Jump to content
IICptMillerII

Combat Mission AAR: MSR Titan

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, IanL said:

Having said that there is a balance to be made here, depending on availability resources. In an environment where there is significant enemy armour operating the correct decision may in fact be to risk your son to deal with the sniper given a later encounter with enemy armour may also be fatal to your son and his mates.

This is a fair point and I agree for the most part. Javelins should prioritize enemy armor, as this is what they are primarily designed to destroy, and because it is a limited asset. That being said though, a heavy machine gun/sniper/etc pinning you down and causing casualties is a more immediate threat than a possible tank that isn't currently causing casualties. I am of the mind that while ammo should be prioritized, it should not be strictly rationed. Those reserve javelin missiles aren't worth anything if all the operators have been killed by that heavy machine gun/sniper/etc. 

Again, I agree with what you're saying, I just have a slightly different way of viewing the use of ammo. Both rationing and liberal use have drawbacks. Which approach is correct largely comes down to the specific situation and the ever present fog of war. C'est la guerre.

12 hours ago, IanL said:

It is absolutely an increase in lethality but survivability is really only indirectly effected since the Javelin system does not directly protect soldiers from the effects of in coming fire.

Again I agree with what you are saying, but I tend to take a more proactive approach to defense. The best way to survive a gunshot wound is to not get shot in the first place. Same goes for tank combat. Many tend to place most of their faith in the armor of an Abrams tank, instead of following the tactical principle that if you are doing everything correctly the Abrams should never get shot at in the first place. Of course this is an ideal that is usually not attainable, but the principle remains. The best way to survive on any battlefield is to not get shot at. This is why I think the javelin increases survivability for infantry assets. It allows them to engage enemy armor (or other threats) from a concealed position, and has a very high certainty of destroying whatever target its engaging. If my javelin operators can wipe out all enemy tanks/IFVs before the enemy ever has a chance to engage my men, then I view them as the more survivable asset. Again, lots of this comes down to the specifics of the tactical situation and fog of war.

I think the last screenshot of the previous update is a decent illustration of what I'm trying to convey:

On 6/1/2019 at 7:09 PM, IICptMillerII said:

As this is happening, the infantry along the elevated road spot another T-72AV parked in the orchard. They engage it with a javelin missile, destroying this one as well.

VInBJfb.jpg

In this specific situation, the javelin operators have greater survivability compared to the tank they are engaging. Without the javelin, the only thing this infantry team would have would be concealment to protect them. With the javelin, they become the hunters and the tank the prey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 2:53 AM, Erwin said:

It's not viable to use $100,000 to kill one person when one has tens of thousands (or more) persons to kill.  (Unless one gutted all other weapons platforms expenditures/purchases.)  Overly expensive wars are what destroy empires.

So... What is the dollar value of a human life? Depends on who's answering, I would say.

To quote my favorite book: "Men are not potatoes."

On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 8:10 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I've taken to parking AFVs up behind buildings or dense trees (or even better both) and working in close cooperation with an infantry team, popping out to fire for ten seconds at a time and not a second more!  ;)

I did that during my game against @IICptMillerII on 'Atlantic Games' but even shoot and scoot orders with a ten second pause didn't save a Leopard who got nailed by a missile AFTER retreating behind a building. 'Fire and Forget' really does work quite well...

I'd recommend nothing longer than a five second pause in position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 7:57 PM, IICptMillerII said:

Many tend to place most of their faith in the armor of an Abrams tank, instead of following the tactical principle that if you are doing everything correctly the Abrams should never get shot at in the first place. Of course this is an ideal that is usually not attainable, but the principle remains. The best way to survive on any battlefield is to not get shot at.

Sherman tank operators should ingest this wisdom with their corn flakes every morning, and with their tea in the afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, General Jack Ripper said:

I did that during my game against @IICptMillerII on 'Atlantic Games' but even shoot and scoot orders with a ten second pause didn't save a Leopard who got nailed by a missile AFTER retreating behind a building. 'Fire and Forget' really does work quite well...

I'd recommend nothing longer than a five second pause in position.

So far I'm getting away with ten seconds pretty consistently.....I did an accidental extra click on one of my orders, leaving one BMP-3M paused for 15 seconds, it immediately ate a Javelin (my only AFV loss so far)!  :(

In the same game I had another BMP-3M take a sabot round from an Abrams.....It went clean through the empty infantry compartment, doing no damage whatsoever!  :o

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bridges (Cont.)

Then the infantry make contact. An enemy radioman is spotted moving between the buildings of NAI 6 up on the ridge. A Bradley from 2nd platoon spots the movement and pumps some 25mm HE rounds into the area.

BWYP0j8.jpg

As 1st squad cautiously advances closer to the buildings of NAI 12, they draw fire. A casualty is suffered, and the squad goes to ground and begins returning fire.

yfxC87z.jpg

A sharp firefight breaks out. The infantry returns fire as tanks are brought up to pump coax and .50 cal fire into the buildings. A few enemy RPGs are fired at the tanks, but none hit. It’s a race to see who can build fire superiority and win the fight.

A fire mission is called in on the buildings up on the ridge on NAI 6 to help suppress/destroy the enemy infantry there.

kR8J2kd.jpg

Abrams along the MSR pump HEAT rounds into the buildings of NAI 12 and quickly help me gain fire superiority.

IzZMdGm.jpg

With the enemy forces near the MSR either destroyed, suppressed, or under direct observation, I move 2 Abrams across Bridge 32 to strongpoint the other side. They take no fire and encounter no obstacles on the bridge or the far side. I now have possession of both Bridge objectives.

I’ve spoken too soon. Scout team 2 moves up along the left (North) side of the bridge, only to discover what appears to be an entire infantry platoon in foxholes down in the gully directly next to the bridge.

52r8EVh.jpg

The scouts take a casualty before returning fire. This is a curious threat. It doesn’t pose any direct threat to vehicles moving across the bridge, though I can’t just leave it be. The enemy infantry could mount a suicidal yet potentially damaging attack from this position so it must be dealt with.

The scouts Bradley moves up to put direct fire down into the enemy foxholes. It is only able to get a few bursts off before it is hit and knocked out by an RPG. Luckily, the crew survives and are able to bail out. Further, the Bradley is not on fire, so there is little risk to the scouts in close proximity.

NPEPHsY.jpg

A moment later, the scouts return fire with their javelin, vaporizing one of the enemy foxholes.

6l9NQSW.jpg

I decide to risk moving a tank forward to put fire into the gulch. I have the tank move forward just enough to only spot one of the enemy foxholes and give it a pause command of 20 seconds. After which the tank will reverse. The maneuver pays off, the tank is able to lay down coax fire and causes a casualty before reversing to safety. No RPGs are fired.

HH8fWlO.jpg

The tank repeats this maneuver and is soon joined by a wingman. The wingman performs the same maneuver but from a different vantage point. They fire both coax and main gun rounds into the foxholes down in the gulch.

VfGGayx.jpg

1st squad, 2nd platoon takes up a position overlooking the enemy in the gulch. They add their fire to the two tanks, and the enemy position is quickly destroyed.

A3QSvrO.jpg

2nd platoon continues to slowly advance on the buildings of NAI 12. A few enemy infantry make their presence known, but they are quickly bombarded by both small arms and 25mm fire from my infantry and Bradleys. One of the Bradleys fires a TOW into a building, destroying it. The resistance in NAI 12 is rapidly diminishing and the area is soon cleared.

xa6dPpe.jpg

Some stragglers are seen milling around NAI 6 and are sporadically engaged by both Bradleys and infantry. The stragglers appear to be shellshocked and disoriented, wandering around with little semblance of order. At this point I think it is safe to assume that any threat posed by enemy units on NAI 6 has been neutralized. As final insurance, another short but sharp fire mission is called in on the rubble of NAI 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice screens again.

That gully position was an interesting move, but it needed more serious AT capability to be effective....and an escape plan. Perhaps support from afar to engage your tanks it could have posed a better threat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 8:32 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That position would have been a lot more effective if CM vehicles had to abide by the normal rules of gun elevation/depression. 

For the most part, my tanks were engaging enemy infantry the furthest away from them, so the depression was actually realistic. This was partly by design. I wanted to make sure the tanks weren't overexposing themselves to reduce the chance of RPGs being fired at them, and so that whatever unit they were shooting at was thoroughly suppressed/destroyed. The Bradley scout vehicle that was destroyed was also engaging targets at the least extreme depression angle. Though I do think one of the tanks did fire at an enemy unit that was below realistic depression, but moments like that were the exception. Looking back at the pictures they are a bit disorienting and don't do the best job of conveying the scale.

All that said, it would have been slightly more difficult to get effective vehicle fire down into that gully, and the infantry likely would have had to intervene sooner if there was turret elevation modeled in game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simulating realistic gun elevation and depression would be a great addition to the game. It would create some new tactical challenges and would further differentiate vehicle performance in cities and hills. It would also improve infantry chances against armour in cities.

I think gun elevation was an advantage of BMP-2 over BMP-1 in Afghanistan. Also T-55 have limited vertical gun movement due to small height (no room inside for the  gun to move). It was exploited by Israelis in Golan Heights during Yom Kippur. 

Maybe the next  iteration of game engine could support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TOG said:

Simulating realistic gun elevation and depression would be a great addition to the game. It would create some new tactical challenges and would further differentiate vehicle performance in cities and hills. It would also improve infantry chances against armour in cities.

We should all be aware of what this will mean. Either the AI would have to be enhanced to automatically reposition to get the shot it wants. That means armour backing up on its own and moving around the battle field. We should expect a lot more "but he backed up right into the line of fire of <insert scary enemy here> the game is broken". Or it will be yet another thing that the AI cannot do that humans can - we don't really want more differentiating between human control and AI control.

3 hours ago, TOG said:

Maybe the next  iteration of game engine could support it.

It would be cool - yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IanL said:

We should all be aware of what this will mean. Either the AI would have to be enhanced to automatically reposition to get the shot it wants. That means armour backing up on its own and moving around the battle field. We should expect a lot more "but he backed up right into the line of fire of <insert scary enemy here> the game is broken". Or it will be yet another thing that the AI cannot do that humans can - we don't really want more differentiating between human control and AI control.

Yup, that's the rub.  :unsure:

It's a pain in the neck for those conflicts where the use of elevated positions was a distinct tactic, Soviet Afghanistan, Chechnya and the recent fighting in Syria all spring to mind. 

However a game-breaker it isn't.....IMHO.

Share this post


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

Yup, that's the rub.  :unsure:

Indeed they are design decisions that have to be made. Us players can blissfully list our wishes but the boss has to decide how to deal with the side effects and what to prioritize - or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't think about AI. Gun elevation would really hamper it's performance.

With two player games it would be addittional micromanagement - it would probably have to take into account vehicle inclination so people would be looking for small slopes. 

Maybe it could be an option you could turn on and off... But probably it is just too little effect and too much complication to do it just for 2 player games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...