mikeCK

Ok, so basically the Hellfire is heavier, it's range far exceeds a ground units ability to use direct fire, it's expensive and the laser designator can be detected. Makes sense. Thanks

i recently saw this video about a (I assume) prototype recon vehicle by Lockheed Martin https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V8OArUzxtdM What I find interesting is the use of the "Hellfire" ATGM instead of the "TOW-2b". Last I checked, the hellfire was laser guided. Since most armored vehicles use laser range finders, I'm assuming they have the power to run a laser designator. Would the Hellfire be a better choice for vehicles like the Bradley or upgraded Stryker? Does anyone know why the Hellfire has been limited to Air launch and -now- sea launched?

I agree. I'm fine with javelins and .50 cal. Would still like 1 30mm cannon per company. Good for laying down fire in buildings and such

well isn't the job of the APC to get the troops there and provide support? The Stryker brigades are supposed to be highly mobile which prevents tank support. That means any support must be organic. If you have no ability to engage enemy armor, then that severely limits situations in which this brigade can be used no?

Mk19 is capable, but it's range is lacking and I'm not sure a .50cal is going to penetrate a BMP-3 at 800 meters anywhere but the top or rear

Too close for a TOW shot. Missile would not have armed

Well in essence you are saying that if you don't have to fight in a town or woods, infantry are useless. Yes. But try bringing armor into the woods or a town without infantry and that armored vehicle will be useless. Both have a role

I always thought the general rule was that any system should be capable of defeating it's enemy equivalent. To me it's absurd than an armored vehicle would be incapable of taking out and Enemy Light armored vehicle. But I'm not an expert

They are planning on upgrading the suspension system to handle the 30mm cannon. It's about as heavy as the 105mm gun system which is transportable. It is added weight but well within the specs with the new suspension my question is, who thought it was sufficient to arm them with only .50 and 40mm grenades originally

Well, just to be clear....I am ridiculing the **** out of this media source. That doesnt mean I'm ridiculing Russians anymore than making fun of the Weekly World News is ridiculing Americans Don't write articles that are absurd and you (media) won't get ridiculed

No, that's only in flight. Once on the ground, it's robot brain takes over and the crew need not be in the tank at all

See, I was under the impression that the Armata could fly...of course, then it wouldnt need transport. Since it requires no spare parts, never breaks down and acquires power by stealing it from other tanks via a laser, the whole manned fleet can be anywhere in a few hours.

I could not get a split AT section i to a Cav BRADLEY to acquire ammo. I don't have a save and it was a while ago so it's just anecdotal

I don't think the AI is choosing weapons based on the presence or absence of APS. I could be wrong but I imagine there is some decision-making cycle that results in the AI choosing a weapon and sometimes, it comes out "wrong" All told, I think the AI does great in choosing. I would just like to be able to order my M1 to use its 120mm against a building instead of a machinegun or order my BRADLEY to put a Tow into a building across the Map. No biggie either way

Well it may not be a platoon commander decision but in real life as a platoon commander I wouldn't have to tell a BRADLEY crew to use a TOW against a tank...they would just do it. But since they don't seem to want to in game, I want the command. And regardless of the design of the tow, if you are receiving Fire from a building of structure which combatants can hide behind from 25mm. A tow explosion will mess them up. Put one through a window of a building and everyone inside that floor is incapacitated. Not saying it's ideal but I would want that capability