panzersaurkrautwerfer

The T-90M thing is pretty trash. Or it's on par with the declaration last year that all T-90s would be upgraded to T-90AM standard, unverified. The T-90MS is from "An Indian Defense Official" talking to Jane's....which is pretty well into unverified and given other Indian defense reporting, about as solid as jello. I am not discounting that both tanks might exist someday, but they're hardly good representations of Russia's armored force. As I stated earlier, I'd like a DLC that had US armor at "modern day" standards, with some of Russia's more common "lower tier" tanks and PCs (as the majority of Russia's armor is inferior to the T-72B3)

The concept is that while the volume of fire from the IAR is lower, it puts more rounds into the target area. The M249 at max range puts more lead around the target, but the idea is at the 500+ meter range, dispersion has made for a less effective suppressive area. The M27 in theory delivers more of the rounds it puts out into the same neighborhood, which should give good suppression results. I'd reccomend zipping over to the wikipedia page on the thing, it gives a pretty lengthy run down at the M249 vs M27 argument. In any event, it's supposed to replace the LMG with a weapon that does a similar thing, only with some different balances and design choices (less rounds out for lighter and more accurate). If it's a good idea, I'm not sure. I know many units kept the M249 loaded with the 50 round "nutsack" instead of the 200 round boxes for walking around precisely because of how unwieldy the fully loaded M249 was (switching over to the 200 round box once a good SBF was established). If I had to re-do stuff maybe a squad level M240L would be better vs a LMG for every team.

T-90AM isn't anywhere near in service. BMP-2M isn't as far as I can tell a variant entering service. That's just at a glance. Basically CMBS in 2014 or so locked down what they thought summer 2017 might have available. Looking at the "predictive" choices, only a few of them are really "on-time" right now, while a reasonable selection of them are at least still "things" someone is building. But right now as is, the Russian armor line up is T-90As on the "good" side, some T-72B3s (about 2400 of those two types combined) with the remainder of Russian tanks being more primitive models. Again a DLC that brought all the TOEs up to the ground truth of Summer 2017 would be good. I don't think it'd change the balance too much, but it'd feel a bit more authentic, and offer a wider spectrum of capabilities for QBs at the least (and let people play out training exercises that are going on right now). Could you get me a source for this? I've seen it claimed in a few places but never anywhere reputable. I know the T-90M's capabilities are still basically in flux though so I have my doubts. ARAT has been available since 2008 in one form or the other, just not often mounted.

I've got almost no time to write so I'm turning and burning on this one: That whole competition needs to be ignored when speaking of tank skill levels for US forces. Basically every other competitor had months to practice and prepare for the event and to send picked crews, while the US team was basically from the rotational unit with a few weeks notice. It's like if your local college suddenly had to field an Olympic level team the week prior to the opening ceremonies, it's your pretty darn good vs the best who've been practicing. As to the rest of the thread, this game tries to simulate a lot of soft advantages or variables using hard numbers. In that regard, a US tank with a crew with on average several years more experience than their Russian counterparts, using more, and better sensors, with more robust communications should virtually always spot and shoot first. However what CMBS does because it's not reality is somewhat randomizes those results to add in all the various frictions of the battlefield. In that it will generate unrealistic (or at least unrealistic looking outcomes!) because it "rolls" the low numbers for the US tank, while rolling the high numbers for the Russians. This spread will always affect the US platforms less because they rightly have a superior spotting-engagement time, so even when they roll poorly, the Russian's performance has to be above average to truly exploit that. It's certainly not fair, but it's about as a reasonable approximation of engagement times as I've ever seen achieved in what amounts to a game. As far as Abrams 3.5, every nation in the game got gear that still hasn't been fielded. Looking at the US stuff, it's mostly kit that's either just around the corner (AMP) or a pretty short stretch (APS), vs entirely fictional Russian hardware, and Ukrainian stuff that exists in small numbers. I'd like a "reality" DLC that basically offers TOEs that match where the various factions are at right now though. Would be fun given how much of a non-thing APS is in 2017, and having the "real" M1A2 SEP v2 and the less scifi Russian tank line up would be cool too.

1. The "M4/M16 is unreliable" thing needs to die in a fire. It's not a perfect weapon at all, but it's higher rate of failure in the middle east is about the same to other nation's rifles when exposed to the hybrid blast furnace-sand blasting station that is that lovely sandy place.. 2. There's some discussion to if a full up machine gun is useful at the fireteam level, or if it just slows them down. This is especially profound for the USMC who place a high emphasis on dismounted movement. The logic of the IAR is to keep the mobility up, but give a weapon better suited to suppression effects than simple rifle fire. 3. There's also question to if the M249 is ever really enough machine gun, as generally full on MMGs seem to get the job done better, while the LMGs place a heavy carrying weight burden on small units. Basically the tyranny of being the "lesser" middle choice.

We are very fortunate Donbass does not have an extensive fishing industry, or else we would be seeing patriotic fishermen of the Donbass with Typhoon class submarines to protect their Russian Donbassian Republic of Really Donbassians No Russian Troops here!

Perhaps we're just reading this whole thing wrong, and Eastern Europe would be safe if it simply got rid of all of it's apartment blocks? Do Russian Soldiers go to the range and shoot at giant pop up apartments? I know this to be false simply because they're quite able to hit hospitals with a high degree of precision, but it's worth asking questions about.

And Russian AK style rifles are a clear sign they support ISIS! GO HOME GREEN MAN

Russia responds with blowing up apartments. Sometimes Ukrainian, sometimes Syrian. Green man go home.

There's been more than a lot of documentation of western private citizens going to fight with the Kurds. Also Kurds can look very European because skin tone isn't exactly a sure fire way to know anything for sure. If those volunteers showed up with a tank battalion with M1A2s and missile support then we'd have something to talk about. But they're just some guys killing ISIS for reasons of their own. Green man go home.

The turret side plates are for the turret ARAT, both to mount the armor array to, and also to keep the fairly light for ERA backblast from blowing holes in the sheetmetal stowage boxes. As far as installation time, if I knew it I couldn't tell you. I can say ARAT installation could be done by Company Team level mechanics if provided the kit. Indeed the fact the contractors are mostly just watching seems to indicate this is a "train the trainer" event (I could be wrong, I watched the video with the sound off, for all I know the video was all about how General Dynamics will install all ERA for forever amen).

Nah, just pointing out the silliness of calling SOF aiding the counter ISIS fight naked aggression against Syrians while Aleppo was bombed indiscriminately. Green man go home.

Of course, Russian cluster aid dispensers are nothing but love and sunshine. Go home green man.

Re: Strykers in Syria SOF really likes Strykers. They've got a low acoustic profile (i.e. they're really quiet), are well armored for a wheeled platform, and in terms of doing more kinetic stuff, the old HMMWV type rides the special forces used to use consumed way more personnel per unit moved than a Stryker (so moving nine or so "shooters" took four vehicle crewmen for the HMMWV, while the Stryker does the same with only two crewmen), and it's got some really robust communications. They were stealing them from the National Guard (rather borrowing them) when I was deployed the first time for raids, and this would seem to continue. Also I'd conjecture if they're doing operations farther afield from base, the Stryker makes a better base camp/tactical RV. Re: It's not easy being green. Strykers for reasons I do not understand have always been just green. Never NATO three color, never tan. Green. Tan Abrams are pretty common both because of our last twenty or so years of middle eastern deployment, but also if you look where most of the US Armored formations are (Fort Hood, Food Bliss in Texas, Fort Riley in Kansas, Fort Irwin California, sort of Fort Carson) they're in desert type environments where tan is the correct, or at least not worst color to begin with (the remainder of active armor units are at Fort Stewart Georgia, Camp Casey Korea, and the National Guard ones minus 116 CBCT are places that are green). Re: Slat armor Slat armor's advantage isn't old fusing being shorted out, it's having a stout enough object to trigger the HEAT round with enough stand-off to reduce penetration effects. That said it adds weight, and makes the vehicle a lot wider. If I had to guess the SOF guys aren't taking the Strykers into high intensity urban fights, so they've opted to leave the parts of the cage armor that can be removed easily (as the side parts are designed to be removed for shipping, while I believe the front and back are more integrated with the vehicle itself) to keep the vehicle light, and allow it to better handle narrow places.

The American APS system has a bit more of a tricky path than you'd think. Around the late 1990's through mid-2000's the Army was looking to have this grand Future Combat System program that would have the same basic tracked platform support everything from a tank-like vehicle, to medevac, to artillery, to command posts, to IFVs and beyond. It was supposed to be super-light and rapidly deployable because looking at the lessons learned from Iraq 1991, was that we could go anywhere, beat anyone, it just needed a few months to get there and get set up. The first "result" of this concept was the Stryker, which was originally the "Interim" program that was supposed to serve largely as a test bed/initial fielding of a unit that would be faster to deploy than conventional armor, but more hitting power and mobility than light infantry. However that's getting offtrack. In so many words the FCS had to be light enough to be air transportable, but also able to be shot at without exploding. It also had to somehow mount a pretty robust protective array across several pretty different platforms. Quick-Kill was the APS that seemed to offer that choice. Trophy was cool and all, but it suffered in that it only protected against some sorts of threats, and it did so in a way that was fairly indiscriminate. Quick-Kill was supposed to be less cone of fragmentary "interceptors" and more a missile sort of thing that would engage incoming projectiles and protect the platform. The advantage to Quick-Kill was one of development, in that while Trophy was a mature system, Trophy type APSes don't offer much in the term of growth, physics somewhat limits their effective range, and their mass/composition is somewhat limited. A Quick-Kill system of the future might be able to deflect sabots or even fire in salvos to kill the rocket and the shooter. The downside of course is that it was a very advanced system, that was addressing a problem that was not IEDs or winning hearts and minds circa 2003-2010, that had a whole host of technological hurdles that were going to be very expensive to fix. APS for the US Army (the USMC may test it, but it's doubtful they'd procure it without an Army purchase to give some economy of scale) only really gained momentum again with continued Russian aggression which really proved to be a shot in the arm to the conventional elements of the Army-USMC as far as funding and trainin focus. What seems likely if I had to gamble would be a limited procurement of Trophy for testing/theater readiness kits (like the ERA), with additional funding to push for a newer style APS from domestic sources.

How many T-34s can you buy for the price of a single T-80? Quite a few I'd warrant!

All: Re: F-35 vs F-22 I am aware of the different mission sets. The early F-35 back when it was pitched as the JSF was billed being part of a new wave of faster, better, cheaper procurement that would deliver a lot of the F-22s strengths oriented more towards a strike mission. The faster and cheaper procurement process really did not occur and that's something worth wagging fingers over. Re: F-35 performance in general 20% p/k sounds bad until you look at it from the perspective that 1:5 of your formation is dead with others damaged or evasive to the degree to be mission kill, and you have no idea where the attackers even are. We in the war game community are used to suicide brave pilots or being able to rebuild things on the fly, but there isn't a force out there that could sustain 20% losses on a regular basis, especially if you're stupid levels of outnumbered AND flying mostly planes from two generations ago. The F-35 is part of a wider weapons system that is frankly pretty scary if you have to look at it as a foe. No one really has a good reliable or reasonable answer to it yet, posturing aside.

The Abrams has had ERA kits available and in service for like, ten years. They're not mounted for the same reason Russian ERA isn't "loaded" during peacetime, but the ability to mount ERA has been there, and there's enough ARAT to have wasted time equipping my BDE's old M1A1s to go sit in the motor pool in Iraq 2010 or so.

Basically it sounds like the F-35 is shaping up to have catastrophically failed as a cheaper option to the F-22, and might not be the chosen plane to replace all planes, but gosh darned if it's not starting to work like it's supposed to sometimes. Of course, in calling the F-35 out it's worth noting the PAK-FA is still literally catching fire sometimes.

Russian sailors made it to Washington State (the farthest Northwestern corner of the "mainland") before shipwrecking and getting enslaved by the natives. Clearly the historic barbaric Nazi-like treatment of those brave Russian sailors must be avenged! (of course, those sailors were rescued by Americans but that's a bit of a different story).

Again, if I wanted a science fiction game, I'd be all aboard, and we could have an M1A4 Abrams with laser APS and the early run M6's with the 35 MM electromagnetic cannon and 40 MM coaxial chainguns, and the T-33 Orgre with quadpack tracks and the over and under 152 MM and 115 MM missile-cannon! But as the case is the T-90M, the "for real!" AM are both unlikely to be deployed in the near future, and for a game taking place in alternate reality 2017, with fairly modest jumps of faith in technological advancement (M1A2 with LWRs/APS, T-90AM, BMP-3M etc), they're just pie in the sky. Re: Korea Korea is such an interesting can of worms. "Realistically" it'd look something like a humanitarian aid mission that shoots back, but a super-Korea scenario (in which the NKPA is still pretty functional, or China finds a reason to get involved on behalf of the DPRK*) could be fun if really unrealistic. *Most of the tealeaf readers I know seem to think China would invade the DPRK in the event of war to maintain some sort of status quo, or alternately establish a buffer zone to keep North Korean refugees out, and otherwise like the ROK deal with all the terribleness leaking out.

For me it was seeing the AK with a safety on. It's not a good safety and poorly positioned, but it meant less Iraqis shooting each other in error.

Same deal with the Iraqis. You were basically always at war with the way it "always worked" or offering solutions that sure, work for AMERICANS, but we Iraqis know Iraq so back off while we poke this IED with a magic golf ball finder because we know how to do this. Getting that buy in is essential. And often requires some extraordinary efforts.

The western focus has again not been on tactics nearly as much as small unit leadership. You see room clearing or river crossings because they're a tool to achieve that outcome, but the end goal is to improve the junior officer-NCO level, and foster more independent thinking across the board. Basically breaking the largely defunct anyway Soviet mold and trying to build a more robust and agile organization. It's not like we've got NATO forces there to teach them how to drive BMPs mo better.

I and others here do care about the real world. There's some conjecture in the game they hadn't panned out. I was okay with that because they were semi reasonable bets, or at least feasible looking forward from 2015 or so. Russia has unveiled a lot of gear recently that has gone nowhere especially fast. I'm not saying this to be combative, but there is little argument for more advanced Russian armor in game because the odds of large T-90M or AM, or AMKS1, or T-14 fieldings in time for a 2017 war are very low. As I've said before, the tank programs Russia has revealed now may be something to think about 2020-2025, but the only new tanks, I feel belong in game are US, Russian, or Ukrainian are ones that better reflect what's in service right now.