The_MonkeyKing

I would go as far as to say CV9035 outclasses the Bradley in many aspects: armor, caliber (although 25mm DU beats 35mm tungsten,) carry capacity (8vs6) and all the advantages being developed a decade after Bradley brings. The whole ATGM question is deep and complicated. Always better to have one than not if you don't lose anything for it but this is not always the case. For an example here in Finland an ATGM on our CV9030 would make as little sense as a stinger launcher mounted on the turret. This is because of our short LoS terrain, budget and simpler clearer IFV doctrine. You never want to fight MBTs with IFVs in symmetrical warfare and those ATGM resources are better spend on arming dedicated AT systems. As an ex IFV tanker I would say better to live to fight another IFV than getting blow to bits by an MBT.

Oh, I never had a high opinion of the Warrior but never thought it lacks in penetration ability as well as missing thermals and abysmal RoF. It is 30mm and has access to western ammunition after all.

Very nice. I hope we get more of these kinds of mission in form of mods.

I am personally looking forward to playing some BLUE vs BLUE pbem "exercises". Symmetrical modern warfare where my interests lie. CMBS is awesome but some of the futuristic equipment makes it future warfare, not modern warfare.

The games are from two different worlds if you ask me. Settings are near future WW3 scenario vs. (almost) Iraq war. Some examples of core differences: active defense systems on AFVs, the whole uncon and asymmetricity business, terrain and everything the 10+ years between the timelines brings to the table.

The LAV-AT tried to go around the bad terrain. You have to put multiple waypoints or at least one in the middle of the bad terrain you want it to go through. .

Having never played SF. How does the FV 510 Warrior compare to the M2A3 Bradley in mechanized platoon vs mechanized platoon fight?

Good point! Would be interesting to see the next Ukraine campaign focusing on the "second rate troops" fighting it out with the top of the line Russian armored spearheads.

I am disappointed by the fact that the biggest thread on the CMSF2 forum is named "disappointed"

Mettis-M can definitely penetrate Challenger 2 frontally just not from anywhere . (Mettis-M penetrates around 800mm HEAT)

Same here. I was really looking forward to fighting the Russian bear with the UKR Soviet bear equipment. Maybe in the future DLCs...

They only have one weapon system.

And more importantly: Is the author going to port it to SF2?

Nice to see this one from both perspectives! And how big are those British recce platoon? I count at least 7 tracks. I wonder what's the thinking behind that.

If I may inquire, How did you became knowledgeable of this globally rather small adventure in the Scandinavian wilderness?

No I was not. I am no longer in the service, but I am very familiar with yearly main exercise of the Finnish mechanized forces in "deserts" of Niinisalo. You yanks brought some M1A1s with you this year.

I was looking for ballpark numbers and hopefully some examples. I have firsthand experience only with Finnish army mechanized forces (CV9030, 2A4). Because of the Finnish terrain movement is constrained to roads (at least in the places FDF plans on fighting). A company might have just one road surrounded by heavy woods on which to advance and have another company trailing it ready move through and relieve the forward company. Max engagement ranges would be no more than 300m and only in the direction of the road. Width of the engagement would be the immediate surroundings of the road. This of course is a extreme case example.

What would be a likely frontage given to reinforced company sized unit in modern combat and in what terrain? Any examples from current wars or military doctrine?

Are we there yet?

Hi, I am interested in improving my (modern) artillery tactics and would be great to hear how you guys do it. I have learned that there are big differences between US, RU and UKR. I use UKR artillery very much like in WWII titles, big areas and planned well ahead of time because of the call in times. Their most modern platforms are very accurate on paper but I have found that barrages are more often than not well of target (tight group but in a wrong place). So not even dreaming about doing "danger close" fires. Mortars take the role of "on call" artillery but still require some foresight. You really have to plan your FO placement and make use of any artillery observation vehicles if possible to speed things up. You also don't have many so risk vs reward. When it comes to the US artillery I have started using it in a different way. I target single positions separately with intense shortish strikes. This is possible thanks to the quick call in times and accurate strikes. This trades time for a smaller ammo consumption and lot more predictable effect on the enemy. GPS rounds on the other hand take out problematic AFVs when airforce is not available or Javelins cannot reach them. Though choices when you have choose between halting traditional strikes for some Excaliburs and also where to draw the line between large target area or instead engaging strong points with separate strikes. US mortars are mainly used reactionary to tip the balance in small unit engagements. This is possible because of the extremely short call in times and accurate strikes make "danger close" not too dangerous. Russians also have their own tricks up their sleeves. They land somewhere between UKR and US depending on the situation, but still closer to US. The biggest trait they have is their Krasnopol ammo that requires the target to be lased by an FO or high end UAV (stinger danger!). This feature of the Russian precision shells makes well placed forward observes well worth their weight in gold. One of the best combos when coming against USA is a light UAV to find/track the AFVs and then position your FOs to take them out with Krasnopols. Only safe way to get rid of the APS Abrams. The light UAV is a huge force multiplier against the US when it comes to calling in fires. The choice between large planned strikes or the "US way" has to be made situationally mostly depending on the call in times. In the best cases they can match their US counter parts.

I have had this same problem for a half a year, but atm I have only played CMBS. I always thought my mods were the problem and I just could not figure it out. Had to make it a habit to save each turn! Good that I stumbled up on this thread. Downgrading to December 20th drivers helped. Still a bad fix thought, the latest drivers would give lot of preformence improvements in other games... Specs: Windows 10 Pro Intel i5-6600k GTX 1070 Please, ask me if you need the full system information

Very well put!

Fulda Gap! Very few strategy games out there to get my cold war fix... My absolute favorite setting.

They will

I don't think there is a disagreement to be found here. We might have talked past each other. I think in SF2 US/NATO should not have any AA other than occasional manpads, but Syrians should have plenty of low tier manpad, spaag and maybe a few high-end ones like SA-19