Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/09/2015 in all areas

  1. 3 points

    Armata soon to be in service.

    Ok, as a (Non US) lawyer I´ll try : In the case of Armata Vs. Skeptics the Court finds as follow: - That given the complete lack of evidence to support anything resembling technical specs, the only thing we deem proven is that Armata exist...sort off - In light of the preceding ruling, on the question of who will have custody until majority of age, the Court awards it to LockandLoad because he cares about it the most - The previous decision notwhistanding Steve is allow visitation rights to check on it from time to time and keep it honest on the question of future module inclusion - And finally, Panzer, while not very fond of it, is appointed tutor, to teach T-14 how to be a proper tank and not some hybrid nonsense that every other tank in the yard will mock and bully - No damages are awarded to any party since the only things affected are egos and prides and the Court finds that those have no monetary value on the Internet And if everybody is unhappy with the ruling, we´ll know I did a good job , as any lawyer knows usually the worst settlement is better than the best ruling
  2. 2 points
    Nowadays I do not post on forums much unless a point really concerns me and this whole issue with CMBN on the Apple Mac Store is one that raises major concern. I see that CBMN is still at version 1.10 through the Apple Mac Store and the incompatibility of upgrades to version 3.xx has still not been resolved. I also see that the CMBN expansions for the Apple Mac Store CMBN version do not exist. This is an issue that has years of history. I purchased CMBN on both the PC and the Mac (Apple Mac Store) both in 2012 with the goal of having the same experience of the same software on both platforms. The product is still available on the Apple Mac Store today, years later for $39.95 with no indication in the information text of the subtle but significant difference in available versions. Why? I find it hard to understand that even if Apple are a pain to work with, the information text could not at least have been updated to reflect the difference between the Apple Mac Store and the Battlefront.com versions in all these years. Apple may be difficult to work with but I assume that Battlefront did not hand over all rights of ownership to the CMBN IP on the Apple Mac Store to the point that the information text could not be updated to make potential purchasers aware. Even if Apple and Battlefront have fallen out with each other, it should not stop the information text from being updated. If it is the case that Battlefront has tried to update the information text on the Apple Mac Store to make potential customers aware and that Apple have stopped them, maybe it is time to pull the product from the Apple Mac Store. In light of Battlefront not offering to Apple/Battlefront customers a means of converting to a Battlefront version of the Mac CMBN, it only adds to the justification to pull it (for new customers) from the Apple Mac Store and avoid future customers the same issue. I can only guess that real world sales of the Apple App Store version of CMBN still bring in too much money for Battlefront to consider pulling it. As for the significant information regarding the different versions of the Mac CMBN versions, it comes down to paying customers of Battlefront products to post warnings of this issue in the Customer Rating section of the product page on the Apple Mac Store, while Apple and Battlefront seem to not bother. Someone is dropping the ball!! This issue seems to have be going on for years and is still not resolved. Many a post over those years by Battlefront representatives but effectively nothing changed. That is a issue for concern. Someone at Battlefront decided to put CMBN up for sale on the Apple Mac Store but not to follow through with the support it needs such as preparing patches, etc. to suit the Apple Mac Store model.. Even Value places this issue on games developers who sell through Steam and the vast majority of those seem to update their games fine. If Apple are making it impossible as some Battlefront posts seem to indicate, then just pull the product to protect future potential customers. Just to leave an old version on the Apple Mac Store for new customers while non-Apple Mac Store customers can upgrade to the latest version just seems wrong. It would be nice to hear from a representative of Battlefront as to the reasoning for the information text not having at least been updated over all these years to advise potential customers about this subtle but significant point. Regards Software License purchaser for: Combat Mission Battle for Normandy (PC) since April 2012 Combat Mission Battle for Normandy (Apple Mac Store) since June 2012 Combat Mission Strike Force (PC) since May 2010
  3. 2 points

    Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade

    Here is some music to listen to while watching the parade:
  4. 2 points

    Michael Emrys are you there?

    With umpteen thousand-thousand posts he isn't usually one for radio silence. Hey Emrys, you dusty yet ever prolific reprobate, let us know you are alright. Mord.
  5. 2 points

    C2 & Information Sharing

  6. 1 point

    SeinfeldRules Scenario Thread

    Hi all, I've been working on a whole bunch of scenarios for CMRT, and finally got around to finishing a couple. I'll use this thread to post whatever I manage to finish. I have 4 for today (though one has already been posted before, just tweaked it a little), and hopefully I can put the finishing touches on 1 or 2 for tomorrow. Most of these have had barely any playtesting, beyond what I could do by myself. That's where I need feedback from you guys. These are not 100% tested. Please let me know what I can change to make it better! I like small, company sized engagements. All of these have 2 companies or less. These may be suitable for H2H, do not have anyone to test them with though. All my maps are "hand made" originals. They look best with my terrain mod IMO! Interlock OP v1.0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/bs581b72xj6n96s/AD%20Interlock%20OP.zip?dl=0 You are in command of a German Grenadier platoon in Estonia. Soviet forces have secured an interlocking tower overlooking our forward positions and are calling artillery on our forces. You have been tasked with securing the tower by force and securing whatever intel you can. Axis vs AI only Pastureland v1.0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/pq48lgx5c1tokfe/AD%20Pasture%20Land.zip?dl=0 The Germans are falling back in confusion. Our tank corps and mehanized infantry have pushed far foward, leaving us, the dismounted infantry, behind to mop up the remnants and widen the corridors. Your company was doing exactly that when you came out of a small copse of trees and immediately started taking machinegun fire. A large, open pastureland sits between you and the incoming fire. On the far side, a group of buildings on the outskirts of a village. You determine that is where the enemy fire is coming from, and you immediately decide to attack. Allied vs AI only. Gorbatzewich Roadblock v1.0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/zsmkvq4hfcr09ms/AD%20Gorbatzewich%20Roadblock.zip?dl=0 You are in command of a Soviet Cavalry Squadron southwest of Babruysk. After several long days of fighting, we have finally managed to capture the vital city and open the road to Minsk. Remnants of German forces still remain around the city, occupying blocking positions and doing their best to prevent our forces from rushing into Minsk. One of these blocking forces is located in the village to your immediate front. Allied vs AI only Amongst the Ruins v1.0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/wo11fj4zcq3h2au/AD%20Amongst%20the%20Ruins.zip?dl=0 You are in command of a German Pioneer Company somewhere within a large city inside Belarus. We have been fighting with the Soviets for control of this vital city for several days now. Your company has been tasked with taking back a bombed out industrial area. Axis vs AI only
  7. 1 point

    Stagler's Quick Battle Maps

    Download Link v1.1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/zhc9yh976ijl51v/SG_QB_Maps_v1.1.rar?dl=0 Fixed AI plan missing. Seems the "copy AI plan" tool doesn't work between maps, only on the same map. Fixed conditions that were set on "freezing" to "cool".
  8. 1 point
  9. 1 point
    Vanir Ausf B

    What affects ATGM accuracy?

    This is from ammo sharing. It loses access to the missile it fires along with the 2 the neighboring teams fire. This is confirmed by looking at the ammo count in the left pane (next to the night vision device count). That only shows the missiles held by that specific team and ignores shared ammo. For each team it starts at 3 missiles and decreases by one every shot. As for accuracy, I just ran a test of AT-14s vs T-64BVs at 1000 meters under ideal conditions, then a second test identical except for changing the weather to "heavy rain". For both tests I fired 100 missiles. In both tests 87 missiles hit. This is right in line with ATGM accuracy testing done during development. It also suggests that rain, at least, does not affect ATGM accuracy.
  10. 1 point
    Here is a recording (the vehicles parade starts at 56:30): I am slightly displeased with organisers - very little coverage of "Armata"-HIFV and almost no "Boomerang" (Air Force could easily have waited another 5 seconds). The most prominent AFV (in directors / operators eyes) seemed to be... T-90A. Also, looks like the footage from the vehicles POV is not transmitted live, but is a recording from the final practice run, and the one from "Pantsyr" (at 1:07:28) really should not have been used... P.S.: But the beautiful roar of T-34-85's and SU-100's makes up for all of that. P.P.S.: Всех с 70-й годовщиной Великой Победы! And congratulations with the 70th anniversary of Victory over fascism to everyone!
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    Lucky 1 in a thousand shot ... Nope arena very rarely defeat javelin.. A javelin once hit the front turret too and failed to penetrate . your jav is heading for thé front Hull even if diving it was briefly in arena's engagement enveloppe and it was enough
  13. 1 point
    John Kettler

    Movie White Tiger

    rocketman, All I've seen are trailers, which were more than enough to convince me this is Moby Dick set in a ludicrous GPW armored warfare context. Any doubts on this score should be resolved by the presence of a gleaming white Tiger 1 under seasonal conditions clearly not winter or even early spring. One review I saw called it, and rightly so, "Moby Dick on tracks." The movie looks cool, and it's always good to see actual period AFVs, uniforms and weapons (have PTSD from the visual disaster of a film called "Battle of the Bulge). Have fun with the movie you asked about! I really want to see "1944," which also has real GPW Russian AFVs, plus other goodies, and what appears to be an amazing plot. Regards, John Kettler
  14. 1 point
    It was one fine day of Rolling Thunder scenario. I watched my Javelin ATGM defeated by Arena. Shoot that bas****~! It just launched Going~ Flying there Still flying Turned down and heading the tank Doom ETA 1sec What ????!!!! And this was ALMOST EXACTLY kinda I was like How this can happen?! How!! My team was annihilated after that by angry T-90AM.
  15. 1 point

    Armata soon to be in service.

    The sheetmetal body around the turret reminded me of an anecdote I once heard. US tests on the Italian Centauro 8x8 armored car back in the early 2000s, while they were still working on Stryker, they found firing the 105 gun over the bow tended to smash the vehicle's headlamps. Ooops! That test was one reason why Stryker MGS gun never got a muzzle brake. Looking at the sheetmetal shell on the Armata turret I get the impression the Russians probably found they needed to give minimal blast protection to their sensor array from their own exploding APS projectiles. The active defense involves popping a charge a few feet above the tank then BLAM! Quite a violent event. alternately - or in addition - the sensors get some small protection against airburst artillery too. If those high tech sensors are 1/3rd the total price of the tank you'd want to give the sensors a little cover.
  16. 1 point

    Armata soon to be in service.

    Armata in the game isn't entirely a dead duck. CMBS is like the other CM titles, eventually there's going to be a 'vehicle pack' or whatever they're called. If by then they have all the proper drawings and specs of the new Russian armor its going to take a will of iron for them not to add them to the game. But we're talking some ways into the future. They've been known to bend the rules a bit when doing later packs on their non-historical titles.
  17. 1 point
    So are the problems with the F-35, by and large. How is that working out?
  18. 1 point
    Tanks a Lot

    Tanks a Lot's CMRT building preview

    Here's a 2-story house you can soon destroy:
  19. 1 point
    Something like this for RA: (Ikalugin + myself) From the VDV: *Not counted - -Training -Education -Post stations. -RHBZ -Organic formations within Brigade/Division/Regiment ORBAT without independent registration. Example: Force recon company within 810th Naval Infantry BDe. - 7th grds. Air Assault Div. >162nd ind. Recon Comp. >108th Air Assault Reg. >247th Air Assault Reg. >1141st Artillery Reg. >3rd SAM Reg. >743rd ind. Comm. Bat. >629th ind. Engineer Bat. >1681th ind. Logistics Bat. >32nd ind. Airlifted Medical Unit >6th ind. Maintenance Bat. - 76th grds. Air Assault Div. >175th ind. Recon Comp. >104th Air Assault Reg. >234th Air Assault Reg. >1140th Artillery Reg. >4th SAM Reg. >728th ind. Comm. Bat. >656th ind. Engineer Bat. >1682nd ind. Logistics Bat. >3996th Airlifted Field hospital >7th ind. Maintenance Bat. - 98th Airborne Div. >215th ind. Recon Comp. >217th Air Deployed Reg. >331st Air Deployed Reg. >1065th Artillery Reg. >5th SAM Reg. >647 ind. Comm. Bat. >661 ind. Engineer Bat. >1683rd ind. Logistics Bat. >5th ind. Maintenance Bat. >36th ind. Airlifted Medical Unit - 106th Airborne Div. >173rd ind. Recon Comp. >51st Air Deployed Reg. >331st Air Deployed Reg. >1182th Artillery Reg. >1st SAM Reg. >731st ind. Comm. Bat. >388th ind. Engineer Bat. >1060th ind. Logistics Bat. >43rd ind. Maintenance Bat. >39th ind. Airlifted Medical Unit - 31st Air Assault ind. BDe. >XXX ind. Recom Comp. (to be included in 2015) >54th ind. Air Assault Bat. >91st ind. Air Assault Bat. >116th ind. Air Assault Bat. >99th ind. Artillery Bat. >38th ind. Comm Bat. - 83rd Air Assault ind. BDe. (Special case, Far east deployment) >XXX ind Recom Comp. (to be included in 2015) >111th ind. Tank Bat. >593rd ind. Air Assault Bat. >635th ind. Air Assault Bat. >654th ind. Air Assault Bat. - 45th Special Purpose BDe. (Currently 45th independent Special purpose Regiment) >904th ind. Special purpose Bat. (tentative) >218th ind. Special purpose Bat. (tentative) From the Ground Forces, note that VDV forces are often subordinate to the MDs, but I did not double count those: ---Western MD force, based on the 20th Army (note the forces in the North-West direction were not affected): - 18th ind. sp. Mortar div (2S4). - 19th ind. sp. Artillery div (2S7). - 4th grds. Tnk Div. - 2nd grds. Mrr. Div. - 6th ind. Tnk BDe. - 9th ind. Mrr. BDe. - 288th Artillery BDe. - 112nd Missile BDe. - 448th Missile BDe. - 53rd SAM BDe. - 49th SAM BDe. ---Southern MD force, based on the MD troops minus the forces deployed abroad: - 100th Recon BDe. - 439th Roc. Artillery BDe. - 33rd ind. Mrr. BDe. - 34th ind. Mrr. BDe. - 205th ind. Mrr. BDe. - 8th ind. Mrr. BDe. - 17th ind. Mrr. BDe. - 18th ind. Mrr. BDe. - 19th ind. Mrr. BDe. - 20th ind. Mrr. BDe. - 136th ind. Mrr. BDe. - 1st Missile BDe. - 291st Artillery BDe. - 943rd Roc. Artillery Reg. - 573rd Recon Artillery div. - 67th SAM BDe. - 10th Special Forces BDe. - 22nd Special Forces BDe. - 346 Special Forces BDe. --- Central MD force, based around 2nd Army: - 21st ind. Mrr. BDe. - 15th ind. Mrr. BDe. - 23rd ind. Mrr. BDe. - 92nd Missile BDe. - 385th Artillery BDe. - 581st Recon Artillery div. - 950th Roc. Artillery Reg. - 297th SAM BDe. - 3rd Special Forces BDe. Black Sea Fleet, I don’t count the various units that would be used up for the immediate security of the peninsular (such as coastal defense units or the various independent battalions), note that the Black Sea Fleet is within the Southern MD, but I did not double count anything: - 810th Naval Infantry BDe. >Force Recon Company >557th ind. Naval Infantry Bat. >501st ind. Naval Infantry Bat. >542nd ind. Naval Assault Bat. >546th ind. Artillery Bat. >547th ind. SAM Bat. >160th ind. Engineer Bat. >538th ind. Logistics Bat. -382nd ind. Naval Infantry Bat. Air Forces, note I don’t count here the Naval Aviation assets, but those would be noted later, I also do not include off theatre SAM units: --- From 1st Air Defense and Air Force command, note I did not touch a lot of assets that would provide defensive capability in the north-west: - 455th Mixed Reg. - 14th Fighter Reg. - 790th Fighter Reg. - 379th Army Aviation Base. - 549th Army Aviation Base. - 15th Army Aviation BDe. --- From the 4th Air Defense and Air Force command: - 7th Air Defense BDe. - 31st Fighter Reg. - 3rd Mixed Reg. - 960th Attack Reg. - 368th Attack Reg. - 559th Bomber Reg. - 2nd ind. Recon sq. - 393rd Army Aviation Base. - 546th Army Aviation Base. - 387th Army Aviation Base. --- From the 2nd Air Defense and Air Force command: - 6980th Air Force Base. --- Strategic Aviation: - 6950th base. - 6952nd base.
  20. 1 point

    Spotting question

    Very cool MOS! Nice job and very informative! It would be interesting to see something like this done for CMBS with all the squad radios etc. Also it would be nice to see the C2 difference between nations.
  21. 1 point

    Soviet Doctrine in WW2 - 1944

    Apocal - the mechanized corps fought like the tank corps, it just had a tank regiment with each of 3 motorized rifle brigades, plus a 4th brigade that was pure tank. They still fought like the tank corps fought. They had as many tanks as a tank corps, with 10 infantry battalions in the formation rather than 6, and a marginally more infantry heavy mix, as a result. This did not change their basic tactics. It just meant where one of the sub formations was barreling ahead, it would sometimes have a thinner cutting edge of tanks and a longer trailing "shield" column of trucked infantry. Though the tank corps portion would often be "on point" with exactly the same techniques as in the tank corps. In practice, the extra infantry gave the formation greater staying power after taking losses in extended action, and a superior ability to hold the ground it took.
  22. 1 point

    Soviet Doctrine in WW2 - 1944

    Aured - Did the Russians use the same fire and maneuver tactics with typical triangle tasking used by the US in WW II? No they did not. Did they understand the basic principles of fire and maneuver, sure. But the whole army was organized differently, tasked differently, placed less reliance on close coordination with artillery fires, wasn't based on small probes by limited infantry elements to discover the enemy and subject him to more of those fires, etc. Basically there are a whole host of army-specific optimizations in US tactics that just don't apply. The Russian force is divided into its mechanized arm and the rifle arm (called "combined arms" at the army level, but still distinct from mech). Each had its own specific mix of standard tactics. There are some common elements between them, but you should basically think of them as two distinct doctrines, each tailored to the force types and operational roles that type had. Conceptually, the mech arm is the arm of maneuver and decision and exploitation, while the rifle arm is the arm of holding ground, creating breakthroughs / assault, and general pressure. The mech arm is numerically only about a tenth of the force, but is far better armed and equipped, and controls more like 2/3rds of the armor. The Front is the first element of the force structure that does not respect this distinction and is entirely above it, and Fronts are not uniform in composition, but always contain forces of both types (just sometimes only limited amounts of the mech type). From the army level down to the brigade level, the distinction applies at one level or another. Below that level it still applies but cross attachments may blur somewhat, but normally at all lower levels one has clearly either the mech or the rifle force type and uses the tactics appropriate to that type. The army level is the principle control level for supporting elements and attachments - much higher than in other armies (e.g. for the Germans it was almost always the division level, with little above that level in the way of actual maneuver elements). The army commander is expected to "task" his pool of support arms formations to this or that division-scale formation within his command for a specific operation, depending on the role he has assigned to that formation. This can easily double the organic weapons of such formations, and in the combined arms armies, is the sole way the rifle divisions get armor allocated to them. What are we talking about here? Independent tank brigades and regiments, SU regiments, heavy mortar regiments, rocket brigades and battalions, antitank brigades and regiments, motorcycle recon regiments and battalions, extra pioneer battalions, heavy artillery formations from regiment up to divisions in size, etc. Basically, half of the guns and all of the armor is in the army commander's "kit bag" to dole out to his divisions depending on their role. A rifle division tasked to lead an attack may have a full tank brigade attached, plus a 120mm mortar formation to double its firepower at the point of the intended breakthrough. Another rifle division expected to defend on relatively open ground, suited to enemy tanks, may have an antitank artillery brigade attached, tripling its number of 76mm guns, and a pioneer battalion besides, tasked with mining all likely routes and creating anti tank ditches and other obstacles, etc. Every division is given enough of the supporting arms to just barely fulfill its minimal standard role, and everything needed to do it better is pooled up in the army commander's kit bag, and doled out by him to shape the battle. Similarly, the army commander will retain major control of artillery fires and fire plans. Those are not a matter of a 2nd Lt with a radio calling in his target of opportunity, but of a staff of half a dozen highly trained technicians drafting a coordinated plan for days, all submitted to and approved - or torn up - by the army commander. This highly centralized system was meant to maximize the impact of very scarce combined arms intelligence and tactical skill, which could not be expected of every green 2nd Lt. Within the rifle divisions, each level of the org chart has its own organic fire support, so that it does not need to rely on the highest muckety-muck and his determination that your sector is the critical one today. When he does decide that, he is going to intervene in your little corner of the world with a weight of fire like a falling house; when he doesn't, you are going to make do with your assigned peashooters. The divisional commander is assigning his much smaller divisional fires on the same principles, with the understanding that those smaller fires become not so small if the army commander lends him an extra 36 120mm mortars for this one. The regimental commander may get his share of the divisional fires or he may get nothing outside what his own organic firepower arms can supply - but he gets a few 76mm infantry guns and some 120mm mortars and a few 45mm ATGs so that he can make such assignments even if he gets no help. Frankly though the regiment adds little - it mostly assigns its battalions missions, and the regimental commander's main way of influencing the fight is the formation he assigns to those component battalions. Formation in the very simplest sense - he has 3 on line to cover a wide front, or he has 3 in column on the same frontage to provide weight behind an attack, or the 2-1 or 1-2 versions of either of those. It is not the case that he always uses 2-1 on all roles. The most common defense is 2-1 and the most common offensive formation is column, all 3 one behind the other on the same frontage. Notice, this isn't about packing the riflemen in - those will go off in waves at proper intervals front to back. But it puts all 27 of the regiment's 82mm mortars (9 per battalion) in support behind 1 or 2 kilometers of front line. The fire support principle at the battalion level is not implemented by having one of the component battalions support the others by fire from a stationary spot, with all arms. Instead it is a combined arms thing inside each battalion. They each have their 9 82mm mortars and their 9 Maxim heavy machineguns organized into platoons, and the "fire support plan" is based on those infantry heavy weapons. Battalion AT ability is minimal - 2 45mm ATGs and a flock of ATRs, barely enough to hold off enemy halftracks and hopeless against whole battalions of tanks. But that is because the higher muckety-mucks are expected to know where the enemy tanks are going to come and to have put all the army level ATG formations and their own supporting armor formations and the pioneers with their minefields and obstacles, in those spots. Down inside the battalion, the same formation choices arise for the component rifle companies as appeared at battalion, and the usual formations are again 2-1 on defense and all in column on the attack. And yes that means you sometimes get really deep columns of attack, with a division first stepping off with just a few lead companies with others behind them, and so on. This doesn't mean packed shoulder to shoulder formations, it means normal open intervals 9 times in a row, one behind another, only one at a time stepping off into enemy fire zones. These "depth tactics" were meant to *outlast* the enemy on the same frontage, in an attrition battle, *not* to "run him off his feet in one go", nor to outmaneuver him. The later parts could be sidestepped to a sector that was doing better and push through from there. The last to "pancake" to the front if the other had all failed, would not attack, but instead go over to the defensive on the original frontage and hold. One gets reports of huge loss totals and those "justifying" the attack attempt when this happens - the commander can show that he sent 8/9ths of his formation forward but they could not break through. It is then the fault of the muckety muck who didn't gauge the level of support he needed correctly or given him enough supporting fires etc. If on the other hand the local commander came back with losses of only his first company or two and a remark that "it doesn't look good, we should try something else", he will be invited to try being a private as that something else, etc. What is expected of the lower level commander in these tactics is that he "lay his ship alongside of the enemy", as Nelson put it before Trafalgar. In other words, close with the enemy and fight like hell, hurt him as much as your organic forces can manage to hurt him. Bravery, drive, ruthlessness - these are the watchwords, not cleverness or finesse or artistry. What is happening in the combined arms tactics within that rifle column attack? The leading infantry companies are presenting the enemy a fire discipline dilemma - how close to let the advancing Russian infantry get before revealing their own positions by cutting loose. The longer they take to do so, the close the Russian infantry gets before being driven to the ground. Enemy fire is fully expected to drive the leading infantry waves to the ground, or even to break them or destroy them outright - at first. But every revealed firing point in that cutting loose is then subjected to another round of prep fire by all of the organic and added fire support elements supporting the attack. The battalion 82mm mortars, any attached tanks, and the muckety-mucks special falling skies firepower, smashes up whatever showed itself crucifying the leading wave. Then the next wave goes in, just like the first, on the same frontage. No great finesse about it, but some of the defenders already dead in the meantime. Same dilemma for his survivors. When they decide to hold their fire to avoid giving the mortars and Russian artillery and such, juicy new things to shoot at, the advancing infantry wave gets in among them instead. And goes to work with grenade and tommy gun, flushing out every hole. The grenadier is the beater and the tommy gun is the shotgun, and Germans are the quail. Notice, the firepower of the infantry that matters in this is the short range stuff, because at longer range the killing is done by supporting artillery arms. The rifles of the most of the infantry supplement of course, but really the LMGs and rifles are primarily there as the defensive firepower of the rifle formation, at range. It is slow and it is bloody and it is inefficient - but it is relentless. The thing being maximized is fight and predictability - that the higher muckety mucks can count on an outcome on this part of the frontage proportional to what they put into it. Where they need to win, they put in enough and they do win - hang the cost. It isn't pure suicide up front - the infantry go to ground when fired at and they fire back,and their supporting fires try to save them, and the next wave storms forward to help and pick up the survivors and carry them forward (and carry the wounded back). In the meantime the men that went to ground are defending themselves as best they can and sniping what they can see; they are not expected to stand up again and go get killed. That is the next wave's job. The first did its part when it presented its breast to the enemy's bullets for that first advance. The whole rolls forward like a ratchet, the waves driven to ground holding tenaciously whatever they reached. That is the rifle, combined arms army, way of fighting. The mech way of fighting is quite different. There are some common elements but again it is better to think of it like a whole different army with its own techniques. Where the rifle arm emphasizes depth and relentlessly, the mech way emphasizes rapid decision and decisive maneuver, which is kept dead simple and formulaic, but just adaptive enough to be dangerous. First understand that the standard formation carrying out the mech way of fighting is the tank corps, which consists of 3 tank and 1 rifle brigade, plus minimal attachments of motorized guns, recon, and pioneers. The rifle brigade is 3 battalions and is normally trailing the tank brigades and holds what they take. Sometimes it doubles their infantry weight and sometimes it has to lead for a specific mission (force a river crossing, say, or a night infiltration attack that needs stealth - things only infantry can do), but in the normal offensive case it is just driving up behind something a tank brigade took, dismounting, and manning the position to let the tank brigade go on to its next mission. It has trucks to keep up, and the usual infantry heavy weapons of 82mm mortars and heavy MGs, but it uses them to defend ground taken. Notionally, the rifle brigade is the tank corps' "shield" and it maneuvers it separately as such. The business end of the tank corps is thus its tank brigades, which are its weapons. Each has a rifle battalion organic that is normally physically riding on the tanks themselves, and armed mostly with tommy guns. The armor component of each brigade is equivalent in size to a western tank battalion - 50-60 tanks at full TOE - despite the formation name. I will get to the larger scale tactics of the use of the tank brigades in just a second, but first the lowest level, tactical way the tanks with riders fight must be explained. It is a version of the fire discipline dilemma discussed earlier, but now with the critical difference that the tanks have huge firepower against enemy infantry and other dismounts, making any challenge to them by less than a full panzer battalion pretty suicidal. What the tanks can't do is force those enemy dismounts to open fire or show themselves. Nor can the tanks alone dig them out of their holes if they don't open fire. That is what the riders are there to do - kill the enemy in his holes under the overwatch of the massed tanks if and only if the enemy stays low and keeps quiet and tries to just hide from the tanks. That threat is meant to force the enemy to open fire. When they do, the riders drop off and take cover and don't need to do anything - the tanks murder the enemy. Riders pick their way forward carefully after that, and repeat as necessary if there are enemy left alive. This is all meant to be delivered very rapidly as an attack - drive right at them, take fire, stop and blast for 5 or 10 minutes tops, and move forward again, repeating only a few times before being right on or over the enemy. So that covers the small tactics of the mech arm on the attack. Up a bit, though, they are maneuvering, looking for enemy weak spots, especially the weak spots in his anti tank defenses. And that follows a standard formula of the echelon attack. Meaning, the standard formation is a kind of staggered column with the second element just right or left of the leading one, and the third off to the same side as far again. The individual tank brigade will use this approach with its component tank companies or pairs of companies, and the whole corps will use it again with its brigades. The first element of such an echelon attack heads for whatever looks like the weakest part of the enemy position - in antitank terms - and hits it as hard as it can, rapidly, no pausing for field recon. The next in is reacting to whatever that first one experiences, but expects to wrap around one flank of whatever holds up the prior element and hit hard, again, from a slightly changing direction. This combined hit, in rapid succession, is expected to destroy that blockage or shove it aside. The third element following is expected to hit air, a hole made by the previous, and push straight into the interior of the enemy position and keep going. If the others are checked, it is expected to drive clear around the enemy of the harder enemy position - it does not run onto the same enemy hit by the previous elements. If the enemy line is long enough and strong enough to be neither flanked nor broken through by this process, well tough then. Some other formation higher in the chain or two grids over is expected to have had better luck in the meantime. There are of course minor adaptations possible in this formula. If the lead element breaks clean through, the others shift slightly into its wake and just exploit - they don't hit any new portion of the enemy's line. If the first hit a position that is clearly strong as well as reasonably wide, the other two elements may pivot outward looking for an open flank instead of the second hitting right where the first did, just from a different angle. The leading element can pull up short and just screen the frontage if they encounter strong enemy armor. Then the second still tries to find an open flank, but the third might slide into reserve between and behind the first and second. The point of the whole approach is to have some adaptability and flexibility, to be designed around reinforcing success and hitting weaker flanks not just frontal slogging - all of which exploit the speed and maneuver power of the tanks within the enemy's defensive zone. But they are also dead simple, formulas that can be learned by rote and applied mechanically. They are fast because there is no waiting for recon pull to bring back info on where to hit. The substance that needs to be grasped by the leader of a 2nd or 3rd element is very limited, and either he can see it himself or the previous element manages to convey it to him, or gets it up to the commander of all three and he issues the appropriate order downward. They are all mechanically applying the same doctrine and thinking on the same page, even if out of contact at times or having different amounts of information. The whole idea is get the power of maneuver adaptation without the delays or the confusion that can set in when you try to ask 3 or more bullheaded linemen to solve advanced calculus problems. There is just one "play" - "you hit him head on and stand him up, then I'll hit him low and shove him aside, and Joe can run through the hole". There are some additional principles on defense, the rifle formation forces specially, where they use 2 up 1 back and all around zones and rely on stealth and field fortifications for their protection, while their heavy weapons reach out far enough to cover the ground between each "blob", and their LMGs and rifles reach out far enough to protect each blob frontally from enemy infantry. That plus deeper artillery fires provides a "soft defense" that is expected to strip enemy infantry from any tanks, or to stop infantry only attacks on its own. Or, at least, to make it expensive to trade through each blob in layer after layer, in the same "laying his ship alongside of the enemy", exchange-attrition sense. Then a heavier AT "network" has to cover the same frontage but starting a bit farther back, overlapped with the second and later infantry "blobs". The heavy AT network is based on cross fire by 45mm and 76mm ATGs, plus obstacles (watrer, ditches, mines, etc) to channel enemy tanks to the locations where those are dense. Any available armor stays off the line in reserve and slides in front of enemy penetration attempts, hitting strength not weakness in this case, just seeking to seal off penetrations and neutralize any "differential" in odds or armor concentration along the frontage. On defense, the mech arm operates on its own principles only at tank corps and higher scale, and does so by counterpunching with its offensive tactics, already described above. That's it, in a nutshell. I hope this helps.
  23. 1 point

    Unofficial Screenshots & Videos Thread

    Finally finished off all my matches in Normandy, and got to doing a PBEM with my go-to opponent in Black Sea. He loves to play as the Ukrainians, and so the stage was set. Caught the game-winning attack: Black Sea makes it too easy; IR, APS and Rolling Smoke basically meant there was nothing the enemy ATGMs and infantry could do but keep their heads down and hope to survive the airbursts. T72B3s bypassed the Ukrainian infantry to savage their defenses in-depth as Motor Rifles come up behind and mop up. The battle lasted 17 minutes. Liked Black Sea, now that I got a MP battle under the belt, love Black Sea.
  24. 1 point
    To all Canadian commanders who are not Canadian citizens: to prepare for your role you must... 1. eat as much bacon as you can 2. acquire a small, round piece of hard black rubber, make lots of ice cubes and put them on your lawn, and find a weird looking stick to hit the rubber black thing 3. Beaver is our national animal so go hunting after as much beaver as you can That should do it. Welcome aboard lol
  25. 0 points

    Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade

    Anyone watching the parade right now? I dont necessarily agree with what Russia has been recently doing in particular areas of the world, but this parade is making me feel very proud for the Motherland nonetheless!
  26. -1 points
    John Kettler

    BFC, possible Ger. rocket FO glitch

    Bumping this until an answer arrives. Regards, John Kettler [ September 26, 2002, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]
  27. -1 points
    Thank you one and all! Moon, why was this unusual and confusing approach to weapon rostering adopted? Regards, John Kettler
  28. -1 points
    Thought I'd hallucinated it before, but thanks to someone's having posted the German fire support menu, I've now decided I was right. What, praytell, is a 158mm and 214mm rocket? Neither of those fits any reference with which I'm familiar. If they're typos, please fix them in the pending patch. Regards, John Kettler
  29. -1 points

    Armata soon to be in service.

    Sorry if this was already posted but I did not have time to look through all 60 pages. Apparently during that "Dog and Pony" show a T-14 crapped out and needed to be towed away. https://www.facebook.com/434446579940833/videos/938957019489784/
  30. -1 points
    John Kettler

    Armata soon to be in service.

    Since there appears to be some sort of emerging consensus about Afghanit and how it works at the munition level, what's your take on my notion of how the radar modules are positioned for coverage, are screened by removable armored covers on their exposed sides and how these radar modules work and talk to the projectile in terms of guidance commands? I concur that the faceting, lack of rectilinear openings and such on the turret front and portion just aft of the turret centerline, when viewed from the side, support the notion of the use of Stealth tech. At first glance. I've seen the real deal F-117 Stealth Fighter from 15 feet and have worked on such a program myself. I can assure one and all that those sorts of gaps, exposed fasteners and all manner of surface discontinuities would be wholly unacceptable. Aeronatical issues aside, too. Indeed, special RAM tape is used to cover gaps which might otherwise be detectable. That's been written about and, I believe, shown in open sources. I don't know for sure, but if this is a Stealth overlay, it's likely designed to operate vs conventional BSR, not MMW. Why? Because the MMW has enough resolution (I've seen what a 94 GHz MMW seeker sees when it looks at a tank from various aspects via WASP program) to see glint points and will get a return/s from the primary turret structure behind the much gapped overlay. It's possible the Russians plan to tape over the joints and the fastener assemblies, I suppose, but as currently configured, I believe it's far more show than go. (goes to CMRT Forum and realizes he missed a point) Forgot to mention that I see we're now back to a red star, as opposed to this one, which isn't all red. Regards, John Kettler
  • Create New...