Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by shift8

  1. 5 minutes ago, Saint_Fuller said:

    Clearly, what's needed is something like a triple hull carrier that's at least 360,000 tons.

    And it'll have an arsenal of railguns and lasers to shoot at everything in the way.

    And tracks, so it can drive up onto a beach for amphibious assault.

    And it'll carry the Marines. Not Marines, as in an MEU or some such.

    it'll carry the entire Marine Corps.


    Yes that will solve the problem of having to buy so many APCs. With a single Land Battle ship, no, Battle Station, we will be able to finally conquer the Galaxy, I mean Russians. 


  2. 5 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

    You obviously did not read my post properly. What I said was that Stryker (and for that matter other APCs) are more vulnerable in a high intensity armoured warfare environment. We aare NOT talking about a COIN environment in this case we are talking about a Great Power conflict or a conventional war against a well equipped second  rate power like Iran or Syria. This kind of conflict still happens you know.Strykers could benefit from having some AT capability if only for self defense even if their primary function is moving troops. This is the benefit of usng IFVs which both move troops and can fight tanks if they have to

    Oh yes I forgot. And it was also a design flaw that the M3 Half Track couldn't take on the Panther. A disaster one might say. Us poor fools for thinking a 21st century APC didn't also need to be a tank. 

    Another system with this problem is the 688 class submarines. They cannot carry enough airplanes to fight aircraft carriers! What will we do! Also the aircraft carriers cant dive deep enough! 

    EVEN WORSE: Neither of them can fly!

  3. 1 hour ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

    The issue is NOT survivability. The issue is giving Strykers something to fight tanks with. A pop gun grenade launcher or a machineggun will barely scratch the paintwork of a T90 - and that is if the T90 is in range of these weapons. A TOW on the other hand could do that T90 some serious harm. However, as you say  some compromises may have to be made such as reducing the strength of a squad.

    On the other hand maybe the whole concept of the Stryker is flawed and tey should have gone for the Bradley. There is however the debate around the FFV


    We buy APC's and make them are they are because we need a cheap better-than-a-truck method of moving around infantry. Key abilities are capacity and being cheap. It need to be cheap because you dont want your hauler being 9 gazillion dollars. If I wanted a hauler that cost as much as a bradley: I would just build a Bradley. 

    You keep making the assumption that the budget exists to make some kind of super stryker. Except that the specific reason we dont just make a ALL-IFV force is because this is too expensive for the number of mangs you need to haul. IF that kind of money existed, we would just make more Abrams and Bradleys.  

  4. 2 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

    My point for the umpteenth time is at "the next war" may well be a high intensity armoured conflict of the type we see in CMBS. 

    If that turns out to bbe the case I suggest you rad up on what happened at Kasserine where he US army went into battle with unsuitable equipmetnt and, at least in the early phases got their asses handed to them

    The risk of something similar happening in a future war against Russia applies today Even Trump thinks there are problems. t may well be that Mattis and McMaster have raised issues with Tump. Even though the military may well be training hard does not preclude deficiencies in certain areas that do need to be dealt with.



    Since when Lucas do we not use APC's in conventional wars vs near-peer threats? What do you think the M3 Halftrack, M113, and BTR are? The Stryker is not a "asymmetrical" weapons system. It is a battle taxi.

    The only reason anyone has ever referred to the Strkyer in the fashion you seem to think it was "meant for" is due to the fact that a unit equipped with lighter vehicles is easy to move and deploy quickly. For various reasons, it is SOMETIMES beneficial to deploy a light unit when other units cannot be there. The vehicle is meant for major wars. It just so happens that APC's are really good a people moving, which incidentally is what you end up doing alot of when you are fighting and insurgency in Afghanistan or Iraq. 

    No one has ever suggested that the Stryker is some kind of tank replacement. What was suggested is that Strkyer BCT's are sometimes ideal to deploy when you cannot get anything else there fast enough, and getting something there is beneficial. GUESS WHAT: we would do the same thing with M113 Battalions or any other mech units form any other era. 


    The Stryker is just a APC. Just like anything else. It is not a new type of vehicle. It is not a small war specific machine. It is literally just a 113 replacement. 

  5. What I find it hard to fathom is that no  one has mentioned how **** the abrams is. I mean, if the stryker is too light, surely the abrams is. The T-90 will kill us all. 


    I propose this as an upgrade to the abrams. Then we will have a decent tank for once. Plus all you need for this is a bike pump and privates to pump it. 


  6. 39 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

    OMG Shift* enough with those pics, you cracking me up too hard.

    Entered IOC 5 hours ago. Turns out all the F-16 needed to be decent was a SAM strapped to it. Come to think of it, that is what the stryker needs. Its far too vulnerable to ground attack. A stryker with a Patriot on top would be ideal. 

  7. 8 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

    This. It's interesting we haven't had any threads about BTR-82s making the same complaints.

    The lack of contextual thinking is shocking. Yes, in a tactical simulator I would love to have all Abrams, all the time, but that's not how a high-intensity battle zone behaves. Someone's gotta do the economy of force, pull security, recon or conduct operations in complex terrain so that the armor can be husbanded for the decisive effort. You don't fritter away MBTs and IFVs on such tasks if you can avoid it.

    The same situation that finds a BTR regiment of a MRD following up an attack or providing flank security is as applicable to an SBCT. Except, of course, the SBCT gives you more infantry, more UAS, more survivability and more Anti-Tank capability. It's like a BTR unit...but better in almost every way :^)

    The problem with the BTR though is that they sacrificed armor and firepower to increase troop capacity and make it cheap. The BTR is no match for the Abrams or the Iowa class Battleship. The BTR needs K5 ERA and a 125mm main gun. Then it will be good. 

  8. This thread reminds me of another woefully bad vehicle, the ww2 era Studebaker truck. 


    Like the stryker, the army claimed the studebaker would enhance mobility of infantry and this would enhance the combat ability of the infantry. But in actual combat the studebaker was no match for the Panther and Panzer 4 tanks!

    What was really needed was a studebaker on tracks with 64mm of armor at 47 degrees and a 75mm AT gun. Then it would have been a vehicle that they army could have been proud of. 

    History repeats itself. 

  9. 5 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

    WARNING NEXT IS MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION - not trying to make anyone uncomfortable or offended: From what I see, casualties are saying otherwise - pro russian side lost nearly 6x times more of people than Ukrainian Army. So I mean - they getting their asses kicked pretty hard - Ukrainian side just waits untill US and other countries will finish lowering russian economy so that they will not be able to maintain their army (nobody wants to give russia chance to use its mass destruction weapons - long and exhausting war is way better, I  mean it worked with Soviet Union lol) and from that point it will be a metter of 2-3 monthes till total anihilation of pro-russian forces on the ground. At certain point control over Crimea will be given back to Ukraine without even a single shot. But again getnlemen thats not my point here. I dont want to get political, if you would like to chat about this, share ideas, fears or hopes please feel free to msg me directly. Im always open to new friends, especially from a community where people value strategy and tactics. My main point is that I think it would be so cool to see some new units in the game. And to be honest, I've already recived somewhat promising feed back from developing team. Its unclear what they will do next, but they will do something. That makes me excited. 


    I also heard that Somalia is soon to be a world power. 

  10. 22 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:

    Negative Shiftsworth, I encouraged miller to give us a story to establish his credibility after noting that for the last half year he's tirelessly repeated the same red flagged university of wikipedia garbage every time the issue comes up.  Maybe in your world he's an expert but not mine.  That is independent from my own personal opinion on what should happen re; arty and tanks.

    Negative Shiftsworth? Wut lol?

     You posted a loaded question back at Miller that implied in typical "holier than thou" fashion that anyone with opinion contrary to a certain reading of documents is a fool.

    Your reply here only confirms without doubt that you were disagreeing with him. You can't have your cake and eat it too. 

  11. 12 hours ago, HerrTom said:

    Page 13 of the Swedish-sourced study says " At 90 foot standoff distance, 100% protection cannot be obtained against... fragments from the 155-mm, HE, M107 projectile using thicknesses of rolled homogenous steel armor of both specification and modified hardness up to and including 1/2 inch."


    Here's (the only such, oddly enough) image of the BMP-1's armor thickness (Plus a Marder for fun and profit!)


    The data in that study would mean that the rear and top armor are not thick enough to protect it from airbursts and groundbursts within 90 feet, or about 30 meters.  Now, not every shell would kill or even penetrate the vehicle - but there's a chance.

    At any rate, I'm more inclined to believe the data presented in the real-world tests in the Soviet Artillery Effectiveness study compared to the almost 30-year prior study.  Both provide data, but a different type. :)

    Right but this doesn't mean much. If you read the hard data later in the document, the number of perforations per shell per square foot are measured in the .01 and similar. The chances of a penetration is so low as to be more or less assured for practical purposes. 

  12. 5 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

    But since you've included me, maybe re-consider your own reading of the second story there ace, just to round out your perspective on the issue, before we continue and maybe consider providing whatever counter-point or rebuttal to the original findings that Sill's chosen to publish since then in your response.  If you can find one, I mean I assume there's one there right?

    Now your argument, as compelling as it was, was actually no more than you stating that the opposite is true because you say so.  You sound like you have solid military experience, but really I don't care, because you don't sound like a FISTER, which would mean you're out of your lane, and which makes it exponentially more bizarre that you're so confident in your analysis and not actively including any caveats in your stated evaluation of the potential for effects-- because not too many folks besides FISTERs are dealing with the answers to these sorts of issues throughout their entire careers, not even Artillery Officers, isn't that funny, they have to go back to the battery, we don't, we're stuck watching the doom end forever!  And you know part of speaking truth to power is not making $h!t up.  But none of that is relevant, what it relevant is that the Army accepts and standardizes your targeting philosophy ASAP, I've seen a lot of variability of SOPs from Battalion to Battalion in my day, and if we just do it your way that'll stop today.

    Now I've always tended to look at at the fight multi-laterally, meaning I like to leverage the effects of a variety of platforms with redundant and overlapping capabilities, in order to empower, not restrict the commander--- but your way is good too man!!

    As an aside-- remarkably insightful explanation about what tanks and armored vehicles are specifically designed for, you're clearly very bright.  "Relative immunity to non-direct hits from HE," sounds very scientific!  I've never much understood myself what we put the armor there for.  I thought maybe it was for camouflage but woah really heavy camouflage man!

    Ah here we go with the pseudo appeals to authority in the absence of an actual arguement. 

    I've read the pdf you posted years ago. It says nothing remarkable, or out of line with my opinion. But that does not stop people from reading into it what they want.

    Additionally, said document was at least in part notable because of a perceived difference in its opinion from previous army standard opinion. Hence, clearly army opinion is not set in stone and subject to criticism. 

    You accuse me of making a nonsensical argument, but you typed several paragraphs of arrogant drivel that essentially just spouted "shut up I'm artillery " without actually much else. What else you did say, I am not even certain what you meant. Some nonsense about multi layered perspectives to war. What?

    I have no issue with the contents of the data. I take issue with the incorrect interpretation which is being used, as has been argued before, that arty in this game should be some kind of AOE anti tank doom barrage. 

  13. 13 hours ago, shift8 said:


    The exception would be exceptionally large explosions, but at that point your entering the realm of something powerful enough to actually kill the vehicle outright. Like a near miss from a 1000lb bomb or battleship gun. 

    Let's not play dumb please. You made your opinion rather clear when you chastised Miller for having and opinion contrary to what you perceive as correct. 

  14. On 4/5/2017 at 6:48 PM, TheForwardObserver said:

    @IICptMillerII  Can you provide at least one real experience you've had with field artillery or tanks or explosions for that matter which informs your opinions on what is and isn't realistic when it comes to artillery, tanks, and explosions?  If you're in a position where you're free to confidently discount findings that were at minimum considered relevant in 2002 and published in the USAFTC professional journal for Redlegs I would love to hear about the road you took to get there.

    Well the problem here isnt the reports, it is the generally inaccurate reading you guys are getting out of it. 

    If you actually read the first report, the one on shrapnel, you will find that even 155 HE produced almost no penetrations of even relatively thin steel. That report is nothing but damning to this ridiculous notion that HE is especially effective against armor, in particular tanks. 

    The only type of hit that "kills" a tank outright from artillery is a direct hit. Artillery fire can track tanks or otherwise cause external damage, but you need very large quantities of explosives to actually kill one. 

    Tanks and other armored vehicles are designed specifically to be relatively immune to non-direct hits from HE. They would otherwise be completely pointless. Even direct he require large calibers in most cases. 

  15. The bottom line here is that the both sides received gear they do not have, or do not have in large numbers. But the most far fetched of these upgrades went to the Russians. Period. 

    There is nothing to complain about here. BFC has already stretched the Russian equipment to the limits of what can be justified and still be somewhat representative of realistic of force structures. The US was FAR LESS stretched. The Russians also got big advantages in how cheap their units are to offset their general inferiority. In reality Russian ground forces would be out gunned, and out numbered once US and NATO forces moved en mass. How much fantasy do you want? 


    And arguing off the basis of "fictional units" is pure folly. If you really want to push the ball here, and insist on getting T-14s, the USA should star destroyers and mecha suits. We must be somewhat proportional after all, and it would seem like that nation with 5 times the GDP, two times the population, and 8 times the military budget should at least get a little more. 

    And if you don't like that, fight the Ukraine. Balance issue solved. 

  16. 57 minutes ago, Sorrow_Knight said:

    And question right for you- what Russian gear is so "fantasy", or at least MORE "fantasy, than LWR, APS and ERA on US vehicles (wich is changing performance vs russians)?

    Well lets take the vehicle that has been the main issue of this thread, the T-90AM. It is not in service at all. It uses Relikt ERA which is not available on other Russian vehicles. And on top of this gets Sabot ammo in game that is not generally available to other vehicles. The Current M829A3 was quite capable of dealing with kontakt5 armored tanks like the T-72B3. The Russian ammo that was in service at game release, and mainly in use now, is not capable of dealing with the Abrams from the front reliably. The upgrades to the abrams in game keep the Abrams relatively superior. The Russian upgrades in game elevate their equipment from "will be curb stomped" to "has a fighting chance." A totally different margin of scale. 

  • Create New...