Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've been enjoying the discussion on this thread, but I honestly don't get the absolute need to convince each other of your positions. 

Oleksandr has laid out his reasoning several times and you might not agree with it, and that is fine. I personally don't agree with his opinion on it, but I think his line of thinking is interesting to read.

I also enjoyed reading the strong replies to his position. BTR, Chudacabra, Erwin, AKD, HerrTom, CptMiller's first post (even if a bit snippy) all added good content to the thread. 

It created a richer conversation about something that would otherwise not be talked about. I wouldn't have AKD's link for instance without this discussion. 

But holy **** guys. Do you absolutely need to string together a bunch of snarky, personally attacking posts that don't add any functional content to the thread just because someone likes the design ethos of the BMP-3 (Our IFV is both a weapon and a VBIED), seriously?  Like RSulomon, is Oleksandrs' opinion really such a big deal that you have to make some weirdo post asking if he understands opinions can be wrong? Great guys, Oleksandr doesn't like the Stryker, many of you have made cogent arguments to the opposite of that, but do we really need to write a bunch of internet trash so you can "win" your argument? We don't need this whiny internet trash.


Now ironically my complaint about internet trash has put further litter in this thread. But I expect better conduct here than some random reddit thread where every user is just trying to declare themselves the winner of some ****ty internet argument. Let **** go sometimes, you don't always need to "win"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

But holy **** guys. Do you absolutely need to string together a bunch of snarky, personally attacking posts that don't add any functional content to the thread

Seriously!  Sometimes I wonder...

To add my own little thing - even if it may be obvious:

As far as I can tell from my reading, standard procedure for BMP rifle squads was to dismount a kilometer or so away from the target and advance on foot.  The BMPs would then provide fire support for the infantry as they advance.  This proves to be quite the effective method in Combat Mission as well.

eQ8adwA.png

I used a scout platoon here instead of a rifle company, so I took heavier losses in material than I should have, but the point still stands!  I also screwed up the smoke....

Anyway - Dismount your infantry while still well back from the enemy, and move them at whatever pace suits your objective.  I have time in this case, so I advanced at normal speed.

The BMPs and T-72s in the treeline engaged targets far away, whether they be enemy vehicles or infantry.

YyznL6S.png

The static vehicles spot better than vehicles in motion, and any fire that is put on your troops will be quickly dealt with.

gBTRsis.png

dPNkjoC.png

I managed to advance all the way here without taking any casualties beyond those that I had taken moving into the treeline to begin with!  Knocked out two ATGM teams and five BMPs, as well as dealt with a couple of enemy squads.  As my troops near the target, covered by smoke (finally!) fire will begin to shift to likely hiding spots.  It's always worth wasting a little ammunition on possible strongpoints - better a few tonnes of ammo than a couple of body bags!

This was only a platoon - a whole company would really be able to throw the hurt downrange.  In that case I'd have a platoon take the place of each recce team, one left, one middle, one right.  Vehicles stay back, staggered with any extras that won't fit neatly sitting further back behind cover.  With more weapons to bear, I'd also be more liberal with covering fire - using one or two vehicles per platoon on area fire duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...have a platoon take the place of each recce team, one left, one middle, one right."

Recon SOP raises an issue I struggle with:  Is it better to use a single platoon and divide up all squads and use the entire platoon for recon - meaning that one platoon is spread all over the map - possibly out of C2, and not able to concentrate for combat.  Or, should one divide up one squad per platoon and use only that team for recon ahead of its platoon (staying in C2) - thus leaving the rest of the platoon combat ready?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Erwin said:

"...have a platoon take the place of each recce team, one left, one middle, one right."

Recon SOP raises an issue I struggle with:  Is it better to use a single platoon and divide up all squads and use the entire platoon for recon - meaning that one platoon is spread all over the map - possibly out of C2, and not able to concentrate for combat.  Or, should one divide up one squad per platoon and use only that team for recon ahead of its platoon (staying in C2) - thus leaving the rest of the platoon combat ready?

I'd say it depends on the terrain.  I tend to spread out a whole platoon when lines of sight are limited and just use a scout team with Javelins (they seem to spot much better then scouts or snipers) if I am playing on an open map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO dedicated recon is your recon as a force commander so having them concentrated or tracking for  other formations is sort of wasting their purpose. But then this depends on terrain as Stefano aptly pointed out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again this is a very map-size dependent thing. On larger maps you might have multiple routes and limited forces so my process is scout>form planned route>execute. On smaller maps you are stuck with the corridor approach you described. Smaller maps rarely need dedicated recon forces though. On the defensive spread out recon is also beneficial since it can track more locations, is more distributed against artillery strikes and all the means you get information faster and can have it updated for a longer time. 

Edited by BTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some small advice on reserve and on late phases of the battle: If you are engaging in a meeting engagement quick battle and you are commanding units sized to company or bigger (especially when it comes to battalions) it is nice to keep certain units (usually a platoon) hidden from main action till the certain moment. It can be your tactical reserve or it can serve as a great "finish force" in the end of the game - which will allow you to get better statistics. Meaning you will not overuse those units which were already used a lot. Each battle has different phases in it and while combating russians its important to deal with armor first. 

On this screen you see that main battle happened on the hill "point 215" where around 20 BMP-3's were burned down. It was mech infantry on mech infantry - main job was done by BMP-2's and ATGM's what were located lower that hill - so when BMP-3's which are far more deadly than BMP-2's were coming up from that hill they simply could open fire back on Ukrainians because they were located lower than them - the angle thing. Yet - obviusly in the matter of time those BMP's sort of were able to burn 1 or 1.5 platoon of Ukrainians - and after all BMP-3's were smashed there were tons on infantry going afterwards. 

KzMv2eS.jpg

So this is where you reserve forces can come in handy - at this stage. By using positions what you couldn use before (well because if you would BMP-3's would burn you down/ but there are no more BMP-3's he he) you can start working on your opponent infantry forces. 

ehWbiyU.jpg

Locate your platoon in a standart way - infantry between vehichles - and let the distance work for you. 

xeJHvKj.jpg

Whats the logic of this thing? Basically AI will push its all remainging forces through that very feild where its vehicles were destroyed. Your main tusk is to take off the main threat - armor. Then in order not to injure your brilliant statictics of kill/loss ratio - use your reserve. Do not underestimate russian infantry - avoid clos combat - use the distance when its possible. Shift your positions, rotate those units what were already in combat since 1st minutes - disengage them. Finish your opponent in a way what will benefit your statistics. 

The moral of this story - think about you reserves in advance. Do not throw everything youve got in the first phases of combat. Be wise, plan wise. Good luck my fellow commanders and let the force lol be with you even if your opponent is more advanced in terms of technology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 1:23 AM, HerrTom said:

Seriously!  Sometimes I wonder...

To add my own little thing - even if it may be obvious:

As far as I can tell from my reading, standard procedure for BMP rifle squads was to dismount a kilometer or so away from the target and advance on foot.  The BMPs would then provide fire support for the infantry as they advance.  This proves to be quite the effective method in Combat Mission as well.

eQ8adwA.png

I used a scout platoon here instead of a rifle company, so I took heavier losses in material than I should have, but the point still stands!  I also screwed up the smoke....

Anyway - Dismount your infantry while still well back from the enemy, and move them at whatever pace suits your objective.  I have time in this case, so I advanced at normal speed.

The BMPs and T-72s in the treeline engaged targets far away, whether they be enemy vehicles or infantry.

YyznL6S.png

The static vehicles spot better than vehicles in motion, and any fire that is put on your troops will be quickly dealt with.

gBTRsis.png

dPNkjoC.png

I managed to advance all the way here without taking any casualties beyond those that I had taken moving into the treeline to begin with!  Knocked out two ATGM teams and five BMPs, as well as dealt with a couple of enemy squads.  As my troops near the target, covered by smoke (finally!) fire will begin to shift to likely hiding spots.  It's always worth wasting a little ammunition on possible strongpoints - better a few tonnes of ammo than a couple of body bags!

This was only a platoon - a whole company would really be able to throw the hurt downrange.  In that case I'd have a platoon take the place of each recce team, one left, one middle, one right.  Vehicles stay back, staggered with any extras that won't fit neatly sitting further back behind cover.  With more weapons to bear, I'd also be more liberal with covering fire - using one or two vehicles per platoon on area fire duty.

Yes totally agree - dismounting your infantry and making it move along with IFV's is the best way of using mech infantry. And yes you will reduce your causalties and yes you will be standing on solid kill/death ratio. Also I like how you used those treelines. Little advice - sometimes you can actually find spots between trees and not to put yout IFV's directly in them in front of those holes - so that your IFV isnt in the tree line but behind it and can still work on its sector. That little thing will be helpfull if you will meet agressive stand from your opponent - nearly hald of his shots can be then consumed by those trees. Overall - I agree on your way of using infantry and its IFV's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to once again open the discussion on APC and IFV squad usage for RU side.

How is it done IRL?

  • Every vehicle has a dedicated commander's spot. 
  • All traditional inter-platoon and inter-company coms are concentrated around vehicle command posts.
  • Squad Leader (SL) occupies vehicle command post unless platoon commander (PC) or platoon 2IC (P2IC) are seating there. In that case SL must sit in the back with his squad. 
  • PC and P2IC are seated in separate vehicles (1 and 3) thus establishing comms chain and company cohesion.  
  • Vehicle 2 command post is usually staffed by squad 2 SL or by platoon political officer in times of war. 
  • PC used to dismount vehicles and P2IC used to always stay in the vehicle, but with introduction of C4 systems and secondary thermals on some vehicles both stay inside. 
  • SL must dismount and control his squad from outside the vehicle in combat.

So effectively vehicles 1 and 3 traditionally took the initiative and vehicle 2 followed without the commander seat occupied. In CMBS we are not given the option of splitting our platoon command, but the lack of a commander negatively affects vehicle spotting and performance. I always leave the command team inside the vehicle they are in so at least one is fully operational. I sometimes also split a scout team from squads to man a second vehicle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys quick advice: try to play your Quick Battles in "Iron" mode - it is awesome. It will give you way more of that "real battle" experience. Recently I was playing "Iron" mode after "Elite" and it is way more fun! 

ulEPpGq.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

i just wanted to let you know about my latest discovery.

When my brave pixelsoldiers leave BMP or BTR there is leader missing. This is known to all of us. Some of us split the squad and bring somebody back to help spot better. Some of us bring another man or men there. I usually bring there single soldier - Igla trooper. Also known to all of us.

And here is the point i was doing wrong all the time.

In editor or QB i just bought Igla trooper - loaded it into the BMP or BTR and then during the game when other soldiers left the vehicle i was sure that there is this Igla soldier there and that he is helping to spot better! I was sure he is in the position of the leader!

I was soooo wrong!

The position of the leader depends from how your soldiers enter the vehicle! Usually i just bought the Igla soldier, loaded him inside and send them all to fight.

I discovered that in the editor or during setup i must unload everybody and then load 1st soldier or soldiers i want later to play the leader role. When you save it in the editor it stays like this in scenario too. 

So probably all of you out there knew this before, if not use it to fight better :)

 

http://Igla leader_zpsw1vz2xi2.png

Edited by Marwek77 aka Red Reporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:

The position of the leader depends from how your soldiers enter the vehicle! Usually i just bought the Igla soldier, loaded him inside and send them all to fight.

Nice catch.  I just tested this.  I thought whoever was left in the vehicle's passenger area would move to the leader position after the other troops dismounted.  However they will not occupy a vacated "Leader" spot unless they disembark and then remount the vehicle.  +1  

Edited by MOS:96B2P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Nice catch.  I just tested this.  I thought whoever was left in the vehicle's passenger area would move to the leader position after the other troops dismounted.  However they will not occupy a vacated "Leader" spot unless they disembark and then remount the vehicle.  +1  

Exactly. I was working with same "Go and occupy empty Leader place" theory... But now we know it was wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quickly looked up info only about the BMP-2, and found this:

"The commander can exit the vehicle by two means - the hatch above him, or by spinning the turret to face the rear, and then going out through the passenger compartment. In the latter case, he must swing open the turret basket perimeter shield (shown below) to exit the turret."

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.ca/2016/05/bmp-2.html#comstat

Given those restrictions for movement between the commander's position and the passenger compartment, I'd say the way this is modeled in the game for the BMP-2 is spot-on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:
On 2018-02-05 at 4:18 PM, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:

The position of the leader depends from how your soldiers enter the vehicle! Usually i just bought the Igla soldier, loaded him inside and send them all to fight.

Nice catch.  I just tested this.  I thought whoever was left in the vehicle's passenger area would move to the leader position after the other troops dismounted.  However they will not occupy a vacated "Leader" spot unless they disembark and then remount the vehicle.  +1  

Yikes so have I. And I have been religious about it for the last while. Damn. I am not in front of my gaming computer until later - is there a way to actually tell in the UI that the "right" seat is occupied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IanL said:

Yikes so have I. And I have been religious about it for the last while. Damn. I am not in front of my gaming computer until later - is there a way to actually tell in the UI that the "right" seat is occupied?

The troop that occupies the leader seat will display "Leader" in his status block (that green typing bottom left of screen).  One of the passengers must show Leader.  If they are all displaying "Spotting" (or whatever else) the leader seat is empty.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎15‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 6:23 AM, HerrTom said:

As far as I can tell from my reading, standard procedure for BMP rifle squads was to dismount a kilometer or so away from the target and advance on foot.  The BMPs would then provide fire support for the infantry as they advance.

My understanding of Soviet theory is that by the time you are dismounting the enemy should mostly already be dead!  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what Steven Zaloga has to say in BMP Infantry Fighting Vehicle 1967-94 (Osprey, 1994):

"In the eyes of many Soviet tacticians, the BMP-1 was not entirely suited to conventional warfare. On a nuclear battlefield, NATO anti-tank guided missile and rocket teams would be severely inhibited by the contaminated environment; under such conditions it was argued that the BMP-1 could reign freely at the head of combined tank-motor rifle groups. But in a conventional war, there would be a profusion of anti-tank teams. The lightly armoured BMP-1 was especially vulnerable to the wide range of infantry anti-tank weapons available to NATO. The Red Army questioned how the BMP could be employed in these different scenarios, and concluded that new tactics were required.

It was accepted that BMPs could be employed in actions where there was little resistance, such as during the break-out phase of offensive operations, or in pursuit of a disorganised enemy force. When resistance was strong, the BMP-1 would be used as part of a tank-infantry team with the infantry dismounted. A platoon of tanks would be placed in a wave in the vanguard, since they were better able to absorb the blow of anti-armour defences. Infantry would follow 200 m behind the tanks to help root out enemy anti-armour teams. The BMPs would follow no more than 300-400 m behind the infantry, providing fire support for the tanks, and preparing to move forward to pick up the infantry once the opposition was overcome." (pp. 10-11)

"Bronegruppa (armoured group) tactics are an evolution of BMP tactics, but using the vehicles for missions without their infantry dismounts. When a company or battalion of motor rifle troops dismount and dig in for defensive fighting, the unit commander can take some of his BMPs away to form a central bronegruppa reserve instead of leaving them dug in with their rifle squads; this gives the company or battalion commander a mobile reserve, and counterattack force that can be held back until the enemy's objective is clear." (pp. 37-8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Machor said:

When resistance was strong...  A platoon of tanks would be placed in a wave in the vanguard, since they were better able to absorb the blow of anti-armour defences.

Really?  In CMBS (or CMSF) that approach would be suicidal for the (Soviet-type) tanks.  I can't recall a single scenario where leading with tanks was a good tactic given the AT capacity of NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Erwin said:

In CMBS (or CMSF) that approach would be suicidal for the (Soviet-type) tanks.

Indeed, which is why I would love to try it in CMFG - Combat Mission: Fulda Gap;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×