Roping in from helicopters (à la "Black Hawk Down")

[Cpl Steiner]

Dear Battlefront,

Will it be possible to create scenarios in CM:SF in which US Special Forces or Rangers "rope in" from Black Hawk helicopters, as in the initial assault phase of the 1993 "Battle of Mogadishu"?

I realise that these are considered antiquated tactics for airborne troops these days, but it would still be great if they were allowed in the game for "what if" and semi historical scenarios.

[flamingknives]

I think that BFC have stated a dozen times that heliborne assault isn't going to be in.

Apart from looking cool, would it really make any difference to the game?

[hellfish]

Fast roping is hardly antiquated. It's still trained on pretty frequently. I did it once - scary as hell, but lots of fun once you're on the ground and you realize you're alive.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I think that BFC have stated a dozen times that heliborne assault isn't going to be in.

Apart from looking cool, would it really make any difference to the game?

A hell of a difference if you want to do a Black Hawk Down scenario!

[hellfish]

Not really - IIRC the helos got hit while they were orbiting the objective after all the Rangers were on the ground.

Instead of showing troops getting out of the helos, you just put them on the ground as if they'd just gotten out. No biggie.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Not really - IIRC the helos got hit while they were orbiting the objective after all the Rangers were on the ground.

Instead of showing troops getting out of the helos, you just put them on the ground as if they'd just gotten out. No biggie.

I take your point but surely if CM:SF is to simulate helicopters at all it has to have some sort of animation of troops disembarking from them, just like any other vehicle. In CMx1 the squad just appeared behind the vehicle. I guess this could probably suffice in CMx2 as well, so a helo on the ground would just show some troops appearing next to it before it took off.

Given the constraints of budget etc. that Battlefront have to work under, I would be happy if "roping in" was just shown as a helo hovering one minute, then a squad appearing on the ground below shortly before the helo resumed horizontal flight. For "ground", I would include rooftops also.

Having said all that, animation showing ropes uncoiling from the helo then troops sliding down them doesn't sound like too much work. The "sliding" models wouldn't even need to transition smoothly to "on the ground" models for the effect to be very cool indeed.

[Sergei]

And I want to have motorcycles, and horses, and female partisans, and...

[hellfish]

I don't think CMSF is going to simulate helicopters, except probably gunships (and those might be off-map). There really isn't a need to, I don't think, except for aesthetic purposes.

The only helicopters I'd like to see are ones that are destroyed/crashed models so we can do BHD or Tal Afar-like recovery missions.

[MikeyD]

"Instead of showing troops getting out of the helos, you just put them on the ground as if they'd just gotten out."

Same applies for parachuting in too! That's how it works in the earlier CMs. You don't get to see the parachute floating down.

Roping down might be a bit much to ask, but if they're including helos, would it be possible to fly in a Blackhawk or big Chinook, let it land, and the troops exit using one of the standard APC exit animations? But the animations would just be the start of the troubles. Where do the troop embark (the option selected off-screen before the game starts?), how do you pick the drop zone and time the helo's arrival? If ever BFC gets it into their heads to do a Vietnam war game (and they probably never will) helicopter assaults will have to be seriously looked at. This theater, I'm not sure how close they'd let troop-filled helicopters get to the action. No point losing men 20 at a time.

[Imperial Grunt]

Fast roping in not an antiquated tactic and Marine infantry and recon units train very frequently on this. Fast roping is also alot of fun and great motivational training.

But this tactic should be allowed, especially if urban combat is the focus of CM:SF. The US player could then put troops on top of buildings to clear down rather than clearing up, the most preferred way to clear a building. Of course this exposes the helo to the risk of being shot down...

I do not think that Stryker units do alot of fast roping though. It is mostly technique to get troops on the ground or platform quickly for a raid.

Airborne quick reaction forces (QRF's) should be available to the US player in some scenarios. Soldiers or Marines being brought in my helo has been a hallmark of US forces since Vietnam, (the Marines started using helos for troop lift in Korea).

[Battlefront.com]

CM:SF does not simulate Special Forces, Rangers, Airborne, or any other specialized force other than Strykers, Armor, and Mech Infantry (with the latter two portrayed in less detail). Therefore, fast roping is simply not anything that is needed even if it were something to expect in a frontline combat situation.

Remember the lesson from Mogadishu... low flying helos in urban terrain against an armed and determined enemy is a really bad idea. This has been emphasized many times over in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. To the best of my knowledge, fast roping was not used at all during the opening phase of OIF. I am also not aware of it being used at all during the nearly 3 years that followed. I'm going to bet it has been used a few times, in highly specific and special circumstances, but certainly in no way that would be relevant to CM:SF.

BTW, it would take a massive amount of effort to get this working in CM:SF realistically. Underestimate it all you want, but we're the ones that have to do the work and you're the ones that would have to wait for us to finish

As FHF said, fast roping is easy to simulate without having to do it. Just put the guys on the ground. If you want some to have been picked off during the deployment, pre-zap the unit in the Editor. Really is that simple.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

CM:SF does not simulate Special Forces, Rangers, Airborne, or any other specialized force other than Strykers, Armor, and Mech Infantry (with the latter two portrayed in less detail). Therefore, fast roping is simply not anything that is needed even if it were something to expect in a frontline combat situation.

Remember the lesson from Mogadishu... low flying helos in urban terrain against an armed and determined enemy is a really bad idea. This has been emphasized many times over in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. To the best of my knowledge, fast roping was not used at all during the opening phase of OIF. I am also not aware of it being used at all during the nearly 3 years that followed. I'm going to bet it has been used a few times, in highly specific and special circumstances, but certainly in no way that would be relevant to CM:SF.

BTW, it would take a massive amount of effort to get this working in CM:SF realistically. Underestimate it all you want, but we're the ones that have to do the work and you're the ones that would have to wait for us to finish

As FHF said, fast roping is easy to simulate without having to do it. Just put the guys on the ground. If you want some to have been picked off during the deployment, pre-zap the unit in the Editor. Really is that simple.

Steve

Copy all. But helo QRF's were used, although fast roping has not been necessary in Iraq as far as conventional units go. But the MEU's that operate in Iraq do use thier helos as does the Army's 101st and 82nd. Doing inserts may be difficult to simulate and having the troops appear on the ground still works.

A MEU usually has its battalion landing team (a BLT is like a super reinforced infantry battalion) organized into a small boat company, a mech company (a reinforced infantry company mounted with AAV's with a section or platoon of tanks, and a section or platoon of LAV's, all depending on the MEU's load out), and a helo company. So if helo inserts are not part of game play, modelling a MEU will be difficult, except for that one light infantry (the small boat) company and the one mech company.

Standard BN TF's as part of an RCT would be very similar to the Stryker/mech infantry model of CM:SF I suppose. During OIF 1, my BN was mounted on 7-ton trucks (an outstanding vehicle) and the other two infantry battalions (3/1 and 1/4) were meched up. 1st Recon BN had HMMWVs with .50cals and Mk-19's and 2nd LAR BN had its LAV's. The RCT was very mobile.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, very much understood. In CM:SF's scale the helo LZs would be either off map or done in time frame that is not inclusive of the battle itself. And as you say, during a major operation you'd more likely see mounted RCTs than you would a BLT. And even still, there is the previous comment about LZs and timelines.

Don't get me wrong. It is possible for us to simulate hot LZs and fast roping, but for CM:SF it simply isn't a part of the scope of the simulated forces. And in general wouldn't be part of the scope of other forces within the CM:SF setting. A broader USMC/Airborne/Airmobile simulator, that covers generic combat scenario possibllities, perhaps. But considering the dubious tactical relevance and the high effort level needed to pull it off... we have zero plans to include it in any CM:SF realted release.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, I had the honor and pleasure of hearing first hand how the Marines used airpower during ops in Fallujah from a most excellent source. Major Will Mayberry gave a talk on his experiences as part of the Expeditionary Force Combat Assessent Team (EFCAT), which is part of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command. He was previously a F/A-18D Weapons System Officer and served as an instructor at the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center. MAJ Mayberry's assignment in Iraq was to be on the ground in the thick of the fight participating in and recording what was happening and how effective it was/wasn't. What I heard him talk about was the lessons the Corps learned during the November 2004 battle for Fallujah.

I have several pages of notes from his talk, all of which I've read over and over again as I've been developing CM:SF's FAC/Air design. One thing came through loud and clear... combat helos were not to be used over urban terrain as a rule. Obviously there were exceptions to the rule, but the availability of fixed wing aircraft (especialy Slayer gunships) meant that the exceptions were small. And of course transport helos were kept at a distance as matter of normal SOP.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

BTW, I had the honor and pleasure of hearing first hand how the Marines used airpower during ops in Fallujah from a most excellent source. Major Will Mayberry gave a talk on his experiences as part of the Expeditionary Force Combat Assessent Team (EFCAT), which is part of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command. He was previously a F/A-18D Weapons System Officer and served as an instructor at the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center. MAJ Mayberry's assignment in Iraq was to be on the ground in the thick of the fight participating in and recording what was happening and how effective it was/wasn't. What I heard him talk about was the lessons the Corps learned during the November 2004 battle for Fallujah.

I have several pages of notes from his talk, all of which I've read over and over again as I've been developing CM:SF's FAC/Air design. One thing came through loud and clear... combat helos were not to be used over urban terrain as a rule. Obviously there were exceptions to the rule, but the availability of fixed wing aircraft (especialy Slayer gunships) meant that the exceptions were small. And of course transport helos were kept at a distance as matter of normal SOP.

Steve

I am really looking forward to how airpower is going to be represented in the game. I know that some firefights terminated simply because the enemy heard air come on station.

The 101st had an ugly incident during OIF 1 with a bunch of Apaches getting shot up. I do not know the specifics, but helos are very vulnerable, no doubt.

But a pair of cobras flying low were an awesome asset, and they are alot more flexible than fixed wing. Both are priceless.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

..Slayer gunships...

Whoa! That's a new one on me. What is it? Anybody want to tell an old geezer?

BTW, Steve, I found the rest of your post interesting. If you ever find the time to put your notes together in some kind of PDF format, I bet you'd have some eager readers here.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

I am really looking forward to how airpower is going to be represented in the game. I know that some firefights terminated simply because the enemy heard air come on station.

MAJ Mayberry spoke about that. Even funnier, on nights when a Slayer wasn't available they sometimes got a tanker or C-130 to fly around for a few hours. The insurgents were so fearful of what the Slayer could do, and not able to tell the difference between a C-130 with pallets of cupcakes and fluffy bunnies on board and the nasty plane that makes the big boom-booms count, that they would lay low all the same. Even if they eventually caught on to what the US was doing, they never would know if it was a tanker or the Slayer with all eyes on the ground looking for a target. Sometimes the insurgents are quite sensible about their safety

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Slayer is a specific flavor of gunship. I forget how it all goes, but think of it like you would a Spectre gunship. Slightly different weapons, but same thing from an employment standpoint. There are some great websites out there that detail the differences, which I should brush up on soon!!

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Is it still based on the C-130 or are they using a different airframe now?

Michael

[Mace]

I think the Slayer is more a nickname given by the troops for the officially designated AC-130U Spooky.

Slayer's probably quite apt. <g>

[Drusus]

If it is the AC-130U then it is equipped with all kinds of sensors and among other weapons, a 105mm cannon. I can understand why you don't want to go out in the open when there is somebody watching you from the sky with IR sensors and with the ability to shoot 105mm shells if you are seen. There was a time when night was when the insurgents wanted to fight. Now it is day which is better for the insurgents.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by LtCol West:

The 101st had an ugly incident during OIF 1 with a bunch of Apaches getting shot up. I do not know the specifics, but helos are very vulnerable, no doubt.

But a pair of cobras flying low were an awesome asset, and they are alot more flexible than fixed wing. Both are priceless.

Yeah, the 101st launched a deep strike near the Karbala Gap to support the 3rd ID's movement on Baghdad. Due to a combination of overconfident planning, poor route selection and the Iraqis getting smarter, every single helicopter (I think total was 28-30) got hit with small arms, RPGs or AAA. One was shot down and it's crew captured.

The US quickly learned from it's mistakes, though, and another aviation regiment flew a similar mission a short time later and fared much better.

If anybody wants, I can provide a more detailed run down of the failed 101st deep strike.

[Peter Cairns]

However given that the UK lost a C-130 to ground fire in Iraq, depending on what passive IR guided or AAA the syrians have you might not be able to call on something that big and low at those altitudes during the period covered by CM:SF.

Peter.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LtCol West:

The 101st had an ugly incident during OIF 1 with a bunch of Apaches getting shot up. I do not know the specifics, but helos are very vulnerable, no doubt.

But a pair of cobras flying low were an awesome asset, and they are alot more flexible than fixed wing. Both are priceless.

Yeah, the 101st launched a deep strike near the Karbala Gap to support the 3rd ID's movement on Baghdad. Due to a combination of overconfident planning, poor route selection and the Iraqis getting smarter, every single helicopter (I think total was 28-30) got hit with small arms, RPGs or AAA. One was shot down and it's crew captured.</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mace:

I think the Slayer is more a nickname given by the troops for the officially designated AC-130U Spooky.

I don't believe the name 'Spooky' has been applied to the AC-130. It was applied to the AC-47 armed with miniguns and used in Viet Nam. I think the AC-130s have always been called Spectre...at least officially. What they were called informally—especially by the enemy—may be another matter entirely.

Michael