Sergei Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 By default they should avoid anything that carries a risk of immobilization. There would have to be a switch for reckless driving. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 There's a Sky News feature filmed by a reporter embedded with 16 Air Assault Brigade pathfinders: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=pathfinders+afghanistan&aq=0&oq=pathfinders They seem fairly well able to spot the enemy once they have fired, but since the Taliban shoot and scoot, they had difficulty returning effective fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Adam, So can I expect to see an option for AFVs to reverse their gun and breach the walls of a house next patch? We've been doing it for years, I remember seeing the Kool-Aid Man demonstrate this back in the 90s! Yeah, there's no question about it that heavy armored vehicles (even Humvees!) can be used to push over walls. Especially the Middle Eastern variety since they either use no mortar or as little as possible. I've seen plenty of video of this going on in Iraq. But it's not so simple to simulate because... What we would need is a BREACH movement for vehicles, basically, since by default a vehicle should never, ever, under any circumstances try to drive through/over a wall on its own initiative. The chances of problems from doing this are quite large, so it has to be carefully evaluated. In Iraq, for example, the driver and/or commander will dismount, inspect the place to be knocked through, then decide if it's a good idea or not. And if it is, where exactly to push, how to angle the vehicle, etc. Best done in a COIN situation, but certainly could be done in CM's conventional setting. In other words, these things are not done on the fly if at all possible. And here's one famous reason why not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytYAg7TjokI. I got one of my tracked vehicles stuck like that out in the woods, and let me tell you that sucks Fortunately, I had read a 1947 US tank driver's manual front to back and was able to improvise a way off using some cables. Took a couple of hours in total, so I'm glad nobody was shooting at me or expecting me to be somewhere instead of stuck BTW, the previous video would be an example of Sergei's suggestion that to see this sort of behavior you would need to tell the tank "do stupid stuff if it gets you there faster or satisfies some deep level of resentment against society" Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 should be able to tell from what direction the fire is coming from down to... I'm reminded of WWII Soviet armor. Early war their tanks' achilles heel was that they were designed to NOT have the TC with his head out an open hatch during battle. It was actually official policy that that not happen, the KV-1S commander/gunner's cupola didn't even have a hatch. As a result their situational awareness was just plain awful - cripplingly bad. Even in modern high tech armor I would not underestimate the situational awareness hit for a closed-up crew. MGS for example, the overhead gun block's the TC's view to the left and the topside rotating electronic camera often has to be shut down when its CPU overheats. Abrams and Stryker have so many topside gizmoes that half their TC's vision blocks appear to be obstructed. And in Iraq its been generally frowned upon for the TC to be waggling his head out an open hatch. Of course there's all those high-powered x20 magnification optical devices but that's rather like trying to scan the entire horizon while looking through a soda straw. I'm just trowing this out there in the armor situational awareness discussion. I don't have an opinion if Adam's spotting calculations are spot-on or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLynn41 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I resisted it at first for some of the same reasons listed --but have now fallen into it -- I rarely play the other CMs -- I have not played SP in do not remember when -- and am in the process of learning to make scenarios -- it is a really good and enjoyable game will let you see and do things that are very immersive--I used to play with a 3-4 level camera--not now2-3 as there is so much to see// I prefer WW2 but this is quite good 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Be careful what you infer from fighting insurgents. They are pretty terrible, with the shouting and the posturing and the not using prepared concealed positions Err... haven't read up much on the Taliban in Afghanistan? Prepositioned arms and drug caches (epinephrine, atropine, DMA(?) for steadier hand while sniping), fortified bunkers, trenchlines, foxholes with overhead cover and concealment, and several camo'd fallback positions. We shoot it out for HOURS with those guys and not kill one. Adam !!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Really? You're sure of that? Yep. This is why some scenarios have to use "location markers" to signal that "Hey, they is a ford here!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 ...fortified bunkers, trenchlines, foxholes with overhead cover... I'm reminded of something someone said about Iraq. All the stupid, careless, and foolhearty insurgents had been dealt with early in the war, leaving only the remainder to contend with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yep. This is why some scenarios have to use "location markers" to signal that "Hey, they is a ford here!" CMSF does not model water. Water won't show up until Normandy. I assume you mean the Marsh-2-Water Mods. That's why I was asking ...a bit tongue-in-cheek, to be sure... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yup, Darwin's laws apply to insurgents too. I remember seeing some military thinkers in 2004 and 2005 pointing out that the "successes" in Iraq were simply killing off the dumbest of the enemy. For example, it's been a while since I've heard about a bomb factory novice blowing up the entire block while trying to make IEDs, right That's the key problem of an insurgency... if the motivation to keep the insurgency going isn't damped down the early body count is of the worst of the enemy, while the best is still out there passing on their lessons to new fighters. Which is why Afghanistan is getting worse while Iraq, thanks to non-military successes, is getting better. It appears the days of 100 moronic Taliban trying to attack over a couple of miles of open ground are over, yet the insurgency is worse now than ever. The survivors of those mass slaughters are causing more trouble with a 12 than they ever caused with 200. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Apocal, no that's really interesting, you should post more if you are permitted. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/59479.html Obviously I can't post actual AARs, but the article is relatively accurate regarding Afghanistan. There is some scaremongering (it's been SOP for a good long while to designate one vehicle as wrecker in a convoy, nothing new there), it's mostly on point regarding the differences between the two. One thing that wasn't quite expanded upon was the reason the Taliban is highly active after the poppy harvest. The majority of their actual fighters are mercenaries of one degree or another. Once the harvest is in, the money comes to Taliban coffers AND young, fit men are free to go around waging war. I missed the implications of that myself until someone I know through another forum really beat it through my head that Taliban activity is seasonal. As for the fieldcraft, skills, etc., the Airborne conceded COP Wanat to the Taliban. They control that territory. We never went back in. That was after cleaning off several aircraft of all their ordnance and something like a dozen fire missions trying to hold the perimeter and still the Taliban involved in the attack conducted a relatively orderly withdrawal with all their wounded and a good number of their dead. Long story short, tactically, there is nothing low-intensity about southern Afghanistan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/59479.html Very interesting article. I had presumed that the Taliban fought much like the insurgents in Iraq. Their capability is worrisome considering their increasing encroachment in Pakistan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/asia/25swat.html?scp=1&sq=taliban%20radio&st=cse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Very interesting article. I had presumed that the Taliban fought much like the insurgents in Iraq. Their capability is worrisome considering their increasing encroachment in Pakistan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/asia/25swat.html?scp=1&sq=taliban%20radio&st=cse Depressing read! Poor people! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Adam, Based on videos I've seen, ranges are sometimes quite short. 100m and less would be my guess on some of them. It doesn't mean the enemy has actually survived in the same spot for that length of time, however. I've seen some where they are shooting up some spot for a long time, then finally assault to find that the guy is either dead or had left at some point before the assault. This is one of the more interesting tactical differences between a COIN environment and a full on conventional conflict. In a COIN environment you can "afford" to take 3 hours to shoot it out with one or two enemy. That's because time, generally speaking, isn't a big factor in and of itself. Not taking casualties, not causing excessive civilian damage, etc. are usually more important considerations. So if it takes 20 minutes or 2 hours to kill the bad guy, not a big deal. Obviously there are circumstances where time is important, so I'm speaking very generally here. Also note that large ops like Urgent Fury (Falujah) are on the other end of the COIN spectrum and are, for the most part, identical to the lower end of conventional warfare spectrum. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Very interesting article. I had presumed that the Taliban fought much like the insurgents in Iraq. Their capability is worrisome considering their increasing encroachment in Pakistan. Well, to be honest, they are being confined to the south. If you look at a map of Afghanistan, in the southern part, especially Helmand, there just isn't much there. It's basically a impoverished backwater region who's main source of income is poppy and mercenaries. Been that way for centuries. The north, where the government, cities and most of the people are is pretty much Taliban-free, random acid-chucking asshats notwithstanding. And on top of that, in 2006, Operation MEDUSA, we utterly crushed them. Killed thousands of fighters and an overwhelming majority of what we would call mid-level leadership. The few survivors have been coming back in the last few summers, but mostly they are in what sports teams call "a rebuilding phase." Apocal - how far away are the Taliban in the instances where you can shoot it out for hours and not kill one of them? I haven't been over there personally (yet), but the concept of a far (300m+) ambush isn't lost on the Taliban. Not the majority, by any stretch, but another tool they'll use. One big thing they emphasized was how good the Taliban are at concealment. One of the instructors had just come back and said in seven months and probably fifteen bad firefights, he never once "saw" the Talibs that were shooting at them. At most, at very most, you'd see some small amount of dust kicked up, a tree branch swaying crazily or the glitter of shell cases falling nearby. Instead you had to "sense" ("That's where I'D be") where the shooters were or put suppressive fire towards anything that could conceivably hide a grown man. Much of that is probably due to a Darwinian evolution of Taliban after MEDUSA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Very interesting article. I had presumed that the Taliban fought much like the insurgents in Iraq. Their capability is worrisome considering their increasing encroachment in Pakistan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/asia/25swat.html?scp=1&sq=taliban%20radio&st=cse Makes me sick. Makes me want to enlist with US SOF so as to fight these scum. But I'm not young enough and not fit enough, so I'll just make a scenario, something along the lines of "Afghani Stan": ODA 969* (elite HBCT infantry) raids Taliban compound in Matta (green-to-veteran Uncon Fighters), then calls in JDAM from orbiting F-15E to cover their tracks. :cool: Oh wait, Matta is in Pakistan...so no green light. *sigh* In that case, Syrian Special Forces in BMP-2s instead. * fictional AFAIK 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 A lot that's lost in translation so to speak is that the Taliban are not the insurgents in Iraq in training or sophistication. While they have been literally crushed both in men and leadership countless times since our intial incursions began, they keep coming back in some degrees stronger than they were the previous time. Their ambush techniques especially in some of the mountainous regions are like what would be taught at AIT. They are especially good at maneuver warfare and never seem to run out of a constant stream of anti-tank weapons. They are extremely brave to a fault (not just religious fanaticism's), and will never stop. Some of the same qualities our soldiers and marines have. I think the greatest quality they have is they dont believe they are beaten. Sad part is eventually they will win. Not because they could ever beat us on the battlefield, but because the people we are trying to help and give freedom to still can identify more with them than with us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Apocal, The north, where the government, cities and most of the people are is pretty much Taliban-free, random acid-chucking asshats notwithstanding. This is actual the thing that has senior military and political leaders worried right now. What you said USED to be true, but it is becoming less and less so with the passing of time. "The situation is worse; there's no question about that," says Ronald Neumann, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007. "Provinces close to Kabul are now having incidents that didn't have incidents before. And to my mind, that is clearly a strengthening insurgency." That is a quote found on the PBS "Frontline" website for a special they did this past Fall. For those of you with Netflix, you can get it sent to you or, cool as can be, watch it for free online. I only saw a bit of this when it originally aired and one of our testers reminded me of it, coincidentally, last night. I intend on watching it sometime next week. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Apocal, This is actual the thing that has senior military and political leaders worried right now. What you said USED to be true, but it is becoming less and less so with the passing of time. It goes in waves. We'll eventually threaten their ratlines to Pakistan (again), they'll get big down south (again), we'll probably tear them up (again), they'll lay low for 24 or 36 months (again) and they'll be back (again). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Yup, I'm sure that's true. The extra 3 brigades being sent over are supposed to help hurry them out and (theoretically) keep them out. As I'm sure you'll agree, one major problem with the Afghanistan operation is there has never been enough boots to kick the number of butts that are in need of kicking There's also been no serious effort to get rid of their power base (poppies) either, which is a must for several reasons. Not easy, but if they're flush with cash that certainly doesn't help the cause. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 There's also been no serious effort to get rid of their power base (poppies) either, which is a must for several reasons. Not easy, but if they're flush with cash that certainly doesn't help the cause. Steve I think the key to success in Afghanistan (Columbia, Mexico, Golden Triangle...) would be to get Amy Winehouse clean. But she says no, no, no... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.