tyrspawn
-
Posts
380 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by tyrspawn
-
-
Are there google maps or high res images of the scheme of maneuver for the campaigns? I've seen the low res campaign overview maps, but i'm looking for specific locations on a google map or a higher res image showing all the positions of each mission. Thanks.
-
Every army of any sophistication has light infantry.
Light infantry can be defined by troops that carry their equipment by their own power. Light infantry may be transported by vehicles but do not have vehicles inside their formations.
Classical examples are airborne, special forces, green berets, rangers, SEALs etc.
They are used to: screen, disrupt, fix, capture high value areas, encircle, recce and perform special actions.
I would argue the use of light infantry has only increased as time has gone on and global COIN and false flag operations grow in intensity and scope. In conventional warfare you still need a group of foot mobile commandos to seize key points that are unreachable by larger, slower moving formations.
-
In my experience playing that mission the same thing happened. I think the facing of the stinger team does not matter - I had 2 teams firing off in different directions during different turns. I don't think I have seen a stinger fire and have the helo hit something in the same turn. It seems like the helo usually aborts and attacks next turn (if not downed). It was interesting to see where the enemy air controller was (won't give it away) after the mission was over. They are always a prime target! I much prefer being on the side with the air power!!!
I estimated where it was (accurately) and then assaulted it at the end of the mission.
-
I'd buy the game, but Battlefront would have to be Very Generous to make the DPRK dangerous in a conventional force on force fight. Chinese forces could be interesting but the gap of information on what their "good" stuff can actually do is much worse than the information we have on Russian platforms.
Agreed. The DPRK would get raped if they ever fought a NATO force - NATO air superiority would be immediate, thus leading to immediate paralyzation of the already scarce DPRK supply trains. It's depressing to think about. but I honestly think the DPRK army would starve to death within 3 weeks considering how they are already in a semi-starved state.
I think it would be a fun game only in the 1980s or before. Modern would be quite a slaughter fest.
-
On a related topic, does LTCOL Mark Gibson (MGIBSON) still hang around here? This is the sort of thing he would probably dig.
-
ASSAULT ASSAULT ASSAULT FRONT!
-
Hey Zipuli! Good to see you around m8.
There's definitely some things I wish were similar to SB.
-
I shot at Abrams with RPGs and got full penetrations knocking out the tank but with whole crew exiting uninjured many times.. Only to be mowed down by nearby infantry.. The same RPGs against soviet- ukrainian tanks and BOUM !
The Abrams design is focused on crew survivability. Minimal ammo is stored in the chasis, most is stored in a magazine in the turret which has reinforced blast doors, which only open when a handle is depressed, then automatically closes when the round comes out. It also has automatic fire suppression systems (and automatic gas/shock venting in the magazine) and extensive spall lining.
-
tyrspawn,
I'll deal with the maneuvering issues another time, perhaps, but I wanted to point out something from Deterrence 101. In order to deter, one must provide a credible threat of harm. Now, if the A-10 is, in fact, as useless on the high intensity battlefield as you claim it is, then why send A-10s to Europe, given the Ukraine situation? True, it's only a squadron, but it sends a message. It's a message of military clout and the willingness to use it if need be. Ask yourself. If the A-10 is useless in a Central European high intensity threat environment, then why would Obama send useless planes, instead of, say, more F-16s? It costs not just a fortune to move that A-10 squadron across the Pond, but also wear and tear on planes and crews, tanker support and more. Why, then, send useless planes? The answer's obvious. He wouldn't. The threat is only credible if it's perceived as having teeth to it. There is no doubt the A-10 has demonstrably sharp teeth, a terrifying track record, and pilots who are real pros at killing problems on the ground. The reference you cited says the A-10s were responsible for half of the damage inflicted on Iraqi ground forces and installations.
panzersaurkrautwerfer,
Your logic on why one flying tank, but not the other is flawless, in my view. Loved the "looking to rapidly downsize" bit! Brilliant.
Regards,
John Kettler
There is no doubt that the A-10 pilots are bad asses and that they did some cool stuff in the past - but it doesn't change the facts of reality. Just because I feel a "warm fuzzy" about the a-10 doesn't enable them to overcome and destroy impossible odds.
Why political actors do what political actors do is irrelevant to me. I'd be more impressed if I saw a white paper by a command arguing that the a-10s would survive in a war against Russia. Ukraine is arguably the worst environment for the A-10 against a modern air defense system - the only thing worse would be desert.
-
And again, the SU-25 would be a hole in the ground just as fast against a NATO force. If we're including CAS centric airframes for the Ukraine and Russia, why not the A-10?
Again. It's not plausible for the US air command to include the A-10 in the Ukrainian theater. IT makes no sense for an aircraft which cannot defend itself to be put on suicide missions. End of story.
They were on their way out for the Gulf War, and had to have a complete doctrine change at the last second to become useful. this is captured pretty good in this awesome book: http://www.amazon.com/Warthog-Flying-Potomac-Books-Warriors/dp/1574888862
-
Codename Duchess,
You may be right about the AESA and IRST. I have no experience with the first and had little to do with the second. I know USAF F-101 Voodoos had IRSTs, at least for a time, as did the F-14 Tomcat, though I believe the chin installation was later replaced with a powerful TV camera. The IRSTs on both the MiG-29/FULCRUM and the Su-27/FLANKER were considered to be good things, in terms of capability, but the intel I saw was purely air-to-air combat, as opposed to air to weeds, as you propose. I never called that AMRAAM mode "Mad Dog," and I have no idea where you got the notion, never mind the term. The correct term, I believe, is Active Launch, which means, rather than flying out under command inertial mode, then transitioning to active radar mode when close enough and in the seeker acquisition limits, the pilot finds the target, activates the seeker, points the plane and attached missile toward the target, gets a launch tone when the seeker gets target lock, then fires. There's no pattern running aerial torpedo whipping back and forth across the sky. Rather, the process is very similar to a AIM-9X Sidewinder launch, except that instead of a passive IR seeker, it's an active radar one. Fire and forget.
tyrspawn,
I see lots of assertions here, but very few facts. I hope we don't have to find out in NATO vs Russia combat, but I'd remind you the A-10 has a lot more than a gun at its disposal, starting with the exceedingly accurate and lethal Maverick, which has a demonstrated 93% combat success rate. Maverick can be launched from practically treetop height and outranges the Tunguska. A-10s carry rockets, LGBs and JDAM, too. Enormous ordnance loads. Here's a picture of an A-10 flying an anti ISIS mission in which the plane may have to deal with anything from troops to buildings, softskins and tanks. If an A-10 can survive an SA-6 hit (demonstrated in combat), then it ought to be able to survive the much smaller SA-19, let alone MANPADS. I don't know enough about the SA-15 (divisional asset, not regimental; replaces SA-8) to be able to say there, though the first time I saw the thing thrust vector right after launch it scared me. I think your S-300s and such are going to be too busy dealing with other higher priority air threats and threats to themselves to themselves to bother with an A-10 whistling through the trees way way off in the distance. The US and NATO will have a very active SEAD/DEAD campaign going specifically to deal with S-300 and friends. Decoys, cruise missiles, JSOW, UCAV, jamming and who knows what toys not yet in the window. You seem to think it's going to be an A-10 shooting gallery. I emphatically disagree. Show me the evidence on A-10 G limit issues, please. While you assert lack of maneuverability, I respond with
A-10s are currently flying combat ops against opponents who have 12.7 mm, 14.5, 23 mm AAMG and AAG and SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-24 and Stinger. Am aware of no reports of A-10s being downed by anything. You have claims; I have demonstrated combat survivability. Note the airplane is badly shot up, yet still flew back and landed. A tire blew, which is why the A-10 wound up off the runway.
Regards,
John Kettler
What is your point about the a-10 being able to carry AGM-65, LGBs, JDAMs etc? So can the f-16/f15e, except they are a button push away from cat 1 and being able to pull 9 Gs in sustained turns at double the speed of the a-10. The a-10 is also very sluggish when carrying more than a few weapons. A typical gulf war loadout was 2 mavericks and 4 bombs.
Your video of the a-10 pulling is not to my point - the a-10 has a very quick turn rate at slow speeds, but it cannot do sustained break turns, which is my point. THose are required for SAM defense. The a-10 will depart when trying to perform break turns.
The a-10C project was an emergency effort to make the A-10 worth it's weight. It's sustained the life of the a-10 into our COIN wars, but it would never survive any a modern army with modern air defenses.
-
Those helo missiles from the North are pretty retarded. I'd have "LOL NOPE" and closed the mission probably after the losses.
The really infuriating thing is that when my one stinger managed to finally shoot down the Hind, the missile was fired to the SOUTH EAST - not the north. I presume all my dudes were facing the wrong direction, but the missiles were still coming from the north.
-
For some reasons I never liked that mission (backs to the wall).
The enemy AI is really terrible when on the attack.
I guess the maps are the main reason I like a scenario, and I simply dont like this one with this buildings and factory that looks all the same.
I like watching your video though.
Looking forward to the next one !
So yeah. When I started I Thought it would be really cool, saving private esque street to street fighting. But as you can see the armor rolled in ahead of the infantry (retard mode), got blow nup, then the infantry mindlessly followed after them. Going down obvious kill zones.
-
Then neither would an SU-25 survive in a war against NATO, and yet, there it is in the game.
Actually - the SU-25 is more maneuverable and faster than the A-10. The US air defense scheme is based upon establishing AIR SUPREMACY (claiming the air space with fighters) - the organic air defense support within US maneuver forces is laughable in comparison to the Russians. There are less threats to endanger the SU-25, and when they do, more opportunities to defend against them.
Ultimately it boils down to PLAUSIBLE DOCTRINAL DECISIONS. It's not plausible for US commanders to deploy A-10s against modern Russian forces. It is plausible for SU-25s to be deployed.
-
The A-10 would not survive in a war against Russia - it's made obsolete against Russian tactical and operational air defenses (MANPADS, SA-8s, SA-11s, SA-17s, SA-15 etc), to say nothing of the strategic level air defenses (S-300 etc). The A-10 only survives today in a war against foot mobile forces who are using strelas, the occasional Igla and heavy machine guns and with complete air supremacy on the NATO side. In a war against russia air supremacy is impossible, air superiority is difficult to achieve and every motor rifle company's MANPADS poses a significant threat of shoot down to an A-10. The f-16 and F-15Es in CMBS can defend against SAMs and fighters, and also perform high speed pop-up attacks.
The a-10 is on the chopping block and every year there is something on the news about them being potentially retired.
The biggest assets of the A-10 are the cannon and it's armor - both of which are useless in modern combat. In order to use the cannon, a slant range of less than 3 miles is required for light targets and less than 1 mile for tanks, putting it well within range of modern russian MANPADS and SHORADS. The A-10 cannot defend a system like the SA-15 or even SA-19.
The armor is from an age in which the most sophisticated Russian SHORAD was the ZSU-23/24 Shilka. It's questionable whether or not this armor would have been effective against the Shilka, but it's surely out classed by the SA-19 and SA-15, which are common features of Russian regiments. The outcome of being so heavily armored is that the A-10 is prone to flat spins and departures when pulling more than 4 G in a sustained turn and rapid loss of air speed, both of which are deadly in a defensive environment.
-
-
-
The stupid thing about CMBS is that the brads always LAZE the tanks. Ask any armor or cav guy and they will tell you that lazing is done ONLY when using the canon - as its unnecessary when firing TOWs. They train to judge distance by using the reticle (mil dots) - no laze required. If it's closer than 3600 meters, fire. If the tank doesn't track the brad in thermals, visually spot the missile in the air, and doesn't detect a laze, it should be toast.
-
Like I said I would prefer the players to work out how they want to complete their battles for the campaign turn. I do not want to say that they have to be this or the other as that will appease some and alienate the others. Players will need to be flexible and make compromises depending on circumstances.
PM me you email Krause and I will add you to the growing list of players that I am going to contact this weekend about ironing out all the small details like this.
wilco
-
It would come down to the individuals participating in the battle for that particular week on how they want to play it out (PBEM vs TCPIP). I know some guys have a preference to play one versus the other due to the time constraints that each has. (some players don't like waiting for their opponent to mail his turn and some players don't have 2+ hours to dedicate to a full game, plus you have the added problem with players located in different parts of the world which in turn create a logistical problem of its own for both playstyles.
I understand the argument for doing PBEM - but i personally find it unbearable. Just a heads up if you do another round of this.
it shouldn't be hard to organize a smaller group of players (10 or less) to do tcpip games by certain deadlines.
-
Willing to participate if it's NOT PBEM. tcp/ip only. Great idea.
-
Part 1 of backs to the wall.
A small force of paratroopers and Ukrainian mechanized infantry hold a factory complex against a massive Russian attack until an armored company team can arrive and relieve them!
-
realistically speaking most of the large apartment buildings in CMBS are company sized objectives. The way to clear buildings with smaller forces is, in order of safest to least safe:
1. blast into rooms with engineers
2. breach into rooms with breach kits
3. suppress the rooms with HE/machine guns/TOWs/javelins etc.
4. target light inside the room (they will throw grenades in) then rush another team in
5. Have one teach watch the room, and the other team enter it.
-
The next mission "Backs to the wall" seems unreasonably awesome - looks like the best mission so far. Played it for a few minutes and it looks awesome, band of brothers-esque, house to house fighting and arty landing everywhere.
google maps or high res images of the scheme of maneuver for the campaigns
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
If you could dm that to me I would appreciate it