Secondbrooks

I don't know, not necessarily 1:1 presentation in material, producing process or name, but something like they are. Manual said that there are modern buildings in Syria's new parts of cities and towns, hotels made of a concrete and such. But like civdiv said material's quality and hardness won't necessarily be the same.

Lekaharkko (well actually leca harkko) has been made of clay and cement. Clay has been heaten so that it transforms to small spongy balls which then are hardenned by burning. Cement there works as a glue. So it's softer material than cinder block, at least i would quess so. There was awfully lot typos in my previour post! Eeek! there has to be something wrong with these forums.

It's a brick. Baked clay and stuff. I doupt that it's cinder block, but no dictionary will tell me what is cinder block in finnish or what lekaharkko is in english. Block in video ihas not hollow space inside (like i think what cinder block is). They are not solid and heardstructured as brick is. There also something about 40mm HEAT and HE warheads as well as SMAW's effects in penetration of building wall in earlier link which i provided (in earlier page). Here link to second part of video where those issues are brought up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w22M1DAQ59I&feature=related JasonC: In that earlier link there were dummies scattered around test building so that penetrating bullets would most likely hit them. Bullets which went thru wallmaterials also could go thru test dummies, wearing protective vests (level 2? and helmet). [ January 08, 2008, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

So they quit the mission, apply for ceasefire or attempt break contact to enemy and wait mission time to end if it's pretty clear that completing mission will demand buckets of blood :confused: Oh you seemed to edit your post: Kudos to that way of playing. I've nothing againt that kind playing style.

Oh... Well that explains a lot Now where are my eyeglasses...

So do you lift you hands up and say "i can't do this with given man- and firepower and/or time and/or in this terrain. Screw the objectives, my mens' lives are the first priority"? Is it more important to you to save pixel-blood of you pixel-men than reaching your's objectives? i must admit i'm just gamer who usually tries to reach objectives and not caring so much about health of my pixel-me: If i have to spill lots of pixel-blood of my own pixel-men to reach objectives than so be it, i'm not quitting because of that.

flamingknives: Funny. Here's something our army shows about penetration. This is last part of video called "assaultrifle in combat" (traning video): In order of fresh wood, brick, i quess next one is cinder block (i'm not sure about english name), steel and sandbag. Figures are in centimeter. Bullet is standart ball JVA 0316. Which shouldn't be much different from original soviet 7.62x39. Yugoslavian round is almost 1:1 with JVA 0316 they used in this video. Brick gets totally shattered from one bullet (well they are not "glued" together). 7.62 NATO as well as 7.62x39 could easily penetrate brick in 45 degree angle in that earlier video i linked (which 5.56 couldn't do)... I don't understand what these globalsecurity figures are. Overall i don't think i understand half of penetration figures presented in english language. EDIT: Yes. In that globalsecurity link there's two bricks, but still damanding so many shots to penetrate brick seems quite absurd if single bullet can penetrate brick in 45 degree angle. In earlier link provided by me, they didn't mention thickness of it but i would quess that it's standart thickness about 15cm and 6 inches... Not sure thou. [ January 07, 2008, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Just recently i understood that it has to be point target if i want to damage or destroy vehicle. 'Area fire' or 'line fire' isn't nearly enough, i don't know have i ever taken out vehicle with those two. Can there be some bonus to arty's effectivity if one is using point target? Or have i had truly bad luck.

here's the link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhMOfaYwvE ) Changes of getting hit is very low in reality, but it is there. Firing hundreds of rounds to single house (or story) with 9-12 dummies... Boy i would like to see what kind mess it would be after that and how many dummies have got hit. But yeah. I'm not saying that system is 100% healthy. There are issues, which makes me to not like MOUT in CMSF. Lots of minor and few major issues. Most of them are about micromanagement, which i hate deeply. [ January 06, 2008, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

I agree with civdiv too. Building's wall ain't enough to cover from bullets. Concrete will protect one from 5.56 round (it will drill thru wall eventually but this needs something like SAW i quess), i'm not sure about 5.45mm, but allkinds 7.62 mm rounds punches thru, also penetrating innerwalls, not made of concrete. 20-30 cm of concrete is needed to give protection. Which i think is very rare outside industrial complexes and big hotels. In Syria CMSF manual said that buildings very from mud shacks (or something) to modern strudy hotels. Richoets and bullets changing their flightpath are problem as well as fragments knocked by projectile from walls. To get enough cover one needs sandbags or some other additional protection (basically to every direction because of richoets, grumbilng roof etc)... Which i quess, aren't modelled in CMSF EDit: Not sure about tendensy how this happens in CMSF... I would quess, that most problem is that troops won't pull back if walls are starting to shatter from intense enemy fire, men are not enough protected and possibly few guys gets hit, this is what causes lots of casualities. They just stick there, keeping their small little hand on their helmets and keeps crying for 'mom'. They can be kept under suppression and shooters can slowly chew them to death. [ January 06, 2008, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Yeah. I guess that during most battles when things are getting hot commanding officer puts brakes on, maybe even canceling what his unit is doing and fallback or seeking relative safe positions for his unit and starts to wait for something, like backup. Supplying at the same time. If backup ain't available he won't advance, unless he's forced by superiours or situation to do that. Usually gamer ain't like that, he's has been given mission, while canceling it isn't option to him, untill most his men bites the dust. Assault which is starting to seem more like massmurder than shiny victory isn't canceled. Same applies to AI. In reality even scent of massmurder is enough to justificate them to cease (or temporary halt) mission which has been given to them, (usually) officers are not willing to get their men killed... Atleast so it seems. Forexample: Artybarrage went wrong, and companycommander desided at it wasn't worth it to even try to advance over open swamp. How this would go in game? Player may curse a bit and after that he orders his pixel men to cross the swamp. Atleast my bride usually ain't enough flexible to quit scnerio before most of men are dead. Not saying that game engine is 100% healthy. But this is one basic difference with game and reality i would think. Atleast when i was in army and during one exercise we managed to ambush enemy company's pointmen. Immediatly after that the whole company pulled back and changed it's course, those pesky cowards were avoiding contact with us and headed for our flank! What would player do in that situation? "Troops: Bayonets attach! Ready - Chargeeeee!!!" ... Or something like that. [ January 05, 2008, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Once again i type this. Maximum lenght, heavy 'line' firemission from 4 Paladin (3 tubes) batterys to Syrian BMP-2 company which was packed to 200-300 meters wide and 50 meters deep area. Half of rounds were armor and half were general. Results to infantry: Aprox 70-90% of dismounted infantry was not fit to fight. Results to vehicles: Mild track damages (vechiles were able to roll). Few BMP-2 actually had crater patrially underneath them, which must mean that grenade impacted under less than 1 meter away from them. Half of them had several craters within 10-20 meters range... It's might be that i had bad luck, but when i looked at all those craters in vicinity of vehicles... Using area fire or linear firemissions might not be so effective than point target (or what ever). I've killed sll my vehicles with arty by using point target, even 120mm mortars are quite good taking out them... This just ain't good way when mechaniced company is preparing it's assault (next time it halts will be in my defencepositions). Time is luxury, expacely for Syria (predefined arty targets would do mighty good)

There should be damages in vehicles. i used 12-16 tubes of 155mm paladin's fire for 4 minutes to mechaniced syrian company, which was standing in about 300x100 squaremeters area (they were indeed a thight mass). They all were 100% capable of attacking, only few tracks were damages but not enough to cause mobility kill. Can someone say how big amount of vehicles damaged/destroyed (beyoynd fit to fight) would we be talking about in reality. I'm not expert (=trained FO) in this field but i'd expect about 6 or even more, cheer amount of artyshells divided to that area is huge! I've talked to FOs and from what they are saying, conserning smaller caliber and fewer rounds (about 100) should cause few damaged/knockedout vehicles... If my memory serves me right.

Sure...Muzzle flashes haven't given him away alot earlier (at night). Which are easily visible to long distances, unlike hot barrel which is rather small object. If hot barrel is visible then gunner's head is much more visible Or barrel can be pressed to behind ground or other visual cover. There are lots of ways which can be used at various situations... If one is aware of them, or he is aware that he is in danger of being imagined with thermals.

RPG-7 is "pop-pop" weapon, it gets only about 100 meters per second first then second "motor" gives it almost 300 meters per second speed after short flight distance. So it can be fired inside small spaces. Two meters should be safe distance to wall conserning backblast. There shouldn't be much overpressure inside room, if there are even few windows (or door) open even in smallest rooms (where we flush things to sewer which came out from our backside). I doupt that RPG-29 is much different. It has bigger grenade, yes. But it's rocket based ('pop-pop'), not recoiless rifle after all. But i don't know what Russian army says about it's use in rooms and over all i don't know much sconserning RPG-29. AT4 (not CS model) might be other case (as it's recoiless rifle after all), but forexample smaller LAW 72's backblast and overpressure inside rooms is quite small. Basic thing is that pressure in room have to get into balance, which means that holes, windows and door should be kept open and wall is enough away for backblast (when conserning LAW i just say lol). When talking about over 100mm recoiless rifles i tend to think that then it's good thing to make sure that wall is enough far away and pressure can get in to balance as freely as possible. Sidenote: Even TOW can be launched inside room, which is about 5x7 squaremeters (making hole to wall behind laucher is healthy option), smaller room is OK aslong as there big hole behind launcher, for backblast that is. [ January 01, 2008, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Hell-yeah. I've made NLAW obsolent on my freetime. I've revealed seriour weakpoints in TOW-2B (making it obsolent). I've created tactics and, how do you say it, combatdrills to make Arena and Sthora obsolent. Trophy just makes me grin, it's lamb which is already dead before it borns. I saw it immediatly from PR-video in YouTube. Basically i can bring back WW2-era. Permanently or atleast as long as i live. All i need to do is to make few phonecalls... Would someone give me paper and pencil?

Yes distance is solid 100 (+- 10) meters, elevation was same solid 20 in whole map. I think that 100 meters should be well enough to give good concealment. I'm not sure about rocky soil type, but atleast field of grain, bushes, brushes should do that very well (on flat ground as you said). Right no it seems that this is not the case. I'm having doupts also conserning craters, but i'll leave it to that. That one other test which i did aswell using 2 player hotseat: 3 bushes + brush per square (filling whole map) and yet most of individual men from both sides hiding there, were spotted inside 30 seconds by their opponents. Distance in this test was 150 meters. In reality i can't see even 30-40 meters when lying down in that kind terrain... If it is what i think it is: The bush-hell, full of shoulder, waist and knee tall foilage. And i agree with your post complitely. My point hopefully should be atleast somewhat loud, space-consuming and clear, so i crawl back to my hole.

Had this yesterday, and sorted it by splitting the squad. It split into the two groups already created. A move order to get them close and they recombined without problem. HTH </font>

Only area where hiding or being prone was truly effective was trees + brushes (it made units much more hard to kill and made them invisible to opponent. Bushes seemed not to give concealment at 100 meters, which was biggest supprise to me. Also grainfield's zero effecticity in concealment at 100 meters was quite a supprise. Also brushes itself doesn't offer concealment, so basically in earlier tests with 'trees and brushes' only effecting factor were trees. Just minute ago i did same test as before (with 100 meters distance) with only brush filling the map and effect of brush seemed to be zero, enemy opened fire and killed most of platoon with in minute. Men were hiding (lying prone) in there and still enemy spotted with out problem and also shot them without problem. Basically this far from brushes, ground- and foilagetypes only trees (expacely D model) are limitting visibility and effectivity of fire: hit the deck and you are relatively safe if distace is enough long... Or something like that. EDIT: About tests where there were no trees placed on map: Has these 'problems' always been there? Or am i missing something: like how these haven't been "figured" out earlier? Or have they? Both sides were given order to hide in scenario editor. AI was controlling red with 'active'-order, so he opened fire if they spotted my men. While i just issued 'hide'-order to my men during setup, i didn't give them orders to open fire (and they didn't open fire). This is how i conducted most of the test. I also tried to give my men target arces and gave them liberty to shoot if enemy is spotted, but after short moment i gave them 'hide'-order to hide away from enemy fire. No difference to earlier example, both sides spotted and shot each other with few seconds delay after mission started. And these guys were regular experienced militia troops all having binoculars (like they would have any effect in that kind terrain). I also tested it in hotseat, and ordered both sides to hide in setup, in 'bushe+brushes'-map and just 'brushes'-map which both i tried. In both maps within 30 seconds most (60-80%) of hiding opponents (=individual men) were found out, and this was from longer 150 meters distance. They didn't do anything else but tried to hide from enemy. EDIT... about... 4: Sorry for editing this post so many times... This must be actually be something like 6th editing already. [ December 28, 2007, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

It's quite obvilious that concealment weighs nearly nothing, which then again has part in lethality of small arms fire. Guys hiding in grain field and still they can be spotter and shot dead from 100 meters away. And there was nothing but grain in between them. Basically one chould no tbe visible when he's lying prone, hardly even if he's kneeling (acoring CMSF guys head is visible). One minute was enough to get 25-33% of men killed or wounded. Hiding was not a option, they couldn't get hiden from enemy but it kept shooting them with deadly accuracy. Yes. Again i felt like testing This time: Militia platoon (regular experience and normal morale etc..) against same kind platoon. Testing ground was totally flat, only ground type and such changed. Platoons had distance of 100 meters in between them. I also tested these types of terrain: Rocky ground. Effect was almost zero (just as with grain field). After same amount of time, about same amount of casualities were produced as earlier. Brush and three bushes per square in grass soil. Effect was almost zero. 100 meters was piece of cake. So after same amount of time same amount of casualities. I tested bush models A and B, no differences seemed to be. In grass soil, brush and three times tree model E per square. From 100 meters no contact to enemy, so i started to advance (with hunt order). Enemy opened fire from aprox. 80 meters. Fire was pretty ineffective: basically one man went down from opening fire. I could hit the dirt, lose contact and fall back if i chose to. if i chose to advance i sacrificed my platoon for nothing. If unit is standing he is as good as dead. Tree model C performed the same. Brush and three times tree model D per square. From 100 meters no contact to enemy, so i started to advance (with hunt order). Enemy opened fire from aprox. 40-50 meters. Fire was pretty ineffective as in previous example.. Due shorter ranges it seemed that effectivity of crossfire increased. Surivability from front was supprisingly good but fire from side could wipe out several guys in short moment. Overall i think that concelament and cover is way too low in all these examples. Even in last two examples, altough they are closest to reality. Overall i've noticed that movement in prone position has little of effect to stealthness of unit and same applies to lying prone in certain ground types (guy shouldn't be visible if there is 100 meters of bushes or grain field in between. Or 80 meters of forest). It should usually be possible to get much closer by crawling than with walking, but right now it seems that this is not the case. It has only slight effect on things. I know that i sound like prick, but could Charles look into this aswell Or is there logical explanation for such low concealment values? Ofcourse it could and most likely will break missions if this thing is tweaked drastically. EDIT: ****e. We are having marksman conversation. Raising weapon to shoulder then douple shot inside 5 seconds to pop up target (or 1 shot in 3 seconds) from distance of 150 meters with AK type weapon... No problem. We trained alot same things as US army seems to be doing, these so called snap shots. The thing itself ain't difficult, problem from what i've seen in allkinds of combatexercises is that you usually won't see enemy. Just hear gunshots or see enemy briefly and then it's gone. And this happens under conditions when i don't need to preserve my life (same applied to opponents). Usually when i saw them and was able to nail them was because they were acting stupidly... And same applies to me when i got hit: "It's too wet to be lying in the ground" or "i don't feel like running" or "I have to smoke a gigar". molotov_billy: And that was from unsuppressed unit. What if there would have been tank or 12.7mm HMG firing at them? Like one of our famous WW2 veteran said: "When enemy stops firing and flees then even the most self-preservant can act like hero." Not to be taken offencively by anyone, this is what he thought after his 4 years of war. [ December 27, 2007, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Artillery's effectivity against all kinds of armored vehicles is bad, i know that. From what i tested: Basically several hits near vehicle (distance less than 2 meters between crater and vehicle) is needed to cut BMP's track... and even then there is luck involved. At that point BMP as well as every other vehicle should be in state that it can't fight. Optics busted, armor torned and twisted etc... I'm bit sad as arty should be reqularry used to damage vehicles during barrage so that AT's job gets bit more easier when enemy begins it assault... If enemy is still willing to assault.

Yesterday i did test with two US stryker troops (42 men was strenght for both sides, consisting standart platoon, CO and Batallion commander). It was blue vs blue, two long trench lines having 200 meters wide no-man's land (standart sand) in between. After 4 minutes of intense firefight both sides suffered about 6-10 casulities (usually 1 dead while rest were wounded). Casulities seemed to been coming in steady pattern during battle, no lulls or heatpoints. AI which played as red side and was set to active used alot more ammo, about two times as much as my guys. They had used almost half of their ammo, while my men used 1/4 of their ammo. And usually they caused also two times bigger casualities to me, i lost 10 while they lost 5 or 6. This is usuall pattern which tells me that AI leader managed it's fire better than me and so gained advantage over me. I gave my troops just target arches which covered whole enemy's trenchline and then i let them shoot (or not) for 4 minutes. Ofcourse test was pretty bizare. "Hey. Lets shoot enemy over there!" I wonder how human mind would have thought about that. I quess most would have pulled their heads down quite soon after first casualities and not revealing themselves after that, but for short moments when firing few rounds or bursts. About WW1: Thanks for straighting that up, i found those figures bit hard to believe myself. [ December 27, 2007, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Have to agree that basics are pretty much what i think they should be, atleast in heavily forested area, where defenders were in trenches and whole area was 'grass, 3 trees (most covering type i quess) and brush + logs lying around'-tiles. Troops did open their fire automatically inside 40 meters (which is quite right), but i could manage their firepower with target orders (both target and area) to 60-70 meters long and still their accuracy of fire was somewhat consentrated on one point... My idea is that they don't see nothing to this distance and so firing should not consentrate on one point, but every soldier should be shooting in wide arc area in front of them. There was several ways how attack (2 attacking platoons vs 1 defending platoon) would turn out. Defenders are in trench line 60-70 meters long (whole platoon) while attackers are comming in 75-90 meters long line. Reader can laugh now, but that is limitation of engine (squad can form only 20 meters long line), as i can't form much longer fireline with unified killzone. I quess defending platoon could have been stretched to 100 meter long line (still 100 meters too short from real life) without damaging "unity" of killzone too much... But i got lazy. And fact that squads still are compressed into 20 meters area so they are easily to be suppressed. 1. frog leaping to trench with out firemanagement: Attacker didn't much do but killed it self. This is what AI does, and human as well if not giving target-orders to units (god i hate managing this!)If i order my men halt to 40-50 meters from trench and do not give target orders then they just sit there (both sides). 2. Lots of fire and no movement after all units can fire to trench (managing fire with target orders, god i hate this!). Defenders suffers some casualities (too much i say, i'll come back to this later), but can't be destoryed. Without movement to trench battle can't be finished, defenders are pinned down, but not destoyed. 3. After minute or two heavy suppressive fire, half of attackers assaults the trenchline. Defenders can cause casulities to attacker (usually casulities comes in trench, as defender will not rise their heads to shoot charging enemy), but gets overrun and destoyed. It seems that squads which are assaulting the trench and having target orders are very effective, They can cause severe casualities even before getting into to trench. 4. No suppressive fire phase, but attacker regroup to line, they get target-orders and movement orders (assault for infantry-squads and HQ-squads gets move). Results are pretty much like in 3. Seems that defenders are too easily to be suppressed.With movement+fire they are easy to be destoryed as they can't fight back. Most likely too thightly packed formation is main problem in this. You suppress one (with very effective target-orders) and there are several others near which will get suppressed as well. But would more wide formation (lets say 50 meters per squad) affect to this, because CMSF is having squad based morale system, which means 1'm pinned down -> everyone else are pinned down? Basically it was handgrenades and launcher grenades which seemed to cause most casualities to defender. One or two grenades usually took out half of the squad in trenches. Again formation is too thight to give survivability to squad. Small arms accuracy and guys ability to spot targets (without target-orders) in those distances was pretty much what i think is in reality, it took quite a deal of fire from several guys to score hit into target which was barely visible. But greatness of target orders is something i, atleast now, think to be the fishy case. Ofcourse they are using alot of ammo during that order, but i think the issues are with visibilty (shold not see nothing to that distance) and consentratio of fire when guys should not see nothing. So mathematical: Too thight formation + greatness of target orders = something fishy. Ps. Hopefully someone gets something out of it... I'm sick at the moment, so my brains can't focus. Also wasn't it during ww1 when one kill required averagely much less than 100 bullets? If i remeber right it was 20-30 bullets. Quite a marksmen they were (or there was some other factors) [ December 26, 2007, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

I tend to think that lethality knob won't fix anything, things just starts to get more bizare. Same discussion in one First-person-shooter forum, they suggested lower shooting accuracy, which would prolong firefights, but would result some very many unhealthy things. Another thing. Look at how thightly packed infantry squad is... We weren't allowed to stand that close even when waiting our turn to get "dailymoney" from our sergeant-major of the company (i took first word which dictionary gave me). One burst from 30 mm is enough to kill most of the squad, expacely in trench. Basically everything that blows up is very-very lethal. JasonC got things right aswell.

Had company of Syrian republic guard's mech infantry (4 platoons) in 500 meters long line, dismounted. Ordered 4 batteries of 155mm paladin fire. Half of fired shells were 'Armor' (general to left siode, armor to right side of line). And what were the intresting results after 2 minutes of barrage? This was a test, not warfighting scenarion. Ground type (if it matters) was sand. Company lost 100 men (Almost all dismounted infantry) but not a single BMP. There was no differences in vehicle damages and infantry casulities on left (general) and right (armor) side. Two BMPs ALMOST lost their tracks... even if there was crater beneath them! That should have killed whole vehicle. There was about 5-7 BMPs which had crater(s) inside 10 meters away from them. I quess in real life 30-50% of the vehicles should have been not fit to fight anymore, some lost their tracks, some severy damaged and some destroyed.