panzersaurkrautwerfer
-
Posts
1,996 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Posts posted by panzersaurkrautwerfer
-
-
So it appears over a certain number of aircraft you reach a law of diminishing returns. What you gain in firepower you lose in logistics and coordination headachesThis. Also especially when dealing with 80's vintage platforms, the ability to reliably find even AFVs in defensive posture is not that great. The NATO use was more focused on hitting Soviet forces on the move and in the open, and in that case large formations were too unwieldy to be reactive to enemy attacks.
In the modern era, it was only really tried in 2003 to marginal effects. Or at least to the end where the effort expended was higher than the results achieved.
-
Nope. The unit's AI chooses the best weapon for the job. Abrams sees a tank, it's sabot time. Sees an infantry squad, time for airburst, etc etc. There's some commands that prioritize certain weapons use, but for just the very basic "fire ATGM at tank" stuff, the squad/vehicle does it for you.
-
Totally, but if something is a good idea in one tank, very rarely is it a bad idea in other tanks. If there's a Russian armor crewman on here wouldn't mind hearing how they run it though.
-
Relikt is designed to ping the round off at an angle slightly. Its mechanism is tenuous at bestPretty much. It's why the "heavy" sabots (M829A3 and A4) are expected to more or less plow through and into the target
Re: Lasing
Depends on the target. Most FCS systems require the range input or something similar, but the US training sabot for instance (which is not as much power as "warshots") has no drop until about 1200 meters. If we're shooting from a known distance, or it's just super obvious the tank is close, no laser isn't totally nuts.
On the other hand, at that range the sabot will be blowing the target apart about the same time about the same time the target crew realizes something is happening.
Addendum:
There are also fire commands for shooting without using the LRF, but they're generally systems used because the LRF is down, not because we're taking her stealth or something.
-
M829A4 is one of the few US tank upgrades we can sit down right now and stick a date on.
In game US tanks mount Trophy APS systems. This is a reasonable choice in that quickkill might actually be dead/in development hell. I haven't seen anything done with it in a few years. On the other hand a mass purchase of Trophy which exists, and broadly is similar to what quickkill was supposed to do.
So basically that there's an APS in the game is really good enough.
-
Here's a few factors:
1. Firepower. The amount of hurt a modern 9 man squad can belt out vs larger 1970's organization is impressive (especially in terms of LMGs, grenades launchers etc).
2. The mechanization is a big deal. Sure Bradleys need to crossload to get all three nine man squads, but the four Brads to move them isn't a big deal. You need seven Bradleys to move the same number of 13 man squads+HQ.
I like the smaller squads because in general they do more for smaller sizes, and the use of body armor in general makes them just as robust as the historical larger teams.
-
The generation of rounds used by the M1A2 in game are ones designed around zipping through Russian ERA, Kontakt-5 100% for sure, later generations there's a strong indication that it's been at least tested against later generations of Russian ERA type systems.
ERA isn't going to change much against the Americans to be honest. The ATGMs are coming through the roof, the KE is designed to defeat ERA. It's also not going to charge Russian tank optimal engagement ranges because the Abrams ERA is strictly hull and turret sides. It's going to make being Ukrainian a lot harder though.
In terms of actually fighting Abrams, you want to get close. Abrams are a lot better at spotting, and they're lethal at all ranges. You need to either mass on them, or be engaging from suboptimal directions to the Abrams position.
-
It would appear the AT-4 achieved frontal penetration on your pictures.
-
You really have to accept that in CMBS it's two forces that are pretty good at killing at going at it. You're not going to get too many 73 Eastings Battles (especially on the offensive. Defensive for US is pretty cheaterworthy though), nor will it be a victory parade through Kiev.
If you're just gauging it for your own benefit, ask yourself what your unit would be capable of after the operation, or if the amount of stuff you destroyed would be noteworthy. Lose half a US tank company to kill 1.5 BTGs? Good job. Lose half a tank company to knock out one tank company? Eeeeh.
-
MRAP would probably be unsuitable for the same reason we don't see it in US hands in the game.It's sort of a "some transport beats no transport" thing. In terms of moving guys around in some level of protection, MRAP isn't the worst choice, and it'd free up IFVs and real APCs for the more kinetic role.
They're also the one thing we really want to get rid of by the thousands, soooo.....
-
Do you have a point of impact on that AT-4? There's an indicated region, but there's a chance you caught some sort of golden BB round. Perhaps locate the hit decal?
Because right now all I see is the optimal state for T-90s.
-
What is the ERA bug? is it failing to activate when it should?Pretty much. Basically it's making the Ukrainian AT assets more lethal against Russian stuff, and Russian stuff marginally better against non-APS US vehicles at this point from my understanding.
-
A gas or oil pipeline blowing up would probably help Russia. It could easily cause a spike in prices. The recent move from the low $40 to the $50 in spot oil prices was due to the fact that the rig count went down and major oil companies are cutting CAPEX spending. The expectation is production will be cut and the supply overhang will decrease. Having a few oil well or pipelines blow up and supply decrease is a good way to see the price of oil shoot up.It would help everyone who's oil pipelines did not explode, and was not a terrorist supporting pariah state for arming ISIS. If anything it'd be disastrous for countries that rely on Russian oil, and would be a boon to any other oil producing country.
-
Does the unit have any advantages over JTAC and regular FOsI would say no. Any of the other mounted FO units are better platforms. If you've got it, treat it like a HMMWV with an FO team riding on the roof, but it's not an especially good system.
-
I'm actually rather pissed at Brian Williams. CSM Terpak is one of the greatest Soldiers I ever worked with, and I was thrilled to see him get recognized, but god damn now it's all off the rails because Williams needed a supersexy story.
That said the T-90 will actually explode if you strike it with the crouching swan, hasty duckling stance. It only has ..23 RHA in the driver's seat. Trust me. I am a professional.
Also yeah. I haven't seen an AT4, US rocket or ATGM do squat against anything nastier than an IFV.
-
We are in a defacto economic war with Russia. Russia is an oil state and the recent collapse of oil and natural gas prices is hurting Russia. Desperate people do desperate things.We are in no such thing. They banked heavily oil would keep rising and implemented policy to achieve same. The price reached a point where previously uneconomical methods of extraction became more economical than buying from historical sources.
Hoisted by their own petard seems a bit more accurate here.
As I mentioned in last thread Putin could just as well arm the Syrians and have them do the dirty work or he could easily send in operatives to do the dirty work.To seriously stand a chance of knocking down a US plane, it'd have to be a pretty obvious, and pretty powerful SAM system. Linking Russia to ISIS is entirely the last thing they need when they're trying to edge out a deal with Europe.
-
I've defeated T-90s frontally.
With my GI Joe kung fu grip.
True story. I am not making this up. I am not at all a kind of biased source.
-
Shooting down a US aircraft operating in Syria or Iraq and the quietly in diplomatic terms implying that more of the same is in the future if you don't stop supplying the UkraniansRussians are too good at history to hand the US a bloody shirt to wave. The one way to ensure the US keeps doing what it's doing, only LOUDER AND MORE ANNOYING is to tell it to stop.
A better solution would be simply "OH NO WE ARE DEFEATED BY THE UKRAINE!" and drawing down very loudly and openly then waiting two or three weeks for the US to get distracted by Kayne West again before going right back to arming the rebels. American ADHD is by far more powerful than clumsy threats.
-
Retaliation would be a tacit admission that Russian troops/equipment are being lost where they according to the Russian government does not exist. Further, jesus. Russia does shady stuff, but arming ISIS is like, beyond Tom Clancy comically inflated evil Russians level of behavior. They arm their pets in Ukraine, we arm the Ukrainians. It's a simple narrow exchange, while arming ISIS is just going to turn into something that'll make Russia even more of a pariah state.
-
Related question: Just to be explicit, the JTACs actually belong to the Air Force, and that organization pays their salaries, right? They are just attached to the Army units they support?Yes. There's on paper at least a vehicle allocated to them from the Battalion fires cell, but the JTAC team is USAF. One of my many annoyances with the USAF, that we only saw "our" JTAC team two to three times a year. They didn't really have a good idea who we were or what we did, and I was not especially impressed with the capabilities they offered over a FIST team.
On a similar note, if they had to stay on our base or really any army housing for any length of time they would receive a "substandard housing allowance."
-
Don't worry about it man. It's just internet cred.
In terms of inserting troops, it's a pretty vulnerable position to be in. In practice air assault operations are usually to rapidly insert troops someplace before the enemy can show up, or deployed to more or less get troops someplace remote to conduct dismounted operations. SOF operates differently but does not exactly plan direct insertions on top of enemy troop concentrations.
-
Minor quibble:
b fist bradleyJust call it the BFIST. FIST is actually FiST or "Forward Support Team" in reference to being the forward support team for artillery. BFIST would be "Bradley Fire Support Team" which makes calling it the Bradley BFIST redundant.
.would have more plentiful and powerful equipment?Yes. The BFIST is linked into a wide variety of networks, communications systems, and the like. The target designation stuff is also a lot less tricky to employ (as it's integrated into the turret vs being some sort of manpacked system). Also US Army FIST teams often have similar training to JTACs (if I recall it's Joint-Fires or J-FIRES or something like that). It's not the same, and the USAF will try to sell you that the JTAC is something amazing, but in practice you have a JTAC for every Battalion, and a FIST team for every company, so your mileage with "FISTers" is a bit better.
-
Especially with regard to Russian tank classes. Just wondering what the force composition of the current conflict is compared to what we have in game nowe.Right now all that's been spotted for sure has been T-72B3s in terms of what's in game. The Oplots and T-64 derivatives are all present in some form or the other right now, although the more advanced Ukrainian tanks might be around in single digit numbers vs in common use.
Also with regard to helicopters. I assume they are unseen in game still? We cannot create scenarios with helicopters or osprey landing and taking off?Yep. They're still off map support. Realistically most air insertion forces wouldn't be dropping off so close to hostile forces, and especially with the sort of anti-aircraft assets are in CMBS, an Osprey wouldn't be putting itself so close to the frontline.
-
Does the TOW-2 have this capability?Not the last time I dealt with them.
Javelins on the other hand still are a kind of magical weapon of instant doom, why don`t they put those on everything?The TOW is still a larger warhead, and has a max effective range of 3750 meters vs the Javelin's range of 2500 meters. The US Army still also has a mountain of TOW variants so there's some incentive to keep using them for a while, and they're still mostly effective against everything short of an actual APS system.
The Initial US Campaign miission has T-72s of some flavor I believe. They certainly are not T-90s.I have to say, the late model T-72s seem to be a better tank than the T-90As by a fair stretch. I know it's a more recent refurb, so I might not just be imagining it.
In my experience, Shtora sometimes manages to kill the TOW. Not all the time, but that's what it looks like when an ATGM is jammed by counter measures.This is my experience. I don't rely on it working when I'm using Russian tanks, but it's a pleasant surprise when a TOW missile gets lost. Conversely when playing US, I tend to try to get multiple shooters at one tank when using TOWs just in case.
UAVs and AAA/SAMs
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
AA is just catch all Anti-Aircraft. Grey Eagle flies outside of the engagement window for AAA (guns) and the in-game SAMs while spotting.