panzersaurkrautwerfer

They're both amazing. Less deciding who's better, more imagining a Cold War era MTOE Armor division (with modern platforms) under McMasters, with Mattis running a MEF in support. I don't think the world is ready, or able to contain that much violence of action. We'd have splice Patton and Chesty Puller's DNA to be their Corps commander though.

No. What I meant is injecting some comment about education systems is functionally irrelevant to the discussion, then claiming to not want to get into a political discussion. Russian life expectancy is lower than American life expectancy thereby American fighter planes are vastly superior, but I don't want to get into a discussion about how much better life is in America effectively etc. Russian hardware isn't "bad" insofar as much as it's "budget." What I've handled that wasn't third party production generally did again, what it was advertised but there's a wide difference between contemporary western and Russian night optics despite them both saying "night vision" on the box. Further a lot of the fit and finish stuff I handled was lacking, in places that really needed a steel retention cable there was a cheap fabric strap. Screws stripped on fairly new pieces of equipment with manual force only. Corners were clearly cut, and this is something that's consistent with other technical intelligence written on Soviet/Russian hardware. Will the Aramata be good? Sure. Maybe. But right now we're going into this discussion with the following facts known for sure: 1. There is a Russian armored vehicle program called Armata. There's a lot more information of a pretty wide range of assumption, claims, and wild guesses, but we do not even know what the vehicle looks like, is armed with, and so forth. Which is why I'm getting tired of hearing about the Armata, because honestly at this point I could just claim that it is armed with dual 152 MM autocannons that fire literal beehive rounds (As in hives full of bees) because there's equal parts evidence that it has a two man crew and radar guidance. My incredulity isn't that Russia can design a threat tank, it's that they'll be able to build it. The thing that killed the previous generation of new Russian designs was economic troubles. Armata was conceived of and designed during good economic times and high oil prices. It's supposed to be produced during some of the worst times the Russian economy has faced, and it's being done in a way that's apparently more or less totally ready for Private Strelok to drive out of the factory several months from now, despite the world at large not knowing anything except for a name, and that honest guys, it exists. Further looking at the performance of the other elements of the recent Russian rearmament programs in terms of the shortfallings of the T-72B, the limited procurement of new rifles and other equipment, and especially the very troubled Russian Air Force efforts, it's clear someone is making some budgetary choices, or things are running out. Does this mean Armata is just another Black Eagle or T-95? Who knows! Either way we'll all know more in a few months. But here's some things we can easily take from this discussion: 1. The Economist's ranking of Russian schools has absolutely nothing to this topic, and it was pointless to bring it up. 2. Armata does not exist in any reasonable way to be included in CMBS in the near future.

3rd ACR also performed wonders in Tal Afar for what was supposed to be a unit designed for tank on tank open warfare. There's a somewhat infamous moment where then Colonel McMaster used some very colorful expressions to describe his intent to use his tank's main weapons, permission from Baghdad or not because it was his prerogative as a commander over the objections of the all-Iraq Corps level HQ. And Corps backed down. He's got the same sort of reputation in the tanker realm of things as Chuck Norris has elsewhere. If he was anything but one of the best officers in the Army his career would have been dead at Major. I had the pleasure of seeing him talk in person* on a few occasions and shaking the man's hand. I'm pretty cynical when it comes to senior officers and politicians, but he's one of the few that I saw both the officer and enlisted ranks have any faith in. He is shorter than you'd expect though.

They're great actually, just no beards. Mustaches to the corner of the mouth? Great*! But more than that is as far as I can tell not done outside of SOF dudes. I have to throw that caveat in simply because for all I know FOB Roberts in Afghanistan ran out of razors for several weeks. I do know I was clean shaven every day in Iraq, and I've policed up my mustache hairs using the exhaust from my tank to keep the water in my shave cup from freezing** It's your mod man, and what you've put out is great stuff. Just letting you know beards aren't quite right. (Also Sergeant Majors, both Gunnery and Command types all come from the same place as far as I can tell) *Ancient tanker tradition: Annoying infantry Command Sergeant Majors by growing our mustaches to the literal exact definition of regulation. **I was just standing behind the tank. The smarter way to do this is get one of the 7.62 NATO ammo cans, remove the lid (the hinge is open, so opening the lid and putting it to one side removes the whole assembly), stick the lid into the grill behind the exhaust while the tank is spooling up in the morning so it makes a shelf. Then fill the can with water, and place on the ammo can lid. After a few minutes the water will be comfortably warm thanks to the heat from the gas turbine, being transmitted through the metal sides of the ammo can. You may now shave in comfort at -4 degrees.

Yeah that'll do it. Also keep in mind the Bradley has an independent optic for the commander and the ability to slew the turret to whatever he's looking at, so while the gunner is shooting the first BMP, there's a decent chance that unless the second BMP is shooting fast, the Bradley might just get both of them.

Police them moostaches! VS-17 addendum Now that I think about it, the tape itself is legitimate, but the tape would be applied around the sides like a picture frame. No need to actually change it unless you really want to/are not busy effectively reskinning every object in the game and making it more awesome.

Lizardian Vampires are great at cleaning up nuclear fallout so it seems legit.

I'd just call it an "HR" myself. General McMaster is awesome. Beyond his battlefield record his tankers and scouts loved him (as a Regimental Commander as that was the vintage of guys I was dealing with. I can hardly tell you what my first two Brigade Commanders looked like, let alone express any sort of affection for them), and he has a reputation for saying what's right vs what's "right" if you get my drift. Not to mention the whole 73 Eastings thing.

That a two man crew is stupid and asking for trouble. Even with advanced optics, the gunner is basically fixating on shooting once a target is engaged. Having a separate tank commander, especially one with his own advanced optics means that instead of "spot target, shoot target, spot target, shoot target" each of those steps are happening at the same time, the commander is finding a target or if needs be maneuvering the tank in the wider sense (or imagine, you tell your driver to move to that there berm and get in a hull down position. He's smart enough to pick his own spot on the berm, and select a position that'll be hull down, but he doesn't really have the situational awareness to do much else, and driving a tank is a simple job, but it's one that requires a fair amount of attention to do). Which is to say any two man tank assuming technological parity will be much slower to find targets, and will have generally poor awareness of what's going on around it. The only crewman I consider up for debate is the loader, as clearly he adds a lot of size to the tank, and all the "life support" requirements of a vehicle by a fair bit, however human loader performance is still on par if not better than autolaoders for speed, and the third set of eyes and hands in the turret makes managing the tank, both fighting, and out of contact a lot easier. I'd almost advocate for just having a fourth crewman autoloader or no because of their utility for things that weren't loading.

When the US cranks out another MBT they'd better name it after General McMaster. Can't think of a better candidate.

I'm not really trying to be antagonistic, but I would qualify that with "it does what it says on the tin if you hold it right, and it's not a day ending in "y" or "in the strictest technical sense that labeling a day optic with a decal that says "night sight" does make it technically a night sight, but it doesn't make it a very good one" All the Russian hardware I saw generally did what it was supposed to, just with appalling quality and shoddy worksmanship. Maybe it's better now, but it is the same companies doing it since the stuff I handled was cranked out, so perhaps not. Granted it was mostly infantry gear, but I expected "rugged and simple" not "did something just fall off? I think something just fell off" Also then RUSSIA IS SUPERIOR BUT I AM NOT GOING TO BE POLITICAL SO I WILL NOT TALK ABOUT THE FACT THEY ARE SUPERIOR. ALLOW ME TO INSERT SOMETHING ABOUT HOW SMART RUSSIANS ARE INTO A TOPIC ABOUT PUFF THE MAGIC RUSSIAN TANK THAT IS TOTALLY REAL AND MY BEST FRIEND YOU JUST CANT SEE HIM. I like the UN's education index. They're not trying to sell me something Additionally can we just have one Armata thread? It seems to be the pattern that RT publishes how Aramatatata will eat all the American babies from 10 KM while jumping a ditch and someone sees fit to post another thread because we cannot possibly have heard of this tank that is the promised one instead of simply adding to the existing half dozen Armata threads.

I have obtained early view of T-14 and M1A3 platforms. Extensive testing indicates the M1A3 will defeat the T-14 under all circumstances. Thus the Armata is terrible and should not be in the game, and we can stop having "ARAMATA IS COMING" threads. Regards: Your repitllian vampire overlords.

One of the scenarios at Cavalry Leader's Course is conducting a Squadron Screen against an Iranian division level attack using Strykers. The whole thing is an exercise in "What sort of idiot sends Strykers to a high intensity conflict?" Even against earlier model tanks you're still really needing to leverage the heck out of standoff, mobility, and terrain to really get any mileage out of your Stryker ATs (the IBCT scenario at least, had the diginity to be a COIN-centric route recon). TOW is a very capable system, but ATGM carriers across the board really need to have luck and good terrain on their side against tanks.

Last Russian tank I'd call ground breaking was the T-64. It's been a spell. True, but in no way is the US military claiming it's the be all end all tank that will be in service in less than two years without anyone having actually see it for reals (I believe there was some years ago a "2017" date associated with it, but it's long since slid past that).

Provided for plow tank pornography purposes: Enjoy the wicked sweet early 90's VHSness. Delete all references to CEVs, and consolidate the plow/MICLIC/lane marking roles into the ABV and it all works more or less the same.

Yeah, looking at how the Abrams naming mod went, while cool, you will for sure have multiple tank 212s. This isn't as big of a deal with gun tube names as you need to get close for those, but tactical numbers it'll be super-obvious. Perhaps you could choose from a series of divisions, and have seperate files for different divisions? I get the impression it would be uncommon to see T-90s from different divisions in the same BTG, so giving us the option to have a mix of one discrete division's markings and unmarked in a series of mods vs one unified mod that gives our Battalion a mix of markings from several divisions. Good mod though, the dark green makes it all look aggressive, and the modernized cold war stuff looks less tired and more like it's part of 2017.

Dunno. There's equal evidence the Armata's armor is made from only the finest cheeses, and it is armed with phased plasma cannons. When we see it we can all talk about it, but right now? Thing might actually be a battlemech for all we actually know about it. Something will show up to the parade. It's just a question of it it's: 1. An operational vehicle 2. Actually the final model of the Armata or a prototype 3. Is actually connected to Aramata at all (so say, a super-sexy plywoodium turret over a dressed up T-90 hull built explicitly to show an "Armata" at the parade, while option two would be one of the actual prototypes) 4. It's not going to be covered from skirt to commander's MGs in tarps for secrecy's sake. We're too close to the release date for out and out nothing to show up, unless this is just part of a Putinplot to rage-fire the current generation of tank designers and production companies for incompetence and start anew.

I'm really not insane. Promise. I just noticed the second file after I changed some names, and noticed Dildo was still in the rotation. edit:

Re: BMPT Like how CMSF had a module that included Syrian T-90s and BMP3s, perhaps a "Defense Spending Gone Wild!" module would be fun. Toss in the BMPT, throw in the Armata with hopefully what we'll know about it in a few months/years, US F-35 CAS, etc, etc etc. All assets that are right now dubious/interesting but rejected for inclusion in one off scenarios. Re: Mine clearing Most armor formations have some sort of mine clearing tools. The US Armor company for instance, has a plow per platoon, and a mine roller per company. In practice the plows are simply kept attached to the tanks (it impacts fuel consumption, but otherwise tank is as mobile as its peers), although the roller is only fitted in preparation for deliberate breaches as it impacts the tank's performance significantly. For a breach operation, super-historical like 80's-90's there'd be CEVs, dozers and towed line charges assigned to the breach company, but more recently the a lot of these capabilities are rolled into the ABV vehicle (mineplow or dozer blade, lane marking equipment, and two line charges under armor). I'd be thrilled if CMBS let me plan out combined arms breaches, with all the associated tools.

It did! I remember a very tense mission fending off waves of Iranians to get a CH-53 on ground to scoop up some SEALs too. Was great. By the time I was done was black on anything but 30 MM, but the SEALs made it. Same deal with flying Blackhawks. Good times. I played Gunship 2000, but I was way too young to get it. My elite squadron of "flying Snacks" did not benefit much from my skills, or spelling.

Firstly: Great work. I'm actually going to have to use Strykers for a change. Secondly: Did you notice in your tank name file you've got "Dildo" in for both file #4 and #18 I believe? No major nuisance, it just explained to me how I had a platoon of Dildos (I've since replaced them in my files, but for others if you too, have an excess of Dildos, that's where to find them)

The Russians don't actually use the BMPT. It was trialed but not purchased

Haha. Ha. When we know what it actually looks like/has on it/there's something more than CG renderings it might be worth thinking about. Emphasis on might.

You did compare the ability of the Soviet military in 1980's to conduct anti-shipping warfare to the ability of the Russian Federation to conduct CAS over hostile airspace in 2017. You also announced it was your duty to bring a thread that was pleasantly derailed back to quite honestly a line of discussion that was pretty well tapped out. So yeah, apples and monkeys, thread-Stalin. Anyway, so now I'm bored, annoyed, and I AM FILLED WITH THE ANGER AND FURY OF A'TOMIC POM* Re: SOF There's practical limitations on just what they can do. Russian SOF is not some sort of collection of ubermench able to accomplish any mission, any time without raising an eyebrow. In a practical sense given the overt, and high intensity nature of the conflict we can assume the level of force protection is to put it mildly, "harsh and draconian." Preventing observation of these high value assets will be a priority, let alone keeping folks back and away from the launchers. Counting on a SOF campaign to do anything but knock off the odd launcher is fool hardy and the Russians are not at all that stupid. This isn't 1988 man. There's no ultra deep cover Spetnaz company waiting by Ramstein to conduct a suicide attack with the Red Army Faction to knock out as many fighters as possible. In talking about conducting SOF missions outside of the Ukraine, it's a game Russia will be hard pressed to play, simply put if it starts running craziness in NATO countries, it's inviting effectively like escalation into Russia, which is damage it cannot afford to absorb (Again, how hard would it be to send a few dozen Chechen fighters via funding through Saudi Arabia with Iglas in hand to camp out below any airport/air base?). There's also a practical limit on how many special forces units can be deployed against targets (just in terms of teams available, and able to effectively blend in), mobility (likely restricted to foot movement, full scale war will doubtlessly bring a curfew and civilian traffic will be restricted. Which really gets to the point of we can expect an effect, but again, an effect to the point where it strongly influences the ability of NATO to the degree it negates a nearly three to one advantage in airframes, literally dozens of AWACs and other radar platforms, the 1,000+NATO available PATRIOT missile launchers (again, they're not all going to the Ukraine, but it provides a number to draw from, and PATRIOT can be air transported pretty easily compared to other hardware) is just daft. But it does. The loss of one AWACS would hurt, but it's not going to remove the capability. The number of AWACS available also means you could afford to have more than two E3s in the air at once, say some sort of two forward one back setup. It also handily negates your earlier statement about airframe/crew fatigue, they're not going to run into the ground with that many available platforms. Two AWACS over West Germany reflects the 80's availability of those platforms. It's not 1988 anymore, and the capability has increased to the degree where your point is moot. A-10 has a role, but its after the Russian Air Force has been put to bed, and SEAD/DEAD has done its job. Same deal with the SU-25, but there's no reasonable observer who believes the Russian Air Force can take on the NATO air element, to the degree it prevents the NATO CAP from being able to operate freely above friendly forces. Additionally how many sorties did that damaged SU-25 go on to fly the next day? I rather imagine it was difficult with significant parts of the airplane missing. A plane that badly damaged is effectively a self-conducting downed pilot rescue and little more. Even if hundreds of SU-25s are limping home (this is doubtful. The Georgian example made it home because once it left the target area it was safe from enemy fire, over the Ukraine the SU-25 would have to dodge the pursuing fighters), holed by various hits, they're effectively "killed" for the purposes of follow on operations and likely the remainder of the campaign. We aren't talking about just superior technology dude. We're talking about better planes, we're talking about better pilots, we're talking about three times as many airframes, cutting edge sensors, advanced command and control, all conducted above highly advanced friendly air defense. If it was just one for one each side had 200 planes, but the US had 200 F-22s and the Russians 200 MIG-29s, it'd be a rough go, but certainly some CAS would leak through just by saturation. But to the degree the Russians are outnumbered, to the degree they are behind technologically and training wise....god. It'd be a bad day to be a Russian pilot. Which goes to the REDFOR planning cycle. They're not going to commit horribly outnumbered, out gunned, and out-manned platforms to knock out a few tanks here and there. Giving up a few Bears or Backfires to kill a carrier is an effective trade, carriers are important. Giving up a four strike fighter element for a chance at a tank or two, the math just doesn't work. The Russians only have so many planes, and they cannot afford to fritter them away by hoping THIS SU-24 isn't going to be picked up by AWACS while somewhere over Russia before catching an AIM-120 after crossing the border. Further any fighters expended trying to make a hole through CAP is one less fighter to keep the few thousand NATO strike capable fighters away from bombing the tar out of Russian forces. The actual value of the Russian Air Force would likely be closer to the whole "fleet in being" because that's the only way it survives the war without getting its heart ripped out over the Ukraine. All well and good, but how fast do you think it'd take follow on NATO CAP to arrive? Given the number of AWACS, and NATO interceptors, any hole will last for a few minutes, and only be created at major losses. This was viable when the air forces were basically 1:1 in number, or Russian superiority, as losing some number of planes to secure a local advantage was sensible. But in a fight where NATO has vast superiority of numbers and systems it's just feeding the NATO kill count. Make a hole, AWACS sends more fighters to fill the hole. They have more fighters and more capable systems, Ivan's skeletal remains are collected up by a MIA recovery team in 2034 that's working with permission from Kiev. His MIG-29 is in pieces, not over the Russian Army, A-10s have party funtime in late August because there's no Russian fighters left to challenge them. Third and fourth order effects. Which gets to the point that building a new SHORAD system is moronic now. Simply put Russian CAS may get some hits in. But it will also almost certainly die in the process. And Russians are not stupid enough to throw away their platforms and pilots to bag a couple of tanks. *I discovered the PX sells rip-its. My Grandfather picked up a strange affection for spam after his years in the Marines, it appears I've acquired at least an occasional nostalgia for terrible energy drinks after my years in the army.

To me there's two tiers of graphics: 1. Is this game a cutting edge FPS? Then it'd better look good. 2. Is this game anything else? Graphics better not hurt my eyes, and should portray information effectively. BF stuff doesn't hurt my eyes, and the information is well displayed.