undead reindeer cavalry
-
Posts
1,224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by undead reindeer cavalry
-
-
-
what i miss in this discussion is talk about the merits and abilities of usings trucks and halftracks. going for tanks makes sense pointwise, but it is a bit limiting what comes to fun and/or realistic fights.
i suspect it's just because of limitations set by the quick battle parameters. unfortunately i haven't been able to find time to make some scenarios that deal with motorized detachments.
my pointless point is that in real life halftracks and trucks were succesfully maneuvered in the battleground still when they were already in contact with the enemy. often it was the way for success. not being able to play battles that include such elements seems like wasting the potential of Combat Mission. statements about the superiority of tanks over halftracks seem a bit moot to me.
but i am just wasting bandwidth here with my pointless mumbling.
-
i checked what i had in mind when i wrote the post and you are totally correct! the actual main infantry elements were in fact mounted on trucks. my memory played tricks on me, most likely because the trucks were used so much like halftracks.Originally posted by Bigduke6:UDR: Not to be overly picky, but I have looked high and low for cases of Soviets using halftracks as infantry battlefield taxis, and I haven't found it. From what I can tell halftracks were all imported, and they were used as command vehicles or prime movers for big towed artillery pieces.
From what I've been able to gather the Soviets used a combination of truck infantry up to close to the battle, and then either tank-mounted or on foot once they were in the battle. (Armored cars don't count, they went to the recon boys, I have read.)
So where was it the Soviets used the halftracks to support infantry? I had no idea.
i stand corrected. thanks for pointing this out!
this gave me a thought. perhaps we should train ourselves on use of halftracks by first playing with trucks. once one can do effective quick advance with trucks, doing it with halftracks should be easy.
use of trucks should mean things like daring application of maneuver to flank enemy positions (possibly out of CM scope, at least with the smaller maps) even when already in contact with the enemy, quick unloading of supporting weapons at key positions and well-timed use of indirect fire. to create the pursuit conditions the German side should suffer some penalties, like lower troop quality and a percentage of casualties.
-
you are mixing training and wartime OOB & TOE. at some units conscripts are still trained to use Musti. what this means for wartime things is a whole another thing.Originally posted by SSgt Viljuri:Can't be. PKarPr is surely the last to dismantle obsolete weapons systems in the whole FDF... *sigh*
EDIT: removed some unnecessary information.
[ November 16, 2005, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]
-
yes, i am sure they are still used at some units.Originally posted by Sergei:Really? Are you 100% positive on this? I thought they were pulled from active use in 2000... but maybe that was just PKarPr.
-
yes, Iranians have modern Western stuff as well. e.g. the modernized tanks have Western FCS.
-
people are still trained on Mustis. they won't get to the naphthalene status for a decade or two.
-
i read some time ago about a situation in which Germans used rocket artillery in direct fire mode. it didn't cause massive losses to enemy tanks, but the enemy tanks withdrew anyway, which is more than understandable.
i can't remember the source, though.
-
Colonel,
Soviets did experience success in using infantry mounted in halftracks on urban terrain. motorized infantry is good in pursuit style combat missions where the enemy is withdrawing and trying to regroup. the MGs of the halftracks were good against already shaky enemy infantry.
the high command delays and limited ability to spot enemy units was most likely caused by low quality infantry. be sure to buy veteran infantry.
unlike some are saying, your tactics are sound and historical as long as you are not employing them against well prepared and determined enemy positions.
-
yes, you're right, it's the German-Dutch-Finnish one.
i think Mustis will be around still for a decade or two.
-
will the main UI show mission related info, or perhaps general unit roster of some kind, when no unit is selected?
it would be cool if you would have some kind of unit roster & if you could move to a unit's location by clicking the unit in the roster.
-
i don't think the large firing signature is such a problem. i don't know how Syrians do things, but at least in the FDF it's stressed that recoilless rifles are employed in prepared keyhole positions. so for example you don't position a recoilless rifle at a treeline, but instead relatively deep within the trees. you then cut down trees in order to create a narrow keyhole position. the firing signature doesn't matter because only the target can shoot at you. and at least the Finnish recoilless rifle is relatively mobile, so you can change positions as needed.
BTW there are AT mines that hit from sides.
-
you need to close in already during the same turn.Originally posted by junk2drive:Moving west with the troops in the lead, I pounded those guys in the far west building with several Strykers MG fire and heavy sniper fire. Next turn I thought they must be suppressed and moved my CO Stryker. Boom.
the basic idea is that in SPMBT units can make only certain number of attacks per turn. once the insurgent unit has made its attacks, you can close in and fire at it from point blank.
so first suppress the enemy unit from range, move in hex by hex until it makes the AT-attack, suppress it again until it doesn't make further attacks, and then close in for a kill. if Stykers can't eliminate the unit from point blank, unload some infantry and they will. do all this during one and same turn.
yeah, those 60mm mortars are scary!My big fear was the mortar fire hitting the truck or downed Kiowa. the F-16 is handy in taking them out. you can also take them out with one Stryker by going west and the up north and then east. you should catch two of the mortars unprotected on the field. there were almost no insurgents up north when i played the scenario.
-
they didn't sell a plane, they sold the design. a small stealth plane.Originally posted by akd:Well, I don't know anything about MiG sales to Iran,
the issue has been very much on table already for some time. i think the most recent subject for a semi-public outcry was related to Russia selling SA-18 missiles to Syria. Russia holds it has special relations with Syria and opposes any kinds of sanctions imposed on Syria (EDIT: to clarify, Russians have themselves banned selling of certain types of weapons, like the Iskander missile system, but these systems would not be present on CMSF scale anyway). there has been plans of selling all kinds of advanced crap to Syria. a 2007 scenario could include all kinds of nasty stuff.Save for the 200 so AT-14s, I doubt there has been any significant transfer of recent Russian designs to Syria.
-
i suspect you have problems with the Strykers coming from southeast, not with the group around the downed Kiowa?Originally posted by junk2drive:URC I think my problem is in not dismounting the troops soon enough. And the .50 cals suck.
scout with the operational Kiowa ahead of the Strykers. when you have located an insurgent unit, pin it down with the Strykers from around 300 meters. when the enemy unit is pinned, move closer with a Stryker until the insurgent unit attacks. pin it down again. because of pinning the insurgents have only low chances of hitting the Stryker. Strykers have low chances of hitting anything as well, but you have so many of them that it doesn't matter. once the insurgent unit has made two AT attacks, you can close in with the Strykers. if Stryker fire from 50 meters is not enough to finish the unit, disembark some infantry right next to the enemy unit and eliminate it.
the insurgent "strongpoint" at east is a tough one to deal with. i advanced towards it from west and northwest, instead of southeast. disembarked snipers were very useful across the open field in the middle of the "block" southwest of the enemy strongpoint.
the .50 cals of the Strykers are very effective near the downed Kiowa, where insurgents are closing in across open terrain.
have you noticed that you have two units capable of indirect fire? one F-16 and one of the Strykers.
-
ok, i am still totally drunk, but here comes the "suber" edit anyway.
Viljuri, there are two realistic options for Finnish precense in Syria 2007 scenario.
first is a UN mission. we could have up to 2000 men in a UN mission, but typically we have around 1000 men in UN mission. so theoreticallu we could have about a batallion of motorized infantry in Syria in 2007.
the second one is one of the EU Battle Groups our forces belong to. i think one becomes operational in 2007. if it is the Nordic one, it would include, at best, i suppose, just one Security Company. even if it it include Special Jaegers from Utti, it wouldn't be a meaningful contribution.
so, there isn't much to model in there, what comes to Finnish troops in Syria in 2007.
[ November 11, 2005, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]
-
har har har.
say, do you have any plans of making scenarios for Shock Force that feature Finnish UN forces?
-
i tried it twice last night. it's a good scenario for training how to use motorized infantry in towns in SPMBT. first time i lost four Strykers (two to those damn mines) and the truck (to 60mm mortars!). the second time i got all the flags, secured the Kiowa and its crew, but lost three men.Originally posted by junk2drive:URC did you try the Kiowa down scenario? If so, how did you do. I'm still trying and dieing.
how are you dying?
-
for example in Finland some 90% of the male population has military training. only extreme minority of females have military training though.Originally posted by Bigduke6:Soldiers and people interested in them are a minority in every society.
i don't see what fairness has to do with warfare, as warfare is based on avoiding a fair fight, but regarding "fair fight" and the US, i dare to say that the US is one of the most "unfair" nations what comes to warfare. and that's how it should be, considering the material advantage that the US has enjoyed.
-
i haven't tried the Kiowa down scenario. will try it in future.
i don't think the large firing signature of recoilless rifles is a real problem, because Syrian terrain should provide good keyhole positions for these kinds of AT-weapons.
-
i bet i am not the only one playing US-Syria 2007 battles in SPMBT, and i have to express my full satisfaction in using the Syrian recoilless "AT-guns". these things are mycket naughty, what comes to targets like Strykers.
the only part that is a bit unsatisfactory is the accuracy at mid+ ranges. i know that the Finnish 95mm recoilless rifle is accurate up to 700 meters, so i wonder if the Syrian recoilless "AT-gun" should be a bit more accurate at the mid ranges.
anyone with info about the Syrian recoilless & (or) opinion if it should turn out to be more accurate in CM:SF than what it is in SPMBT?
-
it sure rocks, but it's too bad if it means that stuff that can't be calcuated real time can not be in the WEGO game.
-
i sure hope that the real-time play is not the reason why we could not have all the sweet stuff, like the line-of-fire calculations, in the [WEGO part of the] game.
-
sorry, wasn't aware of previous discussion. need to search more before posting.
cassh,
flanking positions as such are of course totally realistic, but IMO not on the CMx2 scope & scale in standard battles. in order to secure such a flanking position you would need almost the whole forcepool you have for an individual CMx2 battle (if i have understood the CMx2 scale right).
perhaps CMx2 will feature "ambush" battle type, where you can have flanking positions, but otherwise under "normal" conditions, the defender should have positions that are defendable. you won't send your valuable AT assets sit unsecured at some treeline hundreds of meters in front of your rifle positions. they would just get annihilated because of things like recon. mobile AT-assets used for that special purpose are outside the CMx2 scope.
being able to rotate AT-guns (or whatever) by some degrees should be fine for normal emplacement of AT-guns at the flanks of defender's positions.
if you think a defender would move his AT assets to flanking positions when the enemy attack is underway, you could still do it. i just want to limit the initial setup positions.
Syrian recoilless at-guns/rifles
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
musti & munkki is a bad combo IMO :\