Recoiless Rifles

[Sixxkiller]

Haha I was gonna post a pic but I am far too lazy. This had mine beat anyway.

And I must inform you of the posting rules. Calling someone a nit gets you banned here sir (unless it's Kettler you are calling a name)!

I must apologize to Adam. Remember someday the Empire will fall and Emperor Steveatine will be thrown from the Death Star. Just let a few modules come out before that happens!

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i was hoping that Syrians would get AA guns because of two reasons.

according to GlobalSecurity Syria possesses ~650 23mm AA guns, ~300 37mm AA guns and ~675 57mm AA guns. they also have ~400 Shilkas (the four barrel tank variant of 23mm ZU-23-2). they form the backbone of Syrian tactical air defence together with NSVs and old shoulder fired AA missiles. they will be present practically where ever there are Syrian forces. they will be relatively effective in their specific AA role and will force enemy planes & helicopters to operate from altitude and greater distance. Chechens used AA guns in that specific role with success. during the urban period of the war they even downed a good number of Russian helicopters and even a couple of ground attack planes with 23mm AA guns mounted on "technicals". in OIF Iraqis showed the merits of AA guns in the infamous "flak ambush" and i recall reading about a number of cases where helicopters had to wait till other arms had taken out a Shilka or AA battery. even insurgents have been able to deny the use of helicopters in bigger clashes like in the second siege of Fallujah. the ability to deny the use of helicopters matters in Combat Mission scale urban setting, because fixed wing CAS requires considerable safety zones. a smart player will recognize an incoming airstrike and will change positions.

Syrians have a great number of AA guns and they have no reason to believe that they would not be effective in their own specific role. even if they would think that AA guns are worthless junk, they have nothing to replace them with. in my opinion Syrian forces would thus field AA guns in great numbers and they would be met commonly in battlefield.

the second reason i was hoping to see Syrian AA guns is because of their good reputation in MOUT. like already pointed out Syrians used AA guns already in 80ies in MOUT because of their good suppressive power. AA guns are able to react quickly and throw a mass of fire at targets located in buildings. they are superior to machineguns in that they are able to penetrate building walls, while still offering a high rate of fire and ability to engage targets at high elevations (e.g. upper stories of buildings) that isn't possible for tanks. in Chechenia Russians considered self-propelled AA guns (Syrians have around 400 of them) to be the best vehicle for MOUT. they also highly value all AA guns because of their ability to suppress enemy infantry at considerable distances even when they are in woods or buildings. in Yugoslavian civil war AA-guns (especially the larger calibre ones like 57mm, due to heavier construction of buildings in that region) were considered the weapon of choise for taking enemy forces located in buildings. AA-guns also have the capability to knock out enemy vehicles. in OIF Iraqis even managed to put two M1s out of action when they engaged them with 23mm AA guns mounted on "technicals" during a sand storm. the other M1 was knocked out by 23mm fire penetrating the rear engine grill from 20 meters, while the other M1 panicked and fell to a ditch.

i do not expect or even wish to see suicidal AT use of AA gun systems in CMx2, but i was hoping to see at least the towed variants if for no other reason than, what i consider to be, their common existence in the battle field. the second hope i had was their use in MOUT role. both in passive dug-in role in strongpoints and in active supportive role by being mounted in "technicals" or Shilkas. like already pointed out, AA-guns are different to machineguns in that they are able to penetrate building walls. they would be crucial in providing temporary supression of enemy forces located in buildings so that the actual (counter)attack by infantry had chances of being succesful. the only other weapon systems in Syrian inventory that are at all suitable for that role are ATGMs and recoilless rifles (in passive role), and tanks and BMP-1s (in active role), but IMO they are for a different combined arms role. they both suffer from low rate of fire and thus aren't good for suppression and are rather used for taking out indiviual identified point targets. i suppose Syrians do have grenade machineguns at least in limited numbers, and they would be more effective in suppressing enemy infatry located in buildings if there are enough of windows, but it still doesn't offer the same kind of suppressive firepower given by high rate of fire that is able to penetrate walls. we know that Syrians used AA-guns to support tanks in MOUT already in 80ies. why should they not do it today? if something, i'd expect them to have refined that combined arms connection even further.

Shock Force won't be ruined if there are no AA-guns in the game, but in my opinion it is a bit strange and a disappointment. these weapons aren't marginal systems, they are common arsenal, and they have unique capabilities that no other Syrian weapon system has, especially what comes to MOUT.

[ March 30, 2007, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

if Syrians have mortars only as off-board asset, then surely it makes the game easier for a Syrian player, not harder, as anti-Syrian forces won't be able to take out those mortars?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

what about AGS-17 or AGS-30? in the game?

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

what about AGS-17 or AGS-30? in the game? </font>

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Same deal as machine guns

Mostly with static infantry formations, which means their use is limited too reserve formations and militia units

The PKM machine gun is also in the game

agh. what heavy support weapons Syrians DO have?

This means there are 3-4 times when there will be brand new things added to the Syrian side.

good!

And with a small team and still much to work on, resources and hours as something BF is short on.

i do understand it. i hope fancy graphics don't eat so much resources that it damages content.

So try and cut BF a little slack.

i really like their games and CMSF sounds very good.

They are taking a big risk doing a modern wargame.

If CMSF flops and they lose money having made it.

That would hurt the company alot and they will probably spend the rest of the companies days churning out yet more WW2 rehashes that have been done 10,000 times by now.

So if your a modern wargame fan, be thankful the company is willing to take a little bit of a risk.

Most companies dont touch anything other than WW2 with a 10 foot poll

hey, it's their choise and it's not THAT extraordinary to make a modern wargame.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

hey, it's their choise and it's not THAT extraordinary to make a modern wargame.

Can you point me to any other modern games released recently that are in anyway similiar to CM?

My view on the whole AA/AT/elephant nukes is very similiar to that of rudel (although with less clout!). There ARE modules on the horizon. Obviously the decision is made that they won't include them in the base CMSF, and I don't blame them for not wanting to. I'd like to have the game sooner rather than later.

But these things seem very module-worthy. So I will wait and see. And if they don't make it into a module (AA guns in particular), THEN I will start complaining.

[Battlefront.com]

undead reindeer cavalry,

Thanks for your comments. Some replies...

Don't trust anything you read on Global Security. Some of the information is spot on, but a huge amount of it is extremely dated and/or questionable. It is a good place to go for overviews and documents (like field manuals), but for nitty gritty details... very unreliable.

The best information I have states that the Syrians have the following available, in theory, as of mid 2006:

57mm S-60 ~400 (1973) Partly phased out

37mm M-1939 0 (1973 )

23mm ZU 23x2 ~300 (1986)

23mm ZSU 23x4 400 (1977)

The interesting thing is that the estimated ZU-23s in service are about half of what they supposedly own. So either they are phasing those out too or there is some organizational reason why they are in such small numbers compared to their theoretical max.

Since we are not directly simulating AA against aircraft, unlike CMx1, all arguments about their usefulness against US aircraft are irrelevant. AA fire is simulated abstractly so it is presumed that the AA assets mentioned above are performing their specified mission off map.

They can be useful in the ground role, without a doubt. The point is how likely would they be encountered? Comparisons between CM:SF's environment and places like Bosnia, Africa, the 1982 war in Lebanon, Chechniya, and others are like comparing apples to oranges. There are more things dissimilar about them than similar and those differences have a huge impact on the applicability of particular tactics or, at least, the effectiveness of those tactics.

CM:SF is simulating high tempo combat operations between a highly combined arms modern force against a typical ME Soviet equipped and trained force. The only similar circumstance to compare to would be the first few weeks of OIF in 2003. AA guns were encountered, but in fairly small numbers relative to the theoretical amounts available. To the best of my knowledge they didn't score any successes what-so-ever. The supposed knocking out of an Abrams by AA fire is a myth. In fact it was knocked out by a Bradley using 25mm DU ammo. Not that DU would be needed since the rear armor of the Abrams is extremely thin. I'm curious about the technicals in the sand storm reference. Do you have a link to some credible info on that?

Again... we find ourselves facing the notion of spending considerable time simulating something that has little to no proven value to the sort of combat environment we're simulating. Even if the technicals in the sandstorm reference is correct, so what? 150,000+ troops fighting for 3 weeks lost one tank in a tactically perfect weather event is not exactly something we consider militarily relevant. If we did, we'd still be working on CMBO to get in things that accounted for more impact on combat than this

Bottom line is we have to pick and choose what to simulate and what not to simulate. The more and more something fits into "outlier" category, the lower it is on the ToDo list. And we will never, ever have enough time or incentive to include everything on that ToDo list. Therefore, some things are so far down they are effectively never going to see the light of day. I am not saying that will be the case with AA guns, however the case for putting them in is weak at best. That does not bode well for them considering how many more important things that WOULD have a meaningful impact on the game have yet to be included.

Steve

PS the AGS-17 is not finished yet, but will be included. The Syrians do not have the AGS-30 as far as we can tell so it will not be included.

[ March 30, 2007, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Dr.Zoidberg,

Can you point me to any other modern games released recently that are in anyway similiar to CM?

A very good point, of course And I might point out that many in the CM community thought we were nuts for doing it too, which would have mean NO modern wargames in 3D at the tactical level. Just first person shooters.

Steve

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Dr. Zoidberg:

Can you point me to any other modern games released recently that are in anyway similiar to CM?

there are only two games at all that are similar to CM. if we are talking about wargames in general, there are plenty of wargames with modern setting.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Don't trust anything you read on Global Security. Some of the information is spot on, but a huge amount of it is extremely dated and/or questionable. It is a good place to go for overviews and documents (like field manuals), but for nitty gritty details... very unreliable.

ok, thanks for pointing this out.

AA fire is simulated abstractly so it is presumed that the AA assets mentioned above are performing their specified mission off map.

sounds reasonable, considering the scale of the game.

The only similar circumstance to compare to would be the first few weeks of OIF in 2003. AA guns were encountered, but in fairly small numbers relative to the theoretical amounts available. To the best of my knowledge they didn't score any successes what-so-ever.

ok, fair enough.

The supposed knocking out of an Abrams by AA fire is a myth. In fact it was knocked out by a Bradley using 25mm DU ammo. Not that DU would be needed since the rear armor of the Abrams is extremely thin. I'm curious about the technicals in the sand storm reference. Do you have a link to some credible info on that?

this is the best i could find right now:

From: Holden, Richard L LTC VDAS

Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:27 AM

Subject: Lessons Learned from Iraq

To all, I'm sending this VFR Direct since it is not directly intel related, but this info needs to get out to folks currently prepping to head to the Mid-East.

This is from the V Corps CSM and the V Corp Master Gunner. To-the-point common sense info.

Per the authors, request widest distro. Regards, LTC Holden

>From SFC Cooper (V Corps MG)

ALCON, CSM Preston and I went out to visit with the soldiers of 3-7 CAV today. This unit has been fighting since day 1 as they moved from Kuwait to AS SAMAWAH to AN NAJAF. CSM Perhane took us to see two of his troops. I have encapsulated the comments made by the leadership and soldiers below.

PASS THIS ON TO ALL UNITS DEPLOYING TO THEATER!

Morale is high; soldiers have gotten their battle focus straight. Soldiers did not expect the well-trained para-military troops they have been facing. Weapons systems are performing well, especially the 25mm DU and 7.62. Gas plugs on the 7.62mm MG have been the biggest maintenance issue. Units have now taken the spare barrel gas plug; put it in a 7.62 ammo can with enough JP-8 to cover the plug. This self cleans the gas plug as the mission continues. The gunner can now change gas plugs in a manner of seconds and then drops the dirty one in the JP-8. This has worked very well for the units. Everyone I talked to said to bring extra gas plugs! There has been a few ammunition problems, mainly wrong ammunition being delivered to units. The CAV OH-58D's were delivered L model Hellfire's that are not compatible with the OH-58D's. Division was able to cross level ammunition within the division but it still took time.

Additionally, Division was short on its initial draw of UBL. Unit has had several combat losses. Enemy has developed the TTP of putting an AA Gun in the back of a pickup and shooting into the rear of a tank (Engine compartment) The CAV lost one tank initially to this tactic and then a second after the tank went into a ditch. NOTE: This happened during a sand/dust storm that reduced visibility to less th[an] 5 meters at times.

bolding mine

150,000+ troops fighting for 3 weeks lost one tank in a tactically perfect weather event is not exactly something we consider militarily relevant.

i can understand that

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

Yeah, that's what I thought. That's the friendly fire incident involving Bradleys. At the time (check the date of that article) nobody wanted to believe that it was a friendly fire incident. Afterward, when they had time to investigate the evidence, it was determined that one of the Abrams was absolutely knocked out by a Bradley and the other one probably was (I am not sure the Army ever admitted what happened to the second one). Here's one link I found quickly that explains the investigation's findings:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1401.html

So again... as far as I know the entire war in Iraq did not lead to a single AFV being destroyed by AA fire. There was, however, one Abrams that was knocked out by a SPG-9 recoilless rifle. It was during Thunder Run, IIRC, when it managed to get a rear shot. But heck, a slingshot with a sharp rock and harsh words can disable an Abrams from the rear, so that isn't surprising

Steve

[Broompatrol]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

Steve

How about some left over PZIV's from one of those Arab Isralis wars?

[Battlefront.com]

I would never allow historic equipment like that to be destroyed, even virtually It's all well and fine for it to be destroyed in the context of WWII, but to have it destroyed now... makes me feel icky

Steve

[Broompatrol]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I would never allow historic equipment like that to be destroyed, even virtually It's all well and fine for it to be destroyed in the context of WWII, but to have it destroyed now... makes me feel icky

Steve

Do you need to take a shower now?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Apocalypse 31]

Captain Toleran,

Thunder Run is an AMAZING read. In reference to your research on Recoiless Rifles (and Thunder Run). That sure was a lucky shot that hit Cojone Eh?

Also check out Heavy Metal which was co-written by the lead company's CO (Captain Jason Conroy). It goes into detail about their ride up to Bahgdad, particularly a battle where they engaged and destroyed a T55 at 50m.

[Battlefront.com]

Broompatrol,

Do you need to take a shower now?

Not because of that, no. However, my wife said I needed one anyway (something about sitting in front of the computer for 3 days and neglecting hygine). Ah, the fun and smells of 14 hour work days

AdamL,

I'm not even sure that it is that big a deal as long as there is something which can divide the bradley from the stryker and lighter vehicles. If not, if it goes straight from RPG to Kornet, then I can start to understand the backdrop which makes what Steve was saying in the other thread contextual.

Which has been my point all along. In the vast majority of combat situations there wouldn't be something in between RPG to Kornet. And with very good reason... everything else is difficult to support, redeploy, and/or keep alive. As a battlefield commander I'd rather have an AA gun's 6 man crew armed with 3 RPGs and abandon the AA gun than have them sit there hoping something wonders into its crosshairs and then hope it is not too heavily armored. My chances of taking something out would go up quite a lot.

LT Mike,

Thanks for the photo. Oddly enough, that guy looks VERY similar to the guy on the back cover of the CM:SF manual, yet it's pure coincidence.

Steve

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yeah, that's what I thought. That's the friendly fire incident involving Bradleys. At the time (check the date of that article) nobody wanted to believe that it was a friendly fire incident. Afterward, when they had time to investigate the evidence, it was determined that one of the Abrams was absolutely knocked out by a Bradley and the other one probably was (I am not sure the Army ever admitted what happened to the second one). Here's one link I found quickly that explains the investigation's findings:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1401.html

i wasn't aware of that! thanks for pointing out this for me. the incident sounded a bit strange to me, but since it was in "official stuff" i thought it might be possible. oh well, my bad for not checking it out deep enough.

So again... as far as I know the entire war in Iraq did not lead to a single AFV being destroyed by AA fire. There was, however, one Abrams that was knocked out by a SPG-9 recoilless rifle. It was during Thunder Run, IIRC, when it managed to get a rear shot. But heck, a slingshot with a sharp rock and harsh words can disable an Abrams from the rear, so that isn't surprising

yeah, like the super lucky frontal shot with RPG-9 that disabled a M1.

i can live without AA guns and i wouldn't employ them against vehicles anyway. it's the MOUT suppressive firepower i am interested in.

it's great that you have recoilless rifles and automatic grenade launchers in the game. especially the latter is good to have in.

[C'Rogers]

Oddly enough, that guy looks VERY similar to the guy on the back cover of the CM:SF manual, yet it's pure coincidence.

So the manual is done? Well that hopefully bodes well for a pre late summer release.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[QB] Sixxkiller,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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</font>

[Battlefront.com]

The manual cover is done

Steve