Thoughts on ATGM’s priority targets

[Tcao]

I know Dev team is reworking on the ATGM engagement logic and I understand the engaging behavior will emphasise on the training and instruction.
I am reading the FM-71 "Appendix D Conduct of fire". Saw some interesting pieces there.

In the instruction and examples that have been provided below, it looks like HAW is advised to engage light armor targets (BMP) at long distance if it is necessary. And Company team commander has the authority to instruct the HAW/MAW to put BMPs as high priority targets.

[Tcao]

FM71 1.jpg (720.17 KiB) Viewed 1672 times

FM71 2.jpg (170.82 KiB) Viewed 1672 times

FM71 3.jpg (172.75 KiB) Viewed 1672 times

FM71 4.jpg (194.24 KiB) Viewed 1672 times

[Tcao]

FM71 5.jpg (102.88 KiB) Viewed 1671 times

FM71 6.jpg (193.82 KiB) Viewed 1671 times

[DukeBannon]

Where did you find this FM?

[Tcao]

From my hard drive. lol

I can share it via dropbox if you need one.

[Tcao]

Adding more garlics into this dish,

the following part can be used to either argue for or argue against using ATGM on soft target in FCSS. (or might be claimed as irrelevant)
During Sino-Vietnamese borders conflicts, PLA recorded at least one incident that they fired HJ-73 (the copy of AT-3) on PAVN's Bn HQ.
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/142647034
the article didn't mention that, back in the 80s, the PLA has very little experience on operating ATGM system, and they treat HJ-73 as some kind of wonder weapons. The usage of ATGM on the detected enemy Bn HQ was approved by Kunming military region. Couple ATGM operators were transferred from Beijing military region and flied to the frontline. So in this case you won't expect a PLA's Bn commander has the authority to tell the ATGM operator aim at a truck.

On the other hand, there are couple claims from PLA soldiers that PAVN liberally use AT-3 on PLA's HMG / RCL position. Its hard to tell if these are panic claim or they were actually targeted by ATGMs.

[Bil H]

FM71 1.jpg

A man after my heart, using a period Field Manual to prove his point. Well done.

Bil

[Tcao]

I haven't played FCSS for a while. Today I update my game to 7120, and I noticed that there is a fascinating duel of ATGMs between IFVs. Awesome!

[WildCatNL]

I haven't played FCSS for a while. Today I update my game to 7120, and I noticed that there is a fascinating duel of ATGMs between IFVs. Awesome!

Great to hear. The team appreciates your feedback, both your reports of possible problems and the confirmation of things having been improved. Have a good fight!

[IronMikeGolf]

I know Dev team is reworking on the ATGM engagement logic and I understand the engaging behavior will emphasise on the training and instruction.
I am reading the FM-71 "Appendix D Conduct of fire". Saw some interesting pieces there.

In the instruction and examples that have been provided below, it looks like HAW is advised to engage light armor targets (BMP) at long distance if it is necessary. And Company team commander has the authority to instruct the HAW/MAW to put BMPs as high priority targets.

First, I ask precision in the refence number and title. Oh, and the date of publication. I am not going to look up and figure out what publication you are referencing, but my take is that it is obsolete for US by 1989. I say that from experience in employment and from the fact that the ATGM platforms are apparently M150s. Not M901s. Not Bradleys.

Now, let me talk about where doctrinal changes came from in that era (and likely earlier and more recent ones). At the Strategic and Operational level, it is most definitely a top down thing. But, when you get to Battalion and lower level (at least in the US Army in this era), it is more a bottom-up thing. That means practice in line units leads what the Field manual and training simulators dictate. Why is it bottom-up? The changes come from gunnery exercises and tactical exercises at Maneuver Training Centers as "Lessons Learned". What that means is that at lower levels, troops may do things that deviate from "The Book".

Case in point: circa 1991, "The Book" said you use day channel and not thermal during daylight. Now, that wasn't a stupid call. Day channel gets you far more resolution in the sight picture than thermals. BUT, acquiring a target most times was slower. M1 crews and units figured that out circa 1985.In the Bradley crew gunnery simulator (think flight simulator for turret crews), we had engagements vs a T-72 at, say 3000m during daylight. So just about the time you're ready to pull the trigger, the target pops smoke. So, as a gunner, you're supposed to automatically switch to thermals, which lets you see through the smoke grenades, and fire the TOW missile. But, if you are already using thermals, you get the shot off with plenty of time. Same on live fore ranges with the autocannon. The lesson learned by the tankers was primary sight is thermal. "The Book" is wrong.

So when I model stuff, yes I pay attention to the Field manuals, but I temper it at the Unit or Subunit level of behavior, informed by my experience and the lessons learned by late relevant to the era. I caution folks to pay attention to doctrinal manuals, looking at level of execution and actual date. Understand there may well me a disconnect between Field manuals and what you see in game. It's likely intentional, but please raise them for validation.

As to WP stuff, I lean on how the permanent party OPFOR did their thing at the Maneuver Training Centers. I've done multipe rotations at NTC (Ft Irwin) and CMTC (Hohenfels, Germany) as an infantry "augment". Back then (I don't know about post 1990's) the permanent OPFOR folks were vehicle crews. When dismounted infantry was needed, well, line companies were "voluntold" to go be The Bad Guys. I learned a lot doing that at NTC and Hohenfels (lots of riding in an MTLB, not so affectionately called a "Meatball". Bad suspension and by the time you dismounted that name fit well). Bottom line, I have insight as to how the permanent OPFOR at the training centers operated. I really don't know how well WP could execute. I choose to err on the side of good execution.

[Tcao]

Not sure if anything changes since last year.
In 2.1.3 and 2.1.4, IFV will not fire ATGMs on other IFVs, APCs, light skin ATGM vehicles at long range. Instead, they will fire ATGM on these targets when distance get shorter into the range of 1500m.
Is that correct?

[CapnDarwin]

They will try to use their guns first and then go to ATGM as a last resort if the range gets to 1500m or less. The IFV is saving ATGMs for higher-priority tanks.

[SgtZdog]

They will try to use their guns first and then go to ATGM as a last resort if the range gets to 1500m or less. The IFV is saving ATGMs for higher-priority tanks.

We might need to review this. Currently it's feeling like Bradleys aren't using the chain gun at long range due to range/penetration problems, then at short range when the chain gun would be effective we use the ATGM instead. Might be a good thing for Tom to look at maybe?

[Tcao]

That's my observation too. In one of my testing scenarios, BFV began to fire chain gun at approaching BMPs at 2000m. then switch to TOW at 1500m. Keep using tow at close range until ATGM depleted, then switch back to 25mm chain gun.

But TBH, the chain gun at close range is lacking of the kill power ( the rate of fire is too low)

[SgtZdog]

That's my observation too. In one of my testing scenarios, BFV began to fire chain gun at approaching BMPs at 2000m. then switch to TOW at 1500m. Keep using tow at close range until ATGM depleted, then switch back to 25mm chain gun.

But TBH, the chain gun at close range is lacking of the kill power ( the rate of fire is too low)

The TOW is actually currently demonstrating a higher RoF than it should have I believe. (This goes for ATGMs across the board I believe, not just TOW on Bradleys.) So the chaingun is actually about right in its RoF.

[Tcao]

For TOW on BFV.
1 missile per minutes if targets is further than 500m. if targets get closer than 500m then it will be two missiles per min.
IMHO the rate can be halved to simulate the reloading time.

for 25mm. it is the same fire rate......
1 burst per min if target >500m. 2 burst per min for target <500m. That seems to be too low.


Also, 30mm 2A42 on BMP-2 never fires on Bradley, to isolate this issue I used the BMP-2 without ATGM launcher (RU335) for testing, it just keep silence all the time even in the same hex with BFVs. Not sure if 30mm poor armor penetration rating (AP=3) has anything to do with it.


******

update, 30mm autocannon even don't fire on M113.
Let me know if you would like me to share the testing scenario files.

[SgtZdog]

Also, 30mm 2A42 on BMP-2 never fires on Bradley, to isolate this issue I used the BMP-2 without ATGM launcher (RU335) for testing, it just keep silence all the time even in the same hex with BFVs. Not sure if 30mm poor armor penetration rating (AP=3) has anything to do with it.

Even older model M3A1 (and of course M2A1, though I'm not sure we have any scenarios with those) have 6.7/7.0 hull/turret armor, so against BMP-2 that they are aware of they will be immune to the 30mm gun since they will turn to face them. As bad as they BMP-1 is, having the tank gun is actually better for hunting Bradleys. Probably not better than just having a good ATGM, but strictly only looking at the gun the small tank cannon is better for Bradley hunting.

[CapnDarwin]

Once I finish the data and doc work, I will focus on the combat model to fix several reported issues and improve the logic in many places.

[Tcao]

Also, 30mm 2A42 on BMP-2 never fires on Bradley, to isolate this issue I used the BMP-2 without ATGM launcher (RU335) for testing, it just keep silence all the time even in the same hex with BFVs. Not sure if 30mm poor armor penetration rating (AP=3) has anything to do with it.

Even older model M3A1 (and of course M2A1, though I'm not sure we have any scenarios with those) have 6.7/7.0 hull/turret armor, so against BMP-2 that they are aware of they will be immune to the 30mm gun since they will turn to face them. As bad as they BMP-1 is, having the tank gun is actually better for hunting Bradleys. Probably not better than just having a good ATGM, but strictly only looking at the gun the small tank cannon is better for Bradley hunting.

But the game engine simulate the shooting at the flank/rear. Right? That doesn't explain why BMP-2 doesn't shoot BFV at closer range/same hex.

Also it is big question why it's autocannon doesn't fire on M113A1.

[CapnDarwin]

It worked before, but something we did in the past few months has made specific attacks ineffective. I'll get it worked out and going again once I get back into it.