Jump to content

ATGMs (and RPGs) an order of magnitude too powerful


Recommended Posts

In CMBS the RPG-7V1 matches the CMSF2 weapon's penetration stats of 500mm. But that title also fields a RPG-7V2 with penetration stats matching RPG-29 at 750m. I believe RPG-7V2 and RPG-29 use the same PG 29U warhead pictured above. While making CMBS, Steve said RPG-29 was not going to be included on the Russian weapons list. I recall he said Russia decided to stick with the good-old RPG launcher firing the same warhead (though with half the effective range of the RPG-29).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't know what the issue is... the RPG-7 & RPG-29 are different weapons with different in-game observed effects.

There is a claim, I think, that the game is wrong in some manner because there should be no differences between the two weapon systems... but there are, both in real-life & the game.

So, again, what's the issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Steve said RPG-29 was not going to be included on the Russian weapons list. I recall he said Russia decided to stick with the good-old RPG launcher firing the same warhead

Absolutely correct. AFAIK RL range for PG-7VR is more like 100-150m - the grenade is certainly too heavy for its rocket motor.

13 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

In CMBS the RPG-7V1 matches the CMSF2 weapon's penetration stats of 500mm. But that title also fields a RPG-7V2 with penetration stats matching RPG-29 at 750m. I believe RPG-7V2 and RPG-29 use the same PG 29U warhead pictured above

Just a little correction to the terminology. RPG-7xx has no penetration in itself - it's the name of the "tube". The difference in penetration are in rounds - PG-7V, -7VL, -7VR. RPG is Handheld Antitank Grenade launcher, PG is Antitank Grenade, TBG is Thermobaric Grenade, OG is Fragmentation Grenade. If we take RPG-7, RPG-7V1 and RPG-7V2 then the first will have iron sights and the other two - somewhat different optical sights capable of handling PG-7VR and TBG. Hope I'm not much of a nit picker :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there’s a lot going on here...

First and foremost, anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Not saying this to belittle, just state a fact. There’s an anecdote of a B-17 crew member falling over 10k feet and surviving, but I won’t be using that as an example of why parachutes are not needed. 

As to RPG vs armor, I frankly have no idea what you’re talking about here. I’ve never seen an RPG-7 do more than scratch the paint on an Abrams in game, and there are a whole multitude of AARs and other documented examples of this here on the forum. Further, most ATGMs, to include the AT-14 are largely ineffective against the frontal armor of the M1. This is all realistic and very well modeled. 

I have two ideas of what it may be that you’re seeing. 

The first is that for whatever reason you are putting your vehicles in highly vulnerable positions. Driving a stryker or a tank down a narrow alleyway where it can be engaged from the sides and rear at point blank range by anti-tank weapons is never healthy, even if the anti-tank weapons being used against them are generally ineffective under ideal circumstances. If you allow the enemy a chance to get that lucky shot off, chances are it'll happen. 

Second, its possible that you were up against RPG-29s. Not sure how much you know about the RPG-29, but in a nutshell its got a monster HEAT warhead that is capable of cutting through all kinds of armor, including the Abrams, from most aspects. It could have been that whatever scenario you were playing, OpFor were equipped with a large number of RPG-29s and you were on the receiving end of it. Both Syrian special ops and fighter formations come with the RPG-29.

As to "reducing RPG accuracy" that mostly comes down to the skill of the operator. Conscript soldiers will be much less accurate with an RPG than Veteran or Elite soldiers will be. Motivation will affect how much fire they're willing to brave to get off a shot. 

As for reducing the "killing power" of an RPG by "90" I would strongly disagree here. CM does an exceptional job of simulating armor and the weapons made to defeat armor. RPG warheads are well modeled in this respect, and I highly doubt that their hard coded "stats" are going to be changed anytime soon. (Unless of course you can prevent Steve and the BFC crew with credible sources showing that the RPG is in fact over-modeled, though I think this would be a fools errand.) 
I will give you this however, I do think that if CM modeled weapon failure rates more, then the base RPG-7 available to the Syrians would be much less effective. In Iraq 2003 a large number of RPG-7 warheads fired at US forces failed to detonate. There were Bradley's that got hit dozens of times but the RPG's literally just bounced off the armor because they had bad fuses and such. This was mostly due to the Iraqi's having large amounts of cheap knockoff Chinese warheads that even under ideal circumstances would have failed to perform more often than not. Add into that equation less than ideal storage and maintenance by the Iraqi's and the high failure rates of the warheads makes a lot of sense. The Syrians (at least the fighters/combatants) would very likely suffer from the same affliction in game, so I do think there is an argument for increasing the rate of weapons failure in game. . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Abrams' are not created equal. A CMSF2 Marines M1A1 HC does not have the reactive armor skirts of the M1A2 SA TUSK. And that doesn't have the turret-side reactive armor plates of the CMBS M1A2 SA (not to mention Trophy APS). If you get hit broadside on the engine compartment all that fancy DU armor up front isn't going to help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2019 at 10:43 PM, Attilaforfun said:

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.

Really? You can't imagine what use there would be for a cross country capable 40 ton battle-tank with a 125mm cannon, machine guns, night vision and thermal optics in a modern battlefield otherwise? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of observations;

1. From a contextual view;

a. Amateur Insurgents in Iraq would often use HE instead of AP / HEAT rockets when engaging Armour with RPGs simply because they didn't know any better. I also heard this was because they simply thought the bigger bang from HE did more damage to armour...

b. Chechen RPG  teams (ex Sovient trained) would typically immobilize Russian Armour first and only then look to finish of the vehicle (I think this is poorly modeled in the game - AT teams always seem to go for kill shots straight off from what Ive seen...)

c. Insurgents evolved to using IEDs as these where more effective and less risk in terms of engaging Armour.

 

2. From a game point of view, Ive played a number of CMSF2 games now, largely uncons vs western conventional and find;

a. RPG 7s  can only effectively destroy un-upgraded IFVs or IFVs with no reactive Armour. Even vehicles with Bar / Slats?? armour get lucky depending on the direction the rocket is coming in from. 

b. RPG7s have no effect on any of the MBTs that I have seen - except sometimes mainly to maybe tracks.

c. The RPG29s are lethal to any IFV and quite lethal against even MBTs especially if a non frontal hit.

c. The older ATGMs are effective against IFVs but not modern MBTs and the newer ATGMs (AT14) effective against MBTs - but not necessarily reliable single hit kills.

d. The odds of ATGMs hitting their target comes down to a lot of variables - open fields of fire, enough open space for the complete flight path of the ATGM, range to target (the shorter the more reliable), if the target is hull down I find a big reduction in hit chance, any trees in the flight path have a good chance of prematurely detonating the ATGM. Throw in lady luck and the interaction of all of the above and I find you have a real mix of results - and of course both players will impact all of these variables....

If you want to have a game I have an awesome UNCONs vs Conventional Map - lets go for a large Conventional attack, Ill start as the conventionals and you can try and blow my tin cans to pieces - how about I go as brits or marines????

I like the mirror game of this as well so then happy to have at it with that after!!!!

Cheers

Gaz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try playing as the Syrians and you will start cursing at how useless your RPGs are. :D That's exactly what I did a ways back when I played the Ambush at Al Fubar scenario as the insurgents. You get a bunch of guys with RPG-7s and have to block an enemy Stryker advance through a neighborhood. I kept setting up these nice RPG ambushes only to get frustrated when they would uselessly bounce off the slat armor over and over again. Then my RPG guys would get instantly blown away after they fired their one shot.

I had wondered about the effectiveness of RPGs in-game vs real life ever since CMSF1 came out. I don't think the US military is very open about the equipment losses they took in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is this article though:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401347.html

The military seemed to take enormous vehicle losses throughout those wars from all causes, from battle damage to wear and tear and mechanical breakdowns, but there's no way to tell how many of those were specifically from combat. The military isn't gonna come out and say "Yeah we totally had 40 Bradleys destroyed by the enemy this year", but according to that article, the military had $17+ billion worth of equipment destroyed or worn out each year up to the date of that article, which is 2006. They took so many losses that a lot of units were rendered unfit to deploy due to lack of equipment. I've heard a lot of talk over the years about how Abrams tanks are supposed to be so great and invincible and so on, but by December 2006 more than 530 Abrams had to be shipped back to the US for repairs, meaning tanks so badly damaged or broken down that they could not be serviced in the field at all. There was a depot in Texas that had 700 broken down or destroyed Bradleys at one point.

It's worth pointing out as well all of the Iraqi Abrams tanks destroyed by ISIS. The Iraqis had 140 of them before the war, but by the end of 2014 they had only 40 of them left. A lot of them were captured by ISIS fighters and then destroyed by US air strikes, but apparently about a third of them were destroyed by ISIS fighters, often with Kornet ATGMs or infantry close assaults, since the Iraqi Army was not all that good at protecting them with the whole tank-infantry coordination thing. Of course those were not the same type of Abrams as the more advanced US military ones, but those are still some pretty heavy losses.

There's also the fact that the CM games have a kind of simplified damage model, so what would count as "knocked out" for the purposes of one scenario might be something that could be fixed in real life fairly quickly, and the vehicle could get moving again, albeit busted up pretty badly and eventually ending up as a repair statistic in a Washington Post article.

I don't think that the way CM handles things is flawless, but reducing the effectiveness of RPGs and ATGMs by 90% seems a little extreme! There is one thing that I don't think CM models all that well though, which is crew casualties. I feel like they are too high and too likely to be KIA instead of just WIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bozowans said:

I don't think the US military is very open about the equipment losses they took in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No military is going to advertise its losses, to the enemy it is fighting, during the conflict.

“Hey Adolf, you knocked out xx Sherman’s this month! Just wanted to let you know so you know that us allies are the good guys because we disclose everything immediately!” -Eisenhower, showing the world that being a war fighter is no excuse not to disclose the truth at all times.
 

9 hours ago, Bozowans said:

The military seemed to take enormous vehicle losses throughout those wars from all causes, from battle damage to wear and tear and mechanical breakdowns, but there's no way to tell how many of those were specifically from combat.

The vast majority are wear and tear. Sorry to shatter the sexy image, but after 2003-2004 tanks simply weren’t heavily used all over the place (or really at all in Afghanistan) because they were the wrong tool for the job. On top of that, no one was driving these things down city streets to be lit up by RPGs from every possible angle. 
 

9 hours ago, Bozowans said:

They took so many losses that a lot of units were rendered unfit to deploy due to lack of equipment.

So do most heavy units that rotate through NTC. No joke, this happens. A unit slated for a deployment will go to NTC for a train up and break all of their equipment, rendering them unable to deploy. Granted that isn’t the norm, but it has happened a few times. Point is, combat conditions and just general field operations are hard on vehicles. They require constant maintenance to keep in the field. And there are different levels of maintenance as well. All those Bradley’s at a depot in TX? Those are deadlined vehicles that have to be repaired by the company that makes the Bradley. Not from combat damage, but regular wear and tear. 
 

These vehicles are 30-40 years old, and are handled by 18-20 year olds who are tired, hopped up on caffeine, and pissed off at everything. And they’re essentially driving a big rental vehicle that they perceive to be invincible. How long do you think your car would last in the hands of a 19 year old with a fetish for amateur off-roading? 
 

Again, the point is that regular wear and tear does far more damage to vehicles than people realize. Not to mention the desert is not a friendly environment to vehicles. 
 

9 hours ago, Bozowans said:

It's worth pointing out as well all of the Iraqi Abrams tanks destroyed by ISIS. The Iraqis had 140 of them before the war, but by the end of 2014 they had only 40 of them left. A lot of them were captured by ISIS fighters and then destroyed by US air strikes, but apparently about a third of them were destroyed by ISIS fighters, often with Kornet ATGMs or infantry close assaults, since the Iraqi Army was not all that good at protecting them with the whole tank-infantry coordination thing. Of course those were not the same type of Abrams as the more advanced US military ones, but those are still some pretty heavy losses.

As you correctly point out, a US Abrams does not equal an Iraqi Abrams. And the fact that the Iraqis lost so many tanks to ISIS is no surprise. You know who the Iraqis also lost a lot of tanks to? Literal human wave attacks in the Iran-Iraq war. As in Iraqi tanks in fighting positions were overrun by Iranian human wave attacks, across open terrain. Yeah... I think it’s safe to say that Iraq could use some remedial training in the art of armored warfare. 
 

9 hours ago, Bozowans said:

I don't think that the way CM handles things is flawless, but reducing the effectiveness of RPGs and ATGMs by 90% seems a little extreme! There is one thing that I don't think CM models all that well though, which is crew casualties. I feel like they are too high and too likely to be KIA instead of just WIA.

I certainly agree on both points here. I don’t think RPGs are undermodeled, and I also think that the wounded to killed ratio in general, but specifically with vehicle crews favors killed over wounded far too much. But I suppose that’s a different discussion. 

Edited by IICptMillerII
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

As you correctly point out, a US Abrams does not equal an Iraqi Abrams. And the fact that the Iraqis lost so many tanks to ISIS is no surprise.

I reckon you may be being a little unfair towards 9th AD there fella.....They were asked to deploy their forces in battles that they were less than ideally suited for, like Mosul:

5c93f6d4dda4c86c318b45cf.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2019 at 2:59 AM, IICptMillerII said:

These vehicles are 30-40 years old, and are handled by 18-20 year olds who are tired, hopped up on caffeine, and pissed off at everything. And they’re essentially driving a big rental vehicle that they perceive to be invincible. How long do you think your car would last in the hands of a 19 year old with a fetish for amateur off-roading? 

+1.  THIS!  We had a 1/4 ton (jeep) in our unit (313th MI / 82nd Abn.) in the 1980s that was re-built twice from roll-over accidents. :D  In the 82nd we would have said the troops were highly motivated not pissed ...... but same results as far as equipment I suppose... :D 

Edited by MOS:96B2P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

American military thinking is predicated on invincible hardware. It bleeds into pop culture too - War Thunder added the Abrams family recently and hoo boy are people angry that it can be killed, sometimes, by some weapons rather than being completely impervious.

e: And Americans talking about Monkey Models is pretty funny and ironic too. 😂

Edited by DougPhresh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2020 at 12:08 PM, DougPhresh said:

American military thinking is predicated on invincible hardware.

Yeah... no. There isn’t a single doctrine, SOP, ATP, or TTP out there that assumes anything is invincible, especially when it comes to hardware. In fact, every single one of those governing documents/doctrines/procedures assumes (correctly) that the hardware is not only capable of failure/destruction, but most likely will even under ideal circumstances. 
 

Just because something is considered survivable or hard to kill dies not mean it’s ok for that thing to take damage or be in a compromising position. Humans can survive direct hots from .50 caliber rounds and even 25mm HE. Does that mean everyone disregards these things as threats though? No, of course not. 
 

The whole “muh murican” memes are old and boring and definitely shouldn’t be used as an example of anything, especially survivability against ATGMs or RPGs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Attilaforfun has made a good point.

I think what would be of more help would be to be differentiate the PROJECTILE from the LAUNCHER. Just because an RPG launcher is shouldered, does not mean the projectile is optimized for the target.

A test would be fun. Toss some green/conscript irregulars with poor equipment on a map. Make sure their anti-tank ordnance is limited/old/non-existent and then drive some Abrams or Strykers past them. Count the launches. Count the hits. Assess the damage.

Real-life experience is critical to use to assess the fidelity of the model. If there is such wide divergence between someone's real-life experience and his in-game experience, well, let's dig down.

1. The majority of what differs (impacts) could be ascribed to the aforementioned projectile differences.

2. Accuracy can be tested by varying the range at which in-game launches are initiated and the skill level (and other soft factors) of the unit.

3. Tactics would mostly be an examination of range. E.g., is the player driving into the main square with a single vehicle, or standing off at 700m+ with a platoon?

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combatintman has a scenario (Qarmat Ali QRF) for CMSF 1 that manages to replicate ineffective RPG accounts surprisingly well. You're marching over a massive bridge, and tons of RPG rounds can fly at you, mostly ineffectually. This is down to both skill level, and the ranges that the engagement happens at.

to Quote George MC's AAR on this one: 

Quote

Started off slow – kept my guys mounted up in their wagons and moved slowly forward. Made contact immediately after moving, and took some RPG fire. I then thought the buidlings on my left looked “funny” so dismounted a section to secure my flank. Other section (still mounted) took enemy contacts under fire with 30mm and chaingun seeking to supress them. Buildings on left after this increasingly looked “funny” and fearing bad guys sneaking up, moved the other Warrior and its section closer to buildings and dismounted the troops. Started clearing and securing the left flank houses. Meanwhile both Warriors took up positions to engage enemy contacts on other side of river. Both Warriors were engaged by ineffectual and inaccurate RPG fire. Dismounts also engaged enemy contacts on other side of river. Left flank secure. So far so good.

and

Quote

The dismounts from this multiple set-up a perimeter and start chucking smoke grenades like there is no tomorrow. Let’s face it if they don’t there most likely isn’t for them…My two surviving Warriors using fire and manoeuvre advance to their help. As they get closer they also pop smoke. As they make contact with the ill-fated multiple on the end of the bridge everyone scrambles to mount up and the whole lot hightail it out of dodge. Luckily none of the warriors takes a hit although there are a lot of RPGs winging about.

From the sounds of the AAR, he over-committed, and lost more than he should have done, but the main narrative of the mission is the RPG-to-dead-Warrior ratio is extremely lopsided.

 

Edited by domfluff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

Combatintman has a scenario (Qarmat Ali QRF) for CMSF 1 that manages to replicate ineffective RPG accounts surprisingly well. You're marching over a massive bridge, and tons of RPG rounds can fly at you, mostly ineffectually. This is down to both skill level, and the ranges that the engagement happens at.

to Quote George MC's AAR on this one: 

and

From the sounds of the AAR, he over-committed, and lost more than he should have done, but the main narrative of the mission is the RPG-to-dead-Warrior ratio is extremely lopsided.

 

He! I mind a load of RPGs whizzing about - made it rather exciting. 

I may, on reflection, have been a tad 'over' aggressive - if there is such a thing!

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've moved on from my prototype Black Sea campaign to the Canadian CM:SF 2 campaign.

Syrian RPG-7s are as effective as firecrackers against the front glacis of my Leo2a6s. I've been parking my Leos right up to enemy buildings -- and I've never seen any entrenched defender turn POW so easily! Recoil-less rifles and ATGMs tend to miss on first shot, and are quickly eliminated by overwatching IFVs. The biggest threat to my IFVs has been the mud.

I also played the UK campaign in CM:SF1 and remember only losing 1 Chally due to a bottom glacis RPG-29 hit. I was quite upset, until I realized that actually happened. I've lost quite a few Warriors to RPGs, though.

My advice:

a. Keep your MBT's sides facing secured positions. You can't rely on side armour for anything more than .50 cal protection. 14.7mm can mess up your tracks, which leads you to mobility losses. This means flanking MBTs with infantry squads should be standard operating procedure.

b. Don't use IFVs, or gods-forbid APCs, in assault roles. Either leave them to the rear, on overwatch -- or have them follow behind your MBTs & infantry. Don't trust ERA or cage armour, even if it looks impressive.

c. Try to engage less technologically advanced opponents at arm's reach. Enemy RPGs, recoil-less rifles and ATGMs have less chance of scoring hits at longer ranges. The flat, desert, terrain allows for good LOS. It just so happens that Western optics and weapons are designed for long ranges.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...