BlackMoria

Compared to the sediment expressed so far, I find they work quite well in the scenario 'First Clash'.   The US forces get a Raven and a Grey Eagle.
 
I positioned the Grey Eagle on maximum area coverage over a village with a number of unknown contacts and the Raven on linear search over a treeline just before one of my objectives.
 
In the space of 10 minutes, the Grey Eagle has spotted 3 T-90 tanks (some of them in the treeline) and 5 BMP-3 and a AA vehicle buried in hedges and beside buildings.  In the same amount of time, the Raven spotted 3 BMP-3s in the treeline near the objective.
 
Not all the contacts came up immediately but as the 10 minutes ran, the contacts developed over time.
 
All vehicles were stationary and I confirmed the only spotter of the vehicles was the observers running the UAV missions.
 
So, they do work.  What I suspect might be the case is people are not allowing enough time for contacts to develop.  For the Raven in the case I outlined above, it took about 4-5 minutes for the first contact to show (stationary BMPs in a treeline) but by the end of ten minutes, I had three BMP contacts.

Compared to the sediment expressed so far, I find they work quite well in the scenario 'First Clash'.   The US forces get a Raven and a Grey Eagle.
 
I positioned the Grey Eagle on maximum area coverage over a village with a number of unknown contacts and the Raven on linear search over a treeline just before one of my objectives.
 
In the space of 10 minutes, the Grey Eagle has spotted 3 T-90 tanks (some of them in the treeline) and 5 BMP-3 and a AA vehicle buried in hedges and beside buildings.  In the same amount of time, the Raven spotted 3 BMP-3s in the treeline near the objective.
 
Not all the contacts came up immediately but as the 10 minutes ran, the contacts developed over time.
 
All vehicles were stationary and I confirmed the only spotter of the vehicles was the observers running the UAV missions.
 
So, they do work.  What I suspect might be the case is people are not allowing enough time for contacts to develop.  For the Raven in the case I outlined above, it took about 4-5 minutes for the first contact to show (stationary BMPs in a treeline) but by the end of ten minutes, I had three BMP contacts.

Big gun muzzle flashes and explosions
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
Small Arms Muzzle Flashes
 

 
 
Flames and Hit decals
 

 
 
At the moment if you want them PM me and I'll send you a dropbox link. To PM me click on my name and on the right you will see the button: 'Send me a message'.
When the Repository is up to speed I'll add them there.
 
Smoke and Tracers are also in there.
 
V

In a nutshell,
 
Modern infantry are far more lethal than their WW2 counterparts - in all aspects.  A modern infantry squad will have high rate of fire assault rifles with impressive ranges, usually one or more LMG gunners and the standard rifleman usually will have a grenade launcher on the assault rifle.  Depending on the nationality, there will be a designated marksman with a weapon to engage targets out to 800 metres.  Depending on nationality, there may be a dedicated AT gunner or some other specialist weapon (like for the US Army, the XM-25 anti defilade rifle).  Anyone in the squad can carry disposable AT weapons, so depending on scenario and availability of AT weapons, each soldier can carry one.
 
Disposable AT weapons are serious threats to all armor.  Some tanks like Abrams/T-90 may be able to weather a few light AT weapon but for the most part, unless the vehicle has got a Active Protection System or Explosive Reactive Armor, a hit from even a light AT weapon is going to wreck the vehicle crew's day.  Now remember, a modern 8 man squad may be carrying up to 8 LAW, so modern vehicles need to be very wary and alert to enemy infantry.
 
Anti Tanks weapons a step up for LAWs are even more capable - they have longer ranges, are guided (meaning very high hit probabilities) and are even more capable against heavy armor.  They are also very portable so anticipate their presence in numbers on the battlefield.   Systems like Javelin are game changes - they are top attack and autonomous guided system, meaning the gunner can fire the missile and immediately bolt for cover with the missile steering itself and top attacking the target to avoid ERA and APS defensive systems.
 
One shot kills are common on the modern battlefield.  Gone are the days of WW2 tanks duels where it may take a half dozen shots to seal the fate of a tank depending on the tank matchup and range.  Modern tanks can put a round in the pickle barrel at ranges of 3000-4000 metres and do it all day long, which means engagement ranges are typically far longer than usual engagement ranges in WW2.
 
Modern sensors and optics means expect to be seen clear across the map, day or night.  Thermal imaging means even infantry across the map will be spotted with frustrating regularity unless kept to low ground or heavy cover.
 
WW2 hardpoints like bunkers and the like do not offer the protection against weapons.  Modern armies have specialized weapons or ammunition (like thermobaric warheads) designed to kill infantry in bunkers and buildings so depending on the situation and scenario, bunkering up is to trap yourself in a death trap.  Like wise, modern artillery systems and certain weapon systems (anti cover weapons systems like programmable airburst rounds) make short work of infantry in trenches or behind walls.
 
Modern armies have high mobility and can rapidly move and reorient on the battlefield.  A modern infantry squad usually roars into battle in an armored carrier with enough firepower to pound to scrap a WW2 rifle company without breaking a sweat and with the speed to leave your typical WW2 halftrack in the dust.  That means, unopposed, the enemy can be nearly anywhere on the typical scenario map in a few minutes, complicating tactics and defenses.  Guderian would have given up a Panzer regiment for the capabilities and lethality of a single modern US Abrams tank company if it was available in WW2.
 
In general, try not be to seen.  To be spotted and engaged first by the enemy means most likely the start of a bad day and the loss of an asset, be it either infantry or armored vehicles.  Try to spot and engage first is the rule of the day.
 
Hope this helps give you a feeling for the differences between WW2 and modern warfare.

For your amusement, I will relate this story from my peacekeeping tour in Bosnia in '93.    It is funny (after the fact for me) but has a lesson in it.
 
I was doing OP duty and had around 10 soldiers under my command.  Our group was in a heavily sandbagged structure on a hilltop.  It was just the crack of dawn and the night shift was going to ground to catch some sleep while the soldiers just waking up were going on shift.
 
One of the soldiers was going to the latrine and only grabbed his weapon instead of also putting on the flak jacket and helmet.  Now in '93, the Canadian Forces didn't have modern body armor so we were provided with bulky flak jackets.  They were big, heavy and uncomfortable as hell to wear.  The rule was, you didn't need to wear it in hardened structures but if you were outside, a helmet (soldiers refered to them as pisspots) and flak jacket was expected to be worn.  Soldiers, including myself didn't like the wearing the flak jacket.
 
Back to my story.  So I look out the vision slit of the bunker and see this soldier heading for the latrine with just his rifle and blue beret.  This has happened a few times now and I haven't said anything.  Remember me saying there is a lesson here and that is the danger of complacency.  One can get too accustomed to the routine and short cuts happen.
 
The soldier come back and I dress him down for not wearing his flak jacket and helmet.  As the officer, I must lead by example so I don my flak jacket and helmet as I need to take a wicked dump at the latrine.  I head to the latrine, pants down and adopt the squat to push out the aftermath of last night's rations.  Just then a mortar round impacts about a dozen metres behind me.  I feel a hard hit in the middle of my back and I know I've been hit.  
 
I race for the safety of the bunker with weapon in one hand and trying to pull my trousers up from around my knees.  It was quite the athletic event according to the soldiers, as they were amazed that someone can run that fast with their trousers around their knees.
 
So there I am standing just inside the bunker door, my pants now fallen around my ankles but I barely aware of it as I am concerned that I am wounded.   Flatly, in a loud voice, I say "That gentlemen, is why we wear our f^%$#* helmets and flak jackets when we go outside this f%$#@ bunker!!"
 
I took about a two inch by half inch fragment into the flak jacket but was otherwise unharmed.  Other fragment cut a very shallow channel along the left side of my helmet.
 
Needless to say, for the rest of the tour, flak jackets and helmets where worn without complaint by the soldiers when they went to the latrine.

Served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 17 years. Started in the artillery as a gunner, then went officer after a few years.  Served in 1 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and 3 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery at various times in my career.  Current status is retired, rank of Captain.
 
Memorable moments:
 
Served as a peacekeeper in Bosnia in 1993.  Back when it was more 'peacemaking' than 'peacekeeping'.  Got lots of stories that I can tell about that experience.
 
As a forward observer, adjusted and fired a 'Fire Mission Division' during one of the few Division exercises the Canadian military did during the 1990s.  About 40 tubes of 105mm and 155mm fired some 160 rounds total rounds for one fire mission.  I am one of only a few artillery officers who have fired a division fire mission from that time period.  I don't think that Canada has done a Division live fire exercise in the last 20 years, near as I can tell, since I took early retirement in 1996.
 
Did a winter exercise for three days of winter warfare training (winter infantry training and living in tents)where the temperature varied between -45 C and -55 C and one of those days, the temperature with windchill was -83 C.   Discovered at those temperatures that a book of matches will burn out while floating in a bowl of white gasoline (used as fuel for lanterns and stoves).
 
I remember the one year where I was unlucky enough to go on three winter exercises back to back and literally, except for two weeks, I humped the boonies and lived in a tent from the beginning of January to the end of March (nearly 3 months) on exercises in Alaska, the Northwest Territories (northern Canada) and Manitoba (center of Canada and the coldest of the provinces in winter).
 
I have been mortared by the 1 PPCLI mortar platoon by accident, fired on by an American 155 gun battery by accident, shot at by a German Leopard 1 tank by accident, and bombed (with practice bombs thankfully) by the Canadian Air Force by accident.  Yeah, training accidents with live ammuniton do happen and can be deadly serious affairs. Had some pretty close calls in Bosnia but someone was actually trying to kill me in those cases, but such is the case in a war zone.   My wife says I got more lives than a cat.

Served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 17 years. Started in the artillery as a gunner, then went officer after a few years.  Served in 1 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and 3 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery at various times in my career.  Current status is retired, rank of Captain.
 
Memorable moments:
 
Served as a peacekeeper in Bosnia in 1993.  Back when it was more 'peacemaking' than 'peacekeeping'.  Got lots of stories that I can tell about that experience.
 
As a forward observer, adjusted and fired a 'Fire Mission Division' during one of the few Division exercises the Canadian military did during the 1990s.  About 40 tubes of 105mm and 155mm fired some 160 rounds total rounds for one fire mission.  I am one of only a few artillery officers who have fired a division fire mission from that time period.  I don't think that Canada has done a Division live fire exercise in the last 20 years, near as I can tell, since I took early retirement in 1996.
 
Did a winter exercise for three days of winter warfare training (winter infantry training and living in tents)where the temperature varied between -45 C and -55 C and one of those days, the temperature with windchill was -83 C.   Discovered at those temperatures that a book of matches will burn out while floating in a bowl of white gasoline (used as fuel for lanterns and stoves).
 
I remember the one year where I was unlucky enough to go on three winter exercises back to back and literally, except for two weeks, I humped the boonies and lived in a tent from the beginning of January to the end of March (nearly 3 months) on exercises in Alaska, the Northwest Territories (northern Canada) and Manitoba (center of Canada and the coldest of the provinces in winter).
 
I have been mortared by the 1 PPCLI mortar platoon by accident, fired on by an American 155 gun battery by accident, shot at by a German Leopard 1 tank by accident, and bombed (with practice bombs thankfully) by the Canadian Air Force by accident.  Yeah, training accidents with live ammuniton do happen and can be deadly serious affairs. Had some pretty close calls in Bosnia but someone was actually trying to kill me in those cases, but such is the case in a war zone.   My wife says I got more lives than a cat.

Really?
 
I could say the France, being somewhat nervous and concerned about the unfolding Ukrainian crisis and Russia's possible involvement in said crisis, maybe came to their own conclusions about the ramifications of that deal and needed no US 'convincing', as you seem to claim has happened.

Iraq is a mess, not because that was the intent of the US to destabilize Iraq,  but because the US failed to understand that kicking over Saddam and trying to setup a democracy is nearly impossible in a region of the world where thousand of years to tribalism is the firmly entrenched mindset.
 
Dissect the entire mess and one can see the tribalism is a huge reason why Iraq and Afghanistan are relative failures despite the best but misguide intentions of the west.
 
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.  In other words, Afghanistan and Iraq turned out the way they did because the whole venture was not well thought out, mistakes were made and more importantly, social/political factors deeply entrenched in thousands of years of history were ignored.

So where is the all the armor coming from then?  I don't believe T-72 tanks and other armored vehicles are being purchased from the local Donetsk hardware store.  Nor do I believe that all this stuff was captured from the Ukraine military.  Nor do I believe all this stuff is from 'hidden compounds' filled with mothball equipment from the Donbass area, particularly since such equipment is more current and newer equipment.  So if the tanks are not coming from Russia, pray tell where they are coming from?
 
As to the comment about Syria, the US has told the world that they are providing certain weapons to certain factions in Syria.  Russian has made no such admission of any kind and would have all of us theorize that tanks are being hammered together from pots and pans from old starving pro russian grandmothers in the Donbass area.  In case it is not clear, that last statement was sarcasm on my part. 

So where is the all the armor coming from then?  I don't believe T-72 tanks and other armored vehicles are being purchased from the local Donetsk hardware store.  Nor do I believe that all this stuff was captured from the Ukraine military.  Nor do I believe all this stuff is from 'hidden compounds' filled with mothball equipment from the Donbass area, particularly since such equipment is more current and newer equipment.  So if the tanks are not coming from Russia, pray tell where they are coming from?
 
As to the comment about Syria, the US has told the world that they are providing certain weapons to certain factions in Syria.  Russian has made no such admission of any kind and would have all of us theorize that tanks are being hammered together from pots and pans from old starving pro russian grandmothers in the Donbass area.  In case it is not clear, that last statement was sarcasm on my part. 

Damn.   That would have been great to have triggers on reinforcement spawn in times.
 
I remember with bitterness one scenario where a T72 tank company spawned on top of my Stryker platoon.  The outcome was ugly, needless to say.  And the Marine campaign scenario where you assault a ridge line.  I remember assaulting and occupying the trench works on the ridge, only to have Syrian infantry spawn into the trenches with my squads in them.   Mutual annihilation by grenades.  

So where is the all the armor coming from then?  I don't believe T-72 tanks and other armored vehicles are being purchased from the local Donetsk hardware store.  Nor do I believe that all this stuff was captured from the Ukraine military.  Nor do I believe all this stuff is from 'hidden compounds' filled with mothball equipment from the Donbass area, particularly since such equipment is more current and newer equipment.  So if the tanks are not coming from Russia, pray tell where they are coming from?
 
As to the comment about Syria, the US has told the world that they are providing certain weapons to certain factions in Syria.  Russian has made no such admission of any kind and would have all of us theorize that tanks are being hammered together from pots and pans from old starving pro russian grandmothers in the Donbass area.  In case it is not clear, that last statement was sarcasm on my part. 

In a nutshell,
 
Modern infantry are far more lethal than their WW2 counterparts - in all aspects.  A modern infantry squad will have high rate of fire assault rifles with impressive ranges, usually one or more LMG gunners and the standard rifleman usually will have a grenade launcher on the assault rifle.  Depending on the nationality, there will be a designated marksman with a weapon to engage targets out to 800 metres.  Depending on nationality, there may be a dedicated AT gunner or some other specialist weapon (like for the US Army, the XM-25 anti defilade rifle).  Anyone in the squad can carry disposable AT weapons, so depending on scenario and availability of AT weapons, each soldier can carry one.
 
Disposable AT weapons are serious threats to all armor.  Some tanks like Abrams/T-90 may be able to weather a few light AT weapon but for the most part, unless the vehicle has got a Active Protection System or Explosive Reactive Armor, a hit from even a light AT weapon is going to wreck the vehicle crew's day.  Now remember, a modern 8 man squad may be carrying up to 8 LAW, so modern vehicles need to be very wary and alert to enemy infantry.
 
Anti Tanks weapons a step up for LAWs are even more capable - they have longer ranges, are guided (meaning very high hit probabilities) and are even more capable against heavy armor.  They are also very portable so anticipate their presence in numbers on the battlefield.   Systems like Javelin are game changes - they are top attack and autonomous guided system, meaning the gunner can fire the missile and immediately bolt for cover with the missile steering itself and top attacking the target to avoid ERA and APS defensive systems.
 
One shot kills are common on the modern battlefield.  Gone are the days of WW2 tanks duels where it may take a half dozen shots to seal the fate of a tank depending on the tank matchup and range.  Modern tanks can put a round in the pickle barrel at ranges of 3000-4000 metres and do it all day long, which means engagement ranges are typically far longer than usual engagement ranges in WW2.
 
Modern sensors and optics means expect to be seen clear across the map, day or night.  Thermal imaging means even infantry across the map will be spotted with frustrating regularity unless kept to low ground or heavy cover.
 
WW2 hardpoints like bunkers and the like do not offer the protection against weapons.  Modern armies have specialized weapons or ammunition (like thermobaric warheads) designed to kill infantry in bunkers and buildings so depending on the situation and scenario, bunkering up is to trap yourself in a death trap.  Like wise, modern artillery systems and certain weapon systems (anti cover weapons systems like programmable airburst rounds) make short work of infantry in trenches or behind walls.
 
Modern armies have high mobility and can rapidly move and reorient on the battlefield.  A modern infantry squad usually roars into battle in an armored carrier with enough firepower to pound to scrap a WW2 rifle company without breaking a sweat and with the speed to leave your typical WW2 halftrack in the dust.  That means, unopposed, the enemy can be nearly anywhere on the typical scenario map in a few minutes, complicating tactics and defenses.  Guderian would have given up a Panzer regiment for the capabilities and lethality of a single modern US Abrams tank company if it was available in WW2.
 
In general, try not be to seen.  To be spotted and engaged first by the enemy means most likely the start of a bad day and the loss of an asset, be it either infantry or armored vehicles.  Try to spot and engage first is the rule of the day.
 
Hope this helps give you a feeling for the differences between WW2 and modern warfare.

It is a poor man's AT weapon.   Modern warfare tends to be a 'come as you are' warfare because gone are the days of factories pumping out X number of tanks or aircraft per day like in WW2.  Modern equipment is so complex and so expensive that it takes months to produce and will take considerable time to replace when lost.  
 
The MT-12 is a product of a mind set typical of Soviet thinking of throw nothing away, it may have use somewhere, even if it is just training reservists.  In a 'Come As You Are' war, such weapons will use in third echelon units and as replacement weapons when the higher priced and more capable weapons get attrited to the point that it is either use the older piece of equipment or do without.
 
Let's face it, a Abrams is going to laugh in the face of a MT-12, because it is going to do very little to a Abrams.  But to a Hummer or a not upgraded Bradley or Stryker, the weapon is still dangerous.
 
That said, I am not going to be a happy soldier if I am told that WW2 era anti-tank gun is going to be my AT weapon to face off with modern tanks with...

It is a poor man's AT weapon.   Modern warfare tends to be a 'come as you are' warfare because gone are the days of factories pumping out X number of tanks or aircraft per day like in WW2.  Modern equipment is so complex and so expensive that it takes months to produce and will take considerable time to replace when lost.  
 
The MT-12 is a product of a mind set typical of Soviet thinking of throw nothing away, it may have use somewhere, even if it is just training reservists.  In a 'Come As You Are' war, such weapons will use in third echelon units and as replacement weapons when the higher priced and more capable weapons get attrited to the point that it is either use the older piece of equipment or do without.
 
Let's face it, a Abrams is going to laugh in the face of a MT-12, because it is going to do very little to a Abrams.  But to a Hummer or a not upgraded Bradley or Stryker, the weapon is still dangerous.
 
That said, I am not going to be a happy soldier if I am told that WW2 era anti-tank gun is going to be my AT weapon to face off with modern tanks with...

In a nutshell,
 
Modern infantry are far more lethal than their WW2 counterparts - in all aspects.  A modern infantry squad will have high rate of fire assault rifles with impressive ranges, usually one or more LMG gunners and the standard rifleman usually will have a grenade launcher on the assault rifle.  Depending on the nationality, there will be a designated marksman with a weapon to engage targets out to 800 metres.  Depending on nationality, there may be a dedicated AT gunner or some other specialist weapon (like for the US Army, the XM-25 anti defilade rifle).  Anyone in the squad can carry disposable AT weapons, so depending on scenario and availability of AT weapons, each soldier can carry one.
 
Disposable AT weapons are serious threats to all armor.  Some tanks like Abrams/T-90 may be able to weather a few light AT weapon but for the most part, unless the vehicle has got a Active Protection System or Explosive Reactive Armor, a hit from even a light AT weapon is going to wreck the vehicle crew's day.  Now remember, a modern 8 man squad may be carrying up to 8 LAW, so modern vehicles need to be very wary and alert to enemy infantry.
 
Anti Tanks weapons a step up for LAWs are even more capable - they have longer ranges, are guided (meaning very high hit probabilities) and are even more capable against heavy armor.  They are also very portable so anticipate their presence in numbers on the battlefield.   Systems like Javelin are game changes - they are top attack and autonomous guided system, meaning the gunner can fire the missile and immediately bolt for cover with the missile steering itself and top attacking the target to avoid ERA and APS defensive systems.
 
One shot kills are common on the modern battlefield.  Gone are the days of WW2 tanks duels where it may take a half dozen shots to seal the fate of a tank depending on the tank matchup and range.  Modern tanks can put a round in the pickle barrel at ranges of 3000-4000 metres and do it all day long, which means engagement ranges are typically far longer than usual engagement ranges in WW2.
 
Modern sensors and optics means expect to be seen clear across the map, day or night.  Thermal imaging means even infantry across the map will be spotted with frustrating regularity unless kept to low ground or heavy cover.
 
WW2 hardpoints like bunkers and the like do not offer the protection against weapons.  Modern armies have specialized weapons or ammunition (like thermobaric warheads) designed to kill infantry in bunkers and buildings so depending on the situation and scenario, bunkering up is to trap yourself in a death trap.  Like wise, modern artillery systems and certain weapon systems (anti cover weapons systems like programmable airburst rounds) make short work of infantry in trenches or behind walls.
 
Modern armies have high mobility and can rapidly move and reorient on the battlefield.  A modern infantry squad usually roars into battle in an armored carrier with enough firepower to pound to scrap a WW2 rifle company without breaking a sweat and with the speed to leave your typical WW2 halftrack in the dust.  That means, unopposed, the enemy can be nearly anywhere on the typical scenario map in a few minutes, complicating tactics and defenses.  Guderian would have given up a Panzer regiment for the capabilities and lethality of a single modern US Abrams tank company if it was available in WW2.
 
In general, try not be to seen.  To be spotted and engaged first by the enemy means most likely the start of a bad day and the loss of an asset, be it either infantry or armored vehicles.  Try to spot and engage first is the rule of the day.
 
Hope this helps give you a feeling for the differences between WW2 and modern warfare.

Wildlife get used to ambient sound changes in the environment.  When I was in the military as an artillery officer, at the time when I was a forward observer, I would have to make allowances while adjusting artillery fire to avoid the herds of elk and deer on the firing ranges.  They ignored nearby exploding artillery rounds and on two occasions, I had to put the guns at check firing because a herd of elk walked up onto the hill that I was adjusting artillery fire on.