Another complain about Syrian AT assets

[Secondbrooks]

You know thats what they do IRL, right?

Oh, you again.

Steve:

I honestly don't remember where we got our setup times for these weapons. We did that research more than 2 years ago. But at the time we were pretty confident that the setup times were realistic considering that they simulate a range of things (off the top of my head):

1. Dismounting the weapon parts from a vehicle

2. Dismounting the ammo from a vehicle

3. Locating the best spot to set up the weapon (which, obviously is quite variable)

4. Setting up the tripod so that it is secured and level

5. Assembling the optics/sights onto the weapon

6. Assembling any other pieces of the weapon

7. Mounting it onto the tripod

8. Getting the weapon ready for actual use

9. Loading the first round for the weapon

Many things (the underlined ones) you mention in that list don't have anything to do with deploying times of the system, they do take time but they are not part of deploying (they are part of "preparing for battle"). Riflesquad (with Javelin or not) doesn't need to "deploy" in game when it goes to positions ready to engage enemy and neither do tanks.

Again i don't know other systems as well as AT-4 (which i know only from those who served with it), but based on AT-4:

5. Assembling the optics/sights onto the weapon

6. Assembling any other pieces of the weapon

7. Mounting it [tripod i presume?] onto the tripod

Are quite irelevant as AT-4 has tripod and optics always attached, they are just flipped open when system is deployed. Well we had few additional things such as thermal optics and detector for IR-countermeasures, but Syria seems to have just ordinary version of it so those can be scrapped.

8. Getting the weapon ready for actual use

Don't remember was there anything other than putting missile on place... There could be "tester" for checking possible malfunctions. I might check it later.

So AT-4 is fast already.

[ChrisND]

Those Russian setup times remind me of NASCAR pit crews. They're like the time it *ideally* takes to change a car tire. Best case scenario - 30 seconds. Typical time taken - 1/2 hour

I wouldn't be so sure. I can drag out standard deployment times from my mortar manuals, and we were expected to meet those times, unless the terrain was difficult. I'll bet it was a darn sight more complicated to set up than an spg-29 too.

[Alek]

I could not understand -

Why FM-manual and other stories about Javelin it is made in game precisely - really 30 seconds or less for deployment and a shot in game

But why Russian FM about AT-4, SPG-9 and another (they are made with the same purpose as FM about Djavelin for US Army)-consider an idealist?

You consider that the Soviet command in training deceived the soldiers?

[Thomm]

I also think that a manual is a manual and not a sales brochure.

By the way, a countdown showing where exactly in the deploying process a team stands would be nice.

Best regards,

Thomm

[TempV]

Many things (the underlined ones) you mention in that list don't have anything to do with deploying times of the system, they do take time but they are not part of deploying (they are part of "preparing for battle"). Riflesquad (with Javelin or not) doesn't need to "deploy" in game when it goes to positions ready to engage enemy and neither do tanks.

I second that. Concerning the game itself we speak mainly about redeploying during the battle. There is no need to reattach sights on Fagot or Metis launchers if you are changing position.

What I will say however is, what in that whole list of points is fundimentally different from a HMG? The only AT weapon that comes in more than 2 pieces is an AT-3 and they do not need to deal with any recoil which means you can get away with a sloppy job setting out the tripod.

Very good point too. The tripod of SPG-9 is such simple as anyone of modern HMG.

My proposal to leave "heavy" ATGM as the are, but decrease deploy time for SPG-9, AT-7, AT-13 to no more than 1 min.

[Battlefront.com]

Bolteg,

You do guys realise that if the team during the training doesn't make it in the time that's written in the manual, it gives a reason to "old guys" - "dedy" - to kick some butts?

If it's written, then one doesn't have to be superman, but just trained soldier to complete in the requested time.

That's not the case. As was mentioned before, the Soviets spent a lot of time training soldiers on very specific and narrow things. I remember reading the reports on AT-3 gunnery, for example. Lots and lots and lots and lots of practice and still a very terrible % chance to hit despite what the manuals said.

What you guys have to remember is that the Syrians are not Soviets. They're standard of training is likely way below what the Soviets have. Therefore, pointing to something in a Soviet manual, which requires training to achieve, isn't necessarily relevant to the Syrians.

Note that I've not been saying that the long setup times we have in the game right now are correct. In fact, I don't even remember how we arrived at them because it was so long ago. What I am saying is that I think there are some fanciful ideas of how long it takes to set up some of these systems in total. My list of 9 steps was meant to illustrate the SPG-9, BTW, not anything else. I should have been more clear about that.

Alek,

Why FM-manual and other stories about Javelin it is made in game precisely - really 30 seconds or less for deployment and a shot in game

We were able to independently verify this information. In fact, we don't believe everything that is written about the Javelin. The chance of hitting in CM:SF is lower than the official numbers given by the US military and Raytheon (the prime contractor of the system).

You consider that the Soviet command in training deceived the soldiers?

In some cases, yes. The qualities of armored vehicles, in particular, are significantly overstated. The deficiencies are under stated, or completely ignored. Since the Soviet Union was a dictatorship, they could get away with that sort of thing very easily. Sometimes the same tricks are often tried even here in the US, but the truth usually comes out very quickly. Traditionally on the TV show 60 Minutes

Therefore, while we do not completely disbelieve Soviet sources, we do view them more skeptically than we do Western sources (which we also view skeptically).

Back to the meat of the discussion...

OK, so we have the official Soviet setup time for the SPG-9 stated as 35 seconds. I find it very difficult to believe that the SPG-9 can be set up and operated as quickly as a Javelin. The Javelin is two pieces which snap together. That's it. I've even done this myself and I think even with instructions being given to me the first time I did it in under 30 seconds.

Therefore, I'd like you guys to think of things in relative terms. If a Javelin can be set up in 30 seconds, and is one of the most braindead simple ATGM systems in the world, why would more complicated systems take no longer to setup and ready for firing?

Again, I'm not trying to say that 5 minutes for a particular Syrian system is accurate. What I'm trying to do is get a better understanding of what a typical setup time would be for these systems.

Steve

[JonS]

Steve,

it's hard to know at this remove, but it does appear that you've included things in the SPG (and in general for the Syrians) that aren't included for Western Forces. For example, in your list of 9 steps you have things like getting the kit out of the vehicle. First off, I'd have thought that that has nothing to do with setting up, and if it does have something to do with setting up then why isn't it also a factor for the Javelin et al.

Secondly, in the past you've said that elite is elite, and regular is regular, and nationality has nothing to do with it. If that's the case, then presumably a Syrian Regular should be able to bring a given piece of equipment into action as fast - or slow - as a US Regular. However, when you say things like "... have to remember is that the Syrians are not Soviets. Their standard of training is likely way below what the Soviets have. ..." I have to assume that CMSF does in fact have nationality-based differences, despite protestations to the contrary.

FWIW, I think that pretty much everything in CMSF happens too fast, and would like to see activities slowed down. That is, I'd rather see Javelins slowed down than SPGs sped up. On the other hand, in a recent game, Javelin teams were taking a frustratingly long time to fire shots after acquiring targets, so I'm thinking that they may be ok.

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

it's hard to know at this remove, but it does appear that you've included things in the SPG (and in general for the Syrians) that aren't included for Western Forces. For example, in your list of 9 steps you have things like getting the kit out of the vehicle. First off, I'd have thought that that has nothing to do with setting up, and if it does have something to do with setting up then why isn't it also a factor for the Javelin et al.

When we designed the game we had a choice:

1. Delay teams from disembarking to simulate getting all their gear together.

2. Delay weapon setup time to compensate for a quick exit.

For a variety of game related reasons we chose #2. It's similar for weapons that can't possibly be moved by their crews in one go. You can, for example, move certain heavy weapons very slowly complete with all of their ammo. In real life the weapon would have to be broken down and transported in two or more trips. For game reasons we didn't do this either.

Secondly, in the past you've said that elite is elite, and regular is regular, and nationality has nothing to do with it. If that's the case, then presumably a Syrian Regular should be able to bring a given piece of equipment into action as fast - or slow - as a US Regular.

Correct.

However, when you say things like "... have to remember is that the Syrians are not Soviets. Their standard of training is likely way below what the Soviets have. ..." I have to assume that CMSF does in fact have nationality-based differences, despite protestations to the contrary.

I was simply stating that theoretical training standards of Soviet troops aren't directly applicable to what a typical Syrian unit, or typical American unit for that matter, would take to set up a particular system. If the US forces in CM:SF had access to the SPG-9 it's setup time would be identical to a Syrian unit of the same type. The fact is that only the Syrians have the SPG-9 so a comparison is not possible.

And note my argument of a typical US unit using a Javelin compared to a typical Syrian unit setting up a SPG-9. My argument is about apples to apples time to set up sub components based on the assumption of same skill level (Experience level). If the Syrians had Javelins they would have the same setup time as the Americans at the same Experience level. Does it make sense for the Javelin to have the same setup time as the SPG-9? I don't think so.

FWIW, I think that pretty much everything in CMSF happens too fast, and would like to see activities slowed down. That is, I'd rather see Javelins slowed down than SPGs sped up. On the other hand, in a recent game, Javelin teams were taking a frustratingly long time to fire shots after acquiring targets, so I'm thinking that they may be ok.

There is some randomness in there, for sure. As for slowing everything down... it's hard to justify that beyond a certain point. While we do think that the heavier weapons, with more component pieces, tend to have more FUBAR factor in the setup/breakdown, we can only take it so far. The Javelin, in theory, can have a setup time of only a couple of seconds with certain things done ahead of time. We don't simulate that because we presume those conditions won't generally be met in a real battle.

Steve

[Alex]

On resulted above a photo it is visible that the Metis is ready to application, the rocket on the starting arrangement, - - sight in a bag, if necessary will result calculation ATMG in fighting position very quickly.

Here often to be said that perfect conditions of ranges (though at training of soldiers in normal army of a condition on ranges are specially created far from "normal") described in manuals do not concern a fight stressful situation, having in view of what in fight of soldiers will operate where more slowly and more confused. It probably the truth so though the person in the conditions of stress at times does such improbable things which then are difficult for imagining in simple conditions. But let's understand, what is available in view of under stress?

The soldier has got on territory on which fight further will be developed, but to it who does not shoot yet, it is stress? It turns out that in these conditions it already starts to be nervous, hands to shiver, starts to confuse the actions fulfilled on trainings, increasing time of expansion of the weapon from the specification in 2 and more times, so? I think it absurdity, in game there is an indicator of fire influence and as a morale of divisions, and here only these indicators and can be accepted for stress. If division under fire if it sustains losses, yes, soldiers start to lag behind specifications, to be confused, lost. And here if simply to say, what perfect conditions are written to instructions, and in game fighting conditions it sounds not seriously, in what actually a difference when at the person do not shoot?

And still it is very frequent at this forum sound think that in the Soviet/Russian manuals idealistic ideas and continuous propagation are written, however thus there and then to be said that the Soviet soldiers it not the Arabian soldiers. It is necessary to be defined already Soviet say lies or Arabs stupid...

P.S. Sorry my English

[TempV]

Again, I'm not trying to say that 5 minutes for a particular Syrian system is accurate. What I'm trying to do is get a better understanding of what a typical setup time would be for these systems.

Steve

Steve, how about my proposal to decrease deploy time of SPG-9, AT-7 and AT-13 to 1 min? It won't be "ideal" as manuals state (25-35 sec, 12-20 sec, 12-20 sec respectively) and it won't be rediculosly slow as it's now eighter (5 min, 3 min, 3 min). And I should note these times have game significance because a player sometimes have to redeploy ATGMs. I often do that in H2H games because after the first missile fired you can expect fast and furious Blue Arty.

[Alex]

OK, so we have the official Soviet setup time for the SPG-9 stated as 35 seconds. I find it very difficult to believe that the SPG-9 can be set up and operated as quickly as a Javelin. The Javelin is two pieces which snap together. That's it. I've even done this myself and I think even with instructions being given to me the first time I did it in under 30 seconds.

Therefore, I'd like you guys to think of things in relative terms. If a Javelin can be set up in 30 seconds, and is one of the most braindead simple ATGM systems in the world, why would more complicated systems take no longer to setup and ready for firing?

Again, I'm not trying to say that 5 minutes for a particular Syrian system is accurate. What I'm trying to do is get a better understanding of what a typical setup time would be for these systems.

Steve

Well and SPG-9 operates four persons, and Javelins only two.

[Battlefront.com]

Alex,

I think it absurdity, in game there is an indicator of fire influence and as a morale of divisions, and here only these indicators and can be accepted for stress. If division under fire if it sustains losses, yes, soldiers start to lag behind specifications, to be confused, lost. And here if simply to say, what perfect conditions are written to instructions, and in game fighting conditions it sounds not seriously, in what actually a difference when at the person do not shoot?

It is assumed that all soldiers in Combat Mission are "stressed" even when they are not being shot at. There is a big difference between being on a battlefield and being on a training field (or inside a classroom). Which means "ideal times" are never used in CM, not for anybody. We try very hard to use "realistic times" for combat and then make those times worse when shot at, suffering casualties, spread out while moving, etc.

Or more simply... "ideal" values are never used in Combat Mission because there is never "ideal" conditions. Conditions make things even worse. Accuracy, setup time, aiming time, etc. all follow the same philosophy.

And still it is very frequent at this forum sound think that in the Soviet/Russian manuals idealistic ideas and continuous propagation are written, however thus there and then to be said that the Soviet soldiers it not the Arabian soldiers. It is necessary to be defined already Soviet say lies or Arabs stupid...

All nations use propaganda, even with their own soldiers. This is normal. The US military does this as much as it can. It helps morale and it makes the enemy more afraid. The Soviet Union did the same thing. However, in the US there is "freedom of information". Because of this the US military thinks about propaganda it has to be more careful. It sometimes lies, but more often it stretches the truth as much as it can because it understands that the more untrue the more chance of getting caught. And the bigger the chance of losing a job or career. Or from a company standpoint, losing a contract. This absolutely was not the case in the Soviet Union.

I say again... we assume that the specifications from *all* official documentation from *all* nations is "ideal". Therefore, we initially suspect all data in front of us. We seek outside sources to confirm/denny the information. When we can't find such data we estimate how to alter the official data to make it more realistic. US, British, Soviet... it doesn't matter, we do the same thing to all elements in the game.

Well and SPG-9 operates four persons, and Javelins only two.

More people does not usually mean more efficiency. It usually means more capacity. The basic weapon of the SPG-9 is still likely set up by 2 men while the others are doing things with the ammo supply or other duties.

Steve

[Alex]

However, in the US there is "freedom of information"

Forgive Steve, but I saw this freedom of the information during war in Georgia when Georgians levelled the peace city of Tshinval by MLRS, and СNN showed Russian tanks with an addition "Russian attacked Georgia". Well speech not about it. We consider fighting charters, instead of the brochure "as it is good to live in the USSR". On me a thing different. Especially Russian specifications do not differ from the Soviet.

However I with you agree, all say lies, and range it not a battlefield, but I actually understand, when deviations from the specification well in 1,5-2 times, but not in 10, as with СПГ-9

[Battlefront.com]

TempV,

Steve, how about my proposal to decrease deploy time of SPG-9, AT-7 and AT-13 to 1 min? It won't be "ideal" as manuals state (25-35 sec, 12-20 sec, 12-20 sec respectively) and it won't be rediculosly slow as it's now eighter (5 min, 3 min, 3 min). And I should note these times have game significance because a player sometimes have to redeploy ATGMs. I often do that in H2H games because after the first missile fired you can expect fast and furious Blue Arty.

We will likely do something like this for v1.21.

Steve

[Alex]

It's sounds good ;-)

[Battlefront.com]

Alex,

Forgive Steve, but I saw this freedom of the information during war in Georgia when Georgians levelled the peace city of Tshinval by MLRS, and СNN showed Russian tanks with an addition "Russian attacked Georgia". Well speech not about it.

Er... if you want to try and convince people that the Soviet Union is more truthful than the US, then you are on the wrong forum. If you want to talk about the politics of Russia or the US, that's also for another forum. If you want to talk about the relative safety of Russian journalists from murder and censorship vs. US journalists, that's also for another forum.

We consider fighting charters, instead of the brochure as it is good to live in the USSR. On me a thing different. Especially Russian specifications do not differ from the Soviet.

I am not surprised to hear this. Militaries do not change anything unless they absolutely have to. And even then they often do not.

However I with you agree, all say lies, and range it not a battlefield, but I actually understand, when deviations from the specification well in 1,5-2 times, but not in 10, as with СПГ-9

Then we appear to all be in agreement

Steve

[Alex]

Er... if you want to try and convince people that the Soviet Union is more truthful than the US, then you are on the wrong forum. If you want to talk about the politics of Russia or the US, that's also for another forum. If you want to talk about the relative safety of Russian journalists from murder and censorship vs. US journalists, that's also for another forum.

I only wish to tell that it is not necessary to say that the American propagation is much better than Soviet/Russian, well say lies both those and others as you have correctly noticed. And you are right, it not that forum to discuss such themes.

And now on business, there is still such moment, this quantity of an ammunition at АТ-3, under the charter like as three persons transfer only two rockets and the starting arrangement.

[Alex]

Fortunately in this theme truth was found concerning soviet / Russian ATMG and as I understand changes come in next patches. But I understood not very much, and that will become in course of time developments of American portable TOW-2, which as here already talked extraordinarily bulky for the rapid transferring and development a command from three persons.

I raise this question only for the increase of realism in a game and expansion of its tactical variety, but not for humiliation of possibilities of this system or army of some country in particular.

[Alex]

Why Syrian army in a game does not have ATMG "MILAN" on an armament?

From opened data of Syria has about 200 complexes of this model.

[rune]

I quote from a source:

"The French made MILAN ATGM, a 1970s design, has a 35 pound launch unit, firing a 16 pound, wire guided missile, with a maximum range of 2,000 meters. The Syrians got MILAN from France, and passed them on to Hezbollah"

Rune

[hcrof]

When I asked that question Steve said that the Milans are probably out of date and therefore not very useful. It also has to be said that the AT-4 Spigot (Fagot) system is a copy of the Milan system anyway so could be used as a substitute.

[John Kettler]

This should prove of some interest, despite its orientation on Iraqi insurgents. Call it meaty!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9228119/Us-Ngic-Iraq-Small-Arms-2004-wikileaks

For our resident camouflage grog

http://strikehold.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/syrian-camouflage-and-the-us-army/

Regards,

John Kettler

[Alex]

In the "Obama's war" video at first minutes you can see how talib shoot from SPG-9 without tripod from the hands like an RPGshooter. It's mean that SPGteam can shoots without a deployment SPG.

[Secondbrooks]

In the "Obama's war" video at first minutes you can see how talib shoot from SPG-9 without tripod from the hands like an RPGshooter. It's mean that SPGteam can shoots without a deployment SPG.

I've seen video where similar equipment breaks something in gunner's head when fired from shoulder. Yup, barrel kinda flied few meters backwards after knocking gunner down. I'm not sure was it SPG-9 or that 107mm version of it. Could be something else as well, but i got impression that it was another of those two.

[MikeyD]

I spotted that too, it looked too small for the SPG-9 but I'm not sure what it was. It might be the Type 36, a Chinese copy of the old U.S. 57mm recoilless gun. That would be shoulder-fired, but it didn't look quite right. Is that the only shoulder-fired RCCL gun out there? I mean besides AT4/Carl Gustav?