mikeCK

Ok, so basically the Hellfire is heavier, it's range far exceeds a ground units ability to use direct fire, it's expensive and the laser designator can be detected. Makes sense. Thanks

i recently saw this video about a (I assume) prototype recon vehicle by Lockheed Martin https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V8OArUzxtdM What I find interesting is the use of the "Hellfire" ATGM instead of the "TOW-2b". Last I checked, the hellfire was laser guided. Since most armored vehicles use laser range finders, I'm assuming they have the power to run a laser designator. Would the Hellfire be a better choice for vehicles like the Bradley or upgraded Stryker? Does anyone know why the Hellfire has been limited to Air launch and -now- sea launched?

I agree. I'm fine with javelins and .50 cal. Would still like 1 30mm cannon per company. Good for laying down fire in buildings and such

well isn't the job of the APC to get the troops there and provide support? The Stryker brigades are supposed to be highly mobile which prevents tank support. That means any support must be organic. If you have no ability to engage enemy armor, then that severely limits situations in which this brigade can be used no?

Mk19 is capable, but it's range is lacking and I'm not sure a .50cal is going to penetrate a BMP-3 at 800 meters anywhere but the top or rear

Too close for a TOW shot. Missile would not have armed

Well in essence you are saying that if you don't have to fight in a town or woods, infantry are useless. Yes. But try bringing armor into the woods or a town without infantry and that armored vehicle will be useless. Both have a role

I always thought the general rule was that any system should be capable of defeating it's enemy equivalent. To me it's absurd than an armored vehicle would be incapable of taking out and Enemy Light armored vehicle. But I'm not an expert

They are planning on upgrading the suspension system to handle the 30mm cannon. It's about as heavy as the 105mm gun system which is transportable. It is added weight but well within the specs with the new suspension my question is, who thought it was sufficient to arm them with only .50 and 40mm grenades originally

Well, just to be clear....I am ridiculing the **** out of this media source. That doesnt mean I'm ridiculing Russians anymore than making fun of the Weekly World News is ridiculing Americans Don't write articles that are absurd and you (media) won't get ridiculed

No, that's only in flight. Once on the ground, it's robot brain takes over and the crew need not be in the tank at all

See, I was under the impression that the Armata could fly...of course, then it wouldnt need transport. Since it requires no spare parts, never breaks down and acquires power by stealing it from other tanks via a laser, the whole manned fleet can be anywhere in a few hours.

I could not get a split AT section i to a Cav BRADLEY to acquire ammo. I don't have a save and it was a while ago so it's just anecdotal

I don't think the AI is choosing weapons based on the presence or absence of APS. I could be wrong but I imagine there is some decision-making cycle that results in the AI choosing a weapon and sometimes, it comes out "wrong" All told, I think the AI does great in choosing. I would just like to be able to order my M1 to use its 120mm against a building instead of a machinegun or order my BRADLEY to put a Tow into a building across the Map. No biggie either way

Well it may not be a platoon commander decision but in real life as a platoon commander I wouldn't have to tell a BRADLEY crew to use a TOW against a tank...they would just do it. But since they don't seem to want to in game, I want the command. And regardless of the design of the tow, if you are receiving Fire from a building of structure which combatants can hide behind from 25mm. A tow explosion will mess them up. Put one through a window of a building and everyone inside that floor is incapacitated. Not saying it's ideal but I would want that capability

As discussed in other threads, we need a command "fire heavy" to go with "fire light" that command will tell the unit to bring its most powerful weapon to bear. For example, I would love my BRADLEY to put a TOW2 through a building sometimes. Can't make it do that

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/the-30-millimeter-solution-army-upgunning-strykers-vs-russia/ Apparently the 105mm MSG was a dud and -shockingly- a .50 cal machinegun just doesn't cut it vs modern light armor. The army wants to replace the Msg and some .50 cal Strykers with a 30mm auto cannon

I don't think a north Korean unit gets close to Seoul. The problem is how much destruction the north can inflict on seoul with artillery, rockets and chemical weapons. Just don't see how you could set up competitive scenarios for CM when it's conscript infantry trained in 1950's tactics (no outside contact or large scale training maneuvers and no officer exchange) using T-62 Tanks vs M1a2 Bradley's, ROK equipment, etc. Maybe a Scenario where the U.S. and Australia intervene in a Chinese v Japanese armed conflict on some island

Massing columns of armor racing down roadways would fit right into what the US does best. Both air dropped cluster weapons, cruise missiles, artillery and MLRS rockets carry warheads with submunitions designed to destroy concentrated armor. That was kind of what I am getting at...a CM campaign would be too one sided as the main "weapon" the north has is fear. Fear that they will shell the crap out of Seoul or use chemicals. Not that they could TAKE Seoul...but that they couldn't fix significant damage. I believe it's already in artillery range from the border

It's just so hard to figure out true NK capabilities. Yeah, they have tons of artillery, but do they have new ammo or are they relying on ammo made in 1955? Lots of tanks but do they have fuel for them? Are any of the optics maintained? What level of training do they receive? We can guess what a fully maintained and modernized t-72 can and cannot do...but what about a T-72 that hasn't been maintained for 10 years it has been made into a "frankentank" by replacing Soviet parts with Chinese parts Dunno. I don't think numbers matter at this point. Between ROK forces and US forces on the ground and air along with a few carriers and Tomahawk equipped subs off the coast, the NK forces would be gutted quickly. I don't think the South is concerned about losing so much as they are concerned about losing Seoul...which would be a possibility; especially with chemical weapons...how does that get factored into CM scenarios

Based on this thread alone, there are no capabilities that could be assigned to US or Russian equipment where everyone will say "Yep, that's perfect". So in that case, why do so many get upset because BF can't "get it right"?....what is "right". Seems to me things are fine. Generally, US spot Russians first because of better optics. There are many other factors that can cause the opposite to occur

Meh, no sweat. If I wanted to be liked I would have been a firefighter

edit: duplicate

With modern anti tank weapons available to the infantry, attack helicopters and guided munitions, there are far too many variables to apply any lessons from WW2 tank v tank losses anyway

I believe the original poster was asking if a police officer on a pension could stop a T-90 tank if he were a member of a California public Union.