hcrof
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hcrof
-
-
Not sure where the idea comes from that the British Army lacks firepower. Man for man the SA80 packs more of a punch than the M4 and an 8 man section carries as much UGLs and LMGs as a 9 man US squad, plus two LSWs for those long-range engagements.
I agree that the british army squad has more firepower than its US Army counterpart (not the US marines obviously), its just that the American forces have tanks, IFV's, planes, javelins etc. coming out of their ears whereas the British forces often have to 'Muddle through' without. Still, thats what we are good at right?
@falconeer4250 - To answer question 2, AFAIK, only the Soviet influenced countries will attempt to fight from their IFV's (not possible in the game). Western coutries tend to dismount and lead the assault with infantry. Unloading 300-400m away from the enemy position would be a good bet but obviously don't take that as gospel
Edit: flamingknives seems to have found that I am wrong about not dismounting! Still - I would still argue that western countries *usually* dismount
-
I don't think the optics are that much better on the T-72M1V than the T-55MV, maybe you just got unlucky?
Try staying fully below a ridge until the last moment and using infantry spotters to judge when to go hull down and blast their flanks. Staying unbuttoned should work as well with older tanks, especially at short range but a tight target arc will probably do better at longer range.
You might be able to unbutton and go turret down with just the commander over the ridge but it would not tell you you have vision from a movement point, you would have to guess it and check for a grey line when you arrive.
-
From Steves comments so far I would guess that the new QB system will offer ready built formations to the player, perhaps with a limited choice of attachments.
So for example you could take a mech infantry formation with a core of a Mech infantry coy (+artillery/engineers/tank plt) or you could take a tank formation with 2 plt tanks (+infantry/artillery/scouts). The 'template' force would enforce balence, taking points out of the system.
This would solve the gamey OOB's while allowing a player to customise forces to a certain extent. Creating 'battlegroups' or suchlike. IMO of course
-
I have been considering writing up a piece on Soviet and likely Syrian tactics but they are not as complex at company level as NATO or even further up the formation.
I am not sure if anyone would be interested though and it would need a lot of work.
+1 on British tactics though, I would love a discription of platoon and company level tactics for the British army and how it differs from the Americans. There is not that much literature on the subject as far as I am aware.
AFAIK, the British army is less firepower oriented than the US forces and try for maneuvre or aimed fire at range. This is simply because they lack the 'punch' of the Yanks but in Iraq or Afghanistan the tactics at the small unit level are very similar because of the nature of the war. Take fire from the concealed enemy, ID a target and let the big guns do the work - no one wants to press an attack because the risk of casualties are high. I am aware of the exceptions to this rule of course and the Brits do fix bayonets when the enemy is close. (only 2 per squad because of MG's and UGL's but its the thought that counts
) -
Very cool but you would need 10x10km maps to even begin thinking about hunting tanks with helos. (Of course if CMSF:2 offers 10x10km playable maps I will be one happy customer
) -
Very true. If nothing else, the Soviets were on a tight budget - especially with the infantry! An aimpoint sight would be nice but the soldiers wern't really expected to aim very much, just put down a lot of lead to keep the enemies head down before the final 'Urrah' and charge.
Their money went to counters for advanced western technology like aircraft and of course tanks. Conventional ground forces were expected to have a very short lifespan in WW3 so anything that wasn't absolutely necessary for combat wasn't included.
-
The Soviets view the Assault rifle more as a Sub machine gun and less than a rifle than the west. This is based on the success of the SMG squads in WW2. They are not expected to fight at range as their BMP/BTR will do this for them. Instead the AK series of rifles was to be used to put down a lot of fire very quickly as the squad moves into its final assault after dismounting from the vehicle at around 300m (IIRC) from the enemy.
In fact, the Soviet infantry wasn't even expected to dismount at all if they thought they could just punch through the position while firing from the firing ports of the vehicle. Unsurprisingly the Soviets had no concept of regular 'light infantry' that fights with their rifle. Even their airborne troops where dropped into battle in armoured vehicles. This is because they regarded the modern battle as too fast and lethal for non armoured infantry, especially with NBC weapons flying around.
Basically, the short answer is that the infantry arn't expected to need a scope givent their job in the Soviet way of war so paying for that expensive glass is a waste of money. They suffered for this in Afghanistan due to the harsh terrain restricting vehicle movement and the long range accuracy of the Enfield armed Mujahadin. In response they increased the number of SVD rifles available to the company and would create ad-hoc sniper squads to deal with them.
-
The 155mm howitzer can fire anti tank cluster bombs (In real life, not the game) that have HEAT warheads and a huge number of bomblets. They are however banned in many countries and therefore their use in countries which do still field them (like the USA, Isreal) is severely discouraged.
-
I am currently working with a load of Somerset builders and their accent takes a bit of getting used to - especially for a 'toff' like myself
My accent seems to change depending who I am talking too, from very posh with my family to something a bit less obvious when talking to my mates.
-
I have started being more careful with British infantry too. It does seem to me that they are less well protected than the Americans but I can't quite put my finger on it.
-
I moved the vehicles as a group then issued move orders for the infantry individually, the idea being that they would leave when the warriors stopped at the end of the move and form up in front of the vehicles.
I usually add a 5 second pause order for the infantry at the start to prevent this bug but this time I forgot - I thought it had been fixed so I was surprised to see it.
-
Wow, interesting stuff there Smaragdadler. This will definately help me in my scenario making - Thanks!
-
I've got to agree with you there Chainsaw - I love it and use it all the time. It has got much more punch than a 40mm grenade and the high arc means that it will winkle the enemy out from pretty heavy cover. I hear they want to get rid of it though (In real life)
-
The AGS-17 is a mean weapon when used against you! On that mission I could not find one that was pinning down an entire platoon in the open for about 20 minutes. I threw artillery at everything that I thought could contain it but it would keep firing every time I tried to rush a squad forward.
Eventually I attacked while mounted in warriors from a different direction. I never did find that AGS-17 untill Syrian surrender but a bit of smoke let me get my battered platoon back inside some armour. I don't think scenario designers use them enough - they are scary!
-
-
I am on the 5th mission now and I have to say I am very impressed. To be honest, this campaign has grabbed my interest far more than the others partly because of the excellent maps, partly because I feel more vulnerable than the Americans and partly because I have family connections to the 9th/12th Lancers
I really appreciate being able to follow the campaign on google earth - it feels very real. Well done to all involved!
-
I didn't want to start a new thread for this but my troops fell out of their warrior as I gave them and the vehicle 2 movement orders. Funnily enough the rest of the platoon who had the same orders did not.
Savegame available
-
Try using low quality units, you should get the earlier models
-
Well the reason I would like to edit TO&E's is to simulate other countries armies such as the Soviet forces or some kind of obscure African country. My 'perfect' military game is some kind of sandbox where I can simulate any conflict in modern history in great detail at all levels from operational down. Obviously a long way to go till that happens
Creating casualties and 'ad hoc' formations would be great as well to simulate more specific battles like ambushes or last stands. All of this (for me) would be historic but it might be fun to play with new TO&E's to see what works! I see your point about keeping it simple for the average user though, it makes sense.
-
Pandur, i would be happy to read through it again when you are ready - It looks like an exciting scenario you have there!
-
monty67t, on a forum like this it is very easy to mistake seemingly neutral comments for insults. Battlefront are very ready to accept critisism but it is often best to add those extra words to clarify that you arn't being offensive, especially in early posts when the community doesn't know that you actually mean well.
There are many military and ex military people on this forum and their opinions are very welcome but they are able to get their point across without misinterpretation. Most of the time
-
Well thanks for an excellent module! I would also like to say that the Beta testers have done an awesome job - I don't know where they find all those hours but they are much appreciated!
-
Fair enough, sounds like a sensible decision IMO
-
Firstly I would like to join everyone who bought the new module in saying its awsome
I havn't had a lot of time to play it yet but I love the new British units and the scenarios look really good.On topic, I have being playing around in the editor and have noticed that you can dismount the GMG off a WMIK but not the HMG. Instead you get a MMG. Why is that?
)
Hellfire that usurgent
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Good points Lethaface - it is good IMO to try to see the viewpoints of others to understand them better, even if you believe they are fundimentally wrong.
I have travelled to many places in the world and from some places the 'west' certainly doesn't look as rosy as it does on the inside. Likewise, regardless of ideolegy, if I was going to organise an insurgency against a vastly greater power I think I would be doing it just like the Taliban, Viet Cong or the IRA - all labled terrorist organisations by the west.