IICptMillerII

This trash meme needs to die.
Comparing export model Abrams, crewed by completely inexperienced crews, being used willy-nilly with little tactical rhyme or reason DOES NOT EQUAL how M1A2 Abrams would perform in a full on conventional conflict, used properly by decent crews. 
Also, this whole "ATGMs are muh dangerous!" meme also needs to die. The Abrams tank, Challenger tank, and Leopard 2 tank were all SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED with NEW armor (Chobam, composites, etc) to DEFEAT ATGMs. ATGMs are largely USELESS against these types of tanks. Export models of these tanks DO NOT HAVE this composite armor. This is why they are so vulnerable to ATGMs in places like Syria and Iraq. Well that and they could not be handled more poorly in those situations as well. 

Its not going to happen. BFC has said this multiple times.

This trash meme needs to die.
Comparing export model Abrams, crewed by completely inexperienced crews, being used willy-nilly with little tactical rhyme or reason DOES NOT EQUAL how M1A2 Abrams would perform in a full on conventional conflict, used properly by decent crews. 
Also, this whole "ATGMs are muh dangerous!" meme also needs to die. The Abrams tank, Challenger tank, and Leopard 2 tank were all SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED with NEW armor (Chobam, composites, etc) to DEFEAT ATGMs. ATGMs are largely USELESS against these types of tanks. Export models of these tanks DO NOT HAVE this composite armor. This is why they are so vulnerable to ATGMs in places like Syria and Iraq. Well that and they could not be handled more poorly in those situations as well. 

The result of the better half of a company getting caught in the open by a mortar barrage during a real time mulitplayer match:

Hans was not thrilled witnessing the carnage of his sister company:

A menacing German defensive position, somewhere in the Ardennes:

American infantry overlooking said defense:

Finally a personal favorite of mine, US Airborne defending their OP from attack, somewhere in Normandy:

People consistently forget these points; and it bears re-iterating. Especially the war-weariness and manpower crises of everyone who wasn't the US. 
The RKKA probably had the most robust (re: the only) coherent operational doctrine, and had showed it in practice several times, but they made relative botches of the East Prussia and Berlin campaigns and gutted otherwise hardy veteran formations. The Ground forces remain the single greatest unknown, but I'd narrowly give it to the Soviets.
The problem are force multipliers; the Red Banner navy and the VVS were lightweights compared to their Western counterparts, both in capability, training and doctrine. You read about non-stop carousels of IL-2s attacking and not really blunting or interdicting movement satisfactorily as late as Mius. The fact that the Germans had a light cruiser firing in close defense of its forces in 1945; despite the Red Banner army being only kilometers away, in strength and ready to pounce, is I think illustrative enough of their deficiencies. 
It's all academic of course, but the reality is the US and UK were forced by geography and circumstance to fight a strategic war that saw all branches truly fighting in concert, the USSR not so much - and that matters when a belligerent is half a world away.

Saying the Soviet Union defended 'us' is a bit of a stretch I think.  They defended themselves and just happened to be fighting against the same opponent, but the Soviet Union wasn't too concerned about 'us' when the Germans were overrunning Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France, Greece, and Yugoslavia.  Good thing the Soviets sent the UK all that Lend Lease equipment during 'The Blitz'.  Oh wait.  
Nobody knows how a conflict between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union would have gone, but the Western Allied Air Forces would have been difficult for the Soviets to deal with.  I don't know how many fighter aircraft each side had available, but I don't think that the Soviet Union had anything close to the type of heavy bomber force that the Western Allies had.  The Soviet air forces were probably not as tactically adept either.  The Western Allied ground forces were smaller, no doubt, but the manpower reserves of the US had barely even been tapped yet and there were still several new divisions ready to ship by the time the war ended.  There were also millions of US troops fighting in the Pacific who, once the Japanese surrendered, could have easily gone into the Soviet's Pacific coastal areas and the Soviets weren't going to be able to leave those areas undefended.  US Air Force and Naval Air Force assets in the Pacific were substantial.  The Western Allied ground forces were also much more mobile and mechanized than even the Soviet forces were by the time all those lend lease trucks made it to their motorized forces.  It is difficult to imagine how mobile the Soviet forces would have remained once the Lend Lease faucet was turned off.  Certainly after a few months of fighting the reduction in mobility would have become more and more noticeable.  I don't think it would have been a cake walk for either side.

CM: Space Lobsters of Doom anyone?

Hey guys, here's a bright idea: why don't you pay attention to the rules of the forum and keep the politics out of it?

The turret. Is more. P r o t e c t e d. On an Abrams. Or Leopard 2. Than. The. Hull. Is.
Your argument is invalid. 

The turret. Is more. P r o t e c t e d. On an Abrams. Or Leopard 2. Than. The. Hull. Is.
Your argument is invalid. 

"T-Rex" is just a 3d model as far as I know, hardly a prototype by any stretch of the imagination. More of a glorified napkin drawing than anything TBH.
 
Anyway. The US briefly looked into unmanned turrets in the 90s with M1 TTB, decided the reduction in situational awareness that came from having to use only cameras and maintenance issues with the unmanned turret weren't worth the advantages (losing like ten tons of weight by stripping the turret of armor, and putting the crew in a position where they were less likely to be hit in the hull), and stayed the course with manned turrets.

FCS's Mounted Combat System (as close to Block III as we actually got) and M8 AGS both had manned turrets if memory serves, and I suppose that it's a fairly safe bet to assume that any eventual Block III tank would have had that too, since I'm pretty sure the Armor School never really changed its opinion on the matter of the necessity of the TC to be able to actually look around his vehicle.

So, considering all that as well as the poor experience the US has had with an actual robotic turret (Stryker MGS), I'm fairly sure they're going to stick with manned turrets for their next tank too. Whenever that happens.

The turret. Is more. P r o t e c t e d. On an Abrams. Or Leopard 2. Than. The. Hull. Is.
Your argument is invalid. 

I think you are too personally invested in the suggestion you are making.  You set a situation as one necessary for AFV design but the view of most here is that is not how you design a vehicle. You design it to assume a particular function. Taking it out of that function and creating an unusual situation is not then the basis for designing the vehicle. The assumption is flawed. That is all folks are saying.  There isn’t the same interest to redesign an AFV which does not start from what is its primary function. 
Dont get too wrapped up in it. 

Whole lot of people who have never served obsessed with toys ITT
What's that saying about amateurs studying tactics and professionals studying logistics...
 

Too late, he's already "made his point."  He stirs up just enough sh*t to revive a dead topic, then prances off. You might as well leave the popcorn on the counter with logic and reason sitting next to it. 

See Mr. Burke, what you fail to understand is that if a vehicle exists, and its in the military, it has to be a tank. Its a simple concept; army vehicles go boom boom with big guns.
Trying to apply any logic or reason to this simple equation just gives everyone a headache. And remember, the Bradley is such a good IFV, why not have a knock off version of it rolling around?
Seriously though:
Fetishizing some of the worst armored vehicles ever made to justify making the Stryker worse to be like them. Now this, Mr. Burke, is how its done. 

See Mr. Burke, what you fail to understand is that if a vehicle exists, and its in the military, it has to be a tank. Its a simple concept; army vehicles go boom boom with big guns.
Trying to apply any logic or reason to this simple equation just gives everyone a headache. And remember, the Bradley is such a good IFV, why not have a knock off version of it rolling around?
Seriously though:
Fetishizing some of the worst armored vehicles ever made to justify making the Stryker worse to be like them. Now this, Mr. Burke, is how its done. 

See Mr. Burke, what you fail to understand is that if a vehicle exists, and its in the military, it has to be a tank. Its a simple concept; army vehicles go boom boom with big guns.
Trying to apply any logic or reason to this simple equation just gives everyone a headache. And remember, the Bradley is such a good IFV, why not have a knock off version of it rolling around?
Seriously though:
Fetishizing some of the worst armored vehicles ever made to justify making the Stryker worse to be like them. Now this, Mr. Burke, is how its done. 

If all the infantry the carrier is meant to protect are hors d'combat, it has already failed in its primary mission and everything else is a moot point. 

See Mr. Burke, what you fail to understand is that if a vehicle exists, and its in the military, it has to be a tank. Its a simple concept; army vehicles go boom boom with big guns.
Trying to apply any logic or reason to this simple equation just gives everyone a headache. And remember, the Bradley is such a good IFV, why not have a knock off version of it rolling around?
Seriously though:
Fetishizing some of the worst armored vehicles ever made to justify making the Stryker worse to be like them. Now this, Mr. Burke, is how its done. 

See Mr. Burke, what you fail to understand is that if a vehicle exists, and its in the military, it has to be a tank. Its a simple concept; army vehicles go boom boom with big guns.
Trying to apply any logic or reason to this simple equation just gives everyone a headache. And remember, the Bradley is such a good IFV, why not have a knock off version of it rolling around?
Seriously though:
Fetishizing some of the worst armored vehicles ever made to justify making the Stryker worse to be like them. Now this, Mr. Burke, is how its done. 

See Mr. Burke, what you fail to understand is that if a vehicle exists, and its in the military, it has to be a tank. Its a simple concept; army vehicles go boom boom with big guns.
Trying to apply any logic or reason to this simple equation just gives everyone a headache. And remember, the Bradley is such a good IFV, why not have a knock off version of it rolling around?
Seriously though:
Fetishizing some of the worst armored vehicles ever made to justify making the Stryker worse to be like them. Now this, Mr. Burke, is how its done. 

Being able to blow up bridges is not a new feature. You can destroy bridges with artillery and air strikes in all CM titles that have bridges in them. You can also destroy them with direct fire from tanks and IFVs, but anything larger than a wooden footbridge would take a very long time to destroy via tank. 
Being able to destroy bridges with IEDs gives the player some more direct control over destroying the bridge with hand placed explosives (controlled detonation) but its really nothing new. I don't think this'll impact gameplay any more than IEDs have in the past. Plus, remember that CMSF2 will have amphibious vehicles available, and both the Syrians and NATO forces have amphibious capable vehicles, so there are ways to mitigate a destroyed bridge. 

If it came at no other cost it would be cool to actually see a mod before applying, but to your point there is a cost and yeah this one wouldn’t be on the top of my list at that point. I can accomplish the same by creating mod pack brz files of my own and applying them. Not as slick, but if I am gonna somehow have my wish list on BFs project plan I would pick things I can not do.  Like a unit pack of Fulda gap units.  👍

Obligatory +1