Black Hawk Down?

[akd]

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!

Same reason Germany handed out hundreds of thousands of panzerfausts to just about everyone: cheapest way to take out a tank, even if you have to expend a bunch of ammo and lives in the process.

[Lanzfeld]

hmmmmm...

If this data is correct then the RPG's ing the game need some tweaking.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

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 Those books tell only the lucky side of the history, but they are far from being serious historical reference books.

As Clavicula_Nox said about Thunder Run, in Dusty Warriors the Brits did everything at least in platoon strength, and since no platoon was ever wiped out, there was always someone around to record firefights.

All of the actions in which 1 PWRR's Warriors and dismounts took damage/casualties were very thoroughly described by a compilation of multiple accounts. Just about every individual casualty's case was described in detail, again, by multiple accounts.

This is kind of frustrating, since you haven't read these books, so it's difficult for us to have a serious discussion about this. So let me ask a different question: do you have any evidence that supports the current modeling of RPGs?

And no, they're not historical reference books. They are biased. But they're the best we've got, since we haven't got 50 years between the events to do said historical research.

[stikkypixie]

I wonder what's the difference between the RPGs and the AT4 in terms of accuracy? And I've seen plenty of my RPGs miss. Maybe it's because I play as reds and notice things more.

[hcrof]

I try to follow the guidelines that I gave above and even then it it frustrating to see my RPG operators miss. Green RPG guys literally cant even hit a building at 200m let alone a tank!

I have to say though that in my experience AT-4's are even worse - if there ever was a panzerfaust equivilent it would be an AT-4. It probably won't hit above 100m and even then it won't do any damage. The last time I used one it failed to take out a BMP-2, I had to use a grenade launcher in the end!

[c3k]

Is a comparison of real-world RPG-7's in Iraq and Afghanistan to CMSF's Syrian Army equipment a fair comparison?

Points of possible divergence:

1. Manufacture - local or Russian munitions factory?

2. Age

3. Storage - humidity, temperature, vibration, impact, duration. (Has a Muj been waiting 10 years to dig the RPG round out of the roof of the hen house? Or, did the Syrian just open it out of the armory still in the factory wrapping?)

4. Transport - see storage, above.

5. Training

6. Morale/support/unit expectations (you gain "street cred" just for blowing rounds in some societies versus doing your job and getting rounds on target in others. This is why some fighters shoot blindly or just fire in the air. They are justifiably proud of their actions given how their society views such behaviors. US military society scorns that behavior.)

7. Sighting system - see all the above and repeat

I would be hesitant to extrapolate directly from COIN ops RPG use to Syrian Army in an invasion scenario RPG use. It may be useful for some purposes, but I would not denigrate RPG accuracy/efficacy based on Mujahudeen use.

This doesn't mean I have any evidence supporting CMSF's modelling of the RPG.

Just points to ponder.

Thanks,

Ken

[hcrof]

Ken - I completely agree. Thank you for summing up what I should have been saying in the first place

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I would be hesitant to extrapolate directly from COIN ops RPG use to Syrian Army in an invasion scenario RPG use. It may be useful for some purposes, but I would not denigrate RPG accuracy/efficacy based on Mujahudeen use.

I agree, I'm mainly thinking about the uncons rather than the Syrian Army. I think RPG accuracy/effectiveness for the Syrian Army is fine, but I just think that the uncons need tweaking.

[Clavicula_Nox]

I could also accept that, in fact, I would prefer to keep the Syrian regulars able to hit with the things, they need all the help they can get!

[Dietrich]

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.

In all my playing of CM:SF (I've had the game for about six months), I can count on one hand the number of times an armored vehicle of mine has taken a disabling hit to the engine.

Many times an armored vehicle of mine has been "knocked out" by a hit which did not render inoperable any of the items on the damage tab, but someone pointed out that a vehicle can get knocked out even if the engine and tracks and none of the crew are WIA/KIA.

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?

Perhaps because it's relatively cheap and plentiful? I recently read (in a book while browing at Borders) that the RPG-7 can be used as "poor man's artillery" (evidently by firing at a steep angle) up to about 900 yards, though it would be perhaps even more inaccurate than in direct-fire mode.

I suspect the relative ineffectiveness of the RPG-7 may have something to do with the velocity of the RPG itself. The RPG's muzzle velocity is about 110 meters per second. (For comparison, the also fin-stabilized AT4's muzzle velocity is 280 meters per second.) Also, according to Wikipedia, the RPG responds counter-intuitively to crosswinds:

A crosswind will tend to exert pressure on the stabilizing fins, causing the projectile to turn into the wind. While the rocket motor is still burning, this will cause the flight path to curve into the wind. The TRADOC bulletin explains aiming difficulties for more distant moving targets in crosswinds at some length, as the RPG-7 optical sight reticle is somewhat challenging.

[hcrof]

Perhaps because it's relatively cheap and plentiful?

Yeah but the engagement suggests a 2% hit probability which just isn't worth it. How often do you get 50 RPG's firing at 1 target?

Combined with the face that an anti armour weapon with over 200mm penetration failed to cause injury in a very lightly armoured vehicle would suggest that those US troops were very lucky.

I am not promoting the RPG-7 as some sort of wonder weapon, I am just pointing out that many experts still regard it as effective on the modern(ish) battlefield. If I had all the money in the world I would get a Charles Gustav but the RPG is a good substitute.

You are right about the poor mans artillery bit - the round has a self destruct mechanism that activates at around 900m. If you are very good you can get an airburst effect at that range. I highly doubt its effectiveness though it has been recorded in Afghanistan back in the 80's.

[Secondbrooks]

I agree, I'm mainly thinking about the uncons rather than the Syrian Army. I think RPG accuracy/effectiveness for the Syrian Army is fine, but I just think that the uncons need tweaking.

It's worth to think that rather big amount of Syrian Uncons infact might have military background, i'm in impression that Syrian military has drafted and trained considerable amount of it's male population, while keeping just small amount of them in active and reservist formations. So they are not just un-trained mass which likes to fire AKs from hip and shoot RPG-7 by instict and gut-feeling... but considerably part of they actually know what they are doing (altough skills might be bit rusty).

RPG-7 yet is key weapon-system of Uncon formations so handler of it probably is selected from those who actually should know how to use it.

[JonS]

Yeah but the engagement suggests a 2% hit probability which just isn't worth it. How often do you get 50 RPG's firing at 1 target?

You are assuming that they were *only* aiming at the HMMWVs.

[meade95]

I don't buy the notion that the Syrian Army (much less battle tested within the recent past) would be any more proficient than the Mujahudeen / Taliban / AQ elements / Iraqi insurgent elements.....with regard to RPG use.

I would suggest it would turn out just the opposite.

I believe RPG accuracy is much too high in CMSF (and done so for gamming balance.....admitted to or not).

[The Warrior]

Has anyone thought of a Kiawa down battle. That happened in Iraq 2005 or 06. Not sure. The story been ran on History channel a couple of times.

[Secondbrooks]

I don't buy the notion that the Syrian Army (much less battle tested within the recent past) would be any more proficient than the Mujahudeen / Taliban / AQ elements / Iraqi insurgent elements.....with regard to RPG use.

Well Black Hawk Down scenario shouldn't have Taliban, AQ or Iraqis. I admit i'm not expert on tyhis issue, but uncons there (in Somalia) mostly composed of guys with zero training, they were just given gun and maybe short instructions of how to load it.

[akd]

I don't buy the notion that the Syrian Army (much less battle tested within the recent past) would be any more proficient than the Mujahudeen / Taliban / AQ elements / Iraqi insurgent elements.....with regard to RPG use.

I agree. If the assumption is that insurgents are typically novices with little training and soldiers are regulars with some weapons training, then that can simply be controlled via the experience setting, no need to have separate "branch" coding for weapons use.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

The difference seems to be 1) experience, which is at present variable anyway, and 2) equipment maintenance, which would be far higher in the Army than in the unconventional forces. Perhaps the "Equipment" setting, when set to lower levels, wouldn't take RPGs away from uncons, but rather make them less accurate and reliable?

[akd]

The difference seems to be 1) experience, which is at present variable anyway, and 2) equipment maintenance, which would be far higher in the Army than in the unconventional forces. Perhaps the "Equipment" setting, when set to lower levels, wouldn't take RPGs away from uncons, but rather make them less accurate and reliable?

After you have purchased a unit, changes to the equipment variable affect quality (reliability, accuracy, ?) rather than type. So you can purchase a unit with

"excellent" equipment, then make that equipment "poor" in use. If RPG dispersion and warhead reliability are not significantly impacted by changing this, then they should be.

Maybe Steve can chime in?

[Secondbrooks]

Problem in my mind is that CMSF is unable to model guys (=Somalians) who barely understands basics of how weapon functions. CMSF starts from idea that even conscript troops have had at least weeks lasting "intensive" training phase. There is no zero-experience level.

[meade95]

After you have purchased a unit, changes to the equipment variable affect quality (reliability, accuracy, ?) rather than type. So you can purchase a unit with

"excellent" equipment, then make that equipment "poor" in use. If RPG dispersion and warhead reliability are not significantly impacted by changing this, then they should be.

Maybe Steve can chime in?

Hmm. Good thought. On setting to "poor" after-the-fact of purchasing.

[JonS]

Problem in my mind is that CMSF is unable to model guys (=Somalians) who barely understands basics of how weapon functions. CMSF starts from idea that even conscript troops have had at least weeks lasting "intensive" training phase. There is no zero-experience level.

Exactly what tactical problem are you seeking to model here - Omdurman?

[hcrof]

To honest, I think conscript level troops come close to untrained in terms of effectiveness. You get a massive burst of unaimed fire and the squad is wiped out when they all have to reload. Combine with the fact that they will be suppressed at the least bit of fire and in my mind you have pretty much untrained troops.

Green troops better reflects conscripts who have gone through at least some kind of training program. To make them reservists conscripted at very short notice the leadership and morale values should go down.

[Secondbrooks]

Exactly what tactical problem are you seeking to model here - Omdurman?

Or like tactical problems in modelling happenings of Black Hawk Down with CMSF? [Meaningfully glimpsing at topic's name]

[JonS]

You do realise that BHD encompassed several very different battles, over a very large area?

You also realise that CMSF consciously rejects trying to model BHD and its ilk?