Bradley TOW problem

[DMS]

Hi

Bradley TOW's must be erected before use, but in game they can fire immediately after stop. So, Bradley platoon defeats regular T-72 platoon in meeting battle (not in defense). That looks too unrealistic IMO.

Are there any chances that bug with Bradleys will be fixed before support for CMSF will be closed?

P.S. Sorry for my english

[abneo3sierra]

I think that in-game, the Brads seem to already be driving around with the TOW system deployed.

[Damian90]

In reality it is not possible, because the whole servomechanism will not handle the weight of launchers in rough terrain, but it is possibly just simplification in game, still to shoot TOW-2 You need to stop vehicle and wait untill missile is ready to shoot and tracking procedure will end.

[gibsonm]

Yes we know and yes its been raised (back an early Alpha FWIW).

No doubt there’s a whole thread somewhere here on it.

In summary - Bradley TOW shortcomings:

1. Vehicle drives around with the launcher permanently “erected” / “deployed”. This gives the vehicle an unrealistic advantage in terms of engagements. In RL the launcher is too delicate to do this with.

2. The vehicle can fire TOW at targets outside its engagement envelope (from memory its +/- 5 degrees from level) i.e. in RL you can’t fire “uphill” (i.e. with the target markedly above / below you).

3. The vehicle needs to be on a pretty level spot to fire (ties in with “2”) otherwise the control wires (the “W” in “TOW”) get fouled.

4. There is no reload capability.

5. There are no reload animations.

All of this was raised discussed (“argued over“ for the ones who think we are all “fanboys” on the Beta Test team) and eventually discarded as not being practical to code / not being important enough to the simulation to spend time coding, etc.

Sorry its not perfect but its in the game.

Maybe in CMX3 ...

[vincere]

Yes we know and yes its been raised (back an early Alpha FWIW).

No doubt there’s a whole thread somewhere here on it.

In summary - Bradley TOW shortcomings:

1. Vehicle drives around with the launcher permanently “erected” / “deployed”. This gives the vehicle an unrealistic advantage in terms of engagements. In RL the launcher is too delicate to do this with.

2. The vehicle can fire TOW at targets outside its engagement envelope (from memory its +/- 5 degrees from level) i.e. in RL you can’t fire “uphill” (i.e. with the target markedly above / below you).

3. The vehicle needs to be on a pretty level spot to fire (ties in with “2”) otherwise the control wires (the “W” in “TOW”) get fouled.

4. There is no reload capability.

5. There are no reload animations.

All of this was raised discussed (“argued over“ for the ones who think we are all “fanboys” on the Beta Test team) and eventually discarded as not being practical to code / not being important enough to the simulation to spend time coding, etc.

Sorry its not perfect but its in the game.

Maybe in CMX3 ...

Thanks for the inside track. That is terrible. Not how it is in CMSF: compromises were made and it plays well. RL all those $$ and crappy issues like can't fire down hill etc

[gibsonm]

Well welcome to US defence procurement.

May I suggest you watch / read “The Pentagon Wars” for a not too inaccurate tale of the Bradley’s development and ongoing capability “mission creep”.

[abneo3sierra]

I am not a very big fan of Bradleys IRL. As for the game, it should be remembered that it is a game,most of the same things that work in real life can at least give a good chance of working here,for the things that are different, if you want to enjoy the game,probably just have to adjust to the differences.

[gibsonm]

Sure.

Or you spend more say (US$125.00 compared to US$45.00) and buy something further down the “simulation” side of the simulation < - > game spectrum.

Which does have these limitations written into the code, but has other limitations (like the infantry model is not so good).

[abneo3sierra]

Yeah, quite right you are there. Saw your other post regarding the same thing. That one is a pretty good sim, but yes, don't get me wrong, I think the CM: series of games are the best balance between fun gaming, and a realistic sim where you can achieve realistic results with realistic tactics,for the most part at least..and when it doesn't work...well, as you know from your career,it doesn't always (or even 'often') work in real life, either.

[gibsonm]

Absolutely!

The low entry price point, the feature set, the enjoyment level all make it great.

The “other product” is getting better (as are they all) and will have 3D Infantry in say 6 months but its different products for different needs.

I certainly wouldn’t want to return to the days of only “Janus” say (something that took hours to setup and if you used the wrong keystrokes - “shift, centre mouse click, option z“ instead of say “shift, right mouse click, option z“ you unit died in front of you).

[Lanzfeld]

Gibsonm,

What is "mission creep", if I may ask?

[gibsonm]

Oh sorry.

Its a term for when you keep asking more and more of a group (or a thing).

So in the Bradley it goes something like this:

We want armoured protection for the infantry and it needs to be mobile, cross rivers, etc.

OK now that we have this is too big to hide, so it needs a gun to defend itself.

OK now to fit the infantry in the back and give it a gun it needs to be bigger again.

OK now its really big so we need to bolt some missiles onto it.

Oh now its too heavy to swim across rivers.

...

Basically instead of being happy it can do X and Y, you then expand its requirements to do X, Y, Z, AA, BB ,...

There is a whole sequence in Pentagon Wars as the thing evolves:

[Damian90]

Pentagon Wars is BS, typical movie made BS, and authors or other crytics of M2 are too stupid to even understand IFV design idea, such peopla are for example Mike "Sparky" Sparks... when You look at his arguments, first thing in mind is, "this is a human being? And if Yes it have a brain?".

[gibsonm]

Perhaps,

But I was only offering it as an example of "mission creep" as asked.

[Damian90]

The main reason why M2 was so big is... M16 rifle, and M113 is smaller only because it don't have a turret. Oh and the ammo capacity is also reason of the height of vehicle, 25mm ammo magazines are on the turret basket.

Besides this, mistake from the start was demand for swimming, useless and makes armor protection to thin as for something that fight along side tanks.

Sure M2 could have been better designed, but it is good vehicle, and in the 80's it was the best IFV produced back then.

[Lanzfeld]

LOL!!!

Thanks for the video Gibsonm. Now I get it! LOL!

"Now if you have to design hats to fit those god damn missles then just do it!"

[Damian90]

Lanzfeld, don't get that silly movie as complete true, better read some books.

[abneo3sierra]

Oh sorry.

Its a term for when you keep asking more and more of a group (or a thing).

So in the Bradley it goes something like this:

We want armoured protection for the infantry and it needs to be mobile, cross rivers, etc.

OK now that we have this is too big to hide, so it needs a gun to defend itself.

OK now to fit the infantry in the back and give it a gun it needs to be bigger again.

OK now its really big so we need to bolt some missiles onto it.

Oh now its too heavy to swim across rivers.

...

Basically instead of being happy it can do X and Y, you then expand its requirements to do X, Y, Z, AA, BB ,...

There is a whole sequence in Pentagon Wars as the thing evolves:

This could also be the way certain games advance...it was not all that long ago that a game that could do half of the things CM:SF does, would have been "incredibly awesome!!"

NOW...it is "I know you can ...., but why can we not ......"

[gibsonm]

Besides this, mistake from the start was demand for swimming, useless and makes armor protection to thin as for something that fight along side tanks.

Well swimming is not “useless” for a vehicle that had an original role to be a recon vehicle and also not be limited by a requirement for bridging.

The same reason why BMP-1, BRDM-2, BTR80, etc. are all amphibious.

Unfortunately the Americans didn’t get the balance right.

[abneo3sierra]

Pentagon Wars is BS, typical movie made BS, and authors or other crytics of M2 are too stupid to even understand IFV design idea, such peopla are for example Mike "Sparky" Sparks... when You look at his arguments, first thing in mind is, "this is a human being? And if Yes it have a brain?".

Having spent enough time in them, there is PLENTY of room to criticize them. That said, they have improved, but from your note it seems to imply the critics were people like authors, etc,who do not understand them...I can assure you that MANY,probably MOST of the critics were people who had to ride in them.

To paraphrase and slightly mangle a line from the movie Armageddon-- It is not very reassuring to be sitting in a moving bomb composed of many small pieces that were assembled by the lowest bidder :-)

[gibsonm]

This could also be the way certain games advance...it was not all that long ago that a game that could do half of the things CM:SF does, would have been "incredibly awesome!!"

NOW...it is "I know you can ...., but why can we not ......"

Indeed.

“Mission Creep” as a concept can be applied to a whole bunch of areas, quite apart from the original “this is your mission , do that but can you also do this type thing”

Historical Example:

Waterloo 1815

At around 2pm Major General Ponsonby’s Union Brigade of heavy dragoons (the 1st Royal Dragoons, 2nd Royal Scots Greys and 6th Inniskilling Dragoons) charged D’Erlon’s infantry columns as they reached the British line.

The Union Brigade cut through the French (the Mission) and continued the charge up the far incline to the French guns, where they sabred numbers of gunners in Ney’s battery (the Creep). The British were counter-attacked by French Lancers and suffered such heavy casualties as to eliminate the brigade from the battle. The brigade commander General Ponsonby was killed.

[Damian90]

Well swimming is not “useless” for a vehicle that had an original role to be a recon vehicle and also not be limited by a requirement for bridging.

M2 primary role is to be IFV, Infantry Fighting Vehicle, it is not only armored taxi, but also a fire support vehicle for infantry that it carry.

The same reason why BMP-1, BRDM-2, BTR80, etc. are all amphibious.

No, the reason why so many Soviet vehicles are swimming is not their role but Soviet doctrine.

Unfortunately the Americans didn’t get the balance right.

Unfortunetly they looked up to much on Soviet doctrine and their idea that everything that can should swim.

Having spent enough time in them, there is PLENTY of room to criticize them. That said, they have improved, but from your note it seems to imply the critics were people like authors, etc,who do not understand them...I can assure you that MANY,probably MOST of the critics were people who had to ride in them.

As I said, M2 is good enough vehicle and in 80's was best IFV over the world. But it could be made better, especially if from the start swimming capability would be drop off, and vehicle would be better armored + some hull design changes, maybe a bit longer hull? More boxy without these angles over top side armor, so inside there would be more place for "something". Oh and from the start different seets for dismounts, I think that after such redesign, there would be no problem to carry 8 dismounts with very good armor protection.

Also it would be to ask, if there was indeed need for M3 variant?

[gibsonm]

Well you need the M3 if you want the scout / recce option (which goes back to the amphib capability that you "paid off" but anyway).

[Damian90]

Well US designers designed then other vehicles, better suited for recce role, urfonutely in US, it seems that many great ideas are cut off by these fools in Senate and their "financial concerns"...

[vincere]

Yeah, I saw Pentagon Wars. Very funny. Perhaps over done but that's often the case to make a point. A link off that had one where the General had put heat pads on a target to get a heatseeking missile to pass a test- that had me worried. There will always be flaws, but I guess the US seems towards the top at ironing them out. Or does that have more to do with actually being in combat for a nearly a decade.

I am not a very big fan of Bradleys IRL. As for the game, it should be remembered that it is a game,most of the same things that work in real life can at least give a good chance of working here,for the things that are different, if you want to enjoy the game,probably just have to adjust to the differences.

Agree with this. And in RL tactics need to evolve rapidly.

Somebody whisper what the other more sim thing is... shhh...