A tae from the (British) Front

[Blackcat]

Dawn was breaking, twenty metres into the tree-line were three Challenger2 (Enhanced) main battle tanks. They had been there for a nearly half an hour, snug in a hull down position with a good view over the area the enemy were expected to pass. Over the radio came a message relayed from one of the sniper scouts sent out during the night, three T72’s were on their way and would pass from left to right at a distance of no more than 1500 yards.

Five hundred metres back in his tactical HQ the Colonel commanding the 1st Royal Anglian battle group heard the message but paid it no attention. Three stationary, hull-down Challies ambushing three T72s moving in the open, the result was a forgone conclusion, especially since two of the Challenger crew were crack teams and the third was a solid veteran. Nothing there to divert him from worrying about why his veteran infantry was doing so badly today. Two platoons had been badly chewed up already and in a few minutes the third was going to put the finishing touches to a carefully planned attack on a compound that he needed to take quickly if he was going to win this battle.

There comes a point in every fight when the man in charge can do no more, he has to just led his teams get on with it and wait. That point had arrived. Over the various radio nets routine reports continued to arrive. Suddenly, seemingly from every monitored frequency came screams for help, medics, medivacs.

When the dust settled a few minutes later the colonel learned that two of the three Challenger’s were destroyed and the third badly damaged (it would certainly be no further use in this battle) and they had only accounted for one T72.

The infantry attack had succeeded but at a cost he couldn’t afford. One section had but a single wounded survivor both the others had suffered two tier one (red) casualties plus numerous tier three (yellow). Most of the damage was caused by one Syrian squad that was in the rubble of a building that had been blown apart around them by 155 artillery, the ruins were then subjected to the full HE loads of two Scimitars (69 rounds) followed by three minutes of fire from no less than three 50 cal machine guns and the 7.62s of the Scimitars. Reports indicate that when the infantry went in from three directions there were still two Syrians standing, one of whom was wounded. Those two men damn near destroyed a whole platoon.

While the colonel was contemplating the wreck of his battle he heard about a sniper team that had been infiltrated to take down a Kornet ATGM Team. The second man in a sniper team is, of course, there to spot targets not to get involved in the shooting. It would seem that this particular number 2 decided to help his marksman friend by opening fire himself. Needless to say the bloody idiot was firing 5.56 tracer, which showed their position to one of the T72s the Challengers didn’t take out. He won’t make that mistake again, or indeed any other – and the bloody Kornet team survived.

Well, according to the briefing he received the Colonel should be getting some reinforcements very soon, another five Challengers, more artillery and hopefully some more infantry. May be all is not lost. How many BMPs have just turned up?!!!!

[i played through the Brit campaign without any major problems except in one battle, but since 1.21 I find playing the British a nightmare. The infantry die like flies anytime they are actually asked to fight, the Challenger’s can’t hit a barn door at twenty paces, the 30mm Rarden cannon seems to cause very little damage, especially compared with the 25mm guns on the Bradley, and has a pathetic load-out of HE (can someone explain why the Scimitars and Warriors carry four times as much APDS as they do HE?). I don’t recall anything in the release notes for 1.21 that would account for my recent experiences. Maybe I am just having a run of bad luck, if so it’s a very, very long run. The above account by the way came from the Scenario “British Mettle”.]

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Spelling, but you can't edit the title, drat.

But if you corrected it, how could we mock you?

So what were you shooting for; Take? Tape? Taekwondo?

[Blackcat]

But if you corrected it, how could we mock you?

So what were you shooting for; Take? Tape? Taekwondo?

Hee, hee.

"Tale", but mock away, my shoulders are broad

[Alan8325]

I haven't had a chance to play through the Brit campaign yet, but I made a thread about the Rarden issue of not doing much damage. The reason seems to be that it fires HE against lightly armored targets, like BMP, as opposed to APDS. One of the changes mentioned in the v1.21 list is that units are more likely to fire HE before KE against lighter targets and it appears that the AI behind the Rarden is, IMHO, incorrectly affected by this change, especially considering the HE-APDS ratio carried.

The HE-APDS ratio was discussed in another thread and Steve mentioned that this ratio really is what is carried in real life, to his surprise as much as yours. There was internal debate as to whether to use this unfortunately realistic ratio or bend reality a little bit and make it more even or HE-favored. The result was to keep the realistic loadout.

EDIT: From v1.21 list of changes:

•Tanks won't waste APFSDS ammo on lightly-armored targets when alternative ammo is available.

[Blackcat]

I haven't had a chance to play through the Brit campaign yet, but I made a thread about the Rarden issue of not doing much damage. The reason seems to be that it fires HE against lightly armored targets, like BMP, as opposed to APDS. One of the changes mentioned in the v1.21 list is that units are more likely to fire HE before KE against lighter targets and it appears that the AI behind the Rarden is, IMHO, incorrectly affected by this change, especially considering the HE-APDS ratio carried.

The HE-APDS ratio was discussed in another thread and Steve mentioned that this ratio really is what is carried in real life, to his surprise as much as yours. There was internal debate as to whether to use this unfortunately realistic ratio or bend reality a little bit and make it more even or HE-favored. The result was to keep the realistic loadout.

EDIT: From v1.21 list of changes:

•Tanks won't waste APFSDS ammo on lightly-armored targets when alternative ammo is available.

Thanks for your help.

I haven't seen the thread on the Rarden load-out, but I will try and look it up. The idea that the current ratio is "realistic" is total nonsense. The Scimitars in action today in Afghanistan are not carrying one hundred plus anti-armour shells and I very much doubt that the Warriors and Scimitars deployed in Iraq did either. Ammo load is task dependent, but I can, perhaps, see where Battlefront is coming from.

I did see the comments about the firing HE against IFVs and that explanation seemed to make sense. What bugs me though is the lack of damage caused against non-armoured targets.

Thanks again.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

A conventional war against Syria is not the same as COIN operations where there is no expectation of enemy armour. IIRC the loadout is straight out of the textbook loadouts. If facing enemy armour is to be expected then it's only natural the AP round gets favoured above a HE round.

Run out of HE and one would just ply the target with MG fire instead. No problem.

If on the other hand you run out of AP and are then confronted with armour: problem. Hence you'd be carrying significantly more AP then HE.

*edit*

Not that it isn't galling to see 30mm HE being fired at armoured targets instead of the plentiful AP.

[John Kettler]

Blackcat,

Nice writeup! Definitely a depressing day for the British senior commander, but a real shock to the readers. Quite a plot twist!

Alan8325,

Fair point, but a Warrior isn't a tank. It's an IFV. If 1.21's AI doesn't grok this, then methinks it needs tweaking. After all, there's a world of difference between the Challenger's 120mm HESH round and the positively anemic by comparison 30mm HE fired by the Warrior. The former is quite capable of killing many tanks, whereas the latter is for killing infantry, infantry positions and demolishing softskins.

Regards,

John Kettler

[phil stanbridge]

Blackcat, when you say your infantry die like flies, how many are you losing per battle? I am on mission 10 of the Brit campaign with the new patch, and have had to change my tactics.

The most men I have had KIA is 15 and that was in the dreaded police station mission. I quit early to be awarded a draw. But in almost every other mission I have had very few KIA, maybe 1 or 2, and sometimes nobody, with only a handful injured. But it is incredibly challenging! Definitely harder than the Army and the Marines modules. Before the latest patch I was losing loads, but that was down to me not really understanding how it all fits together. Based on my current results you can play it conservatively and not lose a load of men. But conservative is the word, because you cannot afford to be aggressive. So far I have had 3 total victories, 3 tacticals, 3 draws, and I haven't lost *that* many men. In the campaign prior I lost 169 KIA, and was awarded a defeat. So far I have lost 30 if that, and a few vehicles, but it will be interesting to see how I fair this time!

[TheVulture]

The second man in a sniper team is, of course, there to spot targets not to get involved in the shooting. It would seem that this particular number 2 decided to help his marksman friend by opening fire himself. Needless to say the bloody idiot was firing 5.56 tracer, which showed their position to one of the T72s the Challengers didn’t take out. He won’t make that mistake again, or indeed any other – and the bloody Kornet team survived.

I've noticed similar behaviour recently with marine snipers - possibly an unintended patch 1.21 change? In my case, I have 3 man marine sniper teams (spotter, sniper, security?). The 3rd guy has a rifle with underslung grenade launcher, and when the sniper engages a target, both other guys open up with standard rifles (with tracers), and UGL if in range. Granted, in the scenario I'm playing it hasn't hurt since apparently all the Syrians are blind and, like bats, use echolocation that is stymied by all the explosions going off around them (and one UGL grenade took out 5 men in one hit, considerably upping the sniper's effectiveness), but it surely isn't realistic or intended behaviour.

[Blackcat]

Blackcat, when you say your infantry die like flies, how many are you losing per battle? I am on mission 10 of the Brit campaign with the new patch, and have had to change my tactics.

The most men I have had KIA is 15 and that was in the dreaded police station mission. I quit early to be awarded a draw. But in almost every other mission I have had very few KIA, maybe 1 or 2, and sometimes nobody, with only a handful injured. But it is incredibly challenging! Definitely harder than the Army and the Marines modules. Before the latest patch I was losing loads, but that was down to me not really understanding how it all fits together. Based on my current results you can play it conservatively and not lose a load of men. But conservative is the word, because you cannot afford to be aggressive. So far I have had 3 total victories, 3 tacticals, 3 draws, and I haven't lost *that* many men. In the campaign prior I lost 169 KIA, and was awarded a defeat. So far I have lost 30 if that, and a few vehicles, but it will be interesting to see how I fair this time!

Phil,

I played through the Brit campaign as a very new player and, like you, I suffered very few infantry casualties and lost few vehicles (if memory serves I never had a tank destroyed). Once I got over the nasty Syrian counter attack mission I ended up with a total victory.

Having played through the Marines and TF Thunder campaigns I have come back to the Brits and am playing single scenarios and getting creamed.

You can use as much suppressive fire as you want, but there comes the point where the infantry have to get up and go forward, ‘twas ever thus. I am now finding that 50% casualties (red and yellow) in a squad are not unusual and it is not-uncommon to fare even worse. Most casualties seem to occur in the last fifteen to thirty metres, when out of the wreck pops up some poor Red Force fellow with his AK.

To give an example: later in the British Mettle scenario, after I had written the account last night, I was attacking a trench. I knew there was a Syrian Squad in there and where it was located. I used nine (count ‘em, 9) 50 cals for three minutes on that spot in addition to a GMG, a few 7.62 GPMGs and HESH rounds from a knackered challenger. Then I sent my infantry in to take the position, using assault with area fire – the classic fire and movement – up popped one chap, already in the yellow, who promptly mowed down three of the 8 man squad and pinning them.

Of course it isn’t always possible to have such a strength and depth of supporting arms to provide suppression. Have you tried “Royal Mud Marines” by Arefu from the Repository? Apart from the odd WMIK this, from the Brit point of view, is a straight infantry fight. It has a gorgeous but devious Map, a great back story, top quality troops and is, in my view, quite impossible. The prime reason being a lack of ammo for the Brits. Even after the re-supply convoy comes on there is insufficient to replace what has been expended in taking the first objective (which in any case has taken twice a long as would have been achieved by USMC units in the game, for the reasons you have identified).

All of which brings me back to the settings for ammo supply and distribution mentioned in the thread above. I recall reading that Battlefront had terrible difficulties in working out the TOE for the Brits. I suspect it is a cultural thing. The US military always seemed to me to take more notice of rules and procedures than their British counterparts. So at the end of the day Battlefront find some directive that the ammo scales for a unit are such and such and the first-line re-supply would be so and so. Not unreasonably they implement those rules in the game, but this ignores the fact that few if any within the army pay any attention to such directives. Getting Americans to understand how the British army actually works is even harder than getting them to understand cricket. Mind you, God knows how you could code the level of flexibility that actually exists into the game.

None of which detracts from the fact that I noticed this afternoon my stationary, hull down, crack-crewed Challengers were losing on the draw to moving BMPs 1500 metres away. Definitely seems a bit odd that the BMPs could see the Challies before they were spotted themselves and getting the first shot off. Then we have the issue of a crack Challenger team taking no less than four shots to put down a BMP2 at 1649 meters (also, while we are at it, why does a tank gunner wait until he has a re-loaded gun before he starts to take aim?).

[Other Means]

What I do is mad-minute onto the area with Target, then as the infantry assault move to Target Light. Infantry will fire bullets, no HE, and so won't hurt your guys but will suppress the enemy.

I don't consider it games* as there's a lot of things we're missing, like door breach commands etc.

*except if it were done to me. Obviously.

[phil stanbridge]

You make some very sound points Blackcat - funnily enough I am really struggling with the "counter-attack" mission now. Suppression does not seem quite as effective as it is for the US units. This is what I meant by having to change tactics. Whereas with the Marines and the US Army my little British troops appear more vulnerable. I don't really have that much experience with prior patches but they seem a little unbalanced in my opinion in 1.21. If you get them within that magic 300m and you aren't in cover the AKs mince them up easily. I guess that could be said with the other sides, but these Brits just seem to fall quicker.

Until this mission I have had no experience of a Challenger 2 missing its target. But tonight it took 4 shots for my Challenger 2 to knock out a T72 within a small distance - 500m or so! I couldn't believe it actually. First time I have seen that, and I hope it isn't a reflection of things to come. Curiously, Warriors and other vehicles seem more accurate, although maybe it is just perception as they have a faster rate of fire.

I am just getting to grips with the campaigns and the default single missions, I haven't tried any other scenarios yet. To be honest I don't like infantry only battles in this theatre, they will be too challenging for my little brain.

[JonS]

I guess that could be said with the other sides, but these Brits just seem to fall quicker.

That could be an effect of the small section size. Lose a man from a USMC squad and you'd barely even notice. Lose one from a US Army squad and it's quite bearable. Lose one from the Britis, and suddenly that section is almost combat ineffective.

[Pandur]

None of which detracts from the fact that I noticed this afternoon my stationary, hull down, crack-crewed Challengers were losing on the draw to moving BMPs 1500 metres away.

now this is odd. do you somehow play against elite syrians?

and about the example with the nine .50ies peppering the trench. do you somehow used them from 500 to 1000 meters away or so?

That could be an effect of the small section size.

this is what i credit the most difficultys with the brits. in a mission you would have 2 marine platoon you end up with 1 brit platoon, 8 man a squad and a s***load of HQ´s, sections and this crap, sitting around in their funny blue "technicals"

you may have the same amount of man as the marines but you can only fight with a 1/3rd of it. the others sit around.

in the end i think we are simply spoiled by the army and marines. however the individual marksmanship is best for the british i "feel". this makes up a little for the handfull of guys you have to fight with when compared to the US.

[flamingknives]

I think that there is a certain tendency to look at an objective and say "That's a platoon objective" without considering what a platoon is.

As for the large number of HQs, in a British Rifle Company you have 7 HQ units, 1HQ, 1 2IC, 3 rifle platoons, a fire support section and an anti-tank section. Technically the last two are separated squad leaders. In real life they would be manning OPs, back from the front line a bit or carrying ammo around. There is also the ammo wagon in the light infantry companies.

[Blackcat]

Lots of good points made this evening.

The eight, and if you are unlucky enough to have Warriors, seven-man sections are very fragile. As JonS says, once you start taking casualties they become combat ineffective very quickly. Eight man sections might have been good enough for Julius Ceaser and the Roman Legions but in today's fight they just seem too fragile for hot warfare. In Afghanistan the full weakness doesn't seem to become apparent because once one man is down the emphasis is to get the casualty clear rather than continuing the fight (there are lots of example of this in the recent British literature). Such a philosophy couldn't continue in a hot war (think NATO v the Sovs in Germany in the 70s or 80s where every section packs up each time they take a casualty).

In terms of raw fire-power, though, today's seven or 8 men sections are capable of putting down more lead than the ten man teams of my day (nine were armed with single-shot SLR's) of whom probably only seven would be firing full-time. Compare that with a brace of minimis, two UGL equiped rifles and a GPMG in today's sections(though the game doesn't model the last item). So on paper the eight man team should work, it just doesn't do very well in practice.

The Challenger issues, which Phil S has also experienced, are just incomprehensible to me. Today's optics, fire control systems and ammo are such that a first round miss should be a rare, not common, event. Four shots to get a hit seems way outside the probabilities. Pandur asks whether I was playing against elite Syrians when my Challengers were losing the draw, not as far as I know. It was just a scenario from the basic list. I knew the BMPs where coming from other assets, I had a pair of Challies lines up ready but both were hit by the BMP's ATGMs before they actually got sight of the enemy. Again that seems a tad outside the boundaries,

Finally, going back to the infantry, Pandur suggests that the Britsh marksmanship is superior. I know it was back in my day (in infantry basic training if you couldn't reliably hit the centre of a man size target at 600 yards with an SLR using iron sights you were washed out and back squaded), but I am not sure about today's infantry. I certainly haven't noticed any better performance in the game.

Oh, one final thought in playing the Brits now I find myself reverting to the old idea where the artillery does the heavy work and the infantry's job is to find and, if possible, fix targets for the fall-shorts and then mop up afterwards. Of course not every scenario designer obliges with enough artillery...

[Other Means]

Just playing British Mettle and it looks like your CR2(En) have about a couple of rounds of APDS each.

It's annoying.

[Bigduke6]

*Syrian snickers are vaugely audible on the radio net*

"The Infidel engineer tanks are short on spike ammunition...make a note of that Abdul...wait...they have engineer tanks?"

[Blackcat]

Just playing British Mettle and it looks like your CR2(En) have about a couple of rounds of APDS each.

It's annoying.

I don't think so, just loaded up a saved game and all the Challengers start out with full loads including 33 rounds of APDS. They only have three rounds of WP smoke rounds, but that seems about right.

I might just add while I am here that the end result of the my game that started this thread was a Syrian Surrender giving a British minor victory (due to the casualties taken). The five reinforcing Challengers faired better than their three original counterparts (still lost one and had two others damaged) and between them acciounted for 6 more T72's and 8 BMPs. Artillery accounted for most of the rest as well as slaughtering the survivng dismounts