taccovert4

IIRC from in-game experience, there is also a significant delay reduction for FOs in BFists under any circumstances. I believe it is something like a 50 percent reduction in time from initial call to FFE, for any called fires. The examples I'm attempting to remember were from a BFIST on a ridge calling for fire at approx 800m in the open, and from a 6th story of a building calling for fire on a row of 2 story buildings approx. 500m distant. In both cases contact was established with the highest command unit on the map (be it company CO, Battalion XO or Battalion CO). And you're right, they are scarily accurate. I prefer to use FSVs when assaulting trenches in open terrain, because I can call linear missions quickly, and drop my Anti-personell rounds directly on the line I call, rather than on a line 15m behind it (which can make all the difference between suppression with mild casualties and total annihilation of the enemy). In restricted terrain, like MOUT, I prefer to keep my FOs dismounted and moving into buildings, both for better vantage points, and to prevent their death if the FSV was to get hit with an ATGM/RPG. Also, does anyone know if FSVs increase the precision of units calling for fire that are not trained FOs? Such as leadership units like XOs and COs? It would be nice if your Battalion XO and his RO could hop in a Stryker FSV and take advantage of the rangefinders, radios, and computers availible there.

While I am sure that the US might "retire" DU penetrators from the "active" inventory for PR reasons, I'm also certain that DU penetrators will be stockpiled in the "inactive" inventory. So that in a major land war with an enemy combatant wielding fully capable modern MBTs the US could up-the-ante so to speak, and bring DU penetrators out of retirement .

Ok, I'm not going to address gameplay, but I will address the RL issues noted: 73mm HE shells should be marginally more effective on troops in light buildings. The HE would cause heat, blast overpressure, and larger amounts of splinters due to the building walls contributing to the shrapnel. So I would expect maybe 20-40% more casualties from an HE hit on a light building wall, based on the experience of the target unit (more experienced troops are less likely to press against the wall, and are more likely to keep interval and stay low even when inside a "cover" building). However, you're right that it should not take 5 rounds to take out a single guy. It is possible for leaves and twigs to detonate HE shells. The reason the shell doesn't detonate inside the barrel has to due with the arming mechanisms. IIRC 40mm grenades don't arm for the first 30ft of travel outside the barrel. It takes a certain number of revolutions before the fuse is armed. There are HE shells with a quick fuse, which is extremely sensitive, and can be detonated by even things as small as large twigs. These are useful when taking on troops in wooded areas, as they cause treebursts, or on the edge of a wood, where the trees will detonate the shells directly on top of the entrenchments. There are also longer fused shells which do not detonate as easily, however, which I admit aren't modelled as effectively, possibly due to the game not differentiating between the two HE types. As for the .50 cal, I have no good reason why .50 cal rounds should be detonating at all, much less detonating on leaves and twigs. Maybe you meant 40mm grenades (check the variant of LAV/Stryker that you are referring to, the GL versions will have 40mm and a much reduced ammo loadout). If they are .50 cal rounds, they should be punching straight through leaves, and twigs should only cause a slight reduction in accuracy.

Like I said, I've added more units on the Red side before. I haven't redone the US side with a stryker or an Abrams, but the possibility is interesting. Definitely if you've only got minimal AT assets and an Abrams to take out. Maybe put an IED on the Syrian side to allow them to try to take out the Abrams before it totally owns their infantry and IFV?

To agree with Damien....The Abrams, or Challenger for that matter, can sometimes be taken out by a 'golden BB' shot. I have seen it happen in both QBs, Scenarios, and the Campaign. I've seen the mighty Abrams get mobility killed by a RPG gunner that then turned around and failed to kill a Stryker at even shorter range. S%^& happens. Just remember, there is a major difference between a 'reliable' kill and a 'possible' kill. A T72 can KO an Abrams from the front. The russians weren't stupid enough to build an MBT that could not compete with the competition. That would be like building a Sherman while knowing that the enemy will be armed with nothing but Tigers. Used correctly, a T72 can fight an Abrams. The Abrams has a better chance of winning, but the 'golden BB' always exists. And remember, the second your entire plan hinges on that 1 M1A2SEPTUSK will be the second that an AT14 will hit it in its frontal armor and get a 1 shot KO.

Most reliable way to kill an Abrams? 2 T-90s firing at the rear of the tank. Best tactical methods for killing an Abrams? 1) Use multiple ATGMs from side angles at long range. The range will help keep your gunners alive during the attack, and you'll need side shots or rear shots to get reliable damage. Saggers probably won't do the job, you'll need AT14s or other good ATGMs for reliable damage quality. Also, the SPG9 has an advantage if you can get it into a 'keyhole' position. So long as the Abrams isn't looking at the spot its firing from, the recoilless rifle has a good chance of not being spotted while it fires its rounds. This gives you a better chance of getting off the 5-15 shots necessary to kill an Abrams. It's not really a matter of battering through the armor. It's more about firing enough times to get that 'golden BB' shot in. 2) Ambush the Abrams at point blank range with the 105mm RPGs. The RPG7 is good for dealing with Brads and Strykers, but against the Abrams it's going to find itself a bit outclassed. You'll want at least 2 105mm RPG teams, and 2 rifle squads to pull this one off with any sort of reliability. Set the 105mm RPGs up in upper floors ahead of the Squads, which should also be on upper floors on the same street. Draw the Abrams down the street (the most difficult part in some scenarios). When the Abrams is past your 105mm teams and right beside your squads (which should also have at least RPG7s), unhide all units and have them target the Abrams with everything they've got. At close range the Abrams won't be able to unbutton (or will have to button up). That will keep the most powerful MGs out of play, and make it engage each unit separately. The RPG7s will be firing straight down on top of the tank, giving them the best chance of a penetration, the Squads will be throwing grenades and suppressing the exposed crew served weapons, and the 105mm RPG teams will have near-perfect shots at the top and weaker rear armor. This can also be done with a Recoilless Rifle, though it is best to set it about a block away from the ambush zone and have it fire at a 90 degree angle to the Abrams' side armor. It is not a guaranteed kill, but it does give you an idea of what assets are necessary to take out a true MBT with the rather inferior equipment the Syrians must make do with. Of course the best way to take out an abrams will always be with an airstrike, another Abrams, or a pair of Javelins that work properly. But then you have to play blue on blue......

No armour is armor piercing rounds. They're what he'll need to do more than superficial damage to tanks, and depending on caliber, to BMPs as well. The don't do as much damage to infantry unless they're in buildings though IIRC. In buildings the AP rounds will penetrate the roof better than HE, but in the open, they overpenetrate into the ground and don't do as much, unless making foxholes is considered doing something positive.

Yes the Syrians are both brittle, and not in possession of a lot of firepower compared to their American counterparts. It is even more obvious in Syrians vs. Marines, because the US has both the edge in 300m fire and in 30m fire, considering the large number of explosives used by the Marines. In order for the Syrians to be effective against the US in combat, you must use them in much closer companionship with their armored vehicular assets. While you might take a US platoon and mount a MOUT attack, sending your Strykers around the town to take out the enemy with long-range enfilading fire, you'll probably need to keep your BTRs and BMPs close, unless they're armed for fighting vehicles at long range, in order to maximize both firepower and the morale effects of having an armored vehicle fighting beside you.

A full M1A2TUSK Variant, with a half tank of fuel and loadout (readied for air transport on a C-17) tips the scales very close to an even 140,000 pounds. That is 70 Tons. It is also incidentally the max weight that the C-17 can carry at any one time. Which is to say that the TUSK is quite possibly the heaviest model of the Abrams that can be fielded by the US in any expeditionary manner, with the rest needing to fly by C-5(aging rapidly) or travelling by ship. Anyway, the M1 is overkill for even the average conventional threat, as we learned in GW1. Only the most modern, and well maintained Soviet-bloc tanks, operating with highly trained crews, can match the M1 on the battlfield at all. Heck, considering the threats the US has had to deal with in the past 15 years, the M60A3 is still not completely obsolete.

It has been my experience that while the Syrians will get chewed up in a furball between them and US infantry, you are far better to go to close combat than to engage at range. The Syrian artillery spotting sucks, and won't get enough rounds on target. The US artillery spotting is excellent however, and much heavier and in possession of more ammo, so trying to hold the US troops at range with MMG and sniper fire and dropping arty on their heads (what you would do with US troops under the same conditions) just means that you're going to get plastered with multiple ToT barrages that will almost always cause excessive damage to your forces. The same can be said for armored vehicles in a standup fight. BMPs work better against Brads if they can attack in close, where the TOW launchers are no good, and the T-series tanks all virtually NEED to attack Abrams from the sides at extremely close range to get reliable kills. That said, I have lots of fun playing as the Syrians, but I find myself more reliant on AFVs and IFVs than I do as the Americans, with their excellent discipline, AT assets, and integrated firepower.

you can win against the Brad and the infantry with only your infantry, but only if your RPG gunner gets a good shot off, and only if your defense plan works well. That and a little luck. I have left the BMP sitting at the start point and won the battle without ever bringing it into play, but it is far easier if you can suppress the enemy infantry with your squads, then bring up the BMP for telling shots.

I think you've learned the secret about the Syrians. With the exception of armored vehicles, special forces, and the occasional heavy weapons team, all of your forces need to be concentrated near a strategic spot. Operating small units all over a map (like the Americans are so apt to do) will get you destroyed in detail, because Syrian squads simply do not have the C3 or firepower to deal with almost any firefight (even an even-odds one) against American troops that are not exposed and moving. In fact, in my time as the Syrians (and since I've got a PBEM going I shouldn't say this, except he's played me in CMAK and he knows my style), I've learned that it's best to treat them a lot like I would light armor in WWII, even when using T62s and higher. Use them one at a time and they get slaughtered. Pop a whole platoon or company of them over that ridge simultaneously, and you can normally get off enough good shots to give you at least a 2:1 kill ratio. Which ain't bad, all things considered.

Just not too aggressively mind you. It won't help morale any if you lose your BMP to 25mm bushmaster fire or an AT4 two minutes into the fight. I'd get your BMP into a position where it is covered and covers the 90 degree curve to your left. Make sure an infantry squad or AT team is covering it. Best advice of all time, from the actions of FieldMarshal Erwin Johannes Rommel during the desert war of 1941-42: Let your fixed AT assets kill armor. Use your own armor to exploit success or as a reserve for failure. The Brad's cannon can shred your BMP, the reverse is also true but the Brad is going to be faster about 2/3rds of the time. Not worthwhile odds. Get good fields of fire with RPGs and wait for the Brad to move up. Then kill it with RPG fire and send your BMP on a flanking maneuver with some infantry (it can be minimal infantry. The Syrian infantry in the scenario isn't good for assaulting anyway, so use it to simply protect the BMP against infantry getting within hand grenade range.). That should pretty well pincer (or hammer and anvil if you like) his infantry into that 1 block of buildings. Then it is a matter of some minor manuevers to get the cauldron fully closed, and area firing each building in turn with the cannon to drive the enemy infantry out into the open where your rifle squads can do their work. Then you can jump into the editor and play the same mission as the Americans, only give the syrians a BRDM in addition to the BMP. :cool:

With the way that that part of the world thinks, I'm surprised that squads outside the comm. range of their platoon commanders can fight with any effectiveness. Especially heavy weapons like ATGMs. A lot of the issues have to do with the actual leadership. It is common among "Arab" (of which the syrians really aren't but the mindset is close enough) armies that they must appear to be more knowledgeable than their subordinates. As such, there are many verifiable cases where tank crewers wouldn't be given access to manuals on their particular model of tank (that they are being trained to fight from!) because the officers in charge did not want a mere NCO to learn something the officer did not already know. In essence, knowledge is the currency of respect, and officers will (or believe they will) lose respect and therefore the ability to command subordinates if those subordinates reach a level of technical competance equal with said superior officer. This leads to superior officers that do not teach NCOs tactical doctrine, and instead just teach the NCOs enough that the NCOs will always look to the officer for orders as to what to do and where to manuever. Because of this cultural issue, allowing the veritable Corporals or Lance Corporals of the Syrian Army to take over and manuever split squads all over the map and out of contact with their Sergeant or Lt. is unreasonable. Special Forces (and IMHO Republican Guard) might be trained enough and trusted enough to be allowe to do this, but Regular Army and National Guard units wouldn't be allowed to. And, if they were, the Regular Army split squads would be capable of doing little more than cowering, shooting in a direction at whatever could look like an enemy, and running away. IRL, they couldn't put up effective resistance because they haven't been trained to fight. They've been trained to respect their 'betters' and follow orders only.

It's due to relative spotting. Your guys might not be in the best floor to see the US troops moving in, depending on how they're moving. Remember, the top floor is for attacking tanks, the next to the top is for the Command post, and the basement, 1st, or 2nd floors are for fighting infantry. I'd also look to where your second squad is placed. Think of where you can place that squad so that it can spot the enemy troops better. Remember, the odds are even, so spotting them first is the key to stopping them. Next I'd look at your command assets. Again, place them so that you can see best. On top of a roof provides you with less cover and can reduce visibility. I use rooftops for moving or if I have a large AT asset or if I need to be on the roof of building A to see over shorter building B. Try placing your AT and C2 assets inside buildings rather than on them. Lastly, look at the placement of your BMP. That little road that runs wayyyyy out of the way over to your Left (as Syrians). when I play against the computer, I win every time by sending a squad and my Bradley down that road. the squad dashes building to building to make sure it is clear for the Brad (I split into fire teams and run 1 each up each side of the road). I then wait until I have a visual on the BMP and can take it out with AT4 or other weapons before I move my Brad up to area fire the larger building with 25mm Bushmaster. If I were you, I'd move my BMP in a similar fashion. Maybe be more aggressive and dictate the terms of engagement? I've won the battle as Syrians by just defending, but it is not nearly as satisfying, and the casualties are high. If you can get a squad and the BMP on that other street, you should be able to envelop the Americans, get a side shot at the Brad, and the win will be much more satisfying.

Crews can occupy positions, as well as FO teams, leadership teams, and depleted fire teams. It can get really gamey though. However, I normally move my dismounts that were dismounted due to enemy action to a single rally point while my combat troops take care of the wet work. This point is normally an objective already taken, if one is availible. And in response to the Fighting Seabee, Why can't you assault a position with dismounts? I know they don't have an assault command, but that's easy enough to do via waypoints and movement orders. I can say that 2 Humvee logistics crews have taken a warehouse and held it against 3 SF squads while waiting for their 2 Stryker loads of 'assists'. I've also had more than one Battalion XO or Commander take down a building (and I know this happened in Iraq in '03, a buddy of mine ended up being the number 2 man on this particular Major's 2 man squad. Fortunately there wasn't anyone in there, because an M16+203 a laser designator, and a pistol don't really count for much in a 2 story motel.). Is it risky? Yes, but in war sometimes you have to take great risks to gain great rewards. And I've met very few company or battalion commanders that were too 'sensible' to not 'lead the charge' if they were right beside the objective. And my favorite thing to do with those seemingly tactically useless leadership units? Load'em up with all the Javelin rounds you can muster and put them in a nice tall building. Keeps your infantry teams together and gives you nearly unroutable AT firepower.

And considering that a NATO AT4 is an 88mm rocket, and that I've got a pair of trousers with the polyester threads singed out of one side of the right leg, the NATO AT4 isn't much fun to shoot inside a building either. Now if you're in an auditorium or a long hallway, go ahead. but if you're in a bedroom, you'd be better to wait for the tank to pass by a couple dozen meters, then lean out the window and let the back blast go straight into the outside air. then drop the worthless tube and duck back inside quick!

With the scope of the game and the size of the maps it's really not advisable to have 'medevac' points and choppers. The maps are too small and the scope too narrow for medical to be any more than a 'flavor' object and a abstracted sideshow. Now if CMModern ever returned to the 'several battalions' level and to maps that were multiple kilometers in both width and depth, then medevacs might be something worth coding in. It would make for an interesting sidenote in a convoy scenario though. If the convoy makes it through in 1 piece, Major victory. If the convoy loses a vehicle, then they have to 'capture' a 'medevac LZ' as well as their departure zone in order to win the battle.

Are the vehicles destroyed? I might try that. But if the enemy is not in the area, try moving your guys around first to save ammo. Or even see if it's possible to man the vehicles and drive them off GTA style......

A few notes: Unless you're using 155 or larger, or air dropped ordinance, Armor Piercing Ammunition will get you better effects on target because of the cratering effect and the penetration of the roof. With 155 HE is fine, and near misses to the front will also cause injuries from shrapnel and overpressure. SMAWs and Javelins are excellent bunker busters, especially for units that are mounted and have plenty of these in stock. In my experience, 1 Javelin hitting a bunker to the front can pretty much be considered a kill under 99.9% of circumstances. Also, SMAWs were specifically designed to kill bunkers and blockhouses, so use them for that. Best way to take out a bunker from the front with infantry: Have an MG team, or better yet a .50 cal on a vehicle (the 40mm isn't as good, especially at range because of the arcing trajectory hitting the roof instead of putting rounds through the firing slit) suppress the bunker from the front. Move a Javelin or SMAW team within range to hit the bunker. Launch weapon (you may have to manually target for area fire). Watch impact and BDA. Rinse. Repeat until clean. I personally like using ATGMs for my AT assets in most scenarios (infantry at long range in cover are hard to suppress, and (especially Javelins) ATGMs are very accurate and deadly). Therefore my armor and MGS strykers become infantry support as opposed to tank on tank combat. What can I say, I went to the Rommel school during my days in CMAK, where tanks are for exploitation and AT guns are for elimination. Anyway, I use 120mm HE as my bunker busting round of choice, with 105 HE being my secondary. They're accurate, effective, and most of the time the weapon in the bunker can't take out the AFV that is shooting at it.

Ok, after reading up on the SAM-R, which I honestly hadnt' heard of before (though I do know one sniper that would carry a scoped A4 on missions in tight terrain), it looks like that program was a 'production testbed'. The 'west-coast SAM-R' with the ACOG has pretty much been standardized as a standard battle rifle (M4s with ACOGs are issued to units as well), and the new set of qualification rules include many of the elements necessary for a DM, except they are Corps-wide.

Who knows, some genius up in Washington (whether congressional or HQMC) may have decided that the Marines need to be more like the *gasp* Army.

Those 2 sentances are why, IMHO, the Air Force should have never been given the CAS mission in the first place. The Army should have retained dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10 (and the others that would have been built) and the Air force could have had fun with their strategic bombers and interceptor/fighters. Marine pilots will fly straight into Hell and back because there are Marines in there that need that firepower. They have trained with those men for the CAS mission, and no matter what you say about cameraderie between all US servicemembers, you'll risk a whole lot more for the guys you trained with, that wear the same uniform as you, than you will for the other guys. IIRC, during operation Anaconda, the few AF assets that were on station were continually ordered to leave after being fired on by enemy forces. To the best of my knowledge, none of them ever recieved a significant hit. The Apaches in the fight were shot to hades and gone, and one of them was actually abandoned after egressing from the valley, with the crew being rescued. That's the unchangeable, fundamental difference between supporting a joint operation, and getting in there and covering "your boys" arse.

Exactly. Why reinvent the sharpshooter just to deal with threats in a 100m window?

I'd like to see hotkeys that don't require you to be on that 'page' of the interface for them to work. I don't know how many times I've had to improvise because my squad started shooting instead of moving. A more intuitive AI (the one from CMx1 was alright) that can make tactical moves that are not part of the ''plan''. I'd also like to see some more intelligence in weapons choices, as a squad of infantry should know that it shouldn't be putting rifle ammo on a hard target when there's an AT4 or Javelin or RPG availible. CMx1 wasn't always perfect at this, but the infantry would at least try to fire a panzerfaust or a molotov or a grenade bundle before shooting the tank with rifle fire.