panzersaurkrautwerfer

Re: 200-500 meters
 
I think he's quoting max lethal effects range, or basically the distance at which fragmentation effects become entirely safe.  If it was possible to get such results from 3 KG of explosives and a special fuze, we'd be seeing a lot more flipping out about this/single artillery shells sweeping 4 KM clear of all life

Re: WP
 
It had to do with causing the ventilation system on the target tank to ingest the special happy fun super-thick smoke WP produces.  Given the nature of fires in tanks, the decision cycle to bail out of the tank is usually truncated without the proper inquiry to if the outside of the tank is the on fire part or not.  Also a hit going off on the frontal slope would totally ruin whatever aim the German tank had, crew evacuation our not.
 
Re: Oh god why are we still talking about this
 
There's two separate issues to discuss: Why airbursts are not the tank eliminator, and why replicating tactics that don't exist based on internet warrior ideas is bad.
 
a. As stated, the impact of a PD fused weapon on the tank apparently is not able to knock out a tank.  This is pretty well established, and agreed on.  The question is however, why a much smaller explosive charge exploding away from the vehicle will result in anything but inferior effects.  Here's some things to consider:
 
1. The Precision type artillery rounds (which have much larger warheads and destructive potential than the HE type tank rounds) have all been tested, and indeed to some degree designed to be capable against armor type targets.  None of them use this apparently tank blinding/crushing/better than PD airburst attack.  They all point detonate because people who are still paid to do these things have determined point, or point delayed type fuze are the only rounds that really are worthwhile shooting at tank type targets.
 
2. VT can be set for different altitudes.  If airburst is a highly lethal tank maimer, why are anti-vehicle missions still this inferior PD system?
 
3. Abrams especially has been hit by close airburst analogs.  In Iraq for a time the insurgents were strapping IEDs to overpasses because Jubul Al Kettlar or something told them it would render the tank a mission kill.  In practice it shredded topside gear, but did not effect the tank significantly.  It was a different story with truck type targets obviously, but outside of EFPs, massive IEDs (like aviation bomb derived ones), and RPG-29 from flank/top shots, there wasn't much that was reliable against M1s.  
 
 
Either way as a tangent, we all place way too much emphasis on max range standoff shoots.  It's not a realistic representation of engagements, and even further down the road, engagement with marginal tactics at long range is....dumb.  The better tactic is to use what you have to force the enemy to fight at your optimal range, rather than trying to figure out if you strap enough tinfoil to a AT-14, it'll convince the APS sensors that it's actually a low flying commercial jetliner (Which of course subjects it to BUK intercept)
 
b.  Making up tactics that troops might, or might not try based upon backseat quarterback opinions from the internet is questionable.  If the Russian manuals advocated a airburst over the tank and a sabot chaser, then bam, should be in the game, but we go down a slippery slope when we start including behaviors based on player "if I was a tankman!" ideas.  We're playing this game to see broadly realistic behavior, not what forum user #120 would do if he was a T-90 commander.  

Only the ones he doesn't like.

Re: 200-500 meters
 
I think he's quoting max lethal effects range, or basically the distance at which fragmentation effects become entirely safe.  If it was possible to get such results from 3 KG of explosives and a special fuze, we'd be seeing a lot more flipping out about this/single artillery shells sweeping 4 KM clear of all life

Re: 200-500 meters
 
I think he's quoting max lethal effects range, or basically the distance at which fragmentation effects become entirely safe.  If it was possible to get such results from 3 KG of explosives and a special fuze, we'd be seeing a lot more flipping out about this/single artillery shells sweeping 4 KM clear of all life

Har.  Whatever hole Russia is sitting in is one that it dug for itself with Polish-Ukrainian-etc slave labor.  The key to success post Cold War has been globalization, and that isn't a "manipulation" it's just a practical reality of the world at large at this point (and it has certainly done its fair share of harm and benefit everywhere).  The Russian state from Czar to Putin has uniquely established itself as quite possibly the least reliable, most exploitative partner you can select in international affairs, and that is really a matter of history.  The fact that now in a world of fairly open trade and a declining set of "poles" countries can now choose where and how they align means Russia is bereft of friends through its historical behavior, and now must endeavor to create "friends" out of ethnic Russian parts of other countries.  

Only the ones he doesn't like.

Re: Flares
 
There's really two items to be considered:
 
1. "Star Clusters"
 
Basically a self contained flare unit with parachute attached.  They come in several colors (red, green, white for sure, might be a few others).  They're used for signals purposes, but have no Army-wide definition. One unit may use red star clusters as a signal for medevac, while others might use it for a backup "commence attack!" signal.  This is usually laid out in the signals portion of the operations order or theater specific signals instructions.  There's also 40 MM grenade launched flares, but in practice their use is the same as the self contained units.
 
The white light ones are also commonly used for local illumination.  There's also IR versions that provide well, IR light to support NVG operations.
 
2. Illumination rounds.  As described, artillery shell used to illuminate battlefield.
 
In terms of signal applications, they're not really useful in the same sense that Combat Mission covers combat.  The information relayed is so low fidelity, or limited to specific COAs that while they're useful in those applications, they're not really a communications device any more than smoke grenades, flashlight signals at night, and similar narrow application signals.  

Hello there, I'm a new user here. Before I get on with the topic, here's a short introduction: I'm a long time gamer, and I started the Combat Mission series with the first initial games, mainly the Beyond Overlord, which I loved. After all these years, I came to learn that there are far more Combat Mission games, and that they have also gone for more modern settings (Cold War Afghanistan and Modern Syria) for few of their latest games. I have tried the demo of the two games, and I have fallen in love again. Then I heard of the latest upcoming iteration - the Black Sea - and here I am. I wished to get it done before the release, but school got in the way.   Given the setting, as well as some rumors flying wildly about a possible future Module, I have decided to make the list you can see below. Please, by no means take it as me begging/pleading/ordering the Battlefront crew to include Poland in the game/future module. It's merely meant as a very general guide/refence, and to perhaps bring some interest of fellow tacticians to this country's armed forces, which usually are rather unheard of on the global scene.    The list may not be accurate, it's a rough prediction of what might be around for Poland in 2017. It's based on plans (which have been outlined up to 2020), as well as news from the military industry around the globe, as the situation is dynamically changing day to day. Any mistakes are not an ill will, merely a mistake or a document being interpreted the wrong way. Please keep that in mind. Also it's not really meant as a proper reference, and please don't use it as such. Hence, I won't link any of my sources (majority which are in Polish anyway) as this list was made rather hastily. Should you require proper references  (*wink wink, nudge nudge*), I will happily oblige as soon as I can (I have finals atm). Also, I cannot buy the Black Sea for the time being, but I hope to do so in the coming months.   Now onto the goodies:   Weapons and vehicles that are not (yet or otherwise) in service of Polish Armed forces, have names written in cursive.   Infantry Weapons:   Assault Rifles: Kbs wz. 1996 Beryl - 5,56 mm NATO
  Kbk wz. 1996 Mini-Beryl - 5,56 mm NATO (beside frontline service, also used by vehicle crews)
  Kbk AKM - 7.62x39 mm WP
  Kbk AKMS - 7.62x39 mm WP
  MSBS - 5,56 mm NATO and 7,62 mm NATO variants, should start entering service 2015/2016
  LMG:   RPK - in use in Airborne Force (limited)
  PK - various variants
  UKM-2000 - various variants, UKM-2000M to enter service in 2015, used by infantry as well as vehicle mounts
  Rheinmetall MG 3 - used on former Bundeswehr vehicles (Leopard 2A4/2A5 and respective ARV's)
  LMG variant of MSBS - 7,62 mm NATO, possibly to enter service in 2015 (image not available)
  HMG: WKM-B - Polish variant of the NSV MG, adapted to use .50 BMG NATO
  NSW - Polish variant of the NSV MG, still using the original 12,7 mm WP ammunition. In the process of being replaced by WKM-B
Both used on variety of vehicles or standalone   Sniper/Marksman rifles:   SWD/SWD-M - Polish designation for SVD Dragunow. SWD-M is a Polish upgrade. 7.62x54 mmR WP
  Sako TRG (TRG-21 and TRG-22) - 7,62mm NATO Sniper Rifle
  Bor - Polish made, 7,62 mm NATO Sniper Rifle
  Tor - Polish made .50 BMG Sniper Rifle
  Granade Launchers:   Underslung:   wz. 74 Pallad/GPBO-40 - 40mm Granade launcher for Kbs wz. 1996 Beryl
  Standalone:   Mk. 19 - on vehicles and tripod
  wz. 83 Pallad-D/GSBO-40 - single shot 40mm launchers
  RGP-40 - six shot revolver mag launcher. On order, should enter service in 2015
  GA-40 - may enter service before 2017
  AT Weapons Unguided:   Carl Gustav M3 - (Airborne and Spec Ops forces only)
  AT4 - (Airborne and Spec Ops forces only)
  RPG-7 - in service, unknown which warheads are in service in the Polish Armed forces
  RPG-76 Komar (in storage, requested and used by forces in Afghanistan for smaller targets upon which RPG-7 (or other weapons) would be a waste)
  Guided:   Spike-LR - Stationary launchers as well as launchers based upon HMMWV and ROSOMAK vehicles. 4km range, Fire & Forget, Fire Observe & Update, Lock-On After Launch - what more do you need ?
  9K115 Metys - limited use by airborne forces
  MANPAD:   GROM - reportedly a "copy" and vast improvement upon the Soviet designed 9K38 Igla. Several new versions made since then. Also used on variety of vehicles
  PIORUN - improved version of the GROM, should start entering service in 2015/2016 (launcher is reportedly the same, it's the missile that will be vastly improved)   VEHICLES:   MBT:   T-72M1 - no major/significant changes since the Warsaw Pact times, it's an export variant of the T-72A produced in Poland under license (chances are if you are seeing one of those anywhere near a frontline, then you are within a stone's throw from the Warsaw), reportedly Polish made T-72M1 were of higher quality and make than average among the Warsaw Pact countries (mentioned in passing in a book or two).
  PT-91 Twardy variants:   PT-91 - Polish Modernization of the T-72M1
  PT-91M
  PT-91MA1 - Same as above, majority of modifications is internal, such as better Radios and better electronics.     Leopard 2A4 - nothing much to say, not much different since the days of them watching over the Fulda Gap. They however have access to better ammo since those days.
  Leopard 2A5 - Unchanged since they rolled off the assembly line. They do have access to more modern ammunition though.
  Leopard 2PL - Poland has expressed interest to modernize our Leopard 2 fleet to 2A7+ like standard. First would go the 2A4's, then 2A5's. There are several proposals, but it's a bit of a mess right now (to say the least), hence it's doubtful it will be  ready or deployed in a significant capacity within Polish Armed Forces before 2017.   APC/IFV:   BWP-1 - BMP-1D variant "Good" old BMP-1D. Not much to be said. (We used to have BMP-2 and BMP-2D but our idiot paper pushers sold them). A program to develop new tracked vehicle to replace BWP-1 has been initiated, but extremely unlikely to produce anything of substance before 2017.
  KTO ROSOMAK variants: ROSOMAK is a family of variants developed upon AMV PATRIA family.   Rosomak - first initial variant, features Oto Melara Hitfist-30P turret, armed with 30mm autocannon ATK Mk 44 along with a coax 7,62mm UKM-2000C MG. Also equipped with Obra laser warning receiver connected to smoke granade launchers and an amphibious vehicle capable of swim.
  Rosomak-M1 – Modification for the needs of Chad and Afghanistan deployments. Changes include: additionf of Pilar "Fire direction detection" system, new and improved comm. systems, additional radio, two additional cameras on hull sides, connected to screen in infantry compartment. Water propellers have been removed, and the Vehicle was up-armored with Israeli Rafael Armor Package, bringing the vehicle to all around STANAG IV protection levels.
  Rosomak-M1M – further development of the version for Afghanistan Deployment. Changes from previous variant includes addition of American Qinetiq RPGNet, cabling and sockets to mount Duke IED countermeasure system and of Blue Force Tracking system (those systems are not integral part of this variant and were on loan from the US military). Infantry compartment went from 8 to 6 soldiers. This version has been up-armored by default by the original manufacturer, giving it the same STANAG IV protection levels as M1.
  Rosomak-M3 – version armored anologically to Rosomak M1. It's turret is armored up to STANAG III standard. The turret can carry WKM-B 12,7mm HMG or 7,62mm UKM-2000C MG or Mk. 19 40mm grenade launcher. Those vehicles usually carry either two of the above, one on the turret, second within the hull near the turret, allowing them to be swapped "on the go".
  Rosomak-S - unoficially called "Spajkowóz" (Spikewagon) – infantry carrier variant of the base version (ergo still capable of swim), equipped to carry 2 Spike LR launchers, a load of spare missiles, along their respective weapon teams. Otherwise unarmed.
  KTO Rosomak - Hitfist-30P turret with Spike LR variant and KTO Rosomak - Unmanned ZSSW-30 turret with Spike LR variant The former is no different than the Base Rosomak (aside from integration of the Spike ATGM with the turret) and has already been developed, built and tested, however the latter has been designated as next step in the Rosomak development hence the former most likely won't enter service. However (at the time of the writing) there only exists a first iteration of the ZSSW-30 turret, which is being tested, but is not integrated with the Spike ATGM yet, afaik only a mockup of the double launcher can be seen on the right side of the turret.  As both vehicles, for all intents and purpouses, will serve the same role and function within the game, either could be added.
  KWWO Wilk - Kołowy Wóz Wsparcia Ogniowego (Wheeled fire support vehicle) (105/120mm) Prototypes exist but appears extremely unlikely at this point to enter service.
  Recon: BWR-1D and BWR-1S  (BRM-1K and BPzV "Svatava" respectively) Basically a BMP-1 without ATGM, having somewhat better NVG's and optionally carrying a recon squad.
  BRDM-2M-97 "Żbik-B" Polish modification/modernization of the BRDM-2 vehicle. New turret, Obra laser warning receiver and smoke grenade launcher, new NVG's. Armed with WKM-B and a UKM-2000 as coax.
  Rosomak-R1 and Rosomak-R2 – Recon variants based upon the base Rosomak (hence still amphibious capable). Armed analogically to normal Rosomak, with 30mm AC and 7,62mm coax. No infantry carrying capacity. Crew compartment instead has been remodeled to house operators of additional equipment. Upon extendable 4 meter mast a FLIR System video camera, Thermal camera and laser rangefinder/target designation system were mounted, allowing for recon at the distance of up to 20 km. R1 variant has been additionally equipped with Turkish Aselsan ACAR Ground Surveillance Radar. Reportedly allowing detection of an infantry man from 12 km away, and vehicle group from 40 km away. Radar has been mounted on a mast behind the turret.  Both has been equipped with additional camera with directional microphone.
  Tank Destroyers:   BRDM-2 KONKURS
  Tumak-5 (M1045A2 HMMWV) with Spike-LR ATGM
  ROSOMAK with unmanned Spike Launcher Turret - there exists an existing presentation model with combined GROM launcher on top. The military has stated desire for such/similiar variant to replace aging BRDM-2 based Tank destroyers, however there haven't been much word on it since.
  Car transports: Tumak-2 (M1043A2 HMMWV) Tumak-3 (M1025A2 HMMWV) both come with Shielded/unshielded manned turret with UKM-2000, WKM-B or NSW, or mk. 19/GA-40
  Tumak-4 (M1097A2 HMMWV), transports up to 11 people depending on the exact setup, unarmed
  Skorpion-3 - light multi purpouse vehicle, 7,62 MG on the roof turret. 1+4 crew
  Star 266M - Working horse of the Polish army. Unarmed truck. Up-armored driver cabin variant may also enter service "soon" (see Hibernyt-3 below)
  AA Assets:   ZSU-23-4W1 Szyłka (ZSU-23-4V1) - no known changes since the Warsaw Pact times (possibly just some minor changes to make it compatible with modern AA Command and Control systems of the Polish Army). In the process of being upgraded to ZSU-23-4MP Biała standard.
  ZSU-23-4MP Biała - Polish upgrade, removal of the radar with mounting of completely passive opto-electronic detection and fire control systems, new ammo with slightly longer range (approx 3,5 km), and 4 GROM missiles for additional firepower (GROMs might be changed for PIORUN's in the future as they become available), all weather capability as well as Thermals and new AP rounds.
  Żubr-P - carrier of the POPRAD System using the GROM missiles (may use PIORUN as those become available). POPRAD is basically a passive detection suite, four GROM launchers and some spare missiles.
  9K35M Strzała-10M - About unchanged since the Warsaw Pact days (as far as I can tell)
  Osa-AKM-P1 "Żądło" - Polish upgraded OSA-AKM, not sure if it fits CM scale however.
  Hibernyt-3 - uparmored Star 266M truck carrying ZUR-23-2KG system. ZUR-23-2KG upgrades since the good old ZU-23-2 includes: CP-1 night-and-day sight with laser rangefinder, electromechanic gun turn system and twin launcher for "Grom" missiles. The truck carries additional ammo and spare missiles.
  Off Map Support:   AHS Krab - (aka THE MOST embarrassing project of the modern Polish Military industry) a division (at least) planned before 2017
  AHS Kryl (possible to enter limited service before 2017)
Both are 155mm NATO compatible Self Propelled Howitzers   Armatohaubica wz. 1977 DANA-T - 152mm Self Propelled Howitzer
  2S1T Goździk - Polish upgrade of venerable 2S1 Gvozdika
  SMK-120 RAK - 120 mm self propelled mortar system based upon ROSOMAK chassis - on order 80 vehicles to enter service in 2015
  2B11 mortar - 120mm Mortar
  M-98 Rodon mortar - 98mm mortar
  LM-60 mortar - 60mm mortar
  Air Support Helo:   Mi-24W (Polish designation for the Mi-24V)- Reportedly the Kokon ATGM are long past expiration date and they have only unguided ordinance now at it's disposal (!! REPORTEDLY !!). So either they won't have any or we assume we borrowed some Kokons from the Ukrainian stocks.
    Planes:   F-16 Block 52+ I have made this informative info-graphic about what kind of stuff it can carry. Not sure which of those fit scale of CM:BS, but that's everything we have for them or have planned for them at the time of writing.
  Su-22M4 - as much as it would be even a bigger of a suicide than flying A-10 into a modern ADN, a number of Polish Su-22M4 can carry a pair of Kh-29T's - TV guided Anti Tank missiles. Beside that, it can carry to up to 8 dumb bombs - FAB-500 max or ZK-300 Polish made cluster bomb (anti personnel).   MiG-29 (9.12A) - it can drop some dumb bombs, either FABs or ZK-300's   UAV:   Boeing ScanEagle Aeronautics Defense Orbiter WB Electronics FlyEye   I imagine that would be all. If there are any questions or anything else that might fit the CM scale, please feel free to ask questions and I shall do answer them best to my abilities/knowledge.   Apologies if I posted this in a wrong place.   Thank you for reading !   EDIT: Formatting was gone for some reason. Should be all good now.

Re: Flares
 
There's really two items to be considered:
 
1. "Star Clusters"
 
Basically a self contained flare unit with parachute attached.  They come in several colors (red, green, white for sure, might be a few others).  They're used for signals purposes, but have no Army-wide definition. One unit may use red star clusters as a signal for medevac, while others might use it for a backup "commence attack!" signal.  This is usually laid out in the signals portion of the operations order or theater specific signals instructions.  There's also 40 MM grenade launched flares, but in practice their use is the same as the self contained units.
 
The white light ones are also commonly used for local illumination.  There's also IR versions that provide well, IR light to support NVG operations.
 
2. Illumination rounds.  As described, artillery shell used to illuminate battlefield.
 
In terms of signal applications, they're not really useful in the same sense that Combat Mission covers combat.  The information relayed is so low fidelity, or limited to specific COAs that while they're useful in those applications, they're not really a communications device any more than smoke grenades, flashlight signals at night, and similar narrow application signals.  

On the other hand, he's literally alienated everyone who's not Belarus, NATO is actually getting serious about military rebuilding, US forces are returning to Europe, countries that previously had no interest in NATO are starting to make rumbles about if not joining, at least extensive cooperation.  and he's shown that Russian agreements mean literally nothing.  
 
If his goal was to become a pariah, and make Russia's position in the world marginal?  Hang the mission accomplished banner.  His BFFs are the Syrian president and that's about it, and people who previously followed the "Russia is our partner" line are deeply discredited.
 
He's destroyed any room Russia had to maneuver, all to in so many words, achieve another fake-"People's Republic"  
 
Which again, makes him that infection.  He hasn't asked how far he should go, he's simply gone as far as he can, and the rewards for this is a bunch of dead Ukrainians and a smattering of dead Dutch folks on the side.  

Yep.  Depends on the unit but I made my guys do one if they were stopped for more than a few minutes.  Longer you're in place, the more complex the range cards get (and transform into platoon fire plans)

Yep.  Depends on the unit but I made my guys do one if they were stopped for more than a few minutes.  Longer you're in place, the more complex the range cards get (and transform into platoon fire plans)

I think measuring the success of Russian forces against the Georgians is to take the success of US forces against the Iraqis in 2003, then kick it up a few notches.  

Re: Teal Group
 
Which is all fun and good, but the SU-25s that are already in the game are even less likely to last more than a few seconds over target.  Clearly conditions can be met in game, or options that involve scenarios where a dedicated CAS platform can survive.  Why not include the A-10?

Re: M6 Linebacker
 
Actually before they even refurbed them back to M2A2 status they were already being used in Iraq as otherwise normal Bradleys (as it wasn't like ADA troops sat the war out, and if you're not shooting TOWs or Stingers the platforms are more or less the same).  
 
I'm of the mind retiring them was still a mistake.  The Avenger isn't armored at all, so it's not like it is going to follow just behind the armor or something and snipe helicopters.  It's just not survivable at all.  Of course the bigger mistake was opting out of BRADATS or similar platforms back in 1993.  
 
Re: A-10
 
Here's the thing.  Both it and the SU-25 have about equal odds of completing a strike in the sort of CMBS scenario (while both do things better than the other one, neither commands some amazing advantage that makes it more likely to slip past fighters or heavy SAM presence).  To that end if neither were in, I'd be okay as it's just excluding planes that would either be aborting because they've been locked up, or simply not deployed to the AO.  However if the SU-25 is in, and able to complete strikes in scenarios, then it's equally valid to stick the A-10 in, because if anything it is more likely the US would be able to achieve the sort of air control to employ strike fighters in the long run, while the SU-25 just wouldn't be long for the air war.
 
So again, neither of them?  Okay!  Makes sense.  One but not the other?  Que?
 
Re: USAF
 
The bigger issue I feel with the A-10 is it is one of the few assets the USAF employs that is actually customer friendly.  When it comes down to getting fixed wing support, the USAF is often very user unfriendly because their priorities are usually:
 
1. Shooting down enemy planes.
2.Proving air power can win a war by bombing things in the enemy capital city because that'll show em'
3. Shooting down enemy planes.
4. Killing ADA assets because they're super annoying and they keep triggering that damn alarm in the cockpit
5. Killing enemy aviation (planes)
6. Bombing things that might or might not be logistical assets for the enemy
7. Killing enemy aviation (drones and helicopters)
8. Crew rest
9. Routine Maintenance
10. Wishing the USAF would put out a movie that made them look as cool as Top Gun made Navy pilots look
11. Complaining about the food
12. Complaining about lack of enemy aviation to kill
13. Returning the Army's phone calls to find out what it wanted.
 
So to that end, the A-10 was something that wasn't going to be borrowed to go do CAP missions, bomb a palace, or conduct DEAD missions.  It was all the time, every day going to be doing either CAS, or battlefield interdiction, both of which get thumbs up from the Army and USMC.  And the A-10 was built from the ground up to liaison and fly CLOSE to the troops it was supporting.  
 
The F-35 in contrast flies tens of thousands of feet above the battlefield, isn't really designed to talk with, or coordinate with someone in the mud, and drops two bombs and returns to an air conditioned hanger some hundreds of miles away.  To make matters worse the USAF refers to the B-1 as a CAS capable plane, which is to say I have a brain surgery capable leaf blower.  
 
More than the airframes involved the A-10 was that commitment to support the dude fighting and winning the war.  The F-35 represents a reduction in that customer service, and removing it as an emphasis and instead shuffling it to the lowest priority.
 
Which is to make a really good argument for US Army fixed wing units, because by god the USAF doesn't want the job, might as well do it ourselves.

Re: Tank riders
 
It's one of those things you do in the absence of other vehicles, or in a low threat environment.  It's really dangerous for the riders, and gets in the way of the tanker.
 
 
The inside of an IFV is a cramped, loud, smelly place.  None of them are comfortable, and a BTR/BMP operating at capacity is pretty much a solid block of soldier in the troop bay with equipment wedged in (Bradleys are not much better, but were designed to barely fit a larger soldier to begin with).  In low threat environments, like riding from place to place behind friendly lines, being on top of the IFV in the fresh air, with room to spread out would be pretty attractive, which is where you see most of these photos and videos coming from.  Also in places where mines are a bigger threat than direct fire, getting standoff from the mine, and having the floor and roof armor between you and a possible mine detonation is a pragmatic trade off to being more vulnerable to rare/uncommon gunfire.  

Re: Tank riders
 
It's one of those things you do in the absence of other vehicles, or in a low threat environment.  It's really dangerous for the riders, and gets in the way of the tanker.
 
 
The inside of an IFV is a cramped, loud, smelly place.  None of them are comfortable, and a BTR/BMP operating at capacity is pretty much a solid block of soldier in the troop bay with equipment wedged in (Bradleys are not much better, but were designed to barely fit a larger soldier to begin with).  In low threat environments, like riding from place to place behind friendly lines, being on top of the IFV in the fresh air, with room to spread out would be pretty attractive, which is where you see most of these photos and videos coming from.  Also in places where mines are a bigger threat than direct fire, getting standoff from the mine, and having the floor and roof armor between you and a possible mine detonation is a pragmatic trade off to being more vulnerable to rare/uncommon gunfire.  

Massive OT standby:
 
Nothing especially exciting, most of my tank knowledge isn't much better than a really enthusiastic student of history.
 
I've operated: M1A1HC, M1A2 SEP V2, M3A2
I've been inside of/have hands on experience with a functional: M1A2 SEP, M3A2 ODS BUSK, M2A3
I've been up and close with the following to some degree of "closer than in a museum" M48, M60, K1, K1A1, K200, BMP-1, BMP-2, T-55, and T-72M1
 
I've omitted boring stuff like M113 based vehicles, or HMMWVs.
 
When I was a young LT, the Armor fleet was still something like 60% M1A1s, so when you went through Armor School, if you were going to one of the M1A2 units (mostly 1st CAV and 4th ID at this point), you got to roll around on M1A2s.  If you were like me and going to someplace less modern, you got some vintage of A1 (mine actually had a large decal for emergency numbers to call in West Germany in the event something happened, just to give you an idea of vintage).  Our Bradleys were of even older vintage, they had the A2 armor upgrade, but none of them had LRFs.  LTs of that time period still had to do Bradley gunnery though, so that's why I have time on that platform
 
In terms of tanks though, after my first years in the Army, I went to an M1A2 SEP V2 equipped unit, and did my company commander time there. 
 
Which is the long way of saying "I know late-model M1A1s okay, and M1A2 SEP V2s really well."
 
If you've got other questions, there's some sort of "sericepeople talk about military stuff' thread on this forum, it's likely a few pages down, feel free to drop them in there or personal message me or something.  Don't want to derail this much more.

Sorta makes sense the gun maker is doing well in a country that's going guns over butter.
 
Re: AK-12
 
Russia would be well served just to pick one weapons system per role and stick with it.  They're sort of the king of having three tanks types for one mission, two or three "standard" systems, and a various spread of systems that are in field testing for a decade before ghosting.  Rifles especially, this isn't 1945 with bolt action, semi-auto, and assault rifles are all wandering around the battlefield, or it's a major showdown between 7.62X51 rifles and smaller 7.62X39 or 5.56X45 calibers.  If you dropped AK-74s with sufficient rails/somehow made them NATO compatible onto US troops, you'd see no real change in squad capabilities, and the same would go with M16A4s if they were actually AK-16A4s.
 
Rifles need to be generally reliable, mostly accurate, and cheap enough to give everyone one.  I would suggest the greater problem in rifles is that the only meaningful advances in rifle design since the late 70's-early 80's has all been accessories.  The reason the M16/M4 endures is simply because nothing out there offers so great an advantage as to be worth replacing every rifle in the US inventory.  I'd suggest the AK-74 is much the same, it's a good gun.  The AN-94, AK-12, and the like all haven't really offered a massive change in capabilities (with neat tricks like the AN-94's two shot burst not really being revolutionary must buy features).  

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.  

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.

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

Not to rederail, but simply in passing, it is sort of a simplistic version of events you presented.  Iraqis blamed us for things that were in no way part of anything the US had ever done to Iraq.  What we did do to restore prosperity even at great cost in human lives and resources was always not enough.  If you helped the Shia it was not enough (because we should have built houses for everyone, and assigned a squad per family to serve as their personal servants) and the Sunni just become certain it's part of the American-Shia plot to sell all Sunnis to Iran as slaves.  You help the Sunni, and the Sunni are unhappy because you haven't restored the Ba'ath party, shot all the Shia for being insolent, and the Shia think you've actually secretly cloned Saddam and he's now calling the shots.
 
In terms of the absurdity, imagine yourself and all your coworkers (even the ones you really don't like) scooped up, put on a plane, and dropped in some other country.  Now your country may (or may have not) done some questionable stuff to the country you're in now that has created some instability.  However instability does not pick up a bomb vest and walk into a market because God thinks it is a great idea.  It does not scoop kids up on the way home from school, hold them for ransom, collect said ransom and then kill kids because they're the wrong sect anyway.  It does not pull people off of a bus, and decide who lives or dies based on a theological dilemma from centuries ago.  
 
So now you're sitting there, with your coworkers, and someone is holding you responsible for the inhumanity of man, and for being simply from a country that's contribution to this whole catastrophic mess in terms of causing it, was maybe building about 20 meters of the 100 KM highway to chaos.  The US may have opened pandora's box, but it didn't build it, fill it for a few hundred years, and for a long time it valiantly tried to stuff all those evils back into the box, again at the cost of thousands of American lives and billions of dollars (again, the US plan for Iraq was "Saddam is dead, high fives, maybe like 20,000 dudes stay behind to help clean stuff up for a year or two" not seven to eight years depending on your math of suck).  Even more the box existed, and was out in the open.  Someone was going to open that box, and someone was going to unleash hell on Iraq.  It might have been in the eventual "which of Saddam's Sons will rule next?" conflict of 2014.  It might have been the hypothetical Iranian invasion of 2016.  It could have been when the peace loving Alpha Centurians come to earth in 2021 to bring love and sharing to all men, but they accidentially fly too close to the Golden Mosque on approach and now it's all Allah Akbar because that shows a clear disrespect for Shia so the aliens must be secret Sunni.  
 
So again, sitting there with your coworkers, you are responsible for the sins of Iraq's fathers, grandfathers's and great grandfathers.  So as you stuggle, as you work, as you bleed, you will be eternally blamed for things you did not do, stuff that happened sometimes before your country even existed, and most damning of all, the people blaming you will simply sit there and contribute their part to the chaos (giving money to insurgents, not calling the police/tipline when they see someone planting a bomb etc etc) all while pointing the finger of blame at you.

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.