250m vs. 2.5 km range of death to AFV's in CMx2 (help)

[aka_tom_w]

OK

I am one of those guys that "doesn't get" modern combat.

Sorry my gaming experience is almost exclusively WWII.

I just don't understand how to play or plan for infantry with TOW and anti tank missiles that have REALLY long ranges.

So the point is that in CMx1 if you could stand your armour off say 200-250m the 'shreck's 'zooks 'fausts (whatever) could not really reach you.

Maybe I JUST don't see this from the most appropriate perspective but it looks like Syria as a TON of infrantry based anti-armour assets and technology and I could be wrong but those things look like they can take out Abrams tanks with no problem.

I am not sure of the range but 1-2km does not sound unreasonable. If I am wrong about this someone please tell me.

I don't understand AT ALL how we can have a CM like game (somewhat like the CMx1 series) with leathal ranges for infantry based anti-tanks weapons leathal out to 1-2 km?

Am I wrong?

Please tell me how to play this game which appears to be Stryker based when the Syrians on defense (with HOME field advantage by the way Lets see how they model that!) will have plenty of infantry based anti tanks missiles with LONG ranges???

I don't get it?

Thanks

-tom w

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I am not sure of the range but 1-2km does not sound unreasonable. If I am wrong about this someone please tell me.

Hi Tom!

Im sure you are going to get a bunch of good answers to this but firstly a quick question...is the problem you are posing really all that different from maneuvering Shermans in an environment where the enemy may have had a couple of Flak 88 waiting for you?

To compare the modern weapons you mention with WW2 equivalents I think you would be much better off thinking of an RPG as a Panzerfaust and an 88 Flak as an ATGM.

Dan

[Cpl Steiner]

Tank v Tank battles will be pretty deadly, but then they are pretty deadly in CMx1. The number of first shot kills I've witnessed in CMx1 at up to 1000m against a moving target beggers belief.

The infantry will have long range anti-tank weapons such as TOW, but they are quite slow, meaning that a hull down vehicle should be able to reverse out of sight before the missile arrives. In addition, the wires are easily snagged on stuff like trees and telephone wires, so a fair amount of them will probably go off course.

The terrain (dense urban) should also give vehicles plenty of cover.

[ October 10, 2005, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[Ivan Drago]

Tom,

You have to expand your thinking beyong the rather simplistic weapons of WW2.

Although I'm no military man, I have read a good deal of modern doctrine/AARs, and the best way to describe modern armored tactics in CMx1 terms is with the 'Shoot and Scoot' command.

IMO, in CMx1, the shoot and scoot has little effect (especially playing as the Soviets, with their poor optical sights), but in modern war it's a whole 'nother story.

It has been this way for a while- I've read an excellent account of the battle for Hue city (don't remember the title now), and the American armor employed the 'shoot and scoot' almost exclusively in this dangerous urban setting.

Basically, the vehicle drives out at a fast speed from behind cover, fires its weaponry at a pre-designated target (described to it in detail by its infantry cover), and reverses at maximum speed back into cover. That's pretty much the only way to avoid having your million-dollar gadgets blown away or immobilized by a $25 RPG.

Same with non-urban environments, really. The defending ATGM teams have the advantage of being hidden in cover, usually with good fields of fire - the best way to avoid them is of course to not expose your vehicles as much as possible. Dash from cover to cover, flush out enemy positions with forward advancing infantry, and then have the armor dash out of cover to land a shot or two and back to safety.

[Scott B]

In some ways it's not as different as you think. You light off ATGMs at American tanks at max range and you're likely to find return fire devastating. Your best bet is still to fire from ambush as the Syrians.

Think of it like this: when you're setting up an ambush in CM, do you fire as soon as your longest ranged weapon has a decent shot?

Scott

[gibsonm]

Tom,

One of the big things will be use of the terrain.

I think in the announcement they spoke about large amounts of "rugged" terrain which suggests that long range LOS for both sides will be limited so you probably wont have CMBB type "open steppe" engagement areas.

So you have to use combined arms teams to achieve victory now that may mean dismounted infantry advancing slowly in front of the armour or perhaps using smoke to obscure a position so you can close to a point where you can debus your infantry.

I think M1 kills on T-72 at 3,500m or AT-11 hits on M1 at 5,000m will be very rare.

But then again this is based on the announcement, hopefully things will become clearer with the demo and the article which is due earlier.

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks to all.

I just don't understand the whole "range" thing.

Meaning that ranges for leathal kills from Anti tank missiles are about 10 times larger (give or take) then what I am used to in WWII.

Dan, thanks

is the problem you are posing really all that different from maneuvering Shermans in an environment where the enemy may have had a couple of Flak 88 waiting for you?

its just that for me the 88mm flak is a "known" quanity I understand the 88mm and its accuracy and leathality.

I have NO idea about how accurate the anti tank missile is or how long its range? But I am guessing they are VERY accurate and can be targeted out to 1-2 kms.

I guess my point is that for me this is REALLY a whole new ballgame. I hope there is some form of scenario balance so that the underdog Syrian's actually have a chance to win in some scenarios.

Thanks for the replies!

-tom w

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

OK

I am one of those guys that "doesn't get" modern combat.

Sorry my gaming experience is almost exclusively WWII.

I just don't understand how to play or plan for infantry with TOW and anti tank missiles that have REALLY long ranges.

(snip)

-tom w

Well, think about the basics: battle is about manouver, firepower and communication/command/control/intel (C3I). You win these modern scenarios by a variety of "smart thinking" techniques, e.g. getting inside the other guy's decision loop, marginalizing his technical advantages and/or closing to the point where his firepower endangers him as much as it does you. Those are just some examples. Modern combat really requires you to put some thought into battlefield analysis and logistics, as well as tactics and weapons system details. And the ability of some opponents to exert asymmetric combat values against you has to be taken into consideration as well.

To "get" modern combat one will have to put a lot more thought into the process than simply sallying forth past the start line.

Fortunately, modern combat leaders have a lot more resources to choose from when they have to sort out which does what to whom. I'm very curious to see what BFC does to replicate the C3I issues in the upcoming game, since simply thinking "WW2 on steroids at 2500 yds" is not going to cut it.

[aka_tom_w]

I'm very curious to see what BFC does to replicate the C3I issues in the upcoming game, since simply thinking "WW2 on steroids at 2500 yds" is not going to cut it.

OK!

Exactly

That is sort of what I was thinking.

The range and the size of the map almost need to be about 10 times bigger then WWII scenarios. Except they say the emphasis is on urban terrain so lets see what the demo scenarios look like.

Thanks

-tom w

[Ivan Drago]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

The range and the size of the map almost need to be about 10 times bigger then WWII scenarios. Except they say the emphasis is on urban terrain so lets see what the demo scenarios look like.

Actually, Steve has stated that according to Charles, map sizes should be around 2km x 2km.

City maps might be even smaller.

Just because it's technically POSSIBLE to take out a tank at 3km, doesn't mean it happens very often or would be feasible or easy to do.

[hellfish]

Like KwazyDog said - the best analogy to an ATGM is an anti-tank gun. However, I'd argue that AT guns are more dangerous that most ATGMs. I saw this because AT guns fire high velocity rounds - it's usually only a matter of 1-3 seconds before the round impacts. Plus, they reload really fast.

ATGMs, on the other hand, are almost always guided to the target by a human being. In the Yom Kippur War, the Israelis learned that when an ATGM is fired at you, you'll see the smoke plume from the firing, you might even see the round in flight. All the crews had to do was see that plume and put down suppressive fire on it. This was usually enough to panic the missile controlman who would lose control of the missile and have it crash harmlessly into the ground. Often, there are minimum ranges for the ATGMs too - anywhere from 25 to 250m in some cases. Charging an ATGM down is much safer than charging an AT gun. Plus, reloading an ATGM can take upwards of 30 seconds.

Hopefully, BFC will model the time in flight and automatic reaction to ATGM fire accurately.

On top of that, modern tanks now have active and passive defense systems. Meaning even if the missile flies straight and true, there is still the possibility that they won't kill their target. Tanks and other modern fighting vehicles have things like laser dazzlers that screw up laser rangefinders and laser guided missiles. There is explosive reactive armor that negates a missile's warhead. There are even anti-missile systems that detect and shoot down incoming missiles.

Only the very latest ATGMs are fire and forget. The Javelin, for example, leaves almost no plume from firing, keeping the gunner hidden, and even then the missile is autonomous - it will track it's target independently and can attack the top armor of the vehicle it's targeting, meaning most active and passive defense systems can't protect against it. Most Soviet/Russian, Chinese and other systems aren't quite so sophisticated.

You'll still have to worry about things like panzerfausts and bazookas. The RPG-7, M136 AT4, SMAW, and Carl Gustave are similar to what we already have in the current CM series - only the warheads are a little more potent and the range is often just a little bit longer.

When you get CM:SF, they lessons you learned in CMBO, CMBB and CMAK will still serve you well. Avoid travelling in the open. Try to keep some sort of cover or concealment between you and the enemy (or where you think the enemy is). If you do encounter long range ATGM fire, react to it the same as if you'd just encountered an 88mm AT gun. You'll have the benefit of time and suppressive fire to counter that ATGM.

I often hear about how people are worried about super long ranged warfare. All you need to do is look at pictures of Iraq, Kuwait or (I suppose) Syria. Except in the wide open, totally empty desert, you'd be lucky to see more than 1000m in any direction with an unobstructed LOS. Hell, just drive around your neighborhood - how far can you see at any given time? Chances are your LOS will be limited to about 200m or less!

All in all, don't worry too much about long range lethality. Terrain and cover are your friends.

[gunnergoz]

Do you see youself as a tank company commander worried about dug-in enemy infantry armed with modern ATGM's in an open setting? I'd be if I wasn't equipped with UAV's and some artillery armed with ICM's. Then too, I could always go in at night and have my attached infantry (you do have attached infantry platoon(s) right?) go in ahead and sniff out the bad guys before my tanks even break cover.

My point is, there are options out there that can re-balance the battlefield fairly well -- the trick is to out-option the opponent.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

but the Strykers that carry the infrantry over those 1-2km are ALSO vulnerable to the ATGMs.

So this does this mean my inf advance over 1km without AFV's to make contact with the dug in inf with the ATGM?

I am still trying to figure out how this whole thing will play out, sounds more and more like if the Syrians know what they are doing that it won't in fact be a "turkey shoot" in any way.

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Scott B:

In some ways it's not as different as you think. You light off ATGMs at American tanks at max range and you're likely to find return fire devastating. Your best bet is still to fire from ambush as the Syrians.

Think of it like this: when you're setting up an ambush in CM, do you fire as soon as your longest ranged weapon has a decent shot?

Scott

Exactly; I posted this in another thread - just because you have weapons that can fire out to 'x' metres, it doesn't mean you necessarily use them. Hard for an American to call down 155 fire or rockets if you're close enough to "grab him by the belt buckle" as the NVA general at Ia Drang said.

The Syrians would do well to heed George Pattons' admonition of "hold on to him by the nose and kick him in the ass" rather than try and throw punches from across the room.

[gunnergoz]

So what it comes down to is that you have to use what you have smartly, so to speak...with a modicum of sneakiness while you're at it.

A particularly scary scenario for the US forces would be one where the Syrians had a combined arms force equipped with a lot of Strela type SAM's (backed up by dumb RPG's used in the anti-helo role) hidden in a fair sized town or city...especially if the civilian population was around to get in the way. The Syrians could negate the US's air advantage for a while and when the US troops closed, the battle would be a lot more equal, assuming the Syrians' C3I and troop discipline/cohesion held up.

As an American TF commander facing such a scenario, I'd be thinking long and hard about my options before I set foot in the place...

[hellfish]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

OK

but the Strykers that carry the infrantry over those 1-2km are ALSO vulnerable to the ATGMs.

So this does this mean my inf advance over 1km without AFV's to make contact with the dug in inf with the ATGM?

I am still trying to figure out how this whole thing will play out, sounds more and more like if the Syrians know what they are doing that it won't in fact be a "turkey shoot" in any way.

-tom w

Very right - with proper tactics the Syrians have a serious chance of ruining your day.

Remember - Strykers are primarily designed to get you to the fight, not fight it for you. So yes, if I was to encounter dug in infantry with ATGM support, I'd probably send my dismounts to deal with it if I had no other recourse. If I had artillery, I'd probably fire that on the target. If I had UAVs, I'd use them to scout a route for my infantry to hopefully avoid a frontal assault on the enemy position. Either way, I wouldn't go charging in with the Strykers (try gaming this tactic with a panzergrenadier company against an American infantry platoon dug in with a 76mm AT gun at 1000m and the results will likely be the same).

[aka_tom_w]

cleary artillary, CAS and UAV's may tip the balance for the Yanks, but supposing arty et. al. is not always available I can easily see a balanced scenario.

yes?

-tom w

[Grapeshot]

I think the real question here is a little hidden. I like modern combat but the problem simulating it is the leathality of the equipment. What I mean is for the most part in modern combat, if you can see it, is dead. Tanks- there are enough (man-carrying) equipment out now to knockout the heaviest of tanks at great range. You can even knockout the M1 with more crude atgs like an RPG in some circumstances at much greater ranges than a zook or shreck. The firepower available to a Nato infantry company now is so much greater than during WWII (not only the firepower the amount of time in which it can be applied is reduced greatly ie art.). Even in straight infantry matchups, if you can see the enemy you can put an huge amount of firepower onto the target. Lets not even get into air as everyone knows the huge diffence in the setting.

I really like the modern setting, but how do you keep it from being a "I see you now your dead" type of game.

P.S. forgive the typos a few too many budweisers watching MNF/Yanks vs Angels

[gunnergoz]

Yep, it's not what you have, it's how you use it (or how the other guy denies you the use of it and vice versa.)

I could see a real thinking man's game (you know what I mean, Kitty )coming out of this. I'm jazzed!

[gunnergoz]

Grapeshot-

You have to sort of ken out what the real Syrians would do to counter such an incursion and then set up campaigns/scenarios to depict that and the US counter-moves.

I doubt that the Syrians would line up nice and dumb in the desert like Saddam did in DWI. And I'm not sure that the US would get away with a "dash to Baghdad" type stroke again, if the Syrians were at all clever about it.

I'd expect some surprises from both sides. That should make this game real fun if BFC gets their crystal ball warmed up right.

[JasonC]

The Israelis lost 800 to 1000 tanks to Saggers in the 1973 war. The Sagger isn't a particularly good ATGM, and the Egyptian crews using them weren't particularly good, either. Kills occurred at ranges from 800m to 2-3 km. The Israelis were slow to adapt to them and their initial tank-heavy tactics were a complete failure against Sagger fronts. The relation is quite close to that experienced in WW II by tank heavy forces charging gun fronts.

And the solution was the same, combined arms. No the tanker can't always see the shot and get out of the way, that is a fantasy. No, they can't always put their own fire on the dust plume and suppress the shooter before the missile reaches its target - which wouldn't work against modern missiles anyway (less needed from the operator, faster, lower firing signature, etc). The average Egyptian Sagger team got off 20 shots successfully, hardly a sign it is easy to take out any that fires.

But it is hard for exposed personnel to launch missiles under artillery fire. It is hard to see 3 km through the dust kicked up by a barrage. The WW II solution to gun fronts was tank-artillery cooperation and the solution to ATGMs is the same. Without combined arms, tanks just fail against a modern ATGM equip force. Without combined arms, gun fronts stopped pure tank forces in WW II, as well. Instead you blanket a position with indirect arty and the tanks close, picking off bits at the edge, only after AT assets have been suppressed and their visibility smothered. The rest is many-on-few.

(Incidentally, we've faced next to nothing in the way of ATGMs in Iraq. Theirs were mostly mounted on vehicles which is was easy to take out first, as they lacked stealth and we had the air, night vision, etc. We used them ourselves against Iraqi armor in both active phase wars, I and II. And against fixed positions since).

[gunnergoz]

IED's and/or mines can be great equalizers as we are seeing right now. I would think that the game would have to account for these in some way to be realistic. One cannot simply exclude them due to (and I think Steve would put it this way) "lack of time in the scenario to account for clearing/breaching actions." I'd want to see them employed and employable by scenario designers.

[juan_gigante]

I heard they (IEDs and mines) would be in, and be a big factor.

Tom, the lesson you are learning is one that all those who whine about the "invincible M1 and the 4km kills and unlimited NATO air/arty" should learn. It can be a balanced fight, if the scenario designer takes the time to make it so. Playing as the US in a modern war does not guarantee victory. And once again, Tom, I'd like to thank you for your pleasant attitude. Though you have stated some trepidation towards CM:SF, you do so with respect, dignity, and an open mind that (seems, at least) to be accepting the new setting and game. I wish there were more posters like you.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Grapeshot:

I think the real question here is a little hidden. I like modern combat but the problem simulating it is the leathality of the equipment. What I mean is for the most part in modern combat, if you can see it, is dead.

snip

I really like the modern setting, but how do you keep it from being a "I see you now your dead" type of game.

OK!

This was the essense of my first post and question.

So far the only thing that makes sense is to use lots of arty (I sure hope the Syrian's have some too )and smoke and dust to obsure the advance.

I am trying my best to figure out how these battles could be a fair fight. But the US with all the UAV',s Helo's, CAS, and arty AND fancy pants counter battery arty, (NEVER mind the stand off firpower of the M1A1) seem to me to be still quite invincible leading me to wonder just how one sided these battle's will be.

If balance in the scenario's is to come from IED's and guerilla tactics including the possibility of suicide missions that might sort of become somewhat distastful.

I can't wait to hear the cries of "gamey" tactics on the part of Syrian player, because "gamey" maybe be the only option for the underdog, and by gamey I mean use of IED's and suicide bombers and car bombs and truck bombs.

I am trying to keep an open mind. The Demo should tell us a lot.

Thank-you JasonC for your very interesting and informative reply!

-tom w

[Sergei]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

And once again, Tom, I'd like to thank you for your pleasant attitude. Though you have stated some trepidation towards CM:SF, you do so with respect, dignity, and an open mind that (seems, at least) to be accepting the new setting and game. I wish there were more posters like you.

Please, get a room. :mad: