Secondbrooks

Even trenches with "fragment cover holes" would do good. Idea would be that troops in 'hide'-mode goes to holes and are safe from anything but from direct hits (lots of suppression could also make them to go to holes). They would be also in complete convealment from anything but enemy troops in trench or near distance from trench. If engine is incapable in representing foxholes, this might be easier way to reach almost same level of survival and also easier way to get around of possible enginelimition (ofcourse i'm not coder so...) Ofcourse this might be better way to enable proper use of fighting positions than foxholes. As high level of fortifications means that troops can move around from foxhole to foxhole by using trench. Using just foxholes makes use of additional firing positions to flanks quite immpossible, as men can't move around in cover. Once they leave their foxhole they are very easily suppressed and eventually dead, so trench has to able to reach each foxhole... which sound quite impossible to make true in CMSF when thinking CMSF's 8x8 meter tile system as you should have trench going into each foxhole.

Ability to clear terrain from LOS- and LOF-obstacles. Patch of trees blocking visibility (and forming anti-projectile field) to killzone from good spot for AT-team? Go ahead and cut down the trees. Not so much problem in CMx1 i think, but in CMx2 with 1:1 scale i find small terrain features to cause problems some times. Well-well.. I quess CMx2 (or CMx3?) still will take few years to receive this level (not because it would hard to make, but the reason that it wouldn't be very important thing). So i'd be happy with just foxholes [ March 21, 2008, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Well this is good thing... I mean that i misunderstood your post's tone slightly I don't know why is it in these forums that it's hard for me to understand what people are writing and i'm also able to write lots of typos and mis-spellings (even when i douple-check my texts) Maybe people are using their english language in more creative way than in "regular" english forums or something.

Well that is a reliever, i though we were only poor sods in western world which had to use Stens, Mosin-Nagants, Maxims, Suomi SMGs etc at 70s and 80s.

John Kettler Was that to be taken with negative or positive tone? I'm picking somekind hostility, but this ain't my sharpest day (i'm refering to my IQ) so i try not to make too hasty conclusions :eek: There are names for various AP-rounds, some-great-google-hero just needs to start digging deeper from internet by using those names... I'm too lazy and too ignorant to do that Well, yeah. That was quite irrelevant info for our Syrian side as Syrian generals might be able to provide these kind bullets just to their SF-troops, rest of their army has to stick with old stuff.

AK74 has AP rounds. http://club.guns.ru/eng/barnaul.html and here good comparsion of AK47 and AK74 with different steel materials and various ranges. for standart and AP rounds. http://world.guns.ru/ammo/am05-e.htm

Find a play tester or two sir! </font>

Well PKM is alive and kicking (and liked). Russians seems to have adopted RPK as another section weapon, but to my understandment PKM is there still for regular squads atleast. I like the consept that there is machinegun which has big and effective ammo like PKM and then there is SAW inside squad...

Since v1.07 I find low walls are pretty good. You can order your men to hide behind them and they are pretty much immune to direct fire. You can then order them to unhide briefly, and they will go from prone to kneeling and start spotting targets and engaging them over the wall. As soon as they start taking heavy return fire I just order them to hide again. Actually the same is true of trenches now also. </font>

I don't know this sceanrio, it's not in full version. Or atleast i havent' noticed it. House, trench and woods, others aren't proving much cover in 1.05. I don't know has values been tweaked more in later versions, but this was somewhat tested by forum members with 1.05 (or was it 1.04?). This is with smallarms fire. I would say that you should use house or trench (i usually favor house over trench). Woods are douple-sided sword, your in cover and in concealment but you might not see much from there. There's difference with tree types, palm and pine (i quess it's a pine) doesn't much block the visibility. Unlike some trees which leaves (almost) touches ground your men might not see anything if not stationed just next to open space. Placing squad in middle of 3 trees isn't much doing anything good. You should have tens of meters pine trees in between to make use of forest actually fruitful idea. remember that this game is showing things in 1:1 scale and it performs like that too. So: if there is one tree, then there is just one tree and nothing more. There are few issues. Forexample if you fear enemy RPG's or other blowing stuff (as you should be) then using (pine or palm) forest is good idea. ordinance might blow-up in trees before they reach your men, fot this i recommend atleast 60 meters of forest, close distances and forest might turn against you (shells blowing in top of men, slaugther this is)... Ofcourse same applies to your men: It's not best AT-tactic in CMSF to put AT-units deep inside forest, as their spare RPG-ammo might hit trees. Problem is that there usually isn't "optimal" forest in use. It's very much likely that one uses forests in wrong way. Like: your men can't shoot opfor before it reaches forest and now they are hard thing to kill (you put them too deep, they can't see or fire to open) or your men gets almost zero protective effect from forest (you put them too close to forest's edge) CMSF has been said to requires much more learning than CMx1... I agree. Forgetting CMx1's 'set of rules' seems to be good advice.

AI in CMSF can't handle change, it has zero iniative to player's moves. And designing and testing AI plans currently is too cubersome task. It would be nice to be able to see how my plan works out without playing whole scenario. Simpliest would be to be able to watch AI'plans fulfilled on map in accelerated time for each side (no fighting or anything, units just moving roughly like they would move and take their positions in game). I could see bugs in my plans much more easily and in faster time. But even with this tool AI is still too predictable, it can't function without orders, it has zero iniative (if squad B was assigned to seize objective #3, but they got killed on their way, then nobody really cares). Hopefully BFC will add dynamicthings to AI-plans. Infact i would say that AI is better on attack It has the iniative and player has to react to that. AI on defence, then terrain has to be such that AI's keyweapons can affect to player's units in almost all situations. Player has iniative and AI should react to that, but sadly right now it can't react but with shooting. [ March 02, 2008, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Sounds quite hard-skinned SF-blokes indeed. Yeah. It's true that there seems to be always some tough guy who shoots back while most are already sucking their thumbs on floor, no matter how hard the suppression is... Then again this is something what i've read from history: Some blokes are so cold-blooded that they can keep on shooting in situations when rest of squad/platoon are already looking routes which they would use to escape from storm of shells and bullets. These kind tough guys armed with SMG (with 70 bullet's drums, naturally) or "LMG" and plenty of magazines could halt platoon or even more during ww2. Maybe we have samekind tough guys modelled in CMSF? Hmm... Could i assign AT-weapons to these guys in the future versions? Well that is my 0.2 euros.

I don't know... After 2 and half minutes 36 US troops facing 36 syrian troops from distance of 150-200 meters and US did prevail. I did divine battle to 4 zones in which squad of US infantry faced squad of Syrians. Zones were bordered with tall walls so they could see just opponents which i placed at them. Each zone had similar building for US and Syria. US dominated firefight right from the start in all zones. AT-4s proven to be great tools in atleast two zones, it delivered some casualities and wounded men to Syria. I can't say about other weapon systems but test showed that US owned Syria in this kind almost labratoryish conditions. Syria did fight back all the time, squad didn't become complitely useless at any point (but mostly men were hiding. But it's volume of fire wasn't nearly enough to fight with US's. Ending results at 2 and half minutes were following: US: 2 wounded, noone dead. Syria: All squads lost atleast half of their men. if i remeber figures right it was 6 dead and 14-17 wounded + 2 did flee from battle. Syrian setback was that two squads had poor leader (-2) and 2 squads had leadership zero (0), while US had one squad with good leader (+2) and 3 squads had leadership zero (0). Both had regular experience level. and fitness was good. RPG-7s were pretty useless this time, They seemed to go miss mostly and gunners didn't last long. EDIT: I encourage people to test and report... Mine test this time was very limited. [ March 02, 2008, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Yup. But in your example they didn't fire HE, or did i misread that part? And if they would have done that it would have wiped about half squad out... Today i fired Syrians with my 120mm and yes they were pretty unwilling to fight for few minutes after that (if someone lives) And in CMSF they are shooting at one spot of building, they are not covering whole wall with their fire, if this is not abstracted but it seems that it is not. If you happen to be in other room your safe (if fragments can't pierce walls). Mental issues are another thing, bit then again 40mm grenades usually does pin enemy down in CMSF. 1st floor, 7th floor, foxhole or bunker it doesn't matter. Other has cover+concealment while other does not. This is ofcourse raw simplicity (your situation which you explained is unknown to me). To sum it up what i'm after, is this: Supporting tanks firing with MG at one room of building, while opponents are in other rooms of building, while infantry advances across sandfield or dry ground relying on firesupport from tanks = Not very bright situation for charging infantry. Like said i don't remember that my tanks would have failed me even once with their cannon usage when i wanted them to use it. Ofcourse it's possible that they have failed me. But yes sometimes it seems that smallarms fire can't penetrate walls very well, it can be abstracted, but to my understandment bullets and their flight path should have be both drawed to screen and calculated. But then again in-side of buildings are abstracted and forexample rooms are not drawn to screen. [ March 02, 2008, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

I'm kinda doupting for that arty smoke issue and it's correctness in CMSF. Few notes: Battlefield is limited. This is already problem when trying to use good defencive tactics like "flankfiringpositions" (what a monster of words, incorrect most likely too), todays gear it's very good way to act and Syrians would need it for their weak and long minimumrange ATGMs. Now i also could basically smoke whole battlefield and rush my men to objectives. Finally when smoke drifts away, i'm already where i should be (in MOUT i might have evaded most defending troops who still are sitting on their thumb in their ambush locations). Leading them from my eye on the sky. I've used this (accidentaly) with Stryker smoke when taking over building from enemy: i did pass enemy's anti-tankdefences and moved my men in to enemy occupied buildings in cover of smoke without any reponse from enemy: "Ah! It's Ahmed in his new ACU and M4-rifle. Good, Ahmed is a good man. Now, where are the americans? I can hear sound of engine infront of my window, did Ahmed left his car's engine on? Which is bit strange as Ahmed doesn't have a car... " When smoke drifted away my troops overpowered enemy in quality and guantity and it made me feel like i would need a shower. Smoke doesn't have anykind effect on my troop's manuvers, they will follow their orders, they will not get lost, their cohesion doesn't get reduced. Just their ability to fire and spot is reduced. If my men inside smoke would start to act weird, go complitely wrong directions etc... Then implenting arty smoke would be much more okay. There should be severe setbacks to make it two-bladed sword. I once lied next to smokegrenade (those handgrenade sized) when stalking Opfor vehicle in exercises, it did feel bit weird in my lungs and tasted... hmm... funny. It luckly wasn't Thermal blocker, those must be much more wild packages to health and lungs. [ March 02, 2008, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Not using main gun with target-order? Haven't noticed that, they always shot enemy in trench, building or open with their main guns in my games. As long as i issue them target-orders. v1.06 presented very high moraleboost for men in buildings. I haven't desided is it bad or not. You could think that their moraleboost is justificated, because they are fighting in "fightingposition". Like one would order humanwave against bunker, i would expect similar results when ordering platoon of infantry chraging against house which is occupied by enemy -> slaughter. Another thing is that Area fire into building is atleast shown to be pointtarget in which all hits goes to same spot in wall, so if noone is in that section of wall then there will be almost zero effect from fire. It's bit too much of micromanagement to issue target-orders to tanks and stuff when you want them to have proper effect on enemy with big guns. But right now that is the only effective way to make use of firepower enough heavy and effective.

Afganistan was testing ground for NATO AT mines against Soviet tanks. Same EFP princible was shown there, with horrible effect on tanks. AT mine blowing under tank can lift tank's turret off with cheer pressure once hole is made to bottom, atleast with T-55. Soviets even reinforced their tank's bottoms because of bottom has tendensy to rise upper and break something like automaticloader or crewman's legs (in lack of better words). What i've been thinking about reason why Europeans in general haven't been intrested in EFP's use in Iraq-way is this: I don't know did forexample Germany have territorial defence, in where harrasment of convoys and troops behind enemy lines had strong meaning to support fight of frontline units. If not, then i can see why EFPs like in Iraq weren't in that important role. Traditional AT-mines which blows underneath tanks is enough to halt tanks manuver (atleast for some moments) make them easier targets. Iraq-like EFP is another kind thing. One hardly uses them in massive formations, it's easier and cheaper to use forexample trackmines, which are just mass of TNT and pressure fuze installed in middle of it (this is filthy cheap). When used in massive formations they just become obstacle, Iraq-like EFP is more like tool of destruction not obstacle. We used and still use EFPs mostly in this convoy harasment task (but they are used in other types of warfighting activities because we have them in big guantities), they are small, light and cheap when comparing to AT-launchers, which is importnant thing to guerilla troop who might get back to friendly lines when war is over (they can't be supplied from air either as very likely enemy has airsuperiority). Iraq is kinda like this, while defening against Soviet horde might not be like this (for most). In repelling Soviet horde you might want to have AT-launchers, ATGMs, tanks, airplanes, helichopters etc. And ofcourse AT mines or trackmines, which in massive formations can halt mechaniced opponent. There are lots of other things which can be done by use of EFPs. EFP can be just as tiredless watchman as any mine can be. It can also secure minefields with claymores to prevent or destoy engineers or engineervehicles from clearing minefields or atlaeast slow down the process as EFPs (and possible operators) has to be searched first. It can be used as extra AT-power in frontline battles. But main task is the harasment of convoys and troops on march to "frontline", for that it suits best. EDIT: We started to use various types of industrial made EFP-mines during 70s. Right now the scale goes from 3 kg to 20 kg, types are AT mine and so called "sidemines" or "flankmine", which usually is put to terrain behind road's ditch and it's idea is to hit side of vehicle when it passes by, from that comes the name "flankmine" What i mean with Iraq-like EFP is that "flankmine", not like traditional 'you bury this to ground'-mine. [ February 22, 2008, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Yes and no. If one want's it to as effective as industrial made, then yes there are standarts which one should reach. I don't need copper, i don't need shaped charge. I don t have to form anything. What i need is 10 cm big can (metal or plastic), 1-3 kilograms weighting steelplate (copper is great, steel is easier to get) put in to can + same amount of explosives as plate weights behind plate + fuze + mass which will seals open end of can . There you have it, not as effective as one made with better resources and skill but it will go thru armor side armor if APC at 30 meters, i'm not sure about modern IFVs thou. LongLeftFlank: This is directly from our army guidebook conserning explosives which can be made easily (and reservists have produced them with short traning). This has been shown in public sources so i dare to tell something about it. We had shortage of allkinds weapons (expacely AT) during coldwar era, this was one way to try balance things and make guarilla warfare behind enemy lines more effective and possible. [ February 20, 2008, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Hmm. When does IED's be replaced by EFP's made of paintcans or tincans? If MRAP's armor and design is useless against that (like it would be logical), i would guess that then EFPs are then produced and used more than currently. Someone said that procuding/using EFP is harder than "conventional" IED. No it's not. Materials and prinsible of producing are simple, same with use of it. I can't say that it's use would be harder than basics of claymore.

Atleast German WW2 tripods had that setting (would quess that MG3's has too), about other's ww2 machinegunsi don't know. Soviet NSV's antiaircraft-tripod doesn't have that screw setting if i remember right. And that monster had to have 80 kilograms of weight installed to "blanket" in tripod to prevent it from recoiling, those who got specialised traning for it said so. I have just 'fired' that thing with SAAB's simulator (no live or blank rounds involved). However DSHK's in Syria inventory seems to have different kind tripod, most likely ment for purely ground-target porpuses so i would think that they have that screw thing too.

Well it depends. Forexample 40mm M203 HEDP either sends just jet thru wall(s), one has to stand in line of jet to get hit. In some materials it causes 'shotgun'-effect with secondary fragments from wall material. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w22M1DAQ59I&feature=related In about 4.00-5.00 minutes. Other way could be to fire thru window, when grenade blows in inner wall and spreads (some) fragments from it's butt into room + possibly causing pressure-damage to persons in room. EDIT: There's no such thing as german stonehouses in Syria, like Steve said

I agree. Same can be seen with rest HEAT-grenades. They wipe out houses quite effectively.

Yeah. Range is defindely one plus-side. It seems that i just tend to think that all A. Effective infantry engagaments happens closer to 100 than forexample 600 meters. And B. infantry firepower closing 500 meters is almost worthless (better to give task to longer and bigger tubes and save ammo for closer distances). Well yeah, it can be possible that i'm ... eh... wrong ... ... Damn that was painful. EDIT: No sarcasm involved. [ February 11, 2008, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

I suggest you look what RPG is nowdays: "A poor mans artillery". Even Soviets used it that way. Even someones in US military are writing about it's great effect as suppressive tool and that they should shove new bullet-based weapons and focus on them to place where sun doesn't shine and instead try to revive things like OICW. From CMSF's RPGs i said this: strong short suppression effect which can enable Syrian squad having few advantages. In this GPMG isn't competetive. RPG can send whole squads hugging ground and losing will to fight temoporarily in matter of seconds (and this happens even without causing casulities!) while GPMG can't. First, open CMSF and look what weapons regual Syrian squads are having then make bit of a math to get firepower of 6 AKs + 2 RPK/RPD (not much different from GPMG after all) + 1 RPG (or pistol). As can be seen, your 10 rifles-argument getting pretty weak. And really in where did i mention 400 meters? Yes, i do encourage to do that. If someone truly can fill insight about value of GPMG in modern battlefield then i'm pleased. But this far i can see it only minorly better than LMG/SAW with bibods when it comes to firepower. [ February 11, 2008, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Have to agree that we can throw just "educated" quesses. I don't know how Hev has been able to gain that kind results (maybe attacker had severe advantage in numbers, being abe to suppress attacker). In my testings squads with moderate leadership (0)and regual experience will halt it's assault from 2-5 casualities. Volume and accuracy of fire has big meaning of how easily this will happen. Also if leaders get hit it seems to generate more suppression. And strong randomness is involved it seems. Nowdays each squad wields many times that firepower which MG-teams can put down (infact i don't see the greatness of GPMG-teams nowdays. All are having automatic weapons + longrange explosive ordinances). Syrian riflesquads happens to have RPG-7s which seems to be very good weapon (much better than GPMG) to deliver strong suppression effect for short moments and by thus allowing better changes for manuver and reaching fireoverpower.