I know MRLs aren't in CMBS, but...

[John Kettler]

MRLs have been in CM clear back to CMx1 CMBO, were in CMBB and CMAK. The Groghead Flash Review of CMBS made a point of noting neither the US nor the Russians had MRLs and found this surprising. CMSF has Grad, which features prominently in the actual fracas in Ukraine, though the US doesn't have the MLRS, which I suspect is a product of its principal role in CB fire. CMRT has MRLs on both sides, as does CMFI. Since every one of these games is played at the tactical level, I don't follow the logic of keeping MRLs, especially Grad, out of a conflict in which they've been featured so prominently.Would someone please explain the logic behind a decision which doesn't seem terribly logical to me in light of CM history extending nearly 20 years back? If brigade level artillery is in, then why not MRLs at exactly the same organizational level?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 11, 2015 by John Kettler

[Sublime]

Im actually glad theyre not in.  Anything with rockets as far as artillery in CMx2 has been banned in gameplay anyways because of skewed point values, etc.  Id much rather see say, claymores, or new formations, than just a new type of artillery.  Look at it this way, we lost rockets which were only really useful preplanned, and gained precision artillery.

[Fade2Gray]

The thought of having most if not all of the battlefield get nuked by a SMERCH strike does not appeal to me, at all.

[IICptMillerII]

I know in the case of the American MLRS the minimum safe distance is 1km, and the preferred standoff distance is 3km due to the power and destruction of the rounds fired. There are only a few battlefields in CMBS large enough to allow for an MLRS strike that would not directly endanger friendly forces. This is why it is considered an operational asset that is used for things such as counter battery fire, hitting enemy assembly areas, supply dumps, and other such things. However, I would still like to see it represented in the game, knowing full well that it would be a very rarely used asset. I would still like a complete toolbox, plus at the very least it would be fun to experiment with the thing.

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

 

It remains to be seen for me just how precise precision artillery really is. Also, I'm wrestling with a bunch of issues related to drones and precision attack in general. I understand, for example, your house rule about Zalas, but to me, that's an own goal the Americans scored on themselves by their, to me, insane air defense choices. The Americans have all sorts of capabilities others don't in the game, to include Excalibur. They have more drones than the proverbial dog has fleas. Ukraine has no drones in CMBS, yet has them IRL and when last seen, was doing serious shopping for the kind sold at arms expos. There's also crowd funding for a new drone called PD -1 (People's Drone 1) Nor is it some pipe dream, for it's already been in combat, taken a hit and still RTBed. And what assuredly isn't depicted in the game is the tremendous scale of issue of laser guided shells for Russian artillery.

 

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/krasnopol.htm

 

"Employment There are many variations in the number of equipment sets related to the employment of Krasnopol-equipped firing units. Various tactical situations and firing systems will dictate the overall employment of the Krasnopol. FM 100-60, Armor- and Mechanized-Based Opposing Force: Organization Guide list a typical opposing force (OPFOR) 152-mm SP howitzer battalion as equipped with four sets of the Krasnopol-M. Each set is composed of the LTD (1D22, 1D20, 1D15), the 1A35 shot synchronization system, and 50 projectiles per LTD. Thus, a total of 200 Krasnopol projectiles are fielded to each 152-mm SP howitzer battalion. One battery of the battalion is designated as the special-weapons or Krasnopol battery. The Krasnopol battery commander designates one platoon (possibly on a rotating basis to maintain crew proficiency) as the principal Krasnopol firing unit. A Krasnopol platoon basic load consists of the Krasnopol, smoke, and illuminating rounds. The Krasnopol firing platoon retains 140 Krasnopol projectiles, while the sixty remaining projectiles are distributed throughout the battalion at a rate of four Krasnopols per tube. One LTD is distributed to each battery COP (three per battalion) and the battalion's mobile reconnaissance post. The LTD operator uses a concealed location to position the LTD within a 15 arc left or right of the gun target line and no more than seven kilometers (preferably five kilomteres) from the target. During engagement, each gun (within the Krasnopol platoon) fires one Krasnopol projectile in succession either on command of the LTD operator or on a predetermined time sequence with less than thirty seconds between projectiles per designator. Upon destruction of the initial target, the LTD operator shifts the designator to subsequent targets downwind (from the previous engagement) to reduce smoke and dust interference with the designator."

 

 Am pretty certain the Russians can't do that sort of thing in CMBS using one LTD. And is offset lasing in the game?

 

"The LTD operator can counter this countermeasure by using an initial laser offset procedure. The laser offset procedure requires the LTD operator to first determine a land feature or easily referenced landmark within the kill zone. The operator surveys the kill zone for background conditions that may cause sufficient backscatter (from other reflecting surfaces) to provide the target early warning of the LTD laser beam. The LTD operator lases at the predetermined offset point (fifteen to twenty meters from the target) at the beginning of the fire mission. The LTD operator or his assistant is alerted to the Krasnopol's acquisition of the laser beam either by a "munition approach" light-emitting diode on the 1A35 shot synchronization equipment or a blinking signal light in the optics of the LTD. The LTD operator begins shifting the laser target designator crosshairs to the center of the target four to five seconds after the signal prompt. The shifting of the laser beam from the offset point to the target is two to three seconds prior to the terminal phase of projectile flight. The offset procedure process takes a total of six to eight seconds. Thus, the Krasnopol is able hit and destroy the target prior to employment of laser countermeasures. The offset procedure requires a skilled LTD operator due to the requirement for increased hand and eye coordination during the laser beam-shifting process."

 

What I'm trying to say is that there are very real force asymmetries in the game, and I have real doubts about the wisdom of depriving one nation of an existing tactical edge as a result. I remember very well the horror and nauseous felling I got in 1985 when in a SECRET/NOFORN/WNINTEL Soviet Threat Technology Conference the CIA gave us the skinny on Russian artillery, mortar and rocket delivered PGMs. At a time when the US had a handful of 155 mm Copperhead rounds, the Russians had laser guided FS weapons, in incredible abundance, on a breathtaking range of platforms.

 

Just as I absolutely would not support toning down the Javelin because it's "unfair," neither would I support depriving the Russians of their astounding capabilities to deliver precision fires--primarily from a dedicated platoon holding no fewer than 140 Krasnopol projectiles, with another 60 in the battalion proper. If I'm understanding the Foreign Military Studies Office article correctly, the Russians have pretty much abandoned traditional blanketing of the target with dumb munition fires, now preferring the rapier stroke to the war hammer. To me, that's a major change in warfighting philosophy and technique.

 

Fade2Gray,   Think of it as a real test for your computer's ability to handle a very heavy computational and display load. Hundreds of small warhead detonations blanket the landscape, throwing up great gouts of earth, flame and smoke.

 

Since we know the Russians have already used their big MRLs (BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch) to attack Ukraine, what, exactly, did those mighty blows accomplish? Not much in terms of the levels of damage you seem to expect. While what Human Rights Watch documents ref cluster munition attacks from MRLs is grim for civilians, from a military standpoint, the casualties produced are not, IMO, really worth the weapon cost or the effort.  A 1.8 kg submunition can't even crater a street above the level of a veritable pavement scuff. The 100 kg unitary warhead for the BM-27 and its big brother 258 kg for the BM-30 are, of course, something else entirely.

 

But consider: The 16 tubes on the BM-27 amount to not even a tube artillery battalion volley--albeit from very large guns, and the BM-30 equates to only to a two battery volley, though the BM-30 is essentially hurling a  dozen 250 kg aerial bombs at the target. From what I can tell, the real grid remover isn't Smerch but Grad, which brought the pain with 40 tubes (two battalions and change) of a very hard hitting 122 mm 18.8 kg warhead capable of penetrating even a bunker.  The US MLRS is the real area blanketer, where each rocket of 12 has 644 DP submunitions. That said, these are tiny submunitions which are equivalent to a 40 mm grenade from a blast frag perspective and a very weak shaped charge if they hit something hard. On balance, I'd be a lot more concerned, all other things being equal, with a Grad salvo than I would be with a Smerch strike. Volume of fire tells. Just ask the Chinese. This then-secret weapon mauled them so badly in the 1968 border dispute with Russia that their troops broke and fled. So nasty was it the Chinese basically copied the weapon.

 

Regards,   John Kettler  
 

 

Edited August 11, 2015 by John Kettler

[IronCat60]

Yes we called MLRS a "grid square remover" for a good reason. And if they adhere to real life 1km is danger close especially if using bomblets. The Bomblet patterns have to overlap to be effective. Kinda like watering the lawn and getting the sidewalk wet in the process,

 

And then there is the real life problem of unexploded Bomblets which in Desert Storm were a annoyance to our Bradley's but a definite detour for any wheeled vehicles or trailers pulled by armored vehicles. Thus causing us to slow the advance so we wouldn't leave our tail unprotected.

Edited August 11, 2015 by mech.gato

[General Jack Ripper]

Battlefront included Battleship Artillery, even though they explicitly stated in the manual 'this stuff shouldn't be used'.

In response to that, I arrayed an entire battalion of troops in an open field and hit them with 16 inch artillery.

Then I loaded up a town map, and destroyed it. It was fun.

Just because something doesn't fit on the battlefield being played on, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game.

Rocket Artillery is fun, thus it should be in the game.

[MOS:96B2P]

<Snip> I arrayed an entire battalion of troops in an open field and hit them with 16 inch artillery.

Then I loaded up a town map, and destroyed it. It was fun. <Snip>

 

LOL.    I also did the town with naval gunfire and it was fun.   

[IronCat60]

O.k. I have to agree, Naval gunfire in CMBN and Rockets in CMRT is like having M-80's or M-1000's as a kid. It is fun as all get out to blow the hell outta something! Or as the explosives expert in the movie "Uncommon Valor" said "today boys and girls we will learn how high explosives can solve most human problems".

[Stagler]

Battlefront included Battleship Artillery, even though they explicitly stated in the manual 'this stuff shouldn't be used'.

In response to that, I arrayed an entire battalion of troops in an open field and hit them with 16 inch artillery.

Then I loaded up a town map, and destroyed it. It was fun.

Just because something doesn't fit on the battlefield being played on, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game.

Rocket Artillery is fun, thus it should be in the game.

 

Agreed.

 

It requires no modelling either, just importation of previous code with correct damage values applied.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

MRLS systems are not unitary deployment, in that ALL launchers regardless of type are available at certain echelons.  Many of the more potent systems are retained for targets that are much higher priority than a platoon fighting position.

 

Grads make sense, because they're simply everywhere and exist at echelons well within the control of CMBS, but many of the larger assets are reserved for high value targets or are fired well in advance of the 1-2 KM standoff on most CMBS maps.  

[Nefron]

Grad is basically the symbol of the war in Donbass, it's a shame we don't have them. 

 

Now, I haven't seen this mentioned, but what about TOS-1? These are short range systems that could even be used on map. 

[Stagler]

Grad is basically the symbol of the war in Donbass, it's a shame we don't have them. 

 

Now, I haven't seen this mentioned, but what about TOS-1? These are short range systems that could even be used on map. 

 

6km for the TOS-1A. Feasible like. Would be interesting to see how thermobarics would act on a large scale also.

[Sublime]

John precision artillery is very accurrate whether Russian or US. hell even Ukrainian precision arty - i hit an opponents T90 as Ukr with 3 122mm arty precision rounds all hit gun mount

No penetration but pretty sure that tank is fu+ked up. Perhaps the US did slack on air defense but my house rule about zalas is because its a game. IRL .50 cal fire from tanks and small arms fire from troops would probably be able to take out zalas especially if you had a concentration of troops and I doubt it takes many evem 5.56 rnds to knock a drone out. However game coding doesnt allow for inf to fire at airplanes or drones nor tanks only AA assets. I actually agree with the decision this isnt real life the computer isnt capable of the level of jidgement i want unless there was a toggle like 'fire weapons in AA fashion as well'

[A Canadian Cat]

John precision artillery is very accurrate whether Russian or US. hell even Ukrainian precision arty - i hit an opponents T90 as Ukr with 3 122mm arty precision rounds all hit gun mount

No penetration but pretty sure that tank is fu+ked up.

 

LOL yeah they are not happy campers.  122mm hey I was wondering how the tank survived that - usually hits like that from 152 spell burning wreck. 

[Sublime]

yeah didnt have the money for 152, kinda disappoiunted since i made those purchasess some ran tests and found the 120mortar and 122mm howitzer hace same effect. you.d thibk howitzer rounds would penetrate betterbbut apparently not? this seems very unlike bfc as far as oversighta or getting it wrong so hopefullly the person was wrong. since im divulging battlefield info you.ll be happy to know a freak lucky shot killed the only guy capable guy capablw of calling ib my 2 su25s so there goes 1200 sometbing points. this battle is one disaster to the next of course your not rlly makibg much progreess u just seem to sit. and call in precision arty. sigh. after this one wanna do a bn or rt? what bn packs to you have? or GL? I didnt update Gl to 3.0 so it may kinda suck tho.

hey and tho no penetrations two very pleasing huge black scorch marks right on the top of front part of thebturret by the gun. id venture the mg. optics and gun are all fu-kd. mission kill is good enuff for me since you.be knocked out several vehicles my only air support fo, my mtlb that was gobna distribute more iglas. an oplot alrdy and about a company of innfantry that did nothing. i was bs when on your lower left flank a team fired a disposable rpg which hit your T90s tracks wbich then proceeded to use said tracks to calmly pivot twds said team and gun em down. poor bastids

Edited August 12, 2015 by Sublime

[A Canadian Cat]

you.ll be happy to know a freak lucky shot killed the only guy capable guy capablw of calling ib my 2 su25s so there goes 1200 sometbing points. this battle is one disaster to the next

 

Oh I hate it when stuff like that happens.  Yeah things do not seem to be going well for you.

 

of course your not rlly makibg much progreess u just seem to sit. and call in precision arty. sigh.

 

Yeah but I am in no rush. Right now you are presenting my men with plenty of targets.  I see no reason to be going off in every which direction when I can manoeuvre a bit here and a bit there and take your guys out bit by bit.  I can do this all day. And yeah a big part of my plan was to scout and find your stuff and the drop the big stuff on it.   Don't worry I have plenty of tanks in reserve to punch through once I have carved out a hole.

 

after this one wanna do a bn or rt? what bn packs to you have? or GL? I didnt update Gl to 3.0 so it may kinda suck tho.

 

I have everything except Shock Force so sure anything you like next but I still have lots to do in our current game yet

[Lethaface]

Actually in acurrent PBEM game I have an enemy Oplot surviving a 3 round 152mm Krasnopol-M strike, of which 2 where direct hits. Just a 'hit: reactive armor' message and one small ERA block removed from the top of the Oplot, back of the turret. It is immobilized, but I'm under the impression the first round which was a near miss caused that. The Oplot ERA seems super tough since it has also cold stopped various APFSDS shells fired from 400-500m. Not sure if this is intended behavior.

 

Having said that I have taken out 2 other Oplot with Krasnopol in this game, and another 5 with APFSDS so they are surely not invincible. Just the ERA is incredible tough.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Lethaface

[A Canadian Cat]

Yeah 3 rounds of precision 152 is not a guarantee kill but it is nearly a guarantee mission kill (in this case immobilization but could be main gun or weapons control damage).  I have dropped a lot of 152 and 155 onto tanks and if you use three or four rounds the number of times the tank is still running and able to kill you back is pretty small but it does occasionally happen.

[John Kettler]

Lethaface,

 

Someone posted a vid a short time back which showed how the new model OPLOT with the integral ERA stopped long rod penetrators. I found the explanation eminently credible. It may simply be that the game is correctly rendering the actual performance of the ERA, which is designed to defeat a diverse set of threats, including KE, HEAT and EFP. If so, when I have Ukraine, I'm buying those!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

SLIM,

 

Back in my CMBO days, I fought a battle in which I had a Green FO tied to a 14" gun battleship. I recall he had three rounds available. Amazingly, he not only didn't obliterate my guys (and oh, was I worried) but dropped them right on Kingfish's head in the seaside town, smashing an entire block and knocking out a German infantry company at a stroke. Kingfish was not happy!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 12, 2015 by John Kettler

[Lethaface]

Yeah 3 rounds of precision 152 is not a guarantee kill but it is nearly a guarantee mission kill (in this case immobilization but could be main gun or weapons control damage).  I have dropped a lot of 152 and 155 onto tanks and if you use three or four rounds the number of times the tank is still running and able to kill you back is pretty small but it does occasionally happen.

 

Yeah that's my impression too, but usually if the rounds actually impact the tank it is game over. This time it was 2 direct impacts and small era block(s) stopped those. Main gun still intact as it destroyed a BMP-3 and some pixel truppen. Might just be a fluke.

 

 

Lethaface,

 

Someone posted a vid a short time back which showed how the new model OPLOT with the integral ERA stopped long rod penetrators. I found the explanation eminently credible. It may simply be that the game is correctly rendering the actual performance of the ERA, which is designed to defeat a diverse set of threats, including KE, HEAT and EFP. If so, when I have Ukraine, I'm buying those!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 

The Oplot is indeed a very good tank, even without its ERA stopping long rod penetrators. Could very well be your right and the ERA is indeed capable of doing that. The ERA blocks on the front turret look very impressive, for what that's worth

[Sublime]

I really liked the OPLOT at first but my recent pbems has had them plagued with bad spotting and suspequent death vs Russian T90s. Not sure what make yet.

[Abdolmartin]

I really liked the OPLOT at first but my recent pbems has had them plagued with bad spotting and suspequent death vs Russian T90s. Not sure what make yet.

 

This. It's a quite disconcerting fact that in the stock scenario "Dueling Shashkas", which states that it's an "even" scenario (which it's not IMO, it's much easier as Russia due to better spotting), Ukrainian Oplots face off against Russian T-90As and not -AMs.

[John Kettler]

Lethaface,

 

Please explain to me how ERA stops a HE shell from wrecking the tank. After all, when the shell detonates, frags primarily come out broadly perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and the blast is omnidirectional. If the ERA lances into the shell body, I'd think that would be enough to initiate a primary detonation, which is the point of the exercise to begin with. If the ERA duds the shell, the tank is taking a walloping KE blow. While I grant the ERA might cause the shell to deflagrate, I can still see no reasonable basis, with any shell detonation at all in which only one ERA block would be expended. Indeed, I can readily imagine situations in which quite a few, even w/o detonation, are simply ripped away from the tank by impact forces. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 13, 2015 by John Kettler