Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bud Backer

No American AAA?

Recommended Posts

Browsing the CMBS manual (don't have the game yet) I see that UAVs are largely Immune to SAMs. But the U.S. has nothing like the Tunguska. So how do they shoot down the Russian micro-UAVs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America lacks AAA in the game because it lacks AAA. Theoretically Bradley has some high angle AA capability but an ex-Bradley guy on the board commented that they never practice with that 'bulls eye' sight mounted to the roof, it may not even be referenced in the vehicle manual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micro-UAVs could potentially be shot down even by small arms, although the probability per gun would probably be very low.  These are basically RC planes with operating heights of only a few hundred feet.  However, having everything on the map open up on micro-UAVs would pose some problems.

 

We are missing AN/TWQ-1 Avenger in game, but hopefully will see it in a patch or module.  It's high-RoF .50 cal would be great for swatting micro-UAVs.

 

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micro-UAVs could potentially be shot down even by small arms, although the probability per gun would probably be very low.  These are basically RC planes with operating heights of only a few hundred feet.  However, having everything on the map open up on micro-UAVs would pose some problems.

 

We are missing AN/TWQ-1 Avenger in game, but hopefully will see it in a patch or module.  It's high-RoF .50 cal would be great for swatting micro-UAVs.

 

Yeah, that is exactly what I thought was strange not to have. Are they not actually in active service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America lacks AAA in the game because it lacks AAA. Theoretically Bradley has some high angle AA capability but an ex-Bradley guy on the board commented that they never practice with that 'bulls eye' sight mounted to the roof, it may not even be referenced in the vehicle manual.

 

So company-sized US forces IRL do not deploy with any vehicle-mounted AAA or SAM?  Is it all handled at battalion level?  The lack of it in CMBS makes scenarios with decisive Russian air superiority ("Objective Delta") virtually unplayable for me as the US because I cannot for the life of me imagine how my task force can be expected to fend off Frogfoots and assault helos with no CAP and one Stinger MANPAD team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, air defense units are not organic to the brigades in game.  I believe they are in separate air defense brigades and would be handled by attachments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that is exactly what I thought was strange not to have. Are they not actually in active service?

 

Apparently Linebacker was taken out of service in 2006. US AAA certainly seems to be weak and they may suffer for this cut in the event of war with someone with a decent airforce such as Russia - at least until the USAF wins the air war. Which mght be some time into the conflict. In the meantime US ground troops have a problem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2/M3_Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle#M6_Linebacker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linebacker and Avenger are different systems.  AFAIK, Avenger is still in service, although some AD units are transitioning to the C-RAM system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ther was a thread about this topic still active a few days ago

 

In a few words, the argument made by people that know about this stuff is that the US doesn't have this systems because it counts on the air force to do the job

 

So, basically the game assumes a situation that wouldn't be possible (or likely) in real life, except for a few very lucky Russian planes in the whole theater that would probably be shot down returning home anyway, but because this is a game it takes some liberties 

 

I won´t start an argument about this, since I don't claim any special knowledge about it,  but in the interest of not starting another never ending thread on this I would suggest you check that other thread, specially the arguments put forward by US officers and see their reasoning for how things are the way they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ther was a thread about this topic still active a few days ago

 

In a few words, the argument made by people that know about this stuff is that the US doesn't have this systems because it counts on the air force to do the job

 

So, basically the game assumes a situation that wouldn't be possible (or likely) in real life, except for a few very lucky Russian planes in the whole theater that would probably be shot down returning home anyway, but because this is a game it takes some liberties 

 

I won´t start an argument about this, since I don't claim any special knowledge about it,  but in the interest of not starting another never ending thread on this I would suggest you check that other thread, specially the arguments put forward by US officers and see their reasoning for how things are the way they are

 

Thanks for the reply - yes, that actually makes quite a bit of sense as to what their reasoning is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, basically the game assumes a situation that wouldn't be possible (or likely) in real life,

 

Either that or the Pentagon is making assumptions. Its been so long since we've faced anyone with airpower that was even a potential threat to ground forces that we may have grown complacent. When were we last under genuine threat from enemy airpower, the north Africa campaign? the initial north Korean invasion of the south?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for how the US Army organizes it's Air Defense units but I can speak to how the USMC does.

Each MEF has a Low Altitude Air Defense (LAAD) Battalion in the Marine Air Control Group (MACG) of the Marine Air Wing (MAW). Each LAAD Battalion possesses a Headquarters and Service Battery and 2 Firing Batteries. The Firing Batteries each possess a Battery Headquarters and 3 Firing Platoons. The Firing Platoons each have a Platoon Headquarters and 3 Firing Sections. Each Firing Section has a Section Headquarters Element and 5 two man Firing Teams.

A LAAD Battalion can field 90 Stinger Teams. A firing battery, 45 Teams, a Platoon 15 Teams and a Section 5 Teams. A LAAD Bn has 60 Avenger vehicles, which is 30 per firing battery, 10 per platoon, 5 per section. The usual employment of a firing battery is 30 Avenger and 15 man portable Stinger teams but the mix of systems can be changed according to the mission, for example to support a helicopterborne assault, only Stinger teams would be employed. To support a mechanized unit, all of the Avengers would  be employed.

 

By doctrine, a LAAD Platoon will normally be deployed to support a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), a battery will usually support a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB), and a full LAAD battalion will support a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). The majority of the LAAD elements will be in direct support of ground combat elements in a scenario like Black Sea, although some will be allocated to covering logistical units, HQs, FARPs, etc...

Currently MEUs routinely deploy with only a LAAD Section vice a platoon due to the lack of a significant air threat and a Marine IAD network is usually only established at the MEB level and up.

LAAD Units are usually employed in either general support (GS) of the MAGTF, or in direct support (DS) of a particular unit. Employed in the general support role, LAAD units position Stinger Teams to best support the entire MAGTF based on the MAGTF Commander's established air defense priorities. In the direct support (DS) they position Stinger teams to best support the unit they are in DS of, based on the guidance of the supported commander.

So hopefully for the USMC module, Avenger vehicles will be running around on CM:BS maps.

Edited by Imperial Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the ability of small UAVs to be deployed very close to the front lines, and the fact that a UAV and a mortar team can pretty much ruin your day, it seems like a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

Yeah, winning the fires fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, oh, why is the Army using .50cal for air defense? I love Ma deuce as much as the next guy. But I would feel much better with at least 20mm from a Gatling type weapon shooting at fast movers. Bring back the M163 VADS! Put the C-RAM on a Bradley chassis and call it good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avenger should be in for both US Army and USMC formations.  

 

The .50 should be a good tool for swatting UAVs too.

 

 

 

Either that or the Pentagon is making assumptions. Its been so long since we've faced anyone with airpower that was even a potential threat to ground forces that we may have grown complacent. When were we last undergenuine threat from enemy airpower, the north Africa campaign? the initial north Korean invasion of the south?

 

It's really North Africa.  The DPRK managed a few leakers, but nothing really consistent.

 

On the other hand, to this day we're still lacking even near-peer air threats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Is the .50 on the Abrams any good for this?

 

Hmm.  I'd never really thought of using the CROWS.  CROWS is indeed designed to be able to engage helicopters.  Acquiring the drone might be tricky though, and it's a really small target.  The .50 cal on the Avenger is actually a faster firing weapon too so you'll get better saturation of the target area too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avenger should be in for both US Army and USMC formations.  

 

The .50 should be a good tool for swatting UAVs too.

 

 

It's really North Africa.  The DPRK managed a few leakers, but nothing really consistent.

 

On the other hand, to this day we're still lacking even near-peer air threats. 

 

Assuming it is actually still in service and has no been cu to make financial savings. Anyway, if not in service i may not be that simple to bring it back quickly if needed. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/44-44/Ch1.htm

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...