Man portable Anti-Tank Systems

[Geta]

Will the Milan-3 system in the unit specs be the only man portable AT system? What about the US Army Javelin (http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/javelin/index.html) and RPG-7 (http://www.g2mil.com/RPG.htm) systems? Will they be available? Thanks.

[Balthagor]

We have a number of leg anti tank units available. The Javelin is in but I had missed the RPG-7. I've added it now. We also have the AT-13 Metis, AT-14 Kornet, HJ-8/9 Red Arrow, and AT-3 Sagger.

Anyone know of any others that are important to include?

[Juergen]

Well,what about the Trigat missile?

[Hellfish6]

The RPG-7 should NOT be included. It has never been organized into units. It is a light anti-tank weapon, much like the US LAW or British LAW80. It's a squad weapon, not a type of unit.

And though I'm not a fan of having AT units at all (they never operated as whole units, but were always broken up and spread out to other units and there are no real AT units in the world today) you'd probably want to include TOW I, TOW II, and Milan units.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Hellfish6 on 2003-05-09 13:51 ]</font>

[Empier4552]

I agree strongly on the inclusion of Milan! As for hellfish's other comments eh i think at this point realism needs to be sacraficed so we can have some sort of stronger anti tankunit.

[Geta]

I thought the Milan-3 AT was already included?

As far as RPG-7 being the same as a LAW goes ... I don't think so. It has been deployed in hunter-killer (AT Teams) teams (and thus, not just a squad weapon) in Chechnya, Somalia and by both sides in the Soviet-Afgan and the Iran-Iraq wars. The PG-7VL will penetrate up to 600mm of steel, and the OG-7 has a range of 1100 meters. Both performances are better than that of the LAW. It can even function as a short range AA missile.

[Hellfish6]

Please don't argue with me about this. I don't want to seem to be an ass, but I'm telling you, the RPG-7 does NOT belong as part of an AT unit. These are infantry weapons (with only about a 200m range) plain and simple. Everything else we're talking about - Milans, Javelins, AT-14s range out to at least 2000m.

If you can find me documentation explicitly stating otherwise, I'll bow before you. But I know for a fact you won't find it because nobody - NOBODY - has ever deployed a battalion-sized unit strictly composed of people with RPG-7s. Or any RPGs for that matter. All those cases you cite -

1. Hunter-killer teams, as used in Chechnya and recently in Iraq do not count. These units are way WAY too small for SR2010's scope. Four man teams should not be modelled in this game. Most often these HK teams are just infantry fire teams operating independently. If this is the case, then infantry strength should be modelled appropriately.

2. Somalia doesn't have an army. A bunch of people running around with AK47s and RPGs, which have only ever shot down two American helicopters do not count as any kind of unit. Just because you read/saw BHD does not mean that RPG-7 units should exist.

3. You stats are not quite realistic. Yes, a PG-7 missile, in optimal conditions, could probably penetrate 600mm of steel. But it doesn't happen nearly as often as you think - and I could probably dig up a bunch of statistics about it to make you happy. In fact, I just read an article about how many M-2A2 Bradley IFVs withstood MULTIPLE RPG-7 hits in Iraq with little or no damage. And it doesn't negate the fact that the RPG-7 is an infantry AT weapon that should be modelled in the AT capabilities of an infantry unit. Also, I believe that the OG-7 rocket with the 1100m range is a flame projectile weapon. In other words, a napalm rocket. 1100m is the range for an AREA target for the OG-7 rocket. This means you will hit within 100m of your target if you fire an OG-7 rocket at a target 1100m away. The POINT target range for an OG-7 is much, much shorter - probably 100-250m. This means you have a 33%+ chance of hitting a point target (vehicle, squad, building, etc.) at 100-250m. Very different. Point target ranges are considered effective ranges, area targets are considered maximum ranges.

4. RPG-7s cannot be used as AA missiles. They can be launched against aircraft, sure, but you won't hit anything unless it's not moving. RPGs, LAWs, AT4s, etc. are all notoriously inaccurate. If you look at your BHD book closely, you'll read that hundreds of RPG rounds were fired at the helicopters... and only two hit. This is a statistical anomaly. A pistol or an M-16 rifle has about as much chance of successfully bringing down a helicopter as any kind of AT rocket. And there is a difference between rockets and missiles. Missiles tend to be guided, rockets not.

5. I am a former US Army infantryman, who has lead a weapons squad in combat operations. I am qualified as a light infantryman (11B) and a heavy anti-tank infantryman (11H). I do know what I am talking about.

If SR2010 includes an RPG-7 unit, you'll get a big collective groan from nearly everone that calls himself a wargamer. I normally wouldn't make a big deal about something like this, but I really don't think that Geta knows what he's talking about, to the potential detriment of SR2010. If you guys want to be taken seriously as a game, you need to do things the right way.

[Hellfish6]

On 2003-05-09 15:20, Empier4552 wrote:
I agree strongly on the inclusion of Milan! As for hellfish's other comments eh i think at this point realism needs to be sacraficed so we can have some sort of stronger anti tankunit.

I would argue that that's what helicopters and infantry are for, not to mention other forms of airpower and tanks. If AT units don't exist in real life, why do we need them in the game?

[Balthagor]

I don't see us eliminating the AT units entirely but I'm still working on all of this...

Where do people stand on the M40 106mm? Should it be considered part of certain battalions and not a battalion type?

[Hellfish6]

IIRC, recoilless rifles were part of a battalion's weapon company, not an independent unit.

Also, what if instead of having AT units, you could designate an AT system for each battalion? Like when you elect to build an M-2 Bradley battalion, you'll have the option of adding specific AT capabilities to it and here you can select M-3 Bradley or M-901 ITV or Jagdpanzer Rakete or whatever AT system you want to it. Then the unit's values will be adjusted accordingly - a battalion equipped with 106mm RR's will have a lower AT capability that one equipped with AT-14s.

In fact, this could probably work in many ways - including adding engineering, AA or recon assets to a battalion.

For engineering attachments you could have combat engineers (assault fortified units better), bridging engineers (cross rivers more easily) or construction engineers (build fortifications).

For AA you could select Stingers, Avengers, SA-9s, ZSUs, etc.

For recon you could add Hummers, M-3s, BRDMs, OH-58D Kiowa Warriors etc. that all affect the various values of the unit, including profile, recon range, detect probability, etc.

And I'd suggest this to supplement having battalion-sized AT, AA, Engineer and Recon units. These attachments would allow players to create reinforced task forces, much like many armies do today.

[Slash78]

Yes, in warfare there are lot of units that aren't deployed as a whole battalion. But you can't just ignore these units, nor can you just arbitrarily include them into other units. Like what i said about mortars, you should have reinforcing company/battery size elements. Units have move with the larger battalion and fire when the battalion does, but have their own effect on the battle. If you add this you would want to put a limit to the number of attachments that could reinforce a battalion (1 or 2) and also make it so you can exchange these units between battalions. Does this sound possible?

[Slash78]

RPG-7 should be consider 'organic' because it's purpose is to give a squad or platoon anti-tank capablities, much like the SMAW or AT 4. Weapons that give Company and Battalion Anti-tank capablities should been seen as 'attachments' or, if they range and damage is great enough, there own battalion.

[Geta]

On 2003-05-10 01:14, Hellfish6 wrote:
Please don't argue with me about this. I don't want to seem to be an ass,

Sorry, but that is how you are coming across.

If Javelins (2 man teams) are considered AT units, then I fail to see why 2 man RPG-7 teams are not. Just because you never saw it, does not mean it would not add to the game. Remember pal, this is just a game, no matter how "realistic" you want to be.

Anyway its up to BattleGoat, and I hope not you.

[Geta]

On 2003-05-10 01:14, Hellfish6 wrote:
These are infantry weapons (with only about a 200m range) plain and simple. Everything else we're talking about - Milans, Javelins, AT-14s range out to at least 2000m.

See http://www.g2mil.com/RPG.htm, apparently you are off by a few hundred meters.

If you can find me documentation explicitly stating otherwise, I'll bow before you.

No bowing necessary. A little maturity from you might be nice though.

But I know for a fact you won't find it because nobody - NOBODY - has ever deployed a battalion-sized unit strictly composed of people with RPG-7s. Or any RPGs for that matter. All those cases you cite -

See The Other Side of the Mountain by Ali Ahmad Jalali and Lester W. Grau, The Mujahideem regularly deployed RPG teams in the dozens, even as many as a 100+, during the Soviet-Afgan war.

1. Hunter-killer teams, as used in Chechnya and recently in Iraq do not count.

Tell that to the Soviet AFVs that were knocked out by those HK teams that did not count.

These units are way WAY too small for SR2010's scope. Four man teams should not be modelled in this game. Most often these HK teams are just infantry fire teams operating independently.

Again, see The Other Side of the
Mountain, groups up to 100+ RPG deployed.

2. Somalia doesn't have an army. A bunch of people running around with AK47s and RPGs, which have only ever shot down two American helicopters do not count as any kind of unit. Just because you read/saw BHD does not mean that RPG-7 units should exist.

Maybe, you never heard of asymetrical threats? Not all "armies" follow US Army doctrine.

3. You stats are not quite realistic. Yes, a PG-7 missile, in optimal conditions, could probably penetrate 600mm of steel.

Would you care to sit in an M2, while I stood off 100m with a dozen RPGs and tested its penatration? I sure wouldn't.

In fact, I just read an article about how many M-2A2 Bradley IFVs withstood MULTIPLE RPG-7 hits in Iraq with little or no damage.

And I read an article about a British Challenger tank that took 50+ hits from RPGs too. Pretty fast shooting for a 2-man RPG team to fire off 50+ RPGs onto a single tank wouldn't you say? Must mean those RPGs were deployed in larger units than 2-man teams?

And it doesn't negate the fact that the RPG-7 is an infantry AT weapon that should be modelled in the AT capabilities of an infantry unit. Also, I believe that the OG-7 rocket with the 1100m range is a flame projectile weapon. In other words, a napalm rocket. 1100m is the range for an AREA target for the OG-7 rocket.

Its the high-explosive anti-personnel round.

4. RPG-7s cannot be used as AA missiles. They can be launched against aircraft, sure, but you won't hit anything unless it's not moving.

As proven in combat, in Somalia and in Chechna, helicopters were shot down with RPGs. Regardless of whether you believe they should be used as short range AA, someone out there thinks they can be.

RPGs, LAWs, AT4s, etc. are all notoriously inaccurate.

Let's not talk about _your_ shooting skills.

5. I am a former US Army infantryman, who has lead a weapons squad in combat operations. I am qualified as a light infantryman (11B) and a heavy anti-tank infantryman (11H). I do know what I am talking about.

Fine, squad leader experience does not tranfer to battelion command skills. Maybe you do know lot's of stuff, but do you suppose you know it all? If not, then cut out the acting like you do.

If SR2010 includes an RPG-7 unit, you'll get a big collective groan from nearly everone that calls himself a wargamer.

Well, I for one am not going to groan if RPG-7s are NOT included. I made a simple suggestion, and have the confidence that BattleGoat is quite capable enough of deciding if they want this weapon system in their game.

And BTW, my comments about the performance of the RPG-7 was in regard to your equating it to a LAW. As an "experienced" infantryman, I would have thought you knew there was a difference.

I normally wouldn't make a big deal about something like this, but I really don't think that Geta knows what he's talking about, to the potential detriment of SR2010.

And I think you have come across as a know-it-all a**hole with a narrow vision of AT (that is asymetrical threat) weapon systems.

If you guys want to be taken seriously as a game, you need to do things the right way.

That would of course, be only _your_ way?

BTW, I'm not interested in making an enemy on-line, but when someone insults me as you did ("don't know what he [Geta] is talking about") for only expressing an opinion, then that tends to bring out the worst in me.

[Balthagor]

Well! I didn’t realise I was going to open up such a can of worms!…

Okay, some comments on what we’ve covered so far. I will certainly have the Milan/Javelin style weapons available as a “unit type”. No decision currently on RPG/Recoilless weapon types.

I’d like to also address the concept of “anti tank” units so that I’m sure we’re all talking about the same thing. The concept within the game of an anti tank unit is a battalion with a focus towards a static defence based around a certain weapon system. This helps make some distinction in the game between offensive and defensive units. Infantry units are assumed to contain some anti tank weapons. That’s why some of them have reasonably good hard attack values. An anti tank unit would be similar to a half size infantry battalion where they have upped the number of AT weapons but sacrificed some of their mobility. This is why AT units get an attack penalty when moving.

As I look around the web, there do seem to be some people that think the RPG-7 is a weapon that will pose a notable threat on the battlefields of the future so making the RPG-7 “unit” available for players to research or build does have some merit. If players like Geta wish to give it a try, then by all means, build away. This said, I have also encountered a number of people who believe such “units” would be horribly ineffectual.

I do not think that the RGP-7 is a very accurate weapon, and would not like to be the poor soldier who is handed one and told “go take down that helicopter, okay?” The general agreement is that the maximum range for area attacks is less than 1000m. For AA fire, it would need a direct hit that would probably cause the maximum accurate range to be horribly close to the helicopter. Since helicopters in the game are squadrons of 24, if the RPG-7 is in the game I won’t be giving it any air attack value. We’ll assume they all run and hide…

I have to admit that my first instinct would be to classify the RPG-7 as the weapon of choice for our “terrorist” units (when occupying territory that is not loyal to you, it is possible for terrorist units to appear to try and make the player’s life difficult.) but I honestly can’t see any harm in making the unit available for those who want to try it.

Just remember in all of this, that no one is out to insult anyone else, let’s all try and enjoy the discussions for what they are.