panzersaurkrautwerfer
-
Posts
1,996 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Posts posted by panzersaurkrautwerfer
-
-
BMP-3 basic model, BMP-2M, and T-90A.Funny how those are vehicles with the least capable systems in the russia lineup by a long shot.
-
Ha not really.TI sight on T-72B3 (the only system that is actually in service with TI sights in the game at this time), gunner sight protocol is TI, then day optic, then back up gun sight (which is basically a view port). Maybe 1 or 2 generations behind 10 years ago but not now. Thales Catherine-FC TI imager (I know doesn't have the same level of zoom than that of M1 imager), should be just as good at spotting at 1km away as an M1, further then yes there is the case for M1 better at spotting, however examples I have used have been at 500m
The real issue with the Catherine is it has similar sensitivity to late 90's-early 2000's Thermal optics, but it does not have the ability to maintain resolution on the move or while scanning. It's part of the downgrade process, until you really see the design entirely reverse engineered and built into a Katherine The Great-FC, or more advanced indigenous designs, it's simply not a comparable optic system.
Further if we're whining about spotting times, it's worth nothing both the commander, and gunner on Bradley and Abrams type vehicles have access to fully independent thermal optics, which is to say more eyeballs, while most of the Russian platforms do offer commander's optics, but they are generally day/IR of some manner. It's a lot easier to find something in a 180 degree arc with two thermal optics covering 90 degrees, than one scanning 180
Addendum:
I think the M2 has 25mm APFSDS-T in game which does attribute higher penetration.This. And they're DU too. There's accounts of them going through frontal armor on T-62/T-55 vehicles which might be obsolete for a tank, but they're still pretty thick armor compared to most IFVs.
Re: Thermal generations
I have no idea either. There's so many "GENERATION 2.5+!" or the like I've just given up.
-
Oh totally, but those are a direct reaction to Russian aggression. I'm speaking to the historical 1991-2012 sort of timeframe.
-
The thing is I agree with that completely. We are taking events out of their proper context. Russia and the Eastern Bloc is in decline, with implications that Slavs could be paying a much greater price in the future than they've ever paid before. Thing is, Russians are acutely aware of this, but certainly do not and probably will not ever believe their leaders were more to blame for this than the west was. When we haw haw Putin and Russians in this thread (or the media) for attempting to preserve the power that has, historically, kept them safe from the west "LOL THAT'S WHAT YOU GET", I don't think we're disproving anything be it myth or fact.But it is what they get. And even further from that there's the denial and ignorance of historical context. Eastern Europe doesn't align with Russia because of historically terrible Russian treatment of same, it aligns with the west because of American machinations and CIA agents. The Russian economy isn't doing poorly because of mismanagement and corruption, it's HATO economic warfare. Etc, etc.
And it makes it much to the end of why we're loling. It's rarely an argument against a reality based situation. It's we're arguing about Russian troops in the Ukraine, and then suddenly "well how do you explain these AR-15s and this one guy who might be speaking english in this video?????"
It's irrelevant to the fact there's T-72B3s chugging out in the open for the world to see, BUT HERE IT NATO'S HIDDEN HAND LOOK AT IT!
Which just makes it comical. Laughable. A coo-coo land fed by Russia today, and watered with a world view in that everything that isn't Russia is out to get Russia because Russia is so cool. It's like those Americans convinced every Muslim is a secret terrorist because all Islam is terrorists and the only focus of Islam is to terrorize Americans! It's not a strongly rational position, and honestly after the 40th time this discussion has occurred, it stops being "here is a rational explanation and an illustration of my objection to Russian forces in the Ukraine" and starts becoming "so did you hear the whole conflict is over a bear that spurned Putin's sexual advances?"
-
No CITV is a very serious handicapIt's certainly not a selling point, but they're closer to differently upgraded Abrams than to obsolete if you get down to it.
-
Eeeeeh. Not quite. Generally to get to Warrant Officer you still need to have succeeded as an NCO. If we're serious about the "expert without leadership" bringing back the old Spec 4-9 or whatever seems like a better choice*
*Seriously. I've seen some amazing mechanics that stayed in the Army to become terrible Sergeants. For technical fields, up or out is not the optimal model.
-
What i'm saying is that Russian society succeeded and grew in spite of these horrors.And Rome weathered some pretty major storms. Past survival is no indication of future prospects if simply taken in a vacuum. I don't doubt we'll have a Russia for some time to come, however the key factors of relevancy in the modern world are not things Russia has well exploited. This Ukrainian thing is rather a model of continuing to drift towards being a pariah, which is, given the state of both Russia and its economy pretty unhealthy in the long run.
-
Now that equipment is peer to peer, blufor still always spots first in daylight.Russian thermal optics are still generally somewhere between 1-2 generations behind US hardware on this matter. The US stuff is good to the point where it is "The" optic used for engagement outside of certain circumstances*, while Russian thermals remain a good solid choice for when the light is too low for something else. Which is to say that technologically speaking there's reasons for the US sensors to be more sensitive. And as someone pointed out, there's no magic inferior Syrian spotting AI that's somehow still in the system.
*Besides the obvious "thermal optics are broken" choices, if you've got very hot ground, or very cold targets conventional daylight optics can be good, although in practice the difference between terrain and tank heat radiation is enough to still give a target. It's also useful when you're looking for certain details like color (such as the panel showing who's OPFOR or not, or if someone is signalling you with colored flares). In practice though, if we were allowed to use it, we were operating almost entirely in thermal
-
Only the ones he doesn't like.
-
(Real world) Bradley 25mm gun is capable of high angle fire. RWS .50 cal is capable of high angle fire. But it appears nobody in the Pentagon is much interested in practicing-up on our low-tech drone-hunting techniques. Besides, how many gunnery ranges in Europe will allow you to fire your 25m chain gun at a 50 degree angle and watch the rounds simply disappear into space? This looks like a good place to introduce a virtual simulator. If you can't unload you're RWS .50 cal at a passing drone aircraft maybe you can virtually fire on a virtual passing drone to get in some virtual practice.Most of the ADA stuff is done over bodies of water for precisely that reason, that when you start looking at just how far a round travels, there's no really practical range that you can keep safe and clear for those sort of operations.
In terms of simulator, helicopters are part of the simulator-side of both M1A2 SEP V2 and M2A3 gunnery (which is usually part of the train-up). So that much is already done/available.
In terms of dealing with drones, given the size of the target, mobility, and likely the range it's going to be a hard thing to hit. That's really why the laser is such a big deal, it's a nice stabilized thingy that isn't totally obvious when it's in operation. The best "react to drone" drill is to simply stay in concealment and hope it doesnt' see you, because there's a chance it'll miss you if you're hiding, but there's zero chance it'll miss you if you're doing Iron Sky or whatever they call the drill for "EVERYONE SHOOT UP!"
Just can't wait until a young Lance Corporal gets behind that!I can't wait for the safety briefing for said laser after the USMC LCPL or US Army SPC gets behind the controls. It'll take months to complete.
-
The East is in inexorable decline, with its condition being aggravated by the manipulations and machinations of the westHar. Whatever hole Russia is sitting in is one that it dug for itself with Polish-Ukrainian-etc slave labor. The key to success post Cold War has been globalization, and that isn't a "manipulation" it's just a practical reality of the world at large at this point (and it has certainly done its fair share of harm and benefit everywhere). The Russian state from Czar to Putin has uniquely established itself as quite possibly the least reliable, most exploitative partner you can select in international affairs, and that is really a matter of history. The fact that now in a world of fairly open trade and a declining set of "poles" countries can now choose where and how they align means Russia is bereft of friends through its historical behavior, and now must endeavor to create "friends" out of ethnic Russian parts of other countries.
-
The Marine M1A1 FEPs are about on par with the M1A2 SEP minus the CITV, and the differences in commander's weapon station (A2 SEP simply had a completely manual mount, the A1 FEP has as pointed out, a sort of CROW lite) . The Marines also have employed an IR type jammer on their Abrams in the past.
That's really about it. It's not like the 90's vintage HA/HC types.
-
It's not.I have to chip in more as I'm no longer replying on my tablet.
1. Stryker is indeed, not as well armored as the Bradley. The later model hulls are better protected against mines, but against direct fire, especially with BRATS, the Bradley is much better protected.
2. In terms of mobility, again simply put, the Stryker does not handle off road movements well enough to regularly support tracked vehicle forces. The MGS doesn't like it, and the MGS is a good analog for a ADA Stryker (in terms of weapons/ammunition weight, which compares well with missiles-sensor-launchers).
3. In terms of weapons, there's no real ADA weapons system to mount on a platform that significantly improves US air defense. As far as "off the shelf" from US inventory:
a. Stinger. Which is to say the Avenger.
b. C-RAM. Massive. Heavy. Right now they fit on a large trailer, and that's about it. A smaller, similar system would be cool in terms of downing long range missiles or something, but that'd be a totally different weapon system. Also the 20 MM round doesn't have the sort of range to knock out...uh, pretty much any manned threat
c. PATRIOT. Duh
There's other western ADA systems that are available, but if we're talking austerity, licensing missiles and other systems is expensive.
Right now, Avenger isn't perfect, but it has the key advantage of being already purchased, and working broadly for most formations (everyone has HMMWVs, it fits on all lift platforms). And until there's some new sort of ADA system comes along to be worth the effort to build a platform for, there's not really a reason to spend the millions on a new AAA or SAM carrier for a marginal increase in performance.
Until there's an ADA platform that'll deal well with stand-off manned systems, or really work around the million dollar missile vs the thousand dollar drone issue, there's not a point to strapping the finest in late 80's-90's technology on a vehicle and buying them by the thousands.
-
The only Strykers outside of the SBCT organization are the chemical warfare defense variety. They remain uncommon and basing an ADA vehicle on it without a significant new ADA weapon itself would be a colossal waste of time and money.
Not to mention Strykers can't keep up with tanks and brads anyway.
-
Its good against Russian type 30 mm which under performs compared to the more advanced 25 mm rounds. 25 mm should penetrate all BMPs.
-
Bumping because its interesting/topic deserves a more detailed look.
What's so bad about the Krab? I haven't paid much attention to it.
-
Re: Flares
There's really two items to be considered:
1. "Star Clusters"
Basically a self contained flare unit with parachute attached. They come in several colors (red, green, white for sure, might be a few others). They're used for signals purposes, but have no Army-wide definition. One unit may use red star clusters as a signal for medevac, while others might use it for a backup "commence attack!" signal. This is usually laid out in the signals portion of the operations order or theater specific signals instructions. There's also 40 MM grenade launched flares, but in practice their use is the same as the self contained units.
The white light ones are also commonly used for local illumination. There's also IR versions that provide well, IR light to support NVG operations.
2. Illumination rounds. As described, artillery shell used to illuminate battlefield.
In terms of signal applications, they're not really useful in the same sense that Combat Mission covers combat. The information relayed is so low fidelity, or limited to specific COAs that while they're useful in those applications, they're not really a communications device any more than smoke grenades, flashlight signals at night, and similar narrow application signals.
-
The Linebacker went away because it was the specialty ADA platform for armored units only. As we've moved to Stryker and light Brigades, it's easier to have one platform for all three Brigade types, than two platforms for different end users.
The Avenger isn't optimal for Armored formations, but it is cheap enough for everyone to provide that absolute last little bit of air defense, assuming something made it through the few thousand US fighter platforms.
-
Is the .50 on the Abrams any good for this?Hmm. I'd never really thought of using the CROWS. CROWS is indeed designed to be able to engage helicopters. Acquiring the drone might be tricky though, and it's a really small target. The .50 cal on the Avenger is actually a faster firing weapon too so you'll get better saturation of the target area too.
-
On a somewhat unrelated note: is it still standard for tanks to draw-up range cards when setting up a defense? Because I imagine in the world of CMBS, where a lot of vehicles have LWRs, it would be pretty well tactically advantageous to be able to let off a shot without light off their warning receivers and TRPs could be a good abstraction of this.Yep. Depends on the unit but I made my guys do one if they were stopped for more than a few minutes. Longer you're in place, the more complex the range cards get (and transform into platoon fire plans)
-
Avenger should be in for both US Army and USMC formations.
The .50 should be a good tool for swatting UAVs too.
Either that or the Pentagon is making assumptions. Its been so long since we've faced anyone with airpower that was even a potential threat to ground forces that we may have grown complacent. When were we last undergenuine threat from enemy airpower, the north Africa campaign? the initial north Korean invasion of the south?It's really North Africa. The DPRK managed a few leakers, but nothing really consistent.
On the other hand, to this day we're still lacking even near-peer air threats.
-
There is a single big decision with a TRP. Do you set so you can blind fire somewhere? If there is an obvious spot on the map that you can't see, put the TRP there. When you think the time is right ruin his day.Totally neglected this. A TRP in a blindspot, paired with one of the lower capability UAVs (like Raven) is actually very potent. Especially on the defense, the UAV will give you just enough visibility to cue a full barrage.
-
Driving a tank is one of those things that's both easier, and harder than it looks.
-
They don't have to be dropped Right on top ala WW2 to be effective and disruptive. Smacking them into southern Belarus on short notice to put pressure on Kiev could be something achievable given they leave Belorussian soil immediately after.Sounds like we're in agreement as I also posted:
<Reference to not parachuting onto the enemy> This closer to what I'd expect. They are strategically very mobile. If the war went from NATO and Russia having a genital measuring contest, to all out real war, both sides would be rushing in air-transportable assets. For the US, just as an example of the other side of the fence, this would likely be Stryker Brigades given the ability to realistically move them by strategic airlift. For Russia flying in the VDV to the region, then mounting up and operating as mechanized infantry "light" is a very reasonable choice, and less wasteful than scattering dead paratroopers about eastern Ukraine.I've been disputing the actual paradrop stuff because of the following:
They make it to the objective and attack enemy from the rear while also making a defense for the main force for when they arrive. And now you already have a successful front, Now you can assign tanks and attack choppers to the VDV and they can work in combined arms strategy.
Which is pretty unambiguously dropping behind the FEBA. This is not a realistic mission set against NATO. Rapid deployment, and deployment on a flankish-axis (I doubt the Belarus border, or any possible approaches will be unsecured to the degree to make them "rear" although hitting the flank security in some strength is likely) is pretty reasonable though..
On the other hand, now we're getting into geopolitics and the question might just migrate into "would Russia retaliate with nuclear weapons against NATO attacks into Belarus" given the weird twilight state Belarus is in.
Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Re: M27
It's because the USMC is dumb and terrible.
I'm kidding naturally. Coming from the Army I think it's a good system given the USMC's large squads, and dismounted mobility emphasis. Conversely I like the M249 more for our smaller squads, makes up a bit for the less overall shooters. On the other hand, going to one M240L for the squad's MG, and then an IAR type weapon for the not-MG carrying team makes some sense to me.