Kurtz

A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. What have you done lately to improve things, Znarf.

In addition to what John said about early ATGMs it should be mentioned that they often have very long minimum range. The Sagger has a minimum range of 500 meters! Try using that in urban areas! Some German stuff from WW2 must of course be mentioned: What about the Panzerabwehrrakete X-7 Rotkäppchen? And the Pz IVs used by Syria? A question to the tankers out there: How quickly can you fire at a detected target? Of course this depends partly on how much the turret have to be turned, but could you give an estimate if the target is "forward" or "to your side"? On longer distances the time in flight of the tank's fire is another factor that ust be considered. The HE round may kill the ATGM crew after the misile has hit the tank. [ October 15, 2005, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Kurtz ]

Hey Salkin, do you think we can find a loader around here? :cool: The BILL is a top-attack missile, it flies about a meter above line-of-sight and has a warhead angled 30 degrees downward. There is a BILL 2 with two warheads pointed vertically, the first one removes reactive armour, the second strikes the same spot. Both BILL and BILL 2 should be able to kill all existing tanks. The BILL 2 is probably a bit of a overkill right now. I think the top-attack profile makes it more lethal than the LOS-attacking TOWs. The direction of the blast is downward, into the ammo compartment under the floor of Soviet-designed tanks. And the effectiveness of sloped frontal armour is reduced since it strikes at (or about) right angle to the armour. If it strikes the top armour, the angle doesn't really matter that much. Compared to the TOW, the BILL is: - lighter (35-40kg loaded; Sight: 5kg + thermal sight add-on 5kg, tripod: 10kg, missile in launch tube: 20kg) - Top attack (but there are TOWs with top-attack) - Shorter range (2000 m) - Slower (11 s time of flight to 2000 m) - Longer minimum range 150 m (65 m for the original TOW, didn't find any figure for newer models) - Cost? Probably cheaper, but I can't say for sure. TOW is mostly used from vehicles, but there is a tripod. Can't comment on how often it is used in the field. Doesn't look like something I would like to drag around the countryside. BILL is designed to be man-portable (but the ammo-bearer should carry 2 missiles :eek: ) pros & cons of top-attack: - Hits the (comparatively) thin roof armour. - Less useful against other targets, although BILL 2 can be set to direct-attack or over-fly attack. - Makes hull-down less effective since the entire vehicle is "visible" when the missile flies over it. BILL 2 info [ October 15, 2005, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: Kurtz ]

Do these missiles have engines for manouvering? Don't they use fins and rudder for that? I'm trained as an ATGM team leader (the Swedish BILL top-attack missile) and that missile don't have engines for manouvering, just for boosting the speed. Although the BILL can kill a tank from all angles, firing againt the front is considered almost suicidal because the tank crew has most of its attention focused in that direction. Treat your ATGM as every other AT-asset and fire against the flanks, preferably from position where not everyone can fire back at you. The BILL use a small charge to propel the missile some distance away from the launcher vefore the missile's engine start. The engine burns for a few seconds (should I remember how long, 15 years later? ), after that the missile glides towards its target. Maximum velocity is something like 200-250 m/s which has slowed down to 65m/s at 2000 m.

And will there be proximity fuze jammers?

"But when you shoot it, you know where that extra money went". 90 mm recoilless is inferior to 105 mm high velocity guns in both penetration and accuracy. Time in flight is longer and most vehicle armour is optimized agaisnt HEAT weapons (which a 90 mm RCl must use). And you can't have that many more rounds, a 90 mm RCL round is pretty big too. Apart from that, the 105 mm is already in the US inventory. So I say let them splve the recoil problem and use the 105 mm gun.

Maybe you need fin-stabilized shells if you fire from smoothbore guns. That might reduce the HE payload?

Does every platoon have a forward observer? (The "FO" in the PLT HQ). According to the organization chart, it looks like 3 men in the rifle platoons have to walk? Weird. All rifle squad vehicles are full (2+9), it look like the only seats left (2) are in the weapon squads's vehicle. And this is what you do until the MGS is ready: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-atgm.htm

ATGMs should be used like AT-Guns. Even if you can penetrate a target frontally, you should fire against the flank of the target when possible (less armour, worse visibility from inside the vehicle) Don't position an ATGM where it can see the entire battlefield because if you do, everone can fire back at you. Just like they would do if you had an ATG or Panzerschreck. Position you antitank weapons where you can fire at the flanks of your enemy and make sure you don't expose yourself to more enemy vehicles than you can handle. I think the situation where you are forced to fire at targets just beyond the minimum range will be more common than the opportunities to fire at targets near the maximum range.

Calm down until you know the facts. Nothing is decided yet.

Sounds like I accidentily turned into Faux News. :mad: Next you'll tell me the Syrians will welcome the inv..liberators with flowers and kisses, just like the Iraqis did. Assumption is the mother of all f-ups, you know.

A scenario with just an (I)ED would be boring. Just as a CMx1 scenario with a single Panzerschreck team with only one round would be boring. Or a CMx1 scenario where you're only armed with a single anti-tank minefield. On the other hand, using command detonated devices in an ambush (as a component among others) would be interesting. I have no idea how it will be implemented, but imagine that you target a vehicle with your (I)ED and it is detonated when the designated vehicle (or other target) comes within the effective range of the device. Assuming the person who controls the device is alive and not suppressed, of course. Depending on the skill of the operator, the device might be triggered at the right moment, too early or too late. Just because it's a military action doesn't mean it'll be interesting in CM. Just as putting a 2000 lb LGB into an office building used by some obscure Syrian goverment agency will not be very interesting in CM terms, even if it is important in military terms.

Even lone roadside bombs (improvised or standard equipment) are military actions. Just as mining a road used by your enemy or deploying snipers to kill those who show thier heads. It might not be military significant (small losses), but it will be psychologically significant. The IED/ambush threat in Iraq have had the effect of forcing vehicles to travel at higher speeds and therefore increasing the number of traffic accidents (and of the severity of these accidents). A wrecked truck might not be as useful in the propaganda as a truck that is shot to pieces and burned out, but it still won't arrive with its cargo.

It will be a lot harder to attack if you're forced to drop the WW2 tactic of bringing up your assualt guns and level every building in sight where there might be a soldier.

The RPG-7 uses a small charge to eject the rocket which then ignites and accelerates the rocket. It needs 2 meters clear area behind the weapon. US Army study from 1976 [PDF file] The info is on pp 28-29. Recoilless weapons where the round is launched at full velocity (not rocket propelled) can generally not be fired from enclosed spaces, unless they are specifically designed this way.

In Sweden, the anti-personnel claymore changed name from "anti-personell mine" to "defensive charge" after the treaty was signed. It's not supposed to be used as a mine, nowadays you should pull the tripwire yourself (or use the electrical detonator). We also have a big-ass claymore (24 kg) intended for use against vehicles. Also command detonated, but that one was never intended for use with tripwire.

There will be no suicide bombers. Check Steve's post in this thread, the second post from the bottom.

In some armies there are command-detonated devices that are manufactured prior to the war and part of the official doctrine. Claymore-type directional fragmentation devices (with command-detonation) or remotely detonated shaped charge devices (off-route mines) such as the Swedish Fordonsmina 14 (a similar Finnish device was posted in another thread). They have the same general effect as IEDs (probably higher effect in relation to their size), but are not improvised. IED is a wide definition - it could be homecooked explosives in a jar, or a regular antitank mine with the pressure detonator replaced with a manual detonator operated remotely. Still an IED, but with regular army equipment.

That's a gamey use of civilians.

It might be hard to tell the player what's going on. originally posted by an unknown CM player: Just imagine the threads: "the turret on my Tiger doesn't turn! Please fix or do somefink!!!!1111one"

From the way you phrase it, it sounds like they're still active and recruiting! :eek:

Advancing in cover behind your own tank could be interesting when the tank spots a Tiger and suddenly reverses! :eek: Why would a tank stand still for several minutes to suffocate one or two men in a foxhole with the exhaust? Sounds very vulnerable to me. Apart from the fact pointed out about the direction of the exhaust pipes. I'll wait for the Mythbusters to bust this myth.

Yes, of course they have. It's not mandatory to have nazi images in the UK, is it?

Chemical warfare has (at least) three aims: 1. Inflict casualties. 2. Deny the use of certain areas by targeting those areas with persistent agent (e.g. mustard gas). 3. Lower the combat value of the targeted troops by forcing them to use chemical protection gear and make necessary preparations for a chemical attack. It's interesting that similar effects can be achieved by mines. But I think chemical warfare in a company-level game comes fairly long down the feature list. [ September 17, 2005, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Kurtz ]

Sadly, anti-piracy measures mostly affect the paying customer. just look at how it works when buying music online: "no, you must buy music from store A if you want to play it on your player X. But if you switch to player Y, you can't play the music you bought. You have to buy it again from store B. And player Z, which plays the format we use, doesn't play music in this format with our copy protection" I only play CM, so I've never encountered StarForce. But adding drivers is often a shortcut to a BSOD. Isn't the current method effective enough? Are the most draconian methods the best solution? As I said, they mostly is a PITA for the person who paid, not for the one with the cracked version.