panzersaurkrautwerfer
-
Posts
1,996 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Posts posted by panzersaurkrautwerfer
-
-
The ability to call up Battlefront and make irrational demands, and the power to dictate game settings. Also being hired as a highly paid consultant.
-
AFV is indeed Armored Fighting Vehicle. It's a handy way to refer to something shooty that might or might not be a tank. OP is again, Observation Post. ACR, as Jargotn said, is Armored Cavalry Regiment.
So here's my deal/some background. I served for a while in a US Army Armored Recon type organization (the 5 HMMWV/3 Bradley platoon style one), and am a graduate of the US Army's Cavalry Leader's Course (not to be confused with the Army Recon Course which I thankfully got to skip over. I wasn't in the Cav by choice having been redirected from a tank company at the last minute).
The Army after 1945, and then again in 1950 assessed the effectiveness of dismounted or light scouts in terms of conducting recon. It found they were actually pretty bad. Only when the scout was moving at a very, very, slow pace in favorable terrain did the dismounted scout successfully locate the enemy without being spotted and engaged. The simple reality is someone moving at walking pace is still very obvious, camouflage or not, and as I pointed out, it might take the better part of a day to cover only a few thousand meters stealthily.
Which is cool, because hey! We'll just sneak scouts up on the enemy and it'll be cool right?
Wrong. Think of it this way. How fast can tanks move? Certainly faster than 5 KM in 12 or so hours. Armored or even motorized formations lose a lot of what makes them effective if they cannot move fast, and dismounted sniper style recon is not fast at all.
The more common way of conducting recon in support of mounted forces is using armored vehicles. The idea is the vehicle can move fast enough to cover enough terrain to allow armored formations to advance at a reasonable rate, while being tough enough to take the first few hits from the enemy, and when possible kill the hell out of the enemy recon it encounters. This accepts a lot of risk, but basically you have this advanced element of AFVs that make first contact with the enemy, and "fix" or hold the enemy in place, while the follow on heavy forces maneuver to destroy the enemy. This allows the attacking force to maintain the aggressive tempo that is essential to armored operations.
Further in terms of spotting the optics mounted on a tank are many times more powerful than anything a dismounted soldier may carry. Infantry is good at keeping enemy infantry from getting too close to the tank to get in flank shots with RPGs, but the tank is much better at finding far targets.
The use of dismounted scouts isn't *wrong* but to use the Combat Mission sort of scenario, dropping scouts or infantry short of a possible ambush site, but within line of sight to friendly tanks is always a good idea, because the infantry forces the enemy that might be hiding in the ambush area to fight...but with the tank or IFV support, it means the infantry is more likely to win in that fight. Once the ambush location has been cleared (by killing the enemy or confirming it is clear), the infantry remounts and then the armor/mech forces continue the advance.
But again, this is guys moving aggressively and tactically. If the enemy is there, he'll know we're coming, we're basically just throwing enough firepower at him that it'll be a bit of a onesided fight in our favor. As far as sneaking up to every possible ambush location, aint no body got time for that.
-
Har.
The other thing to bear in mind is the glacial pace of an infiltrating scout. Stealth is cool, it just means it takes 12 hours to travel 5 KM and set up an OP. The sort of BS level game is much more focused on AFV based sensors or the classic ACR style punching until you hit someone style recon.
-
Defensive positions are still practiced and planned for. While the preferred employment of mechanized warfare is the attack, when you're building combat power, or need to defeat a larger enemy, the defense is a viable option. Also it's not really static positions in the sense "THIS IS WHERE MY TANK WILL FIGHT AND WHERE IT WILL DIE" as much as it's where you'll take a few shots from, then displace to another position if available, or go to not your original hole as the enemy now knows where it is.
Either way the Army still expected me to be able to plan a company level defensive position circa 2012, with engineering considerations and all. If my company was expected to hold off a Battalion or something, I'd really hope to have a chance to at least dig fighting positions for my initial position, and if possible additional ones in depth
-
Re: Engine replacement
The expense of making a new engine pretty much means it either needs to be an engine change, or it's just going to be the same refurbs. I really liked the gas turbine, the sort of power it dishes out is awesome, and the acoustic profile is vastly superior (when a tank company is on the move, you'll hear the 1SG and medic M113s well before you hear the Abrams). It's also fairly reliable given the smaller number of moving pieces. I went from the Cav to the Abrams, and engine issues were largely limited to stuff our terribad mechanic* support did than the engine itself.
That said the thermal thing is right out. Doesn't matter one way or the other, Abrams, Bradley, K1, K200, if it's an AFV, you might as well be looking at the sun in thermal.
*Fun fact about Korea: most of the soldiers you receive are fresh out of AIT. Your NCO pool is also greatly affected by all the SFCs that call in favors with branch/discover reasons they cannot possibly come to Korea at the last minute. As a result your milage can vary. My sister company's support was great, their team chief was spot on, and had one of those amazing junior E-5s that apparently was just born to be an NCO. My team was lead by someone who was too medically broke to come to the field (but could spend three hours in the gym lifting and compete in hand to hand combat competitions), and my good E-5 was replaced with a well meaning one, that would have been good....if the team chief wasn't a turd and actually spent time developing him.
The junior enlisted's job quality suffered greatly as a result of this experience.
-
In practice from my experience at least, in the US Army CAB style Battalions, the Snipers usually simply became additional dismounted scouts for the Scout Platoon. While they still retain the ability to snipe, the actual utility of a sniper rifle in a high intensity sabots flying, tanks dying kind of fight is usually not worth the effort invested in employing it. Also the high mobility aspect of mechanized warfare usually precludes the covert employment of snipers.
-
I <3 Sparky. I have taken to using if someone calls the M113 a "Gavin" to be a litmus test if I'm talking to a moron or not.
-
German pastry transport was at least 500% as efficient as the Allies. The Allies only won because of outnumbering German pastry.
On topic:
Really think looking more at these hypothetical tanks that we're already at the cutting edge as far as what's likely to show up and trade blows in a hypothetical war in 2017. T90AM is already kind of out there, M1A2 with APS and AMP is pretty tomorrow's war. Maybe if the game has the longevity that CMSF had in terms of release to final expansions, and the M1A3 is revealed to have such and such specs, and the Armata doesn't pull a Black Eagle, T-95 etc a sort of future systems pack makes sense.
(Of course, I'd be more excited for Fulda Gap 1990 myself, or for a weirdo Russia vs China campaign)
-
that image of the T-72 versus the M1A2 is striking. At 46 tons, with the difference in size, yeah the T-72 or T-90 seems pretty well armored.Still depends on the armor array composition. Also when you have a much more compact vehicle it generally means that any penetration will result in crew/critical system losses, while on a larger tank it may be a capital P problem, but not a kill problem.
-
Could be longer, the much improved Konigspanzersaurkrautwerfer was a terror and offense to anyone with good taste in the waning days of 1945.
-
As folks have already mentioned, when man-carried it is broken down into a smaller load. In US Infantry Brigades (as in light infantry/airborne) too, it's usually carried by a HMMWV too and dismounted as the mission requires.
One of the big advantages the .50 cal offers over a medium machine gun is the range, and the massive hitting power. I worked with guys who engaged BMPs with..50 cal, and from the frontal arc it resulted in a vehicle kill, but from the flanks the rounds left exit holes, meaning it was able to penetrate the side armor, everything in between, and still had enough energy to punch through the side armor again. It's a great weapon against light armor/APC type vehicles.
-
Re: AMP
It most certainly is not at this point, It's supposed to be a "soon" thing like 2017-2020, but as of now the basic load was still a mix of sabot, MPAT, and sometimes canister.
Re: M1A3
It is most certainly an enigma. I worked with guys who got pulled in to basically be the focus group for some of the improvements. There never was a real "hey what do you think of this?" tank parked in the motorpool or something, it was very general "do you think the loader could use his own remote weapons station?" sort of questions.
The stuff that's been consistent:
1. New lightened gun. Same performance, just much lighter
2. Better integration of electrical systems (a lot of stuff has just been added on top of existing architecture, so reworking stuff like the wiring harness to reduce redundancy is in the cards)
3. Replacement of copper wiring with fiber optics (this is supposed to save 2-5 tons of weight)
4. Data link for the gun to allow for rounds like the AMP or possibly some sort of future missile system
5. Improved commander's weapon station. The CROW is too tall. Way too tall, and while effective, it's clearly a bolt-on addition. Something shorter, and better integrated into the tank is likely.
Stuff that's mentioned occasionally that I don't rule out:
1. Replacing the engine with a diesel. It has been discussed, and would be more cost effective. However the gas turbine still offers excellent performance, and we have the advantage of having a lot of them on hand right now.
2. Additional remote weapons system for the loader. Given the COIN focus in the last decade or so, making a tank more MG focused doesn't seem unlikely, but at the same time it'd get in the way of the commander's station, the CITV would have to be worked around, and the loader has other things to be doing usually.
3. Some manner of add-on boathull for the belly armor to deflect mine blasts
4.ERA racks installed as standard vs a kit. I'm sort of half on half on this, on the one hand, the ERA mounting kits definitely stayed well in the realm of the TUSK kit, and only the TUSK kit. On the other hand, with better weight management it'd be possible to actually just have the ERA on all tanks.
Stuff that I've heard but seems very doubtful
1. Longer/larger gun. It's possible to do, but most of the direction the Army has taken is better rounds, and the sheer length of a larger 120 MM gun is prohibitive in urban or other complex terrain.
2. Longer hull/more roadwheels. I've never seen the logic for it given the weight reduction measures, maybe partly trying to lower ground pressure by increasing how much the existing weight is spread around. However given the sheer number of M1 hulls in existence, and the expense of modifying them to that degree, it's more likely the basic shape of the hull and suspension will remain the same.
3 Home-grown APS. The US program seems to have stagnated/suffered from reduced funding and priority. The CMBS scenario where the US buys a few thousand units from Israel to add on to existing tanks seems more likely than the US APS coming out in time to install it. Unless of course it's actually something that's just being done so in the dark for OPSEC reasons that no recent information has leaked on it.
4. Autoloader. Just no. Reworking the turret to that degree, and the value of the fourth crewman is not something I see the Army walking away from.
-
Thats interesting, I wonder who plays Combat Mission for "professional" purposes.That'd have been me if the game came out 12 months ago. It's interesting to me that CMSF came out within weeks of my commissioning, and I played it religiously all the way through Armor school and my first deployment (of course, by the time I got to Iraq, reading Catch 22 would have been better preparation for deployment). I'm now in the process of separating having finally got to play with tanks for reals. I'm excited to have something to let me futz around with M1A2 SEP v2s as that was my last ride, but I can't claim any more interest now except for my love of wargames, and "for old times sake" if you will.
Now if only there was a way to customize the names on gun tubes......
-
Armata is....a thing. There's nothing at all solid on it besides Russian claims it'll eat all the American babies and protect all the Russians of the world no matter what country they're in with fiery dragon's breath.
A lot of what is going to make the M1A3 interesting in terms of gameplay is already in the game in terms of the newer ERA, possible APS, and the AMP. What isn't going in would be:
1. The possible engine change, but that wouldn't matter that much in game.
2. The extensive lightening measures. The armor array shouldn't change, but the sort of weight savings would make for a slightly faster top speed, and better logistics, which is very important....just not relevant at the tactical manuever phase.
Reality is the Armata is too distant future, and line between M1A2 SEP v2 with 2017 upgrades, and the M1A3 is very fine indeed at the shooty-armored-moving level.
-
I'm glad there was an explanation for the US APS considering that no such thing has managed to enter service yet. Excited to see M1A2 SEP v2s in a game too.
-
I always viewed them as a useful supplement to IBCTs or ABCTs depending on the mission. In low intensity conflicts, Stryker units offer the speed and firepower that IBCTs lack, without the expense and inherent impact heavy armor has on a community. (anyone who's seen a tank drive down an Iraqi street knows what I'm talking about). In a high intensity conflict, they have the mobility to keep up with armor forces in the lead, but have much more "boots" to clear complex objectives like cities and forests compared to armored forces, and enough firepower to deal with limited enemy bypassed "heavy" forces.
As the spearhead they're limited, they'll do very poorly force on force with armor, and they're still a lot slower to deploy than an IBCT would be. But again as that light force to assist heavy units, or heavier to support light units, they're helpful.
Prepared positions?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
........
Most military forces operate some sort of military dozer/excavator designed to support forward operations. In the US Army use, the M9 ACE fills this role, with broadly speaking similar mobility to the M113 APC (it does leak hydraulics pretty much constantly but that's a "lowest bidder" thing). For lighter organizations there's a family of wheeled earth movers capable of somewhat reasonable independent road marches (slow, but still capable of it). What's more reasonable is a "blade team" which is usually two of these thingies comes out, and in conjunction with either an engineer liaison (like the BN engineering officer) or the ground unit commander (like the company commander) establishes defensive locations as required. This is usually done using a sort of defensive triage, if I only have a blade team for 12 hours, I'm likely going to have enough time to dig in a platoon of tanks fully or something (I'm not sure, I used to have a chart that illustrated how long everything took, but I've since lost track of it). Also a lot of the smaller defensive works like squad fighting positions are accomplished by the dismounted infantry itself (which is why real shovels are worth their weight in gold instead of E-tools)
Not really? Usually you employ a forward screening recon element who's job it is to:
1. Let you know when the enemy is coming
2. Prevent enemy scouts from locating said defensive works.
A lot of the battlefield will remain within artillery range, however, without observation it will not be sufficient to get accurate artillery fires on it.
So to that end, the defenses can be built well within artillery range, just so long as the enemy observation of same is denied.
Defenses are rarely as static as you seem to assume they would be. The reality is using forward recon, is that a fairly small force and move between several defensive positions to cover an axis of advance. Further when talking about the vast tracts of the desert, mobility is much less constricted. In a European setting, the passable axis of advance (which is much more defined by the mobility of the logistics tail than the AFVs) is much more constricted, which makes defensive positions much harder to bypass.
Also a good hull down position will mask the weaker side and rear hull armor from direct fire, which uh, actually yeah does a lot to protect an M1 from artillery or an air strike (it's also not a "horseshoe dirt bunker" it's usually a hole in the ground with an angled approach to allow the tank to enter/exit easily. So it's not just "here's some dirt piled up!" it's "the tank will likely not be knocked out by anything short of near-direct hits"