MOUT and Urban Warfare is unplayable

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

Changes of getting hit is very low in reality, but it is there. Firing hundreds of rounds to single house (or story) with 9-12 dummies... Boy i would like to see what kind mess it would be after that and how many dummies have got hit.

I think it's also worthwhile to consider that a standing dummy doesn't necessarily represent a human seeking cover very well - if he's not interested in returning fire or observing (ie, he's pinned), he's going to be balled up in a corner, probably not next to an exterior wall.

There are obviously also extra cover opportunities in a typical building - furniture, areas lower than ground level, etc.

Now, once a person is interested in peeking out a window, or engaging targets outside of the building, his exposure would most certainly multiply. He's now standing next to an exterior wall in a position where enemy shooters would most likely concentrate their fire, and he's even exposing parts of his body to zero cover.

[ January 06, 2008, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Adam1:

Doesn't much matter what it will stop if it crumbles into a pile of dust after enough firepower is applied.

Adam, I think that this is technically correct, but does it ever actually happen? I mean, are there real-life examples that you know of where US infantry have reduced Iraqi structures to dust with small arms fire alone, even a single section of a building?

The amount of time required, and the sheer amount of ammo required would seem to be absolutely enormous, levels that would never allow such a thing to happen in a real situation.

I would admit that it's certainly possible, but I just don't know if it would ever apply to real combat or a video game for that matter?

[M1A1TC]

In real life they pull back and drop a bomb on it or use AT-4s

[Dennis50]

Exactly ..end of story. A .223 vs. ak fire fight could go on for hours. If you want to end it then you use heavy stuff.

Gunz

[vincere]

This gets at the heart of the issue. Units under fire have no "bugout" option -- they just go to ground in place and keep taking hits, even when much safer terrain is close by.

I've had my squads in MOUT run the wrong way more often than not; even charging into the building where the withering fire is coming from.

[Hev]

If you actualy watch the action you'll notice your guys generely only get hit when on "spotting" behaviour. This implys that they are sticking thier head up to look around and they get hit!

In most cases when i squad gets pinned they stop taking cassualties for a time while they stay down.

It also seems to me that degridation of cover might also be modled 'cos after a time even pinned squads will take casualties.

For me this is doing a reasonable job of simulating the "cutting edge" of combat, and compared to any other wargame/simulation out there im happy with how the firefights progress.

[Chelco]

Hi Hev,

One thing I also noticed is that sometimes a squad or team is being cut to pieces by an enemy unit that it can't see (judged by icon highlighting). I wonder how much this contributes to the apparent suicidal behavior (running straight into the muzzle of an enemy gun) we sometimes witness.

[Wiggum]

Originally posted by Hev:

If you actualy watch the action you'll notice your guys generely only get hit when on "spotting" behaviour. This implys that they are sticking thier head up to look around and they get hit!

In most cases when i squad gets pinned they stop taking cassualties for a time while they stay down.

It also seems to me that degridation of cover might also be modled 'cos after a time even pinned squads will take casualties.

For me this is doing a reasonable job of simulating the "cutting edge" of combat, and compared to any other wargame/simulation out there im happy with how the firefights progress.

Mhh, thats all relative...

I think a other aspect is that if you dont "see" your enemy inside a stone walled house your fire is very inaccurate. Your shots can keep the enemy away from the windows but your chance to hit him is !very! low with small arms fire. And i dont think Soldiers will wasting so many bullets to perforate a stone walled house. they will use rocket lunchers or heavy weapons (ICV, Tanks ect.). And therefore i think the lethality of small arms is to high against enemys in a house and the cover a human find in the urban terrain isent represent right in CMSF.

[vincere]

One thing I also noticed is that sometimes a squad or team is being cut to pieces by an enemy unit that it can't see (judged by icon highlighting). I wonder how much this contributes to the apparent suicidal behavior (running straight into the muzzle of an enemy gun) we sometimes witness.

Ummm? I think that could have been the case in once instance; but in another I think that my squad was firing back.

Hev

If you actualy watch the action you'll notice your guys generely only get hit when on "spotting" behaviour. This implys that they are sticking thier head up to look around and they get hit!

Thanks Hev, I'll look out for this.

[flamingknives]

Gents, I present you with a link.

Table 7-2 is of particular interest. From there:

5.56mm NATO against 9-inch double brick:

For initial penetration = 70 rounds

For loophole = 120 rounds

From table 7-5:

7.62mm NATO against 9-inch double brick:

For initial penetration = 45 rounds.

[Wiggum]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

Im back from holiday.

Over the holidays I read Staff Sergeant David Bellavia's "House to House". For those unfamiliar with the author, SSG Bellavia was awarded the Silver Star and Bronze Star (and nominated for the DSC and the MoH) for his actions in Fallujah.

In this book he writes accounts of his units actions in Fallujah an other areas in Iraq.

After reading this book, I am totally convinced that my earlier mantra about Stykers, Bradleys, etc being too weak, and firefights being far too deadly are true.

In the initial assault in Fallujah, Bradleys ran over numerous IEDS and not only survived, continued to manouver and fight. Some explosions were so powerful they put the Bradleys in mid air and they still managed to fight with minimal combat damage.

Bradleys and M1A2's took a stupid amount of RPG-7 hits, and while the outside gear got burnt and beaten up, they continued to fight effectively with no crew or squad casualties.

Weapon malfunctions were probably the biggest problem they faced.

Firefights were not fast, lethal, and over in seconds like in CM:SF. They were slow and deliberate. Many insurgents whacked up on drugs just wouldn't die. Platoon level fights lasted for hours due to the amount of cover involved.

Im CM:SF one RPG will eliminate half your squad who has cover in a building, these army guys not only survived numerous RPG's exploding on their covered positions, but IED explosions as well that levelled entire city blocks.

In one firefight they had NO COVER and were hiding behind rocks on top of a building, the firefight lasted for hours. In CMSF they would have been wiped out in seconds. The guys they were fighting wernt slouches either, many of them were highly trained veterins from Chechnya etc. They must have been suffering from the LOS bug.

The reverse is also true. Despite advanced optics, M4's resulted in minimal kills and were pretty ineffective against enemies in covered positions. Most of the infantry level damage was caused by M246 and M240's against exposed insurgent positions.

However it still took about 200 M246 rounds to kill an insurgent STANDING IN THE OPEN wearing U.S. Kevlar body armour at relatively short range.

The real damage was caused by AT4s, Javelines, Tows, 120mm tank main gun rounds, airstrikes, and Bradley HE, which I feel are all quite well modelled in the game at present.

Now to make cm:sf more in line with reality would really throw the balance out of whack, especially with timelimits and the strength of U.S. IFV's and Stykers. But in any case I still think some 'tweaking' needs to be done in 1.06.

Funnily enough however, the gaggle of taffic jams you get into moving your IFVs, Tanks, and APCs through an urban enviroment isn't entirely unrealistic. The marine assault was delayed by hours into Fallujah as their tracks got into huge taffic jams trying to enter the city.

In one firefight, the supporting Bradleys and Tank couldnt effectively engage the enemy because they were stuck in a traffic jam and couldnt manouver around each other while buttoned. The army squad was in danger of being surpressed and eliminated, and one guy named Fitts had to hang off a building, completely exposed to enemy fire, and talk the commanders over the radio how to get out of their traffic jam and support his squad.

If not anything, read the book, it's a real insight to modern MOUT warfare. Many tactics we use in the game they used in Fallujah, such as covering fires on any building that looked dangerous. They were also pretty lucky. Many times when they were caught in danger zones that would have resulted in them being cut to bits, there was no enemy to actually respond.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003595

I wanted to put that here because i think it is very important !

[Secondbrooks]

flamingknives: Funny.

Here's something our army shows about penetration. This is last part of video called "assaultrifle in combat" (traning video):

In order of fresh wood, brick, i quess next one is cinder block (i'm not sure about english name), steel and sandbag. Figures are in centimeter. Bullet is standart ball JVA 0316. Which shouldn't be much different from original soviet 7.62x39. Yugoslavian round is almost 1:1 with JVA 0316 they used in this video.

Brick gets totally shattered from one bullet (well they are not "glued" together). 7.62 NATO as well as 7.62x39 could easily penetrate brick in 45 degree angle in that earlier video i linked (which 5.56 couldn't do)... I don't understand what these globalsecurity figures are. Overall i don't think i understand half of penetration figures presented in english language.

EDIT: Yes. In that globalsecurity link there's two bricks, but still damanding so many shots to penetrate brick seems quite absurd if single bullet can penetrate brick in 45 degree angle. In earlier link provided by me, they didn't mention thickness of it but i would quess that it's standart thickness about 15cm and 6 inches... Not sure thou.

[ January 07, 2008, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[Wiggum]

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

flamingknives: Funny.

Here's something our army shows about penetration. This is last part of video called "assaultrifle in combat" (traning video):

In order of fresh wood, brick, i quess next one is cinder block (i'm not sure about english name), steel and sandbag. Figures are in centimeter. Bullet is standart ball JVA 0316. Which shouldn't be much different from original soviet 7.62x39. Yugoslavian round is almost 1:1 with JVA 0316 they used in this video.

Brick gets totally shattered from one bullet (well they are not "glued" together). 7.62 NATO as well as 7.62x39 could easily penetrate brick in 45 degree angle in that earlier video i linked (which 5.56 couldn't do)... I don't understand what these globalsecurity figures are. Overall i don't think i understand half of penetration figures presented in english language.

EDIT: Yes. In that globalsecurity link there's two bricks, but still damanding so many shots to penetrate brick seems quite absurd if single bullet can penetrate brick in 45 degree angle. In earlier link provided by me, they didn't mention thickness of it but i would quess that it's standart thickness about 15cm and 6 inches... Not sure thou.

It is very important to know from how far they shoot. 25m and 250m are a "HUGE" difference.

[Secondbrooks]

Oh... Well that explains a lot

Now where are my eyeglasses...

[flamingknives]

I don't think that the number two material is brick. It looks like an aerated concrete block.

Bricks, in my experience, are baked clay and pretty solid.

Number 3 would be a cinder block.

I suspect that the key point with a double brick wall is that there is an airgap between the two layers. Therefore a clean strike on the second layer can only be managed once sufficient amounts of the first has been shot away.

[JasonC]

flaming knives -

there is a wealth of realistic info at that link, and much of it contradicts current behaviors seen in CMSF.

Notably, it says infantry HEAT is an ineffective wound producer, and typically can only harm soldiers in the direct line of fire of the shaped charge. Not the whole room. In CMSF, the things are "mini nukes" and wipe out whole squads.

The statement that most modern structures survive continual fire by modern small arms and most types of small HE as well, is also noteworthy.

Another less appreciated point - at very close ranges, penetration actually goes down, because at very high engagement velocities the bullets will simply break up. This is shatter gap for small arms, basically. The same is seen in shots into water - point blank fire by supersonic weapons just spray tiny bullet fragments (harmlessly) into the water after a few feet. "Penetrate" isn't the only issue, in other words. The bullet has to also survive the experience.

Those number of round figures are not for initial penetration, though. They are for making a firing sized hole (8 inch diameter) for the lower figure, and making a mousehole (enough for a man to go through) for the higher.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Those number of round figures are not for initial penetration, though. They are for making a firing sized hole (8 inch diameter) for the lower figure, and making a mousehole (enough for a man to go through) for the higher.

Not so. The justification on the online version is a bit messed up, but I have it on pdf and, for the double brick wall, the smaller number is for initial and the larger for a loophole

A loophole is defined as "a firing aperture not less than 8 inches in diameter in the structure"

Regarding HEAT against structures, Tradoc bulletin No. 3 has this to say reagarding the RPG7:

The RPG7 HEAT grenade is not designed for fragmentation effect, but:

*lethal metal fragments from the warhead and rocket can fly as far as 150m from the point of detonation

*soldiers riding on the top of tanks and APCs canbe hit by round fragments which spray from around the point of impact

*the round can penetrate through foxhole berms and sandbagged and concrete structures and can reach personnel that are otherwise protected from small arms and artillery fire

That's not to say that it will cause widespread hurt, but it is still useful.

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I don't think that the number two material is brick. It looks like an aerated concrete block.

Bricks, in my experience, are baked clay and pretty solid.

Number 3 would be a cinder block.

It's a brick. Baked clay and stuff. I doupt that it's cinder block, but no dictionary will tell me what is cinder block in finnish or what lekaharkko is in english. Block in video ihas not hollow space inside (like i think what cinder block is). They are not solid and heardstructured as brick is.

There also something about 40mm HEAT and HE warheads as well as SMAW's effects in penetration of building wall in earlier link which i provided (in earlier page). Here link to second part of video where those issues are brought up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w22M1DAQ59I&feature=related

JasonC: In that earlier link there were dummies scattered around test building so that penetrating bullets would most likely hit them. Bullets which went thru wallmaterials also could go thru test dummies, wearing protective vests (level 2? and helmet).

[ January 08, 2008, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[flamingknives]

A cinder block is the US term for a building brick made with concrete where the aggregate is burnt coal waste

[Secondbrooks]

Lekaharkko (well actually leca harkko) has been made of clay and cement. Clay has been heaten so that it transforms to small spongy balls which then are hardenned by burning. Cement there works as a glue.

So it's softer material than cinder block, at least i would quess so.

There was awfully lot typos in my previour post! Eeek! there has to be something wrong with these forums.

[JasonC]

flaming knives - the table is poorly laid out and confusing, but you are incorrect.

The paragraph immediately above defines loophole and breachhole, which are used throughout the document for all weapon types.

There are rows for up to 3 entries on the right hand side, but they are not always filled out.

Only the asterisk marked entries are for initial penetration rather than a hole of several inches diameter, minimum.

You can see this also in later items in the same document, where hole sizes ranging from 7 inches to 33 inches are given, specifically, both of HE type weapons and for full rifle caliber MG, and 50 cal HMG ammo.

Making breaches with 5.56mm is dumb anyway. There are vastly better tools for it.

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

Lekaharkko (well actually leca harkko) has been made of clay and cement. Clay has been heaten so that it transforms to small spongy balls which then are hardenned by burning. Cement there works as a glue.

So it's softer material than cinder block, at least i would quess so.

There was awfully lot typos in my previour post! Eeek! there has to be something wrong with these forums.

I very much doubt that Syrians use cinder blocks or Lekaharkko for their building construction

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[civdiv]

I tried to post this several times but was having an issue with a hijacked browser that went to different web page twice after I had posted copious link and pictures, but managed to schwack the thing finally.

Anyways, in regards to some of the earlier posts and the video on cover, here are some thoughts. Talking about the ability for an individual 5.56 or 7.62 round to punch through a given material is irrelevent unless the single round has zero affect. When you are talking about the affects of a PLAUSIBLE large number of rounds the affects have some merit. The 5.56 and 7.62 rounds had some affect on brick and cinder blocks, that much is obvious. And keep in mind the standards for these materials in Iraq (Closer to Syria probably than Afghanistan) are much lower than in the US. Bricks are usually mud/clay and not nearly as tough as US bricks. The same goes for cement and cinder blocks (which are made of cement). The easiest way to save construction costs is to dilute the cement, and that is frequently done in Iraq. They tend to use straight dirt, perhaps sifted, rather than sand, which is why their cement is darker than that found in the US. I don't know what the relative strengths are but if Iraqi (or Syrian) cement were 30-50% less resilant than their US equivelents I would be very suprised.

The types of construction we are going to encounter in Syria are basic mud bricks, or mud bricks with mortar over them, or in the case of multi-story buildings cement with rare instances of rebar. I would assume this is probably mud brick and mortar;

Plain brick;

Here's an example of an interior wall, same thing;

One thing very different about these building methods is that unlike the cover video, once the outer wall is penetrated the interior walls continue to provide cover. There is no sheetrock in Syria, or very little. Interior walls are made of the same thing the exterior is except maybe thinner. In Iraq the exterior walls tend to be thicker than the interior. In Afghanistan, IIRC, the interior walls might be the same thickness as they do the same thing; support load. Not sure how the interior walls would be modelled regardless of how thick they are as they aren't sheetrock and need to be simulated.

In terms of the thickness of exterior walls they would be handled the same was as in CMx1. There are no wooden buildings in Syria, or very few. The different types of buildings would be represented the same way only what would be a wooden building would be, say, a single layer of brick. And then a different model for multiple layers of bricks, and maybe a third for reinforced or unreinforced concrete.

Brick and mortar;

Looks like maybe a double-brick exterior wall?

This looks like cement bricks and plain mud;

Now once you throw in .50 cals and Mk-19s, the majority of the existing buildings are toast. Either will punch through the vast majority of buildings, especially Mk-19s w/ HEDP.

And keep in mind casualties are not just from getting hit by bullets; secondary fragments are almost as deadly.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request