Vanir Ausf B reacted to panzersaurkrautwerfer in How about some basic advice for those of us new to modern?
When approaching infantry transport:
Anything that has four wheels is functionally the same as a jeep. The exceptions to this are the american HMMWVs that fit MK-19s, TOW missiles, or what looks like a big box.
Tangent: MK-19 has already been discussed. Its murderous against infantry, unarmored vehicles, and some of the APC type targets can be knocked out by it with some luck
Treat the TOW version a lot like a 17 pound gun that's somehow merged with a speedy prime mover. You don't want to place it somewhere it can be shot at at all, but it will reap a terrible toll on tanks if you give it a chance.
The Big box is the LRAS3, which is one of the most powerful sensor systems in the US Army. The upside is it is a great tool for calling for support, or keeping sneaky things away from your flank. The downside is it is not especially better at either of those than an Abrams, and is knocked out by anything more than small arms fire. This sensor is also mounted on the Stryker scout vehicle.
Anything with 6-8 wheels/tracks and a machine gun: Treat like a halftrack. They're really not that well armored, but are great for getting infantry forward fast. Semi-exceptions to this:
The BTR/MTLBs with 30 mm guns are great against not-tank type vehicles, and very good at suppressing or killing enemy infantry.
The Stryker with MK19 is just good enough to use forward, great at digging out infantry from buildings, or suppressing trenchlines.
IFVs (tracked things with troops, some sort of autocannon, and ATGMs)
Imagine if your halftracks, light tanks, and AT vehicles all had a beautiful baby!
Treat them like halftracks until they get to the point where they can deposit troops, once the troops are kicked out, then feel less nervous about using them as the mini-tanks they can be. In a lot of ways, think of them like the M5 tanks from World War Two, they're great against other light vehicles, they're amazing against infantry, but you do not want it anywhere near something that can be called "anti-tank" or a real tank for that matter.
Here's the important caveats to remember when operating ATGMs from any platform (except the Javelin)
1. Bullets are faster than missile. The longer you fire the missile from, the longer it takes to impact, the more time the enemy has to react to missile. It takes a TOW missile about 30 seconds to reach its max range around 3750 meters, that's enough time for the enemy to pop smoke, or return fire with a tank gun, which could very well kill the launching crew before the missile is even close to the target. To this end it can be wise to ignore max range shots in favor of letting the enemy close in a bit (or it takes a tank shell 2ish seconds to go to 4 KM, it's flight time is fairly constant, while your missile fired at 2000 meters will only take 15ish seconds, which is a much harder thing to react to than 30 seconds)
2. ERA is built to ruin your ATGM. APS also will wreck your day. With that said, both systems degrade the more missiles they have to deal with. To that end firing more missiles is often a good solution, so rather than spreading out your fires, massing 2-3 missiles on one tank will often overwhelm the APS (or deplete it's ammunition), and strip away a lot of the ERA protection.
Also when playing against other players, it's much more likely they'll reverse out of an engagement if one of their tanks gets piled on by a few missiles, vs the fire being more spread out.
3. Reloading takes a bit. This is especially true with vehicles like the Bradley or BMP series that have their launchers external to the vehicle. When engaging with ATGMs, don't be afraid to mass like I said earlier, but hold a few launchers in reserve to continue to engage while your first salvo is being reloaded.
4. Mass your missiles. If you've got two or even three different flavors of missiles, find their average optimal engagement area, and plan to hit the enemy in that range. Using the Americans as an example the max effective range on the Javelin is 2500 meters or so. To that end, holding off on firing off your TOWs until the enemy is 2000-2500 meters out ensures that target area is saturated with missiles, and rather than returning fire effectively, the enemy is evading and trying to leave the kill zone.
5. Trees give bad vibes. Anything that is described as "wire guided" needs to be kept away from trees and similar obstructions to ensure the missile's guidance wire doesn't get snagged and cause the missile to rather dramatically miss the target.
1. Q. Which American units are spotters for artillery and aviation?
A. All of them. Some are better at it than others, but if it's a team with a radio or digital communications it can call for a fire mission. Plan accordingly from both ends for that one.
2. Borg spotting actually does kind of exist now. Given the advances in battle tracking, all US, and many higher tech Russian units can share situational awareness to varying degrees. They may still not be able to engage, but if the scouts up front spot your dudes sneaking along, odds are the rest of the force now has at least a very strong idea where your forces are at vs vaguely there's enemy somewhere up front.
3. Fear the Abrams. No. Really. Fear it. It is the apex predator in this game. If the enemy has them, you really need to have a plan on how and where to kill them vs simply having some AT assets on hand. The APS and ERA ones appear especially dangerous at this point.
Vanir Ausf B reacted to panzersaurkrautwerfer in Prepared positions?
Most military forces operate some sort of military dozer/excavator designed to support forward operations. In the US Army use, the M9 ACE fills this role, with broadly speaking similar mobility to the M113 APC (it does leak hydraulics pretty much constantly but that's a "lowest bidder" thing). For lighter organizations there's a family of wheeled earth movers capable of somewhat reasonable independent road marches (slow, but still capable of it). What's more reasonable is a "blade team" which is usually two of these thingies comes out, and in conjunction with either an engineer liaison (like the BN engineering officer) or the ground unit commander (like the company commander) establishes defensive locations as required. This is usually done using a sort of defensive triage, if I only have a blade team for 12 hours, I'm likely going to have enough time to dig in a platoon of tanks fully or something (I'm not sure, I used to have a chart that illustrated how long everything took, but I've since lost track of it). Also a lot of the smaller defensive works like squad fighting positions are accomplished by the dismounted infantry itself (which is why real shovels are worth their weight in gold instead of E-tools)
Not really? Usually you employ a forward screening recon element who's job it is to:
1. Let you know when the enemy is coming
2. Prevent enemy scouts from locating said defensive works.
A lot of the battlefield will remain within artillery range, however, without observation it will not be sufficient to get accurate artillery fires on it.
So to that end, the defenses can be built well within artillery range, just so long as the enemy observation of same is denied.
Defenses are rarely as static as you seem to assume they would be. The reality is using forward recon, is that a fairly small force and move between several defensive positions to cover an axis of advance. Further when talking about the vast tracts of the desert, mobility is much less constricted. In a European setting, the passable axis of advance (which is much more defined by the mobility of the logistics tail than the AFVs) is much more constricted, which makes defensive positions much harder to bypass.
Also a good hull down position will mask the weaker side and rear hull armor from direct fire, which uh, actually yeah does a lot to protect an M1 from artillery or an air strike (it's also not a "horseshoe dirt bunker" it's usually a hole in the ground with an angled approach to allow the tank to enter/exit easily. So it's not just "here's some dirt piled up!" it's "the tank will likely not be knocked out by anything short of near-direct hits"
Vanir Ausf B reacted to panzersaurkrautwerfer in Weapons of 2017- M1A3/T-99
It most certainly is not at this point, It's supposed to be a "soon" thing like 2017-2020, but as of now the basic load was still a mix of sabot, MPAT, and sometimes canister.
It is most certainly an enigma. I worked with guys who got pulled in to basically be the focus group for some of the improvements. There never was a real "hey what do you think of this?" tank parked in the motorpool or something, it was very general "do you think the loader could use his own remote weapons station?" sort of questions.
The stuff that's been consistent:
1. New lightened gun. Same performance, just much lighter
2. Better integration of electrical systems (a lot of stuff has just been added on top of existing architecture, so reworking stuff like the wiring harness to reduce redundancy is in the cards)
3. Replacement of copper wiring with fiber optics (this is supposed to save 2-5 tons of weight)
4. Data link for the gun to allow for rounds like the AMP or possibly some sort of future missile system
5. Improved commander's weapon station. The CROW is too tall. Way too tall, and while effective, it's clearly a bolt-on addition. Something shorter, and better integrated into the tank is likely.
Stuff that's mentioned occasionally that I don't rule out:
1. Replacing the engine with a diesel. It has been discussed, and would be more cost effective. However the gas turbine still offers excellent performance, and we have the advantage of having a lot of them on hand right now.
2. Additional remote weapons system for the loader. Given the COIN focus in the last decade or so, making a tank more MG focused doesn't seem unlikely, but at the same time it'd get in the way of the commander's station, the CITV would have to be worked around, and the loader has other things to be doing usually.
3. Some manner of add-on boathull for the belly armor to deflect mine blasts
4.ERA racks installed as standard vs a kit. I'm sort of half on half on this, on the one hand, the ERA mounting kits definitely stayed well in the realm of the TUSK kit, and only the TUSK kit. On the other hand, with better weight management it'd be possible to actually just have the ERA on all tanks.
Stuff that I've heard but seems very doubtful
1. Longer/larger gun. It's possible to do, but most of the direction the Army has taken is better rounds, and the sheer length of a larger 120 MM gun is prohibitive in urban or other complex terrain.
2. Longer hull/more roadwheels. I've never seen the logic for it given the weight reduction measures, maybe partly trying to lower ground pressure by increasing how much the existing weight is spread around. However given the sheer number of M1 hulls in existence, and the expense of modifying them to that degree, it's more likely the basic shape of the hull and suspension will remain the same.
3 Home-grown APS. The US program seems to have stagnated/suffered from reduced funding and priority. The CMBS scenario where the US buys a few thousand units from Israel to add on to existing tanks seems more likely than the US APS coming out in time to install it. Unless of course it's actually something that's just being done so in the dark for OPSEC reasons that no recent information has leaked on it.
4. Autoloader. Just no. Reworking the turret to that degree, and the value of the fourth crewman is not something I see the Army walking away from.
Vanir Ausf B reacted to panzersaurkrautwerfer in Weapons of 2017- M1A3/T-99
German pastry transport was at least 500% as efficient as the Allies. The Allies only won because of outnumbering German pastry.
Really think looking more at these hypothetical tanks that we're already at the cutting edge as far as what's likely to show up and trade blows in a hypothetical war in 2017. T90AM is already kind of out there, M1A2 with APS and AMP is pretty tomorrow's war. Maybe if the game has the longevity that CMSF had in terms of release to final expansions, and the M1A3 is revealed to have such and such specs, and the Armata doesn't pull a Black Eagle, T-95 etc a sort of future systems pack makes sense.
(Of course, I'd be more excited for Fulda Gap 1990 myself, or for a weirdo Russia vs China campaign)
Vanir Ausf B reacted to nsKb in Weapons of 2017- M1A3/T-99
I don't think this is a good idea, a modern gas turbine would provide a better specific power and volumetric power than a modern diesel. The efficiency of a gas turbine is worse under normal operating conditions but it is not that bad, especially if you have an under armor APU.
Gas turbines also offer superior IR signature than diesels. Exhaust radiates primarily at wavelengths that can not be used by terrestrial IR imagers (MWIR and LWIR in this case) due to atmospheric attenuation concerns, diesels only reject approximately half their heat into exhaust and the other half into heat exchangers that are very visible to IR imagers. Furthermore diesels tend to have more sooty exhaust which is approximately grey body radiator and can be detected by IR imagers.
The problem with the M1's engine is not that it is a gas turbine but that it is an old gas turbine.
Vanir Ausf B reacted to GhostRider3/3 in Problems with spotting
Thank you for your posts,
I was just a bit dumbfounded when I had a German tank unbuttoned take 4-5 hits.... stayed unbuttoned and was "OK" never suppressed.. and not once returned fire. I could not replicate this in doing 20 tests in open ground at the same distance of 1740 meters. using the same crew types.
Anyways its like beating a dead horse.. lol the game is great.. has some quirks.. and some strange AI issues from time to time.. but I am not complaining.. just thought it was uncanny at best. I am finding most of the maps are meta-gamed to the defense... which makes sense vs AI as it makes you think more and think of options.
Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Rinaldi in Combat Ranges for tanks in black sea - engagement ranges?
The guy who wrote that doesn't actually play the game. Map sizes have increased quite a lot recently and seeing what the hell is going on is not an issue. There are these things called "icons"...
Tank and ATGM engagement ranges in reality are mostly dictated by terrain and I think for the most part that is also true in the game.
Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from GreenAsJade in CM Helper 1.5.0: please update (windows users particularly)
Working fine so far. Thanks!
Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Shorker in German 75mm AT Guns - Stealth Mode?
I have looked into this a little further. This bug affects any AT guns purchased as part of a formation in which they begin limbered to half tracks:
UK Antitank Battation (CMBN)
US Armored Infantry Battalion (CMBN)
GE Regimental Anti-tank Company (CMBN and CMRT)
(let me know if I missed any)
It also affects three half tracks when purchased as individual vehicles: UK M5, US M2A1 and US M3A1 (2 x MG). Other half tracks seem to work fine with AT guns as long as they are purchased individually.