Possible issue with MiG-27 strafing effectiveness modeling.

[John Kettler]

BFC et al.,

Just got through watching a fascinating and deeply informative video investigating the MiG-27 as a platform for the immensely powerful GSh-30 cannon and the havoc it wrought on the plane and pilot, sometimes fatally. The gun was way too powerful for the light airframe and caused truly shocking damage at times. Not sure how CMCW models strafing runs, but I think after watching this video, there is a strong case to be made for one and done, regardless of whether other aircraft get multiple passes. Another surprise was learning this aircraft had not only a laser rangefinder but that it could also self-designate, something I don't recall seeing described in the threat docs. Dive angles used by the Russians were far greater (~45 deg) than for the A-10, and the weight of metal (at the as designed 600 rpm) exceeded that of the A-10 in a second burst for both. Another major difference was that the Russians were attacking T-62s (what the M-47s were simulating in US live fire tests) and were demolishing the tanks with what looked like some 20 or so hits.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited December 20, 2021 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Blast! That was 6000 rounds per minute, not 600. To minimize damage to the aircraft, the ROF was later reduced to 4000 rounds a minute and burst time reduced from 3 seconds to 1. You'll likely be agog when you see the live fire tests against T-62s tactically configured. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited December 20, 2021 by John Kettler

[SimpleSimon]

John, i'm also in favor of an overall revision of Soviet CAS as depicted in the game. It loiters too much-CAS does this in most of the games-but the Soviets emphasized ordinance dump on all their strikes. This caused some issues with Army leadership-who wanted actual loiter capability (later provided by the Hind and Su-25) not provided by the generation of Mach 1.0 capable attackers mostly available to the VVS in the 1970s. (The Su-17, 22, 27 etc). 

Incidentally the MiG-21 could actually mount and fire the beam-riding missile Grom (radar guided, not laser). CAS and multi-mission capability in Soviet aircraft was often more widespread than believed, they were more role-specific than western types but not inflexibly so. 

[IICptMillerII]

3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

John, i'm also in favor of an overall revision of Soviet CAS as depicted in the game. It loiters too much-CAS does this in most of the games-but the Soviets emphasized ordinance dump on all their strikes. This caused some issues with Army leadership-who wanted actual loiter capability (later provided by the Hind and Su-25) not provided by the generation of Mach 1.0 capable attackers mostly available to the VVS in the 1970s. (The Su-17, 22, 27 etc). 

Incidentally the MiG-21 could actually mount and fire the beam-riding missile Grom (radar guided, not laser). CAS and multi-mission capability in Soviet aircraft was often more widespread than believed, they were more role-specific than western types but not inflexibly so. 

The Soviets never intended to use fixed wing aircraft in a Close Air Support (CAS) role. CAS is defined as having some level of direct coordination with ground controllers, meaning that a ground controller is calling in and directing strikes in support of troops in contact. The Soviets did not ever intend to do that. Fixed wing aircraft were meant to carry out strikes along the enemy's depth, including targets that were farther behind the Forward Line of Troops (FLOT) than conventional artillery could strike. Nearly all of these targets were briefed, as in they were designated before the strike as opposed to having the pilots find their own.

Helicopter gunships had more of a CAS-like role, in that their role was more about supporting troops in contact with air support, but even here it was not directed by ground controllers. The gunships job was to fly in, strafe enemy positions and then bug out. It was expected that helicopters would do a better job of engaging enemy forces in close proximity to friendly forces.

There is a strong argument that the Soviets should have no fixed wing aircraft in CMCW. The reason they are included is because players would be up in arms about a feature being stripped from the game, and because there are some limited use cases for them to be present. All Soviet air support (helo and fixed wing) should be used as pre-planned strikes during the deployment phase. This best simulates how the Soviets would have used them in reality, as an opening pre-planned strike in support of an attack. Anything else begins to really stretch the definitions of Soviet "CAS."

[Combatintman]

12 hours ago, John Kettler said:

BFC et al.,

Just got through watching a fascinating and deeply informative video investigating the MiG-27 as a platform for the immensely powerful GSh-30 cannon and the havoc it wrought on the plane and pilot, sometimes fatally. The gun was way too powerful for the light airframe and caused truly shocking damage at times. Not sure how CMCW models strafing runs, but I think after watching this video, there is a strong case to be made for one and done, regardless of whether other aircraft get multiple passes. Another surprise was learning this aircraft had not only a laser rangefinder but that it could also self-designate, something I don't recall seeing described in the threat docs. Dive angles used by the Russians were far greater (~45 deg) than for the A-10, and the weight of metal (at the as designed 600 rpm) exceeded that of the A-10 in a second burst for both. Another major difference was that the Russians were attacking T-62s (what the M-47s were simulating in US live fire tests) and were demolishing the tanks with what looked like some 20 or so hits.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

As you have not played CMCW from my readings on the forum you have no idea what the behavior of the Mig-27 is in game.  How are you defining 'Possible' in a rating scale?  An organisation I work for defines possible as 35%-65% of occurrence.  Perhaps you should have titled this thread - 'A random video I found on the internet about the Mig-27' rather than trashing a game you haven't played by inferring that something about which you do not have enough knowledge to make a judgement on is wrong with it.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

But JK's an expert! 

[fireship4]

16 hours ago, Combatintman said:

As you have not played CMCW from my readings on the forum you have no idea what the behavior of the Mig-27 is in game.  How are you defining 'Possible' in a rating scale?  An organisation I work for defines possible as 35%-65% of occurrence.  Perhaps you should have titled this thread - 'A random video I found on the internet about the Mig-27' rather than trashing a game you haven't played by inferring that something about which you do not have enough knowledge to make a judgement on is wrong with it.

A wild over-reaction to a reasonable post.  He has played other games in the series, gun runs are often repeated if there is ammo, perhaps he checked to make sure on youtube, perhaps not, but is he wrong?  Are you saying it already makes one pass only?  Or do you perhaps disagree with the reasoning?  Your post does not add anything but emotion.

Furthermore, he didn't 'trash' the game at all, he made a simple post about finding out that a certain gun caused the firing aircraft problems and should perhaps be limited due to that, with the assumption it has not been already.  Where is the problem?  Your post and the completely unnecessary:

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

But JK's an expert! 

Evoke schoolyard crap (in this instance a sidekick is peering over your shoulder) I see all too often around John's posts.  Some of you are sensitive to him/how he posts - fine.  I don't see it, I find his stuff largely informative and interesting, occasionally off the mark or over-stated, but I put that down to him being a human being, and it's something that can be critiqued without lowering yourselves to such off-putting bull****, it stinks up the place.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I guess it all comes down how much JK sourced bull**** one has already consumed. 

 

[LukeFF]

On 12/21/2021 at 5:01 AM, fireship4 said:

A wild over-reaction to a reasonable post.  He has played other games in the series, gun runs are often repeated if there is ammo, perhaps he checked to make sure on youtube, perhaps not, but is he wrong?  Are you saying it already makes one pass only?  Or do you perhaps disagree with the reasoning?  Your post does not add anything but emotion.

Furthermore, he didn't 'trash' the game at all, he made a simple post about finding out that a certain gun caused the firing aircraft problems and should perhaps be limited due to that, with the assumption it has not been already.  Where is the problem?  Your post and the completely unnecessary:

Evoke schoolyard crap (in this instance a sidekick is peering over your shoulder) I see all too often around John's posts.  Some of you are sensitive to him/how he posts - fine.  I don't see it, I find his stuff largely informative and interesting, occasionally off the mark or over-stated, but I put that down to him being a human being, and it's something that can be critiqued without lowering yourselves to such off-putting bull****, it stinks up the place.

JK has proven time and time and time again that his credibility is extremely lacking. No one but him brings this criticism upon himself. 

[fireship4]

I see nothing wrong in the subject of this thread, and yet it is used to mock Mr. Kettler instead of discuss it.  What I am railing against is not criticism but bullying.  Those engaged in it should be ashamed of themselves.

Edited December 24, 2021 by fireship4

[Erwin]

16 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

What I am railing against is not criticism but bullying.  Those engaged in it should be ashamed of themselves.

Well said...

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I reckon JK's probably big enough and ugly enough to look after himself, but if you want to appoint yourself as his nanny, I guess that's your prerogative. 

[Erwin]

16 minutes ago, Erwin said:

32 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

What I am railing against is not criticism but bullying.  Those engaged in it should be ashamed of themselves.

Cannot be said enough times it seems...

 

[Combatintman]

15 hours ago, fireship4 said:

I see nothing wrong in the subject of this thread, and yet it is used to mock Mr. Kettler instead of discuss it.  What I am railing against is not criticism but bullying.  Those engaged in it should be ashamed of themselves.

That's fine but I do.  The claim is not proven by John but that is the thing that people will see when they look at the forum whether they read the detail and look at the linked YouTube link or not.  The effect could discourage people from buying the title which is fine if the claim is based on facts.  He does not know how the Mig-27 behaves in CMCW yet he is willing to imply that there is an issue with its behavior.  I take back the use of the word trashing.  As you pointed out, it is emotive and I apologize unreservedly to John and you for the use of the word.  My point stands - John has inferred that there is a problem with a game he has not played - he cannot prove that there is a problem and had made no attempt to do so and he should; therefore, not have made the inference.  Had the thread been titled 'An interesting video about Mig-27 gun runs' or similar then I would not have commented.  I am not bullying John, I am calling him out on unfounded claims.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

19 hours ago, Combatintman said:

Had the thread been titled 'An interesting video about Mig-27 gun runs' or similar then I would not have commented.  I am not bullying John, I am calling him out on unfounded claims.

This.  +1

[John Kettler]

On 12/20/2021 at 1:58 PM, Combatintman said:

As you have not played CMCW from my readings on the forum you have no idea what the behavior of the Mig-27 is in game.  How are you defining 'Possible' in a rating scale?  An organisation I work for defines possible as 35%-65% of occurrence.  Perhaps you should have titled this thread - 'A random video I found on the internet about the Mig-27' rather than trashing a game you haven't played by inferring that something about which you do not have enough knowledge to make a judgement on is wrong with it.

Combatintman,

Even after you removed the wholly unwarranted and offensive "trashing", I still believe you overreached. All did and intended to do was highlight a potential issue, yet you seem to think that I, with my (heaven forfend!) use of "possible" could damage the success of the game. Really?  I Used "possible" not in the intelligence analyst probability scale but simply as short for "might be". If that can wreck the game's sales, then one or more may apply: a) The would-be buyers aren't motivated enough to see why I raided a potential issue, b) if buyers are deterred by one by. no means certain issue being mentioned, then they don't understand wargames, let alone tactical sims, both of which are characterized by piles of questions and issues raised--before, during and after (if you doubt this, find the message traffic for CMBO back when we had two scenarios), and c) it would appear your opinion of the robustness of CMCW, in the face of one minor potential issue in a carefully worded understated post, reflects your concerns about the game's viability (in the face of no attack whatsoever on it) then is a you issue, not a me issue. 

Came across what I felt was pretty solid military-technical information, derived from both pilot reports and detailed examination and repairs (or crash investigation if a plane went down).What I learned was quite a shock to me, and the downward adjustments to ROF (from 6000 rpm to 4000) and burst duration (from 3 seconds to 1 second) described in that video relate directly to whatever metric or metrics BFC uses in modeling the GSh-6-30's firepower, hit probability and terminal effectiveness. The mere fact I haven't been able to play CMCW (or any other CM game at all) is public knowledge, but not having played it in no way invalidates my ability to raise a potential military-technical issue or issues which may (note conditional) (or may not) potentially affect the game. But wouldn't I be remiss if I didn't at least tell BFC of what I found, then let BFC and or the Mods determine whether or not an issue or issues existed, whether a fix or fixes were needed, and whether or not they would be implemented? While I freely admit FLOGGER D attacks against tanks are not the be all and end all of CMCW, as expensive as air support is, it's important for the owning player to get the greatest possible combat yield from that air support, but from both combat modeling fidelity and basic fairness, in-game performance should be that of real world systems, how they operate and perform. Don't know what ROF and burst length BFC uses in CMCW, but it's trivial to show real in-game impact through overmodeling or undermodeling can and will have direct in-game impact, possibly decisive. Conversely, BFC may have the modeling letter perfect, in which case there's no issue. All I did was say there might be an issue, whereupon you went after me personally. My sole dedications here are to the truth and doing what I can to ensure that military-technical modeling and weapon effectiveness are represented as accurately as possible in-game.

Regards,

John Kettler  

Edited December 25, 2021 by John Kettler

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Thing is JK, you didn't post this in some general discusssion about the capabilities of the MiG.27, you posted it in a forum about CM:CW (a game that you don't even play) with an implied criticism of the game mechanics for the title. 

 

[John Kettler]

10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Thing is JK, you didn't post this in some general discusssion about the capabilities of the MiG.27, you posted it in a forum about CM:CW (a game that you don't even play) with an implied criticism of the game mechanics for the title. 

 

The point of doing so was to put the information exactly where it needed to be posted, precisely because I wasn't speaking generally but pointing out that here was information which could potentially affect in-game FLOGGER D cannon performance modeling. As such, it did exactly the same thing untold thousands of posts for each separate game have done.  Unlike a fair number of those, I neither attacked the game nor its designers nor BFC as a firm, one or more of which behaviors I've seen over the 21 years I've been involved with CM in its various forms. The nub of the criticism seems to be that I haven't played the game, so my opinions and arguments are uninformed and I'm not entitled to make them. But even if I had played the game, the odds are extremely low that I would've played a scenario large enough to afford the ever pricey fixed-wing air support option. And even if I had, and had used FLOGGER D in the game, it's highly likely it would've been a one off so early after receiving the game and given how seldom everything comes together so I can play any CMx2 game, Pretty sure am nearing a year and a half since I last was able to play, and it was only a couple of days before I again couldn't. As you know, there is no statistical validity in a sample size of one. Said I don't know how BFC models the GSh-6-30's performance, and it's entirely possible it got it right in every important detail, but maybe it didn't, so the point was to present what I thought was well sourced new to be and shocking military-technical info so that BFC and the Mods could take a look at how things were already being done and to then decide where to go, if at all, from there.

Anyone going at me over my post should (never mind my responses following it) understand that thousands of people in the last 21 years have flat out denounced this and that representation of weapon system performance (or lack) in the game. Some have attacked the game, even the entire game system or engine, ultimately concluding after assailing the designers and disparaging BFC on multiple fronts, that it produces garbage it markets as sims and is taking a lot of money and delivering junk. 

Have done only what has when done myriad times before: I have politely raised a potential issue and attacked not the game, not the designer/s, not the game engine and certainly BFC as a firm or anyone in it. If doing what I've done is a problem, then hundreds, maybe thousands, of people need to be confronted similarly--at least, those reachable in several meanings of the word. And please understand that one of the main functions of Operations Analysis was to evaluate current and feature weapon effectiveness. Have myself worked on ROK TOW helos Vs North Korean Army, Maverick of multiple types and guidance modes vs not just ground targets but naval ones, too. Read the SECRET level meticulous joint Israel and US tank loss study, which was heavily illustrated. Read the WSEG (Weapon System Evaluation Group) SECRET level report on the combat performance of US weapons in the Yom Kippur War. Have used the SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL level JMEMs (Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals) to work specific targeting and weaponeering problems. Have also pored over multiple reports documenting 30 mm  ammunition lot acceptance tests in full-up live fire of A-10s against a simulated Soviet tank company (M47) in combat array. Every tank targeted was thoroughly looked at after each firing pass. Dive angle, open fire range, ceasefire range, number of shots fired, number of hits, where, prompt or delayed effect, etc. were all logged.This isn't be running my digital mouth while knowing diddly squat. This was coming from someone intimately involved not just in evaluating existent weapons but in creating other applications for existing company made weapons and proposing new variants as appropriate--all in the context of what the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had, would have in some timeframe, or would need to fulfill a military requirement, yet was not known to be in development or production. 

What ultimately matters here is the military-technical information in that video, not me personally, nor my lack of playing CMCW. The real issue is how well, within a number of limiting factors (cost, time, possible production delays, etc.) BFCs in-game modeling of the GSh-6-30 tracks with the photographic evidence, maintenance reports, reports from the pilots, dedicated testing of the FLOGGER D, as well as crash investigations. Will tell you that even a modest fraction of the intel in that video would've been enough to cause me to go straight to my boss to discuss the information and its implications, both in specific and multiple scenarios, but also in large scale force on force modeling. The cannon in question inflicts cumulative damage on the aircraft in which it's installed, and the FLOGGER Ds were flying seven (7) sorties/day. The tremendous recoil and noise were also hammering the pilots, wearing them down physically, but there was wide awareness that the aircraft was outright dangerous to fly, and pilots tried desperately to avoid being assigned to the FLOGGER D, vastly preferring the FLOGGER B fighter plane. How calm would you be if you knew that firing the cannon might cause the plane plane might abruptly lose all electronic function, knock out some of the the landing gear, cause the canopy to abruptly rip away the entire instrument panel to wind up in your lap or the gun to explode?

Understand, too, that this was a problem which applied to every operational FLOGGER D. From when the GSh-6-30 hit IOC clear to the retirement of the FLOGGER D, everyone who went aloft and fired that cannon was at risk of dying from his own armament.

Summing up, I stand by what I said, why I said it, and the actions I took. Have received no feedback from BFC and/or the Mods. In fact, have no idea whether this read has been read by one or booth, let alone the video being watched.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Firstly, the information in that video is not news to me or, I suspect, many others in this forum. 

Secondly, it still does not justify the title that you gave to this thread, or the implied criticism therein. 

You have a habit of claiming to know more than you actually do and you don't appear to actually play any of these games.....Why would Battlefront, or anyone else, take your posts seriously?

[chuckdyke]

We fail at the first stop in an attempt to reference this goldmine of information. No names nothing.

Paper Skies - YouTube

Edited December 26, 2021 by chuckdyke

[chuckdyke]

Mark Felton someone I follow.

Mark Felton Productions - YouTube Quick search.

Mark Felton - Wikipedia

[Codreanu]

Mark Felton is good at being entertaining but I hope you're not trying to imply that he's some sort of authoritative source, the dude cites David Irving in one of his videos for crying out loud.

[John Kettler]

Sgt.Squarehead,

We (my colleagues and I in the Operations Analysis Departments of both Hughes Aircraft, Missile Systems Group and at Rockwell International, North American Aerospace Operations saw absolutely nothing on what's in that video regarding the havoc the GSh-5-30 caused to the MiG-27 in my 11+ years as a Soviet Threat Analyst from mid February 1978 to late June of 1989, so if you or others here find what's in that video to be old hat, then I'm impressed. 

As to you second point, have responded in detail as to why I said what I said, what my intent was, in what sense I used the word "possible" and much more. Your opinion is just that, your opinion, as are those of others.

Contrary to what you seem to think, I do know a great deal, but the TBI ~7.5 years ago has really put a hit on my memory, which varies wildly from day to day and can and does conflate things. Back in 1965 I came back from the no notes SECRET and change Soviet Threat Technology Conference at CIA HQ and wrote a 40 page report from memory covering the key points of every briefing we got, resulting in a threat document that left the department manager visibly shaken and the blood drained from his face. He told me that from now on, there are only three people authorized to see the document in its entirety: him, me, and his boss, the head  in RDT&E. Anyone else was only allowed to read the portion pertinent to his work and under the direct supervision of the department manager. I used to be a living, breathing threat catalog, something like the living books of Fahrenheit 451. Rag on me if you will, but I'm going to contribute in such ways as I can. Feel free to ignore me! If you and others wish to ding me because I don't presently play the games, it's not for lack of motivation or desire, it's because I can't! It was has been and is a source of immense frustration to me that I haven't been able to play CMx2 sims at all for quite some time because of the devastation the TBI inflicted on me ~7.5 years ago but really only surfaced years later, but what I have been able to do is to provide a great deal of Cold War intel, military-technical info and tactical insights that others here find interesting and worthwhile. Have no plans to stop doing those things and make no apology for doing what is entirely within the Forum Rules. If there is an issue, I'm sure BFC, via Steve or one of the Mods, will let me know.

chuckdyke,

Agree that Paper Skies has indeed posted no name in his About on his YT channel, but it was pretty clear to me a) that he was originally from Russia,  b) that his dad was a fighter pilot, and c) he's quite the lover of and student of aviation history. He has over 115,000 subscribers and something over 8 million views.  Believe he gave his first name in the video, but am not certain. Maybe he's more forthcoming on PatreonDon't know why he doesn't give his name, but let's face it, if your rejection criteria for internet info is the lack of a person's name and use of an online handle, then much of what's there on the web would have to be likewise rejected. From what I can tell most of the Forumites, if you will, operate under handles, yet themselves post about things they know abot intel, weapons and tactics that are pertinent to the CMx2 games, whether from having used (in training, combat or both) various weapons, worked on them in the field, been involved in their, variously, design, engineering, development or testing. Would you ignore Panzer Leader, who commanded an Abrams unit, JasonC, our resident Redleg, to name but two, for want of their names?

Am a huge fan of Mark Felton, who, I would note, is not merely a trained historian but holds a doctorate in history, has read (as the British say) history in the UK at university level there  and abroad, and several hundred videos aside, is the author of 20 books. No feather merchant he!

Codreanu,

Do you know which one? If you can recall the topic, I shall track it down and make a point of watching it to hear what he said and in what context. 

Regards,

John Kettler



 

[chuckdyke]

15 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Agree that Paper Skies has indeed posted no name in his About on his YT channel,

In other words as a reference worth nothing. As far as CM goes it is a game as a simulator it falls short. Bridges got bugs defenders can't blow them up and it is one of many issues. Post WW2 no claymore mines the reason I don't know. Myself I will turn 72 soon and I just have fun playing this game. I don't make any claims here and want to keep it that way. The references I use here are from persons using the Web who give their references. My advice to you play the game and tell us your decision making process.  

[chuckdyke]

On 12/27/2021 at 2:23 AM, Codreanu said:

David Irving

He has also graduated from respected British institutions of education. I agree he has not done himself any favors by holocaust denial but see it in the same light as the Vatican who never excommunicated Adolf Hitler. Mark Felton is a historian and so is David Irvin whether we like it or not. But we are a gaming site and not a place to discuss our politics. History is also a hobby horse of mine what is fact by populism is often a myth. Like our Christmas story Herod the Great and the Census are mentioned in every Bible. The problem the census took place at least 10 years after the death of Herod the Great. What are forced down as fact since childhood has very often big question marks. Democracy is far from perfect the Greeks had serious issues with it.