Jump to content

Next release: Nato-Modul!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 286
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Field Marshal Blücher: Yeah, great vehicle. :) Not only can it take out any aircraft in the area, but the ground fire it can put out would be devastating to the enemy, the Gepard Flakpanzer rocks! :) And the Germans would definitely take these with them in an invasion like this.

Another cool video of the Gepard. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lomir,

Oh, for sure I agree that if a dirty bomb went off in a Spanish city that Spanish troops would be made available for an invasion. My comment was in support of that. What I meant was I do not see a European nation sitting on the sidelines after being hit with major terrorist action which could be pinned to a specific host nation, as opposed to what happened in Spain when it was hit with a more-or-less non-nation specific attack. If the terrorists could have been linked directly with a training base in Iraq, I'm sure Spanish troops would have stayed in Iraq. But it wasn't and the politicians did what they did for other reasons.

What I question is whether Spanish troops would be so willingly deployed into combat if another NATO member's capital was hit by a dirty bomb traced to a specific country. I really don't know, but I suspect some amount of involvement would happen even if it were just to save face within NATO. The reason Spain could withdraw from Iraq was because it was not a NATO venture, the war was going very poorly at the time, the reasons for being there were not strong, and the coalition was dominated by one of the most unpopular politicians since before WW2. To me it's amazing Spanish troops were in Iraq in decent numbers at all, rather than being surprised they were withdrawn.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt the Germans would use their Gepards in ground combat unless it was an emergency situation. Expensive, vulnerable, and big... not good things for a vehicle going up against an enemy with $30 RPGs :D

Moreover, Gepard crews aren't allowed to fire tracers at soft targets because of some parapgraph in the Genava Convention - which dimibishes their use in ground combat somewhat. But they have developed a simple method for taking care of infantry: When th Geaprd gets attacked, the crew simply advise the artiellery to conduct anti-personnel are fire in a radius with the Gepard in the center. Simple and effective - becaue not only will the enemy infantry be take care of, but also the Gepard itself because the top armor is to thin... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, Gepard crews aren't allowed to fire tracers at soft targets because of some parapgraph in the Genava Convention - which dimibishes their use in ground combat somewhat. But they have developed a simple method for taking care of infantry: When th Geaprd gets attacked, the crew simply advise the artiellery to conduct anti-personnel are fire in a radius with the Gepard in the center. Simple and effective - becaue not only will the enemy infantry be take care of, but also the Gepard itself because the top armor is to thin... :D

Uh... what?

That makes no sense. On what grounds wouldn't the 35mm be allowed to fire on ground targets?

Seems to be more of the same silly rumours about .50 not being allowed to do so. Don't recall anyone telling off the Argentines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A short break: I found an interesting little clip about the Leopard 2 A6 topic, we discussed a few a days ago in this thread: May be interesting for some guys: :)

Greets MARS42

Clearly an advertisement, but neat to see the Leopard in action. I particularly liked the (very short) section 2:00 in showing the Leopard driving (with snorkel) under 4 meters of water!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, yes. In practise, politicians still have to okay troop deployment.

Witness the NATO effort in Afghanistan where more then a few nations disgraced themselves with a rather minimal effort and/or with strings attached.

Not that a lot of the blame for that can't be put at the feet of the USA alienating it's allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A short break: I found an interesting little clip about the Leopard 2 A6 topic, we discussed a few a days ago in this thread: May be interesting for some guys:

Well this is old PR spot with lies, untrues and halftrues.

"Superior mobility", I'm interested to what? A mule? ;-)

Not get me wrong here, Leo2 is a great piece of machine but I just hate PR spot's, I hate also Discovery Channel and their so called "military specialists"... phi, specialists, outdated info's, lies or stupid opinions, or simple lack of basic knowledge.

By the way, they showed Leopard 2A6EX, only one was ever builded, this is very interesting vehicle because in fact it is just modified Leopard 2A4, not an new builded vehicle for demonstration purpose, demonstrator of Leopard 2A5 PSO also was modified Leopard 2A4. :-)

Ah and the Leopard 2A5S or Strv122, big winner in Sweden because of US policy of selling only Monkey models.

Yeah, this was an interesting story, Leclerc sended there was a prototype with many failures, Swedens wan't M1A2 but in US variant, and Yanks wan't sold the only 120 monkey model M1A2's, hmm maybe they even have chance to won (there are speculations that armor inserts in the end were been Swedens design), but Germans offered 120 Leopard 2A5 (Improved) and next 120 or 140 Leopard 2A4's on very low price.

Greece trails also were interesting, M1A2 win in shooting competition, in mobility was equal to Leopard 2A6 but again, monkey model armor (like Arab countries have). But the real funny thing was ammo problems, Brits must shoot with old ammo, and more with improper for this ammo propelant charges, Yanks shoot with improper ammo too, and must wait for combat ammo to make shooting again, Russians have also improper training ammo with balistics similiar to old 3BM15 APFSDS not the newer types.

Leclerc IRCC have some problems but I don't know the details, Challenger 2E, hmmm I must check more info's. T-80U is a big mistery for me.

Australian trails was an evolution in US export policy, TACOM designed new export armor packadge with very improved protection level vs. KE and CE ammo (in worse scenario M1A1HA from 1987, in best 90's versions level, this mean M1A1HA+/HC and M1A2), this was good decision because US offered M1A1SA's with armor that also incorporate IIIrd. Gen. DU with graphite coating inserts standard for three new XXI variants of M1. Australia for some reasons doesen't such armor so they get slightly worse thing.

Of course rest tanks also perform grate, still no closer details.

I'm very interested how Leo2 perform in desert trails for some Arabic country (anyone?), IRCC Leo2A4 is variant that will be tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to find it hard to keep the imersion factor going with NATO, I mean yet another force ganging up on the poor Syrians, how long would a coventional war really last? If we were talking a war against an elusive guerilla type force like in Afghanistan ok but most battles will be against regular army units who I have trouble beliving would still be mounting significant opposition after the US and Brits have had their go.

I know some will say it's all supposed to be a synchronised attack but in that case it just seems a bit unlikely the Syrians would be able to give a challenging defence against the whole western world. I'd prefer to see the Russians getting involved to square things up a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SLIM,

Elmar hit the nail on the head with the first bit:

In theory, yes. In practise, politicians still have to okay troop deployment.

Couple this with a huge percentage of the population who think that if you ignore a problem it will go away... significant military intervention is not assured. Fairly insignificant support, however, can give the facade of being supportive without actually doing much. For example, providing a couple of planes, some cash, training for a tiny amount of the new country's police force, etc.

Witness the NATO effort in Afghanistan where more then a few nations disgraced themselves with a rather minimal effort and/or with strings attached. Not that a lot of the blame for that can't be put at the feet of the USA alienating it's allies.

Ah... but this was going on BEFORE the runup to the war in Iraq. Even in 2001 there was a lot of strings, waffling, etc. going on when the US was riding EXTREMELY high in terms of popularity and public sympathy. Of course it got worse after the diplomatic bumblings in the run up to the war in Iraq, then it went off a cliff as everything went to Hell in a handbasket (politically speaking).

AKD has this right:

The campaigns are concurrent.

Correct. The conventional campaign against Syria would probably last 3-5 weeks with all forces going in simultaneously.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh... what?

That makes no sense. On what grounds wouldn't the 35mm be allowed to fire on ground targets?

Seems to be more of the same silly rumours about .50 not being allowed to do so. Don't recall anyone telling off the Argentines.

I have been told that by a Gepard gunner a few years ago. Apparently the reasoning was that firing with incendiary rounds/tracers is inhumane because the poor sod trying to blow your ass off would hideously die burning to death... What IS allowed is firing AP ammo - but try that with soft-skinned vehicles (which my whole point was about). The shell will just go in on one side and out the other without having done much damage, whereas tracers would set the vehicle ablaze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve: The Gepard would obviously not be used close up, they would sit back at a distance and hammer targets, they wouldn't let some dope with an RPG get close. :) And with 35mm rounds, range isn't a problem for the Gepard, and the firepower is awesome. ;)

Tanks can also be vulnerable if you let the enemy get right on top of them and take shots from any and all directions, but that doesn't mean you don't take tanks with you into a battle. You just use them intelligently. :) And the Gepard is an AA tank, so it's crew protection is (more or less) like a tank. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Gepard is an AA tank, so it's crew protection is (more or less) like a tank.

Nope, turret is far less armored because it doesen't need to be armored like a tanks turret, even hull have probably less armor.

Tanks can also be vulnerable if you let the enemy get right on top of them and take shots from any and all directions, but that doesn't mean you don't take tanks with you into a battle.

Ehm, wait, what do you mean by: "Tanks can also be vulnerable if you let the enemy get right on top of them and take shots from any and all directions,"?

frontal arc, that means 30 deegres from center line of turret or hull is fully protected in modern tanks against all modern AT weapons (especially on turret frontal armor and excluding weak spots).

With side up-armor kits side armor is also good covered in minimal case against HEAT single warhead ammo.

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee,

There is what a gamer would do, then there is what a real army would do. The more specialized a vehicle is, the less likely the gamer will use it realistically. It's kinda a rule of the universe, up there with death and taxes ;)

I doubt that Gepards would be brought into a frontline situation any more than I think a M109A6 would be brought to hit targets at point blank range. At least not as a matter of course.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve: Yes, the Gepard would not be sent there for that specific use, it would be used to maybe take out the odd surviving enemy helicopter or whatever. But if the German troops wanted some extra firepower in the mean time, they would not be adverse to opening up on various ground targets. :) I don't see why they wouldn't bring the vehicle at all during an invasion (Afghanistan is a special case, there is absolutely no chance of an air attack there). Tanks are often used in unrealistic ways by gamers, also, but we don't deny their use in wargames because of that. If the gamer does something really dumb with his vehicles, sooner or later he will pay for it with damaged or destroyed vehicles, especially in a realistic wargame like CMII. :)

Well, even if we don't get the Gepard ( :( ), please tell me we at least get the F-4F/ICE Phantom fighter bomber for air support of German ground forces. :)

Damian90: Obviously I meant allowing enemy infantry to get so close they could pick and choose exactly where on the tank to try and hit it with an RPG.

Earl Grey: That makes no sense, we shoot terrorists in Afghanistan all the time with incendiary .50 cal rounds from the M2 Browning machine gun, it's perfectly allowed. So 35mm rounds would be just fine. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shell is how big? 35mm right?

And what is the rate of fire?

...just found this video, woah, that is much faster than I thought:

That is probably 50+ rounds in 3 sec.

What is going to happen when all those 35mm shells go through the outer armor?

What are they doing to personnel and equipment inside the vehicle?

How much metal is flying around inside that steel box?

Basic rule: if it can penetrate it is going to do plenty of damage to the soft tissue inside.

Is that considered "knocked out" :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee,

Yes, the Gepard would not be sent there for that specific use, it would be used to maybe take out the odd surviving enemy helicopter or whatever. But if the German troops wanted some extra firepower in the mean time, they would not be adverse to opening up on various ground targets.

By accident, sure, but not on purpose. Just because you want it to be so doesn't make it so. You're going to have to drag out a bunch of German officers and doctrine to convince me otherwise :)

The most likely scenario is the Gepards would be deployed and they would hang back where they are supposed to be (i.e. NOT shooting at ground targets). When it's clear that there aren't any aircraft to shoot down, they'd park somewhere as part of a garrison or they will return to Turkey where they came from. They wouldn't get tossed into the frontline simply because they have nothing better to do with their time. At MOST the crews would be removed from the vehicles, handed G-36 rifles, and told to patrol streets. That's what happened to thousands of US Army artillery, anti-air, armor, and various support unit personnel once their fancy schamncy stuff wasn't needed but their rifles were. Hard to patrol a street with a M109A6 compared to a M4 :) Some of our Forum members can attest to this first hand!

Tanks are often used in unrealistic ways by gamers, also, but we don't deny their use in wargames because of that. If the gamer does something really dumb with his vehicles, sooner or later he will pay for it with damaged or destroyed vehicles, especially in a realistic wargame like CMII.

That's an entirely different position and it is one I can support, in theory. Yes, gamers love to misuse, abuse, and completely fart on reality if it makes them happy. Within certain limitations, we don't have a problem spending some time and resources to give players some degree of frivolous fun. Just don't pretend it's anything but that. Doesn't do anybody any favors :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of our Forum members can attest to this first hand!

dude, I saw Avenger humvees and arty ammo carriers (minus the arty ammo :eek: ) being used on patrols the first few months,

then again we were hauling ass around town at 2am in Tops humvee with a dismounted loaders M240 ratchet straped to the roof :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Battlefront-Team:

1. Gepard: I´m a former Bundeswehr-Officer and i agree with you, that the Gepard is not used against ground-targets. The Gepard has 40 rounds antitank ammunition on board, yes, but it´s only used in open ground to ground combat, when all other vehicles failed.

2. A nice vehicle, which was forgotten in this thread until now, is the "Boxer":

Looks a bit like the Stryker.

Would be cool to see it in the game! In the following Youtube-clip you can see it after 3 Minutes 12 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XnIm_F2Okw&feature=fvw

Greets MARS42

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earl Grey: That makes no sense, we shoot terrorists in Afghanistan all the time with incendiary .50 cal rounds from the M2 Browning machine gun, it's perfectly allowed. So 35mm rounds would be just fine. :)

Of course, but what other armies do hasn't necessarily to be allowed to the German army as well... Times might change, of course. And I'm not too knowledgeable about current regulations. The gunner It alked to has served on a Gepard about 15 years ago, so things were very lilely handled differently then.

Apart from that, a gepard is a pretty big target for a RPG, so I'd rather take the MArder for fire support anyway - or a proper tank with a 120mm smoothbore! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...