Underpowered RPG's?

[z1812]

Hi All,

Thanks for the patch. Overall, based on what I played last night, it seems quite good.

I don't know much about weapon systems. However while trying 1.06 last night I noticed the RPG 7's seemed to be very underpowered.

I have 2 scenarios I use to try new builds. 1 rural and 1 city. So through all the builds I have been able to make reasonable comparisions as to how the game played before and after.

Last night in the City scenario I loaded up my Red troops with RPG's. A Brad appeared as a juicy target. After 15 hits with RPG 7's ( range 70 to 83 meters ) there was no damage to the Bradley whatsoever.

Previously there was a very good chance that the Brad would die upon the second or third shot. If not then for sure he would be immobilised.

Is this correct behaviour. I have no idea but certainly it is different than before. According to what I have read they were firing well within the effective range.

Regards John

[Hev]

i dont know about underpowered but they are still to accurate, i got hit from 400 meteres today and thats not funny.

I finished hamertime today as well, and i had one bradley survive a hit and one die from a hit. the surviver was at about the same range as yours.

[Flanker15]

Maybe you just hit it 15 times in a non-important place? Did you check it for damage in the map review?

[Martin Krejcirik]

Weren't they HE ? The readme says it now shows a different icon for HE and HEAT.

I hope the accuracy will be reduced, more sensitivity to wind and crew experience is needed.

[Hev]

Agreed, i hardly ever see US infantry hit a vehicle with the at-4, and alot of the time they can even miss buildings!

[z1812]

Hi All,

The following is info found on the web in regards to the RPG 7.

Quote begins:

The rocket motor ignites after 10 meters and sustains flight out to 500 meters at a maximum velocity of 295 m/s. The grenade is stabilized by two sets of fins that deploy in-flight: one large set on the stabilizer pipe to maintain direction and a smaller front set to induce rotation. The grenade can fly up to 1100 meters; the fuze sets the maximum range, usually 920 m.

Accurate firing is difficult over 300 m and with the RPG-7 the phrase "the closer the better" is always true. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the mujahideen tended to use the weapon at ranges of less than 80 m.

End Quote:

Regards John

[z1812]

Hi Flanker,

Yes I checked the stats and I checked the actual vehicle. There was no damage at all.

Regards John

[Martin Krejcirik]

I read it is especially sensitive to crosswind and requires very experienced shooter to hit anything.

[MikeyD]

That's a really odd result. Was it all bow shots or weird high-angle hits? Might be the combo of the luckiest Bradley crew there ever was and perhaps mostly the weeny AP type of round, not AT? :confused:

[z1812]

Hi Mikey,

The first shots hit the Bradley right on the front from ground level. The Bradley then retreated a little behind a building with its front side showing. Thats where the rest hit. Also from ground level but 18 meters closer.

I am presuming that as my RPG ammo was of the 2 types, close to half would have been AT.

It also could be as you said. A unusual occurrence that may never happen again.

I will keep my eyes open.

regards John

[Flanker15]

I think the front hull of the Bradly is strong enough to stop HEAT RPG-7s

[Secondbrooks]

Bradley can be tough in 1.05 also (haven't had time to test 1.06 yet). My whole platoon wasted all it's RPGs (3 RPG-7 + 4-5 grenades for each)) into two Bradelys. They just got hit and hit and hit, finally both Bradleys lost tracks and crews bailed out.

Good thing if Syria can finally pick more grenades, as it's has always been weak point for them against same sized mechaniced US troop: They run out of grenades eventually, even if they manage to lure US into trap. Yesterday i wiped out 30% of vehicles of Stryker company + Batallion's leading elements + MGS platoon with my infantry company + SPG-9 platoon. And after that i was complitely out of AT-grenades (after that i had to lure them into handgrenade's throwing distance ).

[z1812]

Hi Flanker,

Probably you are right. But my previous experience "in the game" with the same scenario was that the Brads were killed or damaged much more easily.

But I will keep my eyes open.

regards John

[MikeyD]

According to the 'Tank protection levels' site Bradleys got equivalent to 150mm bow armor against HEAT. About as much as a T55 and MUCH below many other vehicles you can think of. That's without reactive armor boxes of course. The old Vietnam-era LAW did have trouble piercing the T55, but the PG-7V round penetrates a hefty 330mm. Should be plenty to cause Bradley problems as long as it gets a fair hit.

tank protection levels

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Don't hate me, but I have to comment on this.

People have in the past called the RPG either too effective or not effective enough. And here's the trend I've observed in those complaints:

Those claiming the RPGs are not effective enough will give an example of them firing RPGs at vehicle X and it not getting killed. And the people that think RPGs are too effective will always relate how RPGs killed their vehicle X with ease.

It is never someone complaining that their vehicle X got hit with a gazillion enemy RPGs without it getting KO-ed. Or that it's entirely too easy to kill an enemy vehicle X with the players RPGs. Never ever.

Suck it up people, sometimes you are the pigeon, sometimes you are the statue!

[MikeyD]

This debate sorta reminds me of those entertaining old CMBB arguments on the details of Russian 45mm AT gun penetration. Geez, people used to go at it like their lives depended on it! I think what I like about this particular argument here is nobody has yet thought it fit to use the phrase "fundamentally flawed". Ooops! I was the first to use the dreaded phrase. Mia culpa.

[z1812]

Hi Elmar,

Thank you very much for your constructive comments.

My intent is only to point out that RPG behaviour appears to be different than it was in the previous versions. At least in my limited experience with 1.06

I imagine as time passes people will report what they experience.

Regards John

[the Fighting Seabee]

Originally posted by Hev:

Agreed, i hardly ever see US infantry hit a vehicle with the at-4, and alot of the time they can even miss buildings!

I have the same experience all the time. The at4 is much more accurate than the rpg. Rpg's tend to have a lot of crazy rounds that spiral out and hit nothing. Also, the sound of the at4 is not like the sound of the rpg. The at4 has more of a bang when launched, the rpg is more of that "super bottle rocket" sound which is actually really good in the game. Just a few observations for 1.07 tweaking.

I still love 1.06, it's closest to perfection so far.

[Secondbrooks]

AT-4 has ironsights. RPG-7 can have optics (i have understood that all CMSF's RPG-7s have optics). This has quite big impact to longer ranges and expacely to moving target. AT-4 can use just it's poles in frontal sight for rough lead (how about night vision device's scale?), just like M72.

Also RPG-7 might have flatter trajectory (i'm not sure, havent' seen AT-4's specs), which increses possibility to hit target if range extimations have gone bad. What i've looked at optics it seems that when aiming tank with 200 meters mark, one can (theoratically) hit tank's profile to ~0-350 meters distance.

I don't think that RPG with good quality rockets, which have been taken good care, would be considerably unaccurater than AT-4. Effect of crosswind seems to be pretty hard, much more than AT-weapons which i'm familiar with (usually wind isn't effecting that much). But i don't know can tranined gunner handle that (or is rocket prone to go somewhat unstable).

[Pandur]

RPG-7 can have optics (i have understood that all CMSF's RPG-7s have optics).

thats a good point. but i dotn think all have optics, i think the low quality versions dont have one.

i find the accuracy about right, its overall hard to hit something with it succesfully. i played much red on red with 1.06 so far, and i saw the RPG´s miss much more often than hit.

i think many people dont even notice how many RPG´s are flying off somewhere but not on the target. however if they got hit, it was one hit too much

[Martin Krejcirik]

Pandur I did some tests some time ago and regular units score first round hits at 300m, crack units at 400m, conscripts at shorter range (can't remember, 100m ?).

[Hev]

Well, i actualy saw US troops hit a t72 today, and it delivered the killing blow.

On that subject, has anyone else noticed t72's often take two hits to kill it, even with javalin.

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by Pandur:

i think many people dont even notice how many RPG´s are flying off somewhere but not on the target. however if they got hit, it was one hit too much

I think so too. Usually it gives impression that almost allways RPG-teams hits their targets, but when watching closely at RPG-team taking out vehicle there are quite many misses, even at closer ranges.

I haven't tested it so can't tell how much more accurate RPG-7 is than AT-4 in CMSF. But what i've seen gives impression that 100 meters seems to give almost 100% change to hit with AT-4 and to 300 meters (moving target) AT-4 usually doesn't hit, which should be quite fine. And ofcourse i'm more furious about missed AT-4 than PG-7, because usually there is just 1-2 of them, while squads have 5-7 PG-7s.

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by Martin Krejcirik:

Pandur I did some tests some time ago and regular units score first round hits at 300m, crack units at 400m, conscripts at shorter range (can't remember, 100m ?).

Stationary targets?

[Martin Krejcirik]

yes