IFVs need these improvements!

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[SlowMotion]

I saw how a three man team killed a T-90 with such hand grenade assault in one the Marines scenarios. No idea if it should be possible, but it was a hilarious thing to watch. Especially because the tactical AI was acting from its own initiative.

[MikeyD]

In CMBB Red army infantry had little more than molotov cocktails and hand grenades to defend themselves against German juggernauts for most of game. It was tough but it was doable - a grenade splinter piercing a Tiger's fuel tank or radiator through the open engine grate might've been unlikely but not impossible. Until recently modern armor designers didn't concern themselves much with close-in attacks. They had bigger "WWIII" issues to think about so unlikely scenario like someone getting close enough to place a grenade on a particular vulnerable spot was considerably lower on their list of concerns than ATGM HEAT strikes across the frontal arc.

[Mikkey]

and next one

- all vehicle crew would be interchangeable (Strykers crew with any other Strykers, BMPs with other BMPs...). If I have one Stryker with death gunner and one bailed Stryker crew now I can't exchange it (Stryker with exchange crew have still Dismount status).

[Chelco]

A bit more of self-preservation reacting against ATGMs (pop smoke, reverse zig zag and suppress the unit firing) would be nice too.

[c3k]

mikkey,

See my thread about AAV's.

Thanks,

Ken

[Elmar Bijlsma]

A bit more of self-preservation reacting against ATGMs (pop smoke, reverse zig zag and suppress the unit firing) would be nice too.

If an ATGM is spotted they do exactly that. Well, perhaps not zig zag unless terrain happens to make them do so. I'd reckon zigzagging might be plan B to hauling ass.

[The_Red_Rage]

-Better cross-terrain performance from vihicles (not just IFVs... Humvee should act like a Humvee, instead we get a Lada that can't cross a little rocky patch without doing three 360 degree turns).

In mission 3 of Semper Fi, Syria i arranged for a nice convoy to push for the route tiger, with cover arcs, proper pauses and etc. (whole thing must've taken me 7-8 mins of plotting). To my horror, my nicely arranged convoy turned into a mob of vihicles running into each other and spinning around their own axis on the first patch of rough ground... after about 2 minutes [well over the time it should've taken the convoy to clear the open ground] Syrians, whose ATGM launching ability rivaled Marine driving skills, finally managed to land the hit on one of the trucks. Trucks were the worst culprits of "traffic jams" as well (and losing a fully packed truck to such BS was painful).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty much every vihicle in CMSF should be able to clear rough patches under 100m in distance at at least 25-30 km/h. Tanks shoud be able to smash through forrested areas, especially with momentum (we are not talking Karelian pine forrests here, this is Syria with dinky palm trees and bush). Detailed suspension damage would be a nice "risk" factor for the player if he desides to run LAVs full speed through rocky patches. At the moment, suspension is probably the least detailed aspect of CM vihicle simulation - on field track repair (takes about 10-15 mins to change a track on BMP-2 under fire), detailed visual wheel and track damage modelling (blown off wheels that are actually blown off on the models) would all be welcome additions.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Chelco]

If an ATGM is spotted they do exactly that. Well, perhaps not zig zag unless terrain happens to make them do so. I'd reckon zigzagging might be plan B to hauling ass.

Hi Elmar,

They would do that if the ATGM is spotted or if the firing unit is spotted?

I've seen too many of my M2/M3s go up in flames with that "deer in the headlights" look.

Cheers,

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Ah, I see. I assumed you meant the ATGM team. Thought it a bit you had failed to notice vehicles responding to them.

Interesting idea, allowing vehicles to react to a missile even if the firing unit goes unspotted. I can definitely see why it's desirable and realistic. Devil would be in the detail. Where to have the AI area fire if it hasn't seen the firer, some random spot in the general area? Back up to where if you don't know where the firer is? Will smoke deploy in time? Not in most CMSF maps.

At the ranges typical in CMSF, whether the bunny is transfixed by the headlights or not makes little difference, it's gonna get flattened.

I'll pass it along to The Powers That Be. Not sure if it'll do much good for CMSF, but perhaps it'll be useful for when the Brits in CM:Normandy keep pelting a AFV with PIAT bombs. You'd expect them to back off a little after repeatedly getting shot at with a PIAT even if the firer remains undetected.

[Chelco]

You make a good point too.

A time ago, in a discussion forum of a sim that will go unnamed, I read a discussion about this very issue. Do ATGMs, specifically the ones that Soviet-made armor fires, have a tail have with an exhaust hot enough to be seen through the thermals?

FWIW in CM at modest engagement ranges you can see the ATGM coming. Even more, in RT play, I'd usually have a pre-ploted "reverse" order pointing towards the protection of a reverse slope on one of my M2/M3s. Order is ready to to become active in one click. It usually works fine, but it requires a lot of micromanagement.

I don't have any hard facts to account how it works in real life (it would be great if some tanker would chime in on this), only some anecdotal references I read in books here and there. According to those, after the smoke of the puff of the launch is spotted, gunner should fire at the smoke puff to throw off the aiming of the firing vehicle/team, commander should order a violent maneuver to avoid the incoming missile. That's the way tankers in the IDF did it against the Soviet-made missiles fielded by the Arabs in one of the many wars they had.

In the sim that will go unnamed, I can see the incoming ATGM through the GPS, suppress the offender and move out of harms way. It is quite an exhilarating experience.

Off course with the Javelin, with its top down trajectory and fire and forget capability, you are FUBAR.

Thanks,

[Flanker15]

Knowing that missile has been launched at you is mainly reliant of spotting the launch puff and knowning that there are ATGM launchers present in the area so you're prepared.

In steel beasts it's pretty easy to spot a ATGM coming in since they look like a giant fire ball from any direction, of course in reality the flare is mounted on the back of the missile so from the front it looks like a little dot. If a missile is launched and nobody spotted the puff you won't know until it's too late or unless you get real lucky and spot it by chance.

[JonS]

... pretty much every vihicle in CMSF should be able to clear rough patches under 100m in distance at at least 25-30 km/h. Tanks shoud be able to smash through forrested areas, especially with momentum (we are not talking Karelian pine forrests here, this is Syria with dinky palm trees and bush) ...

I love ignorance masquerading as knowledge. Funny, funny stuff.

[Chelco]

Good point Flanker.

The "deer in the headlights" moments I was talking about where all with the IFVs looking straight into the incoming doom.

How powerful the thermals really are?

Back in 1991, gunners of M1 tanks were able to spot the so-called "floating balls" (actually the heads of Iraqi tank commanders popping out from hatches of cold tanks with their engines off) at ranges of 1,500+ meters.

Cheers,

[Flanker15]

The modern TIS on the SEP tanks are fantasticly sensitive. It is reported that in the right conditions you can see warmer areas on the ground where vehicles and troops have passed through earlier. Should be able to pick out the latent heat from the motor and leading edges of a ATGM pretty easy with one.

The problem with the IFVs staring at a ATGM as it comes in is they don't really have enough time to evade at the close ranges in SF's smallish maps. Sure you could try to shunt to the side but the guider should be able to compensate easily for that, the only real options are to try to kill/suppress the guider with something that flys faster or to get your strongest armor facing the missile. At longer ranges you could try to evade behind terrain, obstacle, create a nice smoke screen or try to break the wire on a tree.

[JonS]

I've seen starlight reflected in a puddle through TI. That was pretty impressive.

[John Kettler]

mikkey and BFC,

Since teamwork would be degraded when swapping a "foreign" crew member or members into an existing, albeit damaged crew, I'd like to propose that some sort of effectiveness hit be modeled in the reconstituted crew. While one does indeed read of some WW II TCs being unhorsed several times in one day and carrying on the fight, they couldn't possibly be as effective with a borrowed crew as the one they lived with.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Other Means]

I've seen starlight reflected in a puddle through TI. That was pretty impressive.

It MUST have been something else. There's no way you could see stars as a heat source.

If you're 100% sure I'll take it on your authority but I find that very difficult to believe.

[JonS]

I find that very difficult to believe.

Me too *shrug*

[The_Red_Rage]

I love ignorance masquerading as knowledge. Funny, funny stuff.

Please point out where I am masquerading ignorance as knowledge? My stock Toyota FJ Cruiser has better all-terrain performance than vihicles in CM (Humvees with reinforced suspensions spinning around their axis after bumping a little rock). We've worked with LAVs in 4 metres of snow, and they did just fine, while CM LAVs have trouble navigating 20cm of sand with an odd rock thrown in...

Also, i like how you took out "correct me if i'm wrong" from my statement.