panzersaurkrautwerfer

UNGRATEFUL LATVIA SWINE DO NOT LIKE COMRADE BEAR AIRSHOW. GREAT DISGRACE. INVADE TO TEACH LESSON. Estonia. we need to attack Latvia. Our troops just need to pass through. Please do not concern. Please note this was done tongue firmly lodged in cheek.

It's still not the optimal launch platform. If an Apache was bearing down on the target, or as sort of a last ditch the Migs, 2S6s all failed, slightly improved "iron sky" kind of defense, yeah, makes sense, but greatly reducing the ability of the AFV fired MANPAD to acquire targets would be about right.

Well, looking at the history of said Baltic states, you can understand some degree of mistrust (it is at least as valid as say, residual Russian fears of the West, historical bad acts and all).

I'm not from battlefront, but if you look how long the CMSF game was drawn out in terms of modules, and the longevity of the other CMs, I think it'll be a few years before we see a CM: Pacific Rim. Also I've seen the horror of when a company starts cranking out sequels without taking time to perfect the last release. I'd rather see Black Sea done up with all them NATO and Russian modules to the max, and then maybe another release. That said I'd love to see a Combat Mission: Korea and would pay Steel Beasts level prices for it. Same deal with Combat Mission: Pacific for a World War Two setting (although only if it was both USMC and US Army forces, tired of WW2 Pacific stuff that assumes only the Marines showed up).

With recon vehicles you really need to ask what it's capable of/where you're about to stick the recon vehicle. Outside of a few specialist systems (Ground Search Radar mostly) the optics on the various scout vehicles are not especially better than the ones mounted on tanks. So to that end, if you're worried about MBTs on the other end of a ridgeline, use a tank to scout. If it sees something, it'll kill it for you, if it gets hit, well, better chance it can reverse out of it instead of the greasy fireball of boom. In CMSF I'd usually use a hunt command to go up, followed right away with a reverse (so the tank would unmask until it saw something, then back right up to safety). The reverse command is less important now because of the laser warning systems/AI tendency to backup when locked up. Same tactic works with the better recon vehicles (mostly the IFV based ones), but they're more at risk to catching lucky rounds. Also the ATGM systems are less useful in this role (again, the AFV is now hanging out turret up instead of backing down). Lighter scouts are good for watching flanks. You put your most lethal (tanks, IFVs) weapons on the most likely approaches/points of contact, but the trucks with optics type scouts do a good job at putting MBT/IFV optics in places where you suspect the enemy may commit forces, but it is not as likely for some reason (bad terrain, chokepointed, etc). The light scout will acquire the enemy on the flank, and then you can either put maneuver or fires onto him, or if it's just a small flanking effort say a squad or two, the MK-19/HMGs most scouts carry will make a mess of it. The only scout vehicles I positively do not like are the Cav Stryker (too big to hide, too weak to fight, okay for transporting teams), and the BRDM series (doesn't have the optics the scout HMMWVs do, if it was beefier could fight for recon, better optics could stand off better, but as case is sits right into the establishing someone's engagement area by exploding realm). Re: Scenerios It'd be awesome to see a good screen line scenario, like you'd score based on killing enemy scouts ahead of the main force, then identifying the enemy main body/bonus points for killing high value assets like ADA pieces, and successfully getting to the battle handover line (basically where the scouts stop fighting and pass the battle onto the friendly main line of resistance).

The US weapons that went to Iraq/Egypt were part of larger weapons deals, or done as parts of long term goal modernization efforts, or replacing totally destroyed/obsolete fleets. Sending M1s to the Ukraine is just adding a very complicated piece of equipment they're not trained for or able to support. The Iraqi/egyptian missions both came with extensive training missions and logistical pushes. It's just not the same or practical. The amount of steps between now and Ukrainian M1s is about on par with Pakistan receiving retired space shuttles for it's space program.

Look at the map and think about if you were going to fight yourself, where you would place the infantry. Also keep in mind what the enemy's objectives might be. Once you've sort of templates where you'd put an AT team, or where you think a platoon fighting position, then move/plan accordingly. I like artillery set for airburst, heavy intensity short to medium duration for preparing the treeline, while sniping buildings that look like good defensive positions (again, look at the fields of fire) the building offers) out of spite. Also ask yourself if you really need to kill the enemy. If you can take two out three of the minor objectives, and the major objective, sometimes it's just best to let his blob of infantry hang out while you do other things.

Nah. If we're talking real life the actual coverage of sensors is not especially awesome, and the inherent disorientation can be problematic. Having your gunner looking for stuff on the TIS, while you move between commander's optics and checking the surrounding area seems to work best. Human eyes are also a lot less degraded by cover (or the TIS will get all confused by a thicket or some heavy foliage, but the lizard part of your brain that's still looking for saber toothed tigers or whatever will pick up movement deeper within cover. Especially a "knife fight" type ranges, the better SA provided by being at least partially unbuttoned is often a deciding factor. It's certainly something with advantages and disadvantages but it's closer to "thing you use sometimes" than something you have no need to do at all. I tend to keep guys buttoned in CMBS so far though given the sort of missions I've played, but back in CMSF I'd unbutton my dudes before rolling through areas that ought to be clear, but might not be. Lost a TC or two, but I'd found rolling through hatches closed often meant tanks knocked out by the one last RPG gunner in the village, or other such nonsense that the unbuttoned TC tended to spot (also while not a CMBS thing, the fact it was the loader and the TC up with machine guns made for a pretty good react to ambush/infantry mopup combo)

Uh. Firing ports were theory/best practice that were brilliantly successful to the point where they've nearly gone extinct. Shooting from the top of APCs was never strictly verboten, that's part of why the base model M113 had a large roof hatch on all models, the ACAV just made it into a weird sort of many-mounted-MG-kind-of-tank based on a non-dismounting crew. Tank riders were never strictly in opposition to any sort of practice, it's why plenty of tanks had handrails and there's still various field manuals showing how to sit on top of a tank and not die, but it's one of those things that modern lethality has pushed beyond dangerous and into stupid. MANPADS from a vehicle? Cool. I'm not really opposed, nor was I stating an opposition to the ability, it should just be a very low success rate in terms of spotting aircraft and engaging them to correspond to the difficulty operating from a hatch in that manner.

Not with the current generation of optics. Weapons are fairly distinct if they're being carried, as are military equipment (helmets), and target posture (so even if the weapon is hard to make up, the hot human shape still assumes a certain position when there's a rifle in their hands).

A lot if it also gets to the nature of how humans as a sensor work though. The dismounted MANPADS team is better able to figure out where the enemy aviation is (audio cues and stationary surroundings makes it easier to spot targets), and further to that end it's less "work" on the crew in terms of stabilization and moving around. When the target for the APC mounted MANPADS is going to come up announced at a set time, it works okayish. It's not really a practical tool in terms of BMPS motoring across the countryside with a Igla team hanging out of every hatch. It's a capabilitiy, but it's pretty fireport worthy in terms of using a weapon in a suboptimal manner. It has more to do with the planned employment of the vehicle and the weapons system. The wing M60s were not the optimal employment of the M60 weapons system, they were the way to protect the flanks of a vehicle in an especially flankable environment, and a way to make scout teams relevant (the M114/Scout M113s were intended to carry small dismount teams for recon purposes, they weren't really big enough to hop off and do terribly much in Vietnam away from the vehicle).

Armored Knight is a Forward Observer vehicle. It should be able to faster process fire support requests, and it does have pretty good optics. On the other hand it isn't a BFIST and not at all "Better" than the old wheeled spotter vehicles.

But US practices in terms of military aid makes anything outside of US infantry weapons, and someone else's stuff doubtful.

Re: Red Storm Rising Because Peters did the unfortunate thing and went crazy. Also we're talking about novels, books where the "good guys" win are going to have longer longevity than ones that were topical within a set timeframe, but otherwise discussed events that have since become irrelevant (see how the "Battle of Dorking" has fared). I've always been partial to Team Yankee because while it was not a strong novel, it does pretty good as a literature-based-guide to the Armor heavy company team. Re: Topic Someday I sincerely hope there will be a Combat Mission: Fulda Gap simply because it's a prime period in history for wargaming, and less likely to be all CMSF/CMBS in being a bit too close to what's actually going down around the world.

The difficulty with advisory teams is the advised party is usually the one responsible for causing many of the problems. No one likes being told they're wrong, or changing the institution they thought was pretty good for the last 20 years. Think Ukraine has a chance with a decent advisory mission because the proverbial wolves are at the gate, and a lot of the old guys that mucked things up are also the same ones that are getting fired/might actually be on the wrong side now. The slate is somewhat blank, and I think a lot of the issues with logistics/organization/command are not the present system is broken as much as the present system does not exist any more. It might be easier to build from this, than the Georgian/Iraqi type problem where the advised body simply thinks its a matter of buying enough F-16s/M1A1Ms/AR-15s and once that's happened, victory. In terms of provided arms really sending anything western outside of Ravens, maaaaybe Shadows/other larger UAVs) and Javelins doesn't make a heap of sense (in that those systems are superior to what else is available on the market in their fields to the degree to justify the additional training/logistics burden). The rest is best kept as eastern type hardware given the operators and the deniability of course (HOW did Ukraine get a warehouse of AT-14s? No one knows! Someone must have simply forgotten about them in the last inventory! Was found in the last President's basement! Captured from Russian Armored Battalion that was defeated and all Soldiers captured!). If we're going overt, being the ones to fund Ukrainian factories while they churn out new hardware, or buying stuff from allies (Poland would be an excellent place to go with a large checkbook and a mind to helping Ukraine get armed quickly) also works nicely in terms of making a local solution with fairly low overhead.

Missiles? Yeah totally. Tanks and other AFVs? Not so much. We're not Russia or something.

Here's the ways I see SOF showing up: 1. Small scenarios. Like the Opportunity Knocks scenario only kicked up a notch. Wouldn't be too hard to do as the models more or less exist (possibly EPIC BEARDS for operators but more likely than not simply same troop models arranged into new squads and capabilities). This would actually be really good for giving some new units to a "small" scenario pack that was something like a huge mess of platoon vs platoon or smaller fights. I think that'd push some dollarz because there's certainly the audience, and we've all played some really well done platoonish level games (the US vs Syrian infantry platoon+1 IFV from each mission in CMSF is a favorite of mine for the simplicity of task allowing you to focus on the complexity of accomplishing it). 2. Included as part of the militia pack as options for the Ukrainians (regular and militia types) and the Russian focused insurgents to represent SOF trainers attached to those units, and allow for the sort of support those organizations lack (Ukrainian militias likely lack JTACs for fixed wing assets, the actual pro-Russian insurgents vs the "insurgents" also lack that sort of training to call in for CAS and some of the not gifted fires equipment). Either would be good, but we really need a context that fits the SOF dudes, and right now the steel on steel warfare isn't quite where they're at. The USMC, UK, French, German, and Poles for the west all seem like a shoe-in, with a smattering of lesser NATO forces too (although I heard rumors of Italy showing up), but even the CMSF standby of the Netherlands is pretty much no longer in the serious military business. For the Russians VDV and possibly Naval Troops or whatever doesn't seem too out there either, although a lot of the hardware is already in the game so I'm not sure it'll be quite as robust or new and shocking as some of the NATO late comers.

They're really alike in terms of capabilities just the Abrams does it all a bit better. More of a capabilities gap than M4A3E8 and T-34 though.

The M1 is better than the late model T90s but not by a wide margin. Both stand a good chance at a first shot kill at normal CMBS ranges, however the Abrams commands a sensor advantage and a better first shot to kill ratio. Which is to say the Abrams is more likely to get the first shot and kill on that first shot but the T90 stands a good chance of winning if it gets the first round off, although not to the degree of the Abrams. It's not really tiger vs sherman in that the tactics are very similar just the Abrams has a higher chance of success at those tactics.

A Gavin is less a vehicle and more an avatar of spartanlike air warrior battlebox ideals. It is our only hope.

A light wheeled APC is not going to do well against a tank. Just FYI. All MBTs are pretty challenging to fight in CMBS. M1s are just very challenging.

I am a Yankee imperialist and I cannot lie. Also former M1A2 SEP V2 guy so its a bit of fun to take those out for a spin.

Even with hulldown the recon HMMWV is something that the US Army is struggling with in terms of using it in the face of conventional threats. I use them to screen flanks. MK19 and .50 cal are enough to mess up leakers and the LRAS3 ones are good at picking out sneaky infantry.

Re: Hister Could you kindly go away? You're off topic and your original comment was marginal at best. Re: Iraqis. By god does the milage vary. You always felt sorry for the ones trying to actually make Iraq better. All the corruption and stupidity was something that I got to leave on the tarmac at BIAP. The Iraqis doing the righteous stuff did not have that luxury. Its just such a triumph of greed. Anything that could be stolen was. Anything that might have helped the community was sold for a pittace for scrap. Only a small number of folks seemed to have even a concept of the greater good. Whatever damage we did was minor compared to what the Iraqis did to their own country.

I usually don't commit aviation until I'm fairly sure the ADA threat is low. If I just burned out some 2S6s then I'll pull down the CAS. Otherwise I'll hold off. Also I'll use mortars or 155 mm airburst to keep manpads down in the target area.