Firepower

[LongLeftFlank]

Originally posted by Nemesis Lead:

As far as firepower---it is harder to kill people than one would think. I have read that in historical AARs, commanders on average assume that they hit twice the number of enemy that they actually hit.

Since there's a fair number of active service folks on here, are there any published stats on infantry actions in different environments (e.g. MOUT, jungle) that discuss numbers of casualties incurred in the first 30 seconds of a firefight?

While the % of total would depend of course on how the fight subsequently evolved, common sense would seem to dictate that the first shots are the most dangerous ones.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:

[snips]

Since there's a fair number of active service folks on here, are there any published stats on infantry actions in different environments (e.g. MOUT, jungle) that discuss numbers of casualties incurred in the first 30 seconds of a firefight?

While the % of total would depend of course on how the fight subsequently evolved, common sense would seem to dictate that the first shots are the most dangerous ones.

If only such stats were easily available. I've never found anything like that, but there are a couple of snippets that tend to confirm your "common sense" hypothesis.

First, it is a well-known result that most arty casusatlies are caused by the initial rounds. There seems no good reason why a similar effect should not apply to aimed fire.

Second, there is the matter of German LMG rates of fire; a piece in an old IDR Special on this topic makes it clear that high ROF was a deliberate decision to exploti fleeting target exposes to the maximum, and PRO document WO 291/474, "Rate of fire of the LMG", reports an OR study whiuch included an assessment of how quickly troops could get under cover on hearing fire being opened (we are taliking about fractions of seconds here), and concluded that a ROF of 1000 rpm gave a 20% advantage in expected hits over a 500 rpm gun.

Third, there is the bit in Ewell and Hunt's "Sharpening the Combat Edge" (webbily available at http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietnam/Sharpen/ ) on "the fifteen-second war", this being the time the authors thought the result of a surprise contact was decided in.

So, no really useful data, but a few straws in the wind suggesting you're right.

All the best,

John.

[vincere]

John D Salt

Firefights decided within 15 seconds is an interesting take idea, thanks for the link.

[mav1]

The combat between infantry is not decisive enough at combat ranges between 50-100m. This results in too many close up hand to hand combat. Even at the american civil war there was very little hand to hand combat, whatever the myths say.

[mav1]

Out of interest, where panzerfaust's as inacurrate as in combat missions, they never seem to hit the target. As well molotov cocktail's never seem to hit the target even at close range.

Did the american's supply bazookas to the soviet union? Did the soviet's use them? If not why not?

Was the soviet infantry ill equipped with close range anti tank weapons? As only the tank hunter team have rpg's in combat mission.

I would be greatfull for info

[mav1]

Will there be more blood and guts, rather than a casulty laying on his back when hit.

[flamingknives]

Seriously, do a search. Top right of your screen, underneath the "New Topic" and "Post Reply" buttons

[mav1]

Oh yes, I have just noticed the search button.

[Imperial Grunt]

Speaking of firepower...

Get Some!

[Imperial Grunt]

Well, that did not work...so lets try again.

[cassh]

LtCol West - ah the perfect platforms for fighting a counter-insurgency action! Get... Something... not quite sure what yet?

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by cassh:

LtCol West - ah the perfect platforms for fighting a counter-insurgency action! Get... Something... not quite sure what yet?

Actually these are just examples of US firepower. And CM:SF is not a game about counter-insurgengy. But even if it was, all of these systems have their place in counter-insurgency operations.

Artillery is used most often in a counter-battery role. Insurgents fire some 122mm rockets at a base, 3 155mm rounds fire back in minutes at the exact point of origin, provided that the counter-battery radar picked up the rockets and the rockets were not fired from the middle of a village, etc.. Counterbattery is a judgement call, but if you were ever on a base that got mortared or rocketed, you would want to shoot back too, rather than just let insurgents walk mortar rounds back and forth across your chow hall, billeting areas, and motor pool.

Jets have played a large role as well, especially when units find insurgent strongholds. Not just for precision guided munitions delivered on target, but for rapid response, presence, aerial recon, ELINT, etc...

"Get Some!" is the unofficial motto of 3rd battalion, 5th Marines and a popular Marine Corps phrase.

[Peter Cairns]

I thought the last F-14's left front line service in November.

Peter.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I thought the last F-14's left front line service in November.

Peter.

Not sure. I know that the Navy is phasing them out. But they look cool!

[cassh]

LtCol West - I know what "Get Some" is and means, and it was its very use that made me poke fun.

My point was to underscore the US military's obsession with firepower - a Clausewitzian view pervades all thinking when it comes to the maximum use of force, yet fails to heed his tenant regarding war being a three-way balancing act between what he called the paradoxical trinity (violence, coup d'oeil, politics). In my view the weapons shown serve little justice to either coup d'oeil or politics.

Apologies for preachy post but I personally think that if you want to show a powerful weapon it should be this:-

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by mav1:

Did the american's supply bazookas to the soviet union? Did the soviet's use them? If not why not?

Was the soviet infantry ill equipped with close range anti tank weapons? As only the tank hunter team have rpg's in combat mission.

Yes.

Yes. they found them clumsy and ineffective, so stopped using them quite quickly.

Soviet anti-tank tactics revolved around a multiplicity of counter-threats - from RPG's (which were NOT rocket propelled grenades!) to anti-tank rifles, to towed and SP anti-tank guns.

And not forgetting mines and Sturmoviks!

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by cassh:

LtCol West - I know what "Get Some" is and means, and it was its very use that made me poke fun.

My point was to underscore the US military's obsession with firepower - a Clausewitzian view pervades all thinking when it comes to the maximum use of force, yet fails to heed his tenant regarding war being a three-way balancing act between what he called the paradoxical trinity (violence, coup d'oeil, politics). In my view the weapons shown serve little justice to either coup d'oeil or politics.

Apologies for preachy post but I personally think that if you want to show a powerful weapon it should be this:-

Well, I thought this thread was about firepower, in its kinetic forms. But then hurling brains at the enemy might be very effective as well, because that would totally freak me out if I was back in Iraq and the insurgents attacked us with brains splattering all over the place.

[Nidan1]

Here is the replacement for the Tomcat, the FA-18 Super Hornet.

[cassh]

LtCol West -

would totally freak me out if I was back in Iraq and the insurgents attacked us with brains splattering all over the place

That's an offal idea.

[Peter Cairns]

cassh,

Aren't there laws against Jokes like that....

Peter.

[cassh]

Yes we do need a 'Pun Law'. Sorry, couldn't resist the dark side.

[mav1]

While playing the game I have noticed a few things.

Infantry hardly get any casulties or none while fighting in a still postion even in a very long fire fight of say 20 turn's or more at between 50 and 200 metres. Only while there are moving or routing do they suffer a lot of casulties. Is this the case in real warfare?

I had a scenaio where an enemy machine gunner in a trench managed to keep on firing while been attacked by 3 machineguns and 3 mortars. Is this realistic?

A morter crew managed to inflict 15 casulties in 2 seconds on my troops while been outnumber by three units and suffering no casulties themselves. Is this realistic?

The mortars in the game hardly inflict any casulties on troops even when getting a direct hit.

Machinegun crew are much harder to kill then other troops. There should be no difference.

Machinegun and mortar crew still carry there equipment while routed. If your routing you would drop your heavy machinegun and morter and make a run for it. It's funny watching machinegun and mortar crew routing, running away very slowly.

Open ground should mean open ground. In real life you get areas of ground which offer no protection.

This should be represented in the game.

Russian self propelled tank's and Is-2's try to hide when they spot German Tanks (this is also the case for early war soviet tanks and Turan II's.

[MikeyD]

Let's not forget CMx1 is abstract-abstracted-abstracted!

Infantry in a still position means they've taken the opportunity to find proper cover - abstracted cover. We wouldn't assume they'd just be standing the the middle of a room waiting to be shot, would we? I understand being on a city street in CMx1 gives almost as much protection as being in scattered trees - all those abstracted fire plugs and granite front steps I guess. Abstracted means the designer picks a percentage of how likely X or Y will happen to a sqaud of men under a given circumstance. We get to extrapolate-out the imagined granite steps or the firing position behind the fire plug from the results.

CMx2 promises 1:1 representation and a whole suite of placeable objects to hide behind, but I've got to imagine its stilll going to be highly abstracted. We're probably still going to see that grenade going off directly under the figure with no effect, or two opponents nose-to-nose blasting away unscathed. What we don't see on-screen are the assumptions, probabilities and percentages controlling the game engine.

[Ellros]

Originally posted by oren_m:

I dont know how you call it in english, but it was a hollow charge round, you know, with the copper liner.

HEAT round. Pretty much the modern equivalent of the ww2 HE round.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by mav1:

Open ground should mean open ground. In real life you get areas of ground which offer no protection.

This should be represented in the game.

Where do you live, on a billiard table? Most of the world is neither perfectly flat nor totally uncluttered. The ground rises and falls, and for a man lying down, even an irregularity of a few inches reduces the probability of being hit. Add in the occasional stump or moderate-sized boulder and you begin to have some modest degree of cover. Not great, but not negligible either. If on top of that there is tall grass that makes it hard to see a lying or crouching man, hitting him with aimed fire becomes noticably problematical.

Michael