Another complain about Syrian AT assets

[Bigduke6]

I noticed the manufacturer sped up the scene of the dudes setting up the Kornet, they made it look like it can happen in about 5 seconds. And the grunts carrying the launcher/sight/missiles were humping hard to carry the things; this is a heavy missile that you don't want to be backpacking with. Also in "travel" mode missile is not attached.

So I would say maybe 30 seconds to a minute would be about right to deploy this weapon in CMSF. Roughly speaking, in terms of ease of deployment, it appears the Metis is sort of like a SAW, while the Kornet is like an M2 .50 caliber.

Still, the game models it at 90 seconds.

Pandur asks a good question, why aren't there ATGM on technicals?

[John Kettler]

Bigduke6,

And yet another reason we need motorcycles! Really puts teeth into light recon units, the guys ahead of that BRDM-2 or whatever has since replaced it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Pandur,

Don't know regarding your first question, but the second link was for Steve's delectation and amusement.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Generally speaking we have longer setup times for ALL weapons compared to their theoretical setup times. This does not just apply to Soviet/Russian ATGMs, but also to Blue weaponry as well. We also do not use manufacturers' specifications for pretty much anything, though we do use them as a baseline to judge where to start.

As can be seen with v1.21 we are willing to make adjustments when it appears we've been too harsh. At this point we think 90 seconds to get the weapon completely ready to fire its first round (which includes aiming time) is reasonable.

John K, that second link is dead as far as I can tell.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Appreciate your reentering the lists! As for the link issue, the item has merely scrolled off the page. Please go to Camouflage-IFF (where many goodies lie) and go back in the Archives to 17 September, 2009. It's there still, for I'm looking at it now: "Syrian" Camouflage and the U.S. Army.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

I would say 90 seconds is ballpark for the AT-14, maybe a just a bit long but not much.

But quite honestly I think 90 seconds is somewhat long for METIS-M. Again, no assembly required, you just flip down the tripod, plunk it on the ground, pop off the optics lens covers, and you're ready to aim. More or less, same as a Javelin I would think.

So if in CMSF a veteran Javelin crew takes 90 seconds to get a Javelin ready to fire and aimed, I would think 90 seconds for a veteran AT-13 crew would make sense, the weapons are roughly the same in terms of operation, the crew quality is the same, therefore the deployment time would logically be the same.

Any one out there know how long it takes a veteran Javelin crew to go from movement to ready-to-fire in CMSF?

[Battlefront.com]

The link itself, as posted, doesn't work. But I found it anyway

http://strikehold.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/syrian-camouflage-and-the-us-army/

I'm familiar with the article it links too. That is not Syrian camouflage. Natick has it wrong. Libyan, possibly, but not Syrian. The Syrians have used a couple of patterns, but mostly use a woodland variant. I have several in my collection, one of which was used for CM:SF

Steve

[Pandur]

Any one out there know how long it takes a veteran Javelin crew to go from movement to ready-to-fire in CMSF?

in CMSF, well as soon as they "stop" they are ready to fire one could say. maybe there is some procedure wich takes a few seconds but its hardly noticable.

they stop and as soon as they spot a target they aim...no preperation required at all.

at least thats what i see in the game.

[dan/california]

I know it seems like the aiming is taking forever when there is a turret tracking around the crews direction.

[gibsonm]

Disregard.

You were after "CM:SF times" not "Real World times" so my initial post isn't relevant.

[Bigduke6]

90 seconds for AT-13/Metis vs. 0 seconds for Javelin, when all the Syrian crew has to do is flip down a single tripod support leg, seems to me to be somewhat unbalanced in favour of Javelin.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume, all other things being equal, that it takes 90 seconds to flip down a single tripod support leg - unless of course the assumption is veteran Syrians are less capable than Veteran US.

[stikkypixie]

90 seconds for AT-13/Metis vs. 0 seconds for Javelin, when all the Syrian crew has to do is flip down a single tripod support leg, seems to me to be somewhat unbalanced in favour of Javelin.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume, all other things being equal, that it takes 90 seconds to flip down a single tripod support leg - unless of course the assumption is veteran Syrians are less capable than Veteran US.

It's time to the first shot. In my experience it can take about 30 sec before the first Javelin hits the skies.

[Bigduke6]

StickyPixie,

As far as AT-13 goes, it's not time to first shot, it's time from stopping moving, and beginning to spot.

As I understand it, in CMSF when an ATGM crew has to change face or otherwise get ready to shoot, it is in "deploying" mode, and the guy with the missile always takes the longest.

The info redout gives the time the missile gunner needs to deploy, I assume this is the amount of time it actually takes him to deploy. I haven't timed it with a stopwatch but what the info window gives is pretty close to what the game seems to simulate, to wit, if 1.5 minutes is given as deploy time, then it will take about 90 seconds between the time the missile gunner stops moving, and the time he starts aiming.

Aiming as nearly as I can tell is not subsumed as part of the deploy time. I've run tests and watched carefully. Spotting and aiming are separate activities, that the game counts time for separately.

But I am not talking about aiming or spotting, which are of course things you also need to do, before the missile gets launched.

What I am talking about is deploying. This, as I understand it, is the time it takes for the gunner to get his weapon ready to shoot, and he is settled down behind observing his engagement area, and looking for targets.

For AT-13, this is 90 seconds, that's how long it takes before the gunner is set and he starts spotting.

If it takes a Javelin crew 30 seconds to launch a missile, this means they are not just "deploying", but "aiming", "spotting" and "firing" in a time frame three times faster, than the time it takes an AT-13 gunner to flip down his tripod leg, pop off his optics lens caps, point himself in the direction the sergeant says is important, and lie down behind his weapon in the best cover at hand.

If we were talking about time between AT-13 crew halt, and AT-13 launch, then I would say 90 seconds was more or less ballpark, although probably a bit slow for a decent crew. I would think wartime they would hope to do that in about a minute, and an in a controlled firing range environment in about 30 - 45 seconds, of which maybe 10 - 20 seconds would be spent getting the weapon ready to fire.

But we are talking here about "deploying" only, for the AT-13. The time from end of movement to beginning of spotting in a mode where the gunner can begin aiming if he finds a target.

If a Javelin gunner goes from movement to launch in 30 seconds, I can't understand how the Javelin gunner can get the weapons prep part of that process - modeled by "deploying" - done in something like 10 - 20 seconds, when it takes an AT-13 gunner of the same quality, about 90 seconds to do the same thing.

That would mean the Javelin is 4 - 9 times quicker to get ready to fire, than AT-13. This is CMSF, veteran is veteran, passport of soldier doesn't matter. The only variable here is the type of weapon, and if we are talking about deploying, the time it takes a gunner to get the weapon ready to fire.

Simulating the US weapon 4 - 9 times quicker to deploy, doesn't make sense to me. Javelin and AT-13 are are roughly similar in size and employment, and if the US weapon arguably has great ergonomics built into it, the Russian weapon is a Russian weapon, designed from the blueprint to be easy to operate.

Maybe there is something complicated about putting AT-13 into operation that I am missing here.

[Alex]

"Soviet FM it's a propaganda"

"Syrian soldiers it's not russian soldiers"

I think Steve answer will looks like it.

[Bigduke6]

It can't. One of the underlying precepts of CM is, the nationality of a solider is unimportant. Veteran quality is veteran quality, no matter the uniform. So unless there is something inherently more complicated and difficult about putting AT-13 into operation, than a Javelin, they should have similar deployment times.

This of course has little to do with spotting or aiming times, where I think we can all agree the US weapon should have a great advantage. Especially spotting, as that depends not just on the gunner and his sight, but every one else in LOS, their ability to see, and their abillity to get that information to the ATGM gunner. Here Western forces have a huge advantage, they have all those radios.

That's why I'm trying to focus on deployment. That's where I can't see the difference between the two weapons.

I certainly don't think this is a conscious plot by BFI to overpower blue. Past experience seems to show that when the gamers come across a disconnect (if in fact this is what's happening) in how a weapon got evaluated, the reason comes down to a slightly off estimate by the developers, which the game somehow amplifies.

While I'm on the subject, I'm a little suprised deploy times for AT-14 are the same as for AT-13; Kornet is alot less portable than Metis-M, and you have to stick a missile on a Kornet sight before you can shoot, AFAIK.

[Lanzfeld]

Okay, I just did some testing. These tests were against buildings which should not effect setup times but maybe aiming times???

AT-13 advertised setup is 90 seconds. Both vets and conscripts set it up and went into aiming at about 40 to 45 seconds. Both aimed for about 10 to 15 seconds before shooting.

AT-14 advertised setup is 90 seconds. Both vets and conscripts set it up as advertised about 90 seconds. Aiming for both, again, took about 10 to 15 seconds.

So it seems that the AT-13 info screen needs new data because crews went from stopping to shooting in about 50 seconds. Like I said, setup was about 40 to 45 seconds.

I saw no difference in setup times with crew experience but it MAY have taken the conscripts 3 seconds longer while aiming. Not too sure but I did notice that conscript shots failed to hit target building more. Again...I am not sure.

Packing up seems to be a little bit broken? When my AT-13's were deployed and I hit the deploy button again to packup it took the advertised time of 20 seconds. All is well. BUT....if I just quick my boys then they DO NOT PACK UP at all and just move. After they get to new spot then they deploy again. Is this a cheat to avoid packing up delays??? Same with the AT-14 guys. No packup is needed. They just pickup and run.

BTW... Same reloading "bug" as with rpg's. If you want the team to shoot then run the AT guys stays behind to finish reloading first. DEAD GUY!

[Alex]

2 Lanzfeld

Can you test also AT-4 'Spigot' and AT-3?

[Lanzfeld]

More testing...

AT-3B advertised setup is 5 minutes. Actual with regular crew is 5 minutes.

AT-4C advertised setup is 2 minutes and actual is same. 1:55 to be exact.

SPG-9 is off. Advertised setup is 90 seconds. Actual is 40 seconds.

Again "Packing Up" times are strange as the AT-3 and 4 teams need no packing up time after deploying. Bug???

[Bigduke6]

Great stuff Lanzfeld, could you maybe do the Javelin and whatever else Blue has in the way of infantry ATGM?

My opinion, AT-14 is roughly correct on deployment time, SPG-9 is roughly correct but a bit slow, AT-4 is a bit slow but the time is ballpark correct, AT-13 is definately slow, and AT-3 is even slower than that.

To get Sagger ready you have to plop down the suitcase, open it, stick the missile on its little launch thingie, run out the cable and the gamestick, plant your sight next to the gamestick, and then look through the sight.

I'd say that should take a trained crew about 2 - 3 minutes, and if they were in a hurry on a gun range figure a minute to 90 seconds, but that's lab conditions. Five minutes seems pretty excessive.

As to the AT-4, short answer I think 2 minutes is a bit excessive, enough to merit changing if possible, but you can't call it an outrageous error.

To learn more about the weapon and how it goes together, here are a couple of useful linkies:

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/fagot.htm

http://www.wonderland.org.nz/fagot.htm

This weapon comes as nearly as I can tell in three pieces; the stand, the sight, and the missile. Early versions of the weapon had a guidance unit - a joystick - that was hooked up along with the sight. Modern versions of the weapon just have the sight, and the most modern versions have a thermal sidght.

One missile and its carrying tube weighs 13 kg., and the sight if it's a thermal weighs 9 kg. By deducttion I conclude the stand/launch rail weighs 13 kg., as the total weight of the assembled weapon is 35 kg.

Given that heft, it seems to me a healthy man with a real need to do so could point AT-4 somewhere else in seconds, but moving that sucker more than a dozen meters or more and he would have a pretty serious load.

CMSF seems not to take this into account, if an AT-4 missle team changes facing while remaining in place, they must deploy in a new direction, with attendant pack up and deploy times. This kind of built-in delay makes some sense for a Sagger (lots of parts and cables to trip over) or a Kornet (friggen' heavy), but for the lighter Fagot and Metis, I'm not sure that kind of delay makes sense. The AT-4 and AT-13 are infantry weapons designed to be humpable, and the designers were Russians. I have little doubt that if Ivan had to grab the thing and just throw it onto the opposite side of a trench, because the bad guys were coming that way the weapon would for sure handle that kind of abuse; after all half its weight is a steel stand/tripod. But now I'm speculating.

Anyway, to get AT-4 going, the way I see it, you open up the tripod legs, put the tripod/launch on the ground, hook the sight to the tripod/launch rail, lock the missile onto the launch rail, get behind the weapon, if it's really modern turn on the thermal sight, and start searching for targets. I'd say that's about a minute of soldier task execution, but not two unless he's being fired on, intoxicated, or otherwise distracted.

Interesting weaknesses for AT-4:

- According to the designer it can't "effectively engage" targets moving more than 60 kph; I assume this is because of narrow sight view field.

- The weapon won't work (according to specs anyway) at altidudes greater than 3000 meters above sea level, which must be one reason why you don't hear about them much in Afghanistan.

- If there are thermal sights fitted, there is an air bottle that goes with the thermals, and that air bottle is good for 150 minutes of operation.

Maybe there is an AT-4 gunner out there who can enlighten us on more details.

If Lanzfeld or some one else could test out the Javelin and other western kit, it would be interesting to see how much those weapons' deployment times differ from what the manufacturer says.

[c3k]

Bigduke6,

Regarding the "air bottle" for thermal sights, it is probably a thermos containing liquid nitrogen. Once you turn on the thermal sight, it must be cooled by the boiling off nitrogen before it will gain sensitivity. This is how the SA-7 works. The amount of liquid nitrogen is only good for, very roughly, 15 minutes, assuming no leaks. Oh, there's no turning it off after it's been turned on. So you'd better be sure you want to use your thermals. (This is why you can't use these sights to scan; the 15 minute use it or lose it period is quite a crippler.)

Ken

[Alex]

Also intrested USMC TOW-2 deploying time

[John Kettler]

This should help in the task/motion analysis of Kornet-E.

Regards,

John Kettler