Javelin Artillery

[reel-why]

So I've found myself frequently making use of what may or maynot be a legitimate tactic. When confronted with opposition in dense urban areas rather than follow the Capt'n's (man thats weird gramatically) excellent advice on slow go and cover I find myself picking up as many Javelins as possible and splitting off the troops carrying them. Regular infantry go into the buildings spot the troops then I area fire with the javelins to reduce the buildings to rubble. Its worked so far, but I feel a bit underhanded doing so. Do you think Javelins are ever used this way? Targeting dug in infantry and essentially filling the spot of off map artillery? It doesn't seem very plausible to me.

[Hev]

Personaly, tho im talking from no military experience at all, i would think the troops "in contact" would throw what ever they had at the enemy.

Two minutes plus(?) for an arty strike versus straight away with a javalin.

[thelmia]

You got it, use it. What are you saving it for?

It's a big advantage that US infantry have and I exploit it ruthlessly. The Syrians get RPGs, which are sometimes better. AT4s are pretty sad. The extra Javelin that Stykers carry makes me like them a lot more than I would otherwise.

Leaving Javelins on overwatch has saved me a lot of trouble.

[bodkin]

"Do you think Javelins are ever used this way?"

Can't find the exact videos right now but check out some of the US infantry combat footage from Iraq on Youtube, you'll see javelins being used against enemy troops in buildings.

[snake_eye]

Javelin's pretty handy to shoot at identifed target. Take care of not having more than one team in a shooting position, otherwise the others have a tendancy to shoot faster than you can assign them a target. You run out of that artillery asset quickly, killing second rate target.

If you use it against a building (area fire), if it is a small sized one, the missile tends to have an impact aside instead of full square in it. Better use it against tank, tracks and bunkers.To my point of view, it is a waste in urban fighting since it is a CQB(close quarter battle)fight.Better use it from the town periphery on LOS targets and forget it in the town, but from the first house's roof (if high enough)as an additional fire base.

Well what do you think of that ?

[reel-why]

I always thought that the Javelin was an anti-tank weapon first and formeost, I'll have to look around for that video.

They seem to do an amazing amount of damage to buildings, but although 3 rounds (missiles? charges? whats the word for a javelin munition?) seems like alot they chew through them pretty fast.

[snake_eye]

javelin's have been used in Irak against fortified houses in Fallujah, thought in limited number. That's not the rule.

Coming from the top it has more effect that the 120mm. Beside the blast of the tank gun is tremendous and grunts are warned to be at least at 60 meters away. that has not been done at all time unfortunately. Can't speak on the phone to direct the crew and be away.

[Capital]

Honestly, 50% of the time I fire off a Javelin just to hear the delay of the explosion.

I'm easily amused.

[Nemesis Lead]

Javelins are way overmodeled against infantry-- especially infantry in trenches. There is no way a 18.5 pound HEAT warhead would do the damage that the game has them doing.

[reel-why]

ooo! I haven't tried a javelin against entrenched enemies yet. Their alot of fun as a weapon, but I think its an excellent choice that they're optional. If every squad started with one it could have been a real issue for those more realism concerned or wanting to have any sort of fast moving assault squad.

Do javelins slow troops down? I remeber seeing a post about that somewhere but I can't recall the answer.

[JasonC]

Nemisis Lead is correct, they are overmodeled against infantry. Especially since the 18.5 lb figure is for the whole missile nose section, not the weight of explosive, which is more like 6 lbs. That makes a Javelin warhead about as effective as a 105mm artillery round in pure HE terms.

Better penetrating power against bunkers or thick building walls, but also more focused blast that would make them less effective than a 105, in the open. Special versions for HE use have been fielded to give a more all-around explosion, not a sign that directed HEAT blasts are fully effective in the open. I also think buildings in CMSF collapse too easily under all fire, but particularly under missiles. (The behavior seen is right for some light mud structures, but not for modern, steel-reinforced ones).

I suspect the reason for the missile HE effect overmodeling is some confusion between whole warhead weight, for missiles, and actual HE payload weight. The latter is typically only 25-35% of the former. For missiles, "warhead" is being distinguished from the rocket motor, and does not mean HE payload.

As for whether they are used against infantry in buildings, in practice, the answer is yes they are. But not so routinely that a company fires off all it has in every infantry engagement, which is how they are being used in CMSF. The total number expended in the war in Iraq to date, for example, is about 1600. For the right target they will be used. Just to routinely fight infantry two blocks away, not so much.

[reel-why]

Thats really interesting about the weight difference, and upon consideration I realize there really is alot of weight that isn't explosive in something like a missile.

I agree on the easy structure collapse, it seems fine with one and two story buildings, but watching an 8 story monstrosity go down after a few rounds seems strange.

1600 is actually far more than I had expected. They seem like very specialized situation weapons. Where did that stat come from? And are there more interesting snippets of data where it came from?

[RT North Dakota]

According to Royal Marines just back from Afghanistan, they can get the UK version of Javelin to lock off on a the heat signature of an individual. - and it works fine.

Some RM Troops (Platoons) have ALL fired a Javelin on operations and the UK has now used thier ENTIRE war store!!

While this all seems very revolutionary, it's not. It's a just a reflection of current ops. If we still had Dragon M47, we would be using it in exactly the same way.

[Ryanwtod]

Are some of the Javelins armed with a thermobaric warhead? I believe it does say T Heat on some of them if not all when you pick them out of the stryker of bradley. If not what does that stand for? The thermobaric warhead would be much more useful against buildings than a regular heat

[Mishga]

Not 100% but the T stands for Tandem..i.e double blast to defeat ERA. I think...could be wrong.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by Mishga:

Not 100% but the T stands for Tandem..i.e double blast to defeat ERA. I think...could be wrong.

This is correct. T-HEAT means tandem high-explosive anti-tank.

[Ryanwtod]

Ahh that makes sense

[bodkin]

Just played the Aleppo Airport scenario and must say it was a real pleasure to play, tactically very similar to the old CMx1 scenarios. Why? mainly because the US troops didn't have any Javelins so I actually had to use some skill in taking the objective instead of just blasting all enemy positions with this uber weapon.

I think they have a place in the game but maybe the number of missiles a squad has available should be restricted a bit, then again a good scenario designer should take this into account anyway.

[Echo]

I was talking to my brother who fought in Iraq about using these. He said they had sniper on top of a water tower, and somebody in his unit was setting up a TOW to blast him. He asked him if he was gonna shoot that thousand dollar missle at a sniper..."why not?". The TOW wire got all tangled up in a telephone wire, so the shot missed. They killed him with 25 mike mike.

[dan/california]

The guys getting shot at don't much care what the toy cost. They just want to see the bad guy go boom right now. I think there is strong need for a simpler version of the javelin for non armored, less dangerous targets. Maybe laser guided instead of the brilliant but expensive self-guided homing set- up. The viewfinder is an excellent piece of equipment and tacking a laser on it can't be all that hard. Then you carry the same number of anti armor missiles you are carrying now but whole truckloads of the cheaper ones. It would make sniping a much less healthy occupation.

I also think they would have been far better of to go with a lighter, or at least lower velocity gun for the MGS. I would cheerfully trade a lot more rounds for a little less lethality. They can't go head to head with anything dangerous anyway. I know, I've tried it in the game many times.