Recoiless Rifles

[Capt. Toleran]

I did a search and did not find anything, so...

I know Battlefront has already ruled out anti-tank guns. However, I'm in the middle of reading "Thunder Run" right now, and it looks like recoiless rifles were somewhat common during the battle for Baghdad, and may have even been responsible for at least one M1A1 kill. Will these be making an appearance, at least vehicle-mounted?

[rudel.dietrich]

From the Syrian TO&E that I have helped Steve work on, they will be usuable by the Syrian player from what I can tell.

In the 82mm and 107mm variety

I dearly hope ATG make an appearence in a future release

[Schmoly War]

On that note, what are the general pros & cons of putting the various AT systems in bunkers and buildings. Besides the obvious backblast effect of rocket propelled projectiles, are various bunkers designed with this in mind? Would you generally expect the ATGMs to be deployed outside enclosed structures. Any data on how the hezbollah deployed their ATGMs?

I havent found any pictures or text on this subject.

[ March 28, 2007, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Suspicious_Sedan ]

[panzermartin]

Hope they are in. So far the syrian side feels a bit stripped of some useful weapons like ATGs and on map mortars. Especialy mortars. Blues will have their 60mm tubes, why not red side too. They are common in Iraq and mid east generally and perhaps the only indirect mean the syrians can effectively use.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[panzermartin]

I was with the idea that ZU-23s are in :confused:

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Suspicious_Sedan:

On that note, what are the general pros & cons of putting the various AT systems in bunkers and buildings. Besides the obvious backblast effect of rocket propelled projectiles, are various bunkers designed with this in mind? Would you generally expect the ATGMs to be deployed outside enclosed structures. Any data on how the hezbollah deployed their ATGMs?

I havent found any pictures or text on this subject.

As far as I know they used them out in the open or from rooftops.

The back blast is of course something you have to deal with, but you also want as few obstructions as possible between you and the target since LOS is requried for these weapons and in some cases you have a wire trailing the missle and do not want to get it tangled on anything.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

Hope they are in. So far the syrian side feels a bit stripped of some useful weapons like ATGs and on map mortars. Especialy mortars. Blues will have their 60mm tubes, why not red side too. They are common in Iraq and mid east generally and perhaps the only indirect mean the syrians can effectively use.

Syria from what I can tell does not make use of the 50mm light mortar

82mm is as small as it gets for them

[Capt. Toleran]

Hmm, Thunder Run also mentions AA firing from rooftops on the columns that grabbed the palaces and parade grounds -- might be a reason to keep them in. Just make them fragile. If it's too late for this release, maybe a later module?

[panzermartin]

Hmm..thanks. I'm dissapointed

There are quite a few interesting syrian weapon systems that are being left out of CMSF. No ATGs, no ZSU-23s Shilka or AAAs, no on-map mortars, and I fear no recoiless rifles as well. Steve said that one reason ATGs are not in is because of the extra animation work. I think RR's animations are quite similar to the ATGs so maybe they are out too. Hope the ZUs arent out to make the game more "Stryker friendly"

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

Sure. It is just those estimates are based on a US focused idea of tactics, which is hopelessly one sided and limited.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Capt. Toleran]

Don't give up hope, plenty of better stuff crept into CMBB and AK. I'm sure the ATG will rise again soon

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC and AdamL, give it a rest, would you? We can't include everything. Never could, never would. And we have also never, ever, EVER been interested in supporting extreme elements of combat. I can remember people wanting to arm entire British platoons with MG42s because one time this was mentioned in one particular "special ops" type situation. remember the endless amounts of bitching about not including Funnies, for example, or crazy combos of French chasis and whatever junk they hauled back from the Eastern Front.

We didn't include that stuff and yet somehow you survived and are still here posting 6 years later. I think that alone should take the hot air out of your ballon.

You'd think by now you would KNOW how we work and wouldn't act like 2 year olds who only got two pounds chocolate in their Easter Basket. Might as well start bitching about how we don't support Syrian Special Forces combat insertions since you seem to be on a glass is half empty tear as of late. But I understand... you are just whining because YOUR concept of how things work isn't OUR concept of how things work. Which is too bad for you since it's our game and too bad for us since there is no other game company you can go piss and moan to since nobody else is attempting what we are doing (as usual).

Now, to the meat of this. The SPG-9 is included because it is a stanard piece of equipment for the 2nd line troops. It would appear in large numbers and is, in fact, one of the few support weapons those guys have to draw from..

The ZSU-23 was not included because they have something like 300 or so likely in working inventory. How likely do you think it would be that you'd see one in action and in action as an anti-vehicle weapon? Once? Twice? So we're supposed to spend 5 days putting that in instead of something else? Give me a break.

They do have about 700 or fewer AA guns of 23mm and 57mm caliber. Again, how many of these would likely be used in a combat situation? Not many. For the amount of time it would take us to put these in, it simply isn't worth it. Any idiotic thoughts that they weren't included so we could unbalance the entire game in favor of Strykers is, of course, idiotic. Did I mention idiocy would have to come into play to make this claim? I guess I did. Anyway, my point is you'd have to be a complete idiot to argue that they were not included for "political" reasons. There's plenty of stuff that can kill a Stryker deader than dead a lot better than a 23mm AAA gun ever could hope to.

The 100mm ATGs... I am not even sure they are still considered deployable weapons. They don't have that many anyway. What few they have are probably pointed at Israel and not redeployable. They are completely outdated and a royal pain in the ass to put into the game. If they were more relevant we would consider it, but the balance is tipped in the opposite direction. Can't have everything and we make no apologies for that.

50mm/60mm mortars have already been explained. We have no evidence of them in use with the Syrians, so obviously we aren't putting them in. It's a dead argument before it is even begun.

OK, so have I covered all the "outlier" equipment? Would be nice to get them all out of the way in one thread

Steve

[ March 28, 2007, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Since Panzermartin made his points more politely and productively, I'll address them too:

Hope they are in. So far the syrian side feels a bit stripped of some useful weapons like ATGs and on map mortars

To make this claim you have to first establish that we're stripping them of anything (in the case of small mortars) or removing anything useful (in the case of ATGs). I don't think you can make a case that either of these are effective even if we were incorrectly keeping them off the table.

For small mortars to be effective they need to have good fire control. Even if we did grant the Syrians a weapon they should not have (which would be a VERY bad idea right there) they would need good fire control for them to be "effective".

There are Iraqi Insurgents using them in Iraq, but they are far from effective. Without good fire control they are little more than a terror weapon to civilians and an annoyance for combat forces. You commonly hear "we're mortared every day, but they have yet to hit anybody". I think in one instance the hit a stockpile of Pepsi, and that did piss the troops off

Steve

[ March 28, 2007, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[panzermartin]

Hey, I was mostly joking about the "Stryker friendly" environment. I just couldnt get out of my mind how deadly are Flaks for HTs in CMx1. You just ruined my gamey plans of massed ZU-23 AAA fronts intercepting the Stryker brigades

ATGs dont matter that much, I fully understand that extra workload for a somewhat cosmetic addition is not worth it. Its good to hear SPG 9 is in though. As for mortars, I thought it wont be hard for you to use the US animations etc to add some tactical variety to the syrian side, beyond the AK&RPG duo for the sake of gameplay. I've read some accounts of them being used effectively even by insurgents(IIRC in the kiowa down incident, where repeated airstrikes were called to silence a mortar position or in OIF in Nassiriyah). Sure most times are inaccurate but are most insurgents really good with any of the weapons they use? Won't CMSF simulate some elements of the syrian army that are well trained and know how to use certain weapons better than the insurgents now in Iraq? Static ZUs are such characteristic weapons and so common in the mid east countries that I thought they could be in. They were occasionally used in OIF but then again Iraqis fought occasionally in OIF given the chaotic state of their army. Somehow I dont think Syria would be a copy of the Iraq war.

Anyway, most games dont include half of the things you are putting in, and CMSF's quality will most propably make us forget all these little things that might be left out.Then again, we will always have the modules...

[Battlefront.com]

AdamL,

ZU23 sections were used as "standard" in urban combat during the 82 war. (i.e., not rare. not extreme.)

I don't doubt they were used, but I do doubt they would be "standard" in the context of the setting we've set out. The scope, tempo, and nature of the fight we're simulating is not all that similar to 1982 Lebanon. The bulk of their AAA assets would be around Damascus, and that naturally limits the chance of running into one.

As with our previous discussion, Adam, you are picturing the battlefield in a way that favors the type of battle you want to see. We did things the other way around. We took an honest assessment of what the battlefield would likely resemble and made our decisions based on that. RPG-29s, AT-14s, IEDs, asymetric "infantry" and other things are the real threats of choice, not a 30-50 year old pieces of artillery. A lot has changed in the last 10 years, not to mention since WWII.

BTW, I find it amusing that we haven't yet seen posts from you wondering why we aren't simulating this or that US weapon, vehicle, or what have you. Proportionally speaking, the Syrians have more of their stuff in CM:SF than the US does.

Panzermartin,

As for mortars, I thought it wont be hard for you to use the US animations etc to add some tactical variety to the syrian side,

As I said, we have zero interest in spending our time adding things which aren't actually there. This is the line of argument that leads to asking us to put in the latest T-90 MBT or something else. If Syria doesn't have it we shouldn't be putting it in. In later Modules, perhaps, though I still don't see light mortars going in. As I said, they aren't tactically useful without fire control. Some would say even then they aren't useful The mortar positoin you spoke of, IIRC, was a medium or heavy mortar.

Anyway, most games dont include half of the things you are putting in, and CMSF's quality will most propably make us forget all these little things that might be left out.Then again, we will always have the modules...

Exactly and thanks

Steve

[Sixxkiller]

Thats it, if there is no RPGDVD (Rocket Pezpelled Grenade Darth Vader Dispenser) then this cannot be the game for me! j/k, they most likely modeled that first!

Use the Force

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Talk about oversensitive You wanted to get a rise out of me, so don't cry about it now. Uhm, you nit.

There is no substitute for AAA guns because the only thing that is in that class are AAA guns.

Nobody has asked about HMGs, interestingly enough. So I'll offer that one up before someone remembers that the Soviets gave these out like candy at one point. However, thanks to Rudel's research we learned that they have fallen out of favor with the Syrians. They have been scaled down in the frontline units (if even present at all) and are apparently only found in quantity with the Reserve Infantry units. It's the NSV model, which is 12.7mm.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Sixxkiller,

Thats it, if there is no RPGDVD (Rocket Pezpelled Grenade Darth Vader Dispenser) then this cannot be the game for me! j/k, they most likely modeled that first!

Nope, we have that in. Here is a picture of what happens when it hits its target

And note the lovely CCU, prototype of the ACU. Sadly, we wont' be simulating that since it is long since out of service.

Steve