The Equipment Thread

[panzermartin]

Ok, having a hard time myself figuring the hardware capabilities in CMSF I decided to make a thread dedicated to players experiences with certain weapons in game. Effective ranges, estimated penetration ability, survivabilty, spotting and all those things that are a bit blurry as displayed in the interface of the game. Unfortunately CMx1 detailed unit charts are gone and replaced by a somewhat generic and abstract Firepower/armour panel that leaves a lot of info obscure. Feel free to post here your impressions about armor or infantry weapons and especialy rare occurances that have suprised you, like for instance, a frontal kill on an Abrams etc. I'll make the start with a somewhat rare weapon like the

M107 0.50 Heavy Sniper rifle (US Army)

I tested it against a BRDM and a BMP-3 at around 300-400m range. It seemed capable enough to penetrate the frontal armor of the BRDM-2 and caused the crew to panic and damaged the radio. After repeated shots, it scored a mobility kill.

Against the BMP-3 it wasnt able to penetrate at least frontally. However with a couple of shots it crippled the optics/targetting system of the vehicle.

[cmfan]

Okay, I'll bite. Mind you, my weapon system description is probably more impressionistic than you want. It contains information that I found useful after playing around with the vehicle in a few scenarios. I'll edit it with hard numbers or testing information if anyone has it.

BMP-3 (Syria)

Crew is made up of one driver and a gunner so no "unbutton" option once troops exit. Despite this it spots relatively well considering how bad earlier model BMPs are at this. Unlike US APCs troops exit from rear hatches, the turret hatch and two front hatches. Something to consider if you're assaulting into a hot spot with little cover.

The vehicle is a "glass cannon" in my experience. 100mm cannon capable of firing AT10, 30mm rapid fire cannon, three 7.62 machine guns (one in the turret, two on the bow - it does fire them). Against infantry, buildings and soft skinned vehicles at long or short range it can deliver massive amounts of fire power rapidly. It almost feels like you have a Bradly and Stryker MGS combined. However, even its frontal armor will not protect it from anything heavier than a large caliber machine gun. Oh, and when the it takes a hit expect it to explode spectacularly with few or no survivors.

A "Target" command against structures will cause it to use its 100m gun. A "Target Light" command will cause it to use its 30mm cannon along with sporadic 7.62 fire. I have never seen it use its ATGM system at anything but an MBT. I'll test its effectiveness further shortly.

[panzermartin]

Very nice report cmfan, thanks! I think you are spot on about the "glass cannon". In my experience, the auto cannon on Bradleys and LAVs has no problem to penetrate the front of the BMP-3 with 1-2 bursts. Also, I find BMP-3 one of the most mobile and agile vehicles of the red camp.

[SgtMuhammed]

M107 addition:

It is possible to kill a light armored vehicle with the M107. I have killed BRDMs and BTRs from between 200 and 400 meters. It is also very effective engaging troops in buildings at nearly any range.

[CogNative]

AB- re: "hardware capabilities in CMSF." Thanks for staring this thread. I hope to contribute as I play around with and record observations in NormalDude's (is he really "normal" ) chimera. I tried a similar approach in some infantry only - mini village scenario trials I did at home. ND has it all covered with his Range series.

[Delta228]

M1A1 Abrams- Arguably the best MBT in the game, the M1 can be described as an armor killing beast. From my experience, the sweet spot for M1s is between 2000 and 3000 meters. I describe it as the "standoff range". This far out, the M1 can kill basically everything it hits with the exception of perhaps the T-72,or T-90 (are they even in the game). And basically any rounds in return will bounce harmlessly off its armor, except again, the T-72. it carries plenty of ammo for the cannon, and can swivel the turret, acquire the target and fire faster than almost any MBT. it reloads very quickly and can destroy multiple targets within a minute. I have had a single M1 "pin down" an entire platoon of T-62s for several minutes, before all the enemy tanks were destroyed. However, at anything beyond 3000 meters, the M1 can probably hit if stationary, but the round has lost a large portion of its energy, so it probably will not achieve much more than light damage. It can kill anything almost without exception within 1000 meters with one round, but it also becomes vulnerable to anything bigger than a T-55. The M1 is ridiculously bad in urban settings, and can be taken out by almost everything. The engine compartment is especially vulnerable.

I have found that the M1's infantry killing ability is a bit lacking, unless they are out in the open or pinned in a building. it has 3 machine guns, 2 50 cal ( i think) and a 7.62mm on the side, although i have never seen it used by the gunner. This is quite a bit of firepower, however, the crew must be unbuttoned to use 2/3 of the anti-infanty weapons, and as far as I know, the Army's future canister round for the M1 is not in the game.

Just like any armored vehicle, unbuttoning in urban conditions is a really, really bad idea, because then anyone armed with a pistol on up can kill the commander and make the tank much more inefficient. only unbutton at range so the commander can use his MG for suppressing fire.

in short, the m1 is best used in an overwatch position to cover the infantry's advance and to eliminate any armored threat you encounter. Keep it away from the fighting unless it is completely necessary, and be careful even then.

[panzermartin]

Nice one Delta. About the M1 I want to add some tips from the syrian perspective. Firstly, there is nothing in the red arsenal that can surely survive a hit from it. The latest T-72 (2001 and mostly TURMS-T) have a slim chance to whistand a round or two frontally and hull down. The T-90 has better luck but dont be surprised if it blows up with the first shot too. Get closer and try to flank it. It has the bad habit of beeing able to spot first in a matter of miliseconds but you may get a shot on its side, which is usually lethal even from a moderate gun or missile. The side armor of the M1 is not particulary impressive and even a well placed RPG can do the damage.

When hull down the M1 is very hard to defeat frontally. In my experience only the AT-14 kornet and the T-90 have a chance to penetrate the front turret armor and thats not guaranteed. If the Abrams makes the mistake and exposes its lower hull, chances to take it out frontally increase by a significant margin. AT-13s, T-72s are capable of penetrating the lower hull at moderate distances.

[cmfan]

More on the M1

The way it's modeled in-game, as in real life, the tank is extremely survivable for the crew. I've only seen a few catastrophic hits on an M1 and those were the result of very bad combinations of enemy volley fire and side penetrations. So, if you see an M1 go down, be ready to try to lead the crew out of harms way.

I've noticed that T-90s can indeed give the M1 a run for its money at short range, but the T90 like a lot of other newer Russian made armor systems has a lot of fire power but still lacks protection and comparable crew survivability systems. You can hurt M1 at short range readily enough, but good luck getting there!

Oh, the M1 has a 7.62 co-axial machine gun and two machines gun on top. A fifty cal for the TC and a 7.62 for the loader. I believe the TUSK version of the M1, along with side ERA armor and a slat cage for the rear, has a remote controlled .50 weapon station similar to that of the Stryker for the tank commander.

[Flanker15]

The TUSK's got an additional .50 on top of the barrel, as well as an IR camera for the loader.

The T-90 is a huge threat to the M1 tanks, their SABOT and AT-11 weapons can knock out the front hull and sometimes turret armor, at least they will disable some important part of your tank. The T-90 also has TIS blocking smoke and the M1s do not (they can in reality but just not in CM:SF since it's mainly used against no TIS units).

[cmfan]

Thanks for the correction on the TUSK M1, Flanker. I wish I could change my post but I don't think the forums allow us to edit posts after a certain amount of time has gone by.

Now, because I'm having trouble sleeping and Normal Dude was cool enough to give us easy to use testing ranges:

AT-3 (BRDM mounted)

Conditions

Used Normal Dude's vehicle weapons range map to test the BRDM-2 mounted AT-3 against a series of light skinned and light armored U.S. vehicles, as well as two versions of the M1. The M1A1HC and M1A2SEP. I used the scenario's normalized testing conditions: zero wind, average temperature, daylight lighting conditions, flat terrain with short grass.

Vehicles: I first tested the light skinned and armored vehicles at various ranges on the assumption that distance would not affect a HEAT weapon's penetration capabilities. These vehicles included Humvees, a truck, a couple of LAVs, Stryker, Stryker MSG, Bradley with and without ERA. All vehicles were positioned so as to be struck along their frontal armor arcs.

Tanks: The M1 tanks were set up at 1k meters and 2k meters. This was done due to a spotting issue that became evident as I began testing vehicles. More on this later. At each range marker one M1 faced the firing BRDM while the other presented its side to it.

Observations

The most immediate and significant observation of the testing was the high rate of of missiles inexplicably plowing into the ground in front of the launcher after a second or two of flight. Looking at my notes, roughly speaking, only about 40% of fired missiles actually got airborne. Yes, only about 40%! This is more significant than it seems, because even though the AT-3 missile is extremely slow (1km/6s), it never missed a stationary target or slowly moving M1. Admittedly these were range conditions but still... As a result it took 27 missiles to destroy 9 vehicles despite no misses and ERA/Slat armor only saving a vehicle once. One vehicle was fired on three times as well (all hits).

Initial engagement of targets took about 30 seconds regardless of range. Thereafter, there was a 10 to 20 second pause between missile launches. The BRDM reloaded on the run so there was very little delay as a result of not having ready racked missiles. Delays were more often than not caused by obscuration of targets by dust from missiles falling short. The weapon system had trouble sighting stationary Humvees at 500m and larger vehicles at further ranges. It had serious problems spotting two stationary M1s at 2k and at 1K! I had to begin moving my Humvees and tanks short distances, back and forth, in order for the AT-3 to reliably spot them.

Light skinned vehicles suffered catastrophic explosions upon being hit. Armored vehicles such as the LAV or Bradley, while being knocked out by a single missile rarely suffered more than one casualty or brewed up on a first strike. A second missile would result in multiple casualties and a brew-up. ERA proved effective against a single hit, while Slat armor did not.

The missile was completely ineffective against frontal M1 turret armor. By the time I ran out of missiles an M1A1HC had taken 2 direct hits on the front of the turret and only suffered minor systems damage. An M1A2 had taken 3 hits and only lost its IR sight. There was little other damage and the crew were not even the slightest bit concerned. I could see them pointing and laughing at the BRDM.

The missile did successfully strike a slowly moving M1A1HC at a range of 1k from the side. It hit the turret and successfully knocked the tank out, but there were no crew casualties and the tank did not brew-up. The M1 apparently has Ademantium armor on the front, but wears silk robes on the side.

Conclusions: If the AT-3 is having the same problems as the TOW in terms of having a predisposition for burrowing into the ground... maybe we have a bug. We should check what other ATGMS do and if this is a common problem in real life. As for the AT-3 as weapon system... My sense is that its barely better than nothing in the CMSF battlefield. Not because the warhead is incapable of hurting an APC or even an M1 from the side, but because it engages its target so slowly, has severe range limitations (target must be beyond 400m) and it can spot about as well as a bat. It's pretty nifty watching the slow moving missile fly to its target - its like seeing a drone been sent on a kamikaze mission, but if anyone spots the launch the missile crew is going to get plowed with return fire before the missile gets very far.

Having said that, if you must use the BRDM mounted AT-3, I suggest you park it somewhere far from your ambush point and don't move. Wait until a target comes into view and hope that it lingers there long enough for you to engage it . Hopefully the target will not reach cover before the missile strikes or effective suppressing fire is returned. Whether you hit or miss, you should probably displace your BRDM immediately because your chances of survival staying in the same spot just went down by a significant amount if the enemy has weapons with a long enough range. So there's the key to this weapon system. Hit the enemy by surprise and pray that they don't have a weapon system capable of reaching you.

[Dietrich]

My experience has been that it's generally wiser to keep your tank (whether M1 or T-xx) buttoned up. Being able to use any MG(s) mounted atop the turret is not worth the risk to the tank commander and/or the gunner. Besides, being unbuttoned is good only (in my opinion) for looks, since tanks typically have systems which enable the crew to see at least as good as with their own eyes. If you want your M1 to use just an MG or two, use "Target Light".

Playing Syrians on defense in a QB against the AI, I had my three tanks (I forget what make they were, but they weren't T-90s) positioned behind buildings for flank shots at the three or four M1s. Even unbuttoned, my tanks all but once were unable to spot and get a bead on an M1 in the few moments the M1 was in LOS as it cruised down a cross-street.

[Delta228]

i just had the wierdest thing happen to me. My M1 came over a ridge, and only 150 meters away was a T-72 TURMS-T. The M1 aquired and fired a HEAT round right into the side of the T-72, but nothing happened. The T-72 casually turned its turret and blasted the M1 in the front, which burst into flames and only 2 men of the crew survived. Iv'e never had this happen before.... Pissed me off....

[ChrisND]

Javelin capabilities test:

I loaded up my 4,000 meter range with regular/normal Marine Javelin crews.

I ran the following tests:

10 T-90s stationary, clear weather / no wind

10 T-90s moving forward from 3500 meters to 500 meters, clear weather / no wind

10 T-72MVs stationary, clear weather / no wind

10 T-62MVs stationary, clear weather / no wind

10 M1A2 SEP Abrams stationary, clear weather / no wind

10 M1A2 SEP TUSK Abrams stationary, clear weather / no wind

10 M1A2 SEP Abrams stationary, Very Hazy Weather, Strong perpendicular wind

10 M1A2 SEP TUSK Abrams stationary, Very Hazy Weather, Strong perpendicular wind

Results:

- Out of 80 target vehicles, none survived the Javelin hit.

- Out of those 80 kills, there were only seven cases of a crew member(s) surviving. All of these were Abrams.

- 80 shots were fired. Only three missed (One at a stationary T-90, one at a moving T-90, one at a stationary Abrams in bad weather).

- The Javelin crews began tracking, aiming, and engaging the moving T-90s about two seconds after they entered the Javelins maximum range (2500 meters).

What this means:

- If a javelin is tracking you, you are screwed and it doesn't matter how nice your tank is. Short of getting behind a tall building or in woods. Range, weather, wind, and vehicle type do not matter.

[Dietrich]

(I'm not sure if this is a matter of equipment per se or of unit behavior, but here goes.)

On Normal Dude's 2,000m firing range (Firing Range 55 Infantry), I ran several tests with different infantry units (including a couple heavy-weapons teams) to see what was the typical range at which only soldiers with certain weapons (sniper rifle, M249, etc.) would fire when given Target area fire command. (Will do Target Light tests next.)

USMC Sniper team (M110, M16A4x2): M110 fires solo beyond 500 meters; within 500 meters M16s fire also

Army Rifle team (M249, M4A1x3): M249 fires solo beyond 450 meters; within 450 meters M4s fire also

Oftentimes, at medium range and beyond, I want just one weapon in a team or squad (such as the sniper rifle or LMG) to fire, with the M4-/M16-equipped guys holding fire in case of targets appearing suddenly at relatively close range. Evidently, though, only at extreme ranges (500+ meters) is fire from a team/squad limited to certain key weapons.

To put it in clearer context: M107-equipped sniper team in position on elevation, providing overwatch; sniper team spots three technicals at 350 meters in valley below; instead of just the M107-equipped sniper opening fire to knock out the technicals, the two soldiers with M4s also open fire (one with relatively inaccurate grenades from his M203), thus drawing fire from the technicals which wounds or kills all three of them. I think I'll be running a series of tests with sniper teams (both M110- and M82-equipped) versus technicals at various ranges, both with and without direct targeting orders (though I fear said tests will just confirm that infantry units tend to open fire inordinately).

Thanks, Normal Dude, for creating those firing-range maps and enabling us grogs to pit our grog-ness against CM:SF's simulation. =)

[ChrisND]

Observations on AT-3 BRDM

If this is the same AT-3 that is ground-mounted, then the results are not surprising, and are in fact better than I had thought they would be.

[ChrisND]

I did a quick test of extreme long range Bradleys.

They can track and hit moving targets at ranges approaching 4,000 meters.

Syrian tanks cannot spot them at this range. Even when T-90s were moving forward (from 4000 meters) on FAST, my Bradley was able to kill two of them before they could even spot him.

Bradley begins to engage with bushmaster at roughly 3250 meters.

Stiff winds only seem to slightly reduce their accuracy.

[cmfan]

Did the Bradley's automatically engage the T90s with their TOW missiles even if they were well within range of their bushmaster cannons?

The bad AT-3 performance didn't surprise me in the sense that I didn't expect them to be very effective. However, I thought this would be because of spotting issues (which bore out) and inaccuracy in the terminal phase of flight. Instead it seemed that at least in ideal conditions the missiles had no problem tracking and hitting targets if they launched successfully. The problem was that so many simply flew of the rack and within a hundred meters or so abruptly plummeted to the ground. I'm just wondering how much worse this weapon system would hold up in windy, hazy battlefield conditions!

The Javelin performance just sounds amazing... or unbelievable? I'm not sure which to be completely honest. I suppose I have no reason to doubt weapon's performance given that I've read that soldiers in the field really like the system and at 100k a pop, the Pentagon seems to actually be getting its money's worth for a change.

Makes me wonder why we don't simply swap out the TOW rack on the sides of Bradleys and put in a Javelin launcher

Well, the TOW has some extra range on it so that counts for something.

[SgtMuhammed]

I think it would be an excellent idea for the Army to adopt a vehicle version of the Javelin. When I was in that was what they told us they were going to do. I think they should strap the thing on every vehicle in the inventory. It shouldn't be too hard to make a vehicle version that has longer range.

Even in the best of circumstances the AT3 is a piece of crap. Units using it were lucky to get 30% hits with it.

[Dietrich]

Grenades (hand-thrown frags, not 40mm HE/HEDP): they always explode on impact -- why? No more delay fuses? No more "you have less than six seconds to throw"? No chance for delayed-throw airbursts?

[Apocal]

There is an RWS version of the Javelin coming, if it's not already here.

[cmfan]

I think it would be an excellent idea for the Army to adopt a vehicle version of the Javelin. When I was in that was what they told us they were going to do. I think they should strap the thing on every vehicle in the inventory. It shouldn't be too hard to make a vehicle version that has longer range.

Cool.

There is an RWS version of the Javelin coming, if it's not already here.

What does RWS mean?

[Apocal]

What does RWS mean?

Remote weapon station. The weapon on top of Stryker, controlled from the inside.

[SgtMuhammed]

Nice. They should have had it from the beginning. It's rare that you find a jem like the Javelin system. The faster they make maximum use of it the better.

[Apocal]

Eh... have you fam'd on the Jav? It's cool and workable for infantry, but I really don't see how a Stryker is going to hang out, stationary, for 10-20 seconds to get a good lock.

[SgtMuhammed]

Why not? In a good hull down position the sight is pretty hard to spot. Even just being in a concealed position while stationary makes you hard to spot. Believe it or not real crewmen tend not to leave their vehicle sticking out like a sore thumb like you often see players do in the game.