Cpl Steiner Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Having watched footage from both Gulf wars of MLRS firing salvos of rockets into enemy territory, I wonder, will this sort of artillery be on call to a typical CM:SF battle-group, or is it more like "strategic bombing" was in WWII? I would imagine the "footprint" of an MLRS battery would be pretty big, I mean several football pitches at least, so it may be beyond the scope of CM:SF. Having said that, it would be fun to use as an opening barrage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 I think MLRS fire is a little beyond CMSF scale, a battery fire of MLRS can pretty much saturate a square kilometer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Well, i know that 3 MLRS vehicles are capable of almost 100% rate of kills in an area of 12 soccer fields, which is roughly (90*120)*12=129600 Sqr. meters 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 MLRS and the lightweight versions, HIMARS and LIMAWS ®, have the capacity to use GMLRS, where G is Guided, and therefore have the capacity to land a 200lb warhead with a 10m CEP from up to 60km. A full unguided salvo would probably be a bit big for a CM battlefield though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I don't see why it shouldn't be available. It might not be in any of the scenarios that come with the game, but i've seen some pretty much blanket coverage from rusian rockets in CMBB. If you've got it available to clear a path for a Stryker Fprce and it's the appropriate thing for the situation then use it. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Might be a tantalising test of the ROE. Give the US commander a MLRS battery but also in his brief tell him to minimise "collateral damage" and civilian losses. See if he can achieve the mission without flattening the built up grid square. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronic Max Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Heh. Now there's a thought; use it to test self-control. Let's add in tube fired tactical nukes for that same purpose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Be even better if we had a Legal Officer in the Victory Conditions. "Yes you achieved the tactical mission, but you are up on XXX counts of murder for not following the ROE and you are on the next plane to Fort Levenworth". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 MLRS! Woohoo! I vote for them in a few scenarios, just to watch the impacts. I am really interested to see how supporting arms are modelled for the US forces. There are just so many platforms, JADAMS and other LGBs from just about every fastmover in the inventory, A-10s with their 30mm guns, Apaches and Cobras with Hellfires, TOWs, and guns, Heuys with GAU gatling guns, OH-58s, and, dont forget, the almighty AC-130 Specter Gunship. Then there is the MOAB bomb dropped from a C-130, 155mm artillery with copperhead laser-guided munitions, ICM, and FASCAM, 120mm mortars and below, javelin missles, etc... Certain scenarios could also involve naval gun fire. Get Some! Taliban Bodies That video is respectfully dedicated to Gunzel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronic Max Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Then there is the MOAB bomb dropped from a C-130Something I've been curious about for a while: can MOAB realistically be used in an area where there're anything like significant AA threats? I may be way off base, but C-130s don't strike me as the safest plane to use in hazardous airspace. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Originally posted by LtCol West: ...A-10s with their 30mm guns...And Maverick ATGMs. Anything hit by one of those will die. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Originally posted by Moronic Max: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Then there is the MOAB bomb dropped from a C-130Something I've been curious about for a while: can MOAB realistically be used in an area where there're anything like significant AA threats? I may be way off base, but C-130s don't strike me as the safest plane to use in hazardous airspace. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 New thought for US air/artillery support in CM:SF. We heard a lot during the second Gulf War about the US using powerful strategic assets like cruise missiles, laser-guided bombs, MLRS etc. to "Shape the Battlefield" prior to sending in ground forces. How about if in CM:SF we had the same option. Prior to the main ground battle, you could have a strategic battle phase in which you could use all sorts of nasty munitions against whatever enemy forces were in the combat zone. The main part of the game would then be considered to start an hour or so after this phase. US ground forces would then not only have to contend with whatever enemy forces survived the strategic phase, but possibly also with unexploded sub munitions etc. I hear that quite a few US soldiers became casualties in Iraq from unexploded M77 bomblets for instance. Personally I think the addition of a pre-battle strategic phase (US side only) would be both fun and a good simulation of the way the US conducts military operations in the modern era. [ February 21, 2006, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: And Maverick ATGMs. Anything hit by one of those will die.has anyone seen any evaluation of Maverick regarding their performance in Iraq? i have read of cases in which Maverick failed to penetrate T-72 turret front or Abrams side and i wonder if those were just some individual odd cases. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: And Maverick ATGMs. Anything hit by one of those will die.has anyone seen any evaluation of Maverick regarding their performance in Iraq? i have read of cases in which Maverick failed to penetrate T-72 turret front or Abrams side and i wonder if those were just some individual odd cases. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 "...to test self-control. Let's add in tube fired tactical nukes for that same purpose." I recall watching an oooold 1980s PBS(? - maybe it was Sixty Minutes) documentary of OPFOR training in the desert southwest. The visiting commander found himself in a tight spot. He was given authorization to use nukes. And he was filmed watching with his mouth agape at the computer console as his 'virtual' nuke obliterated much of his own forces, as well as the enemy! Ooops! Old CMx1 players (CMBO/BB/AK) have a nasty habit of dropping artillery much too close to his own troops to get himself out of a jam. I can just imagine what they're going to experience when CMSF's more realistic artillery comes raining down! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: And Maverick ATGMs. Anything hit by one of those will die.has anyone seen any evaluation of Maverick regarding their performance in Iraq? I have read of cases in which Maverick failed to penetrate T-72 turret front or Abrams side and I wonder if those were just some individual odd cases. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I remember a long-loooong time ago after the first Gulf War there was a quick 10 second Nightline TV promo that used a short piece of 'generic' Maverick TV camera footage. I happened to snag the clip on my VCR and watched it one-frame-at-a-time as the fuzzy blurr in the image resolved itself into a tank's roof, as the missile zoomed in. It wasn't until the final frame that you could make out the tank type was... A Challenger!!! Yikes! Must've hit it near the side engine exhaust or the turret by that area. I may be the only guy to have noticed that few seconds of footage was actually showing a friendly fire incident. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 gibsonm and MikeyD, This has ben discussed before, but the Maverick is, was, and to my knowledge always has been a fire and forget system which is locked on before launch and then sent on its way to the target. This was true of the initial TV guided version, the scene magnified TV version, and the IIR (imaging infrared) guided versions. There was/may still be a laser guided version, too (300 lb. blast/frag warhead), with lasing not self-designated from the launch aircraft/now certain helos as well but by ground team, OH-58D, etc. This is specifically to minimize launch platform exposure to air defenses. Unless there's a model of the Maverick I never heard of or cute one offs are being fielded for the sake of pretty pictures, I don't see how there can be imagery from the Maverick's guidance system in terminal phase. A GBU-15, Walleye, or Harpoon ground attack version would be viable candidates, though, for all fly via data link and are under terminal control from the launch aircraft. Certainly, the IIR Maverick versions can be used to search for and acquire targets prior to launch, but that's with the missile still firmly on the launch pylon. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 The huge supporting arms advantage that the US player will have in CM:SF has to be offset with the Syrian player's ability to use asymetric tactics to some degree. Otherwise, the game will only be fun for the US side and not very challenging. Many modern day opponents have learned that a straight-up conventional fight is probably not the best way to fight the US. As great as all those whiz-bang systems are, they all need to be directed at a target before being utilized. So the harder it gets to find targets, then the less opportunities the US player will have to call in the might of "the world" on top of something. I guess we will have to wait and see. Simply restricting the use of US supporting arms to make the game more balanced will not make for a very realistic game. Some Syrian units will be caught in the open and will burn on their own "highway of death", but the smarter Syrian commanders will quickly learn that the US cannot kill what they cannot see. At least until it is too late. Friendly fire has always been an issue as well, so it would only be fair to model a very small chance of US vehicles being targeted by supporting arms vice the enemy, and after an occurance like that happened, then there would be a delay before any more of that kind of supporting arms were used to simulate higher unscrewing the fire support coordination/targeting mistake. 3rd LAR during OIF 1 lost an LAV to friendly fire from a Marine Cobra helicopter. The BN was in contact and the Cobras rolled in. There were alot of abandoned, or seeming abandonded, Iraqi BMPs and T-72s around and one of the Cobras mistook an LAV for an Iraqi vehicle and took the LAV out with a gun run. It became immediately apparent what had happened and the pilot quickly landed his helo by the stricken vehicle and apologized heartfeltfully to the seriously wounded Marines he had shot and walked with them to the CASEVAC bird. There cannot be a worse feeling in combat... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 LtCol West, Are you honestly telling me they pilot landed a cobra in a combat zone to apologies..... hell the guy should have been court marshalled for that, Ok he made a mistake which could or could not be an offense, but to just decide to abandon your support mission to pay your respects is dereliction of duty. It just sounds crazy to me. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 You just don't know what it means to be a Jarhead, Peter. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Michael Emrys, Well if I had been ten miles down the road taking incoming and found out that the Cobra that was supposed to be protecting me was on the ground because the pilot had decided that he wanted to be Mother bloody Terresa, I know what I'd be saying. I may not know much about Jarheads, but I recognise a dickhead when I see one, what was the guy thinking, and how did he get away with it. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 A similar incident happened when US ground forces fired on a British Chinook (kind of like the above but in reverse). I thought this was hilarious. By the way, no offence intended to our US Marine colleagues. I'm sure this was an isolated incident. From the London Daily Mirror, Monday April 7th 2003, page 4... "Brit Pilot’s Punch-up" A Furious British Helicopter Pilot who came under “friendly fire” from American troops landed yards from them, leapt out and exchanged punches with a US Marine. The Chinook pilot shouted at him: “When was the last time you saw a f******* Iraqi in a helicopter?” The pilot and the marine had to be pulled apart as American troops advanced on the north of Baghdad, according to US reports from US Central Command in Qatar. British military spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood said: “I’m afraid it would be an RAF kind of thing to do. “These guys are not known for tolerating fools gladly.” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 They should have let those two go a few rounds, that way it would teach the Brits to stay in thier cozy little helocopters and let the men do the ground pounding. But if it was a Marine, its not like he can hit a moving target anyway. -Ray 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.