Man portable Anti-Tank Systems

Talk and Learn about the military aspects of the game.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Geta
Warrant Officer
Posts: 43
Joined: Apr 22 2003
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma USA

Post by Geta »

I agree with what Balthagor is saying with regard to the ineffectiveness of the RPG-7 and other similar AT systems when a unit is moving.

Also, as pointed out by many who study the asymetrical threat issues, sometimes an "army" will use what it has for unconventional purposes. Thus, for poorer countries, it may be that a cheaper RPG-7 unit can serve a purpose if built and deployed properly.

On the topic of usage, the Mujahideem deployed their RPG-7 Helicopter Hunter/Killer Teams in groups in which up to 80% of the personnel were armed with RPGs, and deployed in and around a static Helicopter LZ, and upon arrival of Soviet Air Assault troops, would fire the RPGs by the dozens, filling the entire killzone with rockets. Yes, they were inaccurate, and not as effective as the USA Stinger missiles they occasionally had available, but sometimes they were all the Mujahideem had available to counter a short-range airborne threat. Their RPGs were also used in place of artillery and mortars. As such, their use in SR2010 might provide some entertainment.

Likewise, AARs from Somalia and Iraq show that liberal use of RPGs is not as uncommon as some would have us believe.

Anyway, as I stated before, I am confident in BattleGoat's ability to decide what will be fun and appropriate for their game, and I will enjoy it regardless (it has too much else going for it for this simple unit selection to matter that much).

And lastly, on the subject of insults, I apologize to the entire group, for contributing to that problem. After 30+ years of working with the military, I should have more self-control and let an insult slide, rather than respond to it. I'll try to do better in the future.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

On 2003-05-31 15:20, Slash78 wrote:
I can understand have infantry and vehicle carried ATGMs as defensive units. However, you should have tank destroyers in a different category. Vehicles like the LAV-600, Centuro TD and Rooicat 105 aren't really build for defense, they are build to attack. You should have a Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun class of units.
I've moved copied this thread here since this is where it belongs. I also need more feedback if other users support this idea. I don't that these units require a seperate category but it would be possible to allow certain anti tank units to not suffer the "penalty for firing while moving" effect. In this case we would just have a flag of some sort in the unit specs to say which units can move and attack without penalties....
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Hellfish6
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 217
Joined: Jun 17 2002
Location: Seattle WA

Post by Hellfish6 »

A lot of these units, like the Stryker MGS, Centauro B-1 AT, Rooikat 105 and Panhard AML 4x4 (I assume this is the AML-90?) from the AT unit list and the Centauro B-1 from the recon unit list might be better served listed in the tank/armored unit list. While they are essentially AT vehicles, they operate as light tanks providing supporting and anti-armor fire. Or, I'd alternately list them under recon vehicles because they are all light, nimble vehicles that have all been used in the recce capacity at one time or another.


Also, the M706/V-150 listed under AT vehicles - isn't that the old Cadillac-Gage 4x4 APC from the Vietnam-era? I didn't know that it had ever been used in an AT role by the US or anyone else that used it. And I didn't know that it had ever been fitted with a 90mm gun. I really should hunt around for my copy of Jane's All the World's Tanks and Armoured Vehicles. :/

One more thing - the Wiesel 2 AT vehicle is airmobile and airdroppable. It's a tiny little vehicle designed to be carried by CH-53G helos and parachuted in with the German Fallschirmjaegers.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Personally, I don’t see much need to move these out of the AT class. We have a recon version of the Stryker and Centauro as separate entries (I could make it possible for players to refit from AT to RC versions and back). We have a Panhard VBL for anyone above tech level 78 for the recon. I could also add a Rooikat recon battalion to suit those needs. Really thought, the class means little. Both Recon and Anti tank units are set to be penalized for moving and firing. We generally felt that this was more accurate since AT elements are usually moved in to place and, as you mentioned, used for support. They are usually stopped (or doing shoot and scoot within the same hex) when fighting. Moving means they are trying to cover anywhere from 7 to 30km of ground! Really, the class is most useful for finding the item to build. When building units, the are listed by class.

As for the M706, you are correct about it not really being needed, but many countries have something very similar to the M706 and it means that low tech level regions have a little more choice in what to build. Who knows, if you’re playing in Angola and this is fast and cheap to build, you might be glad to have it. I have updated it’s expiry date to be 1990 so anyone tech level 90 and up won’t see it anymore. Some of the older equipment is also needed for opening inventories. Australia starts with a whole bunch of M101 Towed guns, but I assure you that I’ve never built one once the game is roling!

Finally, the Wiesel 2 AT is now marked as air droppable. I hadn’t looked it up yet, hence why the field was blank. Thanks for letting me know. If you happen to find and estimate of pricing, please let me know. BTW, what king of defensive values should it get? I think it is currently a little high compared to the other units but haven’t found hard data on what armor it uses. If it’s that light, it can’t have that much armor...?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Hellfish6
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 217
Joined: Jun 17 2002
Location: Seattle WA

Post by Hellfish6 »

Looking at the manufacturer's data, I'd call the armor minimal - probably as much as, if not less than an M-113s. However, it is tiny and has been equipped with silenced engines, so I'd make it's profile value pretty low. As for price, I can't imagine that it's more than $300,000 per vehicle, but an exact amount would be simply guesswork on my part. How did you find the values for other vehicles?

Here is a link to an informative PDF file on the Wiesel 1 & 2.

http://www.rheinmetall-ls.de/download/wiesel_e.pdf

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Hellfish6 on 2003-06-02 09:17 ]</font>
User avatar
Hellfish6
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 217
Joined: Jun 17 2002
Location: Seattle WA

Post by Hellfish6 »

Sorry to dig this topic up, but something just occurred to me. Instead of equipping an AT unit with RPG-7s, which I still think would be unrealistic, what about having an Irregular or Guerrilla unit that you can upgrade? Say, you can have a regular unit with poor AT/AA capabilities, but is reasonably stealthy and has good defensive capabilities vs. soft targets. This would model a rag-tag group of rebels/freedom fighters/whatever (think Saddam's Fedayeen, Vietcong or Chechen guerillas) with some scattered RPGs or similar AT weapons, but not a force capable of effectively dealing with, let alone defeating, an armored/mechanized foe.

For a certain price, though, you can upgrade your guerrilla unit with AT and/or AA weapons. These guys would represent bands of irregulars, though maybe not a cohesive unit as Geta suggested, that are more adept at using hunter-killer techniques against tanks and/or aircraft. They've somehow obtained enough anti-tank weaponry to be considered a serious threat to armored/mechanized forces. I imagine these guys to be more like the Chechen urban guerrillas who smoked the Russian Army in Grozny in '94 or the Mujahideen who Geta describes as having hundreds of RPGs or other heavy weapons.

Thus, the vast majority of the guerrillas you'd encounter in-game might be the standard units, but with a scattering of upgraded units equipped with more AT/AA weaponry.

Maybe the upgrade path could be like this:

Guerrilla -> Militia -> Paramilitary

Where guerrillas are as described above, Militia would be a quick and cheap upgrade that gives them some better characteristics, but they're still basically peasants who have acquired some nice toys. Paramilitary units are almost like veteran militias with better funding or political motivations that make them more dangerous foes (much like Al Quaeda groups in Afghanistan compared to the Taliban conscripts or the pro-Saddam forces in Iraq who are still fighting even after the Army dissolved).
LORD_BUNGLA
Lieutenant
Posts: 52
Joined: Sep 06 2003
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by LORD_BUNGLA »

HOw effective are AP bullets. If they are good, why not include them in the game. As attachment offcourse to infantry units.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

I don't see this getting into the game because the player cannot directly control guerrilla units. We might have different guerrilla units in the game to represent the progression of guerrilla tactics and weapons so they keep pace with the general tech level of the players but I'm not even sure for that.

As for the AP bullets, with the fact that we don't do anything below battalion level, I think we're getting a little to specific to address them.
Hunter41
Sergeant
Posts: 23
Joined: Oct 25 2003
Location: Canada

Post by Hunter41 »

With reference to LAV MGS, Rooikat, and AMX-10RC vehicles, I'd like to see them able to shoot on the move as they do in real life. Your point about them moving from fire position to fire position locally is well-taken, but tanks do the same thing. The above mentioned systems all have stabilized guns, as do Bradleys and LAVs. I know I'm opening another can of worms here, but rather than have "shoot on the move capability" tied to a certain vehicle class, I suggest it be either added as a column on the vehicle databases/spreadsheets or be tied to tech level. If this is going to create too much work, then the easy option would be to reclass these MGS as tanks. I know they are not, but for game purposes, it would be the easiest solution. As for RPGs and ATGMs, I'm in favour of the weapon systems being integrated into infantry units. Even for Javelin, I would rather see Javelin equipped infantry as an option for western countries, than specific Javelin AT units.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Actually, you seem to have misunderstood. LAV MGS, Rooikat and AMX-10RC can fire and move at the same time, they just get a fire penalty. I really don’t see these units qualifying as tanks. The AMX-10RC is actually in the Recon category. As for infantry using Javelins, in theory, each infantry battalion has some AT elements with them. The Javelin is offered as an AT unit as well in case the player wants to shore up their defenses with cheap AT units.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Well, now I get to do some back peddling. I’ve looked at a lot of this again and an now thinking that there should be a few of this like Stryker MGS, Rooikat and Centauro that could be deployed such that they would be used in a “tank” style role and should not get the fire penalty while moving. I’ll be adding a unit picture in tank color scheme of a wheeled unit so that it can be easily spotted as usual. Are there any other units than these three that should qualify? I still think the AMX-10RC doesn’t quite meet the bar on this issue.
Post Reply

Return to “Military - Defense and Operations Departments”