The Equipment Thread

[Apocal]

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.

I believe it, but it's been my understanding that a legit real-life gripe about the Stryker was that, due to the positioning height and depression limits of the RWS, it's hard(er) to find a good hull-down position. The official "fix" is the Javelin RWS is supposed to be for times when infantry can't or shouldn't dismount and take the shot themselves, not as a replacement for dedicated ATGM variants.

I'd certainly appreciate any input you have on it though.

[Lampshade111]

On a stabilized platform like the Stryker would you really need to stop to get a lock on?

From what I have read the RCWS on upgraded Strykers could include a Javelin launcher next to the regular weapon. I would like to see a heavier RCWS for the Stryker with a 30mm autocannon, 7.62mm MG, and Javelin launcher. A few such "heavy" RCWS exist.

[Delta228]

or you could just have a guy pop outta the rear hatch and fire it

[Dietrich]

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.

Even if the enemy spots the sight, that doesn't mean they'll be able to hit the Stryker (or even target it) with an ATGM, and direct fire will only damage/destroy the sight, which is still better than risking the entire vehicle and its crew + passengers.

[Delta228]

T-90SA

I have been having lots of trouble with the T-90s in Gerorge MC's Forging Steel Campaign, so I decided to test their capabilities against M1A2 SEP Abrams using Normal Dude's Vehicle Test Range. I used 2 T-90s, one firing at targets between 400 and 1000 meters, at 200 meter intervals, and the other firing at targets between 1200 and 1800 meters. All the M1A2 SEP Abrams were pointing their frontal armor at the T-90s. What I found was quite surprising.

I will split this up between the two T-90s.

-Close Range (400m-1000m)

After 7 (seven) minutes of continuous firing at a single M1 (at 400m), using both the AT-11 ATGM and the 125mm APFSDS round, the T-90 only scored an M-Kill and a single crew casualty! It completely depleted its AT-11 ammo and some of its APFSDS ammo. It took an additional 12 (yeah, 12!) APFSDS rounds to knock out the M1! AT 400 METERS! I am seriously considering the possibility that this is a glitch. At 600 meters, only one out of three rounds hit the target, producing light damage to its sights. Both the 800 and 1000 meter targets were consistently missed my multiple rounds. From this test, it would seem that the T-90 is an incompetent killing machine, however I know firsthand that M1s can be taken out with only 1 or 2 rounds at over 1000 meters. I was hoping that someone could try this test as well to see if it corroborates my results.

-Long Range (1200m- 1800m)

I will report back on this one later, because after only 3 shots with AT-11 (all misses at 1200m), one of the M1s got pissed off and disobeyed its target arc command and fired a single APFSDS round into the T-90, which consequently brewed up.

I was wondering what you guys thought was up with this test, because that many hits should have easily destroyed almost any tank. Period.

[panzermartin]

T-90SA

I have been having lots of trouble with the T-90s in Gerorge MC's Forging Steel Campaign, so I decided to test their capabilities against M1A2 SEP Abrams using Normal Dude's Vehicle Test Range. I used 2 T-90s, one firing at targets between 400 and 1000 meters, at 200 meter intervals, and the other firing at targets between 1200 and 1800 meters. All the M1A2 SEP Abrams were pointing their frontal armor at the T-90s. What I found was quite surprising.

I will split this up between the two T-90s.

-Close Range (400m-1000m)

After 7 (seven) minutes of continuous firing at a single M1 (at 400m), using both the AT-11 ATGM and the 125mm APFSDS round, the T-90 only scored an M-Kill and a single crew casualty! It completely depleted its AT-11 ammo and some of its APFSDS ammo. It took an additional 12 (yeah, 12!) APFSDS rounds to knock out the M1! AT 400 METERS! I am seriously considering the possibility that this is a glitch. At 600 meters, only one out of three rounds hit the target, producing light damage to its sights. Both the 800 and 1000 meter targets were consistently missed my multiple rounds. From this test, it would seem that the T-90 is an incompetent killing machine, however I know firsthand that M1s can be taken out with only 1 or 2 rounds at over 1000 meters. I was hoping that someone could try this test as well to see if it corroborates my results.

-Long Range (1200m- 1800m)

I will report back on this one later, because after only 3 shots with AT-11 (all misses at 1200m), one of the M1s got pissed off and disobeyed its target arc command and fired a single APFSDS round into the T-90, which consequently brewed up.

I was wondering what you guys thought was up with this test, because that many hits should have easily destroyed almost any tank. Period.

Hmm..were the M1s hull down? I remember taking out Abrams rather easily when hull is exposed, even with less capable tanks than the 90. Maybe 1.11 tweaked some things here too?

[Delta228]

No they were not hull down, they were just sitting out in the open. I retried my tests, and the same thing happened. It took an astounding 13 rounds (4 ATGM, 9 APFSDS) to achieve an M-Kill, and 21 (4 ATGM, 12 APFSDS, 5 T-HEAT) total to knock out the tank at 400 meters! Basically everything but the smoke launcher and two machine guns were inoperable. Added to that, the whole crew survived! I'm fairly sure there is somthing wrong with the game engine at this point, because I'm certain that a top of the line MBT armed with a 125mm gun could penetrate an M1's armor in one shot (at least at 400 meters).

[cmfan]

No they were not hull down, they were just sitting out in the open. I retried my tests, and the same thing happened. It took an astounding 13 rounds (4 ATGM, 9 APFSDS) to achieve an M-Kill, and 21 (4 ATGM, 12 APFSDS, 5 T-HEAT) total to knock out the tank at 400 meters! Basically everything but the smoke launcher and two machine guns were inoperable. Added to that, the whole crew survived! I'm fairly sure there is somthing wrong with the game engine at this point, because I'm certain that a top of the line MBT armed with a 125mm gun could penetrate an M1's armor in one shot (at least at 400 meters).

Hmm, yeah those results sound very strange by themselves particularly considering that while playing George's "Forging Steel" campaign I've also had T-90s do really well against M1A2s. They've scored first or second round hits.

Thinking back... I can remember that two of my M1A2s in the first battle got taken out while their flanks were facing the T-90s. The turrets where facing them, but the sides where exposed so I bet they took the hits on the sides. A third M1A2 took an AT-11 to the face (frontal turret armor) and only lost a minor system. I'll run some tests later but from this I get the sense that M1A2 front turret armor is modeled as being pretty invulnerable and everything else fairly easy to penetrate... at least relatively speaking.

[Delta228]

Yeah, thats the same problem I've been having. T-90s ripping my M1A2s apart at ranges alot farther than 400meters. I wanted to test the capibilities of the T-90. This wasn't what I expected....

[cmfan]

I'm not sure if this was always the case, but lately my M1s have been getting beat up fairly badly even by RPG-7s when they take the hit on the sides. It makes for a huge contrast when they routinely shrug off MBT direct hits to the front

[Secondbrooks]

Yeah. M1A2 SEPs seem much more fragile than before... I don't know why. Sure i don't have much experience with T-90s in CMSF (been playing other games and enjoying life in general after release of Marines), but few scenarios where i've played against them they seem to be quite thoothless against M1s. if facing them face to face. Now i've lost several them in situation which i would consider to be favoring me.

It seems that ATGM's and HEAT-warheads in general are able to deal damage better, i dont' recall losing those tanks as easily against modern AT-weaponry (feck i'd say that i've lost them even by ATGMs from BMP-2!)... Could be just scenarios i've been playing with, as Syria is top quality in training and equipment. George MC's new campaign Forging Steel.

[cmfan]

Yeah, red infantry with RPG-7s where holding off my tanks at one point in George's campaign. They didn't miss and always hit where it hurt. Bradley's with ERA where actually fairing better. All in all, I would say ATGMs are particularly deadly now.

On the bright side I've discovered that platoon snipers and squad designated marksmen are noticeably better than the average grunt now. I was playing "Rock around the Block" by BirdStrike and I saw at least a couple of Syrian fighters get popped at long range by single shots.

[Thomm]

Note: Had big problems taking down a T-62 tank with squad AT weapons (AT-4, LAW, several expanded) in an USMC campaign mission yesterday. I found that quite interesting.

[panzermartin]

Note: Had big problems taking down a T-62 tank with squad AT weapons (AT-4, LAW, several expanded) in an USMC campaign mission yesterday. I found that quite interesting.

Was it a T-62MV equipped with reactive armor?

[cmfan]

I can't remember but does the AT-4 have a minimum warhead arming range? Is it modeled? A game or two ago I had some grunts fire two AT-4s at a BMP-2 at point blank range to no effect. I was upset at first until I considered that had they done that in real life it would have been suicidal anyway.

[stoex]

According to fas.org the AT-4 arms at 10m. Point blank won't work

[panzermartin]

Does CMSF model this or simply they dont fire the AT-4 in point blank like the ATGMs?

[stoex]

AFAIK arming ranges for AT weapons are modeled in CM:SF...I remember a post by Steve to this effect some time ago, but feck me if I can find it again now - Steve?

[cmfan]

Okay that makes sense. I think the game models it, but still shows the round exploding on impact which made it seem like both the BMP and my troops standing next to it where invulnerable.

The AI shouldn't really employ it in cases like this, but the BMP was moving around so my AT team might have started to employ the AT-4 while the vehicle was beyond the minimum range. Still slightly "iffy" in my opinion but I can live with it.

[stoex]

Haven't ever noticed that the RPGs explode under the minimum range. I guess I've never had one hit a target under minimum range, though I sure as hell have come close .

If this is true it would seem to be some sort of bug, I guess...

[akd]

I can't get my RPG gunners to fire on a vehicle at less than minimum range. Maybe it makes a difference if the unit targets the vehicle and then the vehicle moves whithin minimum range as the unit initiates its attack?

[cmfan]

I can't get my RPG gunners to fire on a vehicle at less than minimum range. Maybe it makes a difference if the unit targets the vehicle and then the vehicle moves whithin minimum range as the unit initiates its attack?

Unfortunately I didn't save the turn when this happened, but this is what I recall happening. I had two scouts teams moving along opposite ends of a trench line in a pretty wooded area. A BMP-2 suddenly appeared out of nowhere right next to the trench line. It opened fire on a scout team at one of end of the trench while the other team started engaging it with hand grenades and an M203. Just as the BMP-2 started to turn and move towards them (it had quickly wiped out the other team) the scouts brought out two AT-4s and fired them in quick succession. Nothing happened to either the team or the BMP-2 when the rounds hit. My scouts routed, most where killed by cannon fire from the BMP and the lone survivor ended up running into an enemy squad as he exited the trenches.

ps. This happened in the middle of a WEGO turn, so I never gave a direct engagement order to my scouts. It was all AI.