job for far less effort and risk.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Seems like a pretty marginal thing for CM to model.

Given that the B-10 is 1950s era tech and CMSF 2 is going to be about 1st world armies going at it, it almost certainly won't be included. And that is fine with me. I don't actually care about the B-10 or how many guys it takes to haul it around. I'm just using it as more evidence that the prohibition on AT rockets fired indoors in not realistic.

Speaking of which, it would be interesting to know exactly which model of RPG is fired in that first video. The RPG-29 does not have a small initial charge to push the rocket out before the main charge fires. It has one charge that fires as soon as the trigger is pulled, same as a Panzerfaust 100.

[YankeeDog]

Speaking of which, it would be interesting to know exactly which model of RPG is fired in that first video. The RPG-29 does not have a small initial charge to push the rocket out before the main charge fires. It has one charge that fires as soon as the trigger is pulled, same as a Panzerfaust 100.

Yes; though to be technical, the Pz-100 and the RPG-29 are not all that similar.

The RPG-29 is of the same family as the Bazooka and the Panzershreck -- it's a tube rocket launcher with a quick-burn rocket motor that's designed to burn out completely within the tube, primarily so that the firer doesn't get smacked in the face with rocket exhaust when the rocket leaves the tube.

The Pz-100 is technically a low-velocity, one-shot recoilless rifle. So it's basically a gun that's open on both ends to negate recoil, with an explosive charge contained in the tube providing the impulse rather than a rocket motor.

I can't think of a modern analogue that is very similar to the Pz-30/60/100 series... The AT-4 is actually technically a one-shot recoilless rifle, but the details of how it is constructed and functions are quite different from the Pz. so I'm not sure any comparisons can really be made there.

At any rate, if the video does show an RPG-29 being fired from inside a building, this is probably better considered evidence in support of rocket weapons like Bazookas and Panzershrecks being able to fire from buildings than evidence of Pz-100s being able to do same.

[Vanir Ausf B]

At any rate, if the video does show an RPG-29 being fired from inside a building, this is probably better considered evidence in support of rocket weapons like Bazookas and Panzershrecks being able to fire from buildings than evidence of Pz-100s being able to do same.

That's fine. B-10 for Fausts, RPG-29 for Schrecks and Bazookas. We have the bases covered. Now we wait for BFC.