Difference between us army and russian army Squads

[Macisle]

So far, here are my feelings as player that tends to focus on infantry (and usually plays as Ukr or RU):

 

• US squads: nice to have the extra bodies, but I'd sure like 3 teams out of 'em.
• US grenade launchers: a bit underwhelming. Sometimes they are magic, but often they do little/nothing.
• Russian RPGs: can be very effective against infantry and the Russians use them a lot! If I'm on the receiving end, I wince every time I hear them. They seem to keep US troops more suppressed than outgoing US rifle GL/M25 fire does in reverse.
• RPOs: underwhelming. RPGs seem more effective in any situation.

[Stagler]

You need to quit flappin your gums on the forums and send me the next turn in your ass whuppin. ;-)

 

Too many hard decisions to make at the moment matey!

[Doug Williams]

Too many hard decisions to make at the moment matey!

 

Roger that. All I'm having to decide is which mine to step on next. :-P

[whitehot78]

If I have to be puzzled about something which has been talked about on this thread, I would say that the antipersonnel warheads on RPGs/RPOs are a little weak.

 

Specifically, the thermobaric ones, I would expect to cause horrible casualties, in situation where the rocket actually manages to penetrate the building (I would imagine that such rockets will explode inside only if they passed through a window, a door or another opening - if they hit a wall their load would splatter against a wall). Basically, the in-game effects imho should be that if you have a squad holed up on a floor, and a RPO explodes inside that floor, no member of that squad would be able to keep fighting - think about the pressure effects the warhead has on a man's lungs, without considering the incendiary effect.

 

Also, I was expecting the thermo warheads to have some sort of effect of their own; in WW2 CM titles we got the flamethrower effects, but in BS thermos seems to go up just like normal HE/frag to me. Are they planning to add some proper explosions or are we gonna make up with the current effects?

[DreDay]

If I have to be puzzled about something which has been talked about on this thread, I would say that the antipersonnel warheads on RPGs/RPOs are a little weak.

 

Specifically, the thermobaric ones, I would expect to cause horrible casualties, in situation where the rocket actually manages to penetrate the building (I would imagine that such rockets will explode inside only if they passed through a window, a door or another opening - if they hit a wall their load would splatter against a wall). Basically, the in-game effects imho should be that if you have a squad holed up on a floor, and a RPO explodes inside that floor, no member of that squad would be able to keep fighting - think about the pressure effects the warhead has on a man's lungs, without considering the incendiary effect.

 

Also, I was expecting the thermo warheads to have some sort of effect of their own; in WW2 CM titles we got the flamethrower effects, but in BS thermos seems to go up just like normal HE/frag to me. Are they planning to add some proper explosions or are we gonna make up with the current effects?

 

I generally agree and support your points sir, but with one minor addition (if I may). Newer Russian thermobaric munitions (i.e. RPO-M and even late production RPO-A) have a HEAT precursor charge to penetrate walls and lighter AFVs before their main (thermobaric) charge goes off - so they are almost guaranteed to explode inside regardless of wether they hit a window or a wall...

[akd]

Can you provide a reference on RPO-M having a HEAT precursor?  I can't find any indication of this in a quick search.

[DreDay]

Can you provide a reference on RPO-M having a HEAT precursor?  I can't find any indication of this in a quick search.

 

This is something that I remember seeing in the promotional materials for both late-model RPO-A and RPO-M back at a time when I used to take this stuff seriously (i.e. early 2000s). I will have to look for a source, but there is a good chance that it will be in Russian, would that be ok by you?

 

Update - Here is one (of quite a few) that I have found after a quick search. Unfortunately it's in Russian - hopefully Google-translate will do a good job with it.

 

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-432.html

 

On a side note, from what I remember reading in the promotional materials - the precursor has roughly 50mm RHA penetration. It is only intended to go through walls and light armor before the thermobaric charge goes off... it is not a threat to tanks or heavier IFVs.

Edited March 30, 2015 by DreDay

[akd]

Russian is fine. If google translate can't handle it, one of the other testers can.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Well, the javelin sure is a great AT weapon (it has a great range too), but I find it not Always precise as you might imagine, more than once I had shots not causing significant damage to a vehicle (hit: weapon Mount  a recent one, prolly killed the rooftop HMG) or they even just miss (gunner distracted by a bee). Not to mention they have only few shots.

 

Besides, russian AT assets, while being overall less precise (let's say useless at long/medium distances), are more common and have a great efficicency in close combat fights. Not a case that a smart US player wil Always try to save the javelins for armored targets, thus removing a potential heavy support when it comes to fighting enemy infantry. 

 

All in all the javelin seems to me a very good asset, but it's not Always effective and sometimes the US infantry lacks heavy portable weapons against russian infantry, which, instead, has plenty.

 

The other obvious differences, such as numbers and forward observer teams, are due to the real structure of such units more than anything.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Macisle]

I recently had a T-72B3 survive two hits from a Javelin. My jaw dropped on the second one. Very unusual. I'm glad it was my T-72!

[Stagler]

Was it the APS intercepting it? Or was it just luck of it happen to hit the engine block or inert area of the vehicle or something?

[Kieme(ITA)]

APS on russian vehicles is not capable of intercepting top-attack missiles.

 

Anyway, I just had to see a team fire 3 javs to get a t90 kill.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Macisle]

Was it the APS intercepting it? Or was it just luck of it happen to hit the engine block or inert area of the vehicle or something?

 

None of my AFVs had APS. It was parked in the woods, though.

 

I don't have that turn save anymore, but I haven't finished the battle yet and the tank is still alive. Here's the damage it took from the 2 hits. Notice the used ERA block and scar (from the first hit).

 

Edited March 30, 2015 by Macisle

[vincere]

If I have to be puzzled about something which has been talked about on this thread, I would say that the antipersonnel warheads on RPGs/RPOs are a little weak.

 

Specifically, the thermobaric ones, I would expect to cause horrible casualties, in situation where the rocket actually manages to penetrate the building (I would imagine that such rockets will explode inside only if they passed through a window, a door or another opening - if they hit a wall their load would splatter against a wall). Basically, the in-game effects imho should be that if you have a squad holed up on a floor, and a RPO explodes inside that floor, no member of that squad would be able to keep fighting - think about the pressure effects the warhead has on a man's lungs, without considering the incendiary effect.

 

Also, I was expecting the thermo warheads to have some sort of effect of their own; in WW2 CM titles we got the flamethrower effects, but in BS thermos seems to go up just like normal HE/frag to me. Are they planning to add some proper explosions or are we gonna make up with the current effects?

 

The thing is, buildings are very abstracted, and while I fully appreciate the mechanics of thermobaric weapons, consider the 2 guys in the corner could be 2 or three rooms over with doors closed and walls in between.

[Vanir Ausf B]

This is something that I remember seeing in the promotional materials for both late-model RPO-A and RPO-M back at a time when I used to take this stuff seriously (i.e. early 2000s). I will have to look for a source, but there is a good chance that it will be in Russian, would that be ok by you?

 

Update - Here is one (of quite a few) that I have found after a quick search. Unfortunately it's in Russian - hopefully Google-translate will do a good job with it.

 

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-432.html

 

On a side note, from what I remember reading in the promotional materials - the precursor has roughly 50mm RHA penetration. It is only intended to go through walls and light armor before the thermobaric charge goes off... it is not a threat to tanks or heavier IFVs.

 

Good information. But any tandem-warhead munition would (I presume) have similar penetration.

 

While I am certainly open to the possibility of RPO being under-modeled, I think we need to stop and consider the implications of what is being proposed. Specifically that they are:

 

1) "almost guaranteed to explode inside regardless of whether they hit a window or a wall"

2) "in-game effects imho should be that if you have a squad holed up on a floor, and a RPO explodes inside that floor, no member of that squad would be able to keep fighting"

 

If this is how it worked in-game Russian infantry would be nearly unstoppable in urban warfare. They would quickly annihilate any opposition. If that reflects reality so be it, but I am skeptical of overwhelmingly effectiveness.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Thewood1]

I am little concerned we take promotional material too literally at times.  I know there not is info out there on actual capabilities on a lot of Russian and Chinese hardware, but I assume most reasonable people realize the promotional material is put together by marketing people to, at a minimum, make the product look as good as possible.

 

edited...missed an important word

Edited March 31, 2015 by Thewood1

[whitehot78]

 

 

While I am certainly open to the possibility of RPO being under-modeled, I think we need to stop and consider the implications of what is being proposed. Specifically that they are:

 

1) "almost guaranteed to explode inside regardless of whether they hit a window or a wall"

2) "in-game effects imho should be that if you have a squad holed up on a floor, and a RPO explodes inside that floor, no member of that squad would be able to keep fighting"

 

If this is how it worked in-game Russian infantry would be nearly unstoppable in urban warfare. They would quickly annihilate any opposition. If that reflects reality so be it, but I am skeptical of overwhelmingly effectiveness.

 

As far as it concerns me, I would value realism over anything else "game-balance related"  in tactical simulators like Combat Mission - and so far it's been a trademark of these titles.

But: If we have enough technical informations that tells us how the aforementioned weapons work, It would be rather game-balance related not to implement it because would make RU infantry unstoppable in MOUT.

 

Imho, when considering two opposing forces from the same time period, they both have some kind of advantage in different areas over the other one.

Historically, what armed forces engaged in combat have always did, was to adjust their tactics to minimize the opposing force advantages and maximise theirs.

I don't think that the American units facing those RPOs would lack tactical options to counter them - Americans have anyway a distinct advantage in fire support, especially in the very short times they can get accurate rounds on target from arty and air platforms.

 

I understand that these RPOs system and thermo warheads in general have been particularly optimized after the heavy lessons learned by the RU armed forces in urban scenarios in Chechnya.

These weapons systems are made, specifically, to destroy personnel taking cover in buildings, basements, bunkers: quickly and with a single shot, possibly by soldiers already engaged in small arms exchanges occurring at very short ranges. I didn't know about the precursor charge, but it makes sense - you have troops under fire from very close and you can't pop out of cover for many seconds to aim for the window in the building up front - you fire the thing in the general direction where the fire's coming from and, you can be almost sure to have the enemy suppressed.

 

Anyway, I would say that if a system exists, it should be modeled correctly: no nerfs or buffs because it's a game.  I agree with Vanir about overwhelmingly effectiveness:

 

RPOs units need to be tactically employed correctly , they are dedicated squads which need protection by the infantry platoons to be effective anyway. Besides that, their presence on the battlefield wouldn't be realistically very massive (wouldn't expect to encounter dozens of RPOs in a given situation). Their price could be buffed , to reflect the increase in effectiveness.

As the American player, having an advantage in spotting, I would be on a look out for troops carrying suspicious tubes in urban scenarios, and if I'd spot them, I would probably direct all the firepower at my immediate disposal at them.

 

That said, there would be many other tactical considerations to be made, based on which combat scenario is really being discussed.

[akd]

This is something that I remember seeing in the promotional materials for both late-model RPO-A and RPO-M back at a time when I used to take this stuff seriously (i.e. early 2000s). I will have to look for a source, but there is a good chance that it will be in Russian, would that be ok by you?

Update - Here is one (of quite a few) that I have found after a quick search. Unfortunately it's in Russian - hopefully Google-translate will do a good job with it.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-432.html

On a side note, from what I remember reading in the promotional materials - the precursor has roughly 50mm RHA penetration. It is only intended to go through walls and light armor before the thermobaric charge goes off... it is not a threat to tanks or heavier IFVs.

This link will not work. Feel free to copy-paste information here just so long as you include the source.

edit: working now.

Edited March 31, 2015 by akd

[A Canadian Cat]

Link worked for me - Russian: РПО-М / РПО ПДМ-А Шмель-М

Автор: DIMMI

Создана: 12.12.2010 02:59:20

Изменена: 05.03.2011 19:39:03

Комментариев: 0

Категории: ЗЕМЛЯ / Огневые средства ближнего боя / РПО-М / ПДМ-А Шмель-М (2004 г.) /

ДАННЫЕ НА 2010 г. (стандартное пополнение)

"Шмель-М" РПО-М / РПО ПДМ-А

Реактивный пехотный огнемет с одноразовым ТПК с выстрелом и многоразовым пусковым устройством. Разработан КБ Приборостроения (КБП, г.Тула) на базе огнемета РПО-А. Принят на вооружение в 2004 г. В СМИ так же встречается название РПО-2 "Приз".

 

Реактивный пехотный огнемет РПО-М "Шмель-М" (монтаж на базе фото Mike1979, http://ru.wikipedia.org)

Расчет - 1 чел (вероятно, вьюк из 2 РПО)

Стрельба из огнемета РПО-М "Шмель-М" (http://www.kbptula.ru).

Наведение - диоптрический прицел. Может применяться оптический прицел, в т.ч. ночной.

Пусковое устройство - ТПК одноразового применения с многоразовым пусковым устройством.

Огнемет РПО-М "Шмель-М", выстрел и многоразовое пусковое устройство (http://www.kbptula.ru).

Ракета (выстрел) - оснащена стартовым РДТТ, скрепленным с боеприпасом. Заряд РДТТ сгорает полностью при движении снаряда по стволу РПО.

Калибр - 90 мм

Длина - 940 мм

Масса огнемета - 8.8 кг

 

Дальность стрельбы максимальная - 1700 м

Дальность стрельбы прицельная - 800 м

Дальность прямого выстрела по цели высотой 3.5 м - 300 м

 

Типы БЧ:

- РПО ПДМ-А - взрывчатая топливно-воздушная смесь (термобарический выстрел / боеприпас объемного взрыва), сгорает без детонации, мощность эквивалентна осколочно-фугасному снаряду 152 мм (по данным КБП). В носовой части заряда небольшой кумулятивный заряд для разрушения преград. По сравнению с РПО-А могущество БЧ повышено в 2 раза.

Масса смеси - 3.2 кг

Статус: Россия

- 2004 г. - огнемет принят на вооружение ВС России.

- 2011 г. - в рамках программы закупки вооружений на 2011-2020 г.г. планируются поставки в войска огнеметов РПО ПДМ-А.

Экспорт - данных нет (2010 г.).

 

Источники:

ГУП Конструкторское Бюро Приборостроения. Сайт http://www.kbptula.ru/, 2010 г.

Лента.ру. Сайт http://lenta.ru, 2011 г.

World Guns. Сайт http://world.guns.ru/, 2010 г.

[A Canadian Cat]

Google translated:

 

RPO-M / RPO PDM-A Bee-M

Author: Dimmi
Created: 12/12/2010 2:59:20 Changed: 05.03.2011 19:39:03 Comments: 0 Category: EARTH / firepower melee / RPO-M / PDM-A Bee-M (2004) /

 

DATA FOR 2010 (standard completion)
"Bee-M" RPO-M / RPO PDM-A

Jet infantry flame-thrower with a one-time shot with TPK and reusable starter. Designed Instrument Design Bureau (KBP Tula) on the basis of the flamethrower RPO-A . Adopted in 2004. The media just found the name of the RPO-2 "Prize".

Jet infantry flamethrower RPO-M "Bumblebee-M" (installation on the basis of a photo Mike1979, http://ru.wikipedia.org )

Calculation - 1 person (probably pack of 2 RPO)

Shooting from the RPO-M "Bumblebee-M" ( http://www.kbptula.ru ).

Guidance - diopter sight. Can be used optical sight, including night. The starter - TPK disposable to reusable starter.

RPO-M "Bumblebee-M", shot and reusable starter ( http://www.kbptula.ru ).

Rocket (shot) - equipped with starting RDTT integrated with ammunition. The charge of solid propellant burns completely when moving projectile down the barrel RPO. Caliber - 90 mm ​​Length - 940 mm

Weight flamethrower - 8.8 kg
 

Maximum firing range - 1700 m

Firing range sighting - 800 m

Blank range to the target height of 3.5 m - 300 m

 

Warhead types :
- RPO PDM-A - explosive fuel-air mixture (thermobaric shot / fuel-air explosives), burns without detonation, power equivalent to high-explosive shells 152 mm (according to CPP). In the fore part of the charge a small shaped charge to destroy obstacles. Compared with the RPO-A warhead power increased by 2 times.
Weight mixture - 3.2 kg Status: Russia - 2004 - flamethrower adopted for the Russian Armed Forces. - 2011 - in the framework of the purchase of arms for 2011-2020 yy . planned to supply the troops RPO PDM-A. Export - no data (2010).







 

Sources :

SUE Instrument Design Bureau. Site http://www.kbptula.ru/ , 2010
to Lenta.ru. Site http://lenta.ru , 2011
World Guns. Site http://world.guns.ru/ , 2010  

 

[A Canadian Cat]

As for the source I cannot figure it out.  I have no idea if it is an official Russian Army site or just something else.  No idea.

[Thewood1]

Does the US still use the SMAW with a thermobaric round?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Yes but the SMAW is usually only a USMC piece of kit. They've been loaned out to the army more than a few times though.

[Codename Duchess]

If the RPO's effectiveness indoors is increased, then so too does the M25.  The weapon can easily and consistently be set up to detonate inside an open window (presumably one someone is shooting out of).  Body armor or not, I'm going to bet that a 25mm grenade going off in your face is going to lay you down.

[Tux]

Quick question: are those command lines coming out at an angle from your tank? How do you get them to show? I haven't noticed a shortcut for them in the Hotkeys list...