Jump to content
BrandonKF

Urban Knife Fights...

Recommended Posts

Has anyone attempted to copy the knife fights that occurred in Baghdad, '03? Specifically, main guns at less than 20 paces?

I read of it in Heavy Metal: A Tank Company's Battle to Baghdad.

I was curious to know if anyone else had attempted this in SB. Thanks.

-Brandon F.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never tried to replicate C Company's exploits specifically but in an urban environment I've had a few extremely short range engagements at say less than 50m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright then. Thank you, Gibson. Anyone else? Or would anyone even dare to be interested in such a thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although entirely fictional, I uploaded a mission which pits Leo 1A5s against T-72s in an urban environment. There is the potential there for some nasty knife fights, or not depending on how you play it.

It's kinda slow in the beginning, but you can accelerate the time 'til the action starts. I designed it as kind of a showcase for some of the more rarely seen features of SB (and b/c I wanted a close urban scenario), but I'm currently in the process of working out a few bugs to bring it up to v2.654 standards.

It's not Baghdad, but at times it's still tense. And a good fight. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to know that someone else out there is interested in at least attempting to duplicate those sorts of situations, Sean. Thanks much. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that SB Pro isnt suitable for simulating mout situations. Infantry doesnt have the needed AI and capabilities nor do we have a realy good representation of cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we're working on all these aspects, but it will still take until the next upgrade to show the direction in which we're heading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still think that SB Pro isnt suitable for simulating mout situations. Infantry doesnt have the needed AI and capabilities nor do we have a realy good representation of cities.

I tend to agree, but I do not want this to be understood as criticism or an attack.

I tend to edit infantry out of scenarios, or focus on pure tank-vs-tank or IFV-vs-IFV battles. At best I use only dedicated missle teams for ambush-type situations. Boarded infantry on PCs I do not use, nor huge garrisons in cities or woods. To me, SBP is a tactical vehicle simulator - currently almost exclusively. The infantry part gets much better done in things like ArmA (which in return fails miserably on vehicles).

That also is not meant as criticism. It's just a sober description of how things are, currently. Let's see where things are moving, or not. Until then, focus on the real point of interest of SBP: tanks, IFVs, PCs. There is no point in focussing on it's weak features, from a player's perspective I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of this fact. It's good to note that such aspects are being considered. Obviously, tankers still are often of the opinion that we aren't meant for MOUT conditions, but in those few times where we were deployed, the American Army did a fair job of integrating not only within its own structure but also with the Marines to handle such situations as both Baghdad and Fallujah. Is it an ideal that I would put up as absolultely necessary? No, probably not. Is it good to have? Yes, I believe so. God bless, all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its certainly no good if you want to focus on the "first person" aspects (where does the first person through the door go?, etc.).

Abstracted one level (i.e. giving commands to a squad / section at the F5 map view) you certainly can clear buildings on a classic SB map where the buildings have some dispersion. However in a "cluttered" map like the TerraSim sample "Terrastan", it does become difficult as the AI has issues trying to plot routes down narrow alleys, across walls, etc.

So yes as a Platoon commander you can clear a typical European suburb where the buildings have spaces between them but you can't clear something like Fallujah where the mud brick buildings are on top of each other. Nor can you drill down and ensure that the No.2 Rifleman is first through the door and will then move right and clear the left side of the room (or whatever).

As mentioned SB is "vehicle centric" and other products (say VBS2) are "Infantry centric" (where you can count your rounds, throw a grenade through the second window from the left, etc.). Both are expanding to overlap each other to a degree but they also share common communication protocols and mapping standards so you can (in the classroom anyway) achieve a situation where the vehicle commanders use SB and each Infantryman uses a copy of VBS2 on a common map and can interact in the one "world".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, having seen some of the videos concerning Steel Beasts, I would agree that it is directly initiated for ground vehicular combat (which, in my humble opinion, is a good thing).

But in Fallujah and other areas, while the mud brick buildings were on top of one another, vehicular combat was more about 'lane-clearing' and 'building-clearing' in the broader sense of the spectrum. From what I heard, mostly, our tanks were used to secure crossroads that were deemed vital, and in the event of serious contact, the tankers were called in to clear out exceptionally difficult or dangerous areas which might lead to unnecessary casualties for the infantry. QRF (in Ramadi) consisted of 2 tanks, 2 Brads, full loadout of infantry, and we used primarily HEAT rounds to destroy buildings as well as smaller vehicles that were at ranges which made it difficult to engage with the machine-guns.

What I was discussing primarily, however, was vehicle combat in tight spaces like downtown Baghdad and the outlying suburbs, as that was where Mahmudiya went down. Still, I understand your meaning as far as classroom combat... it would certainly lead to good virtual training involving both 11 Bravos and 19 Kilos, each in their own simulations, to provide a very full view of the broader scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything that's been said about SB being a vehicle-centric sim. However, the infantry modeling is certainly not something to just write off either. Sure, it can (and will I'm sure) be improved, but as it stands they can be very deadly.

I think it all boils down to using the infantry in a way that maximizes their effectiveness given their limitations. That's what I tried to do in my scenario anyway. I tried to focus on giving the player as much as they could handle at one time while maintaining control of the situation. Therefore, enemy troops tend to only spawn as the player makes progress through the city, preventing the player from being overwhelmed and at the same time preventing the AI from getting lost.

Also, I tried to make the scenario of a reasonable size so as not to necessitate too many friendly troops to watch over. Basically you've got two sections of IFVs which I intended to be used with their fireteams in a bounding fashion through the city. So the player moves one team forward while the other overwatches (and stays out of trouble). Then the player switches off to the other team and repeats. All the while, a few tanks are available when needed for any major threats, but enemy AFVs will not roam too far from their starting positions.

Now, since the last update I have noticed that the scenario has become a bit more difficult. It seems to me (real or imagined) that the enemy has become a little more...aggressive...accurate...IDK. But it's getting to the point where it's almost suitable for multi-player now. So now I think I may have to do some major tweaking. And Ssnake's hinting at possible further improvements in this area has me worried (in a good way :wink:).

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that yes, SB is primarily a tactical vehicle sim. I just prefer to look at it as having the added benefit of being able to "mess-around" with infantry ops (however limited). Y'know...just for fun :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did notice in my perusal of the SB Wiki that some of the infantry commands (in Planning, at least) seem to allow for differences in the newest version (2.640, I think?). Such as the capability of giving varying orders where it concerns an infantry platoon (or squad) to hold or to guard a building through either the second or first floors. That does seem to allow for a little bit more realism... after all an ATGM team wouldn't take the first floor of the three-story building when it can get to the top floor and use the height to its advantage and pick off incoming tanks.

And Sean, you've got your boresight right on the money when you describe the above scenario. Unlike Soviet doctrine, American doctrine is much more focused on the individual company-level, and in today's conflicts, that appears to be the right call. In the case of Fallujah and Ramadi (I wasn't in Fallujah or Basra or Mosul, so I can't speak directly for all the operations that went down there in '03-'05), it was dismounted companies that primarily did the clearing out while Terminator QRF held down the fort at Redcon 1.5 and responded to a developing situation.

In the case of actual tank-on-tank MOUT events, though, it would generally take a lot more out of tank crews for the simple fact that you are no longer at ranges and distances where your armor or ammunition really matter... if your first shot hits center-mass, the other crew is dead, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my map projects is Cyprus, Centered around Nicosia. If Cyprus ever blows up again then Nicosia will be right in the middle of it:-

cyprus_nicosia.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord in Heaven... yes, that would be some nasty terrain to go into. A tanker's nightmare. You're trying to make that into an actual Mission, Dark???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I hinted before, there are a number of substantial changes on the way. The prototypes that we could show at the ITEC have, I think, a lot of potential even though we're not quite there on a "product" level that works out of the box without tweaking and low-level administration.

These issues have been identified, and will be addressed.

More work will now flow into the infantry area, simply because we have many customers who use SB Pro as a standalone product. Also, I have to say that now that I understand better how the link-up of two virtual simulations is supposed to work like in the HLA world, I am somewhat skeptical that it really can be made to work to the point where you just plug two such systems together and they will simply work. There are many factors involved which each alone have the potential to wreck an exercise. These solutions must be made more robust before they will have a practical value beyond the demonstrator stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I hinted before, there are a number of substantial changes on the way. The prototypes that we could show at the ITEC have, I think, a lot of potential even though we're not quite there on a "product" level that works out of the box without tweaking and low-level administration.

Ssnake,

Can you release copies of these (even if powerpoint slides) to Scott at ITEC?

I have to use SB Pro for a StabOps CPX in May '13 and improved dismounted behaviours would go a long way to helping that (as would 3rd parties - NGOs etc, but I know they maybe still some way off).

Thanks.

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord in Heaven... yes, that would be some nasty terrain to go into. A tanker's nightmare. You're trying to make that into an actual Mission, Dark???

A map not a mission. Cyprus interests me since I read it was the most militarized country in the world (by area or by per capita can't remember which). My hope would be to represent about 60% of the urban density.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see.

And Ssnake, I appreciate your replies very much. Please understand that none of what I write here is in any way, shape or form meant to be considered as a gripe, moan or groan about anything within the game itself. It is merely my curiosity and my interest in creating different scenarios if/when I am able to afford a computer that can handle SB Pro, and when I am afforded the opportunity to purchase the game itself. Blessed be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I hinted before, there are a number of substantial changes on the way. The prototypes that we could show at the ITEC have,...

Speaking of it...CRUUUSTY!! Where are your photos :-P

Or did they snatch your camera at the door?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please understand that none of what I write here is in any way, shape or form meant to be considered as a gripe, moan or groan about anything within the game itself.

Why not?

There's still a lot of room for improvement. I'd be the last to say that everything's roses, or that criticism is heresy.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Killjoy
One of my map projects is Cyprus, Centered around Nicosia. If Cyprus ever blows up again then Nicosia will be right in the middle of it:-

cyprus_nicosia.jpg

I am not playing that map with you! :)

haha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not?

There's still a lot of room for improvement. I'd be the last to say that everything's roses, or that criticism is heresy.

:)

While I appreciate your candor and spirit in the matter, sir, the truth is that, having reviewed everything within the game from an outside perspective (mostly through the videos posted to Youtube), I can honestly say that your work is well done within the simulation.

I will grant other games - Battlefield 3, ARMA and Modern Warfare - their place as pure games, or as attempts at realistic simulation; however, I appreciate the use of realistic damage effects and the need for gunners and tank commanders to learn how to operate weapon systems in degraded modes, as well as the capability to permanently immobilize units without destruction of said unit and having players learn to utilize what they have to either survive or inflict as much damage as possible before they are taken out of action.

That sort of realism, I think, suits me a great deal. God bless.

@Killjoy

Why not? Could be interesting to try. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Killjoy
@Killjoy

Why not? Could be interesting to try. :)

Dark likes his Knife Fights too much! :eek2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark likes his Knife Fights too much! :eek2:

You sure about that? I thought those UK boys figured on their Chally being so tough in Basra, urban warfare was second nature to ya'll. :grin:

That's alright... my brain's been whirling with ideas for missions the last couple days, and I won't put anyone through all that stuff just yet... but, first things first. God bless!

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...