Secondbrooks

With TOW and the way USMC and US Army in general (by my understandment) operates it in small teams so i wouldn't be surprised that they don't much do it. We dedicated whole squad (7 guys) to handle one TOW to make it "foot-borne" and i think it's was pretty much minimal sized unit already. Russian ATGM-systems are much more easier to move with 2-3 guys. One guy should be enough to carry launcher while rest carries missiles. So basically it should be much more suitable to be used as seperate weapon.... But still i don't know is it just bonus feature which is mostly just talk.

I actually don't know. Some instructors have pointed out that it's pretty nice feature to have and some troops (at least recon) are doing it actively, but i don't know much more about it.

It would be actually very nice in CMSF if BMP-2's ATGM could be stripped away and used by infantry.

Isn't BMP-3 vs MGS test like comparing which one kicks ass more, person who can see or blind person?

My educated answer would be that quite much in %... Other than that i can't much help Which is bummer as i really would wish to know this too. Not that it would serve anything very important for me (i'm not much into that % stuff). But just maybe it would make easier for me to understand how to set casualty thresholds into my missions. Now days i use round simple figures like 40% and 60% without knowing does that have any difference on mechaniced or not-mechaniced enemy.

Oh so CMx1 player's opinions desired? I know that no-one cares, but i'm loner so that is okay (and i don't mind spitting either). Bogging wasn't issue for me in any of them. It was juuust fine.

Well seems to depent from few things. One pretty good case which i read about was done as refreshing training for reserve officers on how to fight against mechaniced enemy with company of mech infantry and tank platoon. Done with latest simulatorequipment enabling use of arty and mines. Example 1: Inf platoon formed hasty defense positions. Task: To halt and repel mech company with CV or BMP vehicles (don't remember) and Leopard 2A4 tanks. Platoon failing miserably because Leopards came on front and used their thermals to pick up target and "kill" it with MG. Example2: Platoon now understood how uber thermals were, so instructors showed them few tricks. Platoon formed new defensive positons (model hasty). Fir's branches inserted in front of firing positions. AT-mines put bit behind of platoon to bottle neck where tanks didn't have space to manuver and AT-guys ordered to remain behind big rocks ready to engage whomever drives into mines (they excpect Leopards). Cocky mech company officer decides again to use Leopards on front under same princibles. First tank went into mine. Immediatly AT-guys started to engage rest of tank platoon and managed to destoy it before it had much time to react. However hastly performed flanking manuver (managing to surprise defender) by dismounts again destoryed platoon. Example3: Not so cocky anymore mech company officer choosed to do it differently. Minefield is bad for tanks. In WW2 atleast Finns due heavily forested/marched terrain used this quite much (as it is still, AT-mines belongs to rifle platoons' equipment and by SOP they are laid to ground on defense). Soviet tanks broke thru easily, kept pressing pedal to get into rear areas along roads alone or in small units. Driving into minefield, which halted tank-units movement and then AT-guns and AT-teams started to engage them. Tanks had to start to pull back fastly to get into friendly zone before road might be cut from there too. As a stereotypical example. Later during ww2 in Finnish front tanks were not that interested to penetrate any deeper before infantry can join them. There are few cases which i've read from but those usually ended up badly for tanks. I've seen few plans how AT-untis were placed on rear areas and it seemed to be deadly for small or even larger tank units to move there without support of infantry, escpacely in -44 summer when good deals of Panzerfausts and - schrecks were delievered to frontline units.

When i see vehicle bogging i usually think that it at least has decent changes to survive intact from that particular battle, unlike rest of my vehicles. And when playing campaign that is HUGE thing. So it's more like game saving feature to me.

Yup. It could have been 75mm AT-gun, or mine as well. Besides there already has been choices to be made. "Choices to be made"-list: 1. To move or not? 2. At what speed? Spending 90 minutes to drive 200 meters or trying to cross that distance in half minute. 3. On what kind ground type? That already has huge effect on outcome.

Same evasive behaviour should be applied to pretty much everyone, like AT-teams. But they don't get requests of it because they are not as hot and sexy guys as snipers with their ripped clothes... Err... ghillie suits are. Which is wrong as they are just as lovable pixeltruppen as pixelsnipers are, heck even more as they are the hard pixelmen who go up against tens of tons of steel. They are so courageous and yet demand so little. My little heroes.

Red reservist infantry at least seemed to be able to give fire mission reguests to Blue arty-assets if in squad/team there is atleast leader present. Team-leaders shows 'denied'. Or something like that...

Last time i assaulted directly to town with infantry (used MGS to blow hole into tall wall for me), got bogged into city fight with absurdly formed SF elements (they were in streets and not in buildings mostly, well it was men tot be played in WEGO and i played it again red AI). Cut them down and suffered heavy casualities mostly from RPGs and handgrenades. 1/3 of town was under my influence, and beaten SF elements holding the rest, Syrian units spotted outside town got indirect fire missions on their necks and M1s + sniper team tried to kill what they saw on road. Strykers were just keeping low profile in the back. Then i got bored and quited, enemy had lost over half of it's troops, SF elements were mostly beated sacks of potatoes (as was my another rifle platoon). It went nicely to that point of time, casualties were higher than what i expected (i'm to blame for lack of micromanagement). First time i played it i did the right thing, and circled from right thru woods. Used heavy fire from distance and finally performed mounted assault to intersection objective across field and trenches. Still causalities for my men rised pretty high, when they entered town to deal with SF elements. Other times i've played it and tried other tricks just didn't work that well. But now as CMSF in patched up it might not work that well, and juuuust maybe i was bit lucky during my first play thru.

True. We have term 'total casualties' (=kokonaistappiot as is said in Finnish), which tells us number of WIA, MIA, KIA. Casualties (=tappiot) are just KIA and MIA. I wouldn't be surprised if Russian's would have similar system. Overall both figures seems to be alright. about 180 000 x 3 = bit less than 600 000. I believe 1:3 figure ('KIA+MIA compared to casualties overall'-rule) stands here as Soviets this time were on offense. Eh?

When i'm on slow mode it's WeGo, which is often. When i'm on fast mode it is realtime... Of course i can also do it other way around, depends of my mood. Then size of battle matters, also how i predict it to be phased. Half an hour of pure waiting, then fierze action for 30-60 minutes? ... In this case it's WeGo. Or will there be recon jobs or other ways small scale action... Then it's realtime. BluFor or RedFor? This matters as well. Wait there is even more: And also about did i by accident select wrong mode... And i'm being too lazy to start over. Overall more and more i'm leaning towards WeGo... But that can be for reason that i play less and less CMSF, and i'm loosing my edge. Realtime escpaciely with large battles is very demanding. Bit too demanding for me. But overall i'm not too picky or limited in this way. I like to use them both. It's like using toilet paper's both sides, cost-effective and pleasuring.

Well manual says that conscripts have had little training... What is little? I'm prone to think that there would be "clear" difference between conscript (week or two of soemsort training) and zero (few hours or less) experience levels, but i'm not starting to agrue about it as you have valid point which i can't much counter: Conscript experience level performs already very poorly if they become underfire.

Do you realise that battles wished to model from BHD in CMSF have already been discussed and pointed out? Driving across streets while tons of inaccurate RPG and small arms fire (pretty much unsuccesfully) beating the column. And yes i do realise your last point, as that is what i have already been saying too.

Or like tactical problems in modelling happenings of Black Hawk Down with CMSF? [Meaningfully glimpsing at topic's name]

Problem in my mind is that CMSF is unable to model guys (=Somalians) who barely understands basics of how weapon functions. CMSF starts from idea that even conscript troops have had at least weeks lasting "intensive" training phase. There is no zero-experience level.

Well Black Hawk Down scenario shouldn't have Taliban, AQ or Iraqis. I admit i'm not expert on tyhis issue, but uncons there (in Somalia) mostly composed of guys with zero training, they were just given gun and maybe short instructions of how to load it.

It's worth to think that rather big amount of Syrian Uncons infact might have military background, i'm in impression that Syrian military has drafted and trained considerable amount of it's male population, while keeping just small amount of them in active and reservist formations. So they are not just un-trained mass which likes to fire AKs from hip and shoot RPG-7 by instict and gut-feeling... but considerably part of they actually know what they are doing (altough skills might be bit rusty). RPG-7 yet is key weapon-system of Uncon formations so handler of it probably is selected from those who actually should know how to use it.

We had AT-weapon in past which outlooks was pretty similar to RPG-7 (or earlier models), but it was recoiless rifle, which had sieve (to "filter" backblast from biggest debris) which was prone to get choked (=get filled)... When it did that and loader didn't clear it, recoil is said to be pretty rough as backblast remained in weapon instead of blasting to backside of weapon. That could hold potential to cause some nice bruises. And i think RPG-7 has just same kind, altough not as prone to get choked, sieve... But i'm not sure and won't bother to check.

Double taps seemed to be quite effective to long ranges (200-300 meters), when firing at poping up "torso"-targets (marking as assaulting enemy). I have to admit that i'm got used to sqeeze accurate single shots to those distances, and at first taking double taps to long ranges seemed odd. However when starting to used to it, it seemed pretty effective. Density of fire gets two times bigger without problem with rate of fire getting too big and throwing rounds to sky, as it gets with full or burst modes. When rifle is well supported second round should get pretty close to first one (relatively speaking). And it's fun. Double bursts with LMG with ROF of 1000 rounds/min are even funnier. And what i've seen pretty effective.

EU is going thru rough times in future as well. First Turkey and now this! In Turkey they at least have metric-system in use... I think.

50% figure, if i remember this right, is taken into account with just indirect fire. It's basically different thing than 40% and 60% figures, which are more complete (=whole combat) by taking also direct fire into account. With indirect fire there are different terms (destruction, suppression, harassment) used than objectives of mission, which are destruction or "beating" (forcing it to evade) of enemy or occupying terrain which is vital to enemy or own objectives. In later destuction has bit more fatal flavor. And 60-40% is used to bring out defender's and attacker's differences in determent and will to suffer casualities to reach/maintain mission objectives. Probably serving more as neat guide line in tactical studies, where officers wonders which is best way to do something in theoretic scale. Something like that.

Editing time was up, so i will quite myself: Too much Soviets (or glue sniffed) for me it seems :cool: We have 20% for suppressed, 50% for destoryed. Less is just harassment.