Black Hawk Down?

[Tactical Wargamer]

Just saw the Black Hawk Down movie again. My buddy mentioned there was a scenario based on the movie. Anyone have an idea what it was called?

Thx

[Lanzfeld]

Well....

You cant shoot out from the windows of the Hummers so I am not sure how "Black Hawk Down" it will be.

[BlackMoria]

The problem is that with the last patch, Hummer gunners button up as soon as they take any fire. This complaint has already been aired and hopefully, may be fixed in v1.2.

So the current behavior make a 'Black Hawk' down scenario unworkable.

[Cpl Steiner]

I tried making a Black Hawk Down scenario ages ago but found it couldn't be done. Uncon RPG gunners even with the worst experience and poorest equipment easily destroy Humvees at the distances portrayed in the movie. Quite frankly I don't know how they managed it in real life!

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I tried making a Black Hawk Down scenario ages ago but found it couldn't be done. Uncon RPG gunners even with the worst experience and poorest equipment easily destroy Humvees at the distances portrayed in the movie. Quite frankly I don't know how they managed it in real life!

I think that RPGs in CMSF are too effective compared to what I've read about in real life, especially in urban areas. I've tried creating several "Thunder Run" style scenarios, kind of like Black Hawk Down in many ways. All of them are frustrated by the fact that the RPGs almost always hit and always detonate properly, neither of which is generally the case, if what I've read is any indication. Granted, with newer RPGs, I would expect them to perform well in game. But most descriptions I've read of urban COIN ops say that the air is practically filled with RPGs, but most of them miss and most of the ones that hit don't detonate or penetrate the armor, even of APCs.

I can understand why the devs did what they did though. It's frustrating as it is to play as Red!

[MehMan]

Frustrating indeed, but somewhat fun too. It takes a lot more thinking to achieve a good result. A lot more careful planning.

[hcrof]

Surely if you turn the quality rating down on equipment it becomes less reliable? Maybe scenario designers are not making the quality ratings low enough?

It also has to be said that untrained troops in a firefight will easily make mistakes with an RPG. Common mistakes include not knowing how the sighting system works (Its quite complicated and difficult to to use under pressure), forgetting to cock the launcher, forgetting to pull the pin out of the grenade, not attaching the propellent or not seating the grenade properly in the tube.

The real issue is that untrained uncons may have been shown how to fire the RPG and would get it right most of the time if they went to a firing range but when they get over excited in combat they probably quickly forget the drills.

Because of this, uncons should be very ineffective with the RPG.

In MOUT situations, as far as I know, many insurgents will not aim their weapons. Just point it round some cover and fire off a magazine in the direction of the enemy. This is probably the case with RPG's too as an insurgent will not take the time to aim properly. Just pop up, shoot in the direction of the enemy and displace. The result of this will be a massive volume of fire which does very little damage and this is modelled already in CMSF. I think the RPG fire in CMSF is modelled as if there is no suppression and therefore the insurgent will have at least a little time to aim - at the ranges depicted in Black Hawk Down (less than 50m), the insurgents will hit a fair amount. Accuracy should drop off wildly at the least bit of suppression but I think this is already modelled.

In the regular military, even conscript RPG men will have gone through the drills enough times to successfully launch a live warhead. Accuracy over point blank range will still be a massive issue though due to the afore mentioned sighting system.

[Clevinger]

To make a real BHD scenario, the game lacks the setting "Use Khat" for the OPFOR ...

[Dietrich]

I think that RPGs in CMSF are too effective compared to what I've read about in real life, especially in urban areas. I've tried creating several "Thunder Run" style scenarios, kind of like Black Hawk Down in many ways. All of them are frustrated by the fact that the RPGs almost always hit and always detonate properly, neither of which is generally the case, if what I've read is any indication. Granted, with newer RPGs, I would expect them to perform well in game. But most descriptions I've read of urban COIN ops say that the air is practically filled with RPGs, but most of them miss and most of the ones that hit don't detonate or penetrate the armor, even of APCs.

When playing as Blue and taking fire from two or more RPGs, it seems to me too that the RPG-7 is plenty deadly against even Strykers (the Bradley, even without ERA, is evidently somewhat more survivable). Thirty-nine times out of forty, an RPG-7 hit on a Humvee is a matter of "good night, nurse" for all passengers.

In my most recent experience playing a "Thunder Run" type of scenario (it was probably "Violet Road", though I can't quite remember), almost all my Humvees were knocked out -- rendering all inside WIA/KIA -- while "pause"-d so as to maneuver around other Humvees which had been knocked out. IIRC, the Uncons in that scenario were Combatants and thus had RPG-7s (rather than Fighters, who would have likely had RPG-29s).

In a short series of tests with a Combatant RPG-7 team firing against (alternately) an M1126 Stryker and an M2 Bradley (without ERA) from the front and from 90 degrees to one side, I noticed that several times (I can't remember how many, so I can't report a percentage) the RPG failed to detonate, seeming to pass into the target vehicle. The rounds that did detonate caused or two casualties and inflicted light wounds on several others inside the vehicle, with hits to the side being a little bit more apt to cause casualties.

Is the Humvee in CM:SF (regardless of armament) what most would call "up-armored"?

Surely if you turn the quality rating down on equipment it becomes less reliable? Maybe scenario designers are not making the quality ratings low enough?

It also has to be said that untrained troops in a firefight will easily make mistakes with an RPG. Common mistakes include not knowing how the sighting system works (Its quite complicated and difficult to to use under pressure), forgetting to cock the launcher, forgetting to pull the pin out of the grenade, not attaching the propellent or not seating the grenade properly in the tube.

The real issue is that untrained uncons may have been shown how to fire the RPG and would get it right most of the time if they went to a firing range but when they get over excited in combat they probably quickly forget the drills. Because of this, uncons should be very ineffective with the RPG.

You may have hit on the key to making scenarios with multiple uncon RPGs survivable for Blue. (Not that Blue doesn't have a not-all-that-hard enough time of it already. =P)

In MOUT situations, as far as I know, many insurgents will not aim their weapons. Just point it round some cover and fire off a magazine in the direction of the enemy.

In watching several shows (such as "Situational Critical"; I forget which channel) that have recreations of combat situations, I noticed that the actors they have playing uncons/Taliban/AQ/etc. almost never fire their AKs from the shoulder or otherwise look much like they're aiming. It seemed to me that this was "stacking the deck" (so to speak) of the dramatization in favor of the Blue forces.

This is probably the case with RPG's too as an insurgent will not take the time to aim properly. Just pop up, shoot in the direction of the enemy and displace.

Red uncon forces would certainly benefit (and seem more realistic from the Blue perspective), were the AI able to execute this tactic. I can see how a Blue conventional versus Red unconventional scenario would be all the most interesting, at least tactically, if it were played H2H.

Any ideas on how to set Experience and Motivation so that Red uncons are inclined to fire briefly then displace? This discussion has reminded me that I've considered making a "

Humvee patrol ambushed by uncons who deluge them with fire for less than a minute and then disappear" but figured that the AI would make the uncons stand and fight till they either were WIA/KIA or were driven off by the amount of Blue return fire.

The result of this will be a massive volume of fire which does very little damage and this is modelled already in CMSF. I think the RPG fire in CMSF is modelled as if there is no suppression and therefore the insurgent will have at least a little time to aim - at the ranges depicted in Black Hawk Down (less than 50m), the insurgents will hit a fair amount. Accuracy should drop off wildly at the least bit of suppression but I think this is already modelled.

A reasonable deduction. But if this inaccuracy-as-a-result-of-suppressive-fire were already modeled, wouldn't we be encoutering greater inaccuracy from RPGs, at least in MOUT situations where the fire from Blue is apt to be more concentrated?

[hcrof]

The thing is that in the game a fireteam is either firing where the insurgents are (massive suppresion, casualties) or arn't firing at all. Because of this, all RPG fire is taken from locations that are not being shot at and so is 'sort of aimed'.

In blackhawk down, the US troops where just hosing down everything as they went passed. That sort of fire is enough to throw of the aim of the insurgents. It is not accurate but the effect of beng shot at, however ineffectivly, seems to badly affect the aim of most insurgents.

That sort of fire is not modelled in the game though so I have never seen it

[Gpig]

You could, I believe, model the dismounted portion of the BHD battle.

Start with the fast-rope Rangers at the 4 intersections surrounding the Imperial Hotel. Have a squad of SEALs/Delta's Appear on the roof top and secure the building (take the high-value captives.)

Then after the trucks and Hummers come and remove the captives and part of the Ranger/SOF force, that could be the end of the first battle.

The second battle could be after the Convoy got lost and returned to base. Stranding the Rangers and SOF soldiers in the Mog. Then you could try and find a place to hunker down for the night, surrounded by UnCons. Fortify your position and be able to call in HELO support (Guns only?)

The third battle could be the attempted rescue of Durant's chopper by the DELTA sniper team. Not sure how that one would play out in CMSF.

Fourth battle could be a night OP with HELO support. Many UnCons surrounding your fortified position.

Fifth battle could be a breakout with Pakistani APCs.

I may have to give this one a go. Has anybody got a map of Mogadishu pre-built?

Gpig

[meade95]

I concur with the notion that RPG fire is much too accurate (and deadly)...even with "green / Conscript" rated Red units. I believe the accuracy needs to be tweaked down.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I concur with the notion that RPG fire is much too accurate (and deadly)...even with "green / Conscript" rated Red units. I believe the accuracy needs to be tweaked down.

I agree, but there needs to be more of them in Combatant units, both for game balance and realism.

[nikita320106]

why nobody can assume, those hundreds and thousand shooting locals with RPG and AK, which Delta and Rangers so bravely killed , it is just hollywood version for patriotic public, and reality was more terrible and dirtier?

and another one, in game there is no such quantity of local civil, which can be killed with impunity//

sorry my engliz)) i love bhd movie too)) but i think its only movie)

[acrashb]

i think its only movie)

Read the book, developed from interviews with people who were there (on both sides) - the events in the movie are remarkably close to what actually happened.

[Cid250]

I concur with the notion that RPG fire is much too accurate (and deadly)...even with "green / Conscript" rated Red units. I believe the accuracy needs to be tweaked down.

Yeah, the hollywood version, is a more accurate account... CM should be based on movies.

African conscripts are so stupid that they can't hit an elephant at 10m with a shotgun canyons cut... i have also heard that those people are so starved that they are almost blind at ranges over 5 meters.

/sarcastic mode off

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Yeah, the hollywood version, is a more accurate account... CM should be based on movies.

African conscripts are so stupid that they can't hit an elephant at 10m with a shotgun canyons cut... i have also heard that those people are so starved that they are almost blind at ranges over 5 meters.

/sarcastic mode off

Um, I'm not really sure what you're saying here . . . the arguments for making RPG fire less accurate are not based on the movie, they're based on many serious, nonfiction books that I've read about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. As an example, the most recent one I read was called Dusty Warriors, a book about 1st Battalion the Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment (1 PWRR) in Basra and Al Amarah in 2004. The author frequently quotes soldiers from 1 PWRR saying 1) how many RPGs were shot at them, 2) how few actually hit, and 3) how few of the ones that hit actually did damage.

I could probably produce examples from other books, such as Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad, but I don't have any of them with me here in my new temporary home in Germany. Rest assured that when I ask for game changes, I don't trust Hollywood far.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Thunder Run does a good job of detailing the vulnerability and strengths of the M1 and M2s in the field. I've only read through it once, but I was surprised at the number of direct hits those vehicles were able to take, and in some cases, the damage caused by that one lucky shot which can render the whole vehicle in-operable.

[hcrof]

Same here - I am basing my comments on first hand accounts of battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'In Foreign Fields' edited by Dan Collins is a very good read and is made up of British medal winners telling their stories. It also documents massive amounts of fire that seems to magically miss them all the time.

I also suspect that a lot of the less die hard Iraqi insurgents that are just roped in for the money don't even really want to kill anyone. They just fire their weapons in the general direction of the western forces without even trying to hit. They then go home and tell fine stories of how many people they killed. (But that is of course pure speculation and I am willing to be proved wrong on that one)

[Clavicula_Nox]

Alot of the attacks are "honor" attacks, meaning we did something to upset them, and to assuage their honor they fire on us. The problem is, there are so many different factions fighting in Iraq that generalized and sweeping descriptions are fairly pointless.

[Cid250]

Um, I'm not really sure what you're saying here . . . the arguments for making RPG fire less accurate are not based on the movie, they're based on many serious, nonfiction books that I've read about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. As an example, the most recent one I read was called Dusty Warriors, a book about 1st Battalion the Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment (1 PWRR) in Basra and Al Amarah in 2004. The author frequently quotes soldiers from 1 PWRR saying 1) how many RPGs were shot at them, 2) how few actually hit, and 3) how few of the ones that hit actually did damage.

That's mainly because the ones that Died... can't write a book about how accurate was the hit that killed them. Those books tell only the lucky side of the history, but they are far from being serious historical reference books.

The same can be said of any WWII soldier memories... those accounts can't give you a good idea about the reality. Historicians usually needs a background of more than 50 years to bring any serious and realistic study. Bias is a natural feature of any human mind.

[Clavicula_Nox]

That's mainly because the ones that Died... can't write a book about how accurate was the hit that killed them. Those books tell only the lucky side of the history, but they are far from being serious historical reference books.

The same can be said of any WWII soldier memories... those accounts can't give you a good idea about the reality. Historicians usually needs a background of more than 50 years to bring any serious and realistic study. Bias is a natural feature of any human mind.

Speaking for Thunder Run, every soldier who was killed was around other soldiers who lived, so, in this case you're wrong; there are soldiers who can, and do testify about the few accurate shots that result in a hit. I don't see what that does to strengthen or weaken your argument.

[Apocal]

That's mainly because the ones that Died... can't write a book about how accurate was the hit that killed them. Those books tell only the lucky side of the history, but they are far from being serious historical reference books.

The same can be said of any WWII soldier memories... those accounts can't give you a good idea about the reality. Historicians usually needs a background of more than 50 years to bring any serious and realistic study. Bias is a natural feature of any human mind.

To support just how inaccurate RPGs even when wielded by experts.

Slide taken from the AAR of the Force Recon Platoon of SPMAGTF Helmand. Over 100 RPGs fired, only two Humvees hit, only one of the two disabled. Zero casualties. And let me reiterate that these are people who have been fighting for around thirty years continuously. They have fired more RPGs at real targets than a career soldier in the Soviet/Russian Army has fired at practice targets.

Yes, the enemy fires dozens of RPGs for every hit. And they generally need multiple hits, even on Humvees, to get a kill. It's been that way with the PG-7, PG-7VR and OG-7 hits we've recorded. None of them is reasonably effective at killing anything beyond a very unfortunate individual struck with them, the softest of soft vehicles (i.e. non-armored humvees) or their operator's when they expose themselves.

[Gpig]

Wow! Quite the ambush but no casualties? I'm guessing that would leave the Red player a little frustrated. ;-)

Can anybody find the actual terrain in this google link, referenced above in that sketch?

Gpig

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bala+baluk,+afghanistan&sll=49.095452,17.753906&sspn=34.936157,87.539063&ie=UTF8&ll=32.734296,62.562504&spn=0.043681,0.085487&t=h&z=14

[hcrof]

The US Army did some tests a while back on the RPG and the results are published somewhere - I think you can find it as a link on Wikipedia. With a skilled operator, the RPG will hit a static target at 300m 50% of the time, to get that result with an unskilled operator the target needs to be at 150m. Likewise if the target is moving or if there is a crosswind, a skilled RPG operator has an effective range of 150m, the unskilled operator can forget about it. That information just came off the top of my head BTW - it might be wrong.

I suspect that those Humvees were at longer ranges than 150m and they were taking serious evasive action.

I think I might have had a debate before over that engagement - I can't remember who it was with though. AFAIK the conclusion was that on a hit the focussed jet of the warhead would just pass straight through the humvee without harming anyone. I would still argue though that a hit against an AFV would be more effective due to the more compact layout. You would be more likely to hit a critical system.

At the end of the day, if the RPG-7 was as ineffective as that engagement suggested, why would armies across the world still be using the things? Not just third world armies either - I think the Russian airborne use them!