Russian Motor Rifle tactics

[Kinophile]

13 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

 

@TheForwardObserver

Quote box is wonked  in mobile. 

Edited June 16, 2016 by kinophile

[TheForwardObserver]

@kinophile Not sure what's supposed to be in the wonky quote box but I did write up a a brief opinion about arty on the previous page of this thread.  

I didn't mention HE/VT though.  I wouldn't suggest CM buff HE/VT against vehicles because I think it might encourage making improper fuze decisions which is just so contrary to my nature.  I'm all about being creative but even I have limits.  Now obviously any type of massed fire is going to register residual and collective damage on a target, but infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, properly armored vehicles are designed with airburst in mind.  I'm not taking about humvees with stapled on armor of course.  Also the lion's share of an artillery round's force is absorbed by the shell in order to create fragmentation, meaning concussive effects are sacrificed for fragmentation.  Nothing I've said applies to thermobaric or other fancy munitions. 

Believe it was @cbennett88 that asked about whether you can mix HE/Quick and HE/VT in one mission in real life and you can.  During the method of engagement portion of your call for fire you can specify fuze HE/Quick and HE/VT. 

The way that might sound;

Gandalf this is Gimli, fire for effect, over

Grid LB 2345 2345 (direction omitted), over

Chinese bicycle battery, in the open, HE/VT and HE/Quick in effect, over

[Kinophile]

9 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

 but listen we really are a polite and friendly people.

It's always the quiet ones you gotta watch.... 

[cbennett88]

2 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:

The way that might sound;

Gandalf this is Gimli, fire for effect, over

Grid LB 2345 2345 (direction omitted), over

Chinese bicycle battery, in the open, HE/VT and HE/Quick in effect, over

LMAO!!

I understand that AFVs have some armor to protect important systems like optics, but there isn't armor protecting antennae, wind sensors and laser detectors(all of which are upright and more exposed), along with the radar if APS is installed. Fragmentation and blast overpressure would be damaging enough to have an effect. Sure...no wind sensor wouldn't prevent firing but it would affect the accuracy to some degree. As a defender, I'd take a 20-30% reduction in accuracy when up against the US. 

Laser detector not working? Now the US player has to consider whether it is still worth attacking across that piece of terrain. Russian ATGMs and tanks now "get a free shot".

APS disabled? No question that makes a big difference in your opponent's chance to hit/destroy your vehicles.

No radios b/c antenna is gone? No command link...no ability to call artillery...

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Yes...all little effects, but cumulatively they add up. 

[cbennett88]

Even damage to the rooftop secondary armament like the 50 and the 240 on the M1 would be significant. Sure the coax is still available, but disable the others and now the vehicle has that much less to deal with infantry. 

What is the old expression? 

"Death by a thousand cuts"  

[Kinophile]

Abrams would still have its analogue anti-crunchies weapons -  forward and reverse, repeat until smooth as butter.... 

[Kinophile]

11 hours ago, cbennett88 said:

ground burst (impact) rounds?? 

Have seen impact artillery damage/kill vehicles. Have not witnessed airburst have any effect on Bradleys and M1s

GB I believe. 

Honestly,  I very rarely use AB. 

Can any over-chatty battlefield voyeurs enlighten on the specific benefits in game? 

I pretty much always go GB,  just in case of armor near the targeted Inf. 

[TheForwardObserver]

@cbennett88 You know I agree with your assessment about the cumulative affects of damage and reduced vehicle performance etc, nothing you have said is incorrect.  I think what they've done with CM is emphasized the benefits of one shell fuze combo over another, as a means of encouraging the player to choose the fuzes you might encounter under certain circumstances.  For example, In real life you or the FDC would choose VT for infantry dug/in, in the open, and light vehicles.  Overhead cover I will choose HE/delay or HE/quick, same with armored vehicles.  That isn't to say that any one of these other shell fuze combos will not achieve any effects but you want to maximize the potential for good effects.  

Can ya'll imagine though if they beefed up arty?  There'd be rioting in the streets, cries to reign it in.  I have no doubt that some people here would hunt me down and assign me the blame.  "Oh I don't know where FOs been lately, haven't seen him ever since he got dragged away by that pitchfork and torch wielding lynch mob."

[Kinophile]

It's rein, dear. 

[TheForwardObserver]

Auto-correct @kinophile. This one has the sticky fingers of auto-correct written all over it.  Now the subject verb agreement issues, alternating back and forth between passive and active voice, those were my mistakes.

And yes, you can borrow the expression "sticky fingers written all over it."  

Edited June 16, 2016 by TheForwardObserver

[TheForwardObserver]

@cbennett88 @kinophile Alright so I did some tests.  Marshalled a company of Bradleys, called for 155mm airburst on them with several batteries of 155.  Started out massing the batteries' fire as a linear mission.  After EOM, initiated a precision mission with all the guns massing HE/VT on one bradley.  

Results, none of the Bradleys sustained any damage.  Haven't conducted the test with Warsaw pact vehicles or Abrams, someone that knows should mention whether the results end up being the same.  

Now I never call in HE/VT against vehicles because I save that for personnel, so the lack of any effects whatsoever has never stood out to me.  I also don't know how damage is modeled in game so I don't know what goes into allowing HE/VT to cause the types of light damage people have requested.

I think I could be persuaded to join the buff the VT affects against armored vehicles camp if damage could be minimized to such an extent that vehicle occupants would be safe, and only select systems are damaged.

There should in my opinion be enough of a difference between the damaged dealt to armored vehicles by HE/Quick and HE/VT that people will think twice before asking a battery to shoot VT at armored targets.  

Sme of my resistance to the idea is rooted in an experience I had as a young buck where a friendly errant airburst round exploded over my track with no sustained damage, where I would have suspected there would have been.  I also do have some videos of me calling arty in Iraq about ten years ago, and some of those rounds are airburst, if people are interested in examining the effects but folks'll have to ask me to see those over messages.  I won't post them here publicly because we haven't all properly introduced ourselves.

 

Edited June 17, 2016 by TheForwardObserver

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, TheForwardObserver said:

@cbennett88 @kinophile Alright so I did some tests.  Marshalled a company of Bradleys, called for 155mm airburst on them with several batteries of 155.  Started out massing the batteries' fire as a linear mission.  After EOM, initiated a precision mission with all the guns massing HE/VT on one bradley.  

Results, none of the Bradleys sustained any damage.  Haven't conducted the test with Warsaw pact vehicles or Abrams, someone that knows should mention whether the results end up being the same.  

Now I never call in HE/VT against vehicles because I save that for personnel, so the lack of any effects whatsoever has never stood out to me.  I also don't know how damage is modeled in game so I don't know what goes into allowing HE/VT to cause the types of light damage people have requested.

I think I could be persuaded to join the buff the VT affects against armored vehicles camp if damage could be minimized to such an extent that vehicle occupants would be safe, and only select systems are damaged.

There should in my opinion be enough of a difference between the damaged dealt to armored vehicles by HE/Quick and HE/VT that people will think twice before asking a battery to shoot VT at armored targets.  

Sme of my resistance to the idea is rooted in an experience I had as a young buck where a friendly errant airburst round exploded over my track with no sustained damage, where I would have suspected there would have been.  I also do have some videos of me calling arty in Iraq about ten years ago, and some of those rounds are airburst, if people are interested in examining the effects but folks'll have to ask me to see those over messages.  I won't post them here publicly because we haven't all properly introduced ourselves.

 

Ill check damage v BMPs and BTRs later tonight. I suspect they'll pop like zits on a teenager. 

Re the Bradleys, not even sensor damage after multiple bursts? Sounds iffy. 

 

Edited June 17, 2016 by kinophile

[TheForwardObserver]

36 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Ill check damage v BMPs and BTRs later tonight. I suspect they'll pop like zits on a teenager. 

Re the Bradleys, not even sensor damage after multiple bursts? Sounds iffy. 

 

Yeah. Surprised I never noticed it with all the US vs US games I've played.  We all have blindspots.

[cbennett88]

@TheForwardObserver @kinophile Thanks for taking the time to check this out and not just dismiss it out of hand.

When I get home after work tonight, I'll run a test on Strykers and Humvees, etc. I'm curious whether "soft(er) skin vehicles" like Humvees or even supply trucks are affected...

[TheForwardObserver]

@cbennett88 My pleasure.  For what it's worth I did the same test again but added an assortment of Russian vehicles and a Knight vehicle snuck in there as well.  The Knight and about 3 of 10 Russian armored vehicles, excluding the tanks, ended up getting knocked out.  The Brads were un-phased.  

 

[cbennett88]

@TheForwardObserver, @kinophile So...conducted same test...battery of 6 152mm firing linear sheaf(airburst...heavy rate/medium duration) on top of a row of humvees (1151), Strykers and an LMTV supply truck.

The humvees were knocked fairly quickly. The first one went on the first turn. The 2nd took two turns.

After 3 turns of bombardment, the LMTV finally died but showed no damage up until then. 

Then... switched up to a full 6 gun precision HE round (airburst) on 1 stryker to see if that would do any damage...

Nothing!

After 2 bombardments, the strykers were completely untouched. No damaged tires...no missing smoke dischargers...nothing.

[Kinophile]

@TheForwardObserver that was airburst? 

Because I did a test last night with 6 tube battery, air burst, point against 4 each BMP2, 3M and BTR 82A.

Zero damage,  to the hull,  tracks,  sensors,  anything. 

Switched to HE and popcorned the lot of them. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by kinophile

[antaress73]

Had myself some fun with russian arty (two crack FOs ) with a platoon of veteran 2s19m2 attached to each FO. On the other side was 2 platoons of Bradley mech infantry in defense. Result: 7 out of 8 bradleys on fire and 19 killed 34 wounded. 

Did the same with strykers .. even easier. 

When out of krasnopol i did classic  point barrages HE/ Quick.  Worked like a charm. On lighter armored vehicules airburst will only work if it explodes DIRECTLY over the vehicule (the little cloud of dust you usually see on the ground must be right on top of the vehicule, like an explosively formed projectile) . Anywhere else wont even do any damage on light APCs even if really close. So it's not worth the expense of ammo and time unless there is infantry nearby. Airbursts will do no subsystem damage at all on Brads, late BMPS and of course tanks. It will Kill BTRs , strikers if youre lucky and get an airburst directly over the vehicule (direct hit).

So to degrade/Kill AFVs you need ground contact HE (general) missions. Airbursts are a waste of time and ammo.

Edited June 19, 2016 by antaress73

[Sublime]

Thx for the tests. Very useful. Depressing as well. I usually manage a rolling Linus cloud ( from snoopy ) of arty airbursting over my enemy advance i.e. abrams brads and infantry. The infantry gets picked off but i was thinking all along it was shredding tank subsytems. 

[TheForwardObserver]

It's Father's Day in the US today, so happy Father's Day to any of you that are dads and shavua tov. 

@kinophile @cbennett88 @antaress73 

Lovin all the fire support testing.  Would much rather read this stuff than read facebook posts from my friends re-iterating why they support/hate clinton/trump. 

I didn't look too hard at which Russian vehicles got knocked out by the HE/VT during my tests but I'd imagine it was the Russian vehicles on the older end of the spectrum based upon Antaress' data.  I was surprised by Bennett's find with the Strykers.  

So we have a slight advantage going to the Yank APCs for HE/VT vehicle survivability.  The end result being at the moment to avoid HE/VT against armor.  That the results are unique shows to me there is probably a method to their madness.

[Sublime]

Oh theres always a method to BFCs madness. That certain things may be off though may be quite different..

( BMP2M ATGM MISSILES GOD****IT!! )

Edited June 19, 2016 by Sublime

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, Sublime said:

Thx for the tests. Very useful. Depressing as well. I usually manage a rolling Linus cloud ( from snoopy ) of arty airbursting over my enemy advance i.e. abrams brads and infantry. The infantry gets picked off but i was thinking all along it was shredding tank subsytems. 

Adjusting for this might now up your Abrams kills! 

[Sublime]

Perhaps eventually. When i go back to BS. 

[Nefron]

On 6/16/2016 at 6:15 PM, cbennett88 said:

 

Laser detector not working? Now the US player has to consider whether it is still worth attacking across that piece of terrain. Russian ATGMs and tanks now "get a free shot". 

 

I'm pretty sad that is not the case by default. I don't mind the superior spotting or armor on Abrams and Bradley, but I mind that they spoil my shots when I actually ambush them. Should've left that to Shtora equipped units only,  it would add a more unique flavor to the Russians, since they are the ones actually fielding the thing. 

[VladimirTarasov]

Yeah would be good if we could choose for M1s to not be equipped with laser warning systems.