Various questions from Russian community

[Bolt]

Hello guys!

First of all, I want to apologize for my bad English – I didn’t know many military and technical terms but I hope you’ll figure out what the hell I was trying to say.

Consider this thread as an open later from Russian CM community. Majority of us really love playing CMBB and for some extent CMAK, however we bump all the time at various issues which don’t let us enjoy playing CMSF as much as CMBB.

We’ve wrote this “letter” in order to maybe suggest few fixes for the next patches (I know guys at BF are really open to it) and not to grumble or rant. We all would like to play a perfect CM, and we think these suggestions will help making it a little bit closer to such condition.

These observations were made while playing in WEGO mode, on Elite settings with 1.10 patch.

1. Very big increase in the chance of ATGM to be spotted, for example in the test scenario lone M1A1SA tank immediately (within 1-2 seconds) was spotting the fire from ATGM AT-4 Spigot. The test condition were: day, sunny, 1900m distance, the angle of attack was ~45-60 degrees, veteran ATGM crew, which was positioned in something like 4-6 meters from the edge of a dense forest, regular tank crew, positioned in the middle of a desert.

Everything would be normal if it was a laser-guided missile spotted with the help of a special spotting systems, however it’s quite unclear why this is happening with a usual small wire-guided rocket at such distances. At the moment, ATGM is literally useless – the missile launch is being instantly spotted and the crew then dies like flies, sometimes even with the rocket still in the air.

2. The ATGM of fighting sides are unbalanced. Remember that topic started by the (I believe?) ex-Bradley crewmember, where he said that such speed of reaction from target spotting to firing the TOW is insane and in RL in must be deployed before firing?

When BMP-2 spots enemy tanks or APC, the commander then decides to use his AT-5 Spandrel, but the aiming process takes up to 18-26 seconds (this was tested on Veteran settings, distance was about 280-350 m), this not includes the time of spotting and making the decision to use the AT-5. Often enemy vehicles just cross the firing arc or just spot this aiming BMP-2 and take it down before it managed to shoot its AT-5.

However, if you try to shoot M2A3 Bradley with your T-72 from close distance, you’ll only have a smoking wreck of T-72’s hull as a result. It will take only 6-8 (sometimes – 10-14) seconds for IFV M2A3 Bradley to spot your tank from the distance of 150-300 meters (Veteran settings) and launch its TOW-2

AT-5 and TOW-2 missiles are roughly in the same league in RL, however, in CMSF the time of using the first is about 3-6 times slower than latter.

3. Last grumbling about ATGM. When someone takes down the ATGM operator, the commander of ATGM crew has a chance of 1:6 of appropriately bringing missile to the target. This is true even when we speak about relatively simple systems such as AT-4 and AT-7. Usually, the crew commander just “drops” the missile on 1/3 or 1/4 of the needed trajectory. As we think, this is wrong, because crew commander (not only ATGM’s, but any artillery system’s) is usually trained good enough to do any of crewmember’s work and always is the most trained soldier of his team.

4. Abrams’ reaction time to the incoming fire is just too fast. For people who sit inside a metal box and use spotting systems to look around, no matter how efficient they are, Abrams crews look like some psychics.

Example Nr 1

Tank platoon of 3 M1A1SA (veterans) – stays in open ground, with their flanks exposed to the enemy

Republican Guard (vet) – HQ and one rifle squad are on the second floor of some building. Firing distance is 90-100 meters.

In order to spot the tanks and start firing RPGs at them, the Syrians need:

If cover arcs were issued – around 3-4 seconds for HQ and 6-8 seconds for usual rifle squad.

Without cover arcs: around 3-6 seconds for HQ and 8-12 seconds for usual rifle squad.

If under fire, it takes only 1-2 seconds for Abrams tanks to figure out where did the grenade come from and start firing at Syrians. If you’re controlling these tanks, you will even see an icon of Syrian unit, which won’t disappear even when AT soldiers will try to reload their RPG-7s. And probably with some help of telepathy, it takes 1-2 seconds to not only spot the enemy in the window, but also pass this information to other units in the platoon and start laying down massive fire. After the Syrians have been spotted, they won’t disappear from Americans’ POV and usually are being killed very fast. In this case, Syrian infantry is able to make only one shot until all soldiers in the unit die. But if some lucky guy manages to survive, then he can shoot his rifle at enemy infantry, and neither tanks nor other people at the ground will spot him.

Such reaction speed and vigilance in spotting are 2-5 times faster than any other infantry’s of similar training. But if Abrams is as good as shown in CMSF, then why Army is using other vehicles, such as IFV M2A3 Bradley?

Example Nr 2

Let’s use veteran mechanized infantry platoon with 4 M2A3 Bradley and 4 infantry squads instead. Infantry sits inside the IFV.

After Syrians open up with their RPG-7, it takes ~6-8 seconds to figure out where those shots are coming from. Until then, Bradley try to reverse after 3-5 seconds from the start of a firefight, accompanied with automatically deployed smoke screen. And what’s more, not all vehicles know the exact location of the enemy after they were spotted. Those vehicles that did not spot the AT soldiers only have ? icon at the their possible location. Also, M2A3 can’t see Syrian AT soldiers when they are reloading their RPGs – mark with ? is the only thing player can see at such moments.

It’s obvious, that with similar spotting systems, Abrams tank is modeled in game much more potent then Bradley (we don’t talk about its armour or its gun, we’re talking about the spotting efficiency). Something should be done about this.

Artillery. The response time for Syrian artillery is very long. It became so long, that even battalion level mortars are useless for every mission, except a prep-fire one.

Test with calling in artillery with Republic Guard’s forward observer. Both forward observer and battery are veterans (in brackets – results for regular FO and battery).

82mm and 120mm mortars: 9-10 minutes (10-12 minutes), if FO and battery are in the same battalion, then the response time will be less at 1 minute.

D-30 howitzers: 11-12 minutes (13-14 minutes)

SPG 2S1 Gvozdika: 12 minutes (13 minutes)

M-46 guns: 15 minutes (16 minutes)

Adjusting fire takes the same amount of time, for example, for D-30 howitzers it will be 11 minutes.

For comparison, response time of American 155mm M109 Paladin howitzers is 5 minutes at Regular and Veteran level.

Probably, the developers tried to simulate the situation where communication systems at the Syrian infantry’s disposal are worse than US ones; Soviet doctrine of centralized artillery use is being used.

1) Soviet communication systems, such as radios R-159, R-173 etc are much more complicated in their usage and bigger in comparison to more compact and lighter American radios. But even they are quite capable in transmitting FO’s voice to the artillery battery, just like their American counterparts.

2) Beginning from ‘60-‘70 of the last century various computers, calculation machines mounted on special vehicles are being used for solving artillery calculations, topographical bindings, mathematical modeling. They were used in the Soviet Army as well. The fact that such Soviet computers, which are used at artillery battery’s CP, don’t have installed Windows NT, doesn’t mean that they’re incapable of performing complex mathematical calculations in acceptable time (few dozens of seconds). Even the African armies are beginning to use simple calculations made with pencil on a sheet of paper less and less, and of course one couldn’t stumble upon such anachronism in the Syrian army, which in ’70s-’80s was receiving from Soviet Union not only modern (at that time) tanks, but quite normal guns and fire control systems.

3) Even while using centralized doctrine for reinforcing assets that gives the right to use artillery from higher command to lower ranks, there are enough assets in pro-soviet armies for flexible fire maneuver in the limits of appointed usage. Firestorms of hundreds and hundreds guns’ preparing fire, which needed thousands of ammunition wagons for one square kilometer, with concentration of badly maneuverable artillery pieces lasting for weeks, are in history now, they were left in WW2. Having huge amount of experience in the artillery usage, good scientific base and manufacturing capabilities, Soviet Army has developed the doctrine of centralized artillery support, which, however, had some flexibility.

Every commander having in his disposal his own artillery and additional artillery, placed under his command, could as well organize and control it. Divisional artillery (division’s own arty and attached to it) would be organized into Divisional Artillery Group (DAG). It was controlled by artillery HQ of the division. The head of such HQ was artillery commander, who had his own control company. Artillery was split, depending on the tasks, into smaller groups (e.g., counter-battery fire etc), and also was issued to operational subordination to regimental commanders in order to reinforce them at the direction, which was picked by Division command. Every Soviet motorized rifle (tank) regiment had its own artillery commander with a small HQ. All artillery (regiment’s own artillery and attached to it) was organized into operational structure – Regimental Artillery Group (RAG). Battalion commander received artillery support from regiment commander according to the plans of regiment commander.

The cooperation depended on regiment’s artillery commander who had his own radio network in the limits of DAG (RAG), as well as on FO sent from batteries to fighting formations of motorized rifle or tank units.

Thereby, centralized usage system lets obtain artillery reinforcement in chosen sector, and battalion commander could manage it just like his own artillery, and the artillery worked in the interests of only the unit it was attached to, and ideally it wouldn’t be distracted by other battalions or regiments.

In game one can see that dedicated forward observers for centralized fire support (like 120mm mortar battery) attached to a certain battalion, just can’t get their selves heard at their own batteries over the radio chatter and need to use foot messengers. Because reaction time of 11 minutes for mortar company is just the right time to run to firing positions (which are 1-3 km from the frontline).

In my opinion, the “rare” rarity for Syrian artillery is logical for modeling centralized use of artillery, while the response time 3-4 times longer than the Blue force has, is defiantly not. In fact, it should be equal for both sides or the Red side’s reaction time could be even slightly faster, because it’s being compensated by battery’s organization focused to support certain area of the frontline.

Example:

In 1986 regimental self-propelled artillery division of 339th Guards motorized rifle regiment of 120th Guards motorized rifle division (Byelorussian MD) having 2S3 Acacia’s in its disposal had a exercises with live firing, where a new (at that time) type of weapon – guided round – was tested. According to participants’ memoirs, response time for FFE, based on information received from exercise commanders, was “…less than three minutes”. As I think, such period of time (+ 1-2 minutes) is normal for artillery of Veteran level.

[JP76er]

I'm afraid I have never served in the military so I can't answer anything for you. Just a welcome! There are some great people here & I'm sure they will start to answer your inquiries. Myself, I'm going to sit back & get a good education from the people that know.

I would love to hear more on the T-90.

Добро пожаловать!! Утесы Тед Nugent кстати!!!

(I bet that translated well. Gotta love Babelfish!)

[hcrof]

I too have noticed a lot of these issues but had assumed that a) syrian artillery must be a shambles and that the Abrams had some sort of missile detection system.

I would also like someone who knows to comment about this.

All in the name of 'perfect' CM!

[Bigduke6]

Bolt,

Welcome! Your English is excellent, but if you need any assistance get in touch with me, as it happens I speak Russian.

As to your comments regarding US elements vs Syrian elements, I think they are dead on. In many engagements US forces seem close to psychic, Syrian forces close to blind. I second the results of your testing, which as I read it are:

- Syrian mortars call for fire in about 11 minutes, when the reality is likely 1-2 minutes, as Soviet fire control technologies computerized in the 1970s.

- US armored vehicles, buttoned up, detect almost instantaneously Syrian ATGM firing from cover at range.

- A buttoned-up M1A1 Abrams crew will detect an RPG shot from a concealed squad firing from a second story building above the tank, and within 1-2 seconds will not only slew and fire on the squad, but inform other tanks by radio and they will do the same thing - an especially amazing feat considering it would take well above 2 seconds, simply to describe over the radio where the RPG team was at.

[ChrisND]

I'd like to know which game you guys are playing, because my units often die from invisible foes. :confused: That, or I suck badly at this.

[dima]

Привет Bolt,

Свяжись со мной пожалуйста по мылу " dimastep at gmail dot com"

Мы конкретно разберем каждый случай бяки.

Я бета тестер игры и потому все глюки могу напрямую разрабам посылать.

Кстати, я и не знал что в России в игру кто-то играет... Это обнадеживает!

Дима

[Sergei]

Передайте мне водку, и Bfc слушает!

[dima]

No vodka for you, Sergey!

Bolt,

OK, for item #1 I have setup exact test conditions you described. Ran the test 4 times, here are the outcomes

Test 1

1st missile missed, not detected

2nd missile hit, killed one crew member, tank did not detect

3d missile missed, detected only as ?

4th missile was detected very close to the tank, he shot back

5th missile hit, not detected

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test 2

1st missile hit, not detected

2nd missile hit,tank saw it very close, fired back

3d missile hit, not detected

4th missile hit, not detected

5th missile missed, not detected

Test 3

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1st missile hit, not detected

2nd missile hit, but was detected very close and shot back

3d missile hit, but was detected very close and shot back

4th missile he detected and destroyed before it hit

Test 4

---------------------------------------------------------------

1st missile missed, not detected

2, 3, 4, 5 missiles all hit and none of them were detected.

As you can see Abrams is far from telepathic. Also mind you that after first missile hits the tank it turns in general direction of where the missile came from which increases detection chances.

[dima]

Let's continue.

For item #2, in my observations Bradley takes a bit less time to aim and fire TOW than BMP-1 takes to fire its missile. But not much less. Considering Bradley crew get 10 times more training than Syrian BMP crew I think what we see is realistic. Unless there are some specific restrictions for TOW on Bradley that I don't know about, I think everything if fine here.

Bolt, your point #3 about ATGM crew. In my first test Abrams when fired back usually hit one of the crew member. Always another crew member went to the missile and fired the next one. However I think it is unrealistic to expect when missile is in flight and gunner is shot that another crew member will take control of missile and continue guiding it.

So I really don't see a problem with #3

[JP76er]

Dima, Сделал вас для того чтобы сказать " Glocks" или " Glucks"? Не обращайте внимания я, I' m имея & чтения потехи; играть с Babelfish.

[JP76er]

Передайте мне водку, и Bfc слушает!

То смогло быть большой делом основанным паутиной, если вы смогли улучшить технологию для служения хорошего питья через ваш ПК. Я мог начать работу на то одном.

[JP76er]

Babelfish is great. It can make you sound like a complete idiot while you goof up another language.

[dima]

Yeah, I know, it wasn't polite of me to start speaking russian here. Sorry:o

That's why I wrote my answers on specific problems in english. Hopefully Bolt will understand them

[JP76er]

Yeah, I know, it wasn't polite of me to start speaking Russian here. Sorry:o

That's why I wrote my answers on specific problems in English. Hopefully Bolt will understand them

I'm the one that started it & it was in no way meant to be offensive. I was excited to hear some Russian insight on the game. If I offended anyone, I truly apologize. I was just having fun with Babelfish. It's great writing something & then re-translate it & you sound like a baboon. No offense to baboons of course. Have you ever been near a baboon before? Sneaky & mean. They are smart & they know just how far they can push things before beating feet in a retreat. I hunt & it's very humbling entering the woods. Man is no longer the supposed smartest species. You are lowered more than a few notches on the wise one scale.

Болт, Приденная охота некоторое из & миров самого большого; самые вкусные олени вокруг с нами. Можете вы принести T-90 поэтому я могу сыграть? Само лучше, jp76er

[Bolt]

Thanks for the greetings and responses, all!

JP76er, thank you for your interest in our POV! However Babelfish does suck badly, as I understood only some Russian phrases of yours.

Dima, here's the main Russian CM forum with CMSF's discussion over here: http://cmbb.borda.ru/?1-1-0-00000150-000-0-0-1226834096

For item #2, in my observations Bradley takes a bit less time to aim and fire TOW than BMP-1 takes to fire its missile. But not much less. Considering Bradley crew get 10 times more training than Syrian BMP crew I think what we see is realistic. Unless there are some specific restrictions for TOW on Bradley that I don't know about, I think everything if fine here.

I'm completely sure there was a thread on this very forum from ex-Bradley crewman (I've tried searching it, but with no luck.. ). He told that every time Bradley needs to fire its TOW missiles, they must stop, manually "deploy" them (which takes time) and only then they can fire. I know many of forum members served/serving in the Army, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

And if my memory serves me right (usually it does, but not always ), BF said that this wasn't implemented for gameplay purposes. So, if BMP's aiming time could be realistic, Bradley's is not.

Also, you say that it could be the difference between Syrian training and US training. Well, this could be the issue if Syrian IFV was at Green or Conscript level, and US at Veteran. But when they are equal, is it right to simulate such differences in aiming time?..

[JP76er]

Thanks for the greetings and responses, all!

JP76er, thank you for your interest in our POV! However Babelfish does suck badly, as I understood only some Russian phrases of yours.

Dima, here's the main Russian CM forum with CMSF's discussion over here: http://cmbb.borda.ru/?1-1-0-00000150-000-0-0-1226834096

I'm completely sure there was a thread on this very forum from ex-Bradley crewman (I've tried searching it, but with no luck.. ). He told that every time Bradley needs to fire its TOW missiles, they must stop, manually "deploy" them (which takes time) and only then they can fire. I know many of forum members served/serving in the Army, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

And if my memory serves me right (usually it does, but not always ), BF said that this wasn't implemented for gameplay purposes. So, if BMP's aiming time could be realistic, Bradley's is not.

Also, you say that it could be the difference between Syrian training and US training. Well, this could be the issue if Syrian IFV was at Green or Conscript level, and US at Veteran. But when they are equal, is it right to simulate such differences in aiming time?..

You write & understand English very well. How did the Ted Nugent suff come through? I can just imagine how it translated.

[TheVulture]

I'm completely sure there was a thread on this very forum from ex-Bradley crewman (I've tried searching it, but with no luck.. ). He told that every time Bradley needs to fire its TOW missiles, they must stop, manually "deploy" them (which takes time) and only then they can fire. I know many of forum members served/serving in the Army, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

And if my memory serves me right (usually it does, but not always ), BF said that this wasn't implemented for gameplay purposes. So, if BMP's aiming time could be realistic, Bradley's is not.

My memory is that this was about the TOW Humvee, not the Bradley.

EDIT: Nope, I was wrong. The thread I was thinking of was this one: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83941 which is indeed about Stryker / LAV / Bradley TOW vehicles

[Bolt]

Yes, thank you Vulture! That's the thread I was talking about

[TOG]

Let's continue.

For item #2, in my observations Bradley takes a bit less time to aim and fire TOW than BMP-1 takes to fire its missile. But not much less. Considering Bradley crew get 10 times more training than Syrian BMP crew I think what we see is realistic. Unless there are some specific restrictions for TOW on Bradley that I don't know about, I think everything if fine here.

Well about that training - it should be covered with experience setting on each unit. According to what was written in some other topic earlier the same experience setting on two different units should give them the same abilities. A uncon soldier and recon marine with regular experience should be equally effective in combat (considering of course different weapons). Greater abilities of US troops are not coded but represented by the experience manually set by the scenario designer. The same should apply to vehicle crews. Unless there is some technical difference that results in greater firing time for BMP, there should be no difference for two crews with the same experience in similar situation. Sitting in a Bradley doesn't make the crew automaticly superior to BMP crew. I'm no wxpert on combat vehicles, but only logical explenation would be technical differences between thiese vehicles.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Syrian army, which in ’70s-’80s was receiving from Soviet Union not only modern (at that time) tanks, but quite normal guns and fire control systems.

BTW Syria bought modern artillery control systems from Russia a couple of years ago.

[Other Means]

Bolt - welcome. I agree with all your points. I think a lot of the Syrian capabilities are modelled as worst case, while the US seems to be...optimistic in some cases.

[John Kettler]

Regarding the Bradley TOW launcher, I care not how elite the crew is in the Bradley, the thing still has to be erected, which takes a finite and known period of time. While I freely grant that a better crew will shorten the OVERALL time to get the launcher into ready to fire condition, there is still a hard component here associated with the physical erection of the launcher from the stowed to firing position. I watched the firing sequence footage many times during my Hughes days as the new mount went through development and deployment. The footage is available online, and with a little work, can easily be timed as to how long this takes. If not, it's bound to be in a manual, and I'm sure some of our veterans or active duty types can tell us what the number is. If it's not modeled already, then I think it should be. Otherwise, it creates an unfair advantage to the owning player. By contrast, an AT-4/5 on a BMP or BRDM-2 roof mount requires no such erection, being already in the "up" position. An exception to this rule would be the earlier AT-3 armed BRDM-2, which must raise its armored roof in order to fire.

Regards,

John Kettler

Regards,

John Kettler

[Thomm]

I think a lot of the Syrian capabilities are modelled as worst case, while the US seems to be...optimistic in some cases.

I also agree. I playtested in Al Huqf yesterday and was astonished to see how Crack Syrian soldiers in buildings are simply unable to cause casualties to US soldiers advancing in the open while being picked off one-by-one.

The problem is I do not know what to do or report about that. I do not know how the real weapons are supposed to perform, I do not know how much shots are supposed to be stopped by body armor. I see that the US has advantages in terms of AT weapons carried and M203 launchers present. But still, something seems off, I am just not able to quantify it, and this is what is needed.

I also played "Viper Pass" some days ago, and had US soldiers trapped at the bottom of a valley, shooting at them from elevated positions from both sides of the valley. They just did not die ... but does this make a bug report? I dunno.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Apocal]

BTW Syria bought modern artillery control systems from Russia a couple of years ago.

I've always written that off the additional delay as working your request up the chain (to the primary decision maker) and back down again (to the guns), including all the checks and balances along the way. I've been informed that in Soviet-styled armies this could take quite a bit of time, even with dedicated arillery observers. Were my sources (two soldiers who served as liasion with Russians in Kosovo) wrong?

EDIT: And they were quite specific in this regard, saying it could take upwards of fifteen minutes for a fire mission by battalion mortars to actually put rounds downrange. And helos were a complete no-go unless it was planned well in advance.

[Splinty]

I'm a former Bradley gunner, it takes about 10 seconds to stop and erect the TOW launcher, In most cases it's already loaded with 2 TOW missles. A good crew can reload the launcher in about 3 minutes, as long as there are dismounts in the back to do it.