U.S. Thread - CM Cold War - BETA AAR - Battle of Dolbach Heights 1980

[Vacillator]

Actually after checking I think that might not be one of George's...

It's great anyway .

[chuckdyke]

In WW 2 games it depends or you have TRPs in the game for longer distances. Over 1000 mtrs the munitions also play a role. You're lucky if you hit by the 3rd shot. Gog and Magog it were the 76 mm ATG which could just enough damage to the Tiger II's

[Vacillator]

1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:

Gog and Magog it were the 76 mm ATG which could just enough damage to the Tiger II's

Yes, they might not destroy you, but your optics and gun might suffer.

[chuckdyke]

Also, the trajectories of the 88 mm L70 makes it not the weapon of choice to flush out ATG's. If my memory serves me right 1 FO was green. To get your arty on target was a frustrating exercise. The ATG's were designed to slow you right down.

[Vacillator]

Well you had Panthers and Panzer IVs as well, but with IS2s in the treelines and T34s appearing on the other flank, a degree of caution was required. 

Which was where I went slightly wrong first time, as I had only played several CM scenarios before this one.  On a second attempt with obviously too much intel, I had fewer problems.

Anyway this thread is Cold War, n'est ce pas?

[slysniper]

Well, for those of you that like your long range duels, I will say, I have played at least 5 scenarios in the package, where long range engagements are a thing. But a few of them are not representing Germany land shape. 

So for sure, you will fill some of that need you all have for that type of fun.

I wish I had the time to test all the stuff in these games, but as long as I have to work somewhere else to get a paycheck, it will never happen.

But agree, verifying what the units in the game are actually doing is always a good thing. And yes once in awhile , one is found doing improper results

 

[Ryujin]

1 hour ago, markus544 said:

So having said that does the USSR forces have some kind of advantage re ATGM fire against NATO forces..  But I would say that ATGM from USSR forces were fired from the halt.  So they could target the oposition.

The big advantage for the soviets in this period is they have loads of ATGMs in their units. Having IFVs with missiles (BMP) while the US doesn't (until the Bradley shows up) gives them a lot, as well as having a lot of ATGMs that are both very capable and also much more portable than TOW. The other US ATGMs are functional, but not great. 

ATGMs would have to be fired from a halt, the main advantage of the soviets having so many is that they're hard to avoid and counter if they stop and use them. There's always the risk that at least one of those ATGMs will get a shot on you and if you suppress or destroy one ATGM, another will get a shot off. 

West Germany however should have a lot of Milans at this point, including on Marder IFVs. So the relative ATGM balance is going to depend on which NATO country they're up against.  

Edited March 10, 2021 by Ryujin

[chuckdyke]

It is like having a Naval engagement without torpedoes. That's how I see the ATGM its attack needs to be timed when the tanks are engaged.  A fast vehicle which can deal a fatal blow to any MBT in the world. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by chuckdyke
adding

[sawomi]

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

Well, for those of you that like your long range duels, I will say, I have played at least 5 scenarios in the package, where long range engagements are a thing. But a few of them are not representing Germany land shape. 

More open landscape than Fulda Gap/Rhön will appear when someon makes Scenarios/Campaigns where NATO repels Warsaw Pact back and the warzone switches to GDR territory. East from Eisenach one enters the Thuringian Basin with large LPG fields and much open space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuringian_Basin

Edited March 11, 2021 by sawomi

[Bil Hardenberger]

The Fourteenth Minute - Spoiling Attack Plan

“Be like water making its way through cracks.

Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.”

Bruce Lee

Bruce said it… “…adjust to the object…”, that is how I play… remaining flexible and adjusting my planning according to the enemy position and movements.  For several turns now I have been building to something… and the moment is close to when I put it all into action.

The 14th Minute

This one changed the battlefield calculus some.  Warren has moved a BMP-1 platoon and the surviving, undamaged T-64A to the tree-line overlooking the approach I wanted to move my M-60s down.  This complicates the approach, but doesn’t change my mind.  I may have to delay my move for a few turns so I can drop a mix of cluster munitions and standard artillery on this position.  But then again... I may start a movement through some masked terrain, or under a smoke screen to keep him busy and interested.

I don’t know if Warren has spotted my tanks starting to assemble, or if this is in reaction to my 1st platoon tanks, which up to this point have been pretty effective.  From that position though, Warren cannot spot my 1^st Platoon tanks, so he is probably attempting to close his left flank.   

In this turn I had moved my 2^nd Platoon Tank Hunters forward into Hull Down positions to cover the center-right of Warren’s force.  Immediately the M150 highlighted below spotted and fired one TOW at the BMP-1P indicated.  It missed long but is reloading for another shot next turn.

 

Spoiling Attack Plan

My initial goal in this fight was to clear Warren’s left flank (my right) and open it up for a tank heavy spoiling attack into his center. 

I am not interested in the Dolbach objective... my objective is the Soviet force.  My intent is to kill as much of his long range firepower as possible, then his infantry won’t matter.    

All of my positioning up to now was in support of this move.  The 2nd and 3rd Platoon’s tanks have joined the 1st Platoon’s tanks on my right and are currently in their assembly area, or entering it.  What I wanted to do was, using my 1st Platoon tanks as over-watch, drive all eight of the 2nd and 3rd Platoon tanks deep into Warren’s left flank and then drive toward the center, disrupting his assault on Dolbach and hopefully attrit him to the point where his combat power is significantly reduced.

The way I see it I have two Courses of Action (COAs):

• COA 1 – Deep Attack.  This was what I had hoped to do, but with Warren’s flank security position this one comes with increased danger for my tanks.
• COA 2 – Short Attack.  I actually like this one as well, it will unhinge Warren’s flank security and force him to react to my move, plus it will provide some pressure on the center and Dolbach.

• Follow on Force.  Regardless of which COA I decide on, I do intend to follow the 2nd and 3rd Platoon tanks with 1st Platoon’s tanks as indicated in the planning map below.

I have moved two platoons worth of scouts to my left flank for a dual role:

1. As a decoy force
2. The scouts, armed with Dragons as flank security and a reserve

I have called in my attack helicopter support on the main enemy assembly area, but that is still several minutes away. 

[Erwin]

Are the ATGM vehicles now depicted as if only the launchers are visible when hull-down - or is the whole top of the vehicle visible as in CMSF and CMBS? 

We talked about how in CMSF and CMBS it is very hard to use the ATGM vehicles as they were supposed to be used as "hull-down" in those games means that the top of the vehicle is visible and be easily hit.

[kch001]

Quick question. Is the Dragon modelled as flying relatively slow compared to other ATGMs? Not that I think it is a game breaking issue

[Schrullenhaft]

As a guess, I believe that missile speed is modeled in the game. So there's a mild possibility that a faster ATGM could knock out the gunner for a slower ATGM and disrupt the guidance of that missile. SACLOS was the dominant guidance type for ATGMs of this period, but I don't know how distinct the modeling is on the various systems, other than their imaging (thermal/IR or optical).

[MikeyD]

Checking my good friend Wikipedia, Dragon velocity is listed at 200 m/s. But I don't think Wiki's right about that. Other sources list a 1000m range taking 11.2 second. Using my rudimentary maths skills that's just 112 m/s.

AT-3 is listed at 115 m/s, AT-4 at 186 m/s, and Milan (not in the game) is 200 m/s. 

[akd]

200 m/s is max velocity, not average.

Edited March 11, 2021 by akd

[Vacillator]

31 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Using my rudimentary maths skills that's just 112 m/s

Mikey that would be 1000/11.2 so 89.3 m/s.  Slow to be sure, but only if someone is watching . 

And I think I've watched the same Youtube videos, so believable.

[IMHO]

4 hours ago, Schrullenhaft said:

faster ATGM could knock out the gunner for a slower ATGM

It's irrelevant IMO. For a vehicle to be fired upon even simple gunner's target acquisitions and decision to fire would take seconds so an average ATGM speed would suffice. There are really much bigger gaping holes in CMxx model.

[Schrullenhaft]

3 minutes ago, IMHO said:

It's irrelevant IMO. For a vehicle to be fired upon even simple gunner's target acquisitions and decision to fire would take seconds so an average ATGM speed would suffice.

Correct. Spotting and target acquisition would be the more common difference between victor and vanquished rather than actual missile speed (in an ATGM vs. ATGM engagment). But a bullet or small caliber gun shell can be quicker than many of these man-portable ATGMs and a long flight time for the missile can be interrupted by some quick spotting infantry or IFVs, etc.

[IMHO]

5 minutes ago, Schrullenhaft said:

a bullet or small caliber gun shell can be quicker than many of these man-portable ATGMs

Well... Last time I checked it can be interrupted in CMBS at least  I mean looking in the wrong departments really  In CMBS (and as far as I remember in CMSF2 as well) an ATGM targeting may well be interrupted by a quick response at least from a tank gun. Actually for CMBS that's one of the main problems - tanks react (I believe) unrealistically too promptly even to FaF missiles. So digging up for differences in ATGM speeds is kind of... misplaced endeavours I believe 

[MikeyD]

A low velocity is an advantage for weapons like AT-3 and Dragon. Because they both need to be manually steered all the way to the target. Too high a velocity and if the flight path gets away from you there's no correcting it. If a Dragon gunner is inadequately trained or using the wrong firing stance the (real world) hit probability drops to something like 20%. Its an unforgiving weapon.

[chuckdyke]

13 hours ago, Erwin said:

We talked about how in CMSF and CMBS it is very hard to use the ATGM vehicles as they were supposed to be used as "hull-down" in those games means that the top of the vehicle is visible and be easily hit.

Only one way to find out, plot a Hull Down fire mission switch of the Icons and see how much shows. With the BMP you plot a Hull Down position with the 73 mm. Which sucks in my humble opinion as at 1km and over the AFV will be using its ATGM system. 

[MikeyD]

An irony of very long range hull-down shooting is the incoming rounds are at the end of their trajectory parabola and are very nearly doing plunging attacks. I notice an increased number of 'turret top hit' messages when engaging at extended ranges. Especially if you're firing HEAT, HE or squash head.

[IMHO]

@MikeyD

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Only one way to find out, plot a Hull Down fire mission switch of the Icons and see how much shows. With the BMP you plot a Hull Down position with the 73 mm. Which sucks in my humble opinion as at 1km and over the AFV will be using its ATGM system. 

IRL it suck at 500m  The RL range ends at 300m - just a notch above RPG-7. That was the main reason for the switch to 30mm high velocity gun for BMP-2, if anyone can call Russian 30x163mm a really high velocity gun  They tried an upgraded Zarnitsa 73mm gun but despite a heavy lobbying the performance spoke of itself.

Edited March 12, 2021 by IMHO

[IMHO]

4 hours ago, MikeyD said:

An irony of very long range hull-down shooting is the incoming rounds are at the end of their trajectory parabola and are very nearly doing plunging attacks. I notice an increased number of 'turret top hit' messages when engaging at extended ranges. Especially if you're firing HEAT, HE or squash head.

Unfortunately due to the game settings these do not convert into kills  I.e. direct top hit to a tank from a 122 HE mortar would most likely end in KO though ingame it's no more than a mere one notch degradation of EITHER tracks or sighting  IMO there are few things that really kill the game outright as compared to RL and HE effect on armor tops the list (together with AGL fire in CMBS )

Edited March 12, 2021 by IMHO

[The_MonkeyKing]

26 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Unfortunately due to the game settings these do not convert into kills  I.e. direct top hit to a tank from a 122 HE mortar would most likely end in KO though ingame it's no more than a mere one notch degradation of EITHER tracks or sighting  IMO there are few things that really kill the game outright as compared to RL and HE effect on armor tops the list (together with AGL fire in CMBS )

I know in CM you can kill BMPs with mortars >80mm and tanks can die from 122mm(smallest I have seen).

Tanks have been up-armored since A-10 and cluster munitions showed up.