panzersaurkrautwerfer

John, I was referring to a hit that would result in less than total loss of tank. If the entire inside of the turret is on fire, it's a moot point if the crew is 3 or 4 man, they're all dead regardless. In the event of a less than catastrophic hit, like one from a conventional penetrator or even very lucky HEAT penetration, the crew alignment makes it hard to get both TC and gunner in one go. Re: DU I'll be honest in that I'm not 100% sure on all the details (if the shell kills everyone in the tank by injecting a swarm of very angry bees, or it's death by DU, doesn't matter, I just worry about putting the shell on target, and know with a reasonable chance it'll cause the target to cook off). The way I understood DU to work was the penerator/spall was simply super-on fire after the strike, and the fragments themselves may or may not have found something explosive. The instant oven thing is likely a result of Soviet tank design and 1991,* the guys that I knew who saboted real tanks generally reported a brilliant blue flash on impact, followed by a short delay, and then flipping turrets/devil's horns/potato in a microwave effects. This seems to indicate the instant furnace may not be the case. Some of the saboted tanks did not even cook off, simply stopping movement. If the tank was reasonably believed to be destroyed, then it was left alone, but often (especially in 1991) the tank would get a follow up HEAT round to ensure explosive effects (the M830 stood a very good chance at achieving effects from the front, and would blow out anything Iraq had from the side). Of course that doesn't make the situation any better for the crew in the tank, the one guy I knew who owned up to looking in a sabot struck, not exploded Iraq tank described it like looking into a mostly empty can of meat sauce. *I do not think Soviet designers could have made the T-72s, and earlier generation tanks any more prone to catastrophic detonation when penetrated if they tried.

Think its likely to be a mess of firepower kills and being in the awkward position of having the world's most expensive tractors. Think jury is still out on the gun. Some commentators seem to believe the actual weapons system has not yet been fitted, and its just a mockup barrel that is mounted.

The M1A2 is the better tank by a good margin. I blame modern FPSes and more conventional RTSes for giving the impression they're somehow equal tanks, but the T-90AM only narrows the gap in capabilities, it does not erase it. T-72B3 isn't bad. Against the Ukrainian platforms it is very capable, and against American tanks...I guess I consider it somewhere around the T-90A in terms of capabilities. It's not great, but well placed it can still do some damage, and the APS version isn't anything to sneeze at if the American player only has a few tanks or does not have Abrams at all.

Both the SP and towed 155 MMs are accurate, and use similar computerized FCS/fires coordination equipment. They're quite accurate, even again without precision rounds. With that said, the M1064 mounted 120 MM mortars also include a digital FCS, so they're capable of near-precision shoots too.

....uh. No. I just think comparing it to an off the shelf system that can be bolted on in a few hours is dumb. Having the T-90AM and BMP2M is already reasonable magic fairyland procurement. For the Armata to go in there really needs to be: 1. A reasonable number of them somewhere near actual service or reason to believe they'd be available in 2017 2. Some decent understanding of just what they have and are capable of. There's enough question to just what the Armata has at this point, or its ability to enter service on time to make an Armata addition a worthy start to the science fiction Combat Mission game rather than a realistic inclusion.

The difference is the trophy system exists and is entirely within the ability of the US government to buy in bulk. Its a small leap. The Armata is not a small leap.

Pretty much. Mortars usually belong to lower echelon units so they're faster on call. Some howitzers are beefier than mortars although in practice effects for 105 mm howitzers are about equal to 120 mm mortars. Not as simulated by the game, mortars also come in at a much higher angle which better allows them to strike targets behind buildings or similar objects than howitzers. Howitzers have vastly superior range though so on paper an artillery battery can support a lot more space than a mortar unit of similar size.

I'd be all over a Philippines 1944 game. It's one of the places in the pacific where there was enough room for larger actions, urban fighting, armored warfare, paratrooper assaults and all sorts of goodness. You'd be able to use US forces that broadly look like Normandy with a few quirks, but the Japanese would present a very different military force, and throwing in the various irregular factions could make for some really awesome missions. Korea 1950 would be awesome too. Light on the AFVs, but some really awesome stuff to work with in terms of scenarios. Also a good late 80's Fulda gap would be mindblowing. I'm partial to 1989 because it seems best positioned to offer very late cold war equipment (M1A1HAs, T-80Us, etc), while not getting into weird alternate history stuff, and still being reasonable to see a lot of the cold war standbys (and bypassing the "EVERYTHING IS NUCLEAR" phase of NATO). In terms of near future: 1. Korea. The DPRK is less likely to be a threat these days, but it could be fluffed a bit and the PLA might make a good inclusion. 2. Iran/Egypt. We're running out of conventional threats in the middle east, and CM does COIN pretty good...but ISIS just is not going to let us do the tank on tank, company sized elements of troops that CM does very well. Iran after a turn for the worse offers something similar to what Syria used to have in CMSF. Egypt could be fascinating if we assume the current government crumbles and the Islamic Brotherhood comes back for reals. On the other hand, just having a general purpose "middle east" game that modules in more than just Bluforce for the theater from the base game could be cool (so base game is US Army and Iran, Module 1 is Egypt and Israel, Module 2 is British Army and Syria/ISIS or something).

Wish I had something better, but basically the commanders knees are at about head level for the gunner. I had an NCO that used to actuate the 3x-10x selector on the top of the gunner's station using his feet from the commander's station during the commander's engagements on the M1A1. It's a pretty significant height difference. Yeah, but if I'm a Bradley that's my best option at close range (given the limitations on ATGMs). If I'm a tank, my best choice against tanks is always the main gun as that'll degrade the whole tank in one go. I once ran my company for 22 hours straight. Scenerio went as follows: Red Platoon Attacks White Platoon 1 section defends objective White Platoon 2 section "screens" (basically is fully manned, on guard in defensive position, allows attacking unit forward/back after mission) Blue Platoon Rest and maintenance Each rotation the platoons would rotate (which section defended/screened was on the platoon leader). The missions usually took about 60-70 minutes given the small size of the training area (Korea lacked for big training areas, so basically it was SP and make contact a few minutes later). This is relevant simply because of the sheer amount of technical issues that had to be fought through, combined with the strain placed on the individual tank crews in the 50-60 minutes they had of "down" time to sleep, conduct maintenance, eat, defecate, and do anything that wasn't "in the tank on mission" And looking at the Armata which promises to be quite complex, with a smaller crew, and a much reduced ability to conduct "10 level*" repairs. I'm just skeptical how well something like that would hold up to extended operations, or without significant maintenance augmentation. *US Soldier skills broadly are divided up into 10, 20, 30, and I think 40 level. 10 is your basic soldier level, 20 is junior NCOs, etc, etc. 10 level repairs are things the tank's crew is expected to do without any assistance or additional equipment. Re: 30 mm mounting If I had to mount one, I'd have it as a remote weapons station sort of arrangement. The real pain of the CROWS was that it was a separate system from the rest of the tank's optics, so I couldn't scan with the tank's main optics and engage with the .50 cal. generally I had to keep the CROW aligned with the front of the tank, and I'd scan with the CITV. If I found something that was a .50 cal type target, I'd designate the entire turret onto the target, and make fine adjustments with the CROWS. A better system would allow me to simply designate the weapon onto the target with the commander's optics, and make fine adjustments from the same control. This would be easier on the crew management piece. You're still looking at a lot of internal space for the ammunition or gun mount (basically a small gun mount with internal ammo storage, or a large mount with external ammo storage). The high angle fire thing in the US Army is usually covered by Bradleys, basically the armor "pure" formation is not as commonly employed as the Company Team type formations, so usually you've got the 25 MM along for the ride. .50 cal is pretty good for it too. In scifi terms because I'm lococrazy I'd like something that was along the lines of a belt fed M25 synced into an APS system. Basically it could be fused to shoot down missiles at standoff, while against closer targets could "double tap" first firing a round to shoot down the projectile, and a second round to hit the firing position with an airburst.

They are, but they're angled, the gunner is below the commander in position. A simple penetration to one has to be traveling in a fairly difficult direction to reasonably strike the commander and the gunner. A catastrophic strike on that side of the tank could reasonably get both, however in that case it wouldn't matter if there's three or six men in the tank, the sort of strike to get both at the same time would likely firepower kill the tank (if not vehicle kill) anyway. Not a fan. I'm not being a douche in the sense "RUSSIA=DUMBY" with it, nearly as much as I tend to favor an HMG type weapon. None of the other autocannon armed tanks have had much success, and usually they have a pretty stiff ammunition penalty that goes with cramming one on. I guess I'd rather just hit IFVs with HEAT, BRDM/HMMWV type targets with .50 cal and call it good. It gets back to what Steve was saying with simplicity, and it's a lot easier to build the tank around the cannon, and focus on cannon-ing good, than give it much more in the terms of "primary" type weapons. I'm also dubious of "suppressing" tanks. Looking at the historical tank vs tank fights, there really has not been room for suppressing fire, generally the first tank to spot gets the kill (weapons imbalance generally non-withstanding). Being able to hose down an enemy MBT while my main gun reloads because I missed on the first go isn't a "bad" idea, I'm just not sure the cost in weight, complexity and impact on other systems pays off. Same deal with initiating with the 30 MM, why wake them up when I can just kill them in their sleep with the main gun? Might be nice wit helicopters though, but uncertain of if the tank would have good enough SA on a whole to justify it. No denying that. Just saying for the short term of "I have a tank platoon of three, but one of them has a broken turret so it's really only two" doesn't change if there's dead people in it or not. Yeah I can understand that. I'm highly suspect of the "ubertank commeth!" estimates some corners are throwing out, but I don't think it's going to strictly be a bad tank. Sort of time will tell if it's T-55 (earth shaking!) T-64 (very good but technically troubled) or T-35 (haha oh god Oleg what were we drinking when we did that one?*) in terms of its effects on the tank ecosystem. *Just to be clear, not a snipe at the Russians in that case, just a good Russian example of "revolutionary" not being so great. If this was a discussion on a new American tank I could list the M60A2 in the same spot, or any number of terribad interwar western european designs if the discussion was about those countries.

If it's covered in ERA the HEAT round is a pretty marginal choice. Either way if the ERA triggers, or even just the fact the turret likely is made of some sort of armor the sabot will likely have some sort of effects, even if it's just the same as taking your cellphone and stoutly thumping it against a hard object. That's really my whole stick with unmanned turrets. It's like needing to put a car up on a lift to get at the engine, or needing to remove the axle to change a tire, it's putting a lot of things that I as a tanker type want close at hand in a sealed box. We're focusing on the combat damage because that's what's sexy, but from my exposure to both yankee imperialist and foreign designs, no armored vehicle is immune to breakdowns or mechanical malfunctions on a good day. There's a lot that can go firepower kill level wrong in a turret, that a crew can fix in a few seconds. An unmanned turret, especially one completely isolated from the crew seems to just be asking for broken wires, faulty sensors and the like to take a tank out of the fight but hard.

In no way am I neglecting that it has advantages. I'm just doubtful of the ability of much of anything to have a Sabot pass through it without some major damage. "Light" armor targets like BMPs are still usually well wrecked by sabot strike, and unless there's some pretty lococrazy shock mountings for the turret systems, you could stand a fair chance of system loss. It's all conjecture, but I wouldn't trust anything I couldn't get into in a pinch to tighten down cables, flip circuit breakers, or just hit with a heavy object until it moves back into place. There's enough in a turret that breaks because it is Tuesday and someone at the plant two years ago was too busy sexting instead of doing QA/QC, let alone when a projectile chock-full of DU and optimism has struck it.

Re: GCV Testing I missed that. Short story is we're at a weird spot in which our IFV has to be a serviceable recon vehicle too which makes the heavy APC model pretty much a nonstarter. We're also loath to switch to a dual fleet for armored formation PCs so it really needs to be a "pretty good at everything" type vehicle vs an amazing urban combat platform but not good at dealing with open terrain. To that end I might believe an unmanned turret for Bradleys as a compromise to get their weight down to fit more upgrades but I believe it's more likely we'll see the weight reductions if done in lightening other components, and eventually some sort of futureBrad that looks nothing like the GCV prototypes that were originally pushed (70 ton IFVs went down like the proverbial lead zeppelins) On the Abrams, only if the gun is locked back in full recoil (which is to say the gun's recoil system is broken and touching the back of the turret). A lot of the thing you see the crewman leaning on are "guards" to keep him from getting struck when the gun fires. They fold down out of the way. Getting the gunner to the loader's position would be tricky because the commander would have to get out of the way, but passing behind the gun with the guards down and the weapon not in operation is not a problem at all. Perspective is also screwy on that photo, makes the space look smaller than it is. Sort of a two level answer: 1. In a firefight, what's the difference between a tank with a dead turret crew and one with a non-operational main gun? 2. The implication was the Armata held some major advantage in terms of fighting from the hull down. It's not especially stealthy, and the stuff inside the turret is just as likely to break pretty bad when shot, and it's not a target small enough to really well evade a decent gunner at combat ranges. The crew is less at risk for sure, but the tank turret itself is still pretty unmasked and subject to firepower kills. Maybe? It's been a spell. I more remember the discussion in class of Israeli doctrine and problems with tank crew training than the article itself at this point. It's actually pretty much a hybrid of western and other western designs. The autoloader is also a reflection of reaching the upper limit of shell weight to loader capability* (and takes a lot from the Leclerc), and the missiles/NLOS capability takes a lot from the terrain in Korea. In terms of the best in the world, it makes a lot of those lists...but as of a few months ago getting it to keep going forward on a regular basis was difficult. I think the jury is still out *Or at least that's one of the reasonings I got from some of our ROK counterparts And I think you're neglecting the flaming hunks of metal that'd be rattling around, or the amount of force exerted on the turret while stopping a full on sabot strike. I believe it's mostly a myth. Perhaps there was danger involved with some vehicles that has since turned into "all autoloaders eat arms" as time has gone on.

I think someone doesn't appreciate what a good penetration looks like, or understands what receiving end damage dynamics look like.

Bit of a deceptive question. The odds of a turret penetration on a Russian tank killing one crewman, but leaving the other crewman, the autoloader, and ammunition contained within the magazine unscathed is pretty low given the small internal space of the turret. On the the other hand, the larger US type turrets makes loss of multiple crewmen in anything but a vehicle kill level hit much less likely. If you've lost the gunner and commander the tank is likely damaged enough on that side to call it quits, you lose the loader there's enough space and stuff to make the odds of the same strike killing the commander or gunner doubtful. You need some final destination level hits, or a catastrophic strike to lose two crewmen in a go. In terms of an injured loader: Short term: Gunner or commander takes over loading. The Commander's station can replicate all of the gunner's controls, and the CITV can fill in for nearly everything done by the gunner's primary sights (there's only the one LRF for the whole mess, and some other odds and ends). Long term: Historically it's been stealing tankers from HQs, or even just borrowing non-tanker HQ personnel who are underemployed at the moment. "loading" is pretty easy, it's just all the extra crap that goes with the care and welfare of the tank that takes a while to learn. I'm imagining it taking a sabot like any other turret and being a firepower/mission kill. It'll still be visible enough on thermal, and the FCS on most modern tanks can strike a target of that size just as well as an Abrams sized turret. Crew might be okay maybe.

No. Even a turret the third the weight of the Abrams is still in the same weight class of moving around a spare BMP on a tractor-trailer. In terms of forward repairs, it is not practical at all to have a space turret, at best you'll see a few at whatever theater level depot you have (so think the airhead/port facilities in Kuwait for operations in Iraq), but it is not the sort of spare that would follow a tank unit into battle. The absolute nadir of US vehicle design. The whole information/sensor exclusive warfare concept the US bought off on was a colossal mistake. When the rubber hit the road in 2003 it was Cold War era MTOE and updated Cold War era armor that carried the day. The whole premise of the FCS assumed the vehicle would simply evade incoming fire handily because of sensors and APS etc, etc, while neglecting the ability of a T-55 to appear at the wrong place and wrong time on a chaotic battlefield. It's just sort of silly. Any equipment that makes a light vehicle able to hold up on a high intensity battlefield can mount on a conventional MBT/IFV which will still command the traditional firepower/armor advantage over light vehicles. Grozny gets weird with losses. The picture painted by most accounts makes 30-49 look low. The short of it is Israel was very good at managing a COIN type fight in a persistent "low" (in the military conflict sense) threat. To that end you had tank crewmen who hadn't been on a tank since entry level training because they'd been needed more to walk patrols and man checkpoints, and were unfamiliar with the finer points of tank operations. And again, the Israeli doctrine focused mostly on the idea that higher level assets like aviation, information warfare and precision fires would effectively defeat the enemy's will to fight, and the ground forces would largely police up the battlefield afterwards. It did not well account for a fairly lethal (in terms of ATGMs and RPG-29 type weapons) opposition using a distributed and deep dug defensive network purposefully designed to deny the Israelis the ability to mass fires effectively. I really wish I had kept the writeup we had to read. It's hosted on some Benning run forum thing we had to use for CLC that I no longer have access to (or if I do, there's a password and login that I've long forgotten and I'm not even sure where/how to find the address to it). Word on the street is the Puma is a terrestrial F-35 if you get my drift. Look how long its been in development, and where it is now. It also was passed over in favor of more Bradley upgrades (with a manned turret) during the initial GCV trials.

Transplanting from the split topic of lockedness as I feel it's on topic and worthwhile: I'm excited for the later model Shermans. I've always liked the M4A3E8s. My first "tank" was a micromachines one of them, and I've always had an attachment for them. The promise of some of the late war M26s is cool too because it opens the door to some very light alternate history moments, and lets all of us tanknerds play out clash of the titans that sort of goes with that all. Same with the Comet. The very ad-hoc nature of all late war formations also promises for some interesting force mixes, which opens the door to so many scenarios. It's one of the reasons I prefer the late war stuff over the Normandy invasion, because while the Germans were beaten several ways to sunday on a strategic and perhaps even operational level, there's still lots of room for good battles, and the sheer volume of stuff, from high capability late war equipment, to desperate improvised equipment, to stuff that just refuses to die (see the occasional Duplex Drive tank still lurking into 1945, or the M4A1 with mounts for cullins prongs on VE Day) just provides a wealth to draw on. Not to mention it's an interesting point where the American Army has matured and oddly enough has many of the "veteran" units on the western front, while the German forces are much more a mix of the very experienced (but often wore out) with significant newb forces. Again Normandy is cool and all, as is Market Garden. But I feel like we've visited them all several times over, while the last "good" Bulge game I played was Close Combat 4, and I cannot recall any very late war western front games in recent memories. Question: Will there be bridge demolition? This would be pretty cool given how central blown bridges were to the Bulge, and later Bridge at Remagen scenarios. Perhaps it could work similar to how the IEDs did for CMSF, and be used for just general purpose booby traps. Also maybe some more of the improvised obstacles? Having some of these sorts of items as "MTOE" to engineer units might also give those forces a better reason to exist in the game while representing their real life utility better.

Still dramatic lowball. Most sources point it to be somewhere in the 100-115 on the low side. In terms of survival, don't you think it's likely that the tanks that did not suffer total crew losses are the ones we have the total report of the nature of the loss? The Israeli Merkavas on a whole did not have any total crew losses I was aware of (I do have vague memories of one or two as a result of massive IEDs or something, but not sure), but the Russian accounts from Chechnya we had to read at armor school (again, translated from Russian sources) seemed to indicate whole tanks were being ghosted left and right, and the fate of the Malikop element read terribly Custerlike (and while only losing 20 tanks, that was from a total number of 26, so not exactly a ringing endorsement). IDF tactics of the era placed a heavy emphasis on "convincing" the enemy he was defeated through information operations, aviation, and the like, while Israeli ground forces high intensity conflict skills atrophied. Despite being shot at by ATGMs, many Israeli tank crews simply did not employ smoke grenades at all, and often coordination between armor and infantry simply did not exist. Tanks also on several occasions attempted unsupported operations in complex terrain, which frankly is like, 1939 level mistakes. We put a lot of study into the matter simply because of world military forces, the Israelis look terribly American at times, and have similar operational priorities and constraints (loss adverse populations, fighting chiefly insurgent forces, and a strong emphasis on technology). It basically was a cautionary tale if we let ourselves get too tech-dependant, and lost sight of the reality that some guy with an M4 was going to have to close those last few meters to clear the enemy out of his hole. I think the best way to describe that is the bait is in the water, but the fish are not nibbling. All future Bradley models, or similar ground vehicles have included manned turrets. Its a lot like the Abrams diesel in that its something being offered but the Army response has been ambivalent. The hand cranking is pretty fubar. On the other hand it's better than nothing. A more likely, and dangerous possibility is dealing with a bad round, or a breach malfunction. During my winter gunnery last year, we had a problem with our breach, it was not fully returning to the open position after firing. It was locking halfway open. On our tank, it meant PFC my loader to actuate it the last few inches using the breach handle (it's not fixed, it's basically a bar with a bit that clips into a socket). We were still able to shoot 965/1000 on our tables despite the breach hanging every few shots, my loader just cranked the handle and away we went. It turned out to be just the perfect storm of needing some cleaning, lube, and a little bit of maintenance. In an unmanned turret the vehicle would have simply been a firepower kill. It also helped that when it came time to troubleshoot it, we could access the entire breach assembly ourselves without special help, troubleshoot it, and fix it with common hand tools. I don't know how tightly packed an unmanned turret might be, but just the sheer number of things that can go slightly wrong, but can be fixed by a crewman in the turret that otherwise would stop the tank from being able to shoot makes me leery of taking the crew out of the turret. Also with any system, adding complexity tends to impart its own flavor of friction. While certain complexities seem to pay off rather well (see thermal optics, fire control computers), unmanned turrets are a lot of complexity being given to a military who's maintenance and supply has been spotty historically. Maybe it'll work great. All the same as a recent tanker, even if there was a M1A3 with an unmanned turret that came with free beer and attractive women of ill repute, I'd still be disinclined to pick it given the choice of a similar tank with a manned turret.

We really should move on. This whole fracas was brought on by apparently a case of forum herpes. I have very strong feelings towards what the proper role of a German soldier of World War Two was. It doesn't really change the reality of what happened, or what the next combat mission will look like. Posted as I wrote the above! So on topic: I'm excited for the later model Shermans. I've always liked the M4A3E8s. My first "tank" was a micromachines one of them, and I've always had an attachment for them. The promise of some of the late war M26s is cool too because it opens the door to some very light alternate history moments, and lets all of us tanknerds play out clash of the titans that sort of goes with that all. Same with the Comet. The very ad-hoc nature of all late war formations also promises for some interesting force mixes, which opens the door to so many scenarios. It's one of the reasons I prefer the late war stuff over the Normandy invasion, because while the Germans were beaten several ways to sunday on a strategic and perhaps even operational level, there's still lots of room for good battles, and the sheer volume of stuff, from high capability late war equipment, to desperate improvised equipment, to stuff that just refuses to die (see the occasional Duplex Drive tank still lurking into 1945, or the M4A1 with mounts for cullins prongs on VE Day) just provides a wealth to draw on. Not to mention it's an interesting point where the American Army has matured and oddly enough has many of the "veteran" units on the western front, while the German forces are much more a mix of the very experienced (but often wore out) with significant newb forces. Again Normandy is cool and all, as is Market Garden. But I feel like we've visited them all several times over, while the last "good" Bulge game I played was Close Combat 4, and I cannot recall any very late war western front games in recent memories.

Good lord this thread just goes too fast to keep up with. So just some quick in passing points: Re: Chechnya I'm highly suspect of the "only" 30 tank losses. I'll have to dig through my library and big box of books, but most sources seem to indicate somewhere in excess of three times that number. I have not found a source outside of the posted documentation however that claims so low of an AFV loss rate which makes me suspect in to greater extent. Also, given how hard the T-80 was thrown under the bus, 30 not really so bad losses strikes me as insufficient material to support that sort of behavior. Both Grozny and Lebanon are great examples of what happens when you suck at combined arms and armor-infantry operations though. Grozny is pretty much the textbook of how to do urban operations wrong, while Lebanon is pretty much a rock solid example of making COIN too central of a doctrine, and mistaking "effects" for effects if you get my drift. Re: BMP I do have to say it's really refreshing to see someone take the damn things to task. They're really not a survivable vehicle. There were a few BMP-1 hulks floating around Iraq that you could see straight through thanks to .50 cal fire, even 40 MM grenades were apparently capable of first hit kills from anything but direct front. Internal arrangement is terrible on BMP-1/BMP-2 too. BMP-3 I've never seen inside of, but still boggles my mind why the Russians seem so adverse to troop ramps. They're sort of the three man tank turret of the APC/IFV world, sure you can do it different, but why? Again my opinions here are not exactly universal, but I think a better BMP, and an aggressive T-90 upgrade might have been more reasonable. Or even some bizzaro unified T-90/72 upgrade package. If they're really that similar, having one unified package would save a lot of heartache, and go a ways in making them closer to one fleet with modest differences (like say, M1A1 vs M1A2 differences). Would also better preserve the mass that I think is dumb, but Russians seem to want to hold onto better. Re: Spare turrets Hahaha. Lord no. The amount of weight in a turret alone would require a tank transport sized vehicle just to tote in along. In Abrams terms, there were kits and field repairs to make a badly damaged turret okay again (like using a plasma welder to melt a length of rebar to fill in a small penetration), but if they turret was badly damaged, the tank was going far to the rear to either be evaced out of theater for repairs, or if we're talking WW3, it might recieve a turret from storage in the US, but it is not something a BDE or even DIV would have just on hand. It's a bit like having a spare frontal airframe for a fighter jet I imagine. Re: Aircraft type redundancy on a tank! That works for airplanes because of the level of maintenance they have even in fairly desolate locations. Tanks do not have that intensity, or that frequency of "love." Thinking back on it, I've seen enough faults that would leave an unmanned turret vehicle combat incapable, that on a manner turret was just a matter of some bypasses (electronic, mechanical, or procedural) or using more basic backups. A lot of the ability of a tank to keep fighting on the battlefield is that it has a crew inside it, fighting and working to make it keep going. I'm just uncertain anyone can really make a unmanned tank turret that would be reliable enough to use, while cheap enough to buy more than two or three, that would not require some weirdness like each tank having a crew chief, and a whole maintenance platoon for each tank company.

I happen to hold that continued German resistance in all forms led to the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. If the 79th just shut up and died faster or surrendered there's lots of folks who'd have lived to see June 1945. It's not like anything they ultimately did was relevant to the outcome of the war. But it is highly relevant when talking to someone who is trying to prove "german super soldier!" argument via casualty numbers. The fact was when the two forces met and one was not dramatically mismatched that the Germans did not own some magic superiority of ability. This is especially true in the later fighting when the German formations were well filled out with second line troops, former invalids, kids and old men. The Bulge has a lopsided part that accounts for most of the losses, but when the forces met in battle, in a tactical as covered by combat mission sense, it was not a lopsided goosestepper pride parade. If my opinions were so easily swayed by a downvote on a forum I would not deem those opinions worth holding. I have nothing but contempt for Germany circa 1936-1945, and while I can have sympathy on the suffering of her people, I can only regard the fate of her fighting men as the price of starting an aggressive, unprovoked war that killed millions. The persistence of the Germans in fighting for an unjust cause, in an already lost war is infuriating, and they carry their share of Hitler's guilt. So to that end, yeah. deutchbags.

Re: Destroyed See my car example. If you still need a blinky orange light, and the cupholder isn't too mangled to accept a cup, then those elements may function on just fine, but the car is still destroyed. So if in a less sarcastic example, if the 1st Infantry Division of Panzersaurkrautwerfertopia loses five of its six infantry regiments, the division HQ, 60% of the artillery regiment, and the last band member died playing a defiant tune on his tuba in the face of the enemy, the one remaining infantry regiment will still be in the fight, and Panzersaurkrautwerfertopia's high command will still employ it as needed, and might even still call it the 1st Infantry Division in official documents, but in reality we're giving orders to the 3rd infantry regiment+1st ID PzKwfr Divisional Laundry Platoon and it is incapable of carrying out division type missions (just as the car can still do blinky orange light and cup retention missions, but is incapable of carrying out car level missions like driving down the highway). Re: Bees Those are serious posts. Combat Mission's Bee behavior is going to be second to none, and the bee tank rider script is pretty much the Sistine chapel of coding for AI. Re: Reading books instead of burning them I said I did not care. I'm more interested in this mythology of germans being somehow better than they were, and this whole "german divisions were never destroyed!" mentality that goes with it. Plenty of Nazi soldiers became good Nazi soldiers face down in the snow, many units participating in the Bulge simply stopped existing outside of desperate bands of men fleeing after burning their vehicles. I really do not care to look into what happened to one particular band of scum. I'm just sad any of them escaped to fight another day, because surely both the world and Germany would have been better off had they not. I'm of largely German ancestry. My beloved fatherland was turned into a perverse mockery of what it had been before. All the cultural achievements, all the art, all the beauty, and the good, honorable reputation of the German people was cast down by morons marching with stiff legs and singing "horst wessel lied." Even today being "proud" of what Germany once was, and has become today requires a denunciation of the 1936-1945 criminal regime and its puppets. I hate Nazis and their puppets and it makes me sad to think I'll never get to see them pop beneath tank tracks and become best Nazis. This is why, frankly why I think you're an idiot; a. The majority of US and British losses happened when: 1. Vastly outnumbered and outgunned US units were destroyed in the center of the Bulge. The US units on hand to receive the original attack were at the lowest level of readiness, either entirely new or virtually depleted, and even then they took a heavy toll of their attackers. As the Germans forced much larger numbers of armor and artillery into the breach, these units crumbled, being already understrength and overextended. This is where many of the losses come from, not successful deutchbag combat abilities 1:1 on the battlefield, but after the lines crumbled, US losses spiked as units were overrun, cut off etc. In places on the shoulders, like St Vith or the approaches to Bastogne where the resistance was better organized it remained fairly lopsided in favor of the defender. 2. US and British calculations usually include the cost of digging the Deutchbags out of what they had occupied. To that end an offensive unit will generally take heavier losses. So in "tactical" terms the German performance was at best, nothing special. They were held up by nearly any resistance for time they did not have, and despite a successful initial attack, were totally unable (to almost incompetent levels!) to exploit this attack in a meaningful way, which allowed the allies to mass on the Nazis, and make them into best Nazis. Again, look at the places were the Germans and the Americans went force on force, Americans who are not on the run after their unit fell apart under superior numbers/was cut off because of how overextended the US Army was in the opening stages. It tells a far different tactical story, and shows the myth of German combat performance (just like Mortain, and the autumn fighting in Lorraine showed quite effectively). Re: "Not a module" I'd actually be sort of upset if it was a module vs a separate game. Winter 1944-Spring 1945 was very much its own set of battles, markedly different from the Summer-Fall fighting in equipment, men and locations. Bulge was more than just Normandy in white.

Elements of the US Army in the Philippines were still fighting and ultimately relieved by the rest of the US Army in 1944. Thus the US forces in the Philippines were not destroyed. Or more realistically that if a unit is no longer capable of functioning as a combat unit of its designated scale, then it is effectively destroyed. The continued resistance of the noble men of Deutchbag Latrine Maintenance Regiment 102 is an interesting footnote if the division they belong to is no longer capable of completing a mission. Which is to say, if your car is wrapped around a telephone pole, but the blinker still works, your car is destroyed, and you do no have a functional car until someone puts it back together again. This is one of the worst estimates I have seen. Even the German high command admits at least 84,000 KIA/WIA/MIA for the campaign. Also worth noting how many of the allied loses were the result of rear echelon troops being overrun (and treated to German respect for human rights), and more emblematic of the performance of the German combat soldier is the stacks of good Germans in front of St Vith, the Twin Villages, and the circle die tot deutchbags at Bastogne.

Bee TAC AI has been boosted to manifest the inherent danger of bees, and bees can now mount vehicles.