panzersaurkrautwerfer

Firing ports work. You'll likely see your dudes die in the PC from an RPG before you see them hit anything though.

The odds of a company sized enemy force appearing within grenade range is not at all realistic. If there was a better cue like roads or am obvious avenue of approach then its not that bad but suddenly there's tanks 25 meters from your flank is just wrong.

LOS is more complicated than it looks. There's a lot of random little things that get in the way (thick brush is the worst imo), microterrain and the like. Having sat behind pretty good thermals its still surprising how easy it is for a well managed armored vehicle to stay out of sight until it's too late. Also worth remembering that the actual "seen" thermal FOV isn't that great. So it's less there's this big frontal FOV in which all is seen at once, there's little narrow wedges of spotting sweeping an area that's often full of full positives, or sometimes fleeting views of targets. Not only that but yo get into the weirdness of thermal crossover, weather, and the like. It's so much better than searching with your MK-1 eyeball, but it is not a perfect solution.

Again it's apples and apple martinis. I've sat behind an AN/PPS-5B. I was not impressed, and speaking as a former scout type the overall GSR experience was that it was pretty low fidelity. In practice we did something called "cuing" which is basically the sequence of sensors you use to acquire something. Basically it was broader sensors all the way down to eyeballs or if the situation called for it, someone putting their hands on it. Radar was very good at providing strong indications of where there might a something. It was never very good at finding personnel for sure, and against vehicles it was better, but still did not do much better than "tracked" or "wheeled" contacts, and again it's not like it could tell you if it was a HMMWV or a junked car, or even other large reflective masses giving off tank signatures. So again, in working the "is there something out there" piece, GSR was good for letting us know there were some suspiciously bad guy like contacts, which then spooled up another sensor system (UAVs were pretty good in that role given their ability to give several contacts eyes on in short order) which then cued to other sensors and systems, and if the contact either needed to be further interrogated ("That sure as hell look like tank and tire tracks going into those woods....") or was confirmed (GSR never did this, the lowest fidelity we ever got good reads on was from the Raven) troops would be committed. But 6 KM detection in a realistic combat situation was....no. I'd doubt 10 KM too outside of situations like tanks rolling across salt flats or something. Which leads me to be dubious of most ground based systems to say the least.

I too am a US Army guy. They're an amazing ability but it isn't like all vegetation falls away the hills flatten and all enemies present themselves to be shot. It is a very potent tool. But it is not the mystic see all targets out to 8 km no matter what tool.

Thermal isn't magic. A lot of the smaller or Russian stuff has issues with spotting while moving (basically maintaining resolution, it blurs out) and thermal still struggles with LOS and concealment like vegetation. The 8000 meters claims are howling open desert sort environment and should not be seen as an honest capability.

The Longbow radar is not strapped to any Russian vehicles I am aware of. Comparing two radars on different platforms like as like is really not much of an assessment or going as far to imply because two cannons are smooth bore then they are equally capable. Its also worth noting that an airborne platform has larger targets and less LOS restriction by far. They're simply not the same. Ground based radar guided missiles are interesting but in practice CMBS well replicates this semi useful I guess system rather than anything game changing.

GSR isn't a magic eyeray that sees through all things. It's pretty easy to confuse, and on a battlefield there is a lot of terrain between the emitter and the possible targets. It is not useless by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not like press button and on the screen the location of all enemy tanks within the claimed effective range appears. It's the same sort of logic that made the US Army buy up a million LRAS3 type systems, and the same unfortunate reality in terms of the tyranny of lines of sight, target fidelity, and the reality that most military forces avoid the wide open spaces that favor sensor-centric warfare. So to elaborate on my earlier comment, in a world filled with sensor contacts that are both targets, and not targets, ground based radar is good at telling you where things are vs not. It's marginal at discriminating between targets, and still totally subject to LOS issues. It can shoot at the maybe targets, but again its not good at bulldozer vs tank, and it is just as bad as every other optic at seeing behind terrain.

Belarus will freely allow Russian troops to move through its borders, but likely sit out in a military sense The scenario doesn't have a long build up to war nearly as much as Ukraine brings the wood, Russia the gasoline, and NATO the heat source and fire happens, so even if Belarus was amiable to go to war it likely wouldn't be ready to go to war in time to show up, and more likely than not they'd rather be pro-Russia enough to survive the post war, and not pro-Russia to the point where if NATO wins that'd be hosed. In the wider sense neither Russia or NATO have a need to expand the war beyond the Ukraine, and stand a lot to lose if the war expanded further. If Russia mauls NATO enough in the Ukraine, it accomplishes the buffer state it has been trying to carve out all along. NATO wins, Ukraine is free to keep making its own choice to move into western alignment. If this war put Russian troops in Estonia or the other Baltic states, then NATO by treaty will fight, and now Russia has stepped into the realm of being an aggressor state, and that really would not end terribly well for Russia. What's likely is NATO blockades Kaliningrad (in the "we're not doing a blockade, but look at all this stuff we have parked nearby that could ruin your day!" sense), Russia doesn't do anything with Kaliningrad (as this conflict is hardly one of national survival, the loss of what's parked in Kaliningrad is not proportional to what limited gains using said assets would offer) and all parties involve try to keep the actual fighting in the Ukraine. The scenario is built around a limited war, with limited objectives. It is also a realistic view as no one at this point is looking for, or is honestly able to fight a third world war.

Outside of some of the more advanced bustle type autoloaders, manual loading remains faster. The game somewhat artificially boosts lethality in that it has two forces collide until unambiguous destruction, or especially when fighting the AI, an enemy with predictable behaviors/individual units require more love to do smart things. If tank gets smoked from unseen locations, most commanders are not going to feed the rest of their company right into the same engagement area because maybe it won't happen again? On topic ATGMs offer two basic advantages: 1. Smaller "footprint" than a gun, allowing for mounting on a wider range of vehicles 2. Superior performance at very long range ATGM only vehicles are most useful when you can best utilize that standoff provided by point two. Where that gets fuzzy is Russian sensor systems have never been quite comparable to western platforms, so it's a bit of being a sniper with a 2x scope. The fidelity on ground based radars has never been especially good, they're much better at letting you know there's a thing out there somewhere vs there is a certain kind of thing, and here it is with fidelity. So to that end the Khizantema is a great tool in controlling open, fairly unobstructred terrain with good visibility conditions. It is something you need to make a special plan to employ properly at closer ranges though, especially given the imbalance between Russian-US spotting capabilities, and in environments with decent cover and concealment something you might almost be better off ditching in favor of gun equipped systems or dismounted AT teams.

When you go to Iraq/Afghanistan you have mechanics trained for what your normal vehicle fleet is, which to say things like tanks, Bradleys, HMMWVs, etc, etc, or out and out no mechanics if you were not an organization that had many vehicles to begin with*. The issue wasn't "MRAPs are hard to fix" it was "Army units don't have MRAP mechanics and the parts are not in the supply system" If you weren't worried about voiding the warranty and did not have the anti-IED or BFT type systems, they wouldn't be super-reliable, but your average large truck mechanic could likely keep them running okay. Not to mention we have so many of them, and might realistically use single digit percentage of the existing fleet in the future. *as an example an ABCT type company is going to have it's attached maintenance team, but if it's a tank company, they're tank mechanics with maybe a light wheeled mechanic or two tossed in. An IBCT infantry company does not have enough vehicles to require a mechanic team at all, and their stuff would be fixed by a smaller battalion level team if I recall right. So if you put an entire light infantry unit on MRAPs, they're going to need mechanic augmentation anyway.

They are totally different rounds, in generation, dimensions, materials employed, and velocity. They may be similar types of rounds, but that is only similar in how they do their job, not performance.

The M1A2 SEP V2 in CMBS is slinging M829E4s, which by most estimates represent the cutting edge in KE rounds, and designed to be very ERA resistant from inception. There's not much tank or tanklike that's going to come out of a hit from such a round intact. Once you discard the ERA the T-90 series on a whole is not especially well armored anyway.

I'm of the mind that US ground forces in Germany and Italy are a waste of time and resources. Poland is closer to where they might be needed, less restrictive training areas, and a by far more permissive political environment. Germany is a good place for a lot of the super-rear echelon stuff but the bad guys aren't hanging around Leipzig any more, it's time forces adjust accordingly.

A lot of NATO Armies rely on hiding behind American defense spending and readiness. Inadvertently the recent crisis in the Ukraine has led to an uptick in actual practical military spending and planning. So basically by trying to protect itself by carving off pieces of Ukraine from a NATO threat that did not exist, the Russians have made the threat that they feared start to manifest itself. Also worth bearing in mind that a US return to Europe is not going to have to run the same gauntlet it would have in the Cold War. A euro-centric initial response to secure a toehold is a good match between the hopefully recovering European military forces, and the still existent US high capability forces that are not stationed in Europe. Additionally it's something to have ready to become the bloody shirt to wave at Russians. Even if Europe is weak if you shoot a few French/Polish/etc/etc Soldiers, or parade them in front of cameras as the separatists would do, some generally unpleasant circumstances would ensue that would strongly complicate Russian operations.

Here's what came with all of those packages: 1. Egypt actually license produces the export model M1s, which rather makes them something easier to maintain 2. Saudi Arabia's fleet is almost 100% supported by western contractors due to lack of qualified local personnel. It also falls into the whole Arab-standard "if I own this fancy piece of western equipment, then I am as good as the western military that uses it!" mentality than lends itself to purchasing equipment it cannot use, or support in the long run. They also have a lot of money to throw at the tanks 3. Kuwait is mini-Saudi Arabia in this regard. 4. Iraqis believe in their heart of hearts they'd have killed every American and been able to fight all the way to liberate Jerusalem if only they had better equipment in 1991. They bought the M1 because they believe it somehow made Iraqi tankers better vs was just something else for them not to maintain. It also came with a full-on US Army established and for a long time, manned armor crewman school. They also had money (abliet US aid money) to throw at the tanks. 5. Australia is conveniently located at that Venn diagram point in which Australian desire for a new tank line up with the US strategic focus shift to Asia. Absolutely none of those were countries in the middle of a conflict with little to no practical US ground presence, no training mission, no industrial means to produce spaces, or not at all much money to buy its way out of problems. If there was going to be a western tank dropped into the Ukraine it'd be some manner of Leo 2 model, as there's a fair number of those on the market, and a decent number of sources for spares (and despite German disinterest in the conflict, the number of now mothballed Leo 2s outside the country, or in the hands of folks who don't seriously keep up tank fleets is fairly high). On the other hand most of the US tanks in storage have the advanced armor arrays that 100% will not be exported until it's rendered obsolete by phased plasma cannons and proton shields or whatever. And that's still going really far out on a limb. The most likely situation is stimulating internal production as that's much less training mission/non-Ukrainian standard equipment reliant, some sort of former Soviet design from outside the country (again Polish refurbed T-72s seem like a good choice). The best solution for a tank producing country isn't to drop a tank they don't produce on them, it's to help them make more of their own tanks (and the Oplot is nothing to sneeze at). So yeah. Can we talk about a more likely sort of aid vs the crazytown stuff? ATGMs seem like a given. Especially ATGMs of unverifiable origin (Israel is great for stuff like that). Also a large push to get the Ukrainian Air Force back to strength wouldn't be a bad choice, what's killing it now is lack of functioning airframes. This is exactly the sort of thing Uncle Sugar could handle with buying up every loose MIG spare part, and writing paychecks for either Ukrainian mechanics, or other former-Warsaw Pact maintainers to go in and overhaul the stuff grounded for serviceability issues.

MRAPs are totally reasonable. Once you get away from the US-specific counter IED and BFT stuff which doubtlessly wouldn't be part of the deal, it's something the military is trying to dump, and there's little other demand for. Not the most reliable things ever from my experience, but nothing on them was so complex as to demand PHDs to turn wrenches on. Also fits "defensive" weapons well as the MRAP is great at keeping people in it from exploding and not much else.

Dude. You're both diming him out for not being precise enough about a system that might or might not do anything at this point, while using the lack of concrete information to speculate on capabilities that might be beyond merely an upgraded Arena system. Either way imagine the sensor portion of intercepting a very steep angle missile might be the bigger trick

I'm going to pull Occam out and stick with it's more likely the principles of the tank's destruction are not understood especially well by casual observers than someone went through all the effort of faking a catastrophic explosion on a tank well known for catastrophically exploding using a missile that stands an excellent chance of causing a catastrophic explosion, in a test in which merely "tank destroyed" was an acceptable outcome vs tank annihilated, but then after all that effort did such a poor job at syncing missile and explosion to the point where nerds on the internet could stare at the video long enough to totally throw the veil of lies off of TOW missile testing.

I'd like to see special forces as team/squad sized elements. There's been some really good tiny scenarios that revolve around platoons or smaller elements, and folks seem to like them plenty. Also as I suggested in a different thread, they'd be a natural thing to see working with militia/unconventional forces on both sides in terms of arranging fire support, or just general purpose "advising." It's a pretty low budget inclusion (some changes to the basic infantry models and you're done!), and would be the sort of thing to toss in with the promised militia/unconventional warfare module

The best thing about that video is the youtube comments claiming it's fake because the missiles CLEARLY explodes above the tank, and stating the explosion is because the tank was unfairly filled with explosives (like, you know rounds in the magazine and such).

T-90 should still unzip like most tanks. 500 MM RHA is pretty ambitious for roof armor. Also TOW-2B is a tandem warhead system. ERA isn't going to do as much.

Being privy to Warplan Really Stupid Romero Alpha, the actual plan is to enslave Russians to serve as shock troops for the real target of US aggression: Australia. Anyone who has played Risk knows for sure that Australia is the linchpin to World Domination. Millions of Russians will pave the way through Indonesia with their blood and bodies, having been arranged into giant Roman numerals. Only once the last half of Australia has fallen will American domination over all things be complete. On topic: I'm almost uncomfortable with Black Sea's setting. Syria turned into something, but when I was playing through and for most of the game's life it was an interesting super hypothetical scenario that was reasonable, vs an extension of an actual fight. The Black Sea setting certainly did not stop me from buying the game, enjoying it and playing it lots. It's just I could have done without the real life interjects that crop up around these parts.

Just to toss in two bits, the Chinese are equally likely to be shooting at the North Koreans in the event of a new Korean War, as they are to be resisting the US/ROK On the other hand there's no reason why we cannot have a branching campaign, or just two separate ones that assume either invasion friendly or invasion hostile Chinese intervention.

..... If we send IFVs or tanks, they'll be Polish refurbs or dumping money into Ukrainian industry. It makes zero sense to ship in equipment the Ukrainians cannot support with their industry (unlike say, PT-91s or the even weirder solution of some sort of PT-91/M-84 hybrid (as refurbing some of the currently in storage Ukrainian tanks in Poland with newer Polish designed, old Soviet compatible equipment is unlikely, but several magnitudes more likely than M1s, or M2s being given to the Ukraine). The M1A1Ms went to Iraq only with a legit US Army training program with US instructors for everything from crewman to platoon leader level. Egypt's was less elaborate training, but still with significant US contractor maintainer presense. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are the same boat, Australia only gets away with it because they had a functional tank program before. And most of those folks paid for their tanks with cash and asked for M1s, and planned accordingly. Dropping a few Battalions of M1A1Ms or export A2s on the Ukraine is just....god you cannot think of a worse way to improve the Ukrainian military. It'd be more cost effective to jump start the Arjune program for the Indians, buy their T-90s, and send those to the Ukraine than it would be to give M1s and Bradleys to the Ukrainians. I cannot emphasize this enough. If the US sends tanks it'll be something the Ukrainians already know, already can support, that shoots bullets they already have one hand.