First Scenario Bone

[Battlefront.com]

The game was played in RealTime Mode. WeGo hasn't been implemented yet (very soon though!).

Yes, the CO and XO are in different "units". That's SOP if I am not mistaken. That way if one gets hammered the other one is still able to exert effective and uninterrupted control. The thing that is always the most striking, to me, about the Soviet sponsored command system is its lack of redundancy. Rudel's notes on equipment underscore that. It's hard to have a non-thinking, no questions asked totalitarian system if all your officers are taught to think on their own and as part of a group. Coups become a much more difficult to suppress

As for who can call in support... for the US forces, anybody can. You can even have a unit without a radio or digital link make a call. It won't likely go anywhere, or quickly, but there is still a chance of it working. For example, a Squad in voice contact (i.e. shouting) can spot for a Platoon HQ, which then relays the request via radio to Company HQ. That sort of thing. For the Syrians, extremely restrictive thanks to their lack of equipment and doctrinal restrictions.

Runners were part of the original design, but the AI headaches are too numerous to mention.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

Cant wait to take that M1A2 for a spin. Sounds like the animations are done just right. Can tanks in game throw track in soft sand while turning sharply?

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ParaBellum:

[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That's when I remembered that Charles has some test code still in place. You know, for easily seeing buildings collapse. So yup, I watch the third floor fall on the second, then collapse the first floor and wind up with a huge dust cloud. All from one shot.

Now this sounds interesting. </font>

[M1A1TC]

Video of an Abrams firing main gun at a building

[c3k]

Hmmm,

What kind of ammo was that Abrams using?

Thanks,

Ken

Edited for this clarification: This question refers to the scenario blog posted by Battlefront.com, not the video supplied M1A1TankCommander. Apparently, M1A1TankCommander and I cross-posted.

Ken

[ September 06, 2006, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

[M1A1TC]

It would have to be a HEAT round. Notice that the shot came from the wingman's tank, while this one scans for targets

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Runners were part of the original design, but the AI headaches are too numerous to mention.

That's a shame. That would have been interesting, especially for WW2.

[MikeyD]

I just finished reading part three of the AAR.

Ouch!

Poor Steve. So much for the Blue team turkey shoot, and with a half functional AI too! I was surprised you managed to lose TWO Strykers in the process, apparently to RPGs. I guess the Slat cage works only if the round hits the cage.

Still too early in the process for (be still my heart) game screenshots?

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

I'm pretty sure it fired correctly modeled HEAT ammo. Would have to double check with Charles to see what the current state is of ammo, but I'm pretty sure when he adds a vehicle he does the ammo at the same time.

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

Thanks for the response. Your reference to the building collapsing seemed to imply that Charles had it coded to a low level of damage tolerance. That is how I interpreted your blog entry.

My question was due to my preconceived notions of how strong a building must be to be 3 stories tall (using typical Middle Eastern cinderblock, concrete, and masonry construction), and my understanding of the level of explosive power in the 120mm HEAT round.

Referencing the video clip that M1A1TankCommander has provided a link to, about 3 or 4 postings above, shows how little structural damage resulted from that impact. M1A1TankCommander also states that the round in his video link must've been a HEAT round.

To sum, I am very doubtful about the abilities of M1 Abrams - of any suffix - to destroy most buildings.

Running down the types of rounds:

Penetrating rods will leave a small hole through any building. Fire a few thousand, and it may collapse.

HEAT makes a boom, but it doesn't seem to really impact the outer walls. (Now, it MAY obliterate the interior. I don't know.) Check the link above.

The new cannister would be worthless. (From a structural damage viewpoint.)

What else is out there?

Thanks,

Ken

[rudel.dietrich]

HEAT does a number on buildings.

It would do little damge to the structure however.

It would strike the building and burn a hole in the outer wall.

It would then vent its explosive content and all hell would break loose.

You would see a small flash and a puff of smoke and then a neat hole. But upon entering the bulding it would look like a artillery shell had went off.

ATGMS would do the same thing but on a smaller scale.

I remember in Afghanistan we fired a Milan at a fort like complex. Punched a 90mm or so hole in the outer mud wall.

Inside it was a V of destruction out away from the hole.

Finally about 12 meters away from the wall that was struck was the back wall.

About a 5 meter section of it had been blown out and for about 20 meters you could see deep pockmarks where shrapnel had struck it.

[ September 07, 2006, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: rudel.dietrich ]

[c3k]

rudel.dietrich,

Thanks. That's what I would hope happens. I have not been able to get inside a structure which has been hit by a HEAT round from the Abrams. I have had to judge the level of destruction from viewing the outside of the buildings.

Regards,

Ken

[flamingknives]

There's the US army field manual on the use of weapons in an urban setting on globalsecurity.org. Shaped-charge based weapons are not favourably viewed for effective engagement of buildings, although the Abrams 120mm is probably more effective than most.

web page

If you want to play scrag-the-building, you really want HESH (HEP for the colonials )

[Other Means]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

There's the US army field manual on the use of weapons in an urban setting on globalsecurity.org. Shaped-charge based weapons are not favourably viewed for effective engagement of buildings, although the Abrams 120mm is probably more effective than most.

web page

If you want to play scrag-the-building, you really want HESH (HEP for the colonials )

Is there a thermobaric round in development for the Abrams? It would seem ideal for urban warfare. I bet a 120mm one could bring down a fair sized cinderblock building.

[Battlefront.com]

Note this is why the Stryker Rifle Company has the M1128 MGS. The 105mm gun has HEP as its primary ammo. So it looks like if you want to be the Big Bad Wolf in CM:SF, take a few MGS into battle with you

Steve

[MikeyD]

Remember, most 'dedicated' HEAT has a rather small amount of explosive closely molded to the HEAT cone with Job One being to collapse that cone into a jet. The 120mm dual purpose round has a much higher HE content behind the cone than is needed simply to produce the HEAT jet. its more like a HE round that has a shaped charge nose.

Collapsing a building mostly invloves knocking out the supports. A big HE round could blow all four walls out of a building but it might STILL remain standing! Knock out one or more of the corner posts, though, and it'll collapse like a house of cards. I can see how squash head would be more effective than HEAT doing that job. Hey, will buildings have specific 'zone' damage (support girders versus sheet rock walls) or will it just be accumulated damage points that causes the building to eventually collapse?

[Battlefront.com]

There are damage zones in the sense that you can damage a particular wall on a particular floor. But no, there is no simulation of specific structural supports.

Steve