panzersaurkrautwerfer

As TJT pointed out they're not strictly sunglasses, they're ballistic eyewear. As the war in Iraq wore on there was a large number of eye injuries from various traumatic sources. The Army eventually made ballistic eyewear part of the uniform when doing operations in order to cut down on these sort of often medical discharge inducing injuries. The quoted protection level is against something like a .22 caliber bullet, and they've cut down on the number of blinding injuries sustained through various means. They are really annoying if you're like me and wear conventional eyeglasses, as you then have small prescription inserts that go into the ballistic eyewear itself which is pretty heavy and wears on your nose. You also generally only receive one part of the inserts so you're always switching the inserts between the clear and tinted lenses depending on the day. Also it's considered rude to wear any sort of shades-like thing when talking to Iraqis so you need to carry your normal glasses too if you're planning on doing any sort of interaction with the locals.

Likely. My Army lifespan covered the high point of Iraq war spending through the beginning of the downsizing. Sort of funny to see all the crap we bought when times were good, or programs that operated entirely based on the amount of money thrown at it. Either way seems like if you're building a platform for ABCTs it might be better off keeping it Bradley based instead of the ASV. I think we've gone too far with uparmoring though. I mean I like armor and all, but the level of armor+the actual need seems a bit counter-productive. Going to COIN? Let's get you some M-ATVs and stuff. You need a truck for the chaplain to tool around in? Let's get you a soft top.

The only times HE really has worked well in terms of anti-armor has been in the case of artillery sized shells. The 100 MM HE contact fuse or no would be a pretty losing proposition to hit any semi-modern tank with. You'd likely get the same upper limit success against subsystems sticking with autocannon fire

Still better than the Armored Knight! I have no idea why anyone thought that was a good idea, it isn't like it offers much over the HMMWV based things the COLT used to use.

What the FO said. I'd claim six was about within the realm of "functional" with many platoons having the squad leader dual hat as both the vehicle commander and dismounted squad leader to achieve the 7 dismounts per track. Also many units will simply be under-strength by a soldier or two so often positions for the medic and FO are gained because 2nd squad is only 7 guys instead of the desired 9.

In regards to what MikeyD just said, that was certainly the case in Korea. More practically we expected the BFIST to serve as a point of entry for targets spotted by the platoons or other company assets into the Joint Fires network with the actual fire and adjust portion being executed by the unit in contact. He usually remained with the company HQ elements, or just behind the supported platoon.

The LRAS3 is much better at very long to extreme ranges. It does not offer a better wFOV or better detection of near (4 KM or so) type targets, and it is still controlled by the turret crew who already have optics (so it's not like there's a third set of eyes looking). For most CMBS games, this means there should be a fairly negligible difference in spotting. I'd honestly forgotten about the LRAS3. When I was in the Cav we still had M7s, when I had a BFIST in my Company I did not care so much about what the track did as much as what the FSO team did with it. However in my exposure to both systems they did not seem to locate targets any better than the M3A2s and M1A2 SEP v2s they worked beside.

The human eye is much better at finding things given clear conditions simply because it's pretty much max WFOV combined with better using whatever monkey level survival skills we have in finding something that doesn't belong. There's a reason the Israelis used to espouse commanders hanging out of the tank's turret, and why the Abrams has "open protected" as a hatch position* On the other hand the human eye is much easier to defeat by virtually anything (dust, smoke, darkness), and thermals are good at picking up things at very distant ranges in more complex terrain. They both have their advantages. One of my happiest memories at Armor Officer's School was hanging out of the hatch and fighting the tank from there as it gave you amazing situational awareness (especially in the 300-500 meter maximum range you had in the training area). On the other hand there's plenty of training events where looking into even a light fog, I couldn't tell you if godzilla was out there, but in the thermals I could see literally everything out to max engagement ranges. Spotting is, and should be when simulated a very weird and inconsistent event. I've never felt like the CMBS manner of spotting was especially unrealistic outside of a very few occasions. *the hatch itself hinges, so while it is "open" in open protected, the hatch itself remains parallel to the turret roof, allowing for the commander to look out with his own eyeballs, while still having reasonable overhead cover.

1. BFIST. Also the proper nomenclature as far as I can tell is now "M3A3 BFIST" I'm not entirely sure why the M7 designation went away but it's now treated as a derivative of the Scout Bradley vs a separate platform. 2. In regards to spotting, simply put there isn't much of an advantage to it. It has the same basic optics package as any other A3 generation Bradley (which is similar to the M1 optics). It's not really that great of a target acquisition tool. 3. Where it does shine is being a great thing to process fire missions, and especially aviation, usually taking several minutes faster (especially in terms of aviation). Also while not especially good in terms of acquisition, using it to get LOS on targets spotted by more durable systems will bring pain in a lot faster. 4. While alluded to earlier, it's amazing at managing aviation tools. Also because it has both the Fire Support Officer (the LT in the track itself) and a team of FISTers (the NCO led team carried in the back) and the radios for both to call for separate missions. This means if you have UAVs you can just leave it on missions using one of the assets on the BFIST, and then use the other "team" to coordiated fixed wing or rotary. The faster mission process speed pays dividends in that regard. In terms of gun artillery while the processing speed is much faster, I find using the platoon leader (in the case of all units) or the dismounted FIST team (in the case of infantry) to be more or less suitable.

I've always taken my corner of the battlefield to simply be where X Company meets C Battalion as part of the clash between various Brigades and Divisions. In terms of enjoyment frankly I have a hard time really getting into much above Battalion minus formations (so 2-3 companies at most), while really preferring a company or so to command. The AI just isn't up simulating all the subordinate leaders between various levels (no AI is really) and while finding good firing positions for a dozen "units" (squad/AFVs) is not so bad, figuring out how to squish in 40+ of same wears out my interest quickly. From how it sounds, mechanically speaking the "teeth" elements of a Brigade seem within reason to simulate though.

If it's too low a hanging fruit, then the ultra-nationalists will really begin to insist said nation be crushed. The US is something that Russian realistically will never be able to effectively be ready to fight so it serves very well as a boogyman to pull out. Also Russia has way more ties to the various European NATO countries, so it'd be bad business to sour those connections, while if Russia and the US never traded again, neither would be too deeply affected. In regards to the Turkey situation, it's the Ukraine in reverse. Russia knew exactly how far it could run with the Ukraine without bringing a "hard" response (although it certainly underestimated the bite of the "soft" response). The Turks certainly worked out how far they could run with vigorously enforcing their air space without bringing in a hard Russian response. Russia overplayed its hand in bombing Turk allied anti-Assad folks while at the least skirting Turkish airspace (and almost certainly violating it). Ego saving measures have taken place. Russia would have to commit an overt act of war to really get at the Turks now, which it will not do as Syria is important, but not important enough to risk a wider war over. The Turks are in a similar place that they'd really have to flagrantly gun for Russians on the Syrian side of the border to bag another Su-24, and that's well outside of what NATO will support. Anyway. Massive off topic but while Russian and Turkish leaders both play the loose cannons, they're not. They're well aware of the lines they're trodding on which while there is danger, we're not yet playing for all the marbles if you get my drift. Anyway. It would be an awesome physics experiment in terms of sabot behavior post-penetration. The steady flight pattern post-penetration seems to fit with the way most training sabots mushroom although I'm not sure how well the training round to target/berm impact translates in terms of making both objects much harder.

The big difference in terms of explosion risk between the two is that the BMP-3 is filled with much more volatile ammunition. The rounds for the 100 mm gun are a primo source for catastrophic cookoff, and unlike a tank, which broadly speaking will contain some of the explosion (or at least vent it upwards through the hatches/launching the turret), the vehicle just doesn't have the sort of armor to contain and direct the explosion. So basically imagine roadwheels, the turret, and other "heavier" bits getting thrown through the air thanks to the 40+ 100 MM rounds stowed in the vehicle and slamming into nearby vehicles. I think being next to one having a catastrophic detonation would certainly be a very dramatic event and would make an impression on neighboring vehicles. The BMP-2 on the other hand only has a few ATGMs and the 30 MM rounds, which are less prone to a mass cookoff, and more of a "popcorn" detonation, which will lower the used sale price of the vehicle by a lot, but is not as likely to be as dangerous as a burning BMP-3.

Again, wouldn't entirely rule it out happening once in a blue moon, but it certainly should not happen often. If it did not affect other things (one of the things I really like about CMBS is rounds don't just ghost if they miss, so watching a barn 'esplode because a round went wild is pretty awesome) I'd say simply excluding the behavior. Again while it is not an historically unknown event it is not a behavior that anyone counts on, or expects to occur with any degree of frequency.

Biggest power on the planet, fairly limited direct repercussions if alienated (US-Russian trade even when things were fairly friendly was modest at best). China is much more important economically to the US, and while regionally can be a foe/opponent, globally it is neutral-friendly in terms of Russian interests (which is to say the US would be against Russian expansion regardless of where it was, while the China-Russian conflicts are limited more to their shared border, Russian efforts in the Ukraine or Chinese efforts in Africa don't conflict or illicit protests from each other).

But again there's a big difference in terms of what that LOS is comprised of. We got a defective fan for an M88A2 engine with microfractures, so after a few hours of operation it dramatically failed and sent bits of fan all over the inside of the engine compartment. The "after" photos were a sight to behold in terms of large chucks of metal embedded in various parts of the vehicle. Also a lot of engine compartments by design are open and dead spaces (also rather famously one of the T-34/85 overpenetrations went in the frontal slope and exited out the back of the engine compartment with sufficient violence to force US forces a few hundred meters away to take cover, and there's more than a few T-72s and T-55s with "exit wounds" in Iraq) Basically where I'm going is if this happened IRL I'd not be totally shocked. It is an uncommon event, but one that is based in reality. The frequency of this event in CMBS is by several magnitudes higher than I'd expect to see though, which includes some rather out there situations (I seem to recall a shot that killed two tanks, went through a building then killing and IFV). To that end it might be more realistic to somehow drop the "two in a row" kills simply because it is uncommon enough to not require simulation, but that's just my take on it. I don't know how complicated that would be, or if it'd totally bugger actually desired behavior.

re: BMP-3 It might just be me but the dang thing seems like a magnet to lethal fires. Even going back to CMSF it seemed if something was going to catch that magic RPG-7/AT-4/grenade it was going to be the BMP-3, and it was going to go off like a bomb. The 100 mm is nice though. I still prefer the lower end BMPs because I tend to use IFVs (even M2s) mostly to move troops to assault points and then a rearward SBF (which while the BMP-3 is good for this, the 30 MM on the BMP-2 is up to snuff for suppressing objectives), or accompanying tanks (in which case the 125 MM can handle anything forward and has airburst). It's all personal preference really. I'll just always default to more tanks, less IFVs, and a general reluctance to place IFVs forward which makes something cheaper attractive.

I think this has more to do with what the Russian government wants the people to believe than Russian intentions. Not to get all overly political but historically the most unifying thing for Russia has been an external threat, (much the same with the US, although terrorism is largely what we've chosen to fear these days). In terms of establishing regieme survival some manner of danger from the outside draws a lot of attention from more pressing (but difficult to solve) domestic troubles.

Penetrating two tanks is not unheard of (various German big guns vs Shermans/T-34s, M26s vs T-34/85s, M1A1 vs T-72M1s), but it is unrealistically common in Combat Mission in my opinion.

I like the bog standard BMP-2s but that's because I tend to use them as battle taxis. None of the BMPs hold up especially well to direct fire, and while the BMP-3 offers a lot of weapons I rarely seem to get them to use them before something blows them up (and by god do they blow up). BMP-2M is neat but expensive. Would rather save my points for tanks.

As to your first point, knowing something is not effective or has been compromised is not the same as being able to do something about it. There's likely going to be the next generation of ERA out there somewhere though and it will likely be based on the understanding that previous generations are compromised. In regards to the rest: All rounds are compromises, practically speaking a three ton bolder traveling at 30 m/s will wreck a tank, as would a speck of dust traveling at .9 of light speed or whatever. M/s isn't always the consummate measure of round performance. A heavier round will still impact with significant energy, and further as a historical example the M829A3 is something like 100 m/s slower than the M829A2 while still being able to reliably go through most threat armor arrays. We're not talking about going from 1,500 m/s to 900, it's fairly modest drops. Segmenting the round is another one of the techniques used. It's all part of making something that is effective on multiple tiers, I just tend to talk about the denser round because the drop in velocity was something that threw me for a minute too when I first heard about it.

Overseas in a COIN fight, yeah, we went for MRAPs because force protection was the only consideration. In a Full Spectrum Conflict you're still going to see MRAPs/JLTVs collecting dust simply because they are rubbish in a fight where the enemy has AFVs and a reasonable level of infantry portable AT assets. The JLTV purchase exists towards that end providing a reasonable replacement for COIN/internal security missions, and the JLTV itself exists largely because of how unsatisfactory the MRAPS were outside of a narrow window of performance. In most formations (ABCT and SBCT) there will be little to no JLTVs. They will remain likely HMMWVs or whatever light wheeled vehicle comes next.

Relikt in the short term is a non-factor given its current level of proliferation and deployment. More realistically it represents a good jumping off point to defeat tomorrow's ERA. The threat has never been realistic simply because at this point in the game Russian client states that have money, or are not crippled with their own internal problems are fairly limited. In regards to changing Relikt, I am doubtful. There's practical "throw" weights to ERA, and making something better adapted to say, a slower heavier projectile might just result in making something too slow to deal with older projectiles. There's a pretty narrow window of adjustment for anything that's trying to defeat a sabot type round, and frankly detonating earlier, or later isn't going to have as much of an effect if we're dealing with something that's basically designed to physics its way through ERA effects. Further while M829A4 has only just gone from being an experimental round, Relikt has been offered for export for some years. In terms of using technical exploitation it is a much earlier problem to solve, the tiles exist they are for sale/have been on display somewhere they could walk off from. The M829A4 has not. Russia is not the Soviet Union. It has some decided intelligent capability, but no longer the resources, the third party actors, or ideological pull it used to have. And in regards to stealing secrets frankly they're lightyears worse than the Chinese these days, who do have the money and third party actors. Also HUMINT is marginal in this case, and frankly I wish folks would stop acting as if that abbreviation was some magic invocation for perfect intelligence. There's not many folks who work on modern defense projects these days that have a grasp on the entire system (simply because of technical complexity and cross disciplinary design) that comprising one or two people will not strictly give you the sort of picture you need (or one more useful than sitting down with scaled photos and slide rules will give you).

One of the great tricks of the defense industry is rarely will the customer actually find out if you have been truthful in performance numbers. P/k ratios for missiles (even with live fire testing), efficiency of sensor platforms and even protective layers have all had their classic examples of divergence between what's on the box and performance regardless of nationality. The only reason I have any sort of faith in the M829A4 is simply because as part of the acceptance it was likely accepted after a very specific flavor of live fire testing specifically for its ability to achieve reliable results in said live fire test. It'd be a real shot in the arm for some companies however, if some countries all ditched K-5 in favor of newer ERA arrays, and I imagine claiming to neutralize the M829 makes for good selling points at least.

Which cuts to the heart of why measuring ERA in effective RHA is tricky. It isn't just like you now have 300 MM RHA tacked on, you have a thing that if properly functional and aligned against threat weapons might have an effect. Against "heavy" sabot or other penetrator side modification it might in some cases have next to no effect at all depending on the round. The graphic is nice and all, but it is a graphic designed to show you why you should be chucking all your K-5 in the trash and buying all new ERA to defeat American imperialists. It isn't a technical drawing or something.

The ERA that is in game is in service, but provided as "Theater Provided Equipment," in essence in storage until someone decides Abrams going somewhere need the ERA arrays attached. The APS is an off the shelf model that largely has existing engineering done on Abrams integration. Small leap. As BTR already pointed out, the rounds in game are already the high end of what is available/planned for the short term, you would need an entirely fictional program for something more potent to exist. As to the last post, the M829A2 is a mid-90's generation round and would not likely be the service round in a Ukrainian conflict. Also I would not place a high degree of faith in anyone's, US, Russian, etc's infographics.