CM:SF and REAL force capabilities

akd · December 29, 2005

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />How will you make sure the tech-spec is up to spec to accomodate any number of tactical situations your clientel is bound to come up with which have not been envisioned when the ordnance was being developed and deployed (like the use of RPG as anti-helo weapons) ?

Weapons in use today are fairly well known in terms of their capabilities. It doesn't take a lot of imagination or research to see how they can be used. And I'm not necessarily talking about inventing a new use for a weapon that someone else hasn't already predicted. The RPG vs. Blackhawk was a KNOWN threat before it happened. The only guys who were surprised were the poor bastards who were shot down.

Steve

Battlefront.com · December 29, 2005

AKD,

I've been doing a lot of reading about asyemetrical warfare over the last year. Now that we are several years into the so-called War on Terror the flood of good documentation is finally starting. This is making my life a LOT easier because 2 years ago when I started researching there were very few comprehensive, researched works about recent ops to draw from.

One thing that should not have surprised anybody is the use of IEDs. They've been used in the ME frequently, and obviously well used in the past. In fact, the Japanese used huge aircraft bombs as "mines" 60 years ago. Enough boom to make a Sherman go straight up in the air and come down upside down! Yet it would appear that IEDs were a surprise to some extent. Smiling, liberated people aren't supposed to put 500lbs of artillery shells under roads, after all.

Propane bombs, dead dog bombs, etc. all fall into the category of clever, not standard, improvising. For example, in Fallujah the Marines stumbled upon a reinforced bunker inside a house. They used several nasty weapons on it, including direct fire from an Abrams. No luck; the bad guys were still very much alive and capable of shooting. One of the Marines noticed a fuel container on the roof. A sniper put a hole in the bottom and they let the fuel run down and into the building. When they thought there was enough fuel in there, they tossed in a couple of incindiary grenades. The house immediately exploded into flame. The screams of the insurgents inside confirmed that they finally found a way to take out the bunker.

The point of this example is the same as my tried and true Bovine MG42 Sponge example from Normandy. The tactic used was effective and possibly replicatable in other circumstances. However, it is unlikely to happen again. Or at least not exactly like that. So we won't be including stuff like intentional fuel leaks to burn out the bad guys.

Steve

John Kettler · December 29, 2005

Steve,

The detonation scheme for those babies was pretty odd, too, albeit highly reliable. Somewhere around here I have an account of an American officer who found a series of pits in the road, each housing a large bomb and a crouching Japanese soldier armed with a hammer to strike the already armed fuze. About a clip of expended .45 and a little walking

cleared that live minefield right up.

BTW, here's a nasty little thought. In rereading

Suvorov's SPETSNAZ (circa mid 80s) he says that

Spetsnaz still uses mine dogs and that they're very good for things like taking out missile launchers, CPs, command vehicles, parked aircraft, VIP limos and the like, especially in conjunction with distraction attacks. Basic device is the same as WW II, but the boom's much bigger. Imagine the

havoc even one truckload of these could cause.

As far as your bovine sponge, Steve, a few weeks ago the History Channel ran a Heroes Under Fire episode on a SOG team which managed to land smack dab in a NVA divisional HQ area, triggering a truly epic stick and move and running fight. Cornered temporarily, the team fought off several close assaults, then stacked the NVA corpses as surprisingly effective cover vs. bullets and grenade frags.

Regards,

John Kettler

John Kettler · December 31, 2005

Steve and troops,

As a result of a separate thread with M1A1Tank Commander's reply in it, I did a little digging on the Shtora integrated defensive system and in doing so, struck paydirt, for there I found listed the spectral coverage of one of the broadband obscurant types I've described, and is it impressive--0.4-14 micrometers.

As I recall, that takes out visual sighting, plus ruby, ND/YaG and carbon dioxide lasers, standard 8-12 micrometer thermals for imaging and beacons, and even the new Thermal Weapon Sight family. If that isn't a lot of leverage, I don't know what is.

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/shtora.html

Regards,

John Kettler

aka_tom_w · January 1, 2006

WOW

Check this out

from John's link above:

TShU-1-7 Shtora-1 EOCMDAS
.
(courtesy of Steven Zaloga and TANKOMASTER)
.
The Shtora-1 EOCMDAS (electro-optical counter-measures defensive aids suite) is one of the several unique features of Russian MBTs that distinguish them from the rest of the world. It was developed by VNII Transmash in St.Petersburg in cooperation with Elers-Elektron in Moscow, and introduced somewhere around 1988. This system effectively protects an MBT against the two most common ATGW types: wire-guided SACLOS systems (e.g. TOW, HOT) and laser-guided ATGMs (e.g. Hellfire, Copperhead).

Shtora-1 consists of a specialized computer/control panel, two electro-optical interference emitters located on each side of the gun, four laser sensors located on top of the turret, and racks of dedicated anti-laser smoke grenades.

The Shtora has two combat roles. In the first role, it works against IR guided ATGMs, by aligning the turret front to the incoming ATGM and using IR emitters to send false signals which scramble the ATGM guidance system. The principle involved is the following.

Wire-guided missiles such as the American TOW are guided to the target by means of a wire and a flare on the back of the missile. The flare is used to keep a 'reference point' of the missile in relationship to the target lock held by the operator, and the guidance computer tries to put the flare on the reference point. Shtora emitters create a large hotspot, essentially tricking the missile guidance into following the Shtora hotspot instead of the flare hotspot, resulting in faulty course corrections by the ATGW computer. In fact, the computer shall usually believe that no horisontal course correction is necessary since the false flare comes from the same direction as the targeted tank, while vertical corrections shall cause ATGM to either dive into the ground or climb into the sky, depending on whether the operator holds the lock below or above the emitters.

The second part of the system defeats laser guided weapons. When a laser beam is detected the Shtora informs the crew with light and sound; it then launches laser defeating smoke grenades, which enshroud the tank and break or degrade the lock. The tank commander can also press a button that will turn the turret front to the laser to meet incoming ATGM with the best protected section and to engage the laser beam source with the maingun.

flamingknives · January 1, 2006

I don't know how effective Shtora is likely to be against modern SACLOS missiles, as they have a specially pulsed beacon and the control system wont recognise anything but, so unless Shtora can mimic this it won't work.

John Kettler · January 3, 2006

flamingknives,

While I agree that the active optical jamming, which would, IMO, defeat the old TOW guidance scheme based on tracking the xenon beacon, won't work on the TOW2s with the waffle iron beacon (am unaware of any blinking associated therewith), the broadband obscurant grenades which are part of Shtora can completely block both sighting and guidance for the TOW2, Hellfire (not Longbow, though, which is milimeter wave guided) and many other modern ATGMs, not to mention defeating visual acquisition/rangefinding/engagement from DF weapons of all sorts if employed in time.

Regards,

John Kettler

c3k · January 3, 2006

John,

Thank you. However, as I've just fired my (your choice of laser-aided) weapon, the "shtora" tank is know in a self-induced black-out zone. Soon enough - depending on wind and tank speed - that zone will disperse. In the meantime, the "shtora" tank is blind and ineffective. I wait; then I fire another round. Repeat until either I run out of rounds or they run out of obscurants.

Sounds good for a one-off engagement, not for a coordinated enemy. Of course, were I a tanker, I'd like to have it!!

Regards,

Ken

John Kettler · January 3, 2006

c3k,

While I take your point, fundamentally this doesn't differ at all from the normal CM situation where a vehicle pops smoke. LOS is still blocked, but the fire it's blocking is merely vastly more expensive round for round. Even so, the tank's action drill is the same--find cover stat, probably by reversing

behind a buiding, into a gully, etc. I'd guess that there are enough obscurant grenades to enable two or three defensive reactions.

Regards,

John Kettler

og · January 5, 2006

Insurgents being "inventive":

In Iraq; stretching metal wires at a few meters height across roads to knock down Hummer gunners.

Chechnya: Pulling pins out of nades, putting them near likely cover (rubble) for approaching russian forces, the nades go off as the russians roll around to duck for bullets.

Using enemy radios to call false information (Chechnya. Probably much less likely in a syrian scenario)

The old "hiding amongst civilians" trick. Never goes out of fashion.

A failed tactic by Saddam was lighting several oil filled trenches with fire to intervene with american visual and IR sensors. Didnt really work.

akd · January 5, 2006

Originally posted by og:
Insurgents being "inventive":

In Iraq; stretching metal wires at a few meters height across roads to knock down Hummer gunners.

Chechnya: Pulling pins out of nades, putting them near likely cover (rubble) for approaching russian forces, the nades go off as the russians roll around to duck for bullets.

Using enemy radios to call false information (Chechnya. Probably much less likely in a syrian scenario)

The old "hiding amongst civilians" trick. Never goes out of fashion.

A failed tactic by Saddam was lighting several oil filled trenches with fire to intervene with american visual and IR sensors. Didnt really work.

None of that is particularly inventive. All were done in WWII, save hiding amongst civilians (doubtless someone will point out instances of that in WWII, as well).

John Kettler · January 12, 2006

Here's further confirmation of the existence of broadband obscurants. Note that the second letter in the link specifically references broadband obscurant capabilities beyond the visual and IR bands.

http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:109667375&ctrlInfo=Round18%3AMode18c%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=

Regards,

John Kettler

Saviola · January 12, 2006

Originally posted by: BFC

No luck; the bad guys were still very much alive and capable of shooting...

So we won't be including stuff like intentional fuel leaks to burn out the bad guys

Doubtless what’s meant by “bad guys” above are Iraqi freedom fighters and the 2007 Syrian army. By extension, one can infer that the US invaders and occupiers at present and in 2007 must be the angelic good guys.

Looking at all the above, most gung ho Blues will read a political statement into all this. However, this is merely a satirical computer gaming observation, for good and bad, black and white, malevolence and benevolence will be in the eyes of the CMSF computer gamer.

Even if one assumes international distribution of CMSF isn’t planned, many Shock Force gamers will still itch to assume an electronic Syrian role and show these saintly, soft, cuddly, good US guys what asymmetrical warfare is all about.

Of course it’s unimaginable, wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to think that a substantial number of future CMSF Red players will take on the Blues for none other than pure experimental wargaming reasons. Nor was there a global trait known as goodness before the Revolutionary War, Declaration of Independence and Hollywood.

[ January 12, 2006, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: El_Operative ]

flamingknives · January 12, 2006

Bad guys = people trying to shoot you?

MikeyD · January 12, 2006

Oh El_Operaitve! Even I, who have had my moments of ranting on the war, haven't had the stones to take on the use of "good guy/bad guy" jargon! I figure if some sad sack ex-Walmart stock boy's been ordered to sit in a hole out in the desert for a year the least I can do is let him keep his illusions. The thing that bothers me about 'good guy/bad guy' jargon is when the likes of Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz go parading around in their white 10-gallon hats.

Saviola · January 12, 2006

Originally posted by flamingknives:
Bad guys = people trying to shoot you?

Yes of course, Steve meant he “won’t be including intentional fuel leaks to burn out” a US Stryker Force, either while it’s mobile, engaged or stationary.

Before I forget, MikeyD rules.

Battlefront.com · January 13, 2006

Yeah, the whole thing that sucks about discussing wargames is the problem with how to describe one or the other side. By definition, when talking about one side the other side is the opposite. Since opposing forces are opposite sides of a coin, it is impossible for them to both be the same thing. So one must be "good" and the other "bad". Unfortunately, this is subjective. I'm sure most people would agree that the Germans in CMx1 are the "bad guys". In fact, I know many players that won't play the Germans. Yet huge numbers of CMx1 players don't think of the Germans as bad guys, and many don't think of the Soviets as good guys. I don't expect the same conflict of definitions for CM:SF. Some won't think of the Coalition forces as "good guys", but I doubt hardly any will think of the Syrians as "good guys".

Steve

aka_tom_w · January 13, 2006

For Most folks here I think the Syrians would realistically have to be considered "the underdog".

That said, some folks like the handicap or the challenge of playing the underdog, but Steve is right I doubt there will be very many here who will consider the Syrians the "Good Guys" (White Cowboy hat and all ..... NOT!)

-tom w

[ January 12, 2006, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Imperial Grunt · January 13, 2006

Originally posted by El_Operative:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by: BFC

No luck; the bad guys were still very much alive and capable of shooting...

So we won't be including stuff like intentional fuel leaks to burn out the bad guys

Doubtless what’s meant by “bad guys” above are Iraqi freedom fighters and the 2007 Syrian army. By extension, one can infer that the US invaders and occupiers at present and in 2007 must be the angelic good guys.

Looking at all the above, most gung ho Blues will read a political statement into all this. However, this is merely a satirical computer gaming observation, for good and bad, black and white, malevolence and benevolence will be in the eyes of the CMSF computer gamer.

Even if one assumes international distribution of CMSF isn’t planned, many Shock Force gamers will still itch to assume an electronic Syrian role and show these saintly, soft, cuddly, good US guys what asymmetrical warfare is all about.

Of course it’s unimaginable, wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to think that a substantial number of future CMSF Red players will take on the Blues for none other than pure experimental wargaming reasons. Nor was there a global trait known as goodness before the Revolutionary War, Declaration of Independence and Hollywood.

jeffsmith · January 13, 2006

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
SNIP I'm sure most people would agree that the Germans in CMx1 are the "bad guys". In fact, I know many players that won't play the Germans. Yet huge numbers of CMx1 players don't think of the Germans as bad guys, and many don't think of the Soviets as good guys. SNIP

Steve

I was reluctant to play the Germans in CMBO

because I did percieve them as "Bad Guys"

but in CMBB there were no "Good Guys"

So I was willing to play both sides

with CMAK I was used to playing the Germans

so it no longer mattered which side I played

MikeyD · January 13, 2006

With popular titles like "Grand Theft Auto" out there you sometimes get the feeling the badder the 'bad guys' the higher the sales potential for the product! You can almost imagine people would be lined up to play the Pol Pot side in a CM:Cambodia game.

Seriously, the only time I feel squeamish playing a CM game is when I'm expected to play SS. The one exception to that is a '45 game when I'm SS defender and the Soviet Guards army is grinding me to dust.

[ January 13, 2006, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

Peter Cairns · January 13, 2006

Now heres a thought people,

If in later modules BF succeeds in putting in civilians as they hope too, and bring out WW2 releases, then in the future anyone who wants will be able to create and "POST" scenarios where the SS do what the SS did.

It's BF's choice as to what to do, but historical or not, I am inclined to go for an automatic ban for any sicko who does.

Peter.

Saviola · January 14, 2006

Originally posted by LtCol West:

What is your point?

What are Iraqi "freedom fighters"? The Sunni Baathist's that suppressed everyone else and want a Sunni dictatorship/Saddam to return? Or did you mean the jihadists who want nothing but an Islamic State in order to continue the war against the West?

Although an off target topic, taboo in this forum, will be locked, me reprimanded, and you sound a bit rattled; if you insist, here goes:

Ahem... To clueless westerners, the word Sunni coupled with Baathist conjures up Lucifer. To the rest who are well “in touch”, Baathists are a higher grade animal than Abramoff’s Republicans and Sunnis represent the Bush administration’s staunchest Mid Eastern allies. They may be minorities in Iraq, but Sunnis are super duper majorities throughout their respective countries in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia and the Far East.

What staunch Mid East allies? Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi, and further east, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not so further east? Turkey. All the latter are overwhelming Sunni nation states who prefer to confine Shiites to cantons and ghettos, see their rise in Iraq as a threat, and believe the US gave Iraq as a de facto gift to Iran.

Most of the above also believe that Iran should give thanks to the US for eliminating its fiercest enemies, the Taliban and Saddam, and for ignorantly offering the Mullahs southern Iraq as down payment. One never thought one would see the day when US boys are sent in to mop up and die securing southern villages so Iranian agents can slide in and direct poll centers.

Only a sap would believe that Baaker Hakim, Jaafari and their Shiite coalition aren’t fond of “an Islamic State”. Or that they might owe allegiance to any other entities than the ayatollahs and their spiritual brethren and neighbors to the east.

A US-trained-and-fitted Iraqi army? A lamentable, cowardice and laughable army, alas. This so called army is nothing more than balkanized tribal militias ready to gouge away at any threat to their respective lords and masters the second the US boys leave. Now, enter the Kurds, the only loyal friends to the US in the equation, friends whom Turkey will incinerate once a good opportunity materializes.

Had the US liberated Swedes and Danes, gratitude and loyalty woulda come its way. But Bedouins and tribal nomads are world champions of ingratitude, disloyalty and double cross.

So Sure the US and Iraq went to war, but it looks like Iran won.

Imperial Grunt · January 14, 2006

Originally posted by El_Operative:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LtCol West:

What is your point?

What are Iraqi "freedom fighters"? The Sunni Baathist's that suppressed everyone else and want a Sunni dictatorship/Saddam to return? Or did you mean the jihadists who want nothing but an Islamic State in order to continue the war against the West?