concealment and cover

[acrashb]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6760530260633420235&q=cover+concealment

I wonder if Steve et al have seen this one. Especially with the .50BMG, demonstrates that hiding in a house - even a cinderbock house - is not effective.

[rudel.dietrich]

I was going to start a thread on this, but this thread is as good as any.

Small arms fire ballistics are extremly important to me and I hope they are handled in as good as detail and armour penetrations and fire ballistics.

I hope that 5.56 rounds can penetrate realisticly as well as every other small arms round in the game.

[Thermopylae]

Cinderblock won't stop 7.62 x 54mm either.

[SirReal]

Also, it should be noted that light rounds (as in, not much weight) are more easily deflected by small branches and other foliage. Thus, while hiding directly behind a bush won't help vs 5.56, trying to shoot through foliage a few meters away at a distant target (100m+) will impact hit chances. You might not hit a branch, but then, if you do, it's a guaranteed miss.

[c3k]

Gents,

I totally agree about the importance of this subject. So much so, that I've started several threads on it over the years. I can only hope that realistic small arms ballistic modelling has made it into the game.

Regards,

Ken

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by SirReal:

Also, it should be noted that light rounds (as in, not much weight) are more easily deflected by small branches and other foliage. Thus, while hiding directly behind a bush won't help vs 5.56, trying to shoot through foliage a few meters away at a distant target (100m+) will impact hit chances. You might not hit a branch, but then, if you do, it's a guaranteed miss.

We were taught never to stay in tree of brush cover once the bullets started flying.

As rounds are incoming they do as you say and start hitting branches and tree trunks.

This is bad in the sense that this creates alot more smaller 'bullets' made of wood and what have you that can easily penetrate skin and go through the human body.

In a sense are more prone to injury or death once you are found and rounds begin to be fired at you.

The video did a very good job of detailing that this happenes indoors as well.

Even if you are no where near the point of impact you can be wounded or killed by flying shards of building material.

[Darkmath]

The effect of the impact of a 12,7mm bullet on the dummy, even behind a cinder block wall, is impressive!! :eek:

I don't want to see what that kind of bullet would do on a real human body...

[hoolaman]

Great film. I hope BFC can incorporate this indisputable evidence into the game.

[John Kettler]

acrashb,

Terrific find! Showing the weapons without magazines attached struck me as weird, but it was tough to argue with overwhelming visuals. Once again, I'm forced to marvel that they can get people to do this in real life. Certainly shows why MOUT is such a meatgrinder!

The penetration some of the rounds have is downright scary, and the issue of secondary missiles is wisely highlighted. This was the first live fire footage I've seen of the SMAW, the 30mm Chain Gun on the new AAV, the 40mm HEDP round, and the frag grenade. The SMAW, which I guess the Marines use in lieu of the Army's AT-4,

is devastating against bunkers, but I thought the tank busting segment was cheating. An M551 Sheridan AAV is hardly credible as a tank target.

I think the video could be a big help for BFC not just in terms of weapon effects, but the associated visuals. In closing, I think it's worth pointing out that penetration would've been even higher had WW II era rifles been used, seeing as how they used full power cartridges, not the kurz type ammo found in M-16/AK-47/SAW.

Now, when do we get to the OPFOR weapons live fired in the same scenario? If they even do it, expect it to be classified!

Regards,

John Kettler

[ October 22, 2006, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Very interesting film. It makes you wonder what cover genuinely IS cover, and not just concealment. It was also interesting to note how some rounds can "eat through" certain types of wall over time even if they can't penetrate it with just one burst.

Maybe some of these effects could be factored into the game by giving the target less percentage cover against certain calibre rounds and also reducing the target's percentage cover for each consecutive burst, provided both the target and shooter do not change their position between bursts.

Since watching the film I have thought about the many CMx1 games I've played in which an enemy squad has managed to hold a small building for many turns despite being suppressed and taking casualties from repeated small-arms attacks. In reality it looks like a squad would only be able to last out in a building like that for a minute or two before it ceased to provide any cover at all.

[J_Toe]

Hi,

this is an interesting vid on the value of cover and concealment... You Tube linky

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

The SMAW, which I guess the Marines use in lieu of the Army's AT-4,

is devastating against bunkers, but I thought the tank busting segment was cheating. A

Actually we make very extensive use of the AT-4 as well. The SMAW IIRC is issued 2 per rifle company. The gunners are dedicated to that weapon system. All Marines receive basic training on the AT-4 after bootcamp and it is issued very widely in Iraq.

[Bertram]

I am missing the effect the weapons have against concrete.. I guess it won't matter much in CM:SF, a most smaller buildings in the Middle East are build of concrete floors on concrete pillars, with brick or cinder walls between. But most larger buildings and almost all modern buildings (in Europe at least) have high quality concrete load bearing sidewalls, and often front and rear walls too, with just a brick sheeting for looks and isolation.

[SirReal]

Swedish Army MOUT infantry units uses pretty much exclusively 7.62mm small arms weapons, Carl-Gustav recoilless launchers and AT-4's. Standard procedures include firing 84mm HEAT aiming below windows to hit the radiator, which will then bounce around nicely in the room inside, and sweeping floors with 7.62 MMG fire straight thru the building interior walls.

5.56 was deemed way to weak for MOUT.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Very interesting film. It makes you wonder what cover genuinely IS cover, and not just concealment. It was also interesting to note how some rounds can "eat through" certain types of wall over time even if they can't penetrate it with just one burst.

Maybe some of these effects could be factored into the game by giving the target less percentage cover against certain calibre rounds and also reducing the target's percentage cover for each consecutive burst, provided both the target and shooter do not change their position between bursts.

Since watching the film I have thought about the many CMx1 games I've played in which an enemy squad has managed to hold a small building for many turns despite being suppressed and taking casualties from repeated small-arms attacks. In reality it looks like a squad would only be able to last out in a building like that for a minute or two before it ceased to provide any cover at all.

This is similar to the idea I had

Each object in the be assinged a certain number of 'hit points' expressed in a % term.

As that object takes damage it becomes easier for smaller rounds to penetrate that object.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

In reality it looks like a squad would only be able to last out in a building like that for a minute or two before it ceased to provide any cover at all.

In reality, people wouldn't take cover inside a dinky little house made of plywood like that... =)

To contrast that example with one from the other end, have a look at the Reichstag durning WWII, who shook off 20cm artillery shells. Now *thats* what you want to take cover inside!

[Pete Wenman]

Guys hi

Thought I would jump in here to balance the perception that buildings don't offer cover.

All things are relative.

SQUAD DEFENSIVE CONSIDERATIONS. The fundamentals of defensive combat in an urban environment at the squad level are generally consistent with defensive combat in any other environment. Once the squad leader is assigned a squad sector of fire and a building or buildings to defend, he then assigns his fire team's sectors of fire. Squad automatic weapons are

employed at ground level to achieve optimum grazing fire. He supervises the construction of firing ports and barricades within and

around his building, rehearses contingencies for moving within and around buildings, and maintains proper security focus throughout preparation of the defense. At a minimum, leaders must consider the following factors prior to establishing a defense.

a. Cover. Select a position or building providing protection from direct and indirect fires. Reinforced concrete or

brick buildings are preferred. Avoid wooden buildings. Improve positions with sandbags or rubble and provide overhead cover.

Reinforce ceilings. Prepare dummy positions if time allows. Block or barricade doors, hallways, stairs and windows that you will

not be using. Chicken wire is positioned over windows and other openings to prevent the enemy from throwing grenades into the

building.

b. Dispersion. Defending units should establish positions in more than one room and, depending on the size of

the structure, in more than one building which permits mutual support and overlapping sectors of fire.

c. Observation. Depending on the type of urban terrain defended, observation is usually restricted by the

building/structure patterns and proximity to the defended unit. However, observation can be enhanced by rubbling. Minimally, the

position selected should permit observation of the adjacent unit's sector of fire and critical areas surrounding the unit's defensive

position.

d. Covered routes. Defensive positions should have at least two covered and concealed routes that permit

resupply, medical evacuation, reinforcement, or withdrawal from the building. Blow with demolitions or cut mouse holes between

rooms and through floors for covered routes to alternate and supplementary positions. Use existing construction materials to

fashion hasty ladders for use between floors.

e. Concealment. As a passive security measure, camouflage defensive positions within available means. All individual firing positions should be camouflaged and concealed. It is also important to establish firing positions back and away

from windows and doors when firing to avoid enemy detection. Dusty areas can be covered with blankets or wetted down with water to keep dust from rising when weapons are fired. Windows should be covered with material to prevent enemy observation.Lace curtains or a piece of cloth hung across a window will hide a defender in a darkened room, but allow observation and firing

outside. Remove glass from windows.

f. Fields of fire. To prevent isolation, positions should be mutually supporting and capable of firing in all directions. Clearing fields of fire may require destroying adjacent buildings with explosives, munitions or engineering assets such as bulldozers. Machine gun positions should have wire screens (cyclone fencing) placed to the front to deflect hand grenades and to prematurely detonate rockets and missiles from exploding within the position.

g. Fire hazard. Defending units avoid establishing positions in old or unstable buildings. Shut off gas and electricity when occupying buildings to prevent gas and electrical fires. If there is a fire hazard, fire fighting equipment should be

positioned throughout the unit's defensive position within the building.

h. Logistics. If a unit expects to defend for an extended period of time, food, water, ammunition and medical supplies should be stockpiled at primary, alternate, and supplementary positions.

i. Time. Hardening positions and constructing obstacles with an urban area will take longer than in other environments because of the extent of protection needed.

Taken from a MOUT manual. My point is that while I don't argue with the effects of the weapons shown in the video (and I've seen it for real, but not combat) you are better off in the building than in the street. If you have had time to prepare the building which is an art in its own right, you increase both the concealment and cover.

Lets be honest how much cover does a tank offer ?

Against a rifle - loads,

Against a Javilin ATM - not much.

The secrect of defence in MOUT or FIBUA is to not allow the attacker the ability to move his weapons into a position from where they can attack or destroying them as they attempt to do so.

I'd rather be in the cover a building provides, than in the open street trying to attack it.

Pete

[Pete Wenman]

From the same manual, and interesting reading

13. WEAPON EFFECTS AND EMPLOYMENT. As with any other type of operation, a unit leader plans to use all available weapon systems - organic, supporting, and attached. The three dimensional and naturally restrictive nature of urban terrain requires that every weapons system be employed to maximize its effects. Weapons should be employed to create and/or exploit tactical advantages. Street patterns and building location influence the plan of attack or defense by creating "city canyons"

which are compartmentalized portions of the area. City street width, line of sight distances, and inter-visiblity problems caused by

building angles can all influence the selection of firing positions and the effectiveness of weapons. Buildings that may mask your

fires, key terrain, critical areas, and building construction should also be considered when deciding how to employ weapons.

Below are some of the effects of and employment considerations for weapons in an urban environment. For more detailed

information concerning weapon effects and employment, refer to MCWP 3-35.3, Appendix B.

a. Weapon Effects. Obviously, unit leaders will have to take into consideration the effects of the specific weapons under their direct control and those they may bring to bear in the urban setting. This will vary and will be influenced by

availability, logistics, effectiveness, and suitability as they apply to the current situation faced by that leader. Below are some

considerations concerning the effectiveness of weapons in the urban environment, in general.

(1) Hard, smooth, and flat surfaces are characteristic of urban targets. Rounds usually strike these

surfaces at some degree of obliquity. This reduces the effectiveness of the round and increases the chance of ricochets. In addition,

the above also means that up to 25 percent of impact-fused explosive rounds (i.e., 40mm grenades) will not detonate when striking

such targets at an angle.

(2) Engagement ranges in MOUT are close. Historically, about 90 percent of all engagements occur at 50 meters or less. Minimum arming ranges and unit safety from back blast or fragmentation must be considered.

(3) Because of the close nature of most engagements and the broken nature of the urban terrain, the time available to engage targets will be short. Marines have difficulty engaging with deliberate, well-aimed shots without prolonged exposure to enemy observation and fire.

(4) Depression and elevation limits for some weapons create dead space. Tall buildings form deep canyons and make engaging targets in the upper portions of these buildings difficult or impossible with such weapons. Positions

that have depression limits may not be able to engage enemy positions in basement or cellar positions.(5) Smoke from burning buildings, dust created by explosions, shadows from buildings, and lack of ambient light penetrating inner rooms all combine to reduce visibility. Targets, even at close range, may be difficult to see. The

effectiveness of night vision goggles and even thermal sights may be greatly reduced.

(6) Specific rounds and munitions must be evaluated for their effects against and penetration of certain types of building construction when planning. This will reduce the possibility of friendly fire injuries. In addition, leaders must evaluate the risk of starting fires. The benefits of using tracer ammunition, which can be shot from a number of different weapons systems, must be evaluated against the likelihood and consequences of starting fires.

(7) The presence of power lines must be considered when employing wire guided missiles. Guidance wires that cross "hot" power lines can short out and cause the missile to become erratic.

(8) Modern engineering and design improvements mean that most large buildings constructed since WW II are resilient to the blast effects of demolition and artillery attacks. Even though portions may be rubbled or burned, buildings

may hold their structural integrity.

(9) The effects of different types of weapons can also affect defenses and the type of protection constructed or used. Many materials normally found in an urban environment can be utilized to effectively protect against modern

weapons and their effects. Furniture and building materials taken from interior walls can be fashioned into overhead cover to

protect from the effects of artillery, mortar, or demolition attacks. Chain link fences can be placed in front of fighting positions to

protect against RPGs and other shaped-charge warhead weapons. Sandbags are very effective against small arms fire, but may be

limited in supply. Some effective alternatives to sandbags may be furniture, vehicle bodies, brick or cement rubble between

boards, or 55 gallon drums filled with water.

b. Weapons Employment. The following are some employment considerations as they pertain to specific weapons normally found at the Rifle Company or Platoon level.

(1) M16A2 Service rifle. Rifles are the primary weapon to engage and kill the enemy in MOUT. In

addition, rifles are particularly effective in suppressing enemy positions placed in individual windows and doors of buildings because of their ability to deliver accurate fire. To effectively engage small, fleeting targets requires a high degree of accuracy and weapons fired in the semiautomatic mode. Tracer ammunition may be used, once considering building construction and the risk of fires, by unit leaders to direct the fire of their units. Penetration of the 5.56 round is optimal at 200 meters. Because of the close nature of most engagements in MOUT, this penetration will be reduced. The 5.56 round, however, will easily penetrate materials

commonly found on the interior of buildings (wooden doors, paneling, sheetrock, or plaster). The 5.56 will not penetrate brick and

other masonry works initially, but successive rounds may.

(2) M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. SAWs should be employed using the same considerations as

M16A2s. The penetration capabilities and limitations of the 5.56 rounds are the same. The SAW, however, provides a much greater volume of fire and is therefore well suited for suppression of enemy positions and can be utilized to isolate or suppress objectives. The increased rate of fire will also have a corresponding greater destructive effect on buildings and building materials. SAWs are cumbersome in the assault because of their length and weight. This does not mean that they will not participate in the clearing of buildings, rather they should be placed in the covering team of the fire team.

(3) M203 Grenade Launcher. The M203 can be effective at destroying point targets in the offense or defense. The destructive force of the 40mm HE or HEDP rounds can be a significant combat multiplier in MOUT. Blast effects

and fragmentation within enclosed rooms may be amplified. In addition, the fragmentation effects may be multiplied by the added

fragmentation created by building materials (masonry chips, wood splinters, etc.) Because of the close nature of the combat in MOUT, care must be taken to avoid friendly forces being affected by fragmentation, and attention must be paid to minimum arming distances of the rounds. Another consideration is interior wall construction. M203 rounds may pass right through light building materials like sheetrock or paneling without detonating. The array of M203 rounds make it a good weapon for delivering

covering smoke, signals, illumination, and CS. Because of the trajectory of the round, the M203 round can be delivered into defilade such as behind walls, piles of rubble, or buildings. M203 gunners should be proficient enough to deliver fire through windows, doors, and small openings.

(4) M240G Machine-gun. The M240G is the rifle company's primary organic direct fire weapon used to suppress designated targets/areas, isolate objectives, or establish kill zones down streets and alleys. Employment in the offense and

defense are the same as any other environment with some special considerations. Streets, alleys, and open areas normally found in

an urban environment provide an opportunity to achieve grazing fire seldom equaled in other types of terrain. To achieve maximum grazing fires, MGs should be positioned on the lower levels, in basement, or cellar firing positions. Rolling urban terrain, buildings, rubble, vehicles, and other things may all present obstacles to MG fire and necessitate them being positioned higher within buildings. The M240G is a cumbersome weapon making it difficult to use while clearing a building. The weapon

can be fired from the assault fire position, utilizing the bipods, or employed on the M122 tripod for increased accuracy and

stability. The penetration capability of the 7.62 round is also negatively affected by the typical short distance engagement. The

7.62 round, however, penetrates most light construction materials easily and will penetrate most typical urban walls with continued

and concentrated fire. It will not penetrate steel reinforced concrete and dense natural stone structures.

(5) Heavy Machine guns. Heavy machine guns are often employed on their vehicular mount both in the offense and defense. If necessary, they can be mounted on the M3 tripod for use in the ground role or in the upper levels of

buildings. As with the M240G, the biggest thing that will affect the employment of heavy machine guns will be the limited availability of long range fields of fire. Additionally, grazing fire of the M2 .50 caliber machine gun may be obstructed by rubble. The .50 caliber machine gun's penetration will be affected by the shorter ranges, but not as much that of the M240G. The .50 caliber MG is capable of producing significant amounts of damage to structures with continued, concentrated fires. The MK-19 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher is capable of delivering large volumes of 40mm grenade fire into defilade, behind rubble and

buildings. It is also capable of producing significant damage to buildings. The MK-19 may be affected by the short engagement

distances, and the minimum arming distance of the rounds must be taken into consideration. Also, as previously mentioned, as

much as 25 percent of the rounds fired from the MK-19 may skip or ricochet off hard surfaces without detonating.

(6) Rocket Launchers and Anti-Tank Guided Missles(ATGM). The SMAW and AT-4 are the primary

rocket launchers that will support a rifle company in MOUT. Dragons, Javelins, or TOWs may also support a company. These will be used to destroy enemy fortifications and light armored vehicles. SMAWs and AT-4s are extremely effective at destroying enemy positions within buildings. To maximize their effectiveness, they should generally be aimed beside or at the base of the intended target opening (window/door). If shot directly into the opening, the warhead may detonate behind the enemy or pass

through interior walls, both of which will lessen the fragmentation effect of the round. When exploded next to the opening, the

blast effect directly on the other side of the wall is magnified by the fragmentation produced from the construction materials

themselves (concrete, brick, or wood splinters). SMAWs are also capable of creating man-sized breaches in exterior walls of most

buildings. It will be least effective in this role against steel reinforced concrete and heavy natural stone walls. Regardless of the

type, most masonry walls may require successive shots to create a man-sized hole. Dragons (Javelin) and TOWs are normally

employed in a conventional role to cover likely mechanized avenues of approach and to destroy specific point targets during the

attack or defense. Because of their shaped charge warheads, they will be less effective at creating large holes in structure walls and

the fragmentation created is limited. Much research has been done concerning the back blast of these types of weapons in MOUT.

Generally, it has been found that the back blast created offers little danger to the gunner/s even in enclosed positions. Damage to

the room and/or structural integrity of the building can be reduced by ensuring adequate ventilation (open window/door).

Consideration should be given, however, to other occupants of the building. More significant is the danger created by back blast

when fired outside in MOUT. Streets and alleys tend to canalize the back blast effects. Dust, debris, and other objects created

from urban warfare will also become problematic as they are kicked up and blown around by the back blast. Minimum arming

distances will be another consideration to take into account. To ensure sufficient distance is provided to allow the warhead to arm

itself, rocket launchers and ATGMs may need to be placed in the upper levels or on rooftops. Shooting down from these positions

will also be more effective against armored vehicles. Thermal sites on the Dragon, Javelin, and TOW may be of great utility even

during the day because of their ability to observe through smoke and dust.

(7) Mortars. Mortars are high-trajectory weapons. This makes them well suited for urban combat due to

the height of buildings and the natural "canyons" they create. Mortars can be employed against enemy positions on roof tops,

behind buildings, or in other defilade positions. Mortars can be used to fix enemy positions, isolate objectives, suppress and

destroy enemy positions or formations in the open. Suppressing enemy positions within buildings may be difficult or impossible

due to building construction. Conversely, mortars may penetrate the roof top or cause significant structural damage to lightly

constructed buildings. To deny the enemy roof top positions or limit the amount of rubble produced, HE/VT may be used. The

ability of the unit calling for fire to observe the mortar fire may be reduced due to buildings or rubble.

(8) Armor/Mechanized Assets. In the offense, mechanized assets may be used to isolate the objective,

destroy point targets, or suppress enemy positions. Tanks, AAVs, and LAVs are extremely lethal in a direct fire role against enemy

armored vehicles and fortified positions. The capabilities and limitations associated with armor and mechanized assets remain the

same in MOUT as they do in other environments. Additional roles these assets may fill are smashing barricades, establishing

mobile road blocks, acting as evacuation or civil disturbance platforms, and logistics carriers. The main armament of armor and

mechanized vehicles can have devastating effects on buildings. In addition, armored vehicles also have secondary weapons,

medium and heavy machine guns, that can be used to support the attack or defense. Some mechanized assets also bring to the

MOUT battle field additional thermal sights that can be employed similar to the Dragon, Javelin, and TOWs. It is important to

remember that with all the inherent strengths armored vehicles have, urban terrain is a very dangerous environment for them to

operate within. The broken nature of the terrain, elevated firing positions, and limited maneuver space can allow the enemy to get

close to armored vehicles and inflict serious, if not fatal damage. In the offense or defense, the infantry bears responsibility for

protecting armored and mechanized vehicles from enemy dismounted armor-killer teams.

(9) Artillery/Naval Gunfire. Because of their relatively flat trajectory, artillery and naval gunfire are limited in their ability to suppress or destroy point targets within an urban area. Both will have difficulty hitting targets hidden

within buildings or in the natural defilade created by the buildings. Use of laser-guided munitions (Copperhead) may be useful to

engage targets with pinpoint accuracy, but again the masking of those fires may be a problem. Artillery and NGF can be used to isolate urban centers or areas within the built up area. They can also be used to illuminate areas with the city. Both artillery and NGF, when fired within urban areas, will create significant amounts of rubble and will cause considerable damage to structures. This may hinder follow-on operations and should be considered. Artillery may be used in the direct fire mode to rubble buildings

or create a breach point. Depending on building construction, the danger of fires started by artillery and NGF should also be

considered. Rules of Engagement(ROE) may prohibit the use of these fires within all, or a portion of the urban area.

(10) Nonlethal Weapons. Much progress has been made in recent years on development of nonlethal weapons and research continues to be done. One reason that this subject has received so much attention has been the need for dealing with large numbers of people when deadly force was not an option or not the best option to choose first. MOUT is an area where nonlethal

weapons may be of great assistance due to the large number of people associated with urban areas. Nonlethal weapons may be an

effective way of dealing with an enemy located amongst a civilian population without putting civilians at risk. Even without the

presence of civilians, some nonlethal weapons may be an effective way of dealing with the enemy. For example, CS gas could be

delivered by any number of ways into a building containing enemy to drive them out of their positions. Pepper spray or stinger ball

grenades may be substituted for fragmentary or concussion grenades when clearing a building.

Not sure we are going to get naval gunfire though

Pete

[Battlefront.com]

Hi all,

Concealment in buildings is the main reason for being in there since, as discussed, a modern dismounted force can make Swiss Cheese out of most structures. However, one must remember that ammunition and colateral damage concerns do have a part to play in this too. In order to effectively engage an enemy in a structure you have to know roughly where that enemy is within the structure itself. Not just which room, but where in that room and in what stance (standing, kneeling, prone). Otherewise suppression is the more likely end result not destruction.

Sure, there might be some bad guys in a building that your small arms can penetrate, but in a conventional MOUT setting how likely is it that a Rifle Squad will be able to put its full attention on that one building and fire until the structure is completely shot through? The situations like Saddam's sons' last stand are not that common in a high intensity fight, therefore buildings do offer quite a bit of practical protection.

BTW, this is one of the advantages the Stryker guys have over Mech Infantry and certainly over Light Infantry. Strykers have a gun that is quite capable of punching through pretty much any structure the infantry is likely to come upon. Since the Strykers can approach faster and far more silently than a Bradely, and offer more defensive protection than a Humvee, the Strykers can get right into the thick of the firefight and have maximum impact on the enemy. Not that having a Bradley pumping rounds into a structure is a bad thing Just pointing out that the .50 Cal is generally good enough and therefore the "stealth" attributes of the Stryker probably give it more chances to catch the enemy unaware compared to a Bradley.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Steve,

any word on how CMSF is going to model HMG (.50) and automatic cannon fire?

I always felt that small caliber cannon were lacking effectiveness in CMx1. Don't get me wrong, it's AP and HE values were no doubt spot on, but when firing on infantry, especially those in building, I felt the small cannonfire wasn't making as much of an impression on defenders as it should.

I was particulairly reminded of this during the ROW V Dieppe scenario. Oodles of 20mm of various persuasions in the German inventory. But gameplay just didn't at all match the reading I've done on Dieppe in regards to the impact of 20mm fire on it's target. If you read stories of survivors of the raid they tell of the very large impact of automatic cannon fire not just on the boats but also on infantry fighting in streets and from houses. Yet in the game 20mm fire is little more then a nuisance, try as you might. Particularly suppresion wise I would think the 20mm should've scored MUCH higher, though lethality should've been higher too. IMHO, ofcourse.

Same for the .50 cal, except opposite. It's performance I always suspected as being a fudge. Since it's firepower number was used for both infantry and armoured targets it's effectiveness against one was compromised to get closer to simulate it's effect on the other. In short, it was too powerful (in some circumstances) against infantry but too feeble against lightly armoured targets. Again, IMHO.

Has this been looked at and will CMx2 model it differently?

[acrashb]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Terrific find!

[...]

Certainly shows why MOUT is such a meatgrinder!

I went looking after recently taking a course where the instructors were clear that even cinderblock was only temporary cover - they emphasized that continuously changing position was the only way to live, even when facing an opponent armed only with a pistol, and the drills reflected that.

Once the enemy locates you, a) the cover degrades rapidly (as seen!) and they move to do cross-fire etc as we all know.

Hearing about it was one thing - seeing it absolutely convincing.

I was especially struck by the grenade effects. One assumes that grenades are improved since WWII - certainly grenades in buildings were a lot less effective as modelled in CMx1.

[Andrew H.]

Those guys have the best. job. ever.

[Moronic Max]

Jaysis. Reminds me a lot of reading about the effects of cannon in the days of wooden ships and iron men (cough); the cannonball doesn't do all that much, but the wooden shrapnel it creates...

[Darkmath]

I was especially struck by the grenade effects. One assumes that grenades are improved since WWII - certainly grenades in buildings were a lot less effective as modelled in CMx1.

I always thought grenades in CMX1 are significantly undermodelled... :eek:

Unless on very rare occasion, a grenade in CM, even in confined terrain like trench or building, would cause at most 2 casualty!

Otherwise, I know it is off topic, but is the difference cover/concealement on small arms in building modelled in CMX1 engine?

BTW Steiner, how many times have you seen in CMX1 a squad stay in a ligh wood building?

Under heavy fire, I see a squad won't stay there more than 2 turns, that is few minutes.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

BTW Steiner, how many times have you seen in CMX1 a squad stay in a ligh wood building?

Under heavy fire, I see a squad won't stay there more than 2 turns, that is few minutes.

You got me there Darkman - I can't say I've ever done a proper test on this, it was just my gut feeling from having played many games. Next game I play I will do some timings. However, I still think I've seen firefights between units in buildings lasting a lot longer than 2 turns.