• Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
LUCASWILLEN05

Russia Light Infantry

36 posts in this topic

Ths looks interesting but requires further research to confrm. For which, sadly, I don;t really have the time right now .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it was a bit of an omission that the US has IBCTs but Ukraine and Russia had BTR units as their lightest formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting and an eminently sensible concept for Russia to explore given the size of the place and the relatively low price of such vehicles.  B)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

I always thought it was a bit of an omission that the US has IBCTs but Ukraine and Russia had BTR units as their lightest formation.

That's real life though; I appreciate the CMBS team keeping things realistic like that.

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Interesting and an eminently sensible concept for Russia to explore given the size of the place and the relatively low price of such vehicles.  B)

The word on this side of the pond is that such OOB has less to do with Syria and more with Crimea-type scenarios (I.e. soft occupation). It is thought that more mobility and less armor is preferred under such conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IMHO said:

Russia's light headed infantry :)

In Russian city of Chita (well over 300 thousand) some guys tried to sell S-200 warhead as a scrap metal.

https://youtu.be/_fhhVyRGlSg

Perhaps they were trying to follow the footsteps of Russian Federation's first president, who had tried something similar (albeit with a much smaller charge) in his younger years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, DreDay said:

The word on this side of the pond is that such OOB has less to do with Syria and more with Crimea-type scenarios (I.e. soft occupation). It is thought that more mobility and less armor is preferred under such conditions.

Quite agree.....I found the comparison with the Tachanka  to be very apt.

Chad's 'Toyota War' with Libya long ago demonstrated the advantages of such formations.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Quite agree.....I found the comparison with the Tachanka  to be very apt.

Chad's 'Toyota War' with Libya long ago demonstrated the advantages of such formations.

The Toyota War was a bum fight, certainly a high intensity one for those involved, but still a bum fight. The only thing that war demonstrated was that one side (Libyans) could get away with being completely, utterly inept by the virtue of possessing the tanks and ample artillery while their opponent had virtually no heavy weapons... until the French gifted them MILANs. After that, there was certainly a lot of Libyan ineptitude being exposed in the form of burning tanks but had the Chadians tried some of the stuff in Hiluxes (which the Libyans allowed them to get away with, routinely) against almost anyone else, they would have been blown the hell away.

There is an argument for lighter vehicles in occupation-duty compared to high-intensity combat, but the Toyota War is not a shining example thereof. It's more of a demonstration that when you opponent is truly awful, damned near anything can work, provided you also have air support.

Edited by Apocal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UKR 79-th air-assault brigade and many other units are using Mitsubishi L200 as HMG, ATGM (including Stuhna-P) and mortar carriers. By the way L200 is one of most popular base for guntrucks in Ukrainian army. Recons, Special forces, fire support units - many of them use pick-up cars instead BTRs, because its faster and less expensive. But all these vehicles are civil volunteers aid and not officially in unit's TO&E 

b1e825b6157082b13aa96e258b7d934b.jpg

211762_2.jpg

1434376840gVAc_h.jpg

AzSQxptznqg.jpg

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-08-11 at 4:58 PM, DreDay said:

That's real life though; I appreciate the CMBS team keeping things realistic like that.

Spetznaz brigades at least for the ground forces. I'm sure when the MP and VDV are added we'll see the lighter formations of the airborne and naval troops.
There are also some interesting VV and MVD formations, but that might be beyond the scope of CMBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the WWII titles we see how problematic guns on light vehicles can be. Its rare that you can get any utility out of mg-mounted jeeps. Though the new hull-down command improves their utility... slightly. Light units are useful if you know where the enemy is and your guns have a longer reach than theirs. HMGs standing off vs small arms.

Lets not assume these vehicles aren't armored. I believe Ukraine border police patrol in armored VW Touaregs(?) that were donated by the US. Though my info on that is sketchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 5:36 PM, Apocal said:

There is an argument for lighter vehicles in occupation-duty compared to high-intensity combat, but the Toyota War is not a shining example thereof. It's more of a demonstration that when you opponent is truly awful, damned near anything can work, provided you also have air support.

It made a pretty big impression on the Libyans!  ;)

TBH it's all just a replay of Stirling's SAS tactics (in more or less exactly the same spot).....Small but heavily armed and highly mobile groups going for the enemy's soft & dangling bits.

Share this post


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

Lets not assume these vehicles aren't armored. I believe Ukraine border police patrol in armored VW Touaregs(?) that were donated by the US. Though my info on that is sketchy.

L200 of 79th brigade also have armor, installed by volunteers, but in several zones only. 

Border guards have 12 armored Ford Ranger donated by USA, not Touaregs. Also 55 LandRover Defender, part of its have been armored in Ukraine. Rest are unarmnored jeeps UAZ-3151, UAZ-3163, Chevrolet Niva. But all these vehicles havn't armament and their purpose just moving of patrol groups. Combat armor in Border Guard represented by KRAZ/Streit Group Cobra and Cougar armored cars (less 100) and usual BTRs (-70, -80, -7)

 

Armed jeeps have a sence only on huge maps, when need covert recon or strike and scoot actions. Of course in head-to-head clashes on small/medium maps, filled with hordes of armor and artillery its just can bring more points to opponent. 

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to locate the old article that mentioned the Touareg. I did find this story about the US purchasing armored trucks for Ukraine. I does mention them donating dozens of armored pickups and vans but doesn't specify the model. I recalled the Touareg because after reading the article I had to Google the vehicle. Maybe it was a news report about a donation that never happened.

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/war-against-ukraine/us-buys-ukrainian-made-kozak-armored-personnel-carrier-for-ukrainian-border-guard-service-377973.html

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

It made a pretty big impression on the Libyans!  ;)

TBH it's all just a replay of Stirling's SAS tactics (in more or less exactly the same spot).....Small but heavily armed and highly mobile groups going for the enemy's soft & dangling bits.

Thats projecting too much. The Chadians beat Libyan combat formations, on the attack, once given MILAN. Whenever and wherever they showed up with ATGMs and French air support, the Libyans were stopped cold and hammered flat at that point. Rear area raids were something the Chadians pulled off semi-regularly before they got MILANs and French air. They just didn't do much good in stopping the Libyans any time they actually wanted to attack and mostly served in its final impact to help the Libyans when some of the best (relatively speaking; none of these guys were that good) Chadian formations were off in the deep desert instead of the point of contact when Libyan tanks and artillery struck. 

Seriously, that entire war was a bum fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair comment, the Stirling connection was probably over-egging the cake, but I still think both subjects are relevant to the wider topic here and thus worthy of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Fair comment, the Stirling connection was probably over-egging the cake, but I still think both subjects are relevant to the wider topic here and thus worthy of discussion.

In context of the thread, light motorized transport is a case of one eyed men being preferred to those who are cometely blind. The "better than nothing, but still worse than everything else" option in a serious brawl. Outside of serious brawling, go nuts, doesn't matter, except when/if you start finding mines the hard way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Fair comment, the Stirling connection was probably over-egging the cake, but I still think both subjects are relevant to the wider topic here and thus worthy of discussion.

Maybe they would be of some use on the steppes. Kind of a modern day equivalent of Cossack light cavalry perhaps.? Light, fast vehicles in a reconnaissance/raiding/exploitation role. Not really there to fight head to head although with an ATGM maybe they could harass like the 1980s NATO "3 men and a jeep concept

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 11:20 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I think a lot of SOF types might disagree there, fighting styles can differ.

The SOF types also had first pick of uparmored vehicles in Iraq, once they started going home in bags from IEDs. The Rangers rolled in Strykers for the same reason. Running around light and fast works fine if you're barely opposed, but far less if you're facing someone competent who is completely fine with bleeding you over time. As for facing any sort sort of serious enemy combat fornation, the broad lesson learned had been dancing works until the very first time you make a mistake. Then you die in a fire, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Modern Russian formations, even medium ones, can absolutely mallet the hell out of anything the moves without serious protection, do it fast, and do it decisively without burning through their entire allotment of ammo. I'm thinking even if your light raid force gets held up for three minutes on an objective, it is already courting death by steel rain.

Edited by Apocal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Apocal said:

As for facing any sort sort of serious enemy combat fornation, the broad lesson learned had been dancing works until the very first time you make a mistake. Then you die in a fire, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

This I suspect is the crux of it.....Lose the initiative for even a moment and you are screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This I suspect is the crux of it.....Lose the initiative for even a moment and you are screwed.

This is pretty much how it's always been for light forces. Success—including success in surviving—depended on three things: Strike suddenly where not expected; finish the mission quickly; withdraw quickly. Successful missions required careful planning and rehearsals. They weren't done casually off the cuff.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Exactly my thoughts, the Cossack analogy is very apt too.  B)

You know the definition of Cossacks? A bunch of inebriated thugs who will "courageously" attack half their number. But only if their enemy are women and children who are mortally wounded and preferably already dead!:D

Edited by LUCASWILLEN05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now