Jump to content

Challenger2


Froggy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I thought the same thing too. I guess they have a "unique" way of doing things. Anyway, after they fire their 2 smoke rounds, they should change to HESH, or you can just remove them from the ammo loadout.

Back before 2.538 came out I was doing some testing with this, and the smoke round actually is capable of taking out a CV90 if hit in the side. Let us know if there's an IFV that isn't being eventually destroyed by the L34 WP-SMK round though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive never read that, but I wouldnt be very surprised if thats the case. Paras in the Falklands liked using WP grenades for trench clearance, which was technically illegal I gather, if highly effective.

So if you drop a WP round on an IFV, not only do you blind his optics (perhaps less well on a modern one) but you stand an excellent chance of blinding or killing any infantry around it. Which is what their primary weapon is supposed to be.

Ill have to see what the doctrine manual says, its quite an interesting idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
? ? Brits prefere to engage IFV with smoke round and not explosive round?

Well it works like this:

The Smoke round has a penetration of X (something like 300 or so), and the PC might have an armor level of say 15mm, then yes, a WP round entering a PC and sending burning white phosphorous inside the vehicle would certainly kill it. The AI is simply comparing the penetration and armor level with the effect and choosing to use it. The WP rounds have always been known to have light armor/non-armor killing capability, so no, it is not a bug.

I am sure there would be some sort of Geneva convention issue with using the round like this, and therefore would probably not see any doctrine that explicitly states using it like that. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure there would be some sort of Geneva convention issue with using the round like this, and therefore would probably not see any doctrine that explicitly states using it like that. ;)

Yep.

No doctrine, but International Law backed up by the ICC supercedes doctrine.

All our ROE documents are quite explicit in terms of detailing the legal use of such rounds (purely for obscuration, not to be used directly against an opponent or non combatants, etc.).

WP is classified as a "chemical weapon".

Of course the US didn't sign up so WP, land mines, etc. are all available to the US player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct that the United States refused to undermine any of its own sovereignty, to a UN creation that would be used as a forum for politically motivated prosecutions of Americans, especially US servicemembers, by joining the ICC. Silly us.

We also have restraints for the use of WP. It can be used only for "marking and screening". if however, some bad guys get taken out when being marked with WP smoke, I wont shed any tears.

The US also restrains itself in the use of anti personnel land mines so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of other lace panty sovereigns. Im sure that if certain Asian or Pac rim countries came into conventional conflict and massed infanty asssaults became common place, AP landmines would come into vogue again.

Edited by Mogwa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct that the United States refused to undermine any of its own sovereignty, to a UN creation that would be used as a forum for politically motivated prosecutions of Americans, especially US servicemembers, by joining the ICC. Silly us.

We also have restraints for the use of WP. It can be used only for "marking and screening". if however, some bad guys get taken out when being marked with WP smoke, I wont shed any tears.

The US also restrains itself in the use of anti personnel land mines so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of other lace panty sovereigns. Im sure that if certain Asian or Pac rim countries came into conventional conflict and massed infanty asssaults became common place, AP landmines would come into vogue again.

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was figuring that my Chally 2 TC got offended by the sagger team that just took at shot at us, now I know better. :biggrin:

As regards the ICC if I am not mistaken it is intended as being supplementary as opposed to replacing a state's courts, and it is intended for prosecuting acts due to specific policies as opposed to one off events (so my Chally 2 TC won't get sent off to The Hague if he happened to send a WP round towards a sagger team).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of (as we go way off topic. :)).

If one of your soldiers commits a crime (laying a landmine if your country has signed up not to use them, shot civilians, thrown a grenade when the ROE specifies "direct, aimed fire", used WP, etc.).

Then either you can try him in your country's military justice system (which may understand why he did it and deliver an "informed" verdict), or you can do nothing.

If you do nothing and the embedded lawyer at the TF HQ notices then the boys from the ICC turn up and the soldier is tried in the civil court and under civil law.

Of course if your country's forces are given ROE that make Atilla the Hun look charming, and the soldiers do things according to ROE but against the Law (assuming your country has signed up), then the ICC comes after the Comd and probably the Govt too who authorised them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it works like this:

The Smoke round has a penetration of X (something like 300 or so), and the PC might have an armor level of say 15mm, then yes, a WP round entering a PC and sending burning white phosphorous inside the vehicle would certainly kill it. The AI is simply comparing the penetration and armor level with the effect and choosing to use it. The WP rounds have always been known to have light armor/non-armor killing capability, so no, it is not a bug.

So I made some test with all other tanks that have a WP loading against BMP2 only and the round order result is:

M1: HEP, sabot, HEAT, WP

Leopard AS1: HESH, WP, HEAT, Sabot

Leopard 1A5DK: HESH, WP, HEAT, Sabot

M60A3: HESH, Sabot, HEAT, WP

Centurion: HESH, Sabot, HEAT, WP

Challenger 2: WP, HESH, Sabot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As regards the proclivities of the ICC, they will prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. I think we can all agree that these are bad things. However, they will do so, based on their own interpretation of events, and will do so if the government of the individuals concerned cant or wont prosecute. They aren't supplementing anything.

So how many times has (your country name here) been criticized, perhaps unfairly, by the UN? If you live where i live or somewhere like Israel, I would say, quite a bit. If your country acts in what it perceives is its own self defense, and that action isn't sanctioned by the UN, you could very well see your countries leadership or military officials keelhauled in front of this kangaroo court. If you read the link in Gibsons post, those soldiers were charged by the Australian Defense Forces prosecutor. These poor lads could possibly have been hauled in front of this court for "war crimes" or some similar nonsense, had this not been the case. Its small wonder to me why the US and I believe Israel have removed themselves from this lunacy.

I propose to regroup all bugs or questions about features of a particular vehicule in the same thread, to clarify debuging (and the forum).

I begin

Chall2 engage with WP against IFV, despite there is HESH availlable

All this being said, i think this thread may have strayed from the original posters intent... I could be wrong, maybe all this does relate to a central place to post bugs.

Mog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets put this to bed.

Wether intentional or not, it is a mistake that a CR 2 engages any vehicle with smoke, let alone before using Hesh or Fin.

It has never been taught on any Gunnery course to use this nature of ammunition against vehicles, if in desperate need, of course it has the same ballistics as a HESH so, in theory it can be fired.

Thats why we only load out with three of them.

Irish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As regards the proclivities of the ICC, they will prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. I think we can all agree that these are bad things. However, they will do so, based on their own interpretation of events, and will do so if the government of the individuals concerned cant or wont prosecute. They aren't supplementing anything.

A military may use VBS2 while also using SB Pro for the two are complimentary to each other or one supplements the other. This is for one "cant or wont" do certain things that the other can.

Article 17 of the Rome Statute lays out this complimentary or supplementary nature of the ICC quite clearly, as does Article 20. I am not arguing for or against, I am just attempting to state what a very basic purpose of it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Froggy

most of my 24 years service was on Cheiftan and CR1 which have a similar load out of ammo, therefore the question of what type of ammiunition is used against a specific target is commented on from a sure point of knowledge.

When it comes to the finer detail of CR2 gunnery, the various use of the buttons in real life and the application of these to SB I must confess to be not as knowledgeable.

I did do a full CR2 conversion course however not only was that over 11 years ago, I also did not get the chance to actually command it in the field so a lot has been forgoten.

I have serving friends who are still working on CR2 so I can ask about long range Hesh shoots plus use of the ADD/DROP commands.

Irish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...