BTR

Oh, I wasn't aware this was a thing. I'll take a look at this after this week.

Sure, it's a limitation to keep in mind.

Well yea spotting with UAVs is wonky and takes time, but why you always got to be in a hurry?

Very interesting, this is pretty major. I still remember us practicing "line combat" by BU-05 with revisions.

Your scouting vehicles should be your UAVs, this is a 21st century battlefield dammit !

I found out that javelins miss when you move your vehicles around at high speeds. So that would be my guide to operating them - don't park them around one spot and have deliberate and fast transitions between covers.

Damn, I don't even know where there are line 23-2s left other than the airborne and marines. I guess specialist AD units, but CM doesn't really portray them.

I'm not exactly sure how Kornets are so easily detectable in game. The coordinate-net laser for guidance net is magnitudes weaker than target laser used on classical reference systems.

I can completely understand this behavior over long distances, but at such range ...

You can't really carry more than two RPOs per person, so only four per squad. There should be 8 or so additional RPOs in the RPO Platoon MTLBs. That seems a bit low since the standard allocation for BMO-based platoons is 180 launchers, but I don't have the sources for MTLB to compare.

My first actual combat PBEM deuce-kill in CMBS.

That's not going to happen since they invested into the models.

The real hypothetical is a patch that renames T-90AM in to T-90M and M1A2 SEPV3 into M1A2C .

Damn son, we've been hit

I don't care much about seps, but even bringing the TOEs of regular formation up to 2017 standard for existing sides would be a sweet deal.

A module for CMBS _please_.

Surovikin? Yea, he's never flown a plane in his life but he participated in almost every conflict in commanding roles since 'Stan.

I'm not sure where this assessment comes from. Who aside of Shoigu lacks credentials in your opinion? At the very least in the General Staff. As for meritocracy there are completely different development paths within the body of the armed forces (in many ways more similar to western schools) but Grau and Bartles handle their description and typing with a much more elegant command of written English language so I suggest you read them. The current professional system is designed and dedicated solely to creation of a specialist in equipment handling, tactical operation and low-level command. You are not going to grow beyond that without dedicated studies so your possible "merit" level is directly linked to the education ceiling you have. There are deeply rooted problems with the contract system like constant overwork, non-competitive salaries at lower positions, plus all the beauty that's associated with military life like insane pressure to deliver at all costs and the bureaucratic system executed with the "army method™". Hell, there are people on this forum who've done their contract work and they'll tell you a lot more about it than I can. These problems are however not related to the perceived conscription process inefficiencies and I don't even think these two are related.

I'm absolutely against this. It keeps cost down, mobilization capability up and makes sure the ****ty positions get filled while maintaining fighting units staffed with supposed professionals.

Not in any particular test environment, but just though campaigns and PBEMs that involved them. I don't exactly know what test can be set up to test the exact spotting variation. It's not documented anywhere to my knowledge other than by the fact that M1A2s will out-spot any opponents with mechanically scanned thermal matrices (T-90A, T-72B3, T-90M).

I'm always so bad at things like this because it's a question that has so much that needs to be established before answering. I guess the quick and dirty answer is I'd hold the expansionism of the ground element so there is no need to add more refurbished AFV types to the already diverse inventory list and concentrate on getting new families of vehicles into service.

I'm not one of those "experienced" guys, but I'll give it a shot based on my observations and experience. I've not been observing BMP-2 behavior, but I've spent some time looking after BMP-3's. Every position occupied in a vehicle gives more acute spotting. This can be noticed in three stages, with just two men crewing BMP-3, with three men crewing BMP-3 and with additional two MG gunners on the front. I presume this is the same for BMP-2 crewing. Less spotting power at night conditions. I'm not sure if it also affect night-time accuracy. Yes. Different thermal generations are even handled with spotting acuteness, but I'm not sure about the other two.

I just gave you a list of things that aren't related to fuel expenses. The particular problem of low autonomy under idling has largely been tackled from T-80U onward with an on-board APU. As far as tactical level is concerned the T-80s were (and a big emphasis on the past tense here) a better tank dynamically because they were easier for the driver (only four gears) and the turbine was smoother in operation under changing revs. As for the future, it's a mixed answer from me. In the immediate future I don't see any alternatives to complex diesel power plants with a automatic gearboxes. Modern tank diesels when compared to turbines have a similar or greater level of hp/cm^3, have equally adaptable power-curves, are equally easy to operate because of the software and automatics in between the driver and the powerplant, have no problems running in the cold, have a lower and more manageable heat signatures, something that wasn't of a concern back when first tank turbines appeared, have the same or longer working cycle and operational hours before repairs, they are good enough for all heavy platforms based on a tank chassis without being excessive. Perhaps in the far future turbine once again will become an appealing alternative as part of a "diesel-electric" chassis where the turbine is always operated at the most efficient level and is used to generate electricity for the electric drives. There have been such plans from at least three countries, but they were all too complex and/or expensive back when they were developed.

Crew and infantry are handled as entirely separate classes I think, so they can't cross over and thus the commander position remains empty. Just one of the many approximations in the way transports and dismounts work. To many the ambiguity of the systems in CMx2 is a large part of the charm. After all, figuring things out for yourself is the only freedom anyone really has.

This is a correct implementation of BMP platoon organization. Platoon 2IC never leaves the second vehicle while platoon leader dismounts from the first BMP while the third BMP has infantry squad leader share a vehicle CO role when mounted but also dismounts in combat. I'm not sure Ukraine uses this system though, but we surely do (at least did) over here.