R(AT) Efficiency

Epic fail avoidance
Post Reply
User avatar
Ferrard Carson
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:08 am

R(AT) Efficiency

Post by Ferrard Carson »

[DvtS]Wilson wrote:The problem I tend to see in most of our missions with regards to vehicles and destroying them...once an enemy vehicle is announced EVERY player with AT rushes to launch a rocket at it, many missing in the process until someone gets it which is where I'd imagine the rockets get wasted!

Perhaps a workshop for AT training [...]
So a reduced-numbers run of Running Rabbit revealed that we tend to be a little bit... wasteful, with our anti-tank assets. As early as my first squad-command way back in a September run of Rebound, it was fairly evident that we love, love, love firing RPGs and AT-4's at anything that has an engine, whether or not it's really called for.

So, I have some quick thoughts on the matter, and I'd love some other people's input into the matter so that I or Tiger can design a workshop course around the "best practices" with regards to Anti-Tank launchers.
  • Angle - Never hit an armored vehicle from the front unless absolutely necessary or unless it's absolute overkill (e.g. MAAWS vs BTR-60)
  • Necessity - Don't use AT against "soft" vehicles like technicals, non-uparmored humvees, or trucks. Basically, if you can shoot out the driver or gunner without destroying the vehicle, do that instead and save the rocket! For sure, don't waste a rocket on a de-crewed vehicle unless it's linked to an objective. In addition - MAT and HAT should save their rockets for targets that the R(AT)s in the infantry squads can't deal with, such as BMPs or Tanks.
  • Ordered shots - Currently we do a very free-for-all ordering process, resulting in four or five rockets being launched at one lone BTR-60, resulting in a waste of 3 or 4 AT rounds. Instead, let your SL know about the threat, and they can designate (by name, if possible) who is first-shot, who is on standby for the second-shot if the first one misses, and who is third. This ensures that the absolute minimum amount of force is used against each target. There's a CHKilroy video somewhere that features them doing exactly this against a BRDM, where they have to go through three AT shots to finally disable the thing, but if the first one had hit, then they'd have saved the other two launchers.
Give me additional ideas or concepts to work with, and then look for an R(AT) course in your workshops in the near future!

:clint: ~ Ferrard
"Take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turnin' of the worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells you she's hurtin' before she keels... makes her home."

User avatar
Kefirz
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:44 am

Re: R(AT) Efficiency

Post by Kefirz »

Just wanted to share this with you, it is a guide made by our comrades CiA, it saved me quite a lot of time and from some embarrassing moments ;)
http://ciahome.net/forum/index.php?PHPS ... pic=2368.0

I just remember the approximate cluster where the targets are in 300-700m away and just shoot somewhere there :D as you can see for RPG7's it's ''somewhere in that middle bit'' :D
Also a M136 isn't so bad, as even a frontal hit to a BMP can still score a mobility kill.
The thing with the RPG's is that if you don't have an OG-7 round (HE) then it is pointless to shoot it at infantry, as you will only scare them a bit with a cloud of smoke, you are better off shooting it in a shed or something, hoping it would collapse on him if you really must kill him with a RPG.

P.S Sometimes I want to be that guy who saves the day by destroying an armored vehicle while no-one else have any spare rounds and getting all the glory,golden watches,personalized makarov and a medal from the party, but that day hasn't come yet.
''I am not going against tanks'' - Tryteyker, MAT gunner.
''Downboated so much, it's an u-boat now.'' - Boberro.
''Sorry, I meant hon hon hon baguette baguette Eiffel Tower'' - Mabbott

Wilson
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:25 am

Re: R(AT) Efficiency

Post by Wilson »

There was mission I played with my old clan in the OFP days. Where as soon as the mission started a BMP would charge down a hill into a valley that we were on top of on the other side. It was a mission that would be played over a number of times with newer players (like myself at the time) where in order to hit it first time you would need to read it's path aswell as the drop of the rocket...I hit it on my third go of the mission (first 2 times I missed and it got me) and I believe seeing it explode made me fall in love with the game as well as being an AT soldier.

After the first charge of the BMP, an assault on a town was to follow where more armored targets were present, mobile and static. Every player would have AT so it could be played with any number of players from 1+. I believe the weapon of choice was the M72 LAW which I do believe has been replaced with the M136 both in real life and in-game. No reason why we can't have a number of slots with different load outs (RPGS etc). And I'm sure we can have a parameter where each vehicle may or may not have ammo - firing with no fear of dying or firing under fire - 2 different and effective ways of learning.

User avatar
fer
Posts: 1586
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 8:16 am
Location: Emotional wreck

Re: R(AT) Efficiency

Post by fer »

[DvtS]Wilson wrote:The problem I tend to see in most of our missions with regards to vehicles and destroying them...once an enemy vehicle is announced EVERY player with AT rushes to launch a rocket at it, many missing in the process until someone gets it which is where I'd imagine the rockets get wasted!
Whether it's part of the planned AT workshop, or in all workshops, a wider point I'd like to see made is that a major component of our ORBAT's value lies in helping us to avoid becoming a tactical blob (of any size). Within a fireteam, the value of 4 players is being able to watch 4 different arcs simultaneously - and only looking and shooting in the same direction when required to by the FTL; within the squad the same principle applies, but magnified. If possible, we need to get into the habit of trusting other elements in the formation to deal with threats in their arc/sector/whatever, and also the ability of SLs and COs/DCs to draw in assets from elsewhere in the platoon if necessary. This applies more broadly than AT, but thank you to comrade Wilson for neatly illustrating the issue.

Post Reply