Secondbrooks

I believe Strykers with TOW was riddled with same issue earlier. About half of missiles went down. I threw some wild guesses that missile simulation just manages to hit it to ground mid-flight while going down to it's line of flight... If that is technically right term. However now they work and missiles flying arc is same as earlier (proves that i were wrong, again). Firing TOW across water is not defined no-go. it takes some calculations to estimate do wires manage to land in water before hitting target. Well that is out of question in CMSF. Hmm... CMSF has surpprised me with it's depth of simulating weaponsystems. Now i wonder might sun's position (in direction of target) affect to it. Question "Just how bad is the TOW in Real Life"... Well it's not as bad as AT-4 Spigot comming homesick mid-flight and wishing to return to tube from where it was fired. My experience with live TOWs is rather limited, there has been crashes during livefire exercises, but not very often. Probably with older stuff, which has become slightly "sour".

I'm pretty much Marine guy would not be very useful anymore after that Army guy smashes on him. Notice how cold killer-look he has in his eyes... he's going to turn that Marine into pile of goo.

Close combat becomes to mind: MG42 sending "fan" of tracers. Maybe it worked also for SMG. Can't figure out other games.

Are you after mission's name? I'd guess: Pooh and Tigger... Not sure thou. It will be That Objective Pooh to me for rest of my life.

Little something i know about subject. Marines learned that enemy tries to flee. So they tried to encircle them (whole blocks) and cut all possible routes of escape. That alone is pretty bad for opponent. They are isolated. I'm not sure but maybe each block held by insurgents consisted usually platoon sized insurgent element. Marines probably took casualities from enemy ambushes (=opening fire). After that they took their time, possibly blew up the house with explosives or waited to insurgents to fall back (two types of opponent guarillas and martys, other falls back top fight another day, other doesn't). If encirclement worked insrugents are going to get stucked anyways. Wiki seems to state that estimations are 1500 casualities (+1500 prisoners) to insurgents against little less than 700 coalition's troops (mostly wounded). So my conclusion would be that insurgents were able to open fire, cause few casualities and after that usually fall back from building or block to another (when they were not they were screwed). Otherwise they should have had alot more casualities compared to Coalition troops. No? Encircled opponents tends to have alot more casualities than those who encircle them. I believe it's pretty commmon to have 10 times more causlities if encirclement holds. I wonder how active insurgents were in grand scale (how much they were led), did they try to relieve their encircled brothers. Or were they mostly unaware/ignorant what is happening outside their block? MOUT is indeed seems to be harsh thing for attacker who is superiour in technology and training. Not in man power, which is said to be equal in combat troops. I have had ability to read just few sources, so my point-of-view can be put into question :cool:

Hmm. I'm under impression that this is quite common problem while acting in peacekeeping duties (moving by vehicles and good food at garison). Not that i would have studied it, just heard about it here and there. What troops German has in Afganistan? Are they drawed from reservist pool (like here in Finland) or taken from active duty. Basically meaning: Do they have 27 year old fatter guys or 20 year old slimmer ones.

What is so bad in that? Always nicer to live with beer than without. And healthier that to drink alcohol based fuel ment for cooking sets. (well for liver atleast) Sorry maybe i'm bit too harsh and don't appreciate war-effort (or lack of it), but news made me giggle wildly.

And i disagree still because experience i'm having in-game about wind's effect of firing accuracy. There can be other factors, like civilian density, suns direction and bunch of more things. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be hard evidence (=info from dev-team) backing anything up... Exept when Steve told that wind does have effect on accuracy. So i guess i win this round (I believe it's was Jenrick's topic on ineffectivity of snipers. Too lazy to dig it) True winds effect seem bit too great as does their capability to fire misses at that distance over and over again. I think past 200 meters for Syria means that their firing becomes quite ineffective. While i don't see reason for determed unit with task to advance to freeze from unaccurate fire which doesn't cause notable casualities. About accuracy in reality when combining mild wind and running/jogging target (which has to be hit aprox 2-3 times to make it go down?) + 320 meters and opticless MG on tripod i really can't tell. History does seem to tell to me that target under those conditions isn't very easy one and if target is determed to get forward it probably will (whole another case if they need to advance at MG-nest). But that is my most likely insuficcent knowledge.

All those wheels, windows, antennas and machineguns and cannons makes my head melt. Just how many crewmembers there are??? Ps. That flame in left corner of picture... Is that flamethrower :eek:

With my tests wind is quite big factor on firing accuracy, i've seen it enough times to know. Sure they don't halt like into wall, if not using fast movement. As they shouldn't. But enough fire and they naturally will pin down.

Turn off the wind.

So it seems.

Yeah. Is this the same boat which Indian navy nailed and then they discovered that it's infact ship full of innocent (Asian) civilians, fishermen to be exact. Ugly.

Me makes forest map. Put in trenches in side forest. Put infantry in trenches. and have T-72 M2001 models to drive over trenches. RPG-7s are worhtless in those conditions... Handgrenades are not Well they are costly way to cut tanks tracks (and hope for crew to bail out), as usually squad can call it self lucky if even half of men are in fighting conditions after that. If that wouldn't be there tank would just halt over trench and kill all of them with MG fire... Handgreandes can also be seen as somesort improvised explosives crafted from something found somewhere. I quite usually run into situations where AT-weapons have just been depleted and BMPs/Strykers drive across city streets as if infantry in buildings couldn't hurt them.

Really? I have to admit that i haven't payed much attention to spotting abilities. It seems to be there alteast in some degree... And that is pretty much all i can say I agree also with your 3rd. It would be nice to be able to share info outside of COC in some degree. I'm not expert but it would seem to be easy thing to do. :cool: (Yeah right!) My list. 1. Use of windows. Haven't much thought about it, but i guess there are enough situations where this would have been very usable option. 2. Well that information sharing with near by troops 3. i really can't tell. There are some but i don't wish to whine. Maybe that small arms fire. It doesn't have to kill anyone, just suppress. But i don't know. There are situations where it would be reasonable to work somewhat as it is... for-example well planned building assault, where friendly troops waves white cloths in windows as mark for firesupport to switch fire to next window... Sort of.

I really don't know how Chainsaw has been trained, but general guides provided to me stressed heavily to use of fire, hand grenades and most of all TNT-chunks (shaped charges, stachel charges etc) to create entry-holes and such. When going thru door you suspect is held by enemy you shoot couple of bursts, throw in grenade or both... And possibly shoot half your mags, throw all you grenades and TNT-chuncks too. I can see Chainsaw's princible sound and not gamey in this aspect. If you have to go thru stairway you expect to be held by enemy, you would try to use any means at you disposal. Sure CMSF shows this as men shooting randomly at ceiling, while idea of it might not be. I've never had army-issued MOUT-training (if manuals are not counted). Didn't belong to trainingprogram of mine. EDIT: Oh. I was too late again.

Yes. You can always argue about it's being poorly made and stuff, but still main principle stands: It's idea to deliver decoy and after that with actual real-deal penetrate active defences using same route as decoy (no destruction charge there anymore), under very short time (even if other destructioncharge could cover it's neibours area system's shouldn't be able to respond). so it basically uses two tricks to do the stuff, countering that isnt' as easy as using just one trick. Shoulderfired AT-weapons usually are not accurate to over 300 meter distances even at stationary tank-sized target. Wind, ballistics, distance estimation errors starts to affect heavily. True that it's good to have option to fire even to 600 meters. Maybe this has designed so that you can take 30mm rocket out of use and fire it with more accuracy to longer distances, we don't know. Besides it takes less training to be able to use weapon like this than try to work in pairs when even trying to fire both shots inside one second, preferably to same general location of tank. I get many plus sides of that kind weapon (if it can defeat active protection system somewhat reliably it's worth to try). It can be also that it turns out to be complete failure.

I managed to wipe out fourth of Marine platoon in one ambush with conscript/green insurgents having just slightly superiour numbers. I'm quite proud of how it worked. Basically 15 men as "cap" to halt opponent's movement, while two Toyota's with MGs, 2 snipers and 2 RPG-teams + one MG-team were hiding in and behind buildings in flanks of marines. + some unit's working as flank security (what ever space was left on, it was small map). That was pretty much by the book ambush. After that with slowly falling back from harm's way i managed to reduce their platoon to less than one squad (which was manuvering to our flanks instoppable). Ofcourse Marines didn't much use building as cover but basically tried to blitz right into village's center by using village's main road (covered with fences, so they had pretty good cover from direct fire if they remained low)... My blokes were mostly stationed to both sides of that road tossing grenades and spraying.

Yankee Dog: Fair points, but it seems that launcher isn't designed in the first place to reach long distances, but more to those practical and accurate 100-200 meters distances. I can't see problem's with size, sure one could haul light launcher aside with heavier one. But then again they don't penetrate active defences and reactive elements as neatly/effectively as this is said to do. It's main idea is that two rockets/grenades fired from seperate RPG's probably wouldn't hit same location even closely or in such short time as this does (0.2-0.4 seconds as it says). Sure it can be that it doesnt' work in reality (like many inventions doesn't). But i think theory of it is good and definedly worth to pay attention to it.

Oh you've played 1.06. That might explain something... not sure thou so much has changed. Atleast my men didnt' see RPG's until they opened fire, all 4 launchers at once. Usually rockets hits quite close to my men killing, wounding and suppressing alot.

I'm wondering how much launcher wobbles when 30mm round goes off. Which would be it's actual accurate range if firing both tubes... 100-200 meters? If thinking that it has to hit profile of tank with 105mm grenade reliably.

How do you do it? From my obseravations and play-tests 4 RPG on overwatching positions will wreck havoc, they can extablish LOS and LOF to most of your men. I can't see how that could be done without major casualities. As far as i can tell only way to do it without or with low casualities is to keep men out of RPG's way (and preferably SPG's too). But this gets too spoiling and mission specific already.

Yup. Could speculate that because Russian's had their tubes able to respond fast they got success. That is how Russian system seemed worked well at least in Georgia. If they would have been scattered around success might not have been as good as they are not technically up to that task (takes long time to prepare battery to be ready fire and response time might be longer). But really i know almost zero of this subject.

When i decided to use this sneaky way that usually ended up gun-crew running in panic and leaving their gun behind after they were targeted by unfair (but yet sneaky) enemy. Well it's probably just me. :cool:

I myself made it so (just played it thru 30 minutes ago) that rifle squads are facing backside of buildings killing every one trying to flank them and after coast is clear their idea was to withdraw. That went well. But i didnt' remember how fast enemy works. It's like massive wave when it hits i was able to regroup my men to new positions just partially in time.