Jump to content

Russian Motor Rifle tactics


Recommended Posts

It would also be good if in a new patch tanks would not lase under 1250 meters (it's point and shoot at that range) and that AFVs (especially the US abrams) would not detect and react that fast against a SACLOS (not the laser kornet) missile coming from the rear arc or sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, antaress73 said:

It would also be good if in a new patch tanks would not lase under 1250 meters (it's point and shoot at that range) and that AFVs (especially the US abrams) would not detect and react that fast against a SACLOS (not the laser kornet) missile coming from the rear arc or sides. 

Even though I had not noticed this specific happening, I totally believe it to be true. It does seem that M1's  have almost perfect 360 vision at all times. Granted...the new commanders independent thermal viewer (CITV) does allow him to scan areas the gunner isn't watching. But, even combined...could that really be more than 180 degrees?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cbennett88 said:

Even though I had not noticed this specific happening, I totally believe it to be true. It does seem that M1's  have almost perfect 360 vision at all times. Granted...the new commanders independent thermal viewer (CITV) does allow him to scan areas the gunner isn't watching. But, even combined...could that really be more than 180 degrees?? 

I find the way tanks act like frightened ballerinas and reverse as soon as they are lased  quite irritating. I am not sure what is going on under the bonnet in software terms but a new patch that addresses the issue. perhaps by taking crew quality more into account would be an improvement in my view.  as well.

However, we can choose whether our M1A2s have APS or not via the sceanario editor. Maybe it would be possible to add further orbat information that removes the laser warning systems. Personally however i would prefer to see a less extreme reaction 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

I find the way tanks act like frightened ballerinas and reverse as soon as they are lased  quite irritating.

I find this behavior quite logical. After all that is why you couple smoke with LWR's, so you can shuffle out of the zone danger zone while not being seen.  

6 hours ago, antaress73 said:

It would also be good if in a new patch tanks would not lase under 1250 meters (it's point and shoot at that range) and that AFVs (especially the US abrams) would not detect and react that fast against a SACLOS (not the laser kornet) missile coming from the rear arc or sides. 

I think lazing, duration of laze and minimal range at which the crew uses their LRF should depend on veterancy. Some time ago we exchanged some ideas around this in the armor thread and panzer seemed to support liking lazing to crew training. Reaction times I think should also be a function of veterancy since vehicle "training" represents overall crew training and synergy. A green crew therefore would, in my own service experience, respond much slower to all stimuli including all sorts of mechanical warnings when compared to more trained vehicle operators. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BTR said:

I find this behavior quite logical. After all that is why you couple smoke with LWR's, so you can shuffle out of the zone danger zone while not being seen.  

I think lazing, duration of laze and minimal range at which the crew uses their LRF should depend on veterancy. Some time ago we exchanged some ideas around this in the armor thread and panzer seemed to support liking lazing to crew training. Reaction times I think should also be a function of veterancy since vehicle "training" represents overall crew training and synergy. A green crew therefore would, in my own service experience, respond much slower to all stimuli including all sorts of mechanical warnings when compared to more trained vehicle operators. 

Maybe it is my tactics at fault.However the only way I have found to deal with it is to send ATGM infantry in ahead to locate and eliminate threats while the tanks support them from hull down or concealed positions. Similar tactics to those employed to deal with anti tank guns in the final years of WW2.

Regarding crew quality, are you suggesting that well trained troops (eg veterans) act in a more proportional way to a potential threat. I think that might work better. it could be more proportional if they reversed a short distance to the nearest cover r fired smoke. In the real world is that what you would actually do depending on the immediacy of the perceived threat In this case your professional experience and knowledge would clarify much and hopefully help me to improve from a gaming point of view. Dealing with this particular problem is something I find very frustrating. The solution i use seems t work most of the time but I am wondering whether there are better approaches that a professional like yourself would know. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Regarding crew quality, are you suggesting that well trained troops (eg veterans) act in a more proportional way to a potential threat.

Something like that. Basically

  • Reaction times (time to drive back from laze detection) scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior crew cohesion);
  • Reverse distance scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior crew composure);
  • Laze duration scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior FCS handling);
  • Laze-less engagement range scales upwards with every veterancy level (represents more nuanced FCS handling). 

Current crew reactions to AT threat are rather binary, something I feel wouldn't be the case in real life. Naturally I have no idea how hard these are to code into the AI, so people are welcome to poke holes in this. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, BTR said:

Something like that. Basically

  • Reaction times (time to drive back from laze detection) scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior crew cohesion);
  • Reverse distance scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior crew composure);
  • Laze duration scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior FCS handling);
  • Laze-less engagement range scales upwards with every veterancy level (represents more nuanced FCS handling). 

Current crew reactions to AT threat are rather binary, something I feel wouldn't be the case in real life. Naturally I have no idea how hard these are to code into the AI, so people are welcome to poke holes in this. 

 

Yes. That sounds reasonable to me.

In regard to my tactics would you say advancing the infantry ahead of the tanks with the aim of identifying Armour and anti tank threats and to eliminate these with ATGMs while keeping my own tanks back on overwatch in a similar spirit to the tactics used in late WW2. Add to that of course artillery and air support using precision strike capabilities. Essentially what I am trying to implement is combined arms - a particularly difficult approach to master in the environment of a high tech 21st Century battlefield. I am just wondering what, if anything I could be doing better bearing n mind that, unlike you, I am not a trained professional. I am a military history buff and keen war gamer who wants to learn and to do better and so would welcome the tactical advice of a professional :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My tactical training is all vehicle-centric, as in, how you operate a vehicle and how you integrate it into a formation. You'd need someone platoon level to start speaking proper command tactics. "Classic" attack formation for a company tactical group sandwiches infantry between MBTs (first) and IFVs (last). If recon is available, naturally it leads the way for tanks. MBTs come with superior sensory equipment, best available protection and the quickest way to neutralize any threat (in caliber terms).  Beyond that, there is very few things that I can say since every scenario is different. I tend to advance heavy armor first because I feel that using infantry to draw fire is a: a cruel, gamey tactic and b: eliminates my ability to fight in the woods, urban terrains and scan on a wider area. I just recently completed (well, lost) a gagarina ave. scenario against a human opponent, and I think that scenario demonstrates best that "MBT first" is generally a great concept. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BTR said:

My tactical training is all vehicle-centric, as in, how you operate a vehicle and how you integrate it into a formation. You'd need someone platoon level to start speaking proper command tactics. "Classic" attack formation for a company tactical group sandwiches infantry between MBTs (first) and IFVs (last). If recon is available, naturally it leads the way for tanks. MBTs come with superior sensory equipment, best available protection and the quickest way to neutralize any threat (in caliber terms).  Beyond that, there is very few things that I can say since every scenario is different. I tend to advance heavy armor first because I feel that using infantry to draw fire is a: a cruel, gamey tactic and b: eliminates my ability to fight in the woods, urban terrains and scan on a wider area. I just recently completed (well, lost) a gagarina ave. scenario against a human opponent, and I think that scenario demonstrates best that "MBT first" is generally a great concept.

Hmm Sendig in infantry ahead of the anks was pretty common towards the end of WW2 in order to deal with the strong anti tank gun defenses.From my point off view a smilar situation applies here. The infantry might draw fire but their real job is to idenify enemy positions. Hopefully without getting shot.Tey will have to use all available cover. Often they will have ATGMs - I make a point of loading em up wih Javelins and LAWS before sending them out. i have tried sending the heavy tanks out ahead but,as soon as hey get lased they turninto ballerinas 9so to sppeak) and start reversing nto cover out of the LOS essentially becoming useless to me.Far better o keep them back overwatching the infantry.

Regarding the use of infantry. one does not have to send entire squads out. We can splt them into teams. For nstance I could ju send a couple of scout teams out to recon, let's say, a wooded area as I would in a WW2 CM normandy or ed Thunder scenario. Then there are the UAVs but hese have a distressing tendncy to be shot down if those pesky Ruskies havwe decent AAA capabilities. Problems, problems,problems!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally,  I was very irritated, initially,  by the LW reactions by tanks. I didn't like that I *wasted* smoke,  my tank un-positioned and my  OW plan now in shreds. 

But I've eventually come around to the same position as BTR. 

1) in CMBS,  I see you = I kill you

2) sure I've list smoke but I still have my rank. As RUS/UKR that's vital to me. As US I've got a decent chance or during a main round but still,  why take that chance? The enemy basically has the drop on me,  why stay where he's pointing he's BFG at? Take the hint and bugger off to a better position. 

3) LW  works both ways -  I now know for certain there armor in that direction. 

4) my tank is still alive. 

5) the smoke allows me to manoeuvre away/aeoubd  while the enemy is likely still fixated on my original position. 

 

I do though,  think that Armor vehicles should react based on experience level. BFC being the clever little elves that they are,  I wouldn't be surprised if experience/morale is already accounted for. 

But worth a practical check. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

i have tried sending the heavy tanks out ahead but,as soon as hey get lased they turninto ballerinas 9so to sppeak) and start reversing nto cover out of the LOS essentially becoming useless to me.

Someone thinks he is supposed to control this:

Roger roger Lucas :P

Its worth trying to remember that you are supposed to control simulated humans, not just pixel robots.

B-1_droid_mobile.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kinophile,

If your LWR goes off, it doesn't necessarily mean armor is out there. Why? It could be a laser rangefinder/designator from any number of sources--infantry on the ground, air (fixed and rotary wing) even naval IRL. It could also be a LBR guidance signal which likewise doesn't require an AFV. You want your LWR to trigger when exposed to all of the above.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

kinophile,

If your LWR goes off, it doesn't necessarily mean armor is out there. Why? It could be a laser rangefinder/designator from any number of sources--infantry on the ground, air (fixed and rotary wing) even naval IRL. It could also be a LBR guidance signal which likewise doesn't require an AFV. You want your LWR to trigger when exposed to all of the above.

Regards,

John Kettler

Sorry,  quite correct. I should amend to "there's a potential tank killer out there". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kinophile said:

Sorry,  quite correct. I should amend to "there's a potential tank killer out there". 

I'd rather it was a bit less extreme than it is. Maybe the earlier  suggestion (I think from BTR) of tying reaction to troop quality might work better  How this would be coded in the software and whether it would be possible I don't know. It is annoying, it may or may not be realistic but one must adapt tactics to deal with it.

For me the best solution is to send infantry "tank hunters" out in front locate and eliminate the threat while the tanks suit back on overwatch. Not ideal, could well be realistic, being similar in concept to the way late WW2 armies dealt with the Anti Tank gun threat. Indeed, I have used a similar approach in the WW2 games as German manuals quoted in Jentz' two volmue Panzer Truppen Essentially combined arms

But what would you professional tankers do? Is it anything like what I am trying to do? This is your department :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You quote WW2 tactics a lot. Why not examine modern accounts of combined arms warfare? 

The previously mentioned tactic of Tanks -  Inf - Inf - Mech Inf  is one. Personally I think that's really only feasible with late SEP Abrams and fully upgraded T90s.. Ive tried similar with lesser tanks (even oplots) and it just becomes a depressingly expensive BBQ. 

Ive tried the Squad-Platoon-Compsny progression of assault,  ie only go where a smaller unit has gone before. But it's slow. 

I'll often use recon by drone to advance two platoons (1up 1 down) or if UKR I'll area Suppress with mortars (if it's an important OBJ) and roll it away as I advance in. 

 

Edited by kinophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Ive tried the Squad-Platoon-Compsny progression of assault,  ie only go where a smaller unit has gone before. But it's slow. 

Yeah I agree, I've experimented with exactly that even though it went well if I would have advanced with the whole platoon I could have gotten things done better and faster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive heard a few times about the ruskies or at least the soviets using one command level up the chain for a given task than the west.  So the west would go team first then squad then platoon the ruskies go squad followed by platoon. 

With the US I want to spread my infantries fancy optics all over the place while with the ruskies I like to have big concentrated blobs of firepower.  Seems to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, kinophile said:

You quote WW2 tactics a lot. Why not examine modern accounts of combined arms warfare? 

The previously mentioned tactic of Tanks -  Inf - Inf - Mech Inf  is one. Personally I think that's really only feasible with late SEP Abrams and fully upgraded T90s.. Ive tried similar with lesser tanks (even oplots) and it just becomes a depressingly expensive BBQ. 

Ive tried the Squad-Platoon-Compsny progression of assault,  ie only go where a smaller unit has gone before. But it's slow. 

I'll often use recon by drone to advance two platoons (1up 1 down) or if UKR I'll area Suppress with mortars (if it's an important OBJ) and roll it away as I advance in. 

 

It is just that I war game and read about WW2 a lot. I certainly you would not send IFVs out and they would run into the same problem or worse. Dismounted infantry is what you need.

Drones are certainly helpful but in my experience often get shot down a lot

As with every other period, when faced with a combined arms defense you have to deal with it by a combined arms attack (and vice versa) The challenge is finding the best ways to achieve this with your combined arms team however it happens to be organised. personally I find the Stryker too vulnerable for the mechanized battlefield  Hence use it only to get your infantry as far forward as i safe to do so, then dismount (load up your infantry with all the anti tank weapons as they cn carry using them as part of the combined arms team with the tanks, helicopters, air,drones and artillery. Easy to say but hard to master.

Sometimes I will split a leading squad into teams and just send a scout team out on point.Maybe use a drone or two if available

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.


×
×
  • Create New...