Are RPG's too accurate ?

[Martin Krejcirik]

It seems to me the RPG-7 is quite an accurate weapon in the game, I can see regular units getting first or second round hits at 300m, crack units at 400m, even conscripts can hit anything at short range. Almost every hit is a kill.

How realistic is that ? I read in the real life RPGs are quite inaccurate, insurgents in Iraq can't hit anything even at short range, many are duds and not every hit is catastrophic.

[thelmia]

Hmm, I read an article about RPG training. I'll see if I can find it.

Aha!

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20030417.aspx

The Egyptians used them to very good effect in 1973, along with the AT-3 Sagger.

Again, it depends on leadership and training. The weapon is a good one, and I wish we something like it.

[Becket]

My conscripts can't hit the broad side of a barn with on elite, and they aren't killing when they do hit.

[Lethaface]

I must agree with Becket here; ive seen many misses and many non fatal rounds. Ofc a RPG-29 is mostly fatal when hit, but not always... Furthermore, they not allways hit, even not in SpecialForces hands. Altough they seem to be more accurate in their (SF) hands, which seems logical, due to their training

RPG7 on the other hand is a total gamble; hit/miss and if hit: KO/DAMAGED/FINE are random in % of chance...

In my experience at least

[Rodingo]

Yeh I think the RPGs are a little to accurate, at least when fighting against REDFOR. I skimmed over the one of the previous posters post and the article. The training of RPG gunners with a standing army is one thing, but having your standard Joe Hadji who is given a 10-40 year old weapon from his mother's sister's cousin's roommate is not going to be a crackshot. Much less using 10-40 year old ordance that has most likely been stored under less than favorable conditions. There is bound to be a high rate of duds and just flat out crazy flight paths resulting from that alone. Plus dont forget it's a true Soviet era weapon designed with quantity, not quality in mind.

[MarkEzra]

The game modeling seems fine. Hits and Misses, kills and close calls....Joe Hadji steps up to the plate or falls on his face...Seen 'em both often enough

[MikeyD]

I recall I read a U.S. document somewhere that said RPG was practically idiot-proof against a tank-size target inside 150m. Pretty much point-and-fire. Things get dicey at longer ranges, especially with anything even approaching a crosswind. BFC figured that Syrian RPGs should have a better hit ratio than in Iraq. The Syrians would be less likely to do idiot conscript stuff like forget to arm the warhead before launching, or use suspect ammo obtained on the black market from shady characters with Georgian accents wearing silk shirts & gold chains.

I don't mind the current RPG hit rate, I do wish the slat cage had a higher success rate at intercepting them tho. What do you think, something like 40% currently?

[aka_tom_w]

Perhaps that question could be asked if they have modeled the "dud rate" correctly for RPG's?

[thelmia]

Hey, if Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen can use them...

[nijis]

I'm seeing what I estimate is a 60 percent hit rate for RPGs fired by conscripts at 2-300 meters. This seems much too high, given what I've read about the fighting in Baghdad and Nasiriyah during the initial 2003 invasion.

I've argued before that weapons handling is too high in general for poorly-trained troops. These are soldiers who have taken the stocks off their rifles, who probably don't use their weapons sights, who might very well have never actually been to a firing range. The worst-quality Iraqi troops and irregulars were often almost completely ineffective in combat. My average losses in a US "Total Victory" in CMSF are higher than any engagement during OIF I of which I am aware.

If BfS wants to maintain play balance, it could reduce the proportion of "Conscripts" to "Green" troops, assuming that the Syrian army is better trained. Or it could introduce a new quality level below "Conscript" -- "Untrained" or something to that effect. But for a system which purports to be able to reproduce any battle during the last century, the difference in effectiveness between the high levels of training and the low ones is far too small.

As soon as I have time and access to the right sources I will try to find engagements that back these assertions up.

[ September 04, 2007, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: nijis ]

[Martin Krejcirik]

I could more or less live with conscripts, but seeing regular combatant squad scoring first round hit against my Stryker at 250m after they had been peppered by few mortar shells and machine guns drives me mad...

[ September 04, 2007, 05:28 AM: Message edited by: Martin Krejcirik ]

[Chelco]

Other thing I noticed is that RPGs are devastating against dismounts who are inside buildings.

[SgtMuhammed]

I know that RPGs fired at my guys never seem to miss.

On a related note, I don't think I have ever seen U.S. squads miss with the AT4. I even had a squad fire and hit with 3 AT4s at a range of 250m against a fast moving target. It's hard enough to hit at 250m on a range.

[Guest]

I agree that weapon accuracy in general seems to need a tweak downward. What chance does a Conscript have of hitting a man-sized target at 300+ meters, at a completely different elevation, with an LMG that likely hasn't been cleaned since they pulled it from the local weapon stocks?

Apparently pretty good, since Conscript LMG teams slaughtered a squad of mine in a firefight the other day under just those conditions, *while* multiple other elements were laying fire into the LMG teams. I took six casualties on a rooftop in about forty seconds.

Too effective, too accurate, in my opinion.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

Too effective, too accurate, in my opinion.

Have to agree - it seems that most weapon systems are over-modeled in the game, save maybe tank cannon and ATGM rounds. Small arms and unguided munitions are ridiculously effective right now, and does not match reality. RPG's are fired in salvo's for a reason, and no, it isn't because the gunners are untrained.

I don't know if they're just modeling optimum "firing range" accuracy in all cases or what, but something just doesn't add up.

[Guest]

Maybe. Even on a firing range I wouldn't expect a first-round hit at hundreds of meters with questionable training and weapon maintenance. Or even a thirtieth-round hit.

In fact, with targets capable of taking cover, it's unlikely that small arms or LMGs in the hands of the untrained (really, should a couple weeks of familiarization -- as I expect Conscripts would have -- even count as effective training?) would have much effect at range... which, oddly enough, is how things have worked for the last fifty years or so as I understand it.

In fact, I'd expect Vietnam-esque ammo-to-kill ratios in those situations. Untrained uncons should have to blow through hundreds of rounds to have a decent chance to hit.

That could make the game a lot less fun, though.

[dima]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

Too effective, too accurate, in my opinion.

Have to agree - it seems that most weapon systems are over-modeled in the game, save maybe tank cannon and ATGM rounds. Small arms and unguided munitions are ridiculously effective right now, and does not match reality. RPG's are fired in salvo's for a reason, and no, it isn't because the gunners are untrained.

I don't know if they're just modeling optimum "firing range" accuracy in all cases or what, but something just doesn't add up. </font>

[c3k]

Are we comparing Syrian soldiers, whether conscripted, reserve, regular, or elite, to Iraqi fighters?

I would submit that the Syrian regulars, and especially elites, would have more reliable stocks of weapons and would use them more effectively than the vast majority of what we're seeing in Iraq.

Therefore, I'd be hesitant to draw direct comparisons between Iraq experiences and game simulation. (Yes, I'm sure there are cases of very good, very skilled, very well trained fighters in Iraq who are better than anyone the Syrians have. The curves could cross, but in toto the advantage goes to Syria.)

Having said all that, I've held that the game does grant excessive accuracy at long range. This is especially so against moving targets.

Regards,

Ken

[Cpl Steiner]

I don't think I've ever seen a dud RPG round in the game. Do they exist?