c3k

Top Picture, just above: what is that big warhead thing the frontmost soldier (facing rearward) has? Mandatory comment on "Mungo"; my kid made a better car for his soapbox derby. Ken

Gents, I need some help! I've played this as Blue vs. AI a bunch. Never more than the first 8 minutes or so, as that's about all it takes for too many casualties. Has anyone done well as Brits in this? If so, how did you approach the objective and how bad were your casualties? Note that this thread may create some spoilers. Thanks! Ken

COH uses that technique. While COH is a wonderful game and is very enjoyable, I am glad that the red/yellow/green cover icons are in THAT game not CMSF. My .02. Ken

Gents, Last night watching (nevermind) they stated that the total UK production of Warrior IFV's was 789 units. That's a lie. As of this morning, I have singlehandedly directed my 800th Warrior's destruction. (Piccadilly Circus is the culprit. Thanks! ) Based on the combat life expectancy of any Warrior given to me, if that 789 figure were real, the Brits would only be planning a 6 day war. Based on how many I use in CMSF, the REAL production must be classified. Ken

I'm getting the itch to make a new build and this just vaulted an ATI card to the top spot. Thanks guys for helping ATI fix their drivers. Ken

Guys, I certainly don't want to sound as if I'm "emotionally vested" in this issue. It is, after all, just a game. Okay, a game I like, but still it's just a game. So.... Humans are tough and survive events which observers think are unsurvivable. This happens repeatedly throughout history in all venues of mankind's endeavors. The buildings in this game have abstracted rooftop obstructions as well as abstracted interiors. These abstracted rooftops and interiors provide increased survivability against incoming fire, especially blast effects. SlapHappy's experiment, posted above, corresponds to my own testing and my in game experience. Given all the above, without trying to beat a dead horse, etc., the effects seem off. So that I don't start sounding too strident about this (is it too late for that JonS? ), I will not post any further on this....for at least a week. I leave it up to those with a better understanding of these things to carry on this exploration. Remember this when we have thatched roofs. Ken

Just watched the video. Given the unitary warhead carries a lot more HE than a 155 (or 120 mortar or 105mm, let alone an 81mm mortar), that video only adds fuel to my supposition that a 155 hit on a building should do a bit more "oomf" to the guys inside or on the roof. I just finished a scenario which had a 14.5 team on a rooftop. I hit the single story building (rectangle, 20x10 meters) with a GENERAL 155m, medium, short. They still had two guys left up top at the end. They were green-based and shooting my guys. That is not an outlier in CMSF. Ken

JonS, We have crossposted. The Soviets used to go to great lengths specifying how many rounds fired into a specific area would produce "x" percentage of casualties. I have not seen any posts about how many rounds of the various calibers could realistically neutralize a building of a given size. That would be valuable data. Reading that artillery destroys buildings is not relevant... We know that it does. How many rounds does it take? What happens to the soldiers in the meantime. I would argue that a weak-walled Syrian structure would aid survivability due to reduced overpressure when compared to a building which has walls which are stronger and contain the blast. If CMSF is balancing reduced artillery round effectiveness to compensate for increased accuracy, that is their decision. I am not sure that it is so. (As an aside, I saw youtube footage of 5 Afghani's being tracked and targeted by some Apaches. A bullseye on 3 of them in the open next to a building by a Hellfire resulted in the 3 of them able to run away. They joined the other 2 and all 5 entered a 10x10' structure. A Hellfire in that resulting in at least 1 running away. One more Hellfire needed. That just shows that fuzing is important. Hellfires, Javelins, and other weapons designed for specific functions are not that good at producing immediate casaulties. (For all I know, each of the men killed in the videa had been wounded but were able to run.)) FWIW, I still don't think a 155 hitting a 8x8m structure should leave unwounded soldiers still firing... Off to look for impact footage... Ken

Nothing concrete, but there is a reference to penetration, from http://www.usna.edu/USMCInfo/Documents/Pubs/b0386.pdf (7) Mortars. Mortars are high-trajectory weapons. This makes them well suited for urban combat due to the height of buildings and the natural "canyons" they create. Mortars can be employed against enemy positions on roof tops, behind buildings, or in other defilade positions. Mortars can be used to fix enemy positions, isolate objectives, suppress and destroy enemy positions or formations in the open. Suppressing enemy positions within buildings may be difficult or impossible due to building construction. Conversely, mortars may penetrate the roof top or cause significant structural damage to lightly constructed buildings. To deny the enemy roof top positions or limit the amount of rubble produced, HE/VT may be used. The ability of the unit calling for fire to observe the mortar fire may be reduced due to buildings or rubble. and... (9) Artillery/Naval Gunfire. Because of their relatively flat trajectory, artillery and naval gunfire are limited in their ability to suppress or destroy point targets within an urban area. Both will have difficulty hitting targets hidden within buildings or in the natural defilade created by the buildings. Use of laser-guided munitions (Copperhead) may be useful to engage targets with pinpoint accuracy, but again the masking of those fires may be a problem. Artillery and NGF can be used to isolate urban centers or areas within the built up area. They can also be used to illuminate areas with the city. Both artillery and NGF, when fired within urban areas, will create significant amounts of rubble and will cause considerable damage to structures. This may hinder follow-on operations and should be considered. Artillery may be used in the direct fire mode to rubble buildings or create a breach point. Depending on building construction, the danger of fires started by artillery and NGF should also be considered. Rules of Engagement(ROE) may prohibit the use of these fires within all, or a portion of the urban area. From http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/indirect.htm (This seems to be cut and paste from some other sites available, but that does not detract from the information content.) If collateral damage and the death of civilian non-combatants is not an issue, then Field Artillery and Naval Gunfire should be employed to their maximum lethality prior to friendly forces entering the MOUT environment. Field Artillery can be very effective when used to deliver laser guided munitions against known enemy fortifications, delay or concrete piercing fuzes also can provide excellent penetration of reinforced structures, fuze time can be adjusted and used against personnel in the streets or on rooftops. Variable time and proximity fuze should be avoided because high structures may cause the round to detonate prematurely. Naval Gunfire can be devastating when attacking targets on a waterway or coastline, the ships' mobility and high muzzle velocity (flat trajectory) make it an excellent FS platform for this situation. Naval Gunfire can also be used similarly to FA in providing fire support against a counter-attacking force. None of these can quantify the effectiveness, yet there are sufficient references to the ability to fuze for penetration which let's me conclude that modern artillery can penetrate Syrian rooftops. Ken

JonS, I respectfully disagree with what you've posted. Yes, my OPINION is that CMSF artillery is undermodelled vs. buildings due to fuzing which detonates the round on the roof in all cases except PERSONNEL. Despite what you just wrote, others have posted that real world artillery rounds actually penetrate into buildings then explode. Those who stated that CMSF artillery is too effective were specifically referring to the tightness of the sheaves and the responsiveness, NOT the penetration of the rounds. No one, that I can see, has stated that artillery should be more effective against buildings rather than open ground. That is an insultingly transparent strawman argument. Let's agree that we all understand being in a building is better than being in the open during an artillery bombardment. So, I'd like to find your OPINION: should artillery be able to penetrate building rooftops? If yes, then the pertinent question is whether CMSF models the effects correctly despite not modelling the penetration. I think not. Regarding the M114 data I posted, I thought the shell info, as I stated, was at least a starting point. I was hoping that a current artillery servicemember would be able to chime in with relevant data. As I said earlier, you'll rue the day that machinegunner in a thatched roof Normandy farmhouse cannot be touched by your 105's. I'm off to see if there's any footage/AAR's about artillery rounds vs. buildings. Any thoughts on where to look? Regards, Ken

MikeD; very true. Note that I'm NOT postulating penetration all the way through a 4 storey building, although if that is possible with today's munitions I'd like it to be simulated, but I am trying to show that artillery rounds should be MUCH more effective in suppressing or causing casualties to men inside the buildings. (My comment about ground floor casualties was to highlight that near misses were causing those casualties, not any penetration.) Thanks, Ken

lomir, I just wanted to reply to your post above. Thank you for taking the time to write that and also for including the pictures. For the first time ever, I saw the green minefield sign. I _assumed_ it meant all clear, but I could not find any BF.C documentation to support that assumption. Thanks, Ken

LLF, Thanks. I miss seeing the loosely stacked wall blocks blowing out. (Yes, I know they're not just stacked, but the sand/cement ratio in the mortar leans a bit too heavily towards sand. ) Roofs: are they poured in place, or do some buildings have pre-cast roof sections lifted and installed? (I lean towards poured in place, based on memories of forests of supports between floors to hold up the forms above.) Thanks, Ken

Guys, doesn't the BMP-1's 73mm smoothbore fire the RPG-7 warhead? So, in effect, the question is really whether or not the RPG-7 can defeat the Tiger. Sure, firing from a BMP-1 is probably a lot more accurate than firing an RPG from the shoulder, so, yes, the BMP-1 is a more accurate platform than a rocket launcher, but given the low velocity of the RPG-7, coupled with its extreme sensitivity to crosswinds, I'd have to give the Tiger I the crown for the accuracy prize. A cannon accurate to 2 km's beats the RPG beyond 300 meters any day. Ken

Apocal, I am not seeing any statistically different results in my testing. I am seeing minor variations, but nothing which would make me think that ARMOR penetrates more than GENERAL. In multi-level buildings it seems, so far, that only near misses which impact the ground, cause casualties on the ground floor. I see no penetratrion yet. Ken

Yeah, I saw that thread, but like most others, I did not focus on your point about targeting interior floors. That got lost in the chorus of techniques which answered your first question... Still, if all I can see is a rooftop - which is somewhat common - the point detonation of round after round of artillery is what seems to be "off". A fuze setting to allow penetration would be, um, "on". I don't think having the ability to target specific floors would be the way to go. That seems to be unrealistically controlling. I just don't think any FO calling fire on a target building would state, "Target on the 2nd floor up of the 4 story building." (Then we could get into the whole problem of US vernacular 2nd floor equating to European 1st floor. THAT would cause Ally to Ally support problems!) Instead, the FO should be able to specify, "Target is a building". Presto magico, 105mm, 155mm, or 120mm rounds rain down, penetrate to some depth PAST the roof, then explode wreaking mayhem and destruction INSIDE the structure. If my target is on a rooftop, the present PERSONNEL target works well, especially with a POINT target type. The airbursts clear the roofs quite well. (Usually.) Ken

Apocal, those two screenshots reveal a tale... I think you've hit on something important there. (Okay, "important" may be exaggerating the implications of how a computer game models some damage, but still....) It seems that targeting the floor you want could, indeed, result in artillery strikes being fuzed to hit that floor. (Now, having rounds fuzed on a per floor basis seems a bit too precise to me, but I don't know how many milliseconds of delay are required per floor - maybe an artillery unit does.) The remaining issue would be to find out how to target something other than the roof of a building if your spotter has an elevation advantage. BF.C??? Ken

Hmmm, look at this: Okay, it didn't copy. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M114_155_mm_howitzer Tabular data shows - Concrete penetration, mm[4] Ammunition \ Distance, m 0 914 2743 4572 HE M107 Shell (meet angle 0°) 884 792 610 488 Different methods of measurement were used in different countries / periods. Therefore, direct comparison is often impossible. Meeting range to penetration shows at 4572 meters range the M107 shell should penetrate 488mm of concrete. Obviously shell type, geometry, impact velocity, etc. will affect the numbers. But the salient point remains that the M107 shell (which may or may not be applicable to CMSF) should penetrate about 1/2 meter of concrete. Who says that Syrian roofs are equivalent to 1/2 meter of the concrete used in this test? Agree with BigDuke6 - soldiers survive a LOT of blast and impact. Abstracted building interiors provide many nooks and crannies to help that survival. I still think more shells should explode INSIDE the buildings, not on impact with these roofs. Thanks for the discussion. Regarding the data I posted above, any thoughts??? Ken

C'mon guys. You're saying a Syrian roof can protect against properly fuzed artillery? Really? (No airbursts, no contact fuze; if I call a strike against a building, I expect the red-legs to do their job and fuze for a delay.) Why can't the round get down to the ground floor??? Seriously. How thick are the roofs? How strong is the material they're made of? How does that compare to stacked log and dirt overheads? What can a 105 or 155 do to those? Why is it that lower floor occupants are NOT affected by rounds coming through upper floors? No snideness meant; I'm quite sincere in trying to understand why it takes so many direct hits on a building to incapacitate a unit, let alone the many times the survivors are still fighting back. Abstract the interior all you want, a 40 meter square building hit by a 105 should not act like a bunker. (Or should it?) Just remember this thread when you're facing thatched roofs in Normandy. Ken

Hmm, nothing at hand, but I did a search (google) and came up with something a while ago. Give it a shot. I don't have a chance to do so for another 2 days. Good luck. Ken

I am no longer starting to have my doubts. I think artillery vs. buildings is nerfed. All the rest of this post assumes the artillery is NOT fuzed for an airburst. Given the design of artillery shells, a pointy chunk of metal weighing from 35 lbs (120mm mortar) to 97 lbs (155mm howitzer shell) it is almost guaranteed to penetrate any non-fortified roof. In fact, one could argue that it's almost as if they were DESIGNED to penetrate things like overhead cover. I've built many a roof... In the U.S. using plywood/2 by's. I'm sure the Syrians use something more concrete...like CONCRETE. I've travelled throughout the mid-East; I am NOT a building expert, yet, I doubt any roof there is designed to stop artillery projectiles. Am I wrong? (I am quite willing to be proven wrong. If, for example, the various regimes enforce strict building codes, a la West Germany's, in an attempt to fortify ALL civilian structures, then their roof's MAY be pretty tough. Is this so?) Now, you may scoff at my concern over this, but wait until Normandy. Won't you be wailing when your US artillery park cannot penetrate a thatched roof over a German MG42 team. So there. Thanks, Ken

Gents, Has anyone else given thought to the seeming lack of effectiveness of artillery against units inside buildings? I just got through POINT targeting a building with 105mm, GENERAL target type, MEDIUM intensity, SHORT duration. That 2 story building got hammered. Yet, only 1 enemy soldier was wounded. Yes, he was in the upper floor, as was his buddy - who remained unharmed. This is not the first time this has happened. I like the fact that building interiors are not explicitly modelled, but if your building is taking MANY 105mm hits, fuzed to penetrate, um, wouldn't that wreak a bit more mayhem? Like the owl and the tootsie pop; how may artillery rounds does it take to get to the center of a building? (And what happens when they do?) I'd think a single 105mm HE round would render everyone hors de combat, if it landed in the same room/building, let alone about a dozen. The same for 120mm and 155mm rounds. Thoughts? Thanks, Ken

, LOL. As for direction, the squad's ASSAULT waypoint was about 50 meters to the north. (Yes, I know, that's too far for a single bound. They'd bounded about 30-40 meters, rejoined, then the 1st team began the final bound to the waypoint.) The section leader was headed off to the northwest. I don't know how far he would've gone had I not stopped him after 200 meters. I'll play with that situation later. (I definitely have the replay savegame, so I can just let the orders stay as is. I _may_ have the orders phase saved.) Ken

Gents, Playing the Brits in Operation Hammersmith. I ASSAULTED a Brit section forward, to a small ditch. One man, the section leader, did not stop; he kept running. And running. And running. The remaining 3 men in his section stayed in the end-of-move ditch. The other section could not move forward until the first section completed their movement. Whilst the section leader was conducting his one man advance, the second section couldn't "bound". I let the leader go for over a turn (WeGo). He made it over 200 meters. (Hey, now I know where the enemy _isn't_!) I ended the section move (the ASSAULT order had stayed active the entire time he was running further away), and let the section stay in situ for a complete turn. I also split the teams. Then I created a new move - QUICK - to the SAME position which caused the problems. Since 3 of the 4 men were there, that was fine; the leader ran back 200 meters and rejoined his men. Now all is good. This is reminiscent of a much earlier coding issue. I have not seen this in well over a year. Anyone interested in a savegame? Regards, Ken

BF.C, I just noticed what the boxes inside some of my US vehicles had printed on the outside; "Made in China". Nice bit of detail; I assume it was done tongue-in-cheek. Thanks for the laugh. Ken