BTR
-
Posts
745 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by BTR
-
-
If you're looking for a diligent PBEM partner Tom I'll be happy to play against you
.
-
None of that is standard kit and is sporadic in use unlike 6Sh122 that get's shipped with every VKPO kit.
-
Shouldn't really be any difference in terms of camo unless they'll add 6Sh122 officially.
-
12 hours ago, akd said:
BMP-3M/2M with BMP-1.
I've covered this rather extensively in my TOE observation document back in 2015. Don't confuse training equipment with deployed one. So hopefully there are no BMP-1s in the next module for Ru forces. The 2017 version of T-72B3 would be nice.
-
Mm, I still see TTsKO around so in that regard BF did the right thing and gave us options. The UAVs I hope are added later but there is no centralized thermal acquisition so I don't see what BF could have done.
-
This number includes 53 tanks that are being upgraded. 95+53 of 244 is still below 70% but not as bad as it sounds. Some Leopard 2 variants are only used in training centers (Leo 2A5), so they would contribute to the total amount of tanks that are not operationally ready but effectively they are not counted as part of the fighting forces. I wish Jane's would look more into the details as they are important.
-
-
I want to once again open the discussion on APC and IFV squad usage for RU side.
How is it done IRL?
- Every vehicle has a dedicated commander's spot.
- All traditional inter-platoon and inter-company coms are concentrated around vehicle command posts.
- Squad Leader (SL) occupies vehicle command post unless platoon commander (PC) or platoon 2IC (P2IC) are seating there. In that case SL must sit in the back with his squad.
- PC and P2IC are seated in separate vehicles (1 and 3) thus establishing comms chain and company cohesion.
- Vehicle 2 command post is usually staffed by squad 2 SL or by platoon political officer in times of war.
- PC used to dismount vehicles and P2IC used to always stay in the vehicle, but with introduction of C4 systems and secondary thermals on some vehicles both stay inside.
- SL must dismount and control his squad from outside the vehicle in combat.
So effectively vehicles 1 and 3 traditionally took the initiative and vehicle 2 followed without the commander seat occupied. In CMBS we are not given the option of splitting our platoon command, but the lack of a commander negatively affects vehicle spotting and performance. I always leave the command team inside the vehicle they are in so at least one is fully operational. I sometimes also split a scout team from squads to man a second vehicle.
-
So far I've only done minor things with it because the more advanced the tools, the more knowledge and motivation they require to use.
-
That looks like T-84U refurbishment rather than BM Oplot production :).
-
Again this is a very map-size dependent thing. On larger maps you might have multiple routes and limited forces so my process is scout>form planned route>execute. On smaller maps you are stuck with the corridor approach you described. Smaller maps rarely need dedicated recon forces though. On the defensive spread out recon is also beneficial since it can track more locations, is more distributed against artillery strikes and all the means you get information faster and can have it updated for a longer time.
-
I think the 30mm upgrade for stryker comes from exactly the same desire to improve vehicle versatility as our 30mm APC projects. It won't necessarily change its tactical niche but expand the application within that niche. Supporting dismounted infantry from a distance with a 30 is a lot easier and more effective than with a .50 after all.
-
IMO dedicated recon is your recon as a force commander so having them concentrated or tracking for other formations is sort of wasting their purpose. But then this depends on terrain as Stefano aptly pointed out.
-
They have actually built around 40 and delivered 25 with further 10 coming before the end of this year (maybe).
-
I am of a firm belief that most of what works IRL, bar with some gamey exceptions like when working around trees that eat APFSDS, works in CM. I don't particularly find it any fun to come up with tactics that only work inside CM because I can't relate to that. As such I do not find it fun to go against opponents that use cookie cutter tactics, so I don't see a need to propagate that play-style and therefore I don't think we need an explicit distinction of where what tactics are applied.
As a fun experiment I whipped out a rando page of some rather dated marine light armor employment material (for you eng speakers) and as I expected - stuff that is said there can also be applied in CM 100%
.
-
-
This looks like a bug to me, but perhaps some issue with artillery command authority? I.e. on-map battery commander has a link with the spotter and that's it.
-
Eh, speaking of Oplots, 41st one just left for field trials last month with a 1st Nov. deadline for delivery. I've not heard much since then but there are only 8 left in the contract after that which means it might be completed in 2018 after all.
-
Alright, as promised this includes 6Sh122 that has to be downloaded with Vein's Ru Infantry skins if you want the full package, AKS-74U wooden fix for Ru forces and 6B48 kit that I will probably update with proper EMR tone in the near future.
-
You can improve or replace models, but you can't improve their function.
-
Well your post sort of suggests not to use strykers at all because in CMBS you a- rarely get 1000m LoF b- or hit anything with an HMG at that distance, c- will almost always have guaranteed AFV presence and d - will have AT assets strapped to every infantry at the very least.
What I recommend is to give them a look if you are thinking of facing light armor and its infantry as they are more than capable against those threats. I don't know their exact use apart from going infantry first and figuring out the situation later. Also as an ex-motorized I would like to tell you to watch out where you are planning your routes but I have no particular evidence of hampered wheeled mobility against tracked AFVs in-game so there is that...
-
I do not agree. Strykers with .50 make a excellent anti light armor platforms such as MTLBs and BTR-82s. Despite the latter having proper IFV weaponry (6MB and A variants) they have worse (and much worse in case of 6MB) optical packages and usually go belly up when engaged by HMG fire. Stryker tactical offensive worth might be overall lower than general 30mm armed AFVs, but they are certainly not a thing to ignore.
-
I am not sure that applies to modern rounds any longer since his text is about 70s trials. Besides, dispersion is a rather abstract form of measuring total accuracy because it fixes everything else (distance, ballistic trajectories, time to targets) and watches round characteristics only.
-
ATGM load process is slower, ATGM time to target is longer. It is never really a choice in modern conflict about what to type of ammo to use under 2km which encompasses like 80% of CM ranges. IMO under 2km the round selection process should be AP>HE/HEAT without even a hint of ATGM. Over 2km it should be AP>ATGM then everything else.
.
BMP-3 on the firing range
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I wish CM had animated case extractions for appropriate vehicle.