Abrams tank

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Wicky:

Hi Kip,

Any reports on how these defensive systems fared in operational use? When it seems they are also very capable of decimating (to please the purists ) friendly troops out to 50-150m.

Snipers, grenades and flamethrowers come to mind

Cheers

Soviet doctrine for the vast majority of the time from WW2 to the present doesn't really go for dismounted infantry operating with armour, so active defence systems aren't a problem in that regard. (doctrinally speaking, of course)

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

In the forum rules somewhere, you silly Finnish person.

Michael

Bah. I blow my gases in your general direction, you non-PBEM playing lackgut!

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Kip,

Well…no ? not quite true..Steve is forgetting the active, hard-kill systems both Russian and Chinese latest generation tanks would be using today…. not tomorrow, but today, in a war against any 1st World nation. All the major players now have mature, active, hard-kill defensive systems. The Russians have had a mature system since the early ‘90s.

I forget nothing The US forces are not likely to go up against 1st rate Russian and Chinese systems. The only countries that can afford these systems in any great numbers (and numbers are CRITICAL) are not likely adversaries. The likely adversaries aren't lining up to buy them because they are expensive and there is little point in owning them. A conventional battle against NATO type forces is a foregone conclusion for the most part. Stand up and lose. Might as well spend limited defense resources upgrading/maintaining the 30-50 year old stuff already in inventory. Plenty good for suppressing locals and threatening neighbors for most situations.

But as for active hard kill systems... how likely are they to be encountered? Just because something exists doesn't mean it will be found on the battlefield. Cost is the main issue with these things. I know the Drozd system didn't have customers line up around the corner to buy them. ARENA also isn't something that most countries have, or at least have in large numbers. On the other hand, US and NATO type forces move around with plenty of toys at their disposal. Javelin is also exported to 11 countries last time I checked. One platoon in Iraq used almost 40 Javelins during the initial phase of the war. How many times do you think those missiles came up against an active defense system?

And as it happens I have a retired Colonel friend who headed up a part of the Javelin program. I've had discussions about the active soft and hard kill systems. We talked about specific systems and their possible effectiveness in real battlefield conditions. I'll put it this way... he said he doesn't worry about them. I asked why, he said "classified" and so I moved onto something else

hmmm… worrying stuff… we are most likely talking small groups of Islamist, low quality light-infantry being hunted by fully equipped US, 1st World professional forces. If truth be told, probably not my cup of tea ?

It doesn't have to be quite like that, but I'd challenge you to come up with a plausible scenario for the type of combat you picture happening (i.e. Cold War Part II). Anything can happen in this crazy world, but I'd wager a large pile of cash that what you're picturing won't.

My reasons for not being a fan of Third World v 1st World are largely two fold. One is indeed the lack of balance over lapping with a lack of toys ? In CM the equipment, the tanks, the toys, matter ?

They need not matter. All perception. I love playing CM battles that involve little, if any, toys. Give me bare knuckled infantry fights and I'm quite happy Also, as can be seen in Iraq, the 3rd World might not have parity, but they sure do a damned fine job of causing 1st World forces a lot of problems. Even defeats here and there.

Secondly… historically the great majorities of Third World Armies have been, and are, of a very poor quality. The Vietnamese being an honorable exception. Even the Afghans of the ‘80s were in fact of a very low quality with causality ratios in infantry clashes often between twenty and forty to one. Very similar to the US forces in Iraq today.

Yup! If you are into playing against NATO forces with equally cool stuff, commanding a 3rd World force isn't going to be much fun. However, where you and I certainly will disagree is on how to rank top of the line Russian and Chinese fantasy forces. I'd not put them in the same league as NATO type forces. Especially when one looks at the full spectrum of warfare.

Related to the second point is the fact that I will find it very difficult to empathize with any such Third World force. At least when playing the Germans in WWII I find can tell myself “they were at least very good at what they did”… not the case with Third World forces other than Vietnamese.

Empathy is, of course, not something that is relevant to a discussion about force capabilities. It does matter to gamers, of course, just that it isn't a part of the simulation.

Even for a contemporary setting my vote would be for near future with Germans and French v Anglo Saxons… lots of great toys…1st World v 1st World ? But I am clearly not going to get what I wish for ?

You're as likely to get that from us as a 1980s matchup between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces. Which is... let me check my notes... I know it is around here somehwere... OH! Here it is. Yup, just as a remembered. Chances are ZERO We will not make games where the suspension of disbelief can not be maintained. French and Germans going up against each other flunks that test.

Anyway…. an Islamist style light-infantry game will pull in the crowds and make BFC lots of money which I regard as a very good thing. The more money they make.. the more games I get to play ?

Yes, but none of them with fantasy matchups, I'm sorry to say. When we make a game that utterly breaks with reality, it will FULLY break with reality. Like Space Lobsters of Doom. We won't be having the French invade Great Britain or the Aussies take on the invading hordes of Americans looking for more beach front property after theirs gets washed away in back to back Category 5 Hurricanes These sorts of technological "what ifs" do not interest us in the least.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Kip,

Specifically about counter measures:

Defense-Update… a type of Israelis Jane’s, described the Arena first generation active hard –kill Soviet defense systems as able to “decimate” the contemporary US generation of ATGMs. To closely paraphrase “Arena would have decimated the TOW and Hellfire generation of ATGMs in the mid 90s”.

"Would have" is correct. This is dated information. Javelin is not TOW or HOT or Hellfire. It is a totally new design. And no active defense system could ever hope to defeat LOSAT. Even if it disrupted it (which I don't think is possible) the follow through would still decimate the defending vehicle. LOSAT is about as "unfair" in a tactical battle as a hammer is to a walnut placed on a hard surface. Worse, actually since a hammer has a chance of missing

Drozd was, in my opinion, a failure. It was too big, too expensive, and was not able to defeat top attack missiles. The turret had to be pointed in the right direction too, for that matter. This is why Drozd was not widely used and was in fact dropped. The Navy continued to have interest in it, but from what I can tell they aren't any more. There is some talk of a Drozd II system, but it isn't anything that is available yet.

Soft kill defenses, such as Shtora-1, also don't phase Javelin (nor unguided munitions, of course). There is even some doubt that they can interfere, successfully, with the TOW 2 (ITAS) system. Both Javelin and TOW 2 are specifically designed to work around the current array of soft kill counter measures. Even the controversial Chinese Dazzler system isn't likely to do much to save the vehicle from being hit and killed.

Reactive armor packages have no affect on tandem warehead missiles and they only work once against "shot" type rounds. I've personally witnessed an uparmored T-72, with reactive armor, get defeated by a Javelin. It wasn't as dramatic as the test footage that is available on the 'net (that was a perfect hit and it had live ammo in it), but a 100% kill is still a 100% kill even if the turret doesn't go 200-300m into the air And why am I harping on Javelin? Because every US Rifle Squad has access to one. Arming a single soldier with a weapon that can kill anything that it can see out out to 2500m and beyond is worthy of harping

The problem with all of these defenses is that they have to work perfectly all the time, every time. With current missile or 120mm rounds, a single "oops" and the vehicle is no more. It would appear that, as of right now, the active defense systems aren't likely to offer the degree of assuredness that they need to in order to be tactically, and therefore strategically, significant.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

In the forum rules somewhere, you silly Finnish person.

Michael

Bah. I blow my gases in your general direction, you non-PBEM playing lackgut! </font>

[JonS]

Steve posted:

a couple of US Infantry Platoons on the defensive, without any other support than Javelin, have a good shot at wiping out a company of the best tanks Russia and China have to offer.

And

Steve also posted:

... every US Rifle Squad has access to one [Javelin]

There are only six tanks in a Russian or Chinese tank coy?

Also, if there are only six, the defence systems would still only have to have a 50% success rate to make it a really bad day to be a grunt, not 'every single time'. Heck, it'd only have to work 17% of the time to make for a bad day in the infantry, and that's leaving aside the failure rate of Javelin itself.

Regards

JonS

[ October 06, 2005, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[hellfish]

There are ten tanks in each Chinese or Russian company. Each American infantry squad can, theoretically, have nine Javelins. Everyone is (should) be trained in their use. Its a matter of bulk that everyone doesn't carry one.

Realistically, only one or two Javelins would be carried by a dismounted force. Add another one or two AT4 LAWs. If the unit is a Stryker or Bradley dismount force, they're probably gonna have access to several additional Javelin or AT4s in the vehicle. Stryker brigades have 121 Javelin launchers authorized, for example, with probably doubt or triple that number of reloads readily available.

[Battlefront.com]

Mr. Fytinghellfish beat me to the punch I was assuming more than one shot per Squad. Since Javelin is fire and forget, and man portable, this is an assured possibility. Not so with guided or cumbersome ATGM systems. Two platoons, four squads each, means 8 launchers. If even 1/2 of the guys fire twice, a tank company is pretty much done for the day

In theory these 8 launchers can put up at least 32 missiles (IIRC three missiles standard for each Squad). That means each tank has to defeat 3 attacks. Let's assume that the defenses have a 50% chance of defeating an incoming threat (and I would hold that it is far lower than that). Let's also assume that probability is straight 1:1 targeting all simultaneously.

If a volly of 8 missiles is launched at once hit, 6 tanks remain with 24 missiles left to fire. Another volly of 8 missiles is launched. The first 6 take out another 3 tanks, the remaining 2 take out a 4th. That leaves 2 tanks and 16 missiles left. Next volly of 8 is launched, the first 4 of which kill the remaining 2 tanks and the second batch of 4 make the mess bigger Zero tanks left, 8 missiles left.

Now, the above has nothing to do with reality. Those with higher math skills will show that the 10 tanks, even with a 50% chance of defeat, will likely be wiped out by far fewer missiles. Closer to 10 than to 24 I noted. And in the real world they wouldn't go in vollies either, nor would the company sit around and wait to be wiped out (in theory). So I'd say that 2 Squads, in good firing positions, could effectively neutralize a company of enemy tanks. Those they didn't kill would be buggering off the battlefield. They simply can't kill what they can't hit, and they can't survive what they can't defeat.

BTW, the hit rate of a Javelin is around 95%. The 5% accounts for defects, bad gunnery, and other misc. problems. Lead cause of a miss is an inexperienced gunners not getting a clean lock against a non-armored target using Direct Attack mode. Reason is that as sensitive and precise as the Javelins heat signature seeker is... something like a sand berm bunker in a desert is going to have to be carefully targeted.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hmmm... on second thought the Weapons Squad might not have its own Javelin. If that is the case then the total launchers is 6 and the missiles available is 18. Still more than enough to crush a tank company. Oh, and survive too. 2500m away is a bit much for a tank under missile threat to be picking out individual infantrymen for punishment.

Steve

[stoat]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

2500m away is a bit much for a tank under missile threat to be picking out individual infantrymen for punishment.

Reminds me of the Yom Kippur War where Egyptian infantry fired Saggers at Israeli armor from across the canal and later inundated two armored divisions in a day without sending their tanks across.

[SgtMuhammed]

I was in on the ground floor when the Javelin was being fielded. We had 5 teams in each company, 3 of which would be assigned to the platoons. Each Squad carried two extra missiles and the AG in the Javelin team carried one giving 7 per platoon. I don't know exactly how they are assigned now.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hmmm... on second thought the Weapons Squad might not have its own Javelin. If that is the case then the total launchers is 6 and the missiles available is 18. Still more than enough to crush a tank company. Oh, and survive too. 2500m away is a bit much for a tank under missile threat to be picking out individual infantrymen for punishment.

Steve

No, weapon squads are only seven men each, IIRC - squad leader, two M240 gunners, two assistant gunners and two ammo bearers. They can switch out their M240s with Javelins, if need be, depending on METT-T. The Army is working on an "Arms Room" concept for Stryker and Bradley mech units now, where they take as many weapons as possible and leave the ones they don't immediately need on the vehicle. That way they can swap 'em out quick if need be. If the PL wants extra anti-armor capability, he can very easily have the M240 gunners carry Javelins instead or use the ammo bearers to do so.

It'd be a difficult thing to model in CMx1. You've had to have several variations of platoon and squad structures to accurately reflect all the various weapons they can carry. If CMX2 lets you select individual weapons (like a drop down menu of weapons authorized in an MTO&E or TO&E) it'd be a pretty easy system to model, methinks.

Actually.. that'd be a pretty cool system. You could use the same four-man team to model all sorts of weapons combinations from different forces.

If you've got Rebel forces with individual weapons selection, you could theoretically utilize the same four man team over and over and each would have totally different capabilities. One four-man team could be all AK47s, another might have two AKs, an RPG and a PK, another might have an AK47, an AK74, an RPK and an SA7.

Likewise for a US fire team, you could have one team with the anti-armor specialist and the other team with the dedicated marksman.

I'm so smart. Now watch Steve shoot my idea down...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In theory these 8 launchers can put up at least 32 missiles (IIRC three missiles standard for each Squad).

Hmmm. Math check time. 3X8=24, not 32.

Just thought I'd mention it...

Michael

[juan_gigante]

I think that that would be a really cool way of doing things. It would allow for lots of variation in units, which is very important for the type of 1st - 3rd World combat we're talking about.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by stoat:

Reminds me of the Yom Kippur War where Egyptian infantry fired Saggers at Israeli armor from across the canal and later inundated two armored divisions in a day without sending their tanks across.

A lot of more recent stuff suggests that the Sagger wasn't nearly as effective as thought. Lots of IDF tanks were lost to RPGs and such because they outran their infantry support. Many returned from battle draped with Sagger guide wires. It wasn't the easiest missle to aim.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

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

Reminds me of the Yom Kippur War where Egyptian infantry fired Saggers at Israeli armor from across the canal and later inundated two armored divisions in a day without sending their tanks across.

A lot of more recent stuff suggests that the Sagger wasn't nearly as effective as thought. Lots of IDF tanks were lost to RPGs and such because they outran their infantry support. Many returned from battle draped with Sagger guide wires. It wasn't the easiest missle to aim. </font>

[ozi_digger]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We won't be having the... Aussies take on the invading hordes of Americans looking for more beach front property after theirs gets washed away in back to back Category 5 Hurricanes...

Steve

So I'm waiting for the day, with all those guns buried in my back yard, and its not gonna happen?

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

It was also slow. The Israeli tankers learned to watch for the backblast and fire their MGs at it, which would rattle the gunner and throw off his aim.

Michael

So was the Dragon. I swear it looked as though a tank could outrun that thing.

We were firing them once and I seriously considered trying to shoot it down with my M60 (it was a platoon live fire).

[ozi_digger]

On a more (semi) serious note, reading through Steve's statements above leads me to believe we won't be seeing 3rd World vs 3rd World matchups either. I'm not talking about any specific conflict here - more the stuff along the lines of the Ak-47 miniatures game. I reckon it would be kinda fun, but a nightmare for orbat. What would you model? 'Generic, western-equipped third world company' versus 'Generic, eastern-bloc-equipped third world company'? Does this concept require too much suspension of belief? I dunno, but interested if its an idea BFC have toyed with.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

It was also slow. The Israeli tankers learned to watch for the backblast and fire their MGs at it, which would rattle the gunner and throw off his aim.

Michael

So was the Dragon. I swear it looked as though a tank could outrun that thing.

We were firing them once and I seriously considered trying to shoot it down with my M60 (it was a platoon live fire). </font>

[hellfish]

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

On a more (semi) serious note, reading through Steve's statements above leads me to believe we won't be seeing 3rd World vs 3rd World matchups either. I'm not talking about any specific conflict here - more the stuff along the lines of the Ak-47 miniatures game. I reckon it would be kinda fun, but a nightmare for orbat. What would you model? 'Generic, western-equipped third world company' versus 'Generic, eastern-bloc-equipped third world company'? Does this concept require too much suspension of belief? I dunno, but interested if its an idea BFC have toyed with.

My individual weapon selection idea would solve that - leave the weaponry selection up to the mission designer!

[Battlefront.com]

Hmmm. Math check time. 3X8=24, not 32.

I was thinking 3 spares + 1 "with" the control unit. But it might just be 3 total, in which case is just 24 and not 32. The other question I can't answer is if there is a Javelin organically assigned to the Weapons Squad. Got the data around here someplace...

FHF, I think they are already doing the "arms room" thing in practice. A Stryker Rifle Squad has a Designated Marksman and an AT Specialist. By default they both serve as Riflemen with M4 rifle. But depending on the mission there is a sniper rifle (of some sort, usually M24 or even the old M14) and Javelin sitting there ready to go. The Sniper Team has M107B in addition to the other sniper rifle so it takes what it needs. The Mortar Platoon has 60mm, 81mm, and 120mm mortars available depending on mission. Shotguns are also available on an as needed basis.

Now, from a simulation standpoint some of these swaps are done "outside of CM's scope" (to use familiar CMx1 terms ). For example, the Mortar Platoon would not be deployed with the 120s and then decided it had better switch to 60s. It would be set up ahead of time one way or the other. Sniper Teams and Designated Marksmen would also likely have their weapon selected prior to a battle. However, things like Javelin... no, that sucker would not be lugged around unless there was an "in game" reason. That means we'd have to put in some sort of support for on-the-fly weapons swapping for certain, specific things. An interesting design complication for sure

Steve

[gibsonm]

Steve,

Shouldn't you be coding somewhere or maybe generating screenshots / bones?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Has anyone ever actually used the Dragon in combat? Israel maybe? GW1?

I vaguely recall reading something about some being used in GW1. Surprised me as I was aware that they weren't popular. If they weren't fired at bunkers, then probably it was Marines using them to fend off a counter attack in Kuwait.

Michael

[Peter Cairns]

As we are talking now about Anti ATGW defences, does anyone know how QineticQ, are getting on with "electric" armour. The last I read about it was about a year ago.

In essense you put it in an APC and it charges the outer hull for an instant to a high voltage. This causes the "Plasma" from a shaped charge, to disperse and loose focus effectively spreading over the outside of the hull rather than penetrate,

Last I heard the system weighted over two tonnes but the target was to get it down to under one as part of the UK's future Land vehicle programme, I think DARPA were at least involved if not partners.

On another subject, what happens to the US v Chinese scenario if we set it in 2015, after the US economy has imploded due to the deficit, and China has overtaken the US to be the worlds No one economy, enabling it to incorporate technologies from the economicly struggling but helpful EU.

Peter.