Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

German Army inaccuracies

holoween

By holoween
in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

 Share

Recommended Posts

holoween Senior Member

holoween

Posted
Posted

Ive been playing quite a bit with the german army and ive noticed several inaccuracies in the equippment which i think could be adressed.

Ill note here that the german army is quite unwilling to give out documents so its quite hard to present hard evidence for some of these.

 

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
c3k Senior Member

c3k

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, holoween said:

Ive been playing quite a bit with the german army and ive noticed several inaccuracies in the equippment which i think could be adressed.

Ill note here that the german army is quite unwilling to give out documents so its quite hard to present hard evidence for some of these.

 

Nice links. Thanks for finding and posting these.

Regards,

Ken

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
akd Senior Member

akd

Posted
Posted (edited)

Let's compare to this description of tests of the latest Milan ADT-ER version, follow-on to Milan 3:

 

The first test served to verify arming distance. Following a strike at a short range of 40 metres, the warhead did not detonate, demonstrating system safety and therefore the benefits to the operator in such an event.

A second test demonstrated the missile's accuracy over the minimum engagement range of 150 metres. The front and main charges were both triggered with the correct lag time between the two events.

With the third test, the objective was to demonstrate system performance against a moving target at the maximum range of 3,000 metres. The missile followed perfectly the sight line which was slaved to the target.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/93127/milan-adt_er-passes-industry-firing-trials.html

To be clear, I think the 400m minimum engagement range was taken from Milan 1, so probably is wrong for Milan 3, but I'm doubting the 20m range as something that should be happening in any normal circumstances.

Edited by akd
0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
holoween Senior Member

holoween

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, akd said:

Let's compare to this description of tests of the latest Milan ADT-ER version, follow-on to Milan 3:

 

The first test served to verify arming distance. Following a strike at a short range of 40 metres, the warhead did not detonate, demonstrating system safety and therefore the benefits to the operator in such an event.

A second test demonstrated the missile's accuracy over the minimum engagement range of 150 metres. The front and main charges were both triggered with the correct lag time between the two events.

With the third test, the objective was to demonstrate system performance against a moving target at the maximum range of 3,000 metres. The missile followed perfectly the sight line which was slaved to the target.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/93127/milan-adt_er-passes-industry-firing-trials.html

To be clear, I think the 400m minimum engagement range was taken from Milan 1, so probably is wrong for Milan 3, but I'm doubting the 20m range as something that should be happening in any normal circumstances.

Nice find.

The document i found seems to talk about the milan 2 (its called milan2 in the table on page 89).

The german wiki puts the minimum range at 75m for the milan 2 the french and english ones at 200m but none of them provide a source.

Your link about the milan er would give credibility to the 75m claim but i have no idea if this is something that changed between missile generations. Either way it seems clear that the current 400m minimum range is far too high. If it should be at 20m, 75m, 150m or 200m depends on which source you want to believe.

 

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beetz Junior Member

Beetz

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, holoween said:
22 hours ago, holoween said:
    • end of the first paragraph "The mg4 is mainly used in the infantry" PzGrens in the german army arent counted as part of the infantry and anecdotally ive yet to

That's a little incorrect. I served until 2006 in a PzGrenBtl and from then on in a JgRgt and the Panzergrenadiers are as much infantry as you can get I can assure you that. We were wearing the green color everywhere (Litzen, Barett) just like the Jägers too and were trained similar to them with the addition to fight combined arms around the marders. And the Grenadiers are also using the MG4 of course.

Just as an example: 



kind regards
Beetz

 

Edited by Beetz
2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
holoween Senior Member

holoween

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Beetz said:

That's a little incorrect. I served until 2006 in a PzGrenBtl and from then on in a JgRgt and the Panzergrenadiers are as much infantry as you can get I can assure you that. We were wearing the green color everywhere (Litzen, Barett) just like the Jägers too and were trained similar to them with the addition to fight combined arms around the marders. And the Grenadiers are also using the MG4 of course.

Just as an example: 



kind regards
Beetz

Its not a little incorrect but its complicated.

Because yes they wear green and they are infantry but they also part of the "Panzertruppen" and not the "Infanterie".

Thats besides the point though. My claim wasnt there shouldnt be any mg4 with the Pzgrenns but rather that they shouldnt be the primary mg of them. What i posted was the closest to open source proof i could find because i cant just go around a few armouries, count the different mgs and then post how many of each type the PzGrenns in my area have. If the german army was a bit less strict i wouldnt have to rely on the anecdotal proof ive provided for my claims id simply go ahead and copy the manuals and post them.

What i cant directly prove is the fact that whenever possible the mg3 or mg5 is used rather than the mg4. That might have just been the preference of the specific troops ive been in contact with but if you look through the german armys youtube channel its exceedingly rare to see an mg4 but mg3s and to a lesser extend mg5 are everywhere so that particular stance seems to be similar across a large part of the german army.

 

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beetz Junior Member

Beetz

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, holoween said:

Thats besides the point though. My claim wasnt there shouldnt be any mg4 with the Pzgrenns but rather that they shouldnt be the primary mg of them. What i posted was the closest to open source proof i could find because i cant just go around a few armouries, count the different mgs and then post how many of each type the PzGrenns in my area have. If the german army was a bit less strict i wouldnt have to rely on the anecdotal proof ive provided for my claims id simply go ahead and copy the manuals and post them.

What i cant directly prove is the fact that whenever possible the mg3 or mg5 is used rather than the mg4. That might have just been the preference of the specific troops ive been in contact with but if you look through the german armys youtube channel its exceedingly rare to see an mg4 but mg3s and to a lesser extend mg5 are everywhere so that particular stance seems to be similar across a large part of the german army.

 

Exactly. The MG 3 was never meant to be scrapped, it's now getting replaced by the MG 5. When the MG 4 was first issued it was meant to be an addition on a squad level basis. The 7,62mm caliber MG 3 should be kept due to the better piercing capability and rate of fire. Back in the days there were the so called STAN lists where every weapon and soldier assignment of a unit was listed but weapons nor equipment can be supplied in an instant. So in some circumstances it takes years until a unit gets the equipment that's listed on paper. So sometimes it's a bit of a mess, especially if your battalion is stationed in Germany because new equipment gets prioritized downrange. But I'm okay with it if everything in game is how it was on the list back in 2008.

Edited by Beetz
0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
akd Senior Member

akd

Posted
Posted

This is funny:

Musée de l'infanterie

Portée pratique minimale : 300 m.
Portée pratique maximale : 1900 m. avec une possibilité d’atteinte de 95 %.

 

Ministère des Armées

 Portée pratique minimale : 25 m.

 Portée pratique maximale : 1900 m avec une probabilité d'atteinte de 95 %.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
akd Senior Member

akd

Posted
Posted (edited)

I would guess the gathering time is key to the discrepancies.  Some hints in the following, saying that (for Milan 2T) smoke obscuration for the first 1.5-3 seconds following launch affects minimum range:

Quote

 Strong enough to emit smoke sustainers rocket engine, which leads to the closure of the field of sight at 1.5-3 seconds after start-up, depending on weather conditions.

http://www.tjprc.org/publishpapers/2-67-1561801614-38.IJMPERDAUG201938.pdf

Max velocity is 200 m/s (but maybe that is for Milan 1?), and that would give you 300m at 1.5sec, but I think it takes some time to reach that speed, so actually something less.

However, the same document lists 75m as minimum range in the body of the text, then has the 25m figure in a table.

Edited by akd
0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DougPhresh Senior Member

DougPhresh

Posted
Posted
On 8/15/2020 at 10:10 AM, Erwin said:

Nice example of how faded and dull are the uniforms even though they can't be that old or worn out.  Sometime, our CM modded uniforms look a bit too bright and colorful.

The Canadians have the same problem. I don't think I was ever issued let alone deployed with uniform items that were their intended colour. Some of the CADPAT TW would turn into brown or olive, rather than simply fade. I imagine that is because of how different dyes break down, but the interesting thing was that it preserved the camouflaging qualities, and maybe even enhanced them since the helmet, vest, tunic and pants would have a variety of colour and brightness.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
StieliAlpha Senior Member

StieliAlpha

Posted
Posted
On 8/13/2020 at 10:30 PM, holoween said:

Ive been playing quite a bit with the german army and ive noticed several inaccuracies in the equippment which i think could be adressed.

Ill note here that the german army is quite unwilling to give out documents so its quite hard to present hard evidence for some of these.

 

Stupid question: Did you check out „Der Reibert“? Not an official document, but sort of a Bundeswehr Training Handbook, which should help you a little further. In my days almost every soldier owned one.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Joch Senior Member

Sgt Joch

Posted
Posted
On 8/15/2020 at 2:26 PM, akd said:

This is funny:

Musée de l'infanterie

Portée pratique minimale : 300 m.
Portée pratique maximale : 1900 m. avec une possibilité d’atteinte de 95 %.

 

Ministère des Armées

 Portée pratique minimale : 25 m.

 Portée pratique maximale : 1900 m avec une probabilité d'atteinte de 95 %.

"portée pratique minimale" means "minimum effective range", so may not necessarily refer to arming distance.

note that "portée pratique maximale" means "maximum effective range". 

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...