panzersaurkrautwerfer

This thread, methinks, very much needs to be put back on the track. Am not going to attempt to respond by individuals, so am going to address this by specific issues.

Yom Kippur War IADs effectiveness
 
IAF CAS losses were so severe vs Egypt for days that Israel terminated them altogether. They didn't resume until IDF tanks, which had crossed the Suez Canal, drove into the SAM zones and systematically shot up the SA-2/3/6 SAMs and dense AAA, of which the most notable AAA was the "airplane eater" ZSU-23/4. DEAD Israeli style. Against Syria, the story was much the same, but in both cases, Israeli CAS was effectively out of the war until the SAM problem was addressed, of which the pacing element (and eye waterer to defense types in the US and) was the lethality of the highly agile, mobile SA-6, a weapon against which the IAF had no ECM capability whatsoever. None. The SAMs were sufficiently deadly to force IAF planes to fly low, placing them in the deadly embrace of radar directed AAA, not to mention a plethora of SA-7s. The US provided Israel with as many as 40 F-4s and definitely 46 A-4s as replacements for terrible air losses. What's not generally known is that the US provided Israel with numerous complete tail end assemblies for A-4s. Why? The planes were eating SA-7s, but barely getting back home. Spare part planners never envisioned such a situation, so the IAF suffered major virtual attrition as a result. The IAF started the war with 440 combat planes and lost, depending on which numbers are used, 107-387, but I don't know offhand whether the US supplied additional planes over attrition during the resupply effort.
 
Given the above, I'm having real problems signing up for the "lessons of the Yom Kippur War." Likewise, I'm having similar problems with GW I. There were other factors at work other than those enumerated including: precision destruction of a key Iraqi air surveillance radar, the removal of which allowed the entry of the Stealth fighters and more visible friends. Inter alia, this resulted in the pinpoint destruction of the key Syrian AD HQ, spectacularly shown time and again on strike vid broadcast worldwide. Even in unbroken state, the IADS had very little capability vs Tomahawks which are, many don't realize, pretty stealthy in their own right, let alone when whizzing down the boulevard so low details on the weapons were clearly visible. This isn't the famous footage, but it gets the idea across.


 
The US went into GW I with not merely with superlative intel on Iraq's IADS, it went into battle with a direct conduit right into the IADS situation center, thanks to a physical hack into the fiber optic trunk line from the front, a hack put into place by a brilliant US SpecOps mission. Reportedly, the US was able to show, or not show, IADS HQ whatever it desired, but the hack is believed to have been used as a generator of enormous numbers of false targets. I firmly believe it's dangerous to draw sweeping conclusions without a fundamental understanding of what was going on to begin with. I recall the mighty MOD himself came out from Russia with his experts to figure exactly this out. One such insight was a demand for a weapon capable of downing a HARM attacking a defending SAM site. Pantsir, anyone? Tunguska itself has substantial capabilities vs things like GBU-15, LGBs, JDAM, JSOW and Tomahawks.
 
Now, let's look at the Vietnam War, shall we? It's fashionable to deride NVN's IADS as ineffective. This is based on another faulty premise. That premise is that the aggregate performance figures reflect how the national IADS performed historically throughout. Not the case. What you're seeing are the effects of a lot of really bad outcomes late in an otherwise impressive career.  When the US first ran into the SA-2, the SA-2 was killing 0.5 planes per engagement. 0.5! Indeed, there were several cases of two planes downed in one shot. What broke the back of the NVN IADS was a masterful CIA op called HA/BRINK or HABRINK. What was that? The CIA slipped people into Indonesia's SA-2 warehouses and obtained the relevant guidance link frequencies, allowing the US to pretty effectively jam the SA-2. Why Indonesia? The Indonesian SA-2s were identical to the NVN's SA-2s! Sure, evasive maneuvering, Wild Weasel, Iron Hand played their part, but HA/BRINK was what undid the IADs as far as SAM coverage. By late in the war, Linebacker II, jamming, better tactics, SEAD and other means had so degraded and cowed the SAMs that they were blind launching (no radar at all, optical direction only)  dozens of SAMs at once, and that's why the overall numbers look so bleak. That wasn't the case through much of the air war over NVN and the DMZ. We lost a family friend and his WSO to an SA-2 over the DMZ. It came out of the clouds below, so they had no chance to see the launch and evade. Boom!  Two wall entries on the Vietnam Memorial.
 
For a more informed view of Russian SAM operational effectiveness than what I've seen in this thread, please see Carlo Kopp's analysis here. Kopp has some scathing things to say about how the Arabs not only fundamentally disregarded a throughly thought out Russian doctrine, but did some things which would've been comedic had they not been so hurtful to the using force! Suggest interested parties also look at what specific threats the newer generation SAMs were designed to defeat, what their tactical-technical characteristics are and how that applies to the ability to detect, localize, engage and kill them. Makes rather sobering reading. A Serbian captain with his ancient SA-6 unit not only survived a major SEAD/DEAD campaign, but also cost the US the stunning loss of an F-117, damage to a second one and an F-16.
 
As a longtime student of military history and a former defense professional, I deem it folly to expect the USAF to be able to so thoroughly control the skies that Russian CAS and similar can't operate. US AAA threat is risible, so there's no real dense AAG penalty for operating in the weeds to make it really hard vs both fighters and Patriot to engage it, and SU-25s have survived hits by things much worse than MANPADS. Russia's not going to sit idly by and let the US/NATO gin up its air power before striking, so the force ratios, for a time, at least, are not going to be pretty. Contrary to popular opinion, the AWACS supply is quite limited, and people need to remember that these vital birds can stay aloft only so long before they have to be replaced to keep a given area in coverage. The harder they're flown, the less reliable they become, and the worse the even more critical highly trained control crews perform. Tired radar operators miss things. That. of course, presumes the plane ever gets airborne to begin with, A single Russian sniper armed with, say, an OSV 12.7 mm rifle, could ruin NATO's day at places like Geilenkirchen, which when last seen, had a whole 5 E-3As. It's even worse with JSTARS, where there are but a handful of planes in total.
 
And this discussion is without taking into account Russian missile hard kill systems or jamming. Put it this way, for every long range sensor we deployed, the Russians deployed countermeasures. Jammers vs the E-3A, the TR-1's SAR, JSTARs. I used to have some SECRET diagrams of the E-3A radar display under jamming. Thanks to steerable antenna nulls, the system performed very well in the face of one or two jammers, but after that things progressively fell apart. It was entirely possible to jam the E-3A so effectively that entire (pizza slice wide) sectors were blind. Additionally, the more jamming energy received, the shorter detection range becomes, totally compromising the vast volumetric region a Sentry ordinarily controls. This allows even crude Stealth weapons a veritable free ride through the defenses.
 
If memory serves, the wartime scenario over West Germany envisioned only two E-3As up, covering the entire region. What happens if one doesn't show up, is shot down or is jammed so effectively it can't do its job? How many would likely be available to support ops in Ukraine, and how much coverage, even best case, would be lost just to keep things like S-300PMU and S-400 from simply devouring them? The Russians also have the Il-76 MAINSTAY, their Gen 2 AWACS. Nor, as a look at page 3, #46 in that thread will show, is that by any means the limits of what's going to be faced. The Russians are building a combined function aircraft able to handle everything but undersea warfare from an AWACS perspective. I'd argue that Russian force effectiveness will be greatly enhanced by even the vanilla MAINSTAY of the Cold War period, never mind what it's evolved into since. Patriot will assuredly be a key Spetsnaz target, and if it goes down, there's no way the Air Force can handle the flood which would ensue. SAMs are 24/7 systems, but planes, even with in-flight refueling, have to go home sooner or later. There is no in-flight replenishment of munitions, LRUs or crews. And who's to say that the planes keeping the Russians away in one place won't suddenly be retasked elsewhere, leaving the poor ground force commander in the denuded zone in a Heinz factory sized pickle?!
 
What are the MCRs (Mission Capable Rates) for the F-22A under high sortie conditions?  We already know the F-35 is compromised practically across the board when it comes to just about every combat metric, so why should MCR  or sortie generation rate be any better? It'll probably break a lot, not least because it'll be anything but a mature system. We know how those tend to be. As a mature system, the F-14 Tomcat was running ~65% MCR. This meant a two-carrier CVBG could use only one CVN on a given day for strike--because the other could do nothing but conduct FAD to keep both alive! Doubtless the numbers these days are better, bit I think they nicely illustrate the main issue. Complex things, and the F-35 is super complex and broken to start, are iffy at best to depend upon. The more you stress a complicated system, the faster it breaks, not necessarily in ways anticipated, either. Given this incredibly important issue, does it really make sense to make campaign success dependent on breaking the Russian Air Force via aerial combat, as seems to be the general expectation?
 
I don't have the latest numbers and all the tech specs for what I fervently hope are upgrades from what I knew of US capabilities, but I do know the overall situation should give serious pause to US/NATO planners, operations and combat personnel. There is a strong case to be made for a real integrated US tactical air defense a la Russe or similar. I close with a cautionary tale from my Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix days.
 
The FAD (Fleet Air Defense) Section Head vs His Boss, the Operations Analysis Department Manager.
 
My section head, Bill Knight, ran OPFOR--Tu-22M BACKFIRE & SOJs (Stand Off Jammers); his boss, Dave Spencer, had the FAD for a BLUFOR CVBG (carrier battle group). Site of battle? Navy tactical simulator in Monterey, California. Each side had its own war room, and there was a separate Control room where all was known. The stakes? A good bottle of wine and gloating rights on Monday. Event was part of a threat conference the weekend immediately before Monday.
 
OPFOR objective:
 
Penetrate FAD screen and launch long range Mach 3+ AS-4 KITCHEN ASCMs to hit and destroy CVNs (in the days before AEGIS was deployed)
 
BLUFOR objective
 
Use CAP and DLI (Deck Launched Interceptors) to destroy OPFOR before it can reach the missile release line.
 
Execution: BLUFOR
 
BLUFOR radar detects jam strobes on expected threat axis and gleefully commits both CAP and available DLI to attack OPFOR. Once in range, and operating in HOJ (Home ON Jam) mode, salvos of Tomcat launched Phoenix missiles kill the jammers, clearing the radar scopes. Dave Spencer exults, thinking he has destroyed the attackers and won a crushing victory.
 
Execution: OPFOR
 
Bill Knight fully anticipates BLUFOR commander's battle plan and uses it to destroy him. OPFOR demonstrates with SOJs, getting exactly the response he anticipated, but sends the actual striking force, without SOJs, around to the back door, conducting completely unhindered AS-4 missile attacks. The SOJs and crews blown to bits? Regrettable losses necessary to fulfill OPFOR commander, Bill Knight's, operational intent.
 
Battle Resolution 
 
About the time Dave Spencer was celebrating his great victory, Control informed him  his triumphant Tomcats would begin ditching shortly. Seems both of his carriers had been sunk by Bill Knight, and no fixed airfield, or even another carrier, was anywhere to be had. This was the end. I have no idea what the wine was, how expensive and delectable, but the wine of victory was thoroughly savored by my section head, for he had wiped the floor with Dave, who possessed an awe inspiring Ph.D. in Military Operations Research, from Harvard, no less. Come Monday, though, his customary arrogance and aura of superiority were gone. He walked about head down, visibly depressed and like a man in a daze. He couldn't believe what had happened to him; so catastrophically at the (perceived) moment of victory.
 
Summing up, I believe the expectation that the US would almost immediately own the skies over Ukraine to be on the scale somewhere from delusional clear up to clinically insane. Such expectations seem to be predicated on a largely incompetent opponent who hasn't a prayer of prevailing vs western military might and training. Additionally, this seems to be predicated on the notion that Russian pilots are no better than Arab pilots and would be flying planes just about as capable relative to US combat aircraft. Does the US have some nice toys? Absolutely. But how many will actually be usable--and stay usable--over the course of the envisioned campaign? Is it reasonable to assume that other US foes are going to lie doggo so the US/NATO can fight Russia absent other military crises? I think not. And has anyone here bothered to look at the Russian approach to BVR aerial warfare in a very heavy jamming and rapidly maneuvering target environment? Once you have, consider this notional engagement, but with as many as 4 x AAMs targeted on each Raptor. This engagement presumes, too, that AWACS isn't attacked and downed or badly crippled. Nor does it recognize the existence of a technology called forward pass, in which missile shooters simply salvo missiles on command of aircraft whose far superior sensors allows guidance of those weapons even though the shooters can't see the target. All of a sudden those numerous not Stealth planes become a real threat, making the already enormous missile loads of Russian Stealth fighters many times larger than can be carried. 


 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Was it going anywhere good though?
 
 
Christ.  Most game forums I feel like a dinosaur.  This is the one forum I've run into where there's more than a few posters I have to address as "sir" if I ran into them offline.
 
 
To be fair, at that point in time I wouldn't have known what was authentic or not, I just knew tanking was cool, and it was less fruity than Mechwarrior (and as much as I liked Mechwarrior, the setting was something that always annoyed me deeply).  Roaming through Iran or Bosnia turning T-72s inside out was pretty awesome.
 
On the other hand, ripplefire Hellfires is pretty much as close to an apocalyptic event as a flight simulator will give you, so Longbow 2 was good for that much.  
 
Re: Sims in general
 
I lack the patience for them these days.  Especially flight sims with all the fiddly physics and systems.  What I liked about the old Janes sims was you could adjust how real intense the simulator was going to be, so if you wanted Firehawks: The Game, Longbow would do it for you, or the other way around.
 
That's also the bigger gripe I had with Steel Beasts.  If I just wanted a tool for my LTs to practice things in it, it felt like they had to genuinely know what they're doing with both tanks and the sim, while stuff like Combat mission you need a little guidance, but something straight forward like platoon vs platoon movement to contact is pretty intuitive once you know what the buttons mean.  (Which is why I shared CMSF with thems all)  If I could have turned the realism down more on Steel Beasts to focus more on the "higher" level stuff, I'd oddly have gotten more training value out of it.
 
At least that's how I remember it.  Honestly haven't touched it in years. 

I at least did not think it was disrespect, and Dildo is totally something a tank crew might try to name their track, I'm just saying CPT D Co commander type would have rejected it.
 
 
Dracul (Dracula would have been sort of lame, but Dracul just looks like a typo, and after Twilight, vampires are lame)
Dragon's Breath (NERD ALERT.   Also our sister Battalion had a Dragon on its unit crest, so I generally shot down Dragon related names to avoid the confusion)
Daddy (just weird)
 
I can't remember the rest too well, this is a conversation I had nearly a year ago.  One of my PLs was rather attached to the game "Bioshock" and I remember having to tell him "dude, just no" over some name related to that game, but I can't recall the name now.  I also rejected anything that was just "Da' XXXX" on principle.  
 
On the other hand I did allow an appeal if the entire crew wanted a name I considered dumb.  I just did not want the crew to be stuck with a stupid name their LT dreamed up.  I made sure my dudes were okay with it when I renamed my tank just because at the end of the day, they're the one doing most of the work on it.
 
 
Here's some markings that sometimes occur:
 
1. Driver's and vehicle commander's names on the front window (this is common on all trucks, but it's done in black so it's not super-obvious.  Honestly think it's more of a way for the Battalions CSM to know who to yell at if the truck is parked poorly)
 
2. Bumper number and Battalion number on the front/back.  Also worth skipping unless you're making a mod to spectically put C Company 1-72 Armor into the game though.
 
3. Sometimes a "VS-17" Panel will be displayed on the "trunk" lid.  It's a two sided canvas deal that's got an orange side or a pink side, and is a very common recognition symbol, usually mounted on the top of a vehicle to ensure the USAF doesn't shoot you.  
 
I have not seen a named HMMWVV. 
 
I am also zero help on Strykers.  I spent my entire career in the armor type recon units, or combined arms battalions.
 
Yep.  Dildo is already out, but it had more to do with I had a QB with an entire platoon of Dildos.  I'm just contributing what I know in the hopes it's useful.

I at least did not think it was disrespect, and Dildo is totally something a tank crew might try to name their track, I'm just saying CPT D Co commander type would have rejected it.
 
 
Dracul (Dracula would have been sort of lame, but Dracul just looks like a typo, and after Twilight, vampires are lame)
Dragon's Breath (NERD ALERT.   Also our sister Battalion had a Dragon on its unit crest, so I generally shot down Dragon related names to avoid the confusion)
Daddy (just weird)
 
I can't remember the rest too well, this is a conversation I had nearly a year ago.  One of my PLs was rather attached to the game "Bioshock" and I remember having to tell him "dude, just no" over some name related to that game, but I can't recall the name now.  I also rejected anything that was just "Da' XXXX" on principle.  
 
On the other hand I did allow an appeal if the entire crew wanted a name I considered dumb.  I just did not want the crew to be stuck with a stupid name their LT dreamed up.  I made sure my dudes were okay with it when I renamed my tank just because at the end of the day, they're the one doing most of the work on it.
 
 
Here's some markings that sometimes occur:
 
1. Driver's and vehicle commander's names on the front window (this is common on all trucks, but it's done in black so it's not super-obvious.  Honestly think it's more of a way for the Battalions CSM to know who to yell at if the truck is parked poorly)
 
2. Bumper number and Battalion number on the front/back.  Also worth skipping unless you're making a mod to spectically put C Company 1-72 Armor into the game though.
 
3. Sometimes a "VS-17" Panel will be displayed on the "trunk" lid.  It's a two sided canvas deal that's got an orange side or a pink side, and is a very common recognition symbol, usually mounted on the top of a vehicle to ensure the USAF doesn't shoot you.  
 
I have not seen a named HMMWVV. 
 
I am also zero help on Strykers.  I spent my entire career in the armor type recon units, or combined arms battalions.
 
Yep.  Dildo is already out, but it had more to do with I had a QB with an entire platoon of Dildos.  I'm just contributing what I know in the hopes it's useful.

One teeny, tiny quibble for future naming of names type mods:
 
Names that are too profane or sexual will get shot down by their Company Commander (I also shot down names because "They were dumb" but I reserved that judgement only for Platoon Leader's tanks).  It's not really a prude thing nearly as much as the last thing you need is an irate phone call from the Brigade's SHARP (basically your sexual harassment person) representative because "Dildo" drove by the BDE HQ on its way to the washrack.
 
That's like my one complaint, just played a QB to ogle all the pretty eyecandy.  The dirt level is awesome, and honestly the game's visuals are much improved by your efforts.  I check this thread whenever I come on the forums to see what's about to get improved.

Pardon the double tap, but I missed a not SHORAD silliness post that was worth talking about.
 
I agree right now it's very "if any ADA piece is in the game, you better park the planes until further notice."  As a stupid idea:
 
Have a new set of strike options.  Like how you set "heavy medium or light" you'd have another tab that would be something like "close" or "standoff" 
 
Close is what happens now.  The platform closes to attack and destroy things and enters the ADA envelope.  
 
Standoff is the platform launching weapons from outside of MANPAD range.  For rotary wing, only helicopters with standoff type weapons (like the radar guided Hellfires) can do this, and weapons like cannons or rockets will not be employed.  They also can no longer self spot (picture it that they don't see enough of the battlefield to engage targets without someone being able to talk them onto it)  Fixed wing is similar, "dumb" weapons are not employed, missiles and guided bombs only (assuming idiots loop type attacks for the bombs).  Fixed wing will only do point targets (again, at standoff they're going to struggle to spot a tank motoring around, they need the spotter to find the target, and likely designate or feed GPS coordinates to them).
 
In standoff, MANPADS would simply be useless.  Vehicle ADA (missiles only) would engage at a much reduced efficiency.
 
The counter to this would be something like the EW level.  There'd be an "air threat" level, with settings like "Blue Air Dominance, Blue Air Superiority, Air Parity, Red Air Superiority, Red Air Dominance" to simulate the fighter and larger SAM effects.  Dominance is basically one side owns the sky and can fly whereever it wants.  Superiority means the side that holds it has an advantage, but the other side can still push out strikes and attacks occasionally.  Parity means the battle is ongoing and it's no man's sky.
 
The effects on air strikes would be one of the following: 
 
Successful Strike. Bombs away!
Evasive.  Airstrike is aborting to avoid being engaged, will be available again later.  
Engaged. Airstrike is under attack, it is no longer available for the mission as it has jettisoned munitions and is bugging out
Destroyed. Some F-22/SU-27 pilot is smiling like an idiot right now.
 
The different air threat levels would dictate which one of these was more likely.  Under Blue Air Dominance, unless a MANPAD or on map ADA piece gets a shot off, Blue Air Strikes will arrive.  Under Air superiority there's like a 10% chance of engaged, 20% chance of evasive, while under air parity it'd be 5% Destroyed, 15% Engaged, 25% Evasive, with it getting worse under the Red superiority/dominance (launching an airstrike in enemy Air Dominance should be something nuts like 20% destroyed, 30% engaged, 30% Evasive).
 
Edit: I do have to add, those numbers are just as examples. It's not like I did any more to come up with them than think for a second and ask "what sounds good?"
 
It'd allow for a more realistic Blue-Red air strike dynamic.  

Cool.  A pet peeve of mine in video games has always been as you progress, despite inflicting massive losses on the enemy, you always wind up facing a totally fresh enemy force that is in no way hindered by the death of several divisions worth of its comrades.  It also adds incentive to playing out losing battles more because you may lose the battle of stan's farm or whatever, but if it cost the enemy two companies to do it vs your scout section, it should make tomorrow's fight less difficult, while you can still make the previous battle valuable.  

Here's my issue with this:
 
Just because the Russian Air Force is not the Iraqi Air Force does not ensure they will be successful somehow as WAVES OF NEVER ENDING PAK-FAs USE LASERS TO CRUSH AMERICA.
 
No one here is claiming the hapless Russian Air Force will be handily swept from the sky over the course of 20 minutes.  What we are saying is the Russian Air Force as a smaller, less technically capable force, in the face of a larger, more experienced, more technically advanced force is not likely to be able to conduct air strikes in numbers dangerous enough to require building a dedicated ADA platform to be built.  And further, given this reality of the Russians being the high-tier threat, and not being likely to be able to penetrate the CAP without punishing losses, with the remainder of threats falling far, far, far short of even this modest threat, makes an SHORAD vehicle a huge waste of money and time.
 
 
I want you to take that attitude to any other job, and not get laughed at.
 
YOU ARE A DOCTOR AND A PRODUCT OF THE MEDICAL INSTITUTION.  I WILL CURE THIS WITH THE MAGIC OF GEMS BECAUSE I READ IT IN A BOOK AND I HAVE PLAYED VIRTUAL SURGEON SEVERAL TIMES GOOD SIR
 
Or possibly:
 
I have built many model planes, and you sir, are a product of the engineering insitution and do not understand the genius of a jet powered biplane.  I've read books, and I own all the microsoft flight simulators.
 
 
The amount of effort and time spent on those IADS networks, vs the ability of them to stop the bombing force was pretty far out of proportion.  They made the attack uncomfortable, and sometimes lethal for individual planes, but like all passive defenses they could be reduced (and destroyed in the case of Yom Kippur and Iraqi in 1991) or simply are unable to inflict enough damage on the attacker to preclude continued attack (again, SAMS or not, Hanoi had a lot of bombs in the weather forecast, shooting down one or two bombers a night didn't effect that).
 
But I'm glad you brought up Vietnam!  Please explain to me how the helpless Americans were not bombed into submission by the NVAF despite a lack of US ADA (well, Dusters aside but they had other jobs)?
 
 
Camouflage.  Taking halts in locations with concealment.  Hoping the USAF is doing its job.  If Stinger teams are attached to the Company locating them in the most advantageous terrain.   In terms of being a tank/infantry system, your best defense is the enemy doesn't see you.  If it's a leaker SU-27 being chased by F-22s it's likely not going to live long enough to take the time to find me from 20,000 feet, or acquire me if he's bobbing up and over hill masses.
 
This would even be true with a more robust ADA asset like a Linebacker.  I don't want planes to see me.  They will see me if I pop off missiles  or put rounds in the air though, which could bring the harm my way.  Stinger, or even older systems like Vulcan and Chaparral are low enough p/k that unless I am 100% in danger, enemy is coming for us, I'm not going to draw attention to us.  
 
If we're talking about helicopters same drill, unless they're coming my way/obviously are attacking my position. If that's the case we'll volley fire MPAT, a kill is doubtful (especially given the limited elevation of a tank gun) but the amount of crap that'll put in the air runs a good odd at causing a mission kill, or strongly encouraging the enemy to leave.  Even sabot wouldn't be a bad choice, it's short shot to hit time makes it attractive, and the FCS can hack a helicopter at speed.  
 
If the helicopter is on approach and outside the engagement window of the tank gun, massed .50 cal fire will do in a pinch, again the FCS on the CROW can hack if.  If we've got SLAP loaded it'll ruin faces pretty well, but even standard .50 cal will do a lot of damage if massed on a helicopter (while Hinds and the like are armored against that sort of weapon in places, the fourteen or so of those coming off the company is enough to knock out weapons, shred rotors, brown pilot's pants, and generally encourage them to leave right now.
 
But otherwise the best thing for a ground unit to do is stay out of sight, out of mind, and report REDAIR to higher and hope you're about to make a USAF Pilot's day.  

Just goes to show you what cease fires mean these days.  

Yep. The odds of the US military facing an air threat that is a serious danger to ground forces hovers somewhere around zero.  SHORAD type platforms like Stinger are hardly worth investing in in terms of money or capability, larger systems are expensive and will certainly likely rarely leave the motorpool.  PATRIOT is still relevant because of the TBM capability, but everything else is pretty marginal.
 
 
Korea I believe.
 
 
1988 called, they'd like their analysis back.  The Russian air force is smaller, less capable, less exercised, and will be trying to keep JDAMS away from their ground forces in the event of a conventional conflict.  They're pretty much the consumate second stringer.  While underestimating a threat is a bad idea, at the same time failing to understand the actual threat (which would be hybrid warfare) and applying a decades old strategic template of Regional Frontal Aviation Regiments flying wingtip to wingtip over the Inner German Border to crush the BDR's capital in Bonn is equally dangerous.  The Russian air force is not the Soviet Air Force, and extensive tactical ADA assets are a waste of effort against them.
 
 
No.  Tactical ADA for the US is pretty much flaming Ebola infected monkey insurance.  It's a lot of money spent on a nearly impossibly remote, albiet possibly dangerous situation that very likely will never get anywhere near you or your house.
 
 
The Falklands is an excellent example of the impotance of ground based air defense in the face of a determined air threat.  Despite Rapier, the only really effective air defense in the Falklands was the very limited cap provided by the Sea Harriers.  Had the Brits a fleet carrier it's doubtful there'd have been so many, if any shipping losses, while if they'd covered the island in SAMs the results wouldn't have changed much.
 
 
This to me is sort of the arrogance involved in this.  It's terribly and deeply sparky to assume that somehow, the whole defense establishment is just too dumb to make the wise choices that someone who's read a lot of military history can make.  
 
What do you think military professionals do?  How much history do you think I've read?  Don't you think that people equally smart, and equally educated have come to the same conclusion of "SHORAD is not an Army priority?"  
 
But no.  You've read a book!  You know better!
 
I'm not trying to be insulting but its sort of silly, like someone screaming at the TV over the "idiot" plays made by a football coach.  If it was so easy, or so obvious, why do we pay officers to make these choices, instead of just making it an internet poll on militaryhistory.com?
 
The reality is pretty simple.  SHORAD right now in a time of stand-off type systems is increasingly obsolete.  No longer is it a flight of MIG-27s dropping dumb bombs on a tank company, it's several miles out a standoff system is released, and it's hitting possibly before I even hear the jet.  Anything Stinger based is in effect, as someone else pointed out, the M44A1 "Comfy Blankie" in terms of air protection.  Anything larger than that is not much better, at the cost of being a very expensive system with no other use.
 
The only real air defense is shooting down the enemy attackers miles and miles before they're within engagement range, and the only system that seriously does that is another airplane.  The US has more than enough advanced fighters, more than enough command and control for said fighters, and there is no reasonable chance that an enemy strike will get through, without suffering enough losses to render any gains far out of proportion to aviation assets lost.
 
This isn't 1988.  We're not facing a larger, equally advanced air force.  Shoe is on our foot, and the only ground forces that honestly have something to worry about is anyone who's on the receiving end of NATO/US aviation*.
 
 
*Or subject to the USAF's inability to tell the difference between friendly and hostile tanks. 

Just goes to show you what cease fires mean these days.  

Sweet.  I'll give it a whirl once I figure out how to make mods work in the first place! (reading manual, part of my brain just isn't quite wrapping around it!)
 
Tank/IFV name addendum:
 
1. The name is supposed to match the Company the tank belongs to.  Given that tank companies now only exist as the second two line companies in a Combined Arms Battalion, I hope you like C and D names (I went with Darwinian Selector myself).  There's H names too, but that's generally the Battalion Commander's tank.
 
2. Bradleys if they have names (this is uncommon) have them across the rear bustle rack under those ammo cans.  Infantry companies in a CAB (so all Bradley infantry companies) are all A or B companies (most awkward name combo goes to "Beast" and "Beastmaster" in the same platoon)
 
3. Tanks are rarely un-named as a rule.  Bradleys are rarely named, but there's nothing forbidding it.
 
4. Some units buck the names having to follow the A/B/C/D convention entirely, and especially when it comes to deploying, a vehicle might be "Dauntless" in the motorpool, but "Murder Inc" when it's about to cross the berm into crapastan.

Here's my issue with this:
 
Just because the Russian Air Force is not the Iraqi Air Force does not ensure they will be successful somehow as WAVES OF NEVER ENDING PAK-FAs USE LASERS TO CRUSH AMERICA.
 
No one here is claiming the hapless Russian Air Force will be handily swept from the sky over the course of 20 minutes.  What we are saying is the Russian Air Force as a smaller, less technically capable force, in the face of a larger, more experienced, more technically advanced force is not likely to be able to conduct air strikes in numbers dangerous enough to require building a dedicated ADA platform to be built.  And further, given this reality of the Russians being the high-tier threat, and not being likely to be able to penetrate the CAP without punishing losses, with the remainder of threats falling far, far, far short of even this modest threat, makes an SHORAD vehicle a huge waste of money and time.
 
 
I want you to take that attitude to any other job, and not get laughed at.
 
YOU ARE A DOCTOR AND A PRODUCT OF THE MEDICAL INSTITUTION.  I WILL CURE THIS WITH THE MAGIC OF GEMS BECAUSE I READ IT IN A BOOK AND I HAVE PLAYED VIRTUAL SURGEON SEVERAL TIMES GOOD SIR
 
Or possibly:
 
I have built many model planes, and you sir, are a product of the engineering insitution and do not understand the genius of a jet powered biplane.  I've read books, and I own all the microsoft flight simulators.
 
 
The amount of effort and time spent on those IADS networks, vs the ability of them to stop the bombing force was pretty far out of proportion.  They made the attack uncomfortable, and sometimes lethal for individual planes, but like all passive defenses they could be reduced (and destroyed in the case of Yom Kippur and Iraqi in 1991) or simply are unable to inflict enough damage on the attacker to preclude continued attack (again, SAMS or not, Hanoi had a lot of bombs in the weather forecast, shooting down one or two bombers a night didn't effect that).
 
But I'm glad you brought up Vietnam!  Please explain to me how the helpless Americans were not bombed into submission by the NVAF despite a lack of US ADA (well, Dusters aside but they had other jobs)?
 
 
Camouflage.  Taking halts in locations with concealment.  Hoping the USAF is doing its job.  If Stinger teams are attached to the Company locating them in the most advantageous terrain.   In terms of being a tank/infantry system, your best defense is the enemy doesn't see you.  If it's a leaker SU-27 being chased by F-22s it's likely not going to live long enough to take the time to find me from 20,000 feet, or acquire me if he's bobbing up and over hill masses.
 
This would even be true with a more robust ADA asset like a Linebacker.  I don't want planes to see me.  They will see me if I pop off missiles  or put rounds in the air though, which could bring the harm my way.  Stinger, or even older systems like Vulcan and Chaparral are low enough p/k that unless I am 100% in danger, enemy is coming for us, I'm not going to draw attention to us.  
 
If we're talking about helicopters same drill, unless they're coming my way/obviously are attacking my position. If that's the case we'll volley fire MPAT, a kill is doubtful (especially given the limited elevation of a tank gun) but the amount of crap that'll put in the air runs a good odd at causing a mission kill, or strongly encouraging the enemy to leave.  Even sabot wouldn't be a bad choice, it's short shot to hit time makes it attractive, and the FCS can hack a helicopter at speed.  
 
If the helicopter is on approach and outside the engagement window of the tank gun, massed .50 cal fire will do in a pinch, again the FCS on the CROW can hack if.  If we've got SLAP loaded it'll ruin faces pretty well, but even standard .50 cal will do a lot of damage if massed on a helicopter (while Hinds and the like are armored against that sort of weapon in places, the fourteen or so of those coming off the company is enough to knock out weapons, shred rotors, brown pilot's pants, and generally encourage them to leave right now.
 
But otherwise the best thing for a ground unit to do is stay out of sight, out of mind, and report REDAIR to higher and hope you're about to make a USAF Pilot's day.  

That SAMs are worthless and that a good CAP is the only thing that will keep you safe.

NATO ROE will likely be a lot less restrictive than folks are giving it credit for.  Some things might be on restricted target lists like, national treasures/things important to Ukraine's functionality as a country level industrial locations, but anything else would likely be fair game.   Even then the restricted sort of targets likely would be "do not bomb without confirmation of targets of military nature" vs "do not bomb, even if it's crawling with Russians!" sort of ROE.  In a full spectrum sort of conflict there's a much higher expectation of damage, and a much higher value on destruction of enemy forces.
 
Also worth noting that NATO would be in the Ukraine at the permission of the Ukrainian government, and likely with no small amount of popular support from ethnic Ukrainians (as the separatist movement is top to bottom ethnic Russian outside of the actual Russian passport holders within).  People will be upset the local church did not survive the fight, but they will be happier they're no longer about to become part of the people's republic of Russiastan or whatever it calls itself these days.  This underwrites a much more aggressive military targeting behavior.  

This is actually one of the biggest urban legends to come out of the Cold War.

This is actually one of the biggest urban legends to come out of the Cold War.

NATO ROE will likely be a lot less restrictive than folks are giving it credit for.  Some things might be on restricted target lists like, national treasures/things important to Ukraine's functionality as a country level industrial locations, but anything else would likely be fair game.   Even then the restricted sort of targets likely would be "do not bomb without confirmation of targets of military nature" vs "do not bomb, even if it's crawling with Russians!" sort of ROE.  In a full spectrum sort of conflict there's a much higher expectation of damage, and a much higher value on destruction of enemy forces.
 
Also worth noting that NATO would be in the Ukraine at the permission of the Ukrainian government, and likely with no small amount of popular support from ethnic Ukrainians (as the separatist movement is top to bottom ethnic Russian outside of the actual Russian passport holders within).  People will be upset the local church did not survive the fight, but they will be happier they're no longer about to become part of the people's republic of Russiastan or whatever it calls itself these days.  This underwrites a much more aggressive military targeting behavior.  

That attack air would have to slip through in terms of sensors:
 
PATRIOT
E-3 Sentry AWACS
Ground based early warning radars
Fighter based sensor systems 
Other NATO radar platforms (which are largely designed to share a common operating picture with US assets)
 
From those sensors, any number of fixed wing assets can be massed on the attacking element.  If the initial waves are ineffective, more planes can be vectored to target (unlike SAMs) until the enemy aviation is no longer mission capable.  
 
Then if they're bopping above the horizon Patriot might just zot them anyway.  
 
If the enemy attack dodges all those sensors, all those planes who's only job is to spot and destroy enemy CAS or strike assets, the ability of a M6 Linebacker to save the day was zero.  Four stingers will not stop the sort of onslaught that would have to exist to bypass that sort of layered defense, and the howling hoard of thousands of PAK-FAs that do not exist would simply pop the M6 like a zit before flying to strafe the tank company to pieces with dual AK-47s fired out the window because you are describing a situation that is so craycray I find it worthwhile to talk about it using that word.
 
The Linebacker was like issuing a shotgun to a tank crew to fend off enemy infantry boarding the tank.  If the infantry slipped through everything else, and is now standing on my turret, that shotgun would be mighty helpful.  But it would only be helpful after EVERYTHING ELSE HAD FAILED SO CATASTROPHICALLY AS TO BOGGLE THE MIND (the rifles are for if we have to leave the tank, not some sort of alamo defense).
 
The M6 was canned after this process:
 
1. Army cancels ADATS
2. Someone decides we still need SHORAD
3. More or less, the M6 is made from nearly off the shelf parts
4. M6 more or less doesn't really do much.  In large exercises, if red air closes with blue forces the M6 is just not enough to matter.  Deployed, what enemy air existed was something the M6 couldn't help with
5. M6 and ADA soldiers serve as adhoc infantry.
6. M6 vehicles are refurbed to replace higher mileage M2/M3 platforms.  
 
It wasn't super useful, even in its heyday.  

Ponder this.  How many castles did the mongols build?

I really like science fiction.  Lots and lots.  
 
Here's my issue with CM: Mariner Valley though.  Science fiction is less about "the future" and more commentary on our present placed in a fantasy realm.  Hard science fiction draws more from "science" than "fiction" but it isn't to show us the future in a realistic sense.  
 
Combat Mission is all about realism.  Which therein is the problem, how does a realistic wargame series tackle an inherently unrealistic setting?  And further the amount of time to properly flesh out a believable science fiction setting is much more dramatic than simply shopping for conflicts that might be close enough to build on (which is no small feat in itself, but we have the US Army and the Russian Army, and their MTOE.  We don't have to decide the US will become the Federated States of the Americas after merging with Canada minus Quebec, most of Mexico and Cuba, and that it's principle off-world force will be the Armored Cav Regiment, which is comprised of two armor battalions, and an air assault squadron of dragoons to clear complex objectives, while the Russian Federation will be the Slavic Empire in 2179 as a result of the catastrophic Baltic Wars, and the T-18 will use dual 200 KW DEW weapons, which will make it less mobile than other hover tanks).
 
It'd be cool to see a science fiction wargame, but making Combat Mission the series for that is a bit like turning your local steakhouse into a Mexican resutrant.  Both are things you might like, but you'd rather have both choices exist in parallel, and I'd rather have CM: Armageddon (the Ardennes to the Elbe), and then have Battlefront introduce "Under a Uncaring Star: Mechanized Warfare in 2179" as a separate product line, then miss out on more good modern/historical games.

The TOW-2B is very spoof resistant.  Like I would not count on countermeasures saving you at all.  But at the same time there's a chance that it's just the perfect day for Shtora to work as planned.  I've had a TOW go wild, but wasn't really sure if it was a spoofed target, or just a natural SGT Butterfingers messed up the shot.  

Red 4 (tank platoon call signs: 1 is Platoon Leader, 2 and 3 are just the "regular" tanks, with 4 being the Platoon Sergeant) was actually likely the only reason Red Platoon was still functioning.  Great NCO.  Red 1 was some sort of lesser nobility in his home country which made the unfortunate combination of "not a good tactical leader" and "convinced he was better than mere NCOs."
 
I cannot emphasize how much effort we all put into him.  We were actually his second go at being a platoon leader after he was fired from one of our sister units.  I was convinced that he just hadn't gotten a fair chance, that maybe he was someone that his last unit just hadn't given the sort of time and attention to mature into a good platoon leader.
 
After few months of trying very hard we replaced him with a new LT.  Fairly smart, knew to listen to Red 4.*  Wasn't as excited about tanking as my White/Blue 1s, but again was simply the weaker of strong leaders rather than the anchor around someone's neck.
 
In a shooting war though, I'd likely have fired the first Red 1, put someone like my Master Gunner in as the tank commander for the 11 tank, and left Red 4 as the Platoon leader because god knows he was basically doing the job anyway.  
This is totally off topic.  Red 4 was just a good enough of a tanker/NCO that I feel like I should make the point of illustrating he was good, just saddled with one of the worst Platoon Leaders I ever worked with.
 
*Really.  He wasn't my strongest Platoon Sergeant in terms of overall NCO duties, but he was the best tanker in the Company.  

Serious answer:
 
Shouldn't be. Right now the only "real" M113s left are used by HQ units only (1SG's vehicles mostly), or are the ones kitted out with stretchers as ambulances.  There's still the command post and mortar carrier versions, but other than those they're more or less extinct. In a few years they'll all be replaced with similar vehicles based on the Bradley.  Also please never call it the Gavin again.  
 
Sparky Answer:
 
The M113 ULTRA GAVIN III will be the only surviving combat vehicle from the collection of WHEELED DEATH TRAPS and ARMY BIG DOLLAR WASTE TANK.  All US Army ground systems, personnel, and buildings will be replaced by GAVIN series of vehicles, mounting ULTIMATE WARRIOR GAVIN SKY-SOLDIER men, with dual SKS and bikes for SILENT RAPID TRANSPORT on ALL TERRAIN.  USAF will also be replaced by flying Gavins, and Navy will be replaced once GAVIN based SLBMs have matured enough.  All will be GAVIN.  

Negatron, it has "Detection" out to 8 KM, which is to say the sensor can locate something vehicle sized around 8 KM, but it won't be sure if it's a Tank, IFV, T-90 or M1A2 until around 2 KM. It's the diffrence between seeing something moving down the street and being able to tell if it's a woman worth getting a phone number from.