Chibot Mk IX
-
Posts
620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Chibot Mk IX
-
-
wow,
wear sunglass at night, I like this idea
-
BTW, is the scenario you mentioned come from "The Road to Dinas" campaign ?
-
Yes,
FYI, BRDM Rec company should have some ATGM version BRDM in the units too
OK, I am speaking from my memory so I could be totally wrong on this
http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh240/andyrix/Soviets/Advanced Guard/Slide2_zpstxuv4qr2.jpg
IRL, the Recon Platoon boarding on IFV should come from the Rec Battalion (Bn.) assigned to Regiment (Regt.) . A regular Mech Inf Bn usually don't have a Recon Plt in its OOB, they can build their own recon plt by their own. The dedicated Rec Plt is the backbone of combat recon patrol or forward attachment, these are important parts in Soviet doctrine. Different units in Soviet military has different task based on doctrine, but Soviets is doing their best to mix individual units into a dual-task TF.
In combat recon patrol you will need some boots on the ground ahead of the formation, some target to let the enemy to shoot at
. The task force should be strong enough to drive away enemy recon, it can also be used to ID enemy main resistance position if other recon element failed to do so. The recon plt on IFV should be able to carry out this task independently, but no surprise if it is reinforced with a tank plt.
In forward attachment task the rec plt will be part of the task force, built with tanks, Inf, AT, engineer, NBC and artillery observation units. They are going to assign some important task, like capture a bridge, strike enemy HQ position.
And Soviets believe due to the natural of maneuver warfare , the attacking and defensing could change rapidly. That is the reason why their recon element has ATGM in their organization since 1960's, at that time period American scouts were still riding on M113 and shooting with M16, we Chinese recon were still practicing shooting target 600m away with a type 56 SAR (SKS)
. Since the recon element will be the first to contact with enemy counter attack force, Soviets believe its recon has the responsibility to slow down the enemy's counter attack. So that the main body have the time and space to transfer from a road marching formation into a defense formation. Whether by Ambush or by head to head fight, the decision lays in the Recon force commanding officer's hands.
s
-
I have not play the campaign you mentioned . There isn't too many red campaign in CMSF 1 world. Besides this scenario, I know there is another scenario put spotlight on Red recon platoon. Scenario 2 on "Road to Dinas" campaign. A Mech Recon plt ID the government force's reinforcement before the scenario start, now it is time to delay their armor reinforcement's schedule and get the f**k out.
There were similar discussion on recon topic, I think long time ago the conclusion was scouts units and their mission doesn't fit into CM's scope very well
I guess in this particular CM scenario , " watch your guys get blew up" is the best way to find the unknown ATGM position .
-
Just want to know what is the sunset and sun rise time at CMBS? Is that a fix time in the whole game period (June to Aug)?
I started a scenario , the first turn is at 5:00am. Wondering when my pixeltruppen will take off their NV googles .
-
5 hours ago, Haiduk said:
Not agree with this. BTG/RTG is a basemant of tactic. WWII style battles "division on division" already impossible.
"The tip of the spear", BTG/RTG was already a concept of WW II warfare. One BTG with whole division support lead the way, the other Bn either following behind or perform flank guard, rear guard duty. But one key point of this concept is how many support the BTG can have. The BTG leading the way can will attract all the spotlight, while people may forgot how many support the leading BTG can have
4 hours ago, ikalugin said:For example if you build your brigades to generate (be split into) self sufficient BTGs (or divisions generate brigades, etc) instead of fighting them as a unified force you loose the synergy unified forces offer and the internal flexibility on each level. As such, in my opinion, it is much better to build brigades to generate mission orientated task forces (forward detachment, flanking detachment etc) in their interest or in the interest of the above level than to build brigades to generate (be split into) self sufficient BTGs or other such groupings below their level.
I agree most of this. The current independent BTG concept is best suit for.... current situation in Donbass. The BTG can enjoy a lot of Arty, EW support that usually keep at Corps level. With so many support , the objective of the BTG is a very limit one: capture a village 5km away, or counter attack and push the enemy back to where they started.
In a "big" war the independent BTG will become combat inefficient after suffering some casualty. Even assuming it can achieve its objective without suffering too much casualty, human being and machine need rest/maintenance. There should be another Bn bypass it and carry on the attack, all the support should be transferred to this fresh Bn, forming up a new BTG .
-
Or carry two canvas bags and step forward ------ tank man
-
Did you check the EW strength setting? It could impact the delay too.
Any way here is my experience, in case I have to endure long waiting time, I will change my mindset on the arty. Do NOT use the arty to bomb the detected target . Use the arty to strike the target you cannot see, drop the barrage on the suspicious area that enemy could hide into. Setup an Arty mission first, use light, long or maximum mission, so that I can easily adjust it to bomb the new detected target later
-
This is from my recent PBEM game
"Run! Forrest run!"
Poor boy ran hard in the wrong direction
-
If you are going to be penalized for damaging the building, then, set up several fire support position from other buildings to over watch the target building. Sending a small team to stir up the hornets' nest , cover their approaching by smoke. When get into the building , the ideal situation is your team arear fire every floor . Toss some grenade, spray one box of LMG ammo then move in. Another tip is you can ask your fire support team target light to make the enemy return fire and reveal their position, target light won't damage the building too much.
-
14 hours ago, Dynaman216 said:
If this is a standard tactic the first drone can purposely be built with less expensive components too. Those on the ground have no real choice but to shoot it down if they can or be spotted unless in cover already.
Similar tactic has already been developed by IAF and USAF, see ADM-141 I-TALD.
in other news , I remember in 2018 IDF fired a Patriot Missile to shoot down a $999 DJI commercial UAV
-
I won't surprise if it was shot down by Tunguska.
21 hours ago, rogue189 said:My understanding was that this a a more difficult drone to detect
RQ-7 is a small size UAV, but it is not a stealth UAV.
My guess the RCS of RQ-7 should be in the range of 0.1m^2 ~ 1m^2 . So it could be hard to detect by radar at long distance or by old generation mobile SAM radar, but not invisible to the modern radar at short distance
If the RQ-7 is circling over a Tunguska for couple minutes , I won't surprise at some time Tunguska's radar be able to catch enough radar reflection signal , then using either IR or optic to ID the target before firing a burst of 30mm
-
On 1/12/2019 at 6:38 AM, LongLeftFlank said:
This has come up before, even back in the old CMBO days when CM was closer to its hex wargame roots, but in Elite and Iron modes it would be interesting to introduce a limit on the total number of units (% of total in play) the player could issue commands to each WeGo turn. Not sure of the RT equivalent, but it could mitigate the 'speed chess' clickfest issue that makes RT H2H a rarity for most of us.
1. The limit would be set based on:
(a) formation quality (reflecting likelihood of units to take initiative);
(b) comms, using a 1-5 scale set by the designer to reflect radios/wire, visibility, terrain, atmospherics etc. (emplaced defenders would usually be a point higher?)
2. Units in command all the way up to the top HQ (the player) would be exempt from the limit. This could also tempt the top dog to go forward and get things moving.... at his own risk, which speaks to the thread topic.
3. Elite status units (exceptional self-reliance) and units not yet in contact (Rested, zero Alerted status) might also be exempt, so the entire formation can advance to contact before all hell breaks loose.
4. Emergency cancel/bugout commands, Hide/Unhide or Face would not count against the limit; units would always be allowed basic self preservation orders. Specialized orders like artillery direction could also be exempt.
5. Not everyone would dig these limits of course, as it would discourage excessive micro and squad splitting, and place greater reliance on the TacAI.
But it would arguably be more realistic, and the "in command" exemption would make CM much more of a Command game, as opposed to shoving orders at 300 'should be' Audie Murphies each turn. Men take fire, go to ground, defend themselves. They aren't necessarily keen to get up and going again all at once.
Thoughts?
EDIT: I have no expectation whatever of this being introduced, it's just for discussion.
There are some of the operational level wargame feature the order delay and limited orders. But as IanL mentioned below, CM is a tactical level simulation game, player assume the commander role from Bn commander to team leader. Implementing these features will change the scope of the CM game.
One of the wargame FCRS (Flashpoint campaigns red storm) feature both order delay and limited orders. Order delay is built in the game, the limited order is an optional choice. There are some discussion and thoughts about limited orders feature. Here I would like to share one discussion copied from Matrixgames forum
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3775464
QuoteI play this game with limited orders off. The reason is the option is an oversimplification of reality on the ground and, for me, lowers the fidelity of the game.
We, as players, play multiple roles and command at multiple levels simultaneously. With this option, all orders are treated the same (operational and tactical orders). Right now, this and order delay is the biggest beefs I have with this game.
I ave, in my career, received FRAGOs over the radio wile on the move and executed them. Some were of the sort of being a tweak to an existing order, list "swing left and attack from the south" or "occupy Hill 780, conduct hasty defense oriented northeast". These kinds of orders were tactical orders, meaning, they are fighting orders, not planning ones. They are the decisions of the company commander. And they happen with little (a minute or less) or no delay. Platoon leaders, upon getting onto the specific piece of terrain will also adjust so they can accomplish their assigned mission (and then inform their company commander).
Putting all orders into one bucket and rationing them out each command cycle is forcing us, as player commanders, into picking which company and platoon leaders can actually command at that point in time and that is too big a disconnect for me. -
Maybe you can post your question on CM2 General Tech Support forum
I know after CMRT, the folders contain save, scenario , maps are no longer in the same location with the game file. if my memory is correct, they are in "user name"/ documents/ game now
maybe your windows is based on different language? or the user name that you log into windows is in different language? I had the same problem with one of my desktop which has Chinese language windows installed
hopefully this could be helpful
-
On 2/6/2019 at 1:05 PM, Splinty said:
I;d like the M113 included in US units as well. There are still many Combat Engineer units that use them, and every mech infantry company still has one as a support vehicle.
CMBS already have one vehicle on M113 chassis: M1064 Mortar Carrier
-
also keep in mind if your Javelin team is not far away from a fallen comrade that carry Javelin, then your team have access to those Javelin.
-
it looks like Shenyang Li Jian (sharp sword), which looks like RQ-170
-
yes, too many SVT.
If my memory is correct, there were 1 million SVT built, but the half of them were lost in disasters after disasters in first two years.
-
1 hour ago, sburke said:
You mean the Russians right? and escalating to tactical nukes for an anti armor threat you might as well not bother sending your tanks forward and just toss a few nukes as the war is gonna end shortly thereafter.
No, I mean Soviets , in a what if scenario that Soviet Union still there in 2000s.
Why not? Each soviet division has 4 SS-21 , why let the SS-21 crew drink vodka and enjoy the sunshine while the others are fighting a bloody war, the division commander would love to assign some tasks to them
-
23 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:
Others have touched on it, but I'll repeat because I think its worth stating again. A good fires plan goes a long way to mitigating all sorts of anti-tank threats, be it javelins, AT-14s, or guys with RPGs. As an example, I know a lot of people expressed frustrations with the "Passage to Wilcox" scenario in the SF2 demo, but from the American side. There is a battery of AT-14s that can cause some real havoc if you aren't careful. However, the briefing warns you of this threat, and even tells you roughly where they are on the map. So, as part of my overall fires plan, I made sure to dedicate a section (2 tubes) of 120mm mortars to put the suspected AT-14 position under a constant rain of fire during my initial movement phase. I did that by setting the fire mission to a long mission, but a light rate of fire. That way only 4-6 or so shells were landing a minute, thus preserving the mortar ammunition, but this was still more than enough to suppress the AT-14s and even knocked at least one of them out. The rest I was able to destroy with direct fires from my tanks and Bradleys, which didn't take any fire from the AT-14s as the gunners were too busy hugging the dirt from the mortars.
For Red Forces, be it Russian or Syrian, a detailed and accurate fires plan is extremely important. You can suppress, destroy, or at the very least deny enemy javelin teams from setting up in advantageous positions. That can buy you time to maneuver into an advantageous position for your own forces, where you can start to bring direct fires to bear on suspected and known anti-tank positions. Easier said than done of course, but it is certainly doable.
I absolutely agree on this. Reading briefing and study map is a must. However , not every scenario gives you a lot of artillery support. And in a PBEM game, your human opponent may deployed to a different place. Or put the ATGM in safe place , deploy them as soon as the barrage stops. Javelin team in a good human opponent's hand are nasty, because before you bring up enough direct area fire onto their exposed position, they may already be 20m away. Before your artillery drops, they may have already jumped on a Humvee and go to the other side of the map
But I agree, if you have enough artillery assets in the beginning, plan the fires. ID the possible ATGM position , put yourself in the other side's shoes, think about where you would like to deploy ATGM at. Suppress those area. It is always good to have a plan. The best case scenario is the attack goes with the plan most of the time, react to unexpected situation once a while.
It is easier said than done
-
23 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:
I actually disagree with this. Yes, the javelin is a very effective anti-tank weapon. However, so was the Pak 40 in WWII, or an Abrams in hull down in the modern titles. I don't think your approach to operating in a javelin environment is much different than any other anti-tank weapons environment. The same principles apply. Cover and concealment are still your best bet, regardless of what you're up against.
People tend to think that modern warfare requires a whole new set of tactics in order to be successful. This generally isn't the case. Weapon systems in the modern age tend to be more lethal due to their first shot accuracy, and spotting ability across the board has increased as well. The same basic rules still apply however. If the enemy javelins cannot see you, then they cannot kill you. Suppressing fire is just as effective against a modern javelin as it is against a WWII anti-tank gun. Its just now the javelin is harder to spot, and once it's fired you're likely out of luck.
Others have touched on it, but I'll repeat because I think its worth stating again. A good fires plan goes a long way to mitigating all sorts of anti-tank threats, be it javelins, AT-14s, or guys with RPGs. As an example, I know a lot of people expressed frustrations with the "Passage to Wilcox" scenario in the SF2 demo, but from the American side. There is a battery of AT-14s that can cause some real havoc if you aren't careful. However, the briefing warns you of this threat, and even tells you roughly where they are on the map. So, as part of my overall fires plan, I made sure to dedicate a section (2 tubes) of 120mm mortars to put the suspected AT-14 position under a constant rain of fire during my initial movement phase. I did that by setting the fire mission to a long mission, but a light rate of fire. That way only 4-6 or so shells were landing a minute, thus preserving the mortar ammunition, but this was still more than enough to suppress the AT-14s and even knocked at least one of them out. The rest I was able to destroy with direct fires from my tanks and Bradleys, which didn't take any fire from the AT-14s as the gunners were too busy hugging the dirt from the mortars.
For Red Forces, be it Russian or Syrian, a detailed and accurate fires plan is extremely important. You can suppress, destroy, or at the very least deny enemy javelin teams from setting up in advantageous positions. That can buy you time to maneuver into an advantageous position for your own forces, where you can start to bring direct fires to bear on suspected and known anti-tank positions. Easier said than done of course, but it is certainly doable.
One last note I think is worth mentioning, using infantry as recon is very useful when facing javelins. Their handheld optics might not be as good as the ones mounted in vehicles, but they are also much easier to maneuver and conceal than vehicles are, and javelins will generally not engage them unless ordered to. Worst case scenario, you lose a recon team to a javelin, but now that's one less javelin missile you have to worry about. Best case, you are able to spot enemy anti-tank teams with your infantry and neutralize them without losing your armor. Again, easier said than done, but its quite possible.
War, War never changes.
I agree you on most of the part, but disagree with some part.
23 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:People tend to think that modern warfare requires a whole new set of tactics in order to be successful. This generally isn't the case.
When BMP-1 get into Soviets armed force service, it was designed to follow tank formation closely. However after Yom Kippur war Soviets realized their BMP-1 are very brittle on the battlefield. So they changed their doctrine. The BMP companies must keep distance with tanks companies , preferred distance is 500m-1000m. So Tank companies lead the way, BMP companies are in "on call" position, follow behind and ready to provide support.
This doctrine will not only keep BMPs relatively safe in nuclear warfare with tactical nuclear weapons detonate everywhere, but will also keep them safe in a 70-80s conventional warfare. Yes, NATO has a lot of ATGM assets, but Heavy ATGM are issued to Battalion/Company level. Light ATGM M47 Dragon at platoon level may not be able to effectively stop MBT. Later the TOW 2 on M2 IFV increased a lot of firepower to the Mech inf platoon. But basically Soviet can concentrate their artillery, use their MBT to absorb enough damage, Mech infantry in an "on call" position to provide support, the whole formation keep moving. Javelin could change the whole situation, they are relatively light weight, relatively cheap, easy to change fire position, hard to detect. Issued to Squad/Platoon level so it has both the quality and quantity, and they are providing same punch as a heavy TOW 2
Glad the cold war didn't turn hot. And cold war ended before Javelin get into service. So we don't know what Soviets will do to adapt to this new threat (maybe their solution is very simple: use tactical nukes and chemicals). One thing is clear, if you try to reenact this Soviet doctrine in CMBS, you will get a lot of burning T-90s. Like you said , sending out infantry as screen is a solution, but this will cost speed, it is not fit into Soviet doctrine. For some of the NATO screen force at the border, forcing Warsaw Pact change into an assault formation can be considered as a victory, it will disrupt Soviets schedule and slow down the enemy.
My point is, new high tech shining toys could force the opposite side to adapt a new tactics. Naval and Air operation are more sensitive to this. Land warfare is less sensitive. But charging a machine gun post in a Napoleonic era column formation is a bad idea. In modern day battlefield, mass your artillery in a Soviet WW2 style will make the enemy's counter battery mission a piece of cake. So, new weapon system/hardware has an impact on tactics
my 2 cents
-
All hail the powerful 8.4kg HEAT warhead
I am in a PBEM game , scenario "Galloping Horse Downfall". This is what happened last turn.
American is retreating, I send a MTLB chasing after
Javelin.... Incoming!
A miss, but.... Ouch.
Glad both two crewman survived , they can still charge enemy with AKS-74U.
A Javelin team spotted 20 min before this happening, that location is marked with yellow arrow in the first pic. I dropped probably 30 rounds 120mm mortar shells air burst in that area. The blue arrow marks where this Javelin comes from. Either my opponent changed his position after he detected spotting rounds or he has another Javelin team there.
Anyway, it is the time for another round of bombardment.
-
On 1/15/2019 at 5:11 PM, IMHO said:
As a side note, RUS squad has just one Pecheneg but it uses more 7.62 than the rest of the squad burns through 5.45. So the ratio should be reversed and even more so if the squad has UGLs or expects longer engagement ranges. I'm talking CMBS not RL here.
11 hours ago, Sublime said:Yes both US and Russian squads overwhelmongly use their 5.45 or 5.56 quickly and its very important to grab enough not to run out. I guess its also a habit from using Wehrmacht troops where if that Mg42 goes silent the squad is at like 1/4 firepower.
I had seeing my LMGs run out of ammo amd because everyone has assault rifles IME its always easier to find egular assault rifle ammo somewhere anywhere where say STG ammo in the WW2 titles and 7.62 is harder to just find..
This said I load my men down with everything I can. Rocket launchers UGL roads everything I can. Everyone doesnt play how I do either.
There are plenty of 7.62x54R in the 7 men Rifle squad.
Ukraine's 7 men squad has 700rnd (1 PKM), Russian has 970rnd (1 PKP + 1 SVD).
The 6 men squad could experience 7.62 ammo shortage much more often, Ukraine's 6 men squad has 300rnd, 420rnd in Russian squad. So make them grab 250 or 500rnd 7.62mm is highly recommended
On 1/10/2019 at 11:31 AM, Sublime said:I also distribute RPG ammo ajd RPGs.
I usually do the same thing here. But recently I am rethinking this . In a PBEM game and when I expect to see enemy armor, I will constantly change my exposed infantry team's position every 30s or 45s. Light load will be helpful to my game play style.
One thing puzzle me is, why the Russian/Ukraine's grenadier could not equips RPG-22/26? It looks like those who equips with GP-25 or GP-30 are screwed. They cannot equip with RPG, cannot pickup their fallen comrade's LMG. They only have 10 rounds UGL HE, and burning the ammo fast. BTR, MLTB and BMP don't carry 40mm VOG-25 HE.
I hope BFC can add some 40mm HE to Russian/Ukraine AFV in next patch
-
8 minutes ago, sburke said:
Asking for feature adds now is highly unlikely. Especially to this degree, but on the other hand BF has no intention of removing Syrian air assets.
I know, I just want to share my thoughts on this, maybe it should be labeled as "Requested Features and Ideas" . Hopefully the development team will consider this when they work on next modern conflict game
Syrian/Russian Mech Inf Recon Platoon correct usage? (Spoilers for "Perdition" campaign).
in Combat Mission Shock Force 2
Posted · Edited by Chibot Mk IX
Thank you for the link.
Thank god, a different campaign. I am in the middle of Road to Dinas, so I thought I shouldn't read this thread until I finish that campaign.
Some of the operational level wargame should have better simulation on these recon assets. (like FCRS , Command Ops etc). Sun Tzu said " Victory is decided before the battle is fought" , CM is focus on the battle, the last step before the victory. And we really enjoy that, recon is boring. But I know a talent scenario author can create some fantastic recon scenario , the decision and outcome will influence the whole campaign.
for example I love the scenario 2 in road to Dinas campaign created by Paper Tiger. The Rebel made a breakthrough in Scenario 1, government's force sent a company of T-72 to the front line. Operating deep behind the contact line, rebel 's recon company knew the government's tanks are approaching . They decided to capture a key point , a hill next to the highway, setup an ambush. One dead T-72 means one less T-72 in Scenario 3. PT asked the player to hit cease fire before government force capture another hill. This is to simulate a withdraw before government force establish the LOS on rebel's retreat route. I love that one.