Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them
JSj

Fire suppression from small arms discussion

Recommended Posts

(Admin note! - an offhanded comment about a fix coming in 2018 generated quite an off-topic discussion in the 2018 thread.  I moved it here as its own new thread)

On 1/5/2018 at 5:07 PM, Miller786 said:

It is a problem because what's the point of a BAR if you cannot suppress the enemy with some automatic fire? you could shoot single shots just fine with garands.

Actually, accuracy is what matters when it comes to suppression, not rate of fire. There is a study done on this, I have not managed to find a link to the article online, so I have attached the PDF here.

The real role of small arms in combat.pdf

Share this post


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

Actually, accuracy is what matters when it comes to suppression, not rate of fire. There is a study done on this, I have not managed to find a link to the article online, so I have attached the PDF here.

The real role of small arms in combat.pdf

Correct, and CM definitely is modeled this way.  A soldier hearing rounds plink things over head, way off to the right, way off to the left, ahead, etc. is going to have a range of concern.  I singe round smacking the ground next to him, or parting his hair, has an entirely different psychological effect.  In the first case the soldier can rationalize "well, they're not really aiming at me OR they're not very likely to hit if they are".  In the latter case... not so much :D

This, incidentally, is why snipers are so damned effective at suppression.  Odds are a single sniper can hold up a platoon far better than some guy doing a spray and pray.  Especially if the sniper is so far away nobody can really hear where the shot is coming from.

That said, when it comes to increasing the odds of hitting something in motion, in poor cover, or close up... I'd put my money on a full auto dump more than a well placed shot.  Unless we're talking about Deadpool ;)

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, rocketman said:

I know one pack I would buy for sure for BN, that is a "Commando/Special Forces Pack" - pretty please ^_^

Yep sounds great to me also. The fantasy things not so much.

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Correct, and CM definitely is modeled this way.  A soldier hearing rounds plink things over head, way off to the right, way off to the left, ahead, etc. is going to have a range of concern.  I singe round smacking the ground next to him, or parting his hair, has an entirely different psychological effect.  In the first case the soldier can rationalize "well, they're not really aiming at me OR they're not very likely to hit if they are".  In the latter case... not so much :D

 

:lol::D

Edited by Oliver_88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, JSj said:

Actually, accuracy is what matters when it comes to suppression, not rate of fire. There is a study done on this, I have not managed to find a link to the article online, so I have attached the PDF here.

The real role of small arms in combat.pdf

Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I'm wondering if it's possible to make a scenario that (nearly) only features rifle infantry on both sides? Often in CM, we are a bit spoilt, in that we often have a tank or similar to bring up when faced with a difficult situation.. and most squads have automatic weapons of some kind. I'd like to try a pure rifle infantry match on a map that makes it possible to do fire and maneuver anyway.

The US side has armoured infantry, that have next to no automatic weapons, but I wonder if I can design a German equivalent?

Quote

Since the Boer War, if not before, infantrymen have been unable to advance in the open against tolerably well-organised defences equipped with rifles. The attackers’ casualties are simply too great. The minimum requirement for a successful defence is quite modest: high-velocity, conoidal bullets fired from half-decent breech-loading rifles.

 

Edited by Bulletpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I'm wondering if it's possible to make a scenario that (nearly) only features rifle infantry on both sides? Often in CM, we are a bit spoilt, in that we often have a tank or similar to bring up when faced with a difficult situation.. and most squads have automatic weapons of some kind. I'd like to try a pure rifle infantry match on a map that makes it possible to do fire and maneuver anyway.

There's some units which you can use to experiment with this.  Hmm.  Some of the Engineer units on the German side, IIRC, have a pretty low chance of even SMGs.  Remember, you can do a Blue on Blue scenario so all you need to do is find one unit on one side and then populate a scenario with them.

As for your quote from the report:

Quote

Since the Boer War, if not before, infantrymen have been unable to advance in the open against tolerably well-organised defences equipped with rifles. The attackers’ casualties are simply too great. The minimum requirement for a successful defence is quite modest: high-velocity, conoidal bullets fired from half-decent breech-loading rifles.

This is absolutely the case in CM as well.  Volume of fire definitely is what suppression is all about, in real life and in CM.  So yes, on balance a Bren firing single shots is *not* doing what it is supposed to do, and that is to suppress.  If single shot weapons were all it took to suppress a bunch of guys, then everybody would still be toting around single shot rifles.  Which is why the change in LMG behavior for the clip fed Bren, BAR, and Breda (possibly others) is definitely wrong and has been fixed.

But bullet for bullet, a well aimed single shot can have a disproportionate suppressive effect compared to a spray of bullets.  Again, it's situational dependent as I'd certainly rather charge a guy toting a single shot rifle than a guy with a SMG!

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is absolutely the case in CM as well.  Volume of fire definitely is what suppression is all about, in real life and in CM.  So yes, on balance a Bren firing single shots is *not* doing what it is supposed to do, and that is to suppress.  If single shot weapons were all it took to suppress a bunch of guys, then everybody would still be toting around single shot rifles.  Which is why the change in LMG behavior for the clip fed Bren, BAR, and Breda (possibly others) is definitely wrong and has been fixed.

Steve

This is actually incorrect. You do not need fully automatic fire for supression. Did you read the PDF I attached in my previous message? (It's only 3 pages.) Here is the relvant quote for what the studies have found:

"We can consider three cases: the need to suppress an enemy; the need to keep him suppressed; and the need to re-establish suppression once lost. In general, small arms fire has to pass within roughly a metre from the outline of the target to be effective. A small number of rounds passing through that area in a few seconds (perhaps 3 to 5 rounds in as many seconds) will suppress the target, or re-suppress him if required; whilst just one round every three seconds will keep him suppressed."

The article also mentions that full auto suppression, for instance from a Minimi LMG, is often ineffective because of the poor accuracy:

"Machine Guns in Suppression
Perhaps the most damning findings, however, relate to differences between weapons. The British L86 magazinefed SA 80 Light Support Weapon (LSW), with its bipod, is extremely good at suppressing targets out to 500m or more and, in conjunction with L85 rifles, keeping them suppressed. That is principally because it is accurate enough for almost every shot fired to contribute to suppression. The L110 (Minimi) Light Machine Gun (LMG) performs far worse in such trials. At best, only the first shot of a short burst passes close enough to suppress. However, subsequent shots in that burst go anything up to 6m wide of the mark at battlefield ranges. Since perhaps 3 to 5 rounds in 3 to 5 seconds are required to suppress, a typical LMG gunner will rarely achieve suppression."

Anyway, I am absolutely not against that the problem with Brens and the other weapons are fixed, as they were historically not often used with single shots, as far as I know. I just want to point out what the latest studies are showing. There is a good reason why the USMC is replacing the Minimi/SAW in their squads with the M27 IAR. Also, I would really recommend that you read the short PDF article, it is very interresting, and it lists all the relevant references, it's not an opinion piece.

The real role of small arms in combat.pdf

Edited by JSj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article do have some holes and doesnt really hold to any kind of scrutiny JSj. 

1. I find it very strange if ONE UK study finds a truth that has escaped all modern armies on the deployment and use of LMGs since their adoption.

2. I ask myself what is the AIM of the article? - First a "problem" is presented. This is the need for, and lack of ability to train suppression. After this the writer presents the solution to the "problem". The solution is a new "gadget" made by some company. - I get a real commercial feeling from this.

3. The criticism of the Minimi LMG for not being able to suppress effectively because of poor accuracy is probably right,  but this is a really weak argument that doesnt stand up to scrutiny because this LMG in particular has an enourmous spread built into it, compared to almost any other LMG. - With a minimi its very hard to get anything better than a 50cm group for a 5-8 rnd burst on 300m. - This being on a peacefull shootingrange. - To draw the massive conclution that belt fed LMGs and automatic fires does less supression than single shot or magazin fed semi-automatics on the basis of testing just 1 weapon is ridicullous.

It seems the UK army might be unhappy with the precision of their relatively new LMG, but this doesnt mean all LMGs are created equal.  - It means they should have done some more testing before buying.

Another point - What was the trainining standards of the shooters, were there differences in the training of the LMG vs the SA-80 shooters? were there differences in conditions? Wheather, time of day etc? - None of this is mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very short article, of course there was not space for all the details. But there are notes of the references used, and I am sure all the details can be found there. Also, I think the main point of the article is that sustained full auto fire is not necessary to achieve supression. Would you stick your head up to shoot back if a very accurate bullet passed just by your head every 3 seconds?

Share this post


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

This is actually incorrect. You do not need fully automatic fire for supression. Did you read the PDF I attached in my previous message? (It's only 3 pages.) Here is the relvant quote for what the studies have found:

"We can consider three cases: the need to suppress an enemy; the need to keep him suppressed; and the need to re-establish suppression once lost. In general, small arms fire has to pass within roughly a metre from the outline of the target to be effective. A small number of rounds passing through that area in a few seconds (perhaps 3 to 5 rounds in as many seconds) will suppress the target, or re-suppress him if required; whilst just one round every three seconds will keep him suppressed."

The article also mentions that full auto suppression, for instance from a Minimi LMG, is often ineffective because of the poor accuracy:

"Machine Guns in Suppression
Perhaps the most damning findings, however, relate to differences between weapons. The British L86 magazinefed SA 80 Light Support Weapon (LSW), with its bipod, is extremely good at suppressing targets out to 500m or more and, in conjunction with L85 rifles, keeping them suppressed. That is principally because it is accurate enough for almost every shot fired to contribute to suppression. The L110 (Minimi) Light Machine Gun (LMG) performs far worse in such trials. At best, only the first shot of a short burst passes close enough to suppress. However, subsequent shots in that burst go anything up to 6m wide of the mark at battlefield ranges. Since perhaps 3 to 5 rounds in 3 to 5 seconds are required to suppress, a typical LMG gunner will rarely achieve suppression."

Anyway, I am absolutely not against that the problem with Brens and the other weapons are fixed, as they were historically not often used with single shots, as far as I know. I just want to point out what the latest studies are showing. There is a good reason why the USMC is replacing the Minimi/SAW in their squads with the M27 IAR. Also, I would really recommend that you read the short PDF article, it is very interresting, and it lists all the relevant references, it's not an opinion piece.

The real role of small arms in combat.pdf

Not an opinion piece, but the conclusions are built on some big assumptions (for example, what is the scientific basis for their definition of suppression) and very artificial test conditions.  How often is an LMG likely to be attempting immediate suppression on a single spotted individual.  Much more likely for the LMG to be tasked with immediately suppressing an area with an unknown number of targets, and for that it is pretty well-suited, especially if we are talking about 4x rifles vs. 3x rifles + belt-fed LMG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JSj said:

It's a very short article, of course there was not space for all the details. But there are notes of the references used, and I am sure all the details can be found there. Also, I think the main point of the article is that sustained full auto fire is not necessary to achieve supression. Would you stick your head up to shoot back if a very accurate bullet passed just by your head every 3 seconds?

I disagree on this being the point of the article. See my 2. point - Seems more like the guy is selling something to me. - I agree that full-auto fire will not ensure success in suppressing, but it has a hell of a lot better chance of being successfull in a COMBAT situation than using so called "well aimed single shots". The reason being,  - And this is documented by every soldier that has ever been in a fire-fight at some range, that the enemy is INVISIBLE and when he is spotted he will be visible for a fraction of a second or at best, a couple of seconds. - This is the reality of infantry combat. And with this lies the main problem with the idea that single shots or magazine fed rifles can win fire superiority. - Its that of observing the enemy. Try finding a combat film from Afghanistan, Syria  or Iraq were the enemy is observed on the camera or the grunts reports accurate targeting commands. - You will find very few of that kind. - Snipers have been mentioned by Steve to have an enourmous impact on suppression and I there is no disagreeing to that. - But snipers operate in a different way than the regular grunts. - They are a lot more flexible in their deployment and will lie in wait for the right target to show up and then fire at an officer or other key person to have a disproportional effect on suppression and morale. Here comes the surprise and shock effect to full play as the writer mentions briefly as kind of a site note in the beginning of the article.

Edited by SchnelleMeyer
Comitted by mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, finding the enemy is one of the greatest challenges of combat. But if you don't even know where the enemy is, spraying down a random area with a belt fed MG is unlikely to supress anyone. You're just making noise and wasting ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, JSj said:

Agreed, finding the enemy is one of the greatest challenges of combat. But if you don't even know where the enemy is, spraying down a random area with a belt fed MG is unlikely to supress anyone. You're just making noise and wasting ammo.

Oh really?  How have you determined that to be the case?  How much more likely are rifles to achieve suppression in the same circumstance?  Or is your claim that small arms simply cannot suppress an imprecisely located enemy?

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, that is correct and no one is denying that.  - You will not get the desired effect that way of course, so nobody teaches that. And if there is wild spraying that is normally a good indication of the lack of training or experience or leadership level for that individual or unit. There is a term called fire-dicipline that involves a whole range of stuff from rate of fire to target indication and fire commands that is supposed to be adhered to and it is in well trained and led units. This is primarily a leader responsibility. 

There is however a proper way of firing at an enemy of unknown exact location, but its not wasting ammunition or wild. This is often applied in the initial contact with an enemy and here automatic fire is irreplacable! - If your up against an enemy with belt fed machine guns you can not win fire superiority with just semi-automatics! This is the way it is modelled in Combat Mission as well and I find that quite realistic.

Edited by SchnelleMeyer
writing error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SchnelleMeyer said:

Yes, that is correct and no one is denying that.  - You will not get the desired effect that way of course, so nobody teaches that. And if there is wild spraying that is normally a good indication of the lack of training or experience or leadership level for that individual or unit. There is a term called fire-dicipline that involves a whole range of stuff from rate of fire to target indication and fire commands that is supposed to be adhered to and it is in well trained and led units. This is primarily a leader responsibility. 

There is however a proper way of firing at an enemy of unknown exact location, but its not wasting ammunition or wild. This is often applied in the initial contact with an enemy and here automatic fire is irreplacable! - If your up against an enemy with belt fed machine guns you can not win fire superiority with just semi-automatics! This is the way it is modelled in Combat Mission as well and I find that quite realistic.

Obviously we are discussing here proper area fire on an imprecisely located target, not hip firing MGs swinging the barrel left and right across the horizon.  Obviously firing at nothing is not effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like there's a lot of talking past each other here because suppressing someone in real life isn't a binary event based around a narrow set of circumstances.  Different conditions mean differences in what is and isn't effective.  To illustrate:

Does anybody here think that a 9mm pistol is an excellent weapon for suppressing someone?  If anybody thinks there is a definitive yes or no answer, then they aren't thinking about suppression correctly.

I'm always cautious of anybody who tries to say that everything we know about a long term, massively complex topic is wrong.  Especially when said person is pimping a product from a defense contractor that is, oddly enough, specifically designed to overcome this long held flawed belief system. However, the basic premise of the article is definitely valid. 

Suppression is achieved by making a soldier believe he his probability of becoming a casualty is greater when taking some sort of action (usually movement) than staying put.  The costs associated with making a well trained soldier come to this conclusion is "wasteful" in terms of rounds needed to achieve a satisfactory outcome.  If someone can figure out how to reduce the costs without reducing the quality of the outcome, that someone is going to make a lot of money.

The author correctly points out that the costs of training, armament, and logistics to execute standard doctrine for suppression is very expensive on per target basis.  There's a lot of validity to this, and is in fact one of the arguments for things like Javelins and Hellfire are actually cost effective when everything is considered.  Meaning, it could possibly be cheaper to  recruit, train, and retain two Apache pilots who can wipe out a company sized infantry force within seconds without any friendly casualties than it is field a platoon of grunts for the same time that the Apache is in service.  If you only need a hammer, it's silly to have a screwdriver.  Except when you need to open something delicately that is held together with screws ;)

Obviously increasing the applied, real world accuracy of small arms fire (i.e. not firing range theory) would change what is today's equation of input for results.  Which is why the big push in the small arms industry is "smart bullets", where the rounds are more-or-less guided to the target after leaving the barrel.  This means the rounds are more apt to achieve a suppressive effect (as well as casualties) without any change in soldier doctrine.  Whomever gets this to be a practical product is going to be financially rewarded big time.  But we're a ways away from what Zorg has to sell:

 

Until then, or until something similar comes out, expect to see masses of lead flying about the battlefield without doing much more than lead poisoning the environment.  Devices like the article is pimping might nibble around the edges a bit, but it's another gadget to manage and history has shown that they tend to under perform in real world situations than their sales brochures claim.

Steve

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, akd said:

Obviously we are discussing here proper area fire on an imprecisely located target, not hip firing MGs swinging the barrel left and right across the horizon.  Obviously firing at nothing is not effective.

That is correct, in situations this technique is used, every burst and every shot fired is aimed at a probable enemy location in order to make him cover, fire back or move. If the enemy exposes himself in the process, that is the best case scenario because then more effective fire can be brought to bear on his positions.

Edit: Its good to see that Steve has put a great deal of thought into the subject. - After all, I think supression is a crucial element to simulate as realistic as possible in a game like CM. 

Edited by SchnelleMeyer
Additional comment to Steves post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Meaning, it could possibly be cheaper to  recruit, train, and retain two Apache pilots who can wipe out a company sized infantry force within seconds without any friendly casualties than it is field a platoon of grunts for the same time that the Apache is in service.

And the Apache is wasteful compared to a Predator drone piloted by some ex-teenager playing with a joystick somewhere in rural Kentucky... War has changed a lot since WW2 !

From what I've read of the recent war against ISIS, there was no real fire and movement going on. Instead, the Iraqi army would advance shooting wildly into the air, then when enemy snipers revealed themselved in this way, the Iraqis would dial in an airstrike from their US friends using an app on a provided smartphone.. Rinse and repeat till the town was ruined and no enemy fighters were left.

But I suspect this tactic only works because there were not that many enemy fighters to begin with, only some tens of thousands - compared to the millions of soldiers in the Wehrmacht for example.

Anyway, this is getting off topic. With the focus on WW2 tactics, I think CM models suppression quite well, as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

From what I've read of the recent war against ISIS, there was no real fire and movement going on. Instead, the Iraqi army would advance shooting wildly into the air, then when enemy snipers revealed themselved in this way, the Iraqis would dial in an airstrike from their US friends using an app on a provided smartphone.. Rinse and repeat till the town was ruined and no enemy fighters were left.

Pretty sure that Iraq's CTS would take that allegation rather poorly.....Seeing as over half of them gave their lives to clear Fallujah, Ramadi & Mosul the hard way.  :mellow:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Pretty sure that Iraq's CTS would take that allegation rather poorly.....Seeing as over half of them gave their lives to clear Fallujah, Ramadi & Mosul the hard way.  :mellow:

My point was about the tactics used. Not saying they didn't have a tough time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dude, you are just plain wrong: 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq/iraqi-special-forces-sweep-mosul-university-for-remaining-militants-spokesman-idUSKBN14Z09G

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/11/30/495919/iraq-mosul-cts-daesh

http://www.inherentresolve.mil/Video/dvpTag/CTS/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwN2OIsmjYw

If there's a **** job needed doing in Iraq, CTS are the guys who got the call.....I had no idea just how much they have achieved until @Combatintman pointed me towards them and @LongLeftFlank reinforced it.  B)

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I can only speak to Afghanistan, but much more time was spent hunkered down because of mortar fire or pot shots disrupting a patrol than pitched battles with the Taliban. In my own experience it was less pinned-down hugging the earth for dear life (most of the time!) and more that, okay we now have to deploy, find cover, form into a section attack and so on. That kind of suppression is modeled pretty well in CM, as you can't carry out a routine move under fire.

e: Quick question since a dev has responded - in CM1, how did Human Wave, Assault and Advance work?  Did units move differently under fire before?

Edited by DougPhresh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DougPhresh said:

in CM1, how did Human Wave, Assault and Advance work?  Did units move differently under fire before?

That's a question I'd still like to see answered too.....I always use 'Move', 'Hunt/Contact' & 'Fast/Run' rather than those commands due to my own uncertainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Those are the special forces though. I was talking about the regular Iraqi Army. There's a reason why Mosul is largely destroyed - they called in a lot of airstrikes against snipers. Would I have done the same? Probably. Not out to bash anyone here.

My point was just about how wars are fought today. If you can put your finger on a map on your smartphone and five minutes later that building is hit by a bomb, why would you bother with suppression fire and movement?

For anyone who feels their mood is too good today, here's the long and extremely depressing read about how the battle of Mosul was fought and the torture and murders of prisoners that followed:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/21/after-the-liberation-of-mosul-an-orgy-of-killing

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's certainly a harrowing account, but it's one of many and I can only assume it is deliberately vague about the various units it describes as 'soldiers'.  I've seen video of many of the events described therein, they are not all the handiwork of just one group.....You can no doubt find these videos too by following various links, but be warned, they are not pleasant viewing.  :mellow:

Just to keep things in perspective.....This is France:

(images deleted)

& they only had to put up with the nazis for four years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DougPhresh said:

I can only speak to Afghanistan, but much more time was spent hunkered down because of mortar fire or pot shots disrupting a patrol than pitched battles with the Taliban. In my own experience it was less pinned-down hugging the earth for dear life (most of the time!) and more that, okay we now have to deploy, find cover, form into a section attack and so on. That kind of suppression is modeled pretty well in CM, as you can't carry out a routine move under fire.

e: Quick question since a dev has responded - in CM1, how did Human Wave, Assault and Advance work?  Did units move differently under fire before?

I remember the 'Human Wave' (I think used Run or Advance for speed, and only used by Russians) gave a big Moral Boost at the expense of taking more casualties (lower savings roll if you will)...'Assault' (similar to Advance in movement), gave a slight Moral boost and a little more fire discipline when Close Assaulting...'Advance' was slower then Run, but took less casualties...'Run' got you there faster, no Moral Boost.

Anyways, that's about how I remember it...

Edited by JoMc67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×