BTR

Army of the Rhine rings a bell?

A burst diameter of 500m at most optimal angle isn't really too much if you ask me. Weather it is effective at these spreads is a different thing.

Bringing this back, even now T-90MS shows 12.7mm (Kord) installment over 7.62 (PKT) here: Knowing requirements to down hovering helis, I think it would be safe to assume Kord would be on T-90AM if it entered service.

I'd honestly go for a T-72B3 + BMP-3/M combo dropping ATGM infantry and Tunguska. I'd stick arena on one of those BMP's as well probably. My opinion obviously, I know it's always easiest to judge form the couch .

K variants also should act as Constellation-2M hubs I believe. At least this is my understanding about T-90AK.

Will-do some time over the weekend. Off-topic: I think they did right getting rid of blue for the new symbol, it really looks like an uplifted traditional star:

Currently full infantry squads occupy two tiles which leads to over-cramped cover, conga lines and so on. What if squads were spread between three tiles? That would eliminate a couple of problems associated with over-grouping, would look visually better, and create more meaningful use for "assault" command.

Today is 23-rd of Feb, Defender of the Fatherland Day. Therefore have a little more regulation standard marking for your CMBS . GET IT.

It's an homage of sorts inspired by some existing stuff.

Version with tactical markings. This one makes prapors everywhere proud . DOWNLOAD

Good idea, let's ship the heaviest part of the vehicle towards the second heaviest part and leave that all in the back .

Some camo'd vehicles are factory demonstrators (most likely to appear in images), some are old training junk, some just haven't any ordered paint. Any transition for a force of 800+ K is going to be a long process. Lack of camo is the norm for well groomed formations. VDV might have their own idea though, they always do.

With new 57mm auto-cannon weapons module out on IDEX, BMPT for the Russian service seems more likely. One major complaint to current variants presented is that 30mm's are not enough to provide support to tanks from modern engagement stand-off ranges.

Ah, that sweet, seamless detailing, just the way I like it.

Say, if BMP-2 and BMP-2M use the same "bmp2-hull" texture, is there a way to split that? Say, if I name a new "bmp2m-hull", it won't work will it?

Any 30mm at 200m range is bad news. It will even mess up a tank pretty bad.

Yeah, number 1 doesn't work .

Independent formations get their own tactical symbols. By the book, independent formations are the ones which are counted as separate military bases and have reinforced structures. Brigade formations are all reinforced and therefore independent. Following soviet tradition, battalions within a brigade get variations on brigade tactical symbol with their order number. Tactical groups pre-formed outside battle sometimes also receive tactical markings separate from their original parent formations. Conversely, all formations which don’t count as independent, don’t have variations. How does that translate to what I can do in-game? First part is simple, give similar quality of equipment similar tactical markings: T-90AM+BMP-3M+BMP-2M (fantasy force) (A ) T-90A+BMP-3+BTR-82 (B ) T-72B3+BMP-2+BTR-80 (C ) A much more interesting question is what to do with common vehicles used in all formations? My answer to this is to arrange them aligned to previous equipment ratings. Therefore: BRM-3K+BRDM-2M (fantasy force once more) (A ) TIRG (B ) BRM-1K + BRDM-2M (C ) But that doesn’t end there, what to do with all the specialized support? This was more clear to me than previous part. Arrange them by their use inside specialised formations. Most independent supporting elements would have entirely different makings from line elements anyways. 1V152+9K22M1+9K35 (AA support) (D ) PRP-4M+9P157-2+9P149+9P148+9P148M (E ) 1V14 (F ) So, what is left? You’ve noticed I’ve left out MT-LB’s. First of all, MT-LBM is present in almost all organisational charts, so it’s best I leave it unmakred. MT-LB’s are in a bit of special place at the moment, and usually entirely separate, sometimes specialised, formations use them. Therefore, all MT-LB’s with weapons will receive their own symbol. MT-LBM 6MA + MT-LBM 6MB (G ) Ural and UAZ, just like MT-LBM’s, are too common to be placed in one category over another, therefore they will have no markings. All in all, 16 different makings broken into 7 independent common groups should do well for realistic scenario making. Now, I'm a little uneasy about using actual unit tactical symbols, so I'll probably "make up" my own. If that is such a deal-breaker, let me know. Obviously, if BF introduce a dynamic decal script of some sort, all of this would be much easier .

No cammo schemes please, they've been phased out by regulation in 2012.

Aha, let us know more.

This is one of the harder scenarios I've tried for RU side. Considering how crammed the starting location is, you're almost bound to take casualties at the start.

T-14 based BMPT might make it to service, otherwise I much rather see T-90AK, T-72B(K) and Kamaz-4310 added. If you absolutely have to add BMPT, please make it the BMPT-72 version as that's much sexier looking.

Russian meddling in Ukraine is way more ancient than 20+ years. It started from 1054 when first principality broke off from old Rus'. In any case, Ukraine will be part of Russia one way or another, that is just the nature of historical cycles. When core Russia is weak, fringe regions break off for a varied period of time, when the cycle of power swings back, fringe territories are always reclaimed. Be it 1654, 1764, 1921, 1944 or 2015, the outcome is always the same.