panzersaurkrautwerfer

True, but it holds by far more value contested to the Ukrainians, than it does contested to the Russians.  It's asymmetrical objectives, the Russians need the airport captured and somewhat functional to help establish legitimacy, the Ukrainians just need the Russians to not control the airport to deny that legitimacy, and present a viable face of resistance.  If there was just one rambolike Ukrainian Soldier that defied killing and shot up stuff regularly as to make the airport appear not entirely under control, the UA short term objectives would still be met.  The Russians need to clear the airport and demonstrate the airport is clear before they'll "win."

Tangent: I just recalled my one disciplinary action in the military was for actually striking a soldier, but that was rather a long and silly story.
 
But yeah in line with what Splinty was saying, taking people to the woodline or "wall to wall counseling" was referred to, but usually as a reference to what we would have done with someone back in the day when men were men, and stuff was hard.  The only NCO I ever knew who out and out struck a soldier was heavily disciplined for it, lost rank and likely only stayed an NCO because outside of hitting that one guy, he'd been a stellar soldier and excellent tanker (and still was when I was working with him).
 
He used to tell the whole thing as a cautionary tale about how beating soldiers never fixed anything, and was a failure to be a good NCO.  Sharp guy.  Great tanker.  Hope it pays off and he gets promoted again.  
 
While I was usually the end of the line for most things, I usually followed the "everyone gets their one" philosphy and stuck to assigning extra duty and restricting folks to post.  Guys tend to offend less when they still have things to lose, and I always found the "I am disappointed in you and you're smarter than this" line to work better than the "you are a terrible soldier and I hope you get herpes from the ville"
 
Re: Field kitchens
 
Related field kitchen rambles:
 
1. The newer US Army field kitchens are called "Assault Kitchens."  It's actually not a terrible idea in that it's less a kitchen and more a large heating vessel in a small trailer (if I remember right it's about the size of the smaller utility trailers.  You plop in whatever the warm parts to the mean are in vacuum sealed bags, and then tow the thing behind a HMMWV.  Serve on arrival.  Kinda neat in that it's not really cook intensive.  On the other hand, whoever thought "assault" and "kitchen" belonged next to each other is a special person.  
 
2. One of the benefits to doing field exercises in Korea, is most Company sized elements had a "mah" from the Korean word "Ajumma" (Old Lady) that would follow them to the field.  Your mah milage varied, but as a general rule they'd set up a camping style grill and make food for sale.  Our mah was pretty awesome in that she had a full on tent with a heater, and in addition to food brought along cigarettes, and other similar comfort type items.  
 
I mean if we went to war we knew we'd be eating MREs, crapping in bags and the like.  All the same I do like my bulgoggi egg and cheesy, and the training value of eating MREs for a week is dubious.   

Beatings are pretty uncommon.  I can only recall one Soldier who'd clearly had the crap kicked out of him, but it was the same kid that had just been caught at an airport wearing a uniform with sergeant's stripes (he was a private first class), and special forces unit markings (he was definitely not one of those).  Came in one morning with a broken arm.  Fell down a flight of stairs, yet lived on the first floor of the barracks.
 
In terms of difficulty sort of two things:
 
1. The end training event for Armor Officer's course went I went through was a 10 day field exercise.  You only got to sleep between the hours of 0000-0300 with 33% security (so one in three guys had to be up).  You were also still preparing missions, orders, briefings and executing missions on this amount of sleep.  If you failed a mission you could have to restart the whole four month course all over, or even be booted from the armor branch.  
 
By the end of it people were starting to hallucinate levels of fatigue.  And the scenerios were all built specifically to go haywire from the start.
 
Like my mission went from going to a friendly village to question an informant, to seizing a terrorist, then the locals rioted, we got ambushed, and then once we dropped off the prisoner they hit us again and had us go secure a pipeline.  We got held up on the way because one of the other platoon's hallucinated some opposing force roleplayers and got in a firefight with some trees before we could get around them.  
 
Was crazy.  Fun at times, but making your brain still work when you've been up effectively for almost a week was hard.
 
2. When you're actually downrange how little what power you may have means.  Like you've got your 30-40 dudes, you've got rocket launchers, grenades, machine guns, demolition, on your trucks you've got .HMGs, AGLs, etc, etc, and all of it will do precisely nothing to unkill the dead children from the last suicide bomber, and no matter how smart, clever or motivated you are, the Iraqis that "mission accomplished" relies on are not smart, not clever, and certainly not motivated, and they'd like you to stop bothering them so you can go win the war on their behalf.  

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: 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: 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.

SEAD is actually the broader umbrella of suppressing enemy air defenses. So in that concept, yes. Yes there are SEAD missions, they're just the suppressing suspected MANPAD positions using artillery vs a HARM missile to someone's face.  

It's the best kind of vaporware though.  Usually strongly implied to have a scary sounding thing that will destroy all other things, the prototype's only known photo is by the same man who takes pictures of the loch ness monster, the weapons system will enter service sometime next year starting FY 97, and will be only 2% of the cost of an M16A2.  

I would like you to indicate where I have made an anything but contributing post on this forum, and if you are unable to do so, I would request you either address my points, or chose not to address me at all.

I would like you to indicate where I have made an anything but contributing post on this forum, and if you are unable to do so, I would request you either address my points, or chose not to address me at all.

I would like you to indicate where I have made an anything but contributing post on this forum, and if you are unable to do so, I would request you either address my points, or chose not to address me at all.

It's the best kind of vaporware though.  Usually strongly implied to have a scary sounding thing that will destroy all other things, the prototype's only known photo is by the same man who takes pictures of the loch ness monster, the weapons system will enter service sometime next year starting FY 97, and will be only 2% of the cost of an M16A2.  

I do find it amusing that showing a photo of an unattractive government spokesperson qualifies as evidence here.
 
Could we get back to the actual scenario stuff?  The RUSSIUA STRONK is a bit tiresome, if there's something relevant and incorrect about it, cool, but simple disbelief and "glorious T80!" is not worth the text.
 
So more or less, more H1ND,ikalugin and Steve.  

I do find it amusing that showing a photo of an unattractive government spokesperson qualifies as evidence here.
 
Could we get back to the actual scenario stuff?  The RUSSIUA STRONK is a bit tiresome, if there's something relevant and incorrect about it, cool, but simple disbelief and "glorious T80!" is not worth the text.
 
So more or less, more H1ND,ikalugin and Steve.  

Just saying this was not the peak of deep military analysis.  The contributions of the folks I mentioned are things worth reading, and was why I originally regretting posting concerns this post was turning to crap.  BTR also chipped in stuff worth reading.  That much was interesting.
 
Steve clearly showed he has done more than a small mount of research.  Assuming he somehow just doesn't understand/know the status of the Ukrainian military is either arrogant or very misguided.  A BTR or ikalugin response I am sure, will be worth reading because that is likely something more researched than dismissing the Ukrainian government out of hand, considering especially it has made by even fairly jaded perspectives, at least some form of improved capabilities.  To that end I eagerly await the continued discussion here now that rusknight's "NATO is coming to eat our babies" stuff has been warned out, and honestly I'm just more interested in hearing the Russian perspective from someone who's done more than decide the Ukrainians are idiots.
 
If the military problem was as simple as one side was all idiots and using dinosaur equipment, we'd be talking about unified Ukraine or the new Russian supported state of East Ukraine/whatever it'd be called.  To that end a more rounded perspective is required.
 
The Ukrainian military is sitting on a literal mountain of old hardware, and has more than a fair share of industry that focused on military type equipment.  To that end a lot of the more basic items like small arms, BTRs, etc are likely the sort of thing that can be pulled out of storage and refurbed.  In terms of more advanced stuff. the Ukrainians have plenty of bright people and the materials.  What they historically lacked was the funding, and the purpose.  Now that the Ukraine is under threat, there certainly is what funding is available, and there certainly is a purpose to the Ukrainian military these days.
 
Is it a mighty juggernaut?  Not likely.  But it has had the time and some breathing space to become a more capable force.  The question just remains how much more capable.  

I do find it amusing that showing a photo of an unattractive government spokesperson qualifies as evidence here.
 
Could we get back to the actual scenario stuff?  The RUSSIUA STRONK is a bit tiresome, if there's something relevant and incorrect about it, cool, but simple disbelief and "glorious T80!" is not worth the text.
 
So more or less, more H1ND,ikalugin and Steve.  

Just saying this was not the peak of deep military analysis.  The contributions of the folks I mentioned are things worth reading, and was why I originally regretting posting concerns this post was turning to crap.  BTR also chipped in stuff worth reading.  That much was interesting.
 
Steve clearly showed he has done more than a small mount of research.  Assuming he somehow just doesn't understand/know the status of the Ukrainian military is either arrogant or very misguided.  A BTR or ikalugin response I am sure, will be worth reading because that is likely something more researched than dismissing the Ukrainian government out of hand, considering especially it has made by even fairly jaded perspectives, at least some form of improved capabilities.  To that end I eagerly await the continued discussion here now that rusknight's "NATO is coming to eat our babies" stuff has been warned out, and honestly I'm just more interested in hearing the Russian perspective from someone who's done more than decide the Ukrainians are idiots.
 
If the military problem was as simple as one side was all idiots and using dinosaur equipment, we'd be talking about unified Ukraine or the new Russian supported state of East Ukraine/whatever it'd be called.  To that end a more rounded perspective is required.
 
The Ukrainian military is sitting on a literal mountain of old hardware, and has more than a fair share of industry that focused on military type equipment.  To that end a lot of the more basic items like small arms, BTRs, etc are likely the sort of thing that can be pulled out of storage and refurbed.  In terms of more advanced stuff. the Ukrainians have plenty of bright people and the materials.  What they historically lacked was the funding, and the purpose.  Now that the Ukraine is under threat, there certainly is what funding is available, and there certainly is a purpose to the Ukrainian military these days.
 
Is it a mighty juggernaut?  Not likely.  But it has had the time and some breathing space to become a more capable force.  The question just remains how much more capable.  

I would love to see a Korean War II game with modeled ROK, US, DPRK, and maybe Chinese forces, except the scenery really is long in the tooth at this point, and the restrictive terrain limits the sort of tank thing I prefer to do.  Also the likelihood of a joint US-Chinese invasion of the DPRK is more likely at this point than a DPRK-Chinese force.
 
Of course with that said, some liberties could be taken, and it's really up to the scenario writers to make it as realistic (closer to the CMSF missions against uncon type fighters than you'd think) or DPRK TRIUMPHANT style missions that closer fit the image of what we all expected the DPRK to be able to do.
 
Which of course makes the Chinese element easier to fit in too, as it could work well for either a combined "this North Korean thing has to be put to bed" campaign, or something closer to 1950 all over again.
 
Either way it presents some cool toys.  The US has both heavy forces in theater, and Strykers on short recall, the ROK army has some awesome gear (K1A1s, K2s, K21s etc), DPRK would be a lot like Syria in CMSF in terms of being a multilayered funcake of OPFOR (from conventional T-62/BMP-1/Type 63 based forces, to light infantry, to uncon style special forces).  China also brings some cool stuff in terms of either a higher capability OPFOR for the US/ROK, or as an alternative take to the complex sort of war taking the DPRK would become.  Also the two tiered high capability (Type 99A2, ZBD2000), and their lower capability (Type 69, Type 63) formations would be interesting.

This is someone who just used WOT as a training tool with a straight face, and then somehow linked Soviet stuff 1945 to being relevant to Russia 2015.  Think we can discard it pretty out of hand.

But the RPG-7 operator will be deeply concerned about the CROWS, CITV, ERA, APS etc, etc, etc.
 
Which is to say, it is as absurd as my boasting that the AT4 will crush all Soviet tanks.
 
Re: M829A4
 
It's widely believed that it's been tested against current generation ERA tiles.  How valid this is, I'm not sure, but it is not unprecedented for such things to make their way west.  It's not unreasonable to assume, given the reletive stagnation in threat passive armor arrays that the A4 is mostly focused on ensuring ERA is not terribly effective against yankee imperialist sabots.
 
Re: T-14
 
Here's a few ways to look at it:
 
1. It is something that so little is known about to make including it, in effect an act of pure fiction in terms of what it actually does.  This is counter to the other future systems in the game which are broadly things that exist in small quantities now, or are not especially unreasonable leaps (like APS on Abrams, AMP rounds etc)
 
2. It is a vehicle that is apparently going from not really existing to serial production in short order.  As a brand new from the trackpads up design.  Again if it's going to roll into common operation in 2017, neat, but the struggles with other newer Russian systems would indicate that it would the exception, vs rule to go from blueprint to battalion.
 
I don't really see a reason to include a tank that is still largely conjecture, or still has not gotten near operational status.  More advanced T-90s/M1A2s, yeah, new modifications seem a go.  Brand new tank that we know nothing about in two years?  Pushing it.

When approaching infantry transport:
 
Anything that has four wheels is functionally the same as a jeep.  The exceptions to this are the american HMMWVs that fit MK-19s, TOW missiles, or what looks like a big box.
 
   Tangent: MK-19 has already been discussed.  Its murderous against infantry, unarmored vehicles, and some of the APC type targets can be knocked out by it with some luck
                  Treat the TOW version a lot like a 17 pound gun that's somehow merged with a speedy prime mover.  You don't want to place it somewhere it can be shot at at all, but it will reap a terrible toll on tanks if you give it a chance.
                  The Big box is the LRAS3, which is one of the most powerful sensor systems in the US Army.  The upside is it is a great tool for calling for support, or keeping sneaky things away from your flank.  The downside is it is not especially better at either of those than an Abrams, and is knocked out by anything more than small arms fire.  This sensor is also mounted on the Stryker scout vehicle.
 
 
Anything with 6-8 wheels/tracks and a machine gun: Treat like a halftrack.  They're really not that well armored, but are great for getting infantry forward fast.  Semi-exceptions to this:
 
    The BTR/MTLBs with 30 mm guns are great against not-tank type vehicles, and very good at suppressing or killing enemy infantry.  
    The Stryker with MK19 is just good enough to use forward, great at digging out infantry from buildings, or suppressing trenchlines.  
 
IFVs (tracked things with troops, some sort of autocannon, and ATGMs)
 
Imagine if your halftracks, light tanks, and AT vehicles all had a beautiful baby!
 
    Treat them like halftracks until they get to the point where they can deposit troops, once the troops are kicked out, then feel less nervous about using them as the mini-tanks they can be.  In a lot of ways, think of them like the M5 tanks from World War Two, they're great against other light vehicles, they're amazing against infantry, but you do not want it anywhere near something that can be called "anti-tank" or a real tank for that matter. 
 
Re: ATGMs
 
Here's the important caveats to remember when operating ATGMs from any platform (except the Javelin)
1. Bullets are faster than missile. The longer you fire the missile from, the longer it takes to impact, the more time the enemy has to react to missile.  It takes a TOW missile about 30 seconds to reach its max range around 3750 meters, that's enough time for the enemy to pop smoke, or return fire with a tank gun, which could very well kill the launching crew before the missile is even close to the target.  To this end it can be wise to ignore max range shots in favor of letting the enemy close in a bit (or it takes a tank shell 2ish seconds to go to 4 KM, it's flight time is fairly constant, while your missile fired at 2000 meters will only take 15ish seconds, which is a much harder thing to react to than 30 seconds)
 
2. ERA is built to ruin your ATGM.  APS also will wreck your day.  With that said, both systems degrade the more missiles they have to deal with.  To that end firing more missiles is often a good solution, so rather than spreading out your fires, massing 2-3 missiles on one tank will often overwhelm the APS (or deplete it's ammunition), and strip away a lot of the ERA protection.  
 
Also when playing against other players, it's much more likely they'll reverse out of an engagement if one of their tanks gets piled on by a few missiles, vs the fire being more spread out.
 
3. Reloading takes a bit.  This is especially true with vehicles like the Bradley or BMP series that have their launchers external to the vehicle.  When engaging with ATGMs, don't be afraid to mass like I said earlier, but hold a few launchers in reserve to continue to engage while your first salvo is being reloaded.
 
4. Mass your missiles.  If you've got two or even three different flavors of missiles, find their average optimal engagement area, and plan to hit the enemy in that range.  Using the Americans as an example the max effective range on the Javelin is 2500 meters or so.  To that end, holding off on firing off your TOWs until the enemy is 2000-2500 meters out ensures that target area is saturated with missiles, and rather than returning fire effectively, the enemy is evading and trying to leave the kill zone.
 
5. Trees give bad vibes.  Anything that is described as "wire guided" needs to be kept away from trees and similar obstructions to ensure the missile's guidance wire doesn't get snagged and cause the missile to rather dramatically miss the target.
 
Random errata:
 
1. Q. Which American units are spotters for artillery and aviation?
 
    A. All of them. Some are better at it than others, but if it's a team with a radio or digital communications it can call for a fire mission.  Plan accordingly from both ends for that one.
 
2. Borg spotting actually does kind of exist now.  Given the advances in battle tracking, all US, and many higher tech Russian units can share situational awareness to varying degrees.  They may still not be able to engage, but if the scouts up front spot your dudes sneaking along, odds are the rest of the force now has at least a very strong idea where your forces are at vs vaguely there's enemy somewhere up front.  
 
3. Fear the Abrams.  No.  Really.  Fear it.  It is the apex predator in this game.  If the enemy has them, you really need to have a plan on how and where to kill them vs simply having some AT assets on hand.  The APS and ERA ones appear especially dangerous at this point.

Eeeeeh.  The M829E4 is strongly suggested to have been tested against anything short of an actual T-90 parked on the tarmac somewhere, and the ERA stuff especially has likely been compromised at this point.  The M829A3 is believed to be largely unaffected by ERA, stands to reason the E4 wouldn't be strongly deterred either.  Under the ERA the T-90's armor is nothing special  
 
I've seen Russian optics.  They'd have been pretty strong for 1999-2001ish in the US Army, but they're still many years behind.  Thermals especially seem to have problems maintaining resolution while moving.  Additionally the Nakidka requires frequent cleaning or else the dirt/dust will cause it to become ineffective.
 
Given superior optics, one of the strongest armor arrays in the world, and a weapons system that'll plow through ERA and into the juicy still filled with explosives center of a T-90, it's pretty reasonable to say the T-90 operator better have backup or a better plan than throwing tanks at a M1A2.
 
Finally the odds of an operational T-14 in 2017 is pretty low.  Personally I think it's going to be a rehash of what happened with the T-95/Black Eagle/etc, but a two year turnaround on a totally new tank in the middle of some of Russia's worst economic times.....yeah.  Doubting we'll see it in time to make a game set two years from now.  T-90AM is already science fiction enough at this point (although no worse than the M1A2 APS at this point, the reasonably close to happening vs the T-14's "sometime soon I promise!").  
 
Addendum:

 
 
Down for this sentiment.  As much as wargames are cool, the real thing is not something to be wished for.

This is someone who just used WOT as a training tool with a straight face, and then somehow linked Soviet stuff 1945 to being relevant to Russia 2015.  Think we can discard it pretty out of hand.

This is someone who just used WOT as a training tool with a straight face, and then somehow linked Soviet stuff 1945 to being relevant to Russia 2015.  Think we can discard it pretty out of hand.

This is someone who just used WOT as a training tool with a straight face, and then somehow linked Soviet stuff 1945 to being relevant to Russia 2015.  Think we can discard it pretty out of hand.