c3k

Okay. Thanks. (Was this from a pre-made battle, or a qb?) Do you have the ability to take a screen-shot of the TiQ (Tank in Question)?

Still waiting to hear if your tank fired .50. Pix of the ammo state prior and post attack would allow for a determination of that. (And Artemis258 has it right. You should've ordered your Abrams crew to Dismount and a charge the BMP. Their display of moral superiority would've unhinged the Russian defense. )

This describes my favored scenario type.

If the linked article shows the "Low Profile" CROWS, I'd tell the vendor to change the name to "Medium Profile". I like the ideas...

My bold. JasonC makes some good points about the prevalence of infantry on the Eastern Front. Two minor nits: German tanks may be rare (outside OKH designated offensives), but that does not mean there was no AFV about. (I'm talking the StuG's and Marders.) No, they wouldn't be common, but just because there isn't a Panzer division about, doesn't mean there's NO chance of an AFV showing up. The bold: The designers are not (in the main) in "fantasy land". Instead, a lot of the battles in-game are focused on the clash of armor, not the daily drudge of tossing a few shells across no-man's land, raiding, and trying to adjust the trenches a few dozen meters. Yes, that was far more of the war. (See Rzhev for, what, 2 years?) Players like toys, for the most part. Designers try to meet that market. Ken

Well, womble asked directly, but you haven't answered: did the Abrams have and fire a .50? Did your .50 cal. AP round count decrease during the engagement? (As womble stated, if you do NOT have a .50, then there's definitely something going on with the TacAI.) If you DO have a .50, but the round count did not decrease, then there's something odd. Got a pix of the before and after? Focusing on subsystems status and ammo levels?

Alas, yes. Far too often, and like the in-game Abrams, rarely when I want it to. :)

Lol! This game uses "reasonable" projections of future capabilities. T-90 with active defense is one such projection. As is Abrams with APS and LWR. There is no conceivable scenario which would pre-suppose "stripped" US units would be put in-theater. All units would get all upgrades. Although the peacetime US procurement system moves at a snail's pace, in war, innovation and quick fielding has been a hallmark of the deployments, thus far. I see no reason why that would change. The US Army is currently working on 60-100kW solid-state lasers. 2017-2022 field trial times are trotted out. (Optimistic IMHO, but the capability exists. Similar to Patriots vs. Scuds in GW I.)Should the game include US Army ADA using lasers to zap those pesky Russian drones and mortar shells? I think folks concerned with LWR on Abrams would have their heads explode if lasers were put in the game. (Of course, that could just be the laser targeting them....) I'd love a Laser Tank. Currently, I can buy a directional LWR for my car for a few hundred dollars. It is trivial to have similar systems added to Abrams. Ken Edited to add a timely news story: http://aviationweek.com/technology/inside-lockheed-martin-s-fiber-laser-weapon?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20151012_AW-19_202&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001567309&utm_campaign=4032&utm_medium=email&elq2=84e8856bc6af49dd9e7ae79e88361135

Ditto on both sentiments! Visually wonderful, and thanks for doing and sharing this. Ken

Agreed: a main gun round would seem to be the best choice. However... 1) Crew experience: if low, may've picked the "wrong" weapon 2) Crew morale: if low, may've picked the "wrong" weapon 3) TacAI: it may have a bit more variability in behavior than you'd like. It may just be that this is an outlier which is part of the "cool factor" where you never really know what will happen. In this (possibly rare) case, you got bit. In other cases, it just adds that element of individual choice which keeps the game from seeming too robotic 4) The weapon choice was correct: at those ranges and with obstructions in the way, a HEAT round would be crazy to fire. I'm not sure if the minimum arming distance is coded. I also don't know if the TacAI assesses self-created damage from firing too close (or if that's coded). Perhaps firing a HEAT round at 15m is not "smart"? An AP round would be equally inappropriate at that range, that environment, and that target? 5) This is a bug. 6) Of the normal 3 MG's an M1 has (coax, loader's, TC's), only the TC's is a .50. If that was one of the ones firing, perhaps it has killed the BMP, but due to the "death clock" and fog of war, you're just unaware of the damage it caused? Ken

This may be the best explanation. If the RPO is area targeted against a structure, the aimpoint could well be anywhere alongside the visible face. In that case, the RPO won't be very effective. If the RPO is targeted at an individual visible in a window, then the aimpoint would be into that window. That would be where the RPO shines. Ken

All good counterpoints to my (mostly) tongue-in-cheek exposition.

3 vs. 4 man tank crews, by a non-tanker. A spotting exposition. First, eliminate the driver. He's driving, looking for the next location, etc. No one cares about the driver as long as the tank stays mobile. If it cannot drive, he gets the blame. Besides, if he's any good, the tank is hull-down. He's a non-player for spotting. Because I say so and this is my spotting essay. That leaves 2 men in the turret or 3 men in the turret. The gunner has tunnel vision. He's looking through his highly magnified, narrow field of view, aiming system. He's not spotting, he's aiming. There, that takes care of him. Now, you either have 1 man spotting or 2 men spotting. One will always be the tank commander. The other will be the loader, if present. Having a loader in ADDITION to the tank commander represents a 100% increase in the number of eyeballs scanning the terrain. (Loader scans through vision blocks when not actively loading.) 100% increase? I'll take it. Non-magnified, wide-field-of-view, easy to spot moving targets and close-in infantry. Yeah. (That may help... Or not.) (If you don't like me eliminating the gunner from the spotting calculations, then having the loader is only a 50% increase in the number of eyeballs.) Ken

This is exactly my preference, as well. Either set up in a rational manner or in parade formation. If the units are set up, then make sure there's a reason for their exact placement. E.g., you're in column at the moment an ambush is sprung and you need to fight clear. Otherwise, just order them with HQ's up front and center, and the sub-units ordered behind them...just like a TO&E chart brought to life. Ken

I'm in a pbem as US vs. Russians in an urban fight. My oppo has scored several RPO hits. They are very effective when they get inside. Very effective. Ken

Oh! Oh! OOOHHHHH!!!!! Baneman, from behind, with the kill shot! Bang! Pow! Well done.

CMBN before CMBS. Scouts: give them TIME at waypoints to watch. That means using the PAUSE command. (I like WeGo: it allows me to rewind and learn what has happened. Save early and save often. ) If you have guys with binoculars, they will spot better than those without. More eyes improve your spotting chances. (The spotting cycle is variable. I'd give a scout team at least 30 seconds at a given location to even have a hope of spotting enemy units. If you really want to overwatch a zone, you need to set up some optics (binos, scoped weapons), and give them about 15 minutes...) Ken

Aye! Well done, lad, well done. Keep IanL honest. Heck, for that faux pas, I think he owes you a pbem game. You pick the map, the forces, and the victory conditions.

Excellent news!!!

I'm in the midst of a pbem (CMBN) with Sublime. My money's on him. I think he gets a bigger advantage when he gets to use his playing style and gets Russian forces. Let's get an AAR! Are you ready to ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbbbllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee????????????

Just like infantry, tanks do better from the upper floors. Keyhole, keyhole, keyhole. And flank. Then move. Use their mobility. Infantry have the eyes, tanks have the hit. Don't lead with tanks: infiltrate with infantry and follow-up with tanks.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying. My interpretation: 1. You don't have reliable internet. 2. Your hard-drive crashed. 3. You could not reactivate after a reinstall because...? You'd used up all your licensing? 4. You could not contact BFC via email? 5. For a year you had no internet? 6. Therefore, you're relying on a streaming service, Steam, to stay away from BFC's one-time activation requirement??? You lost me.

Emrys. Hopefully.

Nice job with clearing KT1...after learning about tank rider vulnerability!

Depends on how high they model the tire psi... Nice catch...