Difference between us army and russian army Squads

[Kuderian]

Tux, press CTRL 'z' to toggle command lines on/off.

[DreDay]

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.

 

It is not an official Russian Army source, just something that I found in 30 seconds of looking; but there are plenty of other sources that point to the same information. As I've said, I've seen it in a KBP (RPO designer/manufacturer) booklet back in early 2000s.

 

My point in posting this was not make a case for RPO-A/M being some sort of instant infantry squad killer; but rather to point out that they are significantly underpowered both against fortified personnel and light AFVs compared to reality (and God knows we have seen plenty of their usage since the mid-80s  to asses such reality). I find it difficult to justify their presence in my force (either Russian or Ukrainian) right now, and all the combat footage that we see from FSU shows that they are very much in heavy use and demand...

Edited April 1, 2015 by DreDay

[Vanir Ausf B]

My point in posting this was not make a case for RPO-A/M being some sort of instant infantry squad killer; but rather to point out that they are significantly underpowered both against fortified personnel and light AFVs compared to reality (and God knows we have seen plenty of their usage since the mid-80s to asses such reality). I find it difficult to justify their presence in my force (either Russian or Ukrainian) right now, and all the combat footage that we see from FSU shows that they are very much in heavy use and demand...

It would be helpful if you could dig up some of this real combat performance information.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[cool breeze]

I don't think giving the RPO A/M its precursor warhead would necessarily mean it has to be some kind of crazy squad wiper-outer, the simulated interior walls could keep the casualties down to a reasonable level while still doing reliable considerable damage.  It also seems legit that it would also be able to handle non era IFV's.

 

edit to fix double negative

Edited April 1, 2015 by cool breeze

[DreDay]

It would be helpful if you could dig up some of this real combat performance information.

 

Just go to youtube and type something like "FSB Spetsnaz Combat" and watch dozens of real-life RPO usage scenarios (warning most are quite violent and 18+).

Edited April 1, 2015 by DreDay

[Tux]

Tux, press CTRL 'z' to toggle command lines on/off.

Thanks, Kuderian.

[Thewood1]

One VERY important thing to keep in mind is that HE effects are artificially nerfed in CM because of squad spacing issues in the 8x8 action spot and lack of interior walls.  It was that way in CMSF, CMBN, CMFI, and I assume CMBS.  Don't like it, but there it is.

[Apocal]

One VERY important thing to keep in mind is that HE effects are artificially nerfed in CM because of squad spacing issues in the 8x8 action spot and lack of interior walls.  It was that way in CMSF, CMBN, CMFI, and I assume CMBS.  Don't like it, but there it is.

 

I'm about 99% sure you'd like the outcome of unnerfed HE on the game even less.

[Thewood1]

Not so, if squads spread out a little more naturally...it pinches on the realism claim a little.

 

So I am 99% sure you are wrong.  And since I am the source, I win.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Thewood1

[Apocal]

Not so, if squads spread out a little more naturally...it pinches on the realism claim a little.

 

Squads don't spread out naturally in this game and never have.

[Thewood1]

I know....you're making my point.

[Apocal]

I know....you're making my point.

 

Your point was that you would enjoy playing current CMx2 with fully-modeled HE. I mean, maybe you're really weird and want fights that begin and end over the course of only two or three turns as both sides blast the other's infantry into irrelevance.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Apocal

[Thewood1]

Not sure where you are reading that...I specifically stated it was because of squad spacing issues.  I don't know where you thought I said squads spacing was normally at one time.  I never said that.

 

You are trying to read into what I am saying and all I said is HE is nerfed because of squad spacing issues.  You then imply I just plain want HE back.  What I want is HE normal and squad spacing.  

 

You are trying to tell me what I would like from very little information.  I am pointing out you are trying to tell me what I would like based on some kind error in reading into what I wrote.

 

I'll make it simple for you.  I would like HE not to be nerfed and squad spacing to be more natural.  There, all together in one simple sentence.  So you are wrong that I would not like HE to be normal.  I am a little put off that your snarky response was basically telling me what I would or would not like without really trying to understand it or add something to the conversation.

[Thewood1]

And again...you are telling me what my point is.  I can 100% say you are wrong.  Saying you know my point when I am saying you don't is a pretty absolute statement from someone who has never talked to me.  

[Thewood1]

Back to my point, unless someone wants tell me what my point is...

 

The nerfing of HE was done because the action spots unnaturally constrict the squad spacing.  Early in CMSF teams being able to occupy multiple action spots came about but I am not sure if HE was ever readjusted.  I also remember HE inside buildings being nerfed as well because of the abstraction in room interiors.  I think you might be seeing the result of that with some of these smaller and modern RPGs and RPOs.

[c3k]

The term "flamethrower projector" is, to me, a mistranslation. It seems to be a very powerful thermobaric warhead. Much would depend on getting the effects to occur inside. Accuracy and the efficacy of the precursor (and its resulting effect on the main charge) would be critical. But, if it gets in, wow.

[Stagler]

Thermobarics are more effective inside confined spaces. Open air use lets the blast wave expend itself. Its not the heat that kills you its the overpressure, which is evidently more of a threat in rooms.

[c3k]

Yes. Which is why this weapon (RPO) seems to be so effective if it gets into a room/building.

 

"Flamethrower projector" brings to mind a projectile filled with flammable material, to start fires, rather than overpressure inducing shockwaves.

[DreDay]

Thermobarics are more effective inside confined spaces. Open air use lets the blast wave expend itself. Its not the heat that kills you its the overpressure, which is evidently more of a threat in rooms.

 

That is correct. The actual mechanics of thermobaric explosions are very complex even in relatively confined spaces. They can be negated by multiple windows (to compensate for overpressure), multiple corners (that prevent the even spread of FAE liquid), and even stainless steel appliances... still, all else considered - these are very effective weapons for clearing out buildings and bunkers and I am hoping that they would be buffed (a bit) in the next patch.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Just go to youtube and type something like "FSB Spetsnaz Combat" and watch dozens of real-life RPO usage scenarios (warning most are quite violent and 18+).

What I learned from this is that APCs are useful for knicking holes in walls

Videos of rockets being shot at buildings doesn't tell us much about the affect on inhabitants, particularly in comparison to other explosive type ordinance. What we need is a study or analysis that quantifies effects. Thermobaric weapons that manage to penetrate into buildings already do severe damage in-game and I am not convinced that this aspect is significantly out of whack. The issues of accuracy and penetration are of more concern in my mind, but these are far broader concerns than just thermobaric weapons.

[whitehot78]

when i previously stated that a single shot from an RPO would be dropping a team I was totally ignoring the fact that buildings have rooms abstracted into them.

So I'd say that the current model is acceptable - seems that the men holing up in the "room" hit by the rocket are disabled.

 

Won't be complaining for a little bit more effectiveness anyway - maybe something that clearly differentiate between open spaces and closed ones, as the discussed warheads reach their maximum effectiveness if they explode inside.

 

Has anybody tested if there's actually a difference in RPOs effect against infantry in the open and on the inside? Or have they been treated like normal HE?

If not I'd be willing to do some, as soon as I can

 

and, the effects.

I mean graphical ones. Shouldn't they make a lot of fire and smoke where they hit?

Edited April 3, 2015 by whitehot78

[DreDay]

Has anybody tested if there's actually a difference in RPOs effect against infantry in the open and on the inside? Or have they been treated like normal HE?

If not I'd be willing to do some, as soon as I can

 

and, the effects.

I mean graphical ones. Shouldn't they make a lot of fire and smoke where they hit?

 

Based on my experiments - RPOs do virtually no damage to troops that are positioned in open or closed-space environments. I personally find them to be pretty useless under the current engine rules; which seems to contradict the reports of their actual real-life effectiveness. Now this could be either due to poor modeling of their damage effects or due to their poor in-game accuracy that Vanir Ausf B has mentioned - either way, they seem to be pretty worthless right now. Hopefully this would be addressed by the next patch.

 

As for their graphical effects - RPO-A/M should mostly produce lots of smoke and debris after a very quick flash. In that sense - CMBS seems to get it right. Now there are also RPO-Z and RPO-D that produce a lot more fire and smoke (respectively); but that is outside the scope of the current engine.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Based on my experiments - RPOs do virtually no damage to troops that are positioned in open or closed-space environments. I personally find them to be pretty useless under the current engine rules; which seems to contradict the reports of their actual real-life effectiveness. Now this could be either due to poor modeling of their damage effects or due to their poor in-game accuracy that Vanir Ausf B has mentioned - either way, they seem to be pretty worthless right now. Hopefully this would be addressed by the next patch.

 

It's because of accuracy and penetration. If the rocket just explodes on the exterior of the building it usually doesn't do much. If it penetrates into the interior then explodes it tends to do a lot. Obviously, the former happens a lot more often than the latter.

[DreDay]

It's because of accuracy and penetration. If the rocket just explodes on the exterior of the building it usually doesn't do much. If it penetrates into the interior then explodes it tends to do a lot. Obviously, the former happens a lot more often than the latter.

 

Yep, that would make sense; as they do seem to explode on the exterior almost every single time that I use them. Just out of curiosity - how do you manage to get them to explode inside? I would imagine that you have to spot the enemy unit inside, but even then - how close do you get your RPO team to actually have them hit the window or some other opening?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Just out of curiosity - how do you manage to get them to explode inside? I would imagine that you have to spot the enemy unit inside, but even then - how close do you get your RPO team to actually have them hit the window or some other opening?

 

It's random. Spotting the enemy inside isn't required. Range should be under 100 meters not so much to hit the window but just to hit the building.