panzersaurkrautwerfer

I don't play the Ukrainians often, but I got the same feel for the Oplot. I know it's not western level optics, but it seems in terms of technological capabilities at least similar to most Russian sensors in performance.

Sure does swing both ways. But we're not pretending there should be M1A3s and upgunned Bradleys zipping around. Everything that's in now is either well on the way to being in service, or is available but not purchased. Armata etc, etc is still in the early functional prototype stage. If there's a later counter-factual module just for giggles it'd be a good fit, but if we're talking about realistic likely outcomes, a 2017 Armataforce is not one of them. They're not actually. They're still bound by the cold painful reality that Russia is not a rich country, and it's certainly not getting richer. The game by and large should continue to reflect the Russia as it is, rather than the Russian military steamroller that Russian nationalists/paranoid cold war leftovers believe it is on the verge of becoming. Considering how most Russian large scale weapons designs have gone since 1991? I'd say it's a fair assessment of capability.

Same with the CROWS on the tank, the only vehicle .50 cals that were firing the wrong ammo was the HMMWV. BMP-3 makes major protection compromises to fit the 100 MM, 30 MM, ammo and autoloader, the rifle squad, and the ability to swim. It isn't a very well armored vehicle, and it is filled with things that explode impartially.

The way it's working out is more the parent unit owns both, but the Avengers still get farmed out as required. Case in point while the PATRIOT batteries in Korea all live near very sensitive things, the Avengers are based out of Camp Casey with the rest of the US ground forces. This does not preclude the point defense role, but it was not as cut and dried as being linked together. Would have been the M1097 from my understanding.

Same way the Russian Army has T-90AMs and BMP-3Ms in number. There's a few AFVs in game that should be quite rare/are not likely to be in service soon that are in to keep it a bit more lively I imagine.

Re: Bonds It's more that Russian bonds are something you can buy right now at ultracheap prices because of how poor their economy is doing. There's less to do with "Russia is now a good investment!" and more given that oil prices are no longer dropping rapidly, we've sort of hit the new reality of oil prices, they're not likely to change dramatically which returns a certain degree of stability and thus some of the value of Russian bonds. Going from "worthless" to "worth pennies!" is still a pretty significant gain and from my reading anyway it's not a long term investment they're pushing, more ride the rise from $.00001 to $.001 then foist it off on people who are hoping it goes all the way to being worth $.01 Either way Russia is still a fair bit weaker economically than it was when this whole mess kicked off. And further down that road, even when it was doing better, it was still unable to afford some fairly modest upgrade programs. Another interesting historical precedent is the MI-28 which is supposed to have replaced the MI-24 by now, but in fact only represents a small portion of available rotary attack platforms. Historically Russia's rearmament programs for the last twenty years have either been vastly behind, or only replace a small number of the obsolete platforms. Nothing has changed about Russia's technical and financial situation to indicate it is more able to conduct significant and rapid upgrades in terms of both new platforms (across multiple vehicle and weapons fleet no less!), and upgrade packages for old platforms. Further virtually no military system enters service hiccup free. And there's little evidence of testing of much of the new hardware (indeed, once it hit the parade grounds we've been seeing a deluge of stuff that previously only existed as fan art). It stands to reason that even if the money exists, it may be years before the Armata based systems are entering service in number, and much the same goes for APS upgrades. Which all gets to keeping expectations down. If the first Armata battalion is coming online on time and to spec, then well, we've got something to talk about. But given the historical, technical, and financial precedents there's really no rational position to hold with new Russian systems than "wait and see" and to adjust expectations accordingly vs expecting things to go from "parades and diagrams!" to "in service enough to be common" in two or so years.

Again, on the HMMWV especially it's not some guy strapped on and exposed to 360 degrees of fire from the ground, it's a guy in a metal box that's more or less going to stop anything short of HMG fire from all but close range. He's going to draw more fire than average yes, and that will reflect to a higher loss rate overall, but it does feel like armor or no they're getting peeled off the top of the HMMWV about as fast as vehicles that lack gun shields at all. Dunno. I don't mess with HMMWVs enough in game, or when I have them I tend to keep them away from direct fire anyway. It's just a passing impression.

I view it as I signed up to play a somewhat realistic version of how a 2017 war between the NATO and Russia might play out. I did not sign up to play a version of reality in which Russian military ambitions and designs became unfettered by reality and we're dealing with technical capabilities and equipment that in the real world never survived the Russian economy, or turned out to be crippled by massive technical issues and cost overruns leading to the whole mess being canceled after the first 30 were cranked out. Small leaps are good. Arena actually being common isn't too out there. T-90AMs and BMP-3Ms are a bit of a reach, but heck all the parts exist seems reasonable. US APS is just a very large government purchase card transaction away, and both the AMPS and M829A4 are well underway and remain fully funded. But because three or so Armatas show up to a parade, or enthusiastic arms sales people assure us Afghanit is about to make all Russian tanks invincible to all things does not mean it's time to start making the Russian military in CMBS look like Putin's personal wet dream. If the current Russian plans pan out a lot more in the next few months, then it's certainly worth reconsidering. But the vision of battalions of Armatas, backed up with various older systems now invincible to all things because Afghanit rolling through the Ukraine remains pretty well outside the realm of reasonable expectations at the moment.

In a perfect world, maybe there could be a way to set behavior at the waypoint at the end of the movement. So in effect, it'd replicate that intent for what you wanted the team/vehicle to do once it completed the move. Examples: You could tell a tank to fast move behind a small rise. At that waypoint you could then set a "fire at" command the TAC AI would then follow and try to get primary weapons LOS on a set node from the end position over the rise. On the other hand, a "hide from" behavior would have the tank purposefully avoid LOS with a user set node. A "scout position" node would have the tank do the bare minimum required to get eyes on the node over the top of the rise. It would certainly have moments were it did not work quite right. But it would better allow us to tell something to go someplace and assume a posture on arrival that suits our intent.

Again, the impossibru wasn't that something would show up to the parade, it was how real/operational the thing would be, and how fast it would enter service. The jury is still very out on those questions, and the various follow-on ERA/APS systems. Having Afganit as anything common would really genuinely take some major movements happening now/the next few months, otherwise at best if it were included, it should closely resemble the US APS in terms of rarity and cost. Asserting that it's going to be common enough to balance the playing field is a bitch of a massive reach to put it mildly.

Yeah, but it's not like we'll go from not even Arena to every T-90 has Afganit overnight. If we're seeing mass fieldings soon, then man, yeah 2017 it's going to be a common thing, but if it's 2016 and all we have is "soon!" and some samples at a weapons expo, then it's pretty much not happening on a scale worth discussing outside of something that'll eat up your rarity budget with two tanks.

Not really so much. Right now it's about as realistic as Trophy is on US vehicles. If it starts getting fielded in number, then maybe it'll be time to put it in the game at all, but right now its jogging along of the Armata lines of existing, but some major questions exist to if it'll be in service in a reasonable amount of time. By no means should it replace Arena unless in a few months we're seeing significant first fieldings or something.

Addenudm: There's no U in HMMWV. It's High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. This is true. But with a proper gun shield they stand a reasonable chance at lasting for more than a few seconds against rifle fire. It's still a lot more exposed than say, a sandbag emplacement or a foxhole, but a little more robust gunners would be closer to reality (unless there's no gun shield).

Nah. The gunner in the top photo is standing up on a small platform to get a better view, the bottom guy is sitting in the sling. If you're riding in the turret the way you're "supposed" to, basically your elbows are touching the sides of the turret opening. That does give a really poor sort of situational awareness though, so standing up is kind of your way of getting that outside world. The top cover in the bottom picture is just camo net over a wire type frame, it's there to allow someone to stand up in the turret for short stints without drawing as much fire as the shield in the top photo. The actual protective area of the turret sides is about same, compare the size of the turret to the other objects on the respective HMMWVs, but the ballistic glass was really helpful in the actually knowing what was going on without getting shot. It's still a somewhat exposed position in that you're fairly obvious, and a high value target, but it's not quite the instant death that seems to follow HMMWV and similar gunners in CM.

I was thinking that was a bit excessive, the ammo count alone for that many targets would require a special forces company sized element (which is not really a thing).

Huh. Go figure, the last ones I saw still were soft and squishy, and that was late 2014. Last Avenger guy I talked to seemed pretty emphatic it was max armored too. Anyway. Not exactly something you want out in front armor or no.

I don't think there where any hats to eat. The "nothing will show up" wasn't a very commonly held opinion. Doubts to the functionality, and practicality of the whole program remain though. In terms of consensus: 1. The platform exists. 2. Russia appears to be pursuing it. 3. Some stuff has been ruled out in terms of design and there's some limited "knowns" Jury is still out if we're not looking at PAK-FA the tank though.

Or you could just use infantry to clear them out, as it's a very weak formation in terms of ground forces.

I found something more interesting. The nature of the Ukrainian dinosaur legions is approximately manifold of three to two rations against the Russian array of 4.5 Stegosaurus a minute. This is acceptably within the prorate of twenty five, but well outside the GOP DOW electron of eighty nine. I am frankly appalled at the weaponization of this gentle herbivore but after the semi-nuclear immulsion of sixty five raptors in Keplast Obast it is to be expected. Either way, I know one thing and I know it well, this **** will make you a ********** sexual tyrannosaur and aint that the truth scrobot.

In terms of Javelins available, there's about one launcher per rifle squad. I'm not sure how many are available per each different flavor of Cavalry unit (IBCT, SBCT, and ABCT Cav looking dramatically different), but ABCTs had two per platoon in 2011 at least. Round allocation is a bit different, but the CMBS 3 or so missiles per launcher is well within the reasonable loadout, especially for US forces expecting armor. Re: Topic. Yeah. This isn't an RTS, we don't need to "nerf" things that are authentic. The rarity price exists to keep folks from filling up on King Tigers in the world war two CMs, or keep APS Abrams from rolling around by the dozens, but for equipment that is simply available as a squad level weapons system, and has been for some years, I don't think you could do more wrong by adjusting to make it less common because we're trying to keep QBs "fair." Also as an addendum, the "cheap and plentiful" Russian Army is a bit of a myth at this point. As posted earlier there's no commanding size difference between the forces, the US Army has about 550,000 active duty personnel, but with mobilization can surge to a little over a million. The Russian Army stands at something like 1 million active on hand by available positions, but in practice is closer to 700,000-800,000. While it is certainly larger, it is no longer at the point where it can across a broad front simply plow enemy forces under, and especially given the inclusion of NATO forces, and the Ukrainian military in the CMBS scenario, likely has something we could call parity in numbers to NATO/UKR forces in theater. The gap between US equipment and Russian equipment is something the player has to close, (and much the same going the other way, with I feel one exception*). Doing it in a "gamey" way is marginal. *The US reliance on fixed wing aircraft for air defense is poorly modeled. Right now you're stuck with either "Russian jets are not available" or "Russian jets can bomb without any real opposition." I'd like a way to model air interception during the game, so as to allow a more realistic limitation on CAS vs CAP covered forces, without simply having no CAS available at all.

RE: Jumbo It makes sense though, I mean given the fairly anemic performance of the US tank flamethrowers, having something that can actually make it to the target seems reasonable. All the same imagine it'll have a pretty high rarity given that both the Jumbo and US flamethrowers in europe were not at all common.

More certainty than when you go through the front, but a great deal depends on the weapon used. It's not like the whole aft compartment is full of engine, there's a lot in there that might degrade the tank, or make doing a 100 KM road march a bad idea, but won't do much for the next hour or so. RPGs and similar infantry type weapons will still need some luck or good aim to kill any tank from the rear. My point is the "it is in storage, BUT MIGHT GET PULLED OUT FOR THIS ONE!" argument is a slippery slope. Some stuff that is going to be in service isn't exactly a bad thing, or reserve stuff that's clearly, 100% intended to be pulled out in the event of war isn't bad, but the game generally covers what is real/likely. Simply because a weapon exists, especially one pointedly rejected by the force that would be using it is not enough justification to include it. Re: SMAWs and SRAWS SRAW is dead. I'm having a hard time getting more details but basically no more will be purchased and as of 2005 they lost their AT warheads. Not sure it'll show up even in the USMC module. SMAW is certainly still a Marine platform, but in 1991 and 2001, US Army forces borrowed some from the Marines to knock out Iraqi bunkers and Afghan tunnel systems respectively. While the Russian military might have access to the RPG-29, it has rejected it. The US Army however has access to more SMAWs....and a history of using them. So in that regard, US Army SMAW teams are much more realistic and authentic than RPG-29s in Russian use. Which is not so much an argument for the SMAW, as much as an argument for keeping weapons and vehicles more grounded so we don't get into the weirdo land that the Wargames series did, in which we're arguing which counter-historical prototype, or not-procured weapons system is most legitimate to throw in the game. Russian Army has selected RPG-7s as the rocket system for its squads, the US Army only borrows SMAWs when it knows its going bunker busting occasionally. Thus no RPG-29 and no US Army SMAW is pretty much the way to go. I'd be interested to see it if you found it. If we're talking about Chechnya post 1994 (which is likely if we're talking about youtube) it's less likely to be a Soviet legacy system, and more likely to be a third party owned system smuggled in-country. I actually just finished reading a book on the 1994 and 1999 fighting and while RPG-7s and RPG-18s were mentioned frequently, but nothing on the RPG-29.

Was it just a normal M4A3E2 with one of those bow MG replacement type units? I too have never heard of a flamethrower Jumbo, there were a few flamethrower types that more or less could go on any Sherman, imagine it'd be one of those units. Which makes it rather less exciting given the limited range of those weapons systems. Wonder if we'll be able to borrow some Churchill Crocodiles in future modules (considering the historical precedence for same, could be good times!)

There's about equal justification for giving US squads SCAR-L/Hs M202s, SMAWs, and SRAWs though. We don't need to include every weapon that might exist in a warehouse somewhere and could possibly be useful. Most of what I've seen references RPG-7s of various flavors. Do you have a source for your statement?

You realized you linked us to something about Hong Kong and Macau right? Regardless even if you did post the correct link, Russia's economy is dwarfed several times over by the West. It's just a question if it's super-dwarfed, or mega dwarfed at the end of the day.