Firing ATGM at infantry.

[Ivanov]

To my horror, I observed that the TAC AI fires ATGM's at enemy infantry. I had few anti-tank teams ready to stop enemy armour. But when the enemy infantry appeared, they quickly started firing the precious Dragons a them. Given that there're only 3 Dragoons per squad, this was a total waste and no harm was done to the hostile infantry. Is there a way of preventing such a behaviour? I know that there's the armour arc command, but I also want my teams to engage the infantry if necessary, but without expending of the few ATGM's in their possession. 

On a similar note, I noticed that infantry tends to fire the LAW's in volleys, usually expending them all in the process and often missing the target. I would prefer to the infantry teams to be more careful with the LAW's, because when they're gone, they have no other weapon against the armor. 

[Halmbarte]

Using ATGMs against infantry is a real world thing. One CM solution is to split off the ATGM team and only give them the target armor command. As for volley fire, given the LAW's typical hit rate a volley isn't that bas of an idea in many circumstances. 

 

H

[Double Deuce]

I was a tanker (and also a scout) when I was in, but the infantry we deployed with (attached to our Task Force) talked about using their TOWs to target dismounts hiding/defending in buildings. The concepts sounds good by I can't confirm it would be that effective.

[Halmbarte]

Trying to prevent soldiers from using weapons against an enemy is frequently an exercise In futility. 
 

My favorite example is the Brit troops in the Falklands using Milans against Argentinian MG emplacements. The missiles took out the MGs but were an order of magnitude more expensive than what they were being used against. 
 

That the troops didn’t have to keep carrying the missiles they fired wouldn’t have entered into the equation at all, I’m sure. 
 

H 

[MikeyD]

In CMSF2 its an ATGM free-for-all because the assumption is the Syrian forces will be armor-light. CMBS use of ATGMs against infantry was significantly reduced because its considered an armor-rich environment. This is the first time I've seen mention of ATGMs being fired against infantry in CMCW. I don't know if its rare or common because nobody's mentioned it before.

[sburke]

32 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

In CMSF2 its an ATGM free-for-all because the assumption is the Syrian forces will be armor-light. CMBS use of ATGMs against infantry was significantly reduced because its considered an armor-rich environment. This is the first time I've seen mention of ATGMs being fired against infantry in CMCW. I don't know if its rare or common because nobody's mentioned it before.

Honestly in testing I didn't really notice, but to be fair I use arcs and armor target commands to better prepare ambushes so likely wouldn't see it that much.

[Ivanov]

9 hours ago, MikeyD said:

In CMSF2 its an ATGM free-for-all because the assumption is the Syrian forces will be armor-light. CMBS use of ATGMs against infantry was significantly reduced because its considered an armor-rich environment. This is the first time I've seen mention of ATGMs being fired against infantry in CMCW. I don't know if its rare or common because nobody's mentioned it before.

I think it's fair to assume that CMCW offers an extremely armir-rich environment.

[Ivanov]

10 hours ago, Double Deuce said:

I was a tanker (and also a scout) when I was in, but the infantry we deployed with (attached to our Task Force) talked about using their TOWs to target dismounts hiding/defending in buildings. The concepts sounds good by I can't confirm it would be that effective.

Using ATGM against infantry makes sense in some situations, for example when the infantry is stationary in improved positions or buildings. But firing ATGM at the dispersed infantry that is running across an open field ( as it happened in my case ) is a waste of an asset.

[c3k]

Just now, Ivanov said:

Using ATGM against infantry makes sense in some situations, for example when the infantry is stationary in improved positions or buildings. But firing ATGM at the dispersed infantry that is running across an open field ( as it happened in my case ) is a waste of an asset.

Agreed.

You don't happen to have a savegame?

[Ivanov]

11 hours ago, c3k said:

Agreed.

You don't happen to have a savegame?

I don't, I just have a screenshot. The US teams deployed on the roof of the building fired 3 or 4 Dragons at the Soviet infantry racing across the filed. It did nothing to the Soviets. They only suffered loses from the M113 0.5cal fire. If the infantry was firing their small arms instead of the Dragons, the Reds would suffer much heavier loses. 

https://postimg.cc/BLp1w1v8

Edited June 20, 2021 by Ivanov

[Megalon Jones]

I always give my AT asset’s armor target arcs to avoid this regardless of the title.  It’s added micromanagement, but those ATGM’s don’t get used on infantry.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Megalon Jones said:

ATGM’s don’t get used on infantry.

Javelins are very effective against enemy ATGM's. I always give them a short arc to observe first. 

[Chibot Mk IX]

Did you use "Target" command to engage the enemy inf units?  If so, then your squad will fire Dragon ATGM at the infantry units . Avoid the "Target" command. 

[Megalon Jones]

11 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Javelins are very effective against enemy ATGM's. I always give them a short arc to observe first. 

Yes.  Pinpoint accuracy and the much HE has it's advantages. If something needs to die, and I'm not expecting tanks or IFV's, then the Javelin is a good remedy.  I also use short arcs until the picture starts to make sense.

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, Megalon Jones said:

Javelin is a good remedy.

They go for $125000 a pop? Who cares? His commanding officer doesn't need to write the letter to somebody's mom. Sorry mam the $125000 Javelin was more valuable than your son's life. It really goes down well at the 6 O'Clock news. 

[Ivanov]

16 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

Did you use "Target" command to engage the enemy inf units?  If so, then your squad will fire Dragon ATGM at the infantry units . Avoid the "Target" command. 

This could be a good clue. I'd say I didn't target the infantry manually but I'm not 100% sure. I'll keep that in mind.

[StieliAlpha]

On 6/20/2021 at 4:21 AM, Halmbarte said:

My favorite example is the Brit troops in the Falklands using Milans against Argentinian MG emplacements. The missiles took out the MGs but were an order of magnitude more expensive than what they were being used against. 
 

That the troops didn’t have to keep carrying the missiles they fired wouldn’t have entered into the equation at all, I’m sure.

IIRC, that happened during the Para Battalion attack on Goose Green. Early on the Para‘s were pinned down  and the Battalion Commander killed in a charge, by well placed MG positions. To regain initiative, the Paras took the MG‘s out with Milan‘s. In the end they captured something like 1000 Argentinians. I.e., were up against an enemy of more than regimental size.

The Milan use was a big thing in the news back then. But to be honest: Considering the tactical situation (and the strategic situation, fighting with the back to the wall, resp the South Atlantic), I think the use of all means is quite understandable.

Edited June 23, 2021 by StieliAlpha

[domfluff]

6 minutes ago, StieliAlpha said:

 In the end they captured something like 1000 Argentinians. I.e., were up against an enemy of more than regimental size.

Quite right about the Milan usage and the other details (although you could reasonably question precisely *why* a battalion commander was charging an enemy trench with an SMG), but the above isn't strictly correct.

Mark Adkin's Goose Green is a fantastically detailed breakdown of the battle, in all particulars. Goose Green was indeed a battalion attack against a regiment, but only on paper - they were extremely understrength, and in terms of actual fighting men, the ratio was almost exactly 1:1.

That's not great, obviously - attacking over open ground and uphill against even odds is a massive failure on several levels, especially in intelligence, but the narrative of the paras winning outnumbered 1:3 isn't actually correct.

[StieliAlpha]

29 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Quite right about the Milan usage and the other details (although you could reasonably question precisely *why* a battalion commander was charging an enemy trench with an SMG), but the above isn't strictly correct.

Mark Adkin's Goose Green is a fantastically detailed breakdown of the battle, in all particulars. Goose Green was indeed a battalion attack against a regiment, but only on paper - they were extremely understrength, and in terms of actual fighting men, the ratio was almost exactly 1:1.

That's not great, obviously - attacking over open ground and uphill against even odds is a massive failure on several levels, especially in intelligence, but the narrative of the paras winning outnumbered 1:3 isn't actually correct.

Hehehechrrrrchuckle.

Yes, I did not touch the question why the battalion commander was up front. That‘s probably for the Brits amongst us to answer. Probably a question of reputation. „It takes 3 years to build a ship, but 300 years to build a reputation for a Navy“ and that sort of thing.

And yes, I know the Paras did not exactly know, what they were up against. Plus they had naval arty support.

And yes, I know the many Argentinians were not all fighting troops.

And yes, I know the Argentinians were probably scared to s..t and cut off from their mainland, too.

But I still say, the use of Milan‘s is quite understandable.

 

Edited June 23, 2021 by StieliAlpha

[Combatintman]

Goose Green wasn't that 'uphill'  I've walked it.  The other battlefields; however, were decidedly uphill.

[domfluff]

I've been making some basic topographical maps of Darwin hill in CM:CW, and it was a little shocking quite how small everything is. H Jones' run was certainly up a rise, but yeah, it's surprisingly flat - the folds of ground (and fighting at night, naturally) are really important.

[StieliAlpha]

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

I've been making some basic topographical maps of Darwin hill in CM:CW, and it was a little shocking quite how small everything is. H Jones' run was certainly up a rise, but yeah, it's surprisingly flat - the folds of ground (and fighting at night, naturally) are really important.

@LukeFF may blame me once more for changing topics, but I do it again.

The discussion reminds me to Waterloo. I have been at the 2015 reenactment and was surprised how flat the famous slope is. Even if one considers, that it lost some height to provide material for the Lions Mount.

[domfluff]

Yup yup. Have you seen the recreation in CMBN? It's not the full battlefield, it's the mound and Wellington's area, but it's in the CMBN battlepack.

[StieliAlpha]

11 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Yup yup. Have you seen the recreation in CMBN? It's not the full battlefield, it's the mound and Wellington's area, but it's in the CMBN battlepack.

Nope. At least not noted. I‘ll have a look later and will compare it to my pic‘s. Eh, those were the days. Despite mediocre weather, Waterloo was great!

[markus544]

If I remember my recent history I believe Sadam's two bad sons got taken out by a couple of TOW's fired from a Bradley.  That seemed like quite a fitting end to those two Psyco's.  Of course armoured vehicles were not being used in any case.