[Stwa]

Furthermore, it can be argued and shown, that if OPFOR tanks are to be destroyed in Phase 1, in ten seconds or less, why field them in the first place.  

Perhaps a better force prototype for OPFOR in those circumstances, would be an All Insurgent Force.  

[Stwa]

But, the best response for ARMY to the OPFOR All Insurgent Force on flat, small, unobstructed maps, is perhaps the Fantasy Inf-Tank Prototype mentioned at the beginnng of the thread.

Unless the range is so close that RPG fire can penetrate the armor of the Abrams, well you can imagine the rest.  

So, I am hoping that you figured this out on your own as we went along.

No matter what force prototype OPFOR is given, after the completion of Phase 1 and all OPFOR tanks are destroyed, OPFOR is always left with the All Insurgent Force. (i.e. the all infantry force)

[AT_Stalky]

Cool thread Stwa

[Stwa]

Thanks AT_Stalky,

I am trying to get past the Insurgent forces, and in my game, they have access to RPG weapons only. It is my intent, to clarify the tactical limitations applied to these forces, so we may proceed forward with more traditional OPFOR teams, that will of course, have ATM's at their disposal.

Apart from real life, squads and teams within CC (Insurgent or otherwise), are limited to the tactics the game system provides. These are basically the same for all regardless of the name labels we apply to the various units. (i.e. Insurgents).

As I mentioned, at the start of the thread, OPFOR can field its own Modern Mechanized Battlegroup, and though not the subject here, its worth noting, it would possess similar capabilities to an ARMY battlegroup of the same nature.

What is remarkable about CCMT, we are allowed to think of our forces as adhoc, to meet any local circumstance. In this game the notion of forcepools and permanent Battlegroups of higher eschelon are absent.

So, little national flags asside, if a player is willing, OPFOR (perhaps Iraq, Egypt, Syria), can field the BMP-3 or a T-80.

[Stwa]

If you recall, some of the noobs on page 1, seemed perplexed that the thread was extolling the benefits of the modern Main Battle Tank.

But in fact, this is not altogether the case. Post WW2 tank designs, have evlovled, as they did during WW2, just at a more lesiurely peace time pace.

The notion that all MBTs are equal, is without merit. The basic issue now, is that ARMY MBTs (like M1A2 Abrams and Challenger 2), represent the pinnacle members of this type of fighting vehicle. While the current OPFOR set, represent those models that have been left behind.

The capabilities of the latest generations, are attempted within the narrow framework of CC, as the M1A2 can in fact fire its weapons on the move, and can serve as a 120 mm self propelled artillery vehicle.

If you recall the desert battle on page 1, M1 Abrams rounded the south end of the ridge and located and quickly eliminated the T-72s present on the northern end of the valley floor.

In a subsequent test, OPFOR insurgents occupied the valley, and were eliminated in a similar way. That being said, firing on the move, like many aspects of CC tank combat, is ungratifying, since the tanks usually cannot move an appreciable distance to make the tactic seem realistic.

[Stwa]

OK,

One final word on Insurgents, and then we will move on to more challenging opposition to the Force Prototypes we are examining.

CC severly restricts what in real life might be designated as "Insurgent Tactics". But even so, CC demonstrates very nicely that mainly infantry soldiers/warriors, lightly equiped, and perhaps with a few thin skinned vehicles, just are not going to check the advance of the Abrams or Challenger in the few 100 meters that are available for combat.

Remove the Abrams or Challengers from the game, and substitute other vehicles, and suddendly, Insurgents become much more capable. When maps are unobstructed, the middle of the map, becomes a death trap for all.

As visiblity decreases with terrains that are more closed, the limitations of Insurgents remain, their one defense against vehicles, the RPGs, are never really effective aginst MBTs, unless fired at extremely close ranges, that might be possible in an urban environment.

[southern_land]

[Stwa]

One of the things I used to think about regarding Insurgents, were uncrewed static vehicles.  

I have dabbled in static vehicels, but they had crews, and serverd a different purpose.

It would be cool to place uncrewed vehicles, say around a facility map, and let the Insurgents breach security and destroy them.  

I am not sure if you can have an uncrewed vehicle, but maybe I will try to mod it and see what happens.

But onward throught the fog, as we finally check out OPFOR ATM weaponry and see what effect is has, if any, on our Force Prototypes.

To get started, I used the Bradleys, on an adhoc OPFOR Mechanized group, with BMP-1. The BMP-1 sports an AT-3 Sagger.

[Stwa]

The resluting battle took several minutes, but only because the Bradleys needed time locating the last surviving BMP-1.

I simply drove the Bradleys up and onto the ridge, and let the teams do the rest.

Either visibility was better from the Bradleys, or once again rate of fire, played a part, but Phase 1 was easily won by the Bradelys.

The Bradleys used their 25 mm cannons to great effect, although some TOWs were fired as well.

I did not bother with Phase 2, but one Bradley was damaged and abandoned in Phase 1.

[Stwa]

OK,

I waited over a week or so (while I messed with WW2 stuff), to see if anyone would jump in and explain why the BMP-1 really sucked in the battle presented in the previous post.

First off, as mentioned, the BMP-1 can use the AT-3 Sagger ATM. And accordingly, if you noticed the weapon symbol for the BMP-1 (look back at the Battlegroup screenie), it shows a Tracked ATM.

The AT-3 represents, the earliest Russian made ATM in the game, but nevertheless, this weapon should be capable of taking out an Abrams, never mind the Bradley.

So, what gives.  

Well, its the data. It is always the data, right.  

A quick look at the CCMT worksheet reveals the problem. Notice columns DX and DY for the BMP-1. They indicated Best Mount and Best Gun for this vehicle. In the case of the BMP-1 that means DX = Turret, and DY= Primary (the 73mm cannon), which has a hideously slow rate of fire.

Me thinks, the Data Gurus, did this on purpose, to distinguish a BMP-1 from a BMP-2. The BMP-1 being developed way back in the 60's.

Anyway, I like to assume CCMT with a start date of about 1990, and therefore, I changed the value for column DY to Secondary (meaning the AT-3).

[Stwa]

During the tactical game, a vehicle, will always attemt to use its best weapon, until it either runs out of ammo, or is damaged.

Sometimes a vehicle may employ secondary or tertiary weapons when ranges or target priorities dictate.  This typically happens when a tank, for instance, is using its primary weapon (or cannon), while also using its machine guns (turret or hull).

In any event, the game's data only allows the gurus to specify one best weapon.

In the case of BMP-1, the best weapon was its 73 mm gun, which can also be used as a ATM launcher (or ATGM) for the AT-3. Since Wikipedia is an excellent resource for information on most modern weapon systems. I would refer all to the following link for additional and facinating information regarding the entire BMP series.

BMP-1

So, during the battle presented, the AI kept selecting the BMP-1s 73mm (its best weapon), but its rate of fire was slower than the rate of fire for the Bradleys TOW missiles, so the outcome was somewhat predicatable.

[Stwa]

A basic understanding of CC vehicle data (at least regarding its weapons), is fundamental to understanding its overall capabilities on the CC battlefield.

In CC, a vehicles weapons are broken down into two main categories. Those weapons that are mounted on its hull (or perhaps airframe), and those that are mounted on its turret. It is possible for a vehicle to not have a turret as these categories work for aircraft as well.

For each category a vehicle can posses a primary, secondary, or tertiary weapon system. So, six weapons in all.

As mentioned, the data can call out a prefered or best mount (hull or turret), as well as the best weapon on that mount.

In some cases, the 6 available weapon slots (3 for hull and 3 for turret), are not enough to model the vehicle properly. This is the case with the BMP-3, which has 2 turret cannons, an AT-4 missile capability fired through its ATGM (the larger of its two cannons), 1 coaxial (turret mounted) MG, 2 bow (hull mounted) MGs, and 2 (hull mounted) smoke grenade launchers.

[Stwa]

I am hoping, that by now, anyone following this thread, has surmised that ALL vehicle combat, on the vast majority of the available maps, is conducted at Point Blank Range.

This fact, greatly determines the probable outcomes of vehicle combat in general, since CC vehicles, including aircraft and helicoptors can be thought of almost as naval units, where the on-board weapon systems will determine success and failure.

The statistical deviations of the outcomes (success/failure), if one was to average (or mean) the compilation of ALL vehicle combat events, becomes smaller as improved modern weapons become more accurate and lethal.

Since the standard deviations of vehicle combat events would be smaller, this simply means that us (the Human Players) have more confidence in the probability of one weapon system succeeding over another.

In this regard, the proximity of range on a CC battlefield, allows weapon systems (in general), greater lethality. So it should come as no surprise, that rate of fire (and visibility) becomes a more critical component in the success or failure of a given weapon system. This fact, is demonstrated in every game you play, when you are anxiously waiting for a vehicle to load another round.

[Stwa]

So, back to our Force Prototypes, where the OPFOR group has been slightly modified again, so it emulates closer to its corresponding ARMY twin. And also, the BMP-1, has been modified to use its AT-3 ATM as its Best Weapon.

As you can note from the screenies, the BMP-1, is now roughly equivalent to the BMP-2, where its Best Weapon is the AT-4. Now, each of these vehicles can stand their ground with the Bradley.

[MF_Church]

Bravo!

Then again, i always been for ANY & ALL 'underDogs'!   !

[Stwa]

I just need a few more posts to wrap things up.

All that needs to be asked now, is will the Fantasy Inf-Tank Battlegroup succeed against an OPFOR Modern Mechanized Battlegroup.

I am sure most everyone already knows the answer.

But, if you rank lethality, rate of fire, and visibilty from the weapon system, as the most important factors in determining the outcome on a CC battlefield, then you won't be surprised to learn that nothing can touch the M1 Abrams. Well, maybe the Challenger 2.

Perhaps the gurus have goosed the data for the M1. But tests using various mixtures of BMP-1s and BMP-2, all yielded remarkebly similiar results. The M1 could aquire targets quicker, and fire its cannon sooner. Its rate of fire was high, but in most of the  cases, only one shot was needed.

[Stwa]

OK,

So I think we have shown that the M1 Abrams is superior to all other weapon systems, at least in the Phase 1 portion of our battles. Remember, Phase 1 is the destruction of OPFOR vehicles.

OPFOR BMP-1s and BMP-2s, would have to ambush the M1, and then maybe they could fire off one of their ATMs. But this role, would be no different than the role of a small infantry team yielding a hand held launcher for the same missile. Infantry would have a better chance of succeeding in this role due to their reduced visibilty.

A confined CC battlefield, exacerbates any weakness in a weapon system mounted on a vehicle. All vehicles suffer from this effect to one extent or another.

So, it stands to reason, that fielding vehicles makes less sense, depending upon the ATM capabilities of the enemy. Plus, vehicle to vehicle combat is much easier to predict in the modern game as I mentioned earlier.

OPFOR simply has a better chance of succeeding, against most ARMY battlegroups, by using an All Insurgent or All Infantry Battlegroup and skipping Phase 1 of the battle altogether.  

Additional tests, in restrictive built up areas, provide some final clues, about what is (or is not) possible in Phase 2, which is where ARMY is to mop up the remaining infantry.

[Antony_nz]

Very good post.  and AAR

You here so much complaints about the tanks in CLose Combat. I never had a real problem myself. Mayb im just that good