Jammersix Posted August 26, 2015 Author Share Posted August 26, 2015 Sublime, I can barely read your posts, but I'll send you a pm with my email address, and if you want to try to set up a PBEM game, we can fail at that. It won't work, but maybe it will enlist you in my cause about getting it fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Id be interested in bradley experiences in MOUT in CM:BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 good at the end of the street. just keep em at least 100 meters off and theyre good in mout. but mostly at edges of cities and corners of blocks and as a tool to deny street crossing. an unfortunate reality of gaming in cming in mout is targetting an opponemt several buildings down diagonally is impossible at least area fire (critical in mout) and often to order though your pTruppen often will fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Id be interested in bradley experiences in MOUT in CM:BS http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gott_tanks.pdf I'm on a borrowed wifi so my apologies if it's actually nothing but graphic pornography of offensive nature. However that link SHOULD get you to "Breaking the Mold" which is a handy little historical look at the employment of armor in urban settings from World War Two through realistically Grozny (Fallujah is included, however the book was published only a short time after that fight ended so it's pretty short on details). It's short, and gives a few great examples of doing it "right" and a few equally quality examples of doing it wrong. Which is the long way to say the experience with the Bradley in an urban fight is about the same as any of the other IFVs. It's more likely to find enemies, and a bit more robust against short range AT. But in a practical sense regardless of BMP-2 or Bradley the machine in the close urban fight matters less than the tactics. Bradley is just a bit more likely to accomplish mission if you use the tactics poorly or you get unlucky (and then lucky again!) Also just read the damned book. It's enlightening. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 nope turned out to be just a mold abatement document. Oh wait no it really is a pdf for Breaking the Mold. Will peruse tonight, thanks a bunch!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotte Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gott_tanks.pdf Cant access that pdf. Is it avaialble only for state side users? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 I'm guessing that's the case, it's off of a for reals US Army website. If you've got three dollars USD to burn you can get it in kindle edition off of Amazon. Either way look for "Breaking the Mold: Tanks in the Cities" by Kendall D. Gott, maybe you'll have luck finding a place you can download from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Thanks! linked worked here (NL). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gott_tanks.pdf "Breaking the Mold" which is a handy little historical look at the employment of armor in urban settings from World War Two through realistically Grozny (Fallujah is included, however the book was published only a short time after that fight ended so it's pretty short on details). It's short, and gives a few great examples of doing it "right" and a few equally quality examples of doing it wrong. Thanks for this, it is an interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) panzersaurkrautwerfer, "Breaking the Mold" sounds very much like something I'd be interested in. Thanks for the tip! Guys, Getting back to the Bradley issue directly, does anyone have any sense at all for the armor protection levels vs KE and CE, as well as the same numbers for the latest model BMP-2 and BMP-3 in CMBS? Back in my military analyst days, there was some consternation in the military intel community when in the early-mid 80s BMP-2s started sporting applique armor on their turret fronts. Long were the faces when the implications of that were assessed--designed to defeat 25 mm Bushmaster fire. This was years before ODS and the rollout of US DU weaponry. Offhand, I don't recall whether anything was done to upgrade glacis armor, but I believe the combination of extreme obliquity and those differentially stressing to the projectile transverse ridges were already problematic for penetration as it was. Not to mention being still able to swim. A related question is this: Are the 2A42 and ballistically identical 2A70 competitive with the 25 mm Bushmaster in 1) armor penetration and 2) for a given range, frontal engagement, to hurt the Bradley to the same extent the Bradley can the late model BMP-2 (is that the one whose designator I don't know and is equipped with the quad ATGM?) and the BMP-3M? From what I've seen of the Bradley in action, vs AI and vs human, it is quite the killing machine, but since it's the size of a house, quite tall and makes stupendous amounts of noise and puts out great gouts of exhaust, it ought to be much easier to find, aim at and hit, than the much smaller and lower BMPs, if they're within their own within sensor range, that is. I had the opportunity decades ago to have a little tour of the Ft. Benning motor pool with brother George, then a Platoon SGT in Armored Cavalry. From roughly the same distance, the low profile Abrams made a soft whine on startup, whereas the Bradley's engine was practically deafening. After that, I well understood why my brother and his colleagues were so envious of the FRG recce boys and their very quiet, low profile Luchs 8-wheeler which, like the 8-Rad German ACs of WW II, still had a driver for going either direction at speed! Regards, John Kettler Edited August 30, 2015 by John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotte Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I'm guessing that's the case, it's off of a for reals US Army website. If you've got three dollars USD to burn you can get it in kindle edition off of Amazon. Either way look for "Breaking the Mold: Tanks in the Cities" by Kendall D. Gott, maybe you'll have luck finding a place you can download from. Will do, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) panzersaurkrautwerfer, You are correct. That is indeed a real deal US Army site. US Combined Arms Center, Ft Leavenworth, Kansas, followed by branch, then the official military suffix. Formerly, the sorts of studies you provided came out under the aegis of the CGSC (Command and General Staff School), CSI (Combat Studies Institute). The publication list, for those who've yet to peruse it, is eye watering, wide ranging, and the pubs are all available free as PDFs. Happily, all our WW II favorites are still there, too. From what I can tell USCAC is the new generation version, all-subsuming fundamental redefinition and recasting of the old and venerable CGSC, and the CSI remains. The publishing side is now called the CSI Press. Regards, John Kettler Edited August 30, 2015 by John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Had a couple interesting experiences with the fell beast last night. On two seperate occasions they got the jump on a T-72B3 (APS) of mine, from the front at ~3-500m. Not too surprising with the optics, but what surprised me most happened next. Both Bradleys hammered their respective T-72s with 25mm fire to the front hull. While causing no penetrations or damage to subsystems, in BOTH cases the sustained fire of 15-20 seconds was enough to cause the crews to bail out of their perfectly good vehicles and panic. You can imagine how good of an idea that was for them. I don't remember the exact details or have the save handy, but these crews weren't bottom of the barrel guys. By comparison, their platoon leaders tank took a full sustained minute of 25mm from all directions at close range (his gun was out, we were drunk, and the battle was pretty decided at this point so we tried it out). Plenty of penetrations, stripped the subsytems, but they stayed in their vehicle. Does anyone know why my two crews acted how they did? I mean I understand the whole "men under fire do odd things" but for the life of me I couldn't imagine your average Russian soldier would want to bail out of a seemingly perfectly good tank under autocannon fire to his thickest armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 How do you know they were perfectly good. A 25mm can strip all optics, etc. off a tank and immobilize it. That can be enough to force a bail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Because it was my tank, I was watching it happen with the subsytems tab open. I can assure you when they bailed it was a fully functional vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 What was motivation and leadership ratings (e.g. +1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) At least one of the crews was +1, motivation was somewhere in the middle because I remember tweaking it from something low. I apologize for not having better details because I tend to not go too far into these for quick battles (this was a spontaneous real time one with a friend). We both saw it happen though and it was unexpected for him and annoying for me. Even with low motivation levels I cannot fathom a tank crew bailing out of a vehicle they presumably know is fully functional. Retreating in it, yes, but they bailed out under fire. Edited August 31, 2015 by Codename Duchess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 At least one of the crews was +1, motivation was somewhere in the middle because I remember tweaking it from something low. I apologize for not having better details because I tend to not go too far into these for quick battles (this was a spontaneous real time one with a friend). We both saw it happen though and it was unexpected for him and annoying for me. Even with low motivation levels I cannot fathom a tank crew bailing out of a vehicle they presumably know is fully functional. Retreating in it, yes, but they bailed out under fire. You would be surprised. There are numerous WW2 era accounts of tank crews bailing out of perfectly functional tanks after hits by weaponry that was incapable of destroying it. The thing to keep in mind is that all a tank crew knows is that something exploded or impacted their vehicle. The crew isn't going to know exactly what type of weapon just fired at them necessarily and if the crew fears a fiery death then yeah - they might jump out rather than retreat. Sometimes a crew doesn't even know if the vehicle has been penetrated or not and there are even cases where a tank commander will tell the gunner to fire at a target only to find out that the gunner is splattered all over the inside of the turret. The situational awareness that you have while playing the game is orders of magnitude greater than a crew has while engaged in actual combat. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Pre-laser era, a lot of tanks got .50's bolted to their main guns to act as spotting rounds. Fire the .50: if it hits the target, so will the main gun. No need to worry about all that fancy crap, just shoot. I could see a .50 impact causing a tank in the open to bail. (Well, it would be understandable.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Pre-laser era, a lot of tanks got .50's bolted to their main guns to act as spotting rounds. Isn't that a major function of the coaxial MG fitted to almost all tanks? So any incoming MG fire might be the precursor to an AP slug incoming... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 id just like to say that i can see it being construed as bragging but all my references to skill at killing US equipment is to try to showbthe large contingent that seems to think russian equipments nerfed and that its being used wrong. not to say maybe this or thay weapons system needs tweaking however by and large russ weapons systems are fine the players either suck or are using them wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) womble, No, it isn't. The purpose of the coax is primarily to defeat personnel. The coax, typically of the 7.62-7.92 mm bore, isn't comparable to, for example, the .50 cal M8C spotting gun, which was ballistically matched with the US 106 mm M40 RR. Coax MG bullet trajectories in no way even remotely approximate the trajectories of the hyper velocity 120 and 125 mm tank cannon. To add to the confusion, I have now learned the .50 cal spotting round was NOT the same as the standard .50, but had a shortened cartridge in order to duplicate the exterior ballistics of the RR. The M8C was a semiautomatic weapon. Regards, John Kettler Edited September 1, 2015 by John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Plus this is the age of laser rangefinders, fire control computers, and 4000+ yard ranges. Coax spotting is both unnecessary and uncharacteristic of main guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Plus this is the age of laser rangefinders, fire control computers, and 4000+ yard ranges. Coax spotting is both unnecessary and uncharacteristic of main guns. Exactly. The tracer on a 7.62 burns out around 900 meters. For the M829 type round, it's pretty much flat trajectory until 1200 meters, and I think the HEAT is around 800ish. It just doesn't make much sense to open up with the coax when you've got a very high p/k with the main gun at sub-1000 KM ranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted September 7, 2015 Author Share Posted September 7, 2015 I am HIGHLY amused that everyone wants rules governing the use of APS, as well as when and where artillery can be used. Since everyone is afraid to face Bradleys with APS, my point stands. Sublime, I can hardly wait. In spite of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts