DougPhresh

Serious question: Is this whole discussion based on American players not being able to accept limitations in their equipment? I haven't seen any posts about BTR-70s or 82s not being able to take on tanks!

One would hope that things have gotten better in the Russian ground forces! Does the Ukrainian MT-12K have a radar, or is the MT-12R the only version with it?

I was also dragged into conversations like this when Canada stopped using flechettes and DPICM in the artillery branch and landmines and cluster munitions generally. It's all well and good for amateurs to have opinions on these things but to talk down to people raising reasonable points, with knowledge and experience in the field (literal and figurative! ) is not condusive to a good conversation. Personally the utlility of DPICM shredding tank columns in the Fulda Gap is not worth the risk of a child playing with them in some low-intensity backwater. That's just my opinion but I understand why policy decisions weigh more than just the tactical considerations.

That's true. The CAF has a different anti-tank doctrine than the Yanks. We had a lot of training on LAW and Carl G, but the Eryx and TOW were rarities. The LAV UP / LAV 6.0 program was a huge success, and I think shows the utility of light armoured vehicles. As a gunner, there is one Canadian weapons system that still makes me glow with pride (and rumour has it there are still some in war storage).

I don't know what else can be said. This is the kind of thinking that leads to doctrinal failure. You can't jam every weapons system into every role. An APC is not an IFV let alone a tank. Nor should it be! That's all there is to it. Procurement is a mess already, designing anything on wheels or tracks to take on the latest generation of MBT is foolish in the extreme.

With the hull down command, I would really like to see mast-mounted sensors in play. With EW and UAVs simulated, it seems like a sensible addition.

That also applies to BTRs, MTLBs, trucks, etc. Heck! It even applies to Recce companies and battalions!

I just posted examples of failed AFV programs that tried to cram as much firepower onto a platform as possible. The BTR-94 obviously has it's share of problems, otherwise they would be more widespread than 40 with the Iraqi police. Ditto the BTR-90, which is in use only with the MVD. The EFV was an attempt to combine the roles of AAV and Bradley, and it ended being unable to do either. Thewood1 understands what I'm talking about. If you've never served you never see the downsides to the latest and greatest kit. All the time you spend keeping it operational, or kicking it down to first or second line maintenance is time you aren't doing your job. Likewise the Styrker eliminated much of the need to have divisions worth of POMCUS parked in any possible theatre. There isn't much point having every brigade equipped with Bradleys if they're still in the states when the war ends. For reference, the Russia-Georgia war lasted 5 days, how many Bradley-equipped units could be combat ready and deployed in that time?

I mean if we're just slapping firepower on platforms and hoping for the best...

It doesn't have to be the glamorous weapons systems that cause issues, my regiment recently received automatic grenade launchers with fancy night/thermal sights and a built in range finder and ballistic computer. They mostly stay in the gun shed when we roll out because it's a lot easier to service a C6 (FN MAG) in the snow and mud of the Canadian spring than to wrestle with not only a complicated and finicky weapon but the equally complicated and more fragile sight that goes with it. In-game reliability doesn't play a factor (although I wish it did) but the Stryker does exactly what it was designed to do, and does it well if well handled. Slapping on more cost, weight and things to break so that it can badly do a role it was never designed for is how you get doctrinal failures. I don't want anyone to think I'm bagging on the Americans too hard here, this is a recurring issue in weapons system procurement, and sometimes the Bad Idea Fairy gets to run away with the ball.

As a career gunner, let me tell you that the "advanced" and "time saving" features of the M777 has increased maintance, headaches and work more than you can imagine. Fancy gun laying computer breaks? Too bad it wasn't designed for easy manual lay so it's harder than the old guns. Crew of 5 compared to the 9 on older guns? That about doubles all of the other work a crew does other than fire the gun. Enjoy putting up cam nets and setting up the gun position. Hydraulic systems break? It was designed and ballanced around them, so good luck doing anything by hand if that fails (with reduced crew, mind). I could go on.

I would like to see the people complaining about strykers here try a quick battle with a Ukrainian tactical group of BTR-70s . You can't always rely on your toys to get you through.

A mortar platoon should not be able to dislodge a dug-in company in trenches, behind wire and mines. It is far too easy to shoot the enemy off position now. Before troops would hunker down in their fortifications and you'd still have to press the attack, now not so much. This is very, very obvious in Black Sea where a BMP-3 equipped company can dislodge a battalion from their trenches. 100mm air burst is no joke, but one of the differences between warriors and trained soldiers is that a soldier knows the value of digging in and staying put.

I think that it is fair to say that if T-80s were unleashed on Ukraine it would look very different than idling columns burning gas unguarded on the streets of Grozny.

It got a bad rap after Chechnya but reading Zaloga's book, it's a misunderstood weapons system with potential. I wouldn't mind seeing it in CMBS.

If you think about the Stryker as replacing the M113, it does a pretty good job. I spent a lot of time in Bisons and LAVs, and there is a role for light APCs, it's just that you have to be aware of that to get mileage out of them. What people have to remember is that in conventional war 90% of casualties are caused by crew served weapons, usually indirect fires. The BTR and Stryker keep your guys out of the shell fragments, the big killers on the battlefield. You know the saying about amateurs studying tactics and professionals studying logistics? This is a pretty good example. There is no wonder-weapon that will be impervious to enemy fire no matter how it is used. A lot of wargames fixate on Tigers and Panthers exactly because they fail to see that in the bigger picture the Sherman was a more effective weapons system. I think this should be required viewing for threads like this:

Notice how the HG uniforms are different than the Field Divisions!

My complaints are mostly about how easy it is to shoot the enemy off entrenched positions. Troops in the open behave about as they should, it's the dug-in guys that are acting strangely.

I've seen this with bridges as well.

I don't work with engineers too often but "under fire" can mean a lot of things. They are in the battlespace, yes but not on the FEBA. Considering their tasks "under fire" could mean light or harassing fire or even just indirect fire while being covered from accurate, concentrated fire by the other combat arms, smoke or terrain. Having seen M113s, LAVs and every kind of wheeled vehicle you can imagine in the ditch or stuck in the mud, even under good circumstances and not under fire it can take hours to recover them. Self-recovery is already modeled in the game with "bogged", anything more serious than that is not going to be a quick battlefield recovery.

Always glad to see other artillerymen on the board! Speaking from experience, units with laser designators should be able to drop rounds on a point target without as many spotting rounds. I'd also like to see HE Delay fuses for hard targets like concrete structures.

Recovering immobilized vehicles, like MEDEVAC and graves registration happens after the fighting has moved on. If you can't self-recover, they aren't sending a wrecker to get you under fire.

With the Ukrainians I've found that using the howitzers on a fire plan and using mortars on call is the best way to work around their limitations. This is even more true with green or conscript units, you won't be able to call in fire unless you plan well in advance.

The Romanians had a battery of Vasilek on KAF for counter-mortar duties. The Taliban would lob one shell or rocket near the wire and take 16 rounds of return fire before they knew what hit them.

It may not be as glamorous as the newer systems in-game, but I think the Russian SP 120mm systems Vena and Nona are worth adding. Based on the BMP and BTR platforms, respectively, they can be used for direct or indirect fire. The same gun on a different chassis is already available as off-map artillery, and is one of the most flexible artillery weapons in the game.