rudel.dietrich

Will fortified houses be simulated?

I don't want to pick an argument here as I'm sure there are lots of views of the recent Israeli action in the Lebanon - but to say that Israel went to war just to release two captured soldiers is a gross oversimplification IMHO. How many dead are there now in Lebanon? Over 1000 I think. That seems a bit over the top just for 2 men. IMHO Israel had wanted to hit Hezbollah for a long time. The capture of the soldiers was merely the catalyst for action now rather than later. To get back to my main point - rightly or wrongly, the policy of always trying to retrieve dead or wounded servicemen should be well reflected in CM:SF. If the US side takes casualties and they get left on the battlefield or fall into enemy hands, the Syrian side should win hands down. This will encourage the US player to do his utmost to recover casualties, which as I've already said, should play into the hands of the Syrian player - who presumably will be able to set up ambushes, IEDs and all sorts of other unpleasant surprises along the predicted rescue route. </font>

The 73 war also once again drove home the importance of combined arms warfare. The Isrealis once pressed back thought they could once again drive back the Egyptians how they always had, by massed tank formations. They paid a heavy price. How they eventualy came to defeat the ATGMS in the open desert is very interesting. [ August 20, 2006, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: rudel.dietrich ]

Most western armies are never in the situation to test this out. But I can say with 100% certainty that in the Bundeswehr it was pounded into us to never leave a man behind. Israel went to war a few weeks ago just to get two kidnapped soldiers back. I think it is a tradmark of all western armies to value life so highly.

All western armies follow this doctrine, and it is not the least bit stupid. It is the same reason why western nations insist that bofy armour be top of the line, fixed wing aircraft be as immune as possible from missles, tanks be survivable if destroyed and that medical care be the best avaliable. In the 20th century it became apparent in warfare that the men wielding the weapons were more important than the weapons themselves. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars/pounds/Euros to train a single solider in todays modern armies. More importantly than the money, it takes time. You can get the soldier a new rifle, or new aircraft or new tank. But you can never replace a soldier with training and experience who is proficient at his/her job. Bringing back a wounded soldier may mean that they are able to once again return to the field of combat. That is extremly valuable.

I've got some high speed camera footage of TOW-2s slamming into a room and a bunker. As you say, it's really taken the fun out of being in a bunker The Stryker MGS is designed for taking out bunkers too. Having a dedicated company level asset like that should be real interesting to see in action. Steve </font>

We had a small group come in from Austria for cross training and we fought over who got to fire them Augs first. My god they were horrible. I found it very hard to sight the weapon since it is very long and very unbalenced. I was constatly having to press it into my shoulder as hard as I could and thus each shot was shattering bone it felt like! As I said, I found it very unbalenced as the stock is large and the magazine sits in the rear of the weapon. The handgrip up front is very flimsy amd the weapon overall felt 'over produced' and fragile. I did not like it at all. I was very dissapointed since they have an excellent reputation for their fine pistols and superb rifles. I would take my G-36 over it any day of the week.

One of the most uncomfortable and fragile weapons I have ever had the displeasure of using.

ATGMs have made bunkers alot less of a challenge these days :cool:

Well, some more than others. Charles and I got to play around with the Javelin trainer (fantastic chunk of taxpayer money ) and we were plinking tanks pretty easily. Our escort, the head of Javelin's doctrine and employment, joked about drafting Charles I've also read stuff out of Iraq that has guys who had almost no cross training on Javelin successfully engaging targets with it first shot. Not to say an excellent Javelin gunner is easy to produce, because I know that isn't true. What I am saying is that the Javelin is a lot more forgiving of newbee users compared to something like the AT-3 where you have to peer through a little peephole and keep both the target and the missile's ass end in view the whole time AND use the little joystick to keep things aligned. Big difference. Steve </font>

I belive that they will do what Hizballah did in S. Lebanon. They will relay heavily on cellular networks, up until the point the US forces will figure it out and bomb the cellular antennas. Hey....maybe you guys will model that? Oren_m </font>

This is about the only thing I would be willing to let the game be delayed for. Helicpoters HAVE to be in the game in some fashion. They are a intrical part of modern warfare. I imagine they would work sort of like UAVs. Simply pick an area you want them to focus on and they will add in their support weapons. I don't mind not being able to see copters or fixed wing craft. 99% of the time you never even see the asset on the battlefield. You usualy just hear the last few seconds of the incoming ordanace and them here the explosion.

A few questions Is radio traffic density modeled in any way? I would assume as more assets are being called their is a greater chance of delay and a break down in the chain. Is ECM simulated in any way? This can be done in limited ways on a tactical level to prevent the enemy from using communications. For Syrian unites without radios, will they be able to use runners? Or will they be unable to make support requests?

Any ATGM needs alot of training in order to be used with great accuracy. The Milan III is probably the easiest system in the world to set up and fire, I could do it blind folded. But it took ALOT of training missles to be able to use one and hit a moving or low profile target. In testing situations against moving targets with no external stressors we could hit our targets with with 95% sucess rate at 1 km. Once we started adding in screaming officers, time limits and gunfire over our heads to simulate the battlefield we still had just under a 90% sucess rate. Our longest kill was 2.2 KM The missle had actualy ran out of propulsion and the gunner used the alltitude to gain energy to dive into the target

Most of what has been fired is probably AT-4 and AT-5 I have no data to back but up but I bet less than 5% of those 500 missles were fired from the likes of AT-13 and AT-14 platforms I would assume the Syrian army would have a little better accuracy numbers and that using systems like the Milan and AT-13/14 systems would have a far greater accuracy. 8% accuracy is just godawful. Makes you wonder if any training at all is being given to those that are using those systems. Maybe just some brief verbal instructions and the blessing of Alah before the instructor leaves them on their own.

Sorry to dig up an old topic, and this may be a stupid question. But would body armour have any effect on a 12.7mm round? Or would just the sheer force of the round shatter bone beneath the armour even if it did not penetrate?

Is any version of the Javelin top attack capable?

What was the problem with them?

Are these still being used? Were they ever used extensivly? Seems like the perfect weapon in MOUT warfare

This means we will see the Milan too I was treated to a Javeling demonstration about 18 months ago and we were all extremly impressed. We were somewhat less impressed when we were told less than 2500 were in service I am assuming this new game will have rarity added into the loss of a unit and when you purchase a unit in a QB?

I think there is a alot of misconceptions about what they will be used for what what they are intended for. I think the US Army learned its lesson with the M2A2 about promising a vehicle that can do it all. But that is yet another debate that ends violently And usualy I am told to keep my mouth shut since I dont have any experience with US hardware.

Thanks Styrker debates have been raging around the office as of late and have nearly come to blows on a number of occasions. Some really like them and others hate them and the concept of warfare that has came with them. The concept of a lightly equiped rapidly mobile force that is very different from anything the US military has done in recent years.

Can a Soviet 12.7mm round pierce the armour? Has any unit in Iraq ran into these weapons? I know was the maker of the vehicle and the source data says, but I was looking for real world experience perhaps. (btw, my first post of this board)