Jump to content
Attilaforfun

ATGMs (and RPGs) an order of magnitude too powerful

Recommended Posts

I purchased SF1 when it came out. I stopped playing after my first mission when Strykers were burning from RPGs. RPGs simply aren't that good. Not even close. Were they then there would be no need for heavy armor as it would be obsolete. I  DL SF2 and play the scenario w US tanks. ATGMs are tearing up the armor. Then RPGs when you get into town. These games are supposed to be realistic yes? When is the last time an M1 was killed by an RPG IRL? They've been fired at THOUSANDS of times in Iraq. Hit hundreds...to my knowledge no dead tanks. These are a mix of A1s, A2s and SEPs. No APS. No dead tanks....

How about we reduce RPG accuracy by 50% and killing power by 90? ATGM hit rate is fine but I see no where in real life where Inf with ATGMs stop armor. No where. 

Anyway this was my war. I would love to purchase and play....but there must be some realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Attilaforfun said:

They've been fired at THOUSANDS of times in Iraq. Hit hundreds...to my knowledge no dead tanks. These are a mix of A1s, A2s and SEPs. No APS. No dead tanks....

I think that depends on your definition of 'dead' TBH:

"Further combat was seen during 2003 when US forces invaded Iraq and deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, in an invasion that lasted just 43 days (20 March to 1 May). M1 tanks proved instrumental in leading rapid attacks against the Iraqi military, as exemplified by the so-called 'Thunder Runs.' As of March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks shipped back to the United States for repair due to fire from enemy attacks.[32] Abandoned Abrams were purposely destroyed by friendly fire to prevent recovery of vehicle or technology. Damages by 25 mm AP-DU, anti-armor RPG fire, and 12.7 mm rounds was encountered. There were no confirmed instances of anti-tank guided weapons or anti-tank mines striking the US MBTs.[33] However, there is some speculation that Kornet ATGMs were used during the Battle of Najaf to knock out two Abrams, but Russian officials denied selling the weapon to Iraq.[34] What is known is that the two Abrams were struck by unknown weapons, and their ammunition stores ignited. Nevertheless, both crews escaped without serious injury.[35][36] Some Abrams were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the RPG-7. Although the RPG-7 is unable to penetrate the front and sides, the rear and top are vulnerable to this weapon. Frequently the rockets were fired at the tank tracks.[citation needed] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams

As mentioned, a fairly substantial number of M1s need 'major overhauls' after that campaign (my recollection was around 150 rather than 80, but I won't argue the toss on statistics).  ;)

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea what RPG rounds were being used in Iraq back then? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7

RPG_PG_7R.png

The PG-7VR has been around since the late eighties and Syria has been a favoured client of the USSR/Russia over the years (sole user of the T-72A outside the Warsaw Pact).....Is it possible that US forces in Syria in 2008 would be facing different RPGs to those used in Iraq in 2003?

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The modern MBT's are practically immune to the older RPG warheads & ATGM's (AT-3's & 4's)... at least from the front anyway.

Strykers (with their cages) & IFV's (with era kits) can also get lucky, if hit by such older weapons.

The older weapons also have higher dud rates & I've, occasionally, seen old RPG's do absolutely no damage even to the weaker vehicles.

 

Either way, the modern RPG warheads & ATGM's have increased capabilities. The AT-14's & RPG-29's especially, are extremely deadly... even to the most advanced & upgraded Western tanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that perhaps your tanks are just too close to enemy positions and/or not screened properly by infantry if you're getting hit by RPGs so often?

3 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

How about we reduce RPG accuracy by 50% and killing power by 90?

That's just silly sorry.

3 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

 ATGM hit rate is fine but I see no where in real life where Inf with ATGMs stop armor. No where.

Hezbollah in Lebanon? I don't know about stopping the Israeli offensive entirely but they sure disabled a handful or merkavas.

https://calibreobscura.substack.com/p/hezbollahs-favourite-atgm

First link that I came across with a quick google search.

Edited by Zveroboy1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

Is it possible that perhaps your tanks are just too close to enemy positions and/or not screened properly by infantry if you're getting hit by RPGs so often?

That's just silly sorry.

Hezbollah in Lebanon? I don't know about stopping the Israeli offensive entirely but they sure disabled a handful or merkavas.

https://calibreobscura.substack.com/p/hezbollahs-favourite-atgm

First link that I came across with a quick google search.

 RPG armed insurgents engaged at  less than 200 meters on a regular basis. At least 14 hits on Strykers. One kill that was actually an issue with SOP (POL storage...rocket did not penetrate). One penetration resulting in one serious injury (The XO...flew to Germany and survived). That's real life. That's where I'm getting the 'silly' hit/kill rate from. Where are you getting your info from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sgt.Squarehead answered the first part of your question pretty well I thought :

- depends on what you count as a kill
One of your vehicles gets hit and disabled by a RPG but the enemy flees and leaves you in control of the battlefield. You can recover it and send it back to the rear for repairs. It is not counted as a total kill in official statistics even though in practice it was out of action for the rest of the engagement.

- the Syrian setting with different more modern and deadly rounds that haven't been kept in storage for years or manufactured locally with poor quality standards and end up being duds

- RPGs fired by a regular well trained army instead of insurgents who don't just panic and forget to arm it before firing

That takes care of the lethality part of the equation imo.

What I am trying to understand is how come you're getting hit so often in the first place.
And some of the things you said in your first post made me wonder how exactly you are using your tanks that RPGs are such a big problem for you that you come to the forum asking for a nerf.

21 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

RPGs simply aren't that good. Not even close. Were they then there would be no need for heavy armor as it would be obsolete.

Do you play WW2 CM games as well? Because I am not sure how the threat of RPGs is fundamentally different from panzerfausts, shreks and bazookas. If you stay out of range, which is quite short really and screen your tanks properly with infantry you're not going to get hit that much really. Granted this is not always possible, especially if you are talking about urban fighting but still. RPGs haven't made armour obsolete any more than fausts or bazookas have in WW2.

And this is against the AI too I take it. Even against a competent human player, if you apply basic tactics, in a typical engagement your opponent is not likely to be able to fire more than half a dozen RPGs at your tanks or IFVs during the whole battle. Half of these are going to miss and a good proportion of the remaining half will get stopped by the slat cage or era blocks.

Maybe go in the editor before you play a scenario and change the experience level of the AI to conscript or green and you will get hit a lot less often. Additionally you could try playing with the equipment quality setting.

I am trying to say this in the nicest way possible but maybe it is possible that you suffer from the "I am driving an uber tank" syndrome and expect it to be invincible even though you use subpar or plain reckless tactics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A standard RPG warhead can penetrate more than a foot of steel. The first recorded RPG fired at a Stryker in Iraq was on January 30, 2004. Charlie 2-2 of 'Charger' company. Fired from less than 100 meters, it detonated against the forward cage, the jet managed to get between the Mexas tiles and cut the coolant lines for the engine. The crew didn't realize they had been holed until 90 minutes later when (I assume) the engine overheated.

As a general rule of thumb , it isn't sound tactics in CM to assume your opponent is going to be blind, incompetent, and their equipment isn't going to work. Admittedly often they are, but usually not at the moment you need them to be. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1 armor is not steel. Total casualties from 14 Stryker hits....1. A seasoned Soviet soldier hitting does no more damage than the peasants we fought. Read this carefully....14 hits one soldier was out of the fight...

I do play the WW2 games and you'll note no complaints. The armor of 1940s tanks doesn't even compare with the armor of modern armor tanks. 

I also don't understand the diversions. Skill level, AI, tactics....those are all extremely important topics....but have nothing to do with what I am talking about. Imagine if 37mm ATGs had a 50% kill rate against KVs. Would you agree that was an issue?  

If the fatality rate is raised it will necessarily effect tactics in an unrealistic way. The US Army isn't nearly as cowardly as it has to be in this flawed simulation.

 

Edited by Attilaforfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a defense of the (modern) system from people that are very well read and highly educated...I mean no offense. If there is someone else with RL RPG experience by all means put me in my place....I do suspect however they will agree with my assertion. 

Edited by Attilaforfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

M1 armor is not steel. Total casualties from 14 Stryker hits....1. A seasoned Soviet soldier hitting does no more damage than the peasants we fought. Read this carefully....14 hits one soldier was out of the fight...

Where the hit was scored does matter quite a lot. I tested a bit and after around 30 hits on strikers with rpg7 ive had only one instance of a hit that got through the slat armour.

Every other Ko came from hits above or below it which is exactly as i would expect.

 

7 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

I also don't understand the diversions. Skill level, AI, tactics....those are all extremely important topics....but have nothing to do with what I am talking about. Imagine if 37mm ATGs had a 50% kill rate against KVs. Would you agree that was an issue? 

If someone would report a 50% loss rate on KVs to 37mm pak id question their tactics far more than the games simulation because a Ko isnt impossible just very unlikely so for that loss rate to occur there had to have been massive user errors.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall when they were first building Bradley they decided to do a live fire test - Bradley vs RPG. The Pentagon purposefully selected the smallest warhead available for the test. They fired it at the Bradley and to their embarrassment the vehicle burned like a Roman candle down to a puddle of aluminum. That was before the invention of ceramic tiles and reactive armor boxes. Here's report about another more 'successful' test.

Quote

April 18, 1986

A simulated combat test of the Bradley armored personnel carrier was criticized today by a group of Congressmen as misleading and unrealistic.

The Army denied that the test was designed to mislead.

A test shell was to have hit the vehicle at a point where boxes of ammunition are normally kept, but the Army replaced the ammunition with water cans, reducing the damage done in the test.

The Congressmen called the test an ''outrage'' and a ''manipulation.'' They said it might endanger appropriations for the vehicle.

The replacement of the interior ammunition boxes with cans of water in a March 20 test was reported in an April 15 internal Pentagon memorandum written by Col. James Burton of the Air Force, a testing supervisor in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.

An Army spokesman said the water cans and ammunition boxes had been switched to see if such a change would reduce crew casualties.

The Army Chief of Staff, Gen. John A. Wickham Jr. protested what he called charges that the Army was ''dishonest.'' ''Honor is not an empty word to the soldiers of the United States Army,'' he said, adding ''integrity is non-negotiable.'' He said the Army was committed to providing the best equipment ''at the lowest risk to our soldiers.''

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2019 at 9:11 AM, 37mm said:

The AT-14's & RPG-29's especially, are extremely deadly

RPG-7's PG-7VR uses the same warhead as RPG-29.

On 12/20/2019 at 6:43 AM, Attilaforfun said:

but there must be some realism.

  1. Too much realism will probably make it too dull to play :)
    • The only Soviet RPGs posing at least a remote threat to Western modern armor are RPG-29 and PG-7VR. CMxx portrays adversaries to have lots of RPG-29 and PG-7VRs as a standard ammo for RPG-7. IRL Iraqis had literally a handful of them so your RL statistics is based on PG-7VL that's known to be useless against cage armor and modern tanks
    • Being in agreement with you on exaggerated first-hit probability in CMSF I suggest you have a look at CMBS. If I remember correctly the results of a somewhat limited test of mine to have an 80% probability of at least a single hit at 150m with Green/Rested/0 leadership troops one has to simultaneously launch at least 5 grenades. I haven't read about such a degree of coordination ever present in Iraq. But similar tactics and skills did stop the advance of Israeli armor during the last Lebanon War.
  2. I may add to the list of CMBS stuff that is wildly off.
    • Mk19 enviable innacuracy: I posted CMBS tests vs. US Army shooting range examination guidelines. CMBS Mk19 and its troops are nowhere near being eligible to use Mk19 by US Army standards whatsoever :)
    • Crazy underperformance of artillery bombardment against armored targets. I posted Soviet and American test results with pictures though it was quite a time ago - year or two or even more. Non-PG 120, 122 and 152mm artillery is practically useless against armor in CMBS whereas artillery barrages were absolutely deadly IRL.

PS You'd better be patient about CMxx inaccuracies - BFC normally does not change anything in already released titles. Though 20 years ago when I first started playing CM titles and signed up for the forum sound user feedback did matter ;):) I remember it was possible to influence the game model by say digging up the results of some Russian test shooting of a German tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Attilaforfun said:

Thank you all for putting up with my venting. I've got BS and you are right about the Mk19s. Mk19s should be interchangeable w .50s. I'll quit my crying...for now! :)

Please don't :) You're the one of not so many of us who has first hand experience with this stuff. It would be good if you at least let us know when see something out of the way in the game. It would train our brain models at least if not the game's :)

Share this post


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

Thank you all for putting up with my venting. I've got BS and you are right about the Mk19s. Mk19s should be interchangeable w .50s. I'll quit my crying...for now! :)

Dude we all have our gripes, with these games believe me (for instance, with an experienced crew, a beam riding missile should not trigger a 'Laser Warning' until the moment before it hits).....However the question you have to ask yourself, at the end of the day, is "What game could I play that models this stuff better?".  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IMHO said:

RPG-7's PG-7VR uses the same warhead as RPG-29.

They are both tandem warheads, but they are still different rounds... although I don't think there's that much in it.

The RPG-29 rounds also produce larger explosions & have a greater anti-personnel effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 37mm said:

They are both tandem warheads, but they are still different rounds

Certainly they're different rounds - they have different rocket motors :) But the wareheads are the same.

1395891909_otvaga2004_rpg29_02.jpg

Edited by IMHO

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...