Rinaldi

I wish I can say the rest of the firefight went as well; but my opponent wisely pulled back into a reverse slope defense after the first nasty surprise. My local success has helped to 'reset the board' as my reinforcements come in so, hope remains for a Syrian upset. From a PBEM of "Armour Attacks"

Oh so literally nothing that supports whatever....point....trying to be made by Lucas. I'm shocked, truly.

Just use an image host to keep up the dank sh*tposts fam

Sorry, Lucas, I must continue to disagree. The issue is very much survivability. If a vehicle is expected to fight enemy armor than it must be able to survive the battlescape long enough to do so and then either break contact or re-acquire contact. Bradleys can do so; an IBCT Anti-Armor unit can theoritically do so through stealth (re: Humvees are a damn sight easier to miss than a Stryker), its ability to reach out and touch someone (TOWs have about twice the effective range of the Javelin) and through its ability to dismount the systems, which speak to both of the above. Since the entire reason d'etre of a SBCT is to be more mobile than a IBCT, and less heavy than an ABCT, we don't have much further wiggle room here to improve on its firepower without hamstringing its main assets. Its why, like the M113 before it, the Stryker has an entire family of vehicles based around its chassis. Its a smarter move than trying to have one vehicle do everything. I won't even address whether the Stryker concept is flawed from top to bottom, though I will be fair to you and say that you're not the first or the last person who will hold that view.

My bad, I definitely spoke imprecisely. I was referring to the BTR MRRs; and I think the salient response would be in mobile firepower; shoulder-launched Javelins don't go as far as a Kornet but they set up a hell of a lot faster and let a crew back out much faster too . You're correct viz. the AT-13 btw, which is the only shoulder launched system to my knowledge in service at the company level that's relatively modern. My overall point is; BTR MRRs have repeteadly proven themselves in conflict on the scale from low-intensity to high-tempo, and as you point out they're not dissimilar to a SBCT. I suppose ultimately who has more aggregate firepower is academic, since they're near enough in philosophy and application.

and the Javelins and Anti-Armor company are...what, exactly? Honestly if you want my, honest to god opinion I think an SBCT could do with adding additional anti-armor platoons to Fire Support Squadrons and Battalions ; but the reality is that they're going to be fighting on foot more often than not and don't operate in a vaccum. Compared to their nearest peer formations they have an absolutely awe-inspiring amount of firepower. A Russian MRR usually has to rely on its habitual Tank Battalion for FEBA anti-armor defense, because there's simply not enough in the ATGM platoon to go around. I still would assert the Stryker has more offensive capability as well (based mainly on sensor-to-shooter capabilities and weight of fire support) and its not like the Americans can't task organize with armor when conducting offensive action. Again; not seeing your point. The addition of an actual ATGM is more of a matter of pragmatics than budget. (1) SBCTs put more boots on the ground than an ABCT, (2) the ability to do (1) would be greatly curtailed by taking up space needed for a basic combat load of TOWs, defeating the purpose of the SBCT, (3) the addition of an ATGM tends to make small-unit commanders fight their vehicle in a way that isn't smart (news flash: adding a TOW to a Stryker doesn't suddenly make it as survivable as a Bradley), and (4) You stuff enough ammo into something and it becomes a BMP-3. Ka-boom. A BMP-3 that's maybe proofed for 20mm. No thank you. From the game perspective too I don't think I've ever had an 'oh sh*t' moment with the Strykers, probably because I handle them with care.

You've been repeatedly shown that wheeled APCs are not only suited for COIN style operations. You've blithely ignored that info every time. Your problem, asides from general amateur ignorance (which is a forgivable offense) is that you really can't think in anything past the micro. You say "SBCT this" and "SBCT that" but have only really talked about the vehicle, as if it does all of the formation's fighitng for it, rather than the actual nature of the organization and its doctrine. Has the thought occured to you that wheeled-APC equipped units train and prepare for the worse-case scenario (an armored unit thrusting down their throat)? If it has, you haven't given it nearly enough thought. There's no one at Fort Benning sitting there going "Strykers will only fight these formations all of the time." Also; tell me, where is this armored juggernaut that can have superiority in armor at all places at all times that a Stryker unit can never operate for fear of encountering a tank battalion around every bend in the road? Where is this mighty military, I want to ask them some questions about their budget.

No but you don't understand, its simply their opinion. Now pass me that rod so I can beat the horse's corpse too. I actually laughed out loud. People in the office are staring. This is nearing tin-foil hat terrain; also I love the subtle comparison of the Stryker to a BMP, rather than to something that actually mirrors its doctrinal use. This kind of talk is the exact reason why no one is taking this thread seriously. I wonder, if I created a thread whining that the BTR82A is no match for a bunch of Bradleys and Abrams firing on it from 1500m, what type of mockery would I invite? This is essentially what is happening in this thread.

Currently doing "Armour Attacks!" with a mate. He's a good hand at the game but I've a fair bit more experience so I'm playing it as the Syrians. Your crews are veterans and well motivated, which really only leaves the technological aspect to consider. Highly reccomend the Scenario; it's actually been quite tit-for-tat, definitely shines as H2H. There's a few others; "STEELERS" is also decent for H2H. There's also "Forging Steel" mission pack which is a series of connected scenarios that play incredibly well H2H.

This. It's interesting we haven't had any threads about BTR-82s making the same complaints. The lack of contextual thinking is shocking. Yes, in a tactical simulator I would love to have all Abrams, all the time, but that's not how a high-intensity battle zone behaves. Someone's gotta do the economy of force, pull security, recon or conduct operations in complex terrain so that the armor can be husbanded for the decisive effort. You don't fritter away MBTs and IFVs on such tasks if you can avoid it. The same situation that finds a BTR regiment of a MRD following up an attack or providing flank security is as applicable to an SBCT. Except, of course, the SBCT gives you more infantry, more UAS, more survivability and more Anti-Tank capability. It's like a BTR unit...but better in almost every way :^)

Please explain how CMBS doesn't show the limitations of the Stryker? Yet another assinine thread in a week full of them even by CMBS's standards. "If only the Stryker had this, or that, and the moon and hi-speed internet..." Then it wouldn't be a Stryker. Also "I don't like them" is great; thank you for sharing the opinion. There was already a thread on the subject we didn't need another @panzersaurkrautwerfer your first mistake was trying to reason with them. Everyone suddenly becomes a Defense Analyst when someone plays a bad round at CM and gets their rear-quarters handed to them.

k. I knew I'd see this thread after the one that just popped up. Stop using battle taxis like they're Bradleys. Abuse its vastly superior C2 capabilities. The end.

I have to agree with Miller, John. Stuff like ABVs and ARVs are much rarer now then they were in WWII simply by merit of usual peace time decay. There's only something like 40 ABVs, I think there's something like 600 M88s produced but I have no idea how many of those are at current standard and still operation. Other countries would be lucky to have a company's worth to a brigade. Though pictures of towing from Kursk are amazing.

Nonsense my good man! Bring me closer - I shall hit them with my riding crop. Protecting your thin-skins is precisely what a ponce would do, and let none accuse me of that.

Ultimately, this is your choice. If you want the most gameplay for your money, Normandy and Shock Force have the most material to date. All of the games have a robust singleplayer experience but I would say the modern games (Shock Force, Black Sea) generally focus on the singleplayer experience more than others. Hope that helps. I'm sure you'll enjoy whatever you buy.

Congrats to them! Germany once again with a strong showing and the United States undid much of last year's performance, with the 2-7 team placing third. A good sign for the resurging focus in force-on-force training for the US. Story here:

Comparing National Service in states that border or share territorial waters with Russia and the re-introduction of a draft in the United States is....a stretch, to put it mildly. Can you give us a reason why the Chinese would intercede on behalf of North Korea? Could you give us a reason why, unilaterally, the US would recklessly risk an escalation of a conflict around North Korea by threatening China? It's just all too muddy for me. Pages and pages of potential plot and none of it is remotely coherent, interesting or plausible to me, I'm sorry.

A couple of bold statements to make there.

Now this is a dank shi*post

The dev team always lock it into the historical time frame or their canon. Black Sea's timeline runs June-August, so that's what's selectable.

Good choice for a module, you'll be compatible with a lot of the older user-made scenarios. The Marines module expanded the Syrians quite a bit as well.

Hahaha, yes! Top banter.

It's strongly inferred, and you functionally have frankly. Hiding behind 'it's just my opinion' after parading it out as truth is what we call being disingenuous. For example: Nothing suggests its capabilities. Operations like UNIFER in fact showcase that it hasn't even begun to lay foundations for capabilities. We're still training you gentlemen at the fireteam, squad and platoon level. This means there's a lack of basic tactical acumen. This also means that your NCOs are as green and technically unsound as your private-soldiers and that your Officers - those who aren't dead - are overwhelmed at best and apathetic at worst. There was once a man named Saddam who had a large, seemingly well equipped Army too; and there was once a Field Marshal by the name Gamelin who had a rather large group of strapping young lads with the equipment to win... Quite literally no one has. Even the rather vocal two self-described Russophiles who have participated in this thread. ...k? I admire your optimism. Let's look at things the UA does currently have in game versus their real life counterparts. 1) OPLOTS and BTR-4Es in active service at the Brigade level - This remains a 'cloud 9' dream for the current Ukranian military 2) Corsar company level ATGMs - Officially still under development; has yet to see combat as far as civilian's can ascertain. Prolific in game. 3) Proliferation of NATO-standard Laser Range Finders - The Ukraine is using analog, surplus systems and don't have them in near the numbers they should per TO& E in reality 4) Precision artillery - like the Corsar, and so much else of UA equipment, it exists on paper or in limited quantities. In game, it is bog-standard for a battery that would be equipped with it. I could go on; basically the only capability the UA in reality has that the fictional timeline of BS lacks is company level drones.