View Full Version : They don't shot...cowards?
Hi everybody.
Situation report:
My tanks took positions about 2,5-3km in front of several enemy T-80s & BMPs. I sneaked to the battle-positions with the help of smoke from my Paladins. Each of my tanks had a LOS to some of the russian vehicles. The correct Nato-symbols appeared which meant that the targets were identified (?). When i clicked on the individual info-boxes yellow lines were drawn to the different enemy tanks. This mean that my tanks saw their targets(?). (all unit-orders for opening fire were correct, too)
But nobody shot? :mad: Why....?!!!
Leo
If the enemy Icons & the sight lines were yellow they were Spotted but not Identified. Units in ATF will not shoot at unidentified targets. You can suppress them though. Seclect your vehicle and choose suppress from your menu options. :D
Hope this helps.
Pat Proctor
01 Jun 04, 20:20
If the lines to the vehicles are yellow, they are un-identified. The vehicles may not have APPEARD as un-identified because some other unit on the battlefield CAN identify them.
When a unit won't shoot, also check to see if they are in hold fire or sprint. These will stop a unit from firing.
Another techniques is to give your units the "Suppress" SOP and select the region of the un-identified targets. They will begin firing. If they HIT their targets, and suppress them, it might cause them to become identified (suppressed units not in hold-fire are easier to spot). Then you can take the killer shot at them.
Thx for your immediate support. :cheeky:
Ok - the yellow lines mean that the targets are not identified.
With the help of my LOS-tool i saw that my tanks had a perfect LOS to the T80s (the yellow lines covered the nato-symbols). The target-range was about 2-3km. The T80s were dig in.
Isn't it possible that my tanks can identify the T80s at this range? How close must they get to identify dig in vehicles? I ask this question cause it cost a lot of smoke to cover your advance.
But i will try the trick with the supression order. Maybe with that strategy i can pound my enemies.
Best regards
Leo
I agree with Leo on this. I think that units should be able to be Id'd at longer ranges. Given the intellegence at the start of the scenario and the markings on the map I would think it would be 'safe' to assume that any vehicle in a designated zone is enemy and not neutral.
I always thought one of the advantages the Americans have is that their M1 can slug it out with Russian made tanks at range (>1500mtrs) and be pretty invunerable. With ATF this is just not possible. Units seem to only get Id'd when the range is 500mtrs or less! Yet the vehicles in defense are quite happily shooting at my vehicles up to their max weapon ranges. Also when firing these enemy vehicles get identified for 1/2 a nano-second, then revert to unidentified(!)
The result is that my M1's have to slug it out with the T80's at much smaller ranges than I would like, leading to some quite odd results. I have actually had a dug in BMP-1 take out two of my four M1's before we could kill it in a close range slug fest. I assume ATGM's would be useless at this range, so I guess their autocannons were doing the job(?)
For me, this disparity between units in defense and those on offense is simply non realistic and that coupled with the fact that dismounts are practically useless (Whole units of men can be wiped out in the blink of an eye) has put me off from continuing to play this game.
I could be wrong, but for a simulation some of the results I see just don't tally up with other sims or combat reports in real life.
CPangracs
02 Jun 04, 13:42
I agree with Leo on this. I think that units should be able to be Id'd at longer ranges. Given the intellegence at the start of the scenario and the markings on the map I would think it would be 'safe' to assume that any vehicle in a designated zone is enemy and not neutral.
I always thought one of the advantages the Americans have is that their M1 can slug it out with Russian made tanks at range (>1500mtrs) and be pretty invunerable. With ATF this is just not possible. Units seem to only get Id'd when the range is 500mtrs or less! Yet the vehicles in defense are quite happily shooting at my vehicles up to their max weapon ranges. Also when firing these enemy vehicles get identified for 1/2 a nano-second, then revert to unidentified(!)
The result is that my M1's have to slug it out with the T80's at much smaller ranges than I would like, leading to some quite odd results. I have actually had a dug in BMP-1 take out two of my four M1's before we could kill it in a close range slug fest. I assume ATGM's would be useless at this range, so I guess their autocannons were doing the job(?)
For me, this disparity between units in defense and those on offense is simply non realistic and that coupled with the fact that dismounts are practically useless (Whole units of men can be wiped out in the blink of an eye) has put me off from continuing to play this game.
I could be wrong, but for a simulation some of the results I see just don't tally up with other sims or combat reports in real life.
Real life? Hmmm, Okay. You DO realize that a commander should never attack a defender witout a MINIMUM of a 3 to 1 ratio. THIS is real life. Do you know WHY that is?
Well, where to start...Okay, first, have you ever looked through the sight, primary or thermal, in an M1 or an M2? Positively identifying a vehicle in defilade or worse a hole, from 2500m away, is nigh impossible. In addition, trying to KILL a vehicle which essentially has nothing expose but its gun tube and a bit of turret is even harder. ATF is a Line-of-Sight model, which also takes into account the ELEVATION of your vehicle in relation to that of enemy vehicles! This also accounts for, to some extent, a BMP-1 taking-out an M1, as the armor of an M1's top in ATF is MUCH less than anywhere else (just like in real life!). As an attacker, you almost ALWAYS expose yourself to the defender in your maneuver, and are more vulnerable to fire.
Second, we use boundaries and phase lines to control the action. Yes, if an unidentified vehicle is in an area which is designated as hostile, and you know no allied forces are in the area, rain down some steel on him! Move cautiously to positively ID him while suppressing him. CHECK YOUR SPOT REPORTS!! These will often have the vehicle type even if it goes back to unidentified!
The problem with games as detailed as ATF is that people tend to get frustrated with learning them and their finer points, and quit befor finding the jewel that is defeating a tough enemy and getting the "Mission Accomplished" screen.
As for whole units of men being "wiped-out", it is VERY possible on the modern battlefield to see this. There have been huge advances in artillery that can destroy anything living in 1/2 a grid square or more, no problem. There are 25 and 30mm weapons that can target with pinpoint accuracy from 1800m away.
Even more importantly, IMO, is the gamer's view that, if the M1's and other vehicles we believe are so technologically superior to their enemy's vehicles are modelled with such a huge advantage, then all we would have to do is drive right-up to the objective without worrying about tactics or keeping our vehicles alive. Parity between major weapon systems with only a slight advantage towards the more tecnologically superior and better trained force forces the player to actually USE tactics, terrain, and available weapons to the best of his ability to defeat the enemy.
There has te be a balance between playability and realism. I also believe that wargames such as ATF must strike this balance between the web grognard and the player who wants to fight an exciting battle in a couple of hours. While it is truly one of the most detailed games for the level of combat it represents, it is also one of the modt playable and enjoyable games out there!
I think that units should be able to be Id'd at longer ranges. Given the intellegence at the start of the scenario and the markings on the map I would think it would be 'safe' to assume that any vehicle in a designated zone is enemy and not neutral.
I don't necessarily agree that vehicles should be identified from farther away; target ID is actually one of the more difficult things for a crew to accomplish.
However, I *do* think that unidentified targets should be killable with direct fire. At a reduced pH, certainly, but not completely unkillable as they are now. This would have the side benefit (?) of modeling "friendly fire" issues.
I always thought one of the advantages the Americans have is that their M1 can slug it out with Russian made tanks at range (>1500mtrs) and be pretty invunerable.
The news media makes it seem this way, but it really isn't true as such. M1s usually survive with little damage because the enemy never gets much chance to shoot back at all due to interdiction or poor visibility, not because the M1 is "invulnerable". That was certainly the usual case in ODS; the enemy was either too busy running away or simply couldn't see the M1s before they were targeted and killed, thanks to lousy weather and lots of blowing sand. OIF resulted in a few more M1 kills, because the enemy wasn't quite so overmatched this time due to the rushed schedule, but still the general rule applied; they never were able to focus their firepower. That's the crucial importance of operational maneuver, which sets up your fighting forces so they don't face an enemy that is ready and waiting for them. Even the vaunted US forces would suffer heavily if they had to wade into an attack against a motivated, unattrited, and prepared defender. Thus far, they haven't really been tested in that manner.
Units seem to only get Id'd when the range is 500mtrs or less! Yet the vehicles in defense are quite happily shooting at my vehicles up to their max weapon ranges.
Quite reasonable when exposed attackers are coming against a dug-in and concealed foe. Its something that seems a bit hard to believe until you're been in the attack and tried to find those damned tanks in their holes. They really can be very hard to see, thermals or no.
Also when firing these enemy vehicles get identified for 1/2 a nano-second, then revert to unidentified(!)
That is rather annoying. Again, it wouldn't be so bad if you could kill unIDed units with direct fire.
I have actually had a dug in BMP-1 take out two of my four M1's before we could kill it in a close range slug fest. I assume ATGM's would be useless at this range, so I guess their autocannons were doing the job(?)
Unlikely. It was probably the ATGM. ATF doesn't yet model minimum ranges, but even so they are generally less than 100m. That's pretty durn close in ATF. ATGMs are generally less accurate until about 300m out, while the missile stabilizes along the line of sight track, but again ATF doesn't model that.
For me, this disparity between units in defense and those on offense is simply non realistic and that coupled with the fact that dismounts are practically useless (Whole units of men can be wiped out in the blink of an eye) has put me off from continuing to play this game.
I disagree that the offense/defense relationship is not realistic. It takes a lot of time and energy to dig in; armies wouldn't go to the considerable effort to do it if it didn't offer very compelling advantages.
The classic "3/1" attacker/defender ratio is actually overgeneralized, useful only for large units --- at the sharp end of the stick, you really want about a 10:1 ratio or better in effective local superiority to be able to roll over a sector of a defense with anything resembling acceptable casualties. In other words, an entire battalion shouldn't be attacking against more fire than a platoon could muster (and preferably less); anything more than that needs to be suppressed, obscured, or avoided before an attack can be expected to succeed. If you're throwing your battalion against a company that is dug-in and firing effectively, your force will certainly suffer badly and most likely will be destroyed altogether, even if you have M1 tanks on your side.
I do agree that the extreme fragility of infantry against small arms and ATGMs in the default database1 is unrealistic. Curt is right that there are artillery and other wide-effect systems that can devastate dismounted units, but that's not the issue. The issue is entire squads routinely getting wasted by a couple of bursts from an assault rife at ranges of hundreds of meters. I think it simply wasn't playtested very carefully, since the original focus of the game was clearly on machines rather than men. That was one of the major issues that led me to create my alternate kbDataModern database.
--- Kevin
Pat Proctor
02 Jun 04, 17:33
There's alot of stuff here, and it is all good points. Back to the original point though...
In your original post you said that you were firing smoke. ENOUGH smoke will make it tough even for your M1s to ID targets. They can see through some smoke, but several hundred meters of smoke can be opaque even to the best IR sensors.
Your unit's disposition and that of the viewed vehicle also make a big difference. If the enemy is dug in, he is around twice as hard to see (half as much of him is exposed). If he is in defilade, or hold fire, these will have a similar impact. If the units doing the looking are moving or suppressed, that will have an impact as well.
CPangracs
02 Jun 04, 20:14
...The issue is entire squads routinely getting wasted by a couple of bursts from an assault rife at ranges of hundreds of meters. I think it simply wasn't playtested very carefully, since the original focus of the game was clearly on machines rather than men. That was one of the major issues that led me to create my alternate kbDataModern database.
--- KevinJust FYI, I used Kevin's database as a beginning model for my dismounts in Raging Tiger, and did my own tweaks from there. Suffice it to say, adding the 40mm AGL to the M1A3 SEP really DOES tend to wipe-out dismounts in fairly short order! I STILL don't know why that hasn't been done for real yet.:rolleyes:
Ivan Rapkinov
02 Jun 04, 20:22
Just FYI, I used Kevin's database as a beginning model for my dismounts in Raging Tiger, and did my own tweaks from there. Suffice it to say, adding the 40mm AGL to the M1A3 SEP really DOES tend to wipe-out dismounts in fairly short order! I STILL don't know why that hasn't been done for real yet.:rolleyes:
the latest iteration of the Israeli Merkava Baz has a 30mm AGL as the commanders weapon.
when the XM-307 ACSW get's introduced, that'll solve the problem, with the weapon being abkle to swap between .50 cal and 25mm ABMs.
Ok Folks thanks for the quick replies. I guess I don't have as good a handle on modern warfare that I thought! :confused:
Some of my preconceptions of the M1 stemed from an account I had read from the first gulf war where one had broken down and the US tried to destroy it to stop it falling into enemy hands. Unfortunatley the other M1's were unable to penetrate it(!), so it had to be towed back. I suspect this might have been because these had the earlier 105mm gun? Or perhaps the story was a little light on the real facts.
Either way I'm going to have to go back to the drawing board to find a way of removing those pesky OPFORS with minimal casualties. :devil:
Regards
RobP
the US tried to destroy it to stop it falling into enemy hands. Unfortunatley the other M1's were unable to penetrate it(!), so it had to be towed back. I suspect this might have been because these had the earlier 105mm gun? Or perhaps the story was a little light on the real facts.
I assure you they were able to penetrate it. The ammo cooked off and everything. They simply had trouble achieving what they considered an acceptable level of destruction to render the sensitive onboard systems completely useless to any scavenging spies.
This comes back to a common misconception about how tanks "die". Although the media likes to carry "cool" stories about T-72 turrets popping off and such, in fact most tank "kills" are rather unspectacular. More often than not, when an AP round penetrates, the only visible evidence is a shower of sparks at the entry point. What you can't see, though, is the crew inside getting scrambled by the spall and shock wave. It is a fact that the most fragile part of a tank is the crew, and most antitank weapons are designed to attack that element of the vehicle. But, true catastrophic kills are relatively uncommon. Most "killed" tanks can be recovered, the remains of the old crew extracted, some relatively minor battlefield repairs made, and put back into action with a new crew. Even in cases where the vehicle is a total loss, the usual cause is fuel fire, not explosion.
--- Kevin
Where do I sign up to be a tanker, sounds like fun!!
RedMike OUT
Where do I sign up to be a tanker, sounds like fun!!
While tank crews certainly do encounter some gruesome fates, history shows us that statistically speaking, they are still quite a bit safer than infantry.
--- Kevin
CPangracs
03 Jun 04, 16:24
I assure you they were able to penetrate it. The ammo cooked off and everything. They simply had trouble achieving what they considered an acceptable level of destruction to render the sensitive onboard systems completely useless to any scavenging spies.
This comes back to a common misconception about how tanks "die". Although the media likes to carry "cool" stories about T-72 turrets popping off and such, in fact most tank "kills" are rather unspectacular. More often than not, when an AP round penetrates, the only visible evidence is a shower of sparks at the entry point. What you can't see, though, is the crew inside getting scrambled by the spall and shock wave. It is a fact that the most fragile part of a tank is the crew, and most antitank weapons are designed to attack that element of the vehicle. But, true catastrophic kills are relatively uncommon. Most "killed" tanks can be recovered, the remains of the old crew extracted, some relatively minor battlefield repairs made, and put back into action with a new crew. Even in cases where the vehicle is a total loss, the usual cause is fuel fire, not explosion.
--- Kevin
As a side note, most all of the video people see of T-72 turrets flying off are actually the result of demo crews destroying the remains and ammo on a killed tank to prevent exactly what Kevin described, the repair and return of the tank into action by the enemy.
As a side note, most all of the video people see of T-72 turrets flying off are actually the result of demo crews destroying the remains and ammo on a killed tank
Although it is true that a design decision by the Russians to put the ready ammo carousel under the feet of the turret crew means that ammo cookoffs do have the effect of popping the turret more often than in most models of tank that store ammo in the bustle or rear hull. The Russians apparently assumed that it would be safer there in defilade or hull-down positions, but the Iraqi habit of using sand "kill me" berms instead of proper holes, as well as poor ammo loading discipline, led to an unusually high proportion of catastrophic kills. Even so, it still wasn't a majority of kills.
Large AT mines detonated between the tracks can also have that effect.
--- Kevin
Ivan Rapkinov
03 Jun 04, 21:26
saw a number of T-72M turrets popped off in Chechnya - the Chechens fired RPGs at the base of the turret from >45 degree elevation = boom.
even then, wasn't as common as seeing a burnt out tank from a molotov.
the Chechens fired RPGs at the base of the turret from >45 degree elevation = boom.
Yep, that's perfect for setting off the ammo.
Let's hope the Chechens don't get involved in Iraq.
--- Kevin
Deltapooh
05 Jun 04, 09:00
Yep, that's perfect for setting off the ammo.
Let's hope the Chechens don't get involved in Iraq.
--- Kevin
I thought they already are.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.