DAR: Kinophile (RUS) v. The Forward Observer (US) - Batt. PBEM

[JUAN DEAG]

I would recommend the MTLB with the auto cannon instead of the BTR. The MTLB has more seats for squads and support teams (atgms, FO, ags), is dirt cheap, and from experience the smaller turning radius of the tracked vehicle is useful in urban environments. The armament is still the light 30mm so you won't really lose anything in the firepower department.

[JUAN DEAG]

Also, remember to use batteries of 152mm rather than platoons of 152mm because Russian howitzers lack a good rate of fire so it is necessary to use six guns to maintain steady suppression.

[Jammersix]

Losing is not winning.

[cool breeze]

Except you can win a war while losing all the battles sometimes.  And beauty is in the eye of the beholder .  Can't wait to see this play out!

[Kinophile]

18 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

I would recommend the MTLB with the auto cannon instead of the BTR. The MTLB has more seats for squads and support teams (atgms, FO, ags), is dirt cheap, and from experience the smaller turning radius of the tracked vehicle is useful in urban environments. The armament is still the light 30mm so you won't really lose anything in the firepower department.

That's.... Intriguing. I'd normally avoid the MTLB as an explosive coffin,  plus it has terrible optics. 

The BTR82A seems to spot reasonably well, has a great ROF and is fast. One thing I've come up against is its sorta limited ammo... I often recon by fire (ie shoot at every startled squirrel or falling leaf) so I likes me some big ammo loads. 

On this map though, I'm going for a lower, sneakier profile, so excitable bursts of fire are Not Smart. 

Still,  the MTLBs ****ty optics keep me away from them.

@chudacabra I think he gets 17K, I got 21K.

Work keeps ruining my days, so I haven't had a chance to send my setup turn back. 

He's getting impatient,  I can tell. 

 

 

 

Good.

 

[Vet 0369]

3 hours ago, kinophile said:

That's.... Intriguing. I'd normally avoid the MTLB as an explosive coffin,  plus it has terrible optics. 

The BTR82A seems to spot reasonably well, has a great ROF and is fast. One thing I've come up against is its sorta limited ammo... I often recon by fire (ie shoot at every startled squirrel or falling leaf) so I likes me some big ammo loads. 

On this map though, I'm going for a lower, sneakier profile, so excitable bursts of fire are Not Smart. 

Still,  the MTLBs ****ty optics keep me away from them.

@chudacabra I think he gets 17K, I got 21K.

Work keeps ruining my days, so I haven't had a chance to send my setup turn back. 

He's getting impatient,  I can tell. 

 

 

 

 

Good.

 

Are the rotten optics in the MTLBs due to the system or general lack of knowledge of splitting the squad so you leave a scout team in the vehicle to aid in spotting? Similar to a BMP having bad spotting and reaction time if you don't unload the squad, split off a scout team, and reload the scout team into the BMP.

[HerrTom]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

Are the rotten optics in the MTLBs due to the system or general lack of knowledge of splitting the squad so you leave a scout team in the vehicle to aid in spotting? Similar to a BMP having bad spotting and reaction time if you don't unload the squad, split off a scout team, and reload the scout team into the BMP.

I thought the MT-LB crew was only two, unlike the BMP.  Driver and commander/gunner, like the M113.  I'm with kinophile here, though.  MT-LBs seem pretty abysmal at seeing things.

[Kinophile]

I've tried it with the MTLB. Just means more men inexplicably explode at the same time in the same place. 

[Jammersix]

8 hours ago, cool breeze said:

Except you can win a war while losing all the battles sometimes.  And beauty is in the eye of the beholder .  Can't wait to see this play out!

He's not fighting a war. He's fighting a battle.

[Kinophile]

OK,  uploaded my Turn 3.

However, due to a glitch a few days ago (I ughhh.. Pressed the go button early...)  I had to repack my force and resetup. 

This time I went for a mix of bmp 3M (era)  in one battle group and BTR 82s in 2nd BG.I also killed the mines... Trading them in for wayyy more artillery. 

I'll upload a revised OOBS tomorrow evening. 

My support plan is to demolish the tall structures in his setup area,  while my MI creep forward.  Once I've struck down the obvious Nerd Nests I'll shift to solid walls of 152 biting chunks out if his urban fabric, or clobbering his Bradleys (RUS Arty is very hard to get a kill on against M1A1s. Better to go for the lighter,  killable targets, maybe force him to protect/Hide them). 

I've never played this guy so Ive no idea what his preference is. I doubt,  though,  that he sits back,  not with US armor at hand.

[JUAN DEAG]

7 hours ago, kinophile said:

That's.... Intriguing. I'd normally avoid the MTLB as an explosive coffin,  plus it has terrible optics. 

The BTR82A seems to spot reasonably well, has a great ROF and is fast. One thing I've come up against is its sorta limited ammo... I often recon by fire (ie shoot at every startled squirrel or falling leaf) so I likes me some big ammo loads. 

On this map though, I'm going for a lower, sneakier profile, so excitable bursts of fire are Not Smart. 

Still,  the MTLBs ****ty optics keep me away from them.

The problems you mention about the MTLB; poor optics and the hazards of being in a tin can are both problems of the BTR. They have the same turret and their armor won't stop anything more than 7.62mm ball (not even that at some angles). Still, the MTLB retains several advantages:

1) The BTR will often get stuck in river beds and struggles to traverse forests. The MTLB on the other hand, can go almost anywhere and will rarely if ever, get stuck. This has to do with the fact that its ground pressure amounts to like childrens' stuffed animal per inch squared. Not to mention the ability to duck and weave in alleys and tight choke points without the limitations of "wheels".

2) Sneaky beaky vehicle profile. You'd be surprised about how many times I've seen Mk. 19 gunners and Ukrainian RPG teams miss their first volley/rocket on the MTLB by either impacting the lower track or flying way over the vehicle (where BTR would still have it's fleshy bits) just because of how hard that thing hugs the ground. There is also the added benefit of increased stealthiness in tree lines and whatnot.

3) The MTLB is also a very inconspicuous vehicle that is highly underestimated. If spotted, the opponent will often treat it as less of a threat than it really is, thus diverting less assets to counter them and is less likely to pay attention to concentrations. It can have that psychological effect. They are usually regarded as lower quality vehicles so they can be used ferry FO's and various high value support teams quickly, stealthily, and inconspicuously. 

 

+ still more seats

+ still cheaper

+ still wrecks face with light 30mm

 

[antaress73]

Russian arty will not Kill m1s often but will Kill sub-systems making them much less formidable.

[c3k]

BMP-3...good call. They'll be fun! And when they're done, they explode! Double the fun!

Mines. Hmmm. Just a few in the obvious locations could slow him down. A bit of a mental game, that.

It's a lot of fun watching someone else have to agonize over these choices.

[Chudacabra]

11 hours ago, kinophile said:

This time I went for a mix of bmp 3M (era)  in one battle group and BTR 82s in 2nd BG.I also killed the mines... Trading them in for wayyy more artillery. 

Too late now, but I bought all ERA BMP-3's when I played this battle without realizing they don't have smoke. The ERA in my opinion is not very useful against American weapons, except maybe for the AT-4.

[hattori]

Very interested to see how this turns out.  It may have also been interesting to go 100% infantry in this urban environment.  Your opponent might have run out of ammunition taking your forces out of every single building, especially if he spends a lot of points on APS Abrams.

[VladimirTarasov]

11 hours ago, antaress73 said:

Russian arty will not Kill m1s often but will Kill sub-systems making them much less formidable.

 I'm currently pissed off at one of my runs where I had precision shells land on a Bradley (120mm) perfectly onto the hull under the main gun and the only thing it did was kill the engine... IRL the main gun would be in heaven, and the crew under the impact would be done for. I'm not sure if he can rely on Russian arty against US vehicles since they survive such hits without much damage. 

[A Canadian Cat]

19 hours ago, kinophile said:

I'd normally avoid the MTLB as an explosive coffin,  plus it has terrible optics. 

The BTR82A seems to spot reasonably well, has a great ROF and is fast.

That's how I feel as well.  Mind you both vehicles do not last long if there are enemy AFVs around so it could be six of one half a dozen of another.  But the BTR82A does spot better than the MTLB.  If they both spend their time area firing in support of your troops then perhaps that difference does not matter.

 

11 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

1) The BTR will often get stuck in river beds and struggles to traverse forests. The MTLB on the other hand, can go almost anywhere and will rarely if ever, get stuck. ...

I can see that.  Do those advantages play out in the game though?  I have not ever tried both vehicles out head to head in those environments.

 

11 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

2) Sneaky beaky vehicle profile. You'd be surprised about how many times I've seen Mk. 19 gunners and Ukrainian RPG teams miss their first volley/rocket on the MTLB by either impacting the lower track or flying way over the vehicle (where BTR would still have it's fleshy bits) just because of how hard that thing hugs the ground....

Interesting thought the MTLB does have a lower profile for sure.  I wonder if that observation would hold in testing...

 

11 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

3) The MTLB is also a very inconspicuous vehicle that is highly underestimated. If spotted, the opponent will often treat it as less of a threat than it really is,

None of my opponents have done that Probably because they know that 30mm auto cannon is nasty

 

11 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

+ still more seats

+ still cheaper

+ still wrecks face with light 30mm

- more guys become casulties when hit

- I thought they were about the same as BTRs

+ hell yes, that 30mm auto cannon is awesome

[Kinophile]

My tactical priority is eyes front - the BTR's are there, as deduced by you clever lads, to suppress infantry, rough up Bradley's and crucially, spot further than my ATGM teams can see.

They're also there to take some of the pressure off those same teams - munitions spent walloping BTRs is munitions nor walloping AT-13 teams. 

The BMP 3Ms lack IR smoke? Bugger &  damn. 

I'll be honest,  I've found the BTR's perfectly agile in urban environment. In the country I've seen them bog down in  dry fields,  which lead to much cursing and eventually a peevish 152mm strike.

[JUAN DEAG]

Make sure to keep dismounts a good distance from the BMP-3M in case the vehicle suddenly decides to activate the tactical nuke feature. 

[c3k]

4 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Make sure to keep dismounts a good distance from the BMP-3M in case the vehicle suddenly decides to activate the tactical nuke feature. 

Use that to your advantage. Find your enemy's HQ, and charge it with a BMP3. He'll be forced to destroy it, or be pulverized by its outrageous armament. When he hits it, it'll blow a crater visible from orbit. You win either way.

[Jammersix]

On 10/24/2016 at 6:45 PM, kinophile said:

I fully expect to lose.

This single sentiment means you and I will never play.

[Chudacabra]

18 hours ago, kinophile said:

The BMP 3Ms lack IR smoke? Bugger &  damn. 

Only the ERA ones, so they're not really worth the extra points, especially against the US.

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Jammersix said:

This single sentiment means you and I will never play.

I'm realistic. It's a RUS MI battalion v. probably a US Armored Battalion with organic and attached precision fire support -  just how good do you think my odds are? 

However,  I have defined my terms of defeat, where inflicting enough casualties to pause his advance constitutes a usable defeat. 

My aims are:

1) Survive with a viable force (1 company/2 platoons, mounted) 

2) Inflict heavy casualties on his Bradleys. This again is a realistic goal -  Abrams APS is maddeningly effective. Instead of wasting salvos of precious ATGMs on an invincible death machines I'm gonna use my AT-14s to spook them, taking an opportunistic kill if flanking.  For me,  if I can cause them to pop IR smoke then I'm forcing a reaction, and auto-blinding them. Either way,  I'm not at their mercy. 

My 13s will focus on Bradleys,  my Arty on building collapse -  if I spot infantry in one building I will collapse each building around it. 

The strategic aim here is to kill American men, rather than just vehicles-  in the public media realm, 50 dead US soldiers reads heavier than 3 wrecked US tanks. I want Humvees stuffed with bodybags exiting the battle. 

Essentially,  points/game conditions are irrelevant to me -  my tactical aims are a moving target (I'll kill until I need to retreat) and my strategic aims are not describable  with the game engine. 

 

Edited October 29, 2016 by kinophile

[Artemis258]

I think Kino's very good to define his terms early... A game is as good as what you get out of it, and we all know that it is an uphill struggle for many players when on the low-tech side (either Rus vs us or UKR vs Rus), as well as some of the common discussions we've had around american equipment (LSWR and APS discussions, as well as armour variables).

I'm sure, from reading his plans, that Kino still plans to give his opponent a run for his money wherever possible, rather than sitting in a corner with his full force and claiming victory.  

@Kinophile if you're ever after another opponenet hit me up

[VladimirTarasov]

I'm also up for a battle too Kino or anyone else who wants a run.