Apocal
-
Posts
1,833 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Apocal
-
-
40 minutes ago, c3k said:
Modern optics allow, adrenaline excepted, 1" accuracy at 100m. At 300m, hitting a 4" circle is easy...under range conditions. IRL, adrenaline, fear, suppression, etc., all degrade that to quite a degree. Even if you make accuracy 10x worse when in combat, at 300m, shots are coming within 40" of the target. Support weapons should be BACK. 300m in WWII was close. In modern combat, 500m is close. Get your Strykers further back.
Unfortunately, the map design sometimes doesn't offer enough "back" compared to "close."
-
4 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:
So, what's this then?. That's right. A Stryker variant with a TOW that is actually n service. It not only can be done. it has been done! The M1134 variant of Stryker. Case closed!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1134_Anti-Tank_Guided_Missile_Vehicle
Um, yeah, pretty much all of us knew that...?
There was a mission in CMSF featuring the AT platoon of a Stryker Bn versus attacking Syrian armor in fact.
-
23 minutes ago, sburke said:
And then to link to a statement from McMasters which I don't even have to read to know you are likely completely changing the context on...... sigh Please just a little more humility. Or any for that matter
McMasters quote was referring to DPICM leaving the US inventory, compared Russia which remains a huge fan of the stuff. Ironically, the article includes an anecdote about Russia's ability to essentially vaporize two mechanized battalions with their firepower. Gone, kaput. The moral of that story appears to be that winning the fires fight is key above all else and attempting to fight from the wrong end of the supporting fires ratio is a fool's errand.
-
Just now, LUCASWILLEN05 said:
Again misrepresenting what I have actualy been saying. Boring!¬
Those are direct quotes. They even link back to the post in question, so people can look for themselves to see the full context. Now, are you going address the Stryker vs. cattle truck/Humvee portion of my post or ignore it like the rest of points raised against you?
-
18 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:
The issue is NOT survivability. The issue is giving Strykers something to fight tanks with.
...
On 5/17/2017 at 3:18 PM, LUCASWILLEN05 said:Stryker might be ok against insurgents. However on a high intensity, high tech battelfield it leaves much to be desired. n fact one might as well be equipped with the old M113 or even trucks :-)
Someone remind me again how much integral AT firepower an old M113 or a cattle truck carried again? Anyway, the actual limit on the number of heavy brigades in the Army is budgetary, so the choice isn't Stryker vs. Bradley; it is Stryker vs. dudes in Humvees and cattle trucks.
-
10 hours ago, Sublime said:
Wouldnt shooting det cord out of a mortar barrel be a serious risk of a detonation either in or right out of the barrel?
8 hours ago, Erwin said:Surely he meant use the combo as a satchel charge. (Can't shoot a propane tank out of a 81mm barrel can you?)
Yeah, the infantrymen carry the 81mm WP round with det cord wrapped around it. They throw it into the building themselves, not fire it out of the mortar tube, lol.
-
On 6/20/2016 at 1:50 AM, General Melchid said:
I find it perplexing that modern armies do not appear to field flamethrowers, either personal or vehicle mounted.
Can anyone tell me why not; seems like a useful weapon to have available in some circumstances eg house/bunker clearing.
We can just explode their innards with thermobaric weapons.
And when it comes time to burning people out of fortified buildings, Marines just went with the field expedient solutions of stuff like det cord wrapped around an 81mm WP or a propane tank.
-
In any organization I was in, the amount of fired that Bradley crew would be would not be measurable by science. The American Soldier gets away with a lot, but I've seen much less silly stuff done with pretty drastic results to one's career (the amount of phone calls I got when one of my tanks was spotted with the commander sitting on the edge of the cupola while the tank was in motion was impressive). .
It's 1915. You're sitting in a briefing for next week's exercise. Your platoon sergeants are all at a SNCO PME held at Hooters.
Do you know where your Specialists are?
-
A real shock when I encountered the headline! If this is true, it is a profoundly negative development.
Did it ever occur to ask yourself why they would use an objectively inferior, but still politically ruinous, dirty bomb rather than just having the Russians sling actual nukes?
-
Just sayin' guys:
But really, was this some type of race with tanks with different nations competing.if so, then I can see why they might be pushing the limits. ( but still not very good at judging what their limits were.)
They aren't really pushing anything too far outside the automotive limits of their tank and every other tank that did that event made it through without flipping over.
-
And to think I thought drifting MBTs was pretty amazing. I had no idea a rollover was even possible on flat ground. Wow! Hope the crew was okay, but I could easily see numerous casualties from something like that.
That's what happens when you drift off the hardball onto soft soil.
-
Yes, I get the impression that RT players stop the clock every time something happens and then issue new orders - effectively instant communications with every unit in the scenario - something not possible even today. If players can play RT all the way thru without regularly pausing, my hat is off to them.
I usually only pause to go to the bathroom or answer the phone. It isn't hard once you develop a rhythmn.
-
AFAICT, spotting rounds don't count against the FFE round count.
-
As a result of this the cost and rarity values could be higher for the US (as in Normandy where the superior german armour is priced a lot higher).
I think this would level the playing field slightly for QB.
High-end German armor gets hit with increased rarity in CMBN because it was legitimately uncommon overall. The majority of the German force mix was something like StuGs and Mk IVs. If ninety percent of their armor had been Panthers and Tigers, they would get the common modifier and no rarity costs. That's effectively the situation with the US Army in 2017 CMBS.
That being said, baseline price is already higher (much higher) for US forces.
-
Yeah that is the best solution I've come up with, is hanging the camera in a position that keeps all my units in view. Of course there are instances when you really need to zoom in on something to target or navigate it properly.
Yeah, other than a decent micro/macro rhythmn, there isn't much else. CMx2 isn't exactly blazing the trail for UI so you just have to get used to fighting the interface to get things done.
-
A US Rifle Platoon can defeat a Russian regular BMP-2 Battallion.
You have to explain how you lost that one, because that's some ridiculousness.
-
Right now there's just no way for me to safely manage multiple units at once, so I end up doing everything one unit at a time, and it's very inefficient. Considering how little Combat Mission has changed over the years, I am feeling a little pessimistic about this series...
Have you tried fighting from a raised three-quarter camera position that keeps most of your men in view? That's what I do and I can usually manage a company on the attack. Granted, that means I'm generally only pushing a platoon around at once, while the two or three others are lending support and mostly static. Other than that, I (rarely) smack the pause button when things get too intense.
-
I thought it would be something like that. Still...so a vehicle that performs less tasks than the vehicle it is supplanting costs more? Why does that not surprise me...
I'm probably being too hard on the Stryker, and am being biased from the perspective of high-intensity warfare. From what I can tell, when it is deployed to missions that it is designed for (COIN/reducing casualties from IEDs) it does its job just fine. Deploy these things to WWIII, however...well, lets just say if CMBS happens in real life, I hope I'm not assigned to a Stryker unit.
It almost certainly would beat being assigned to a light infantry unit.
-
Yeah, but boots and an M-4 costs probably less than 1200 dollars (I think...).
An individual infantryman costs over $100,000 to recruit, train and equipment, on average.
-
Firepower kills.
-
There's an old saying that tanks cannot hold territory. They can take territory, they can blow things up. But when it comes to entering a patch of woods, inspecting vehicle trunks at a checkpoint, patrolling a perimeter, knocking on doors and rounding up prisoners of war you need infantry. CM's perspective is rather skewed because we're only looking at the pointy-end of the spear during an offensive.
Mechanized infantry can do all those things.
When asked how many troops it would take to pacify Afghanistan General Shinseki said 300,000 to 400,000. They pretty much crucified him for that statement.
That was Iraq. Additionally, the people who crucified him were Rumsfeld and company, who espoused a view encouraging extremely light infantry (in the form of SOF) formations that relied almost entirely on airpower to do the killing while poo-pooing heavy forces as obsolete for modern warfighting.
-
Gaben's already raped my wallet hard enough.
-
hmm gotnmy dates wrong regardless i meant before the heavies came from Europe etc
Not a huge deal, I knew what you meant.
-
While we're at it, why did Saddam stop at the Saudi border? I know Hitler freaked at his forces being so far forward and exposed (or at least that's a theory I heard), but why did Saddam say "I could totally own the Saudis right now...but nah"?
Because he never intended to invade Saudi Arabia.
It's important to remember that Kuwait was, historically-speaking, a rather wealthy province of Iraq. It was broken off from Iraq in 1920 (IIRC) by the British to prevent the Iraqis from having meaningful access to the Persian Gulf, forming a rump state created out of whole cloth. There was a modest reunification movement in Kuwait, but it never amounted to much. All that would have been somewhat acceptable, but the Kuwaitis actually snatched territory from Iraqis while they were fighting in the Iran-Iraq War, then used slanted drilling equipment to quite literally steal Iraqi oil from under their noses. Additionally, the Iraqi government owed quite a bit to Kuwait (and, to be fair, Saudi Arabia) and the Kuwaitis were quite... abrasive in their demands for repayment. So Saddam had plenty of reasons (some of them good) to be angry as a hornet's nest at Kuwait... or rather, the British-aligned Kuwaiti royal family.
Saudi Arabia was much less arrogant in its dealings with Iraq and was an on-again, off-again supporter of Iraqi interests. Of course, we weren't about to let Saddam just topple our ally because he was butthurt about lines moving on a map, some stolen oil and having to repay his war loans. We especially weren't about to let him play the stupid "I am so inscrutable, woooo, maybe I'll invade, wooo, maybe I won't, woooo..." game with Saudi Arabia, though that is more the benefit of hindsight talking. Operationally, it made a lot of sense to keep a lot of troops on the Saudi border, including his best formations, but strategically, it was untenable and basically guaranteed a massive, unbeatable coalition arrayed against him, in spite of the fact that he had no intention of doing anything other than gobbling Kuwait.
The Cove - The Australian Profession of Arms
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Yeah, it is kinda silly, because at that point doctrine breaks down and you start looking for ways to just game the hell out of the AI, rather than implement a realistic solution- In the case of that scenario, I'm pretty sure the common sense solution would be to back off and wait for BDE to provide escalation options.